I mean with all the content that’s on the internet from porn to instructions to make a bomb, the internet is essentially a brainwashing tool, right? Well, that seems to be the case according to a report released by the UK on the House of Commons official website. According to the report, “many of our witnesses cited the internet as the main forum for radicalization”. Sir Norman Bettison of The Association of Police Officers’ Lead for Prevent said:

“The internet does seem to feature in most, if not all, of the routes of radicalisation”

According to these guys, essentially, every minute you spend on the internet desensitizes you, eventually to the point where you want to kill people and join Al-Qa’ida. Now, these old English dudes want ISPs to take down some of their content that can be seen as material that could possibly “radicalize” you, meaning it’s material that makes you want to kill the President and take over America.

Really to a point there is some truth behind the matter with so much violent content becoming easily accessible on the internet, but who’s to say that video games and violent TV can’t do the same? With that logic, no matter what you do, you’re eventually going to become a terrorist and there’s nothing you can do to stop it…unless you just quit using all mediums of media.

Now, with that being covered, do you think the report is nonsense, an over-exaggeration of fear if you will, or do you feel there could be some sense to this mess after all? I mean really if you think about it, the way or direction current media is heading, aren’t we all becoming a little desensitized? Sex used to be a forbidden word to even speak, now it’s the only thing in television and movies that people want to see. A movie isn’t good unless it has plenty of killing and pervasive language. So, if you think about it, even before this report, Americans were slowly becoming “radicalized” so to speak. What do you guys think? Let us know in the comments.

That’s what the Home Affairs Committee suggested yesterday in their report titled, “The Roots of Violent Radicalisation.” The report comes from a study that began in May 2011 that found the Internet is the best vehicle to spread violence radicalism – more so than prisons, universities or places of worship. Witnesses told the Committee that the Internet contributed to most, if not all, cases of violent radicalisation.

It’s worth noting that the British government has powers under the Terrorism Act of 2006 to remove unlawful material from the Internet. The Committee recommends, however, that ISPs should be more proactive in monitoring the material that is on the Internet. They suggest that ISPs work with government to remove material that promotes violent extremism.

The Committee highlight three matters:

The need for better liaison and information-sharing between prison authorities, the police, the UK Border Agency and other relevant authorities following the release of prisoners who have been convicted of terrorist offences or who are otherwise considered to be at risk of violent radicalisation.

The importance of reviewing the list of proscribed organisations – the prospect of de-proscription could in certain circumstances create an incentive for organisations to renounce their support for violence.

The threat from the far-right, which consists mostly of solitary, disaffected individuals rather than organised terrorist units.

The group also said that the current name of their current counter-radicalisation strategy “Prevent” should be changed to “Engage” to promote a more supportive approach in working with those at risk.

The chairman of the Committee, Rt. Hon Keith Vaz MP, had this to say on the proposed rules:

“The July 7th bombings in London, carried out by four men from West Yorkshire, were a powerful demonstration of the devastating and far-reaching impact of home-grown radicalisation.

We remain concerned by the growing support for non-violent extremism and more extreme and violent forms of far-right ideology.

The conviction last week of four men from London and Cardiff radicalised over the internet, for a plot to bomb the London Stock Exchange and launch a Mumbai-style atrocity on the streets of London, shows that we cannot let our vigilance slip. More resources need to be directed to these threats and to preventing radicalisation through the internet and in private spaces. These are the fertile breeding grounds for terrorism.

We do not believe universities are “complacent to the risks” of radicalisation as has been suggested. Those engaged in public life must ensure that the language they use reflects the same tone.

Individuals from a wide variety of backgrounds are vulnerable to radicalisation. There is no typical profile or pathway to becoming radicalised. It is a policy of engagement, not alienation that will successfully prevent radicalisation.”

The Committee has a point. There should be more effort directed at preventing people from falling into radical groups. I just don’t know if attempting to censor Web sites is the right way to go about it.

What do you think? Should governments be given control over the content of the Internet to prevent violence? Let us know in the comments.

[Lead image courtesy of suburbanslice on Flickr]

The Mirror is reporting that Burnley Crematorium is spending £25,000 to add the ability for them to broadcast funerals live over the Internet. They will also be installing a big screen and state-of-the-art music system for those who have to sit outside of the chapel.

The new sound system will allow relatives to choose from thousands of songs. The minister will then control the music through a touch screen and the words can be displayed on a nearby screen.

The improvements will begin later this year with a council spokesman saying that people will be able to register to view a stream on the service from anywhere in the world.

“It would mean the proverbial Great Aunt Mabel who emigrated to Australia would be able to view in real time the service for a relative back in Burnley. All they’ll need is a password,” the council spokesman said.

Councilor Jeff Sumner said that it would be an optional service with the recording only being available to family and friends behind a password protected Web page.

Detective Rich Henson from the Nottinghamshire Police comments on the events and subsequent conviction of Lowe:

“Lowe broadcast his initial message to the 160 BlackBerry users he’d added to his contacts list and subsequently deleted it”

“Not only did we manage to gain access to Lowe’s BlackBerry Messenger messages, we were able to retrieve his deleted messages, which are also very difficult to recover due to rigorous security settings.”

Police caught onto Lowe after he texted the people involved encouraging them to rise up against the police:

“It is impossible to quantify the impact and effects of the messages he sent that night. It is clear, however, that this was an irresponsible and criminal act at a time when people were rising up against the police on a national scale.”

There has been over 140 arrests related to the riot and so far, there’s been almost 90 convictions.

Henson adds:

“Let this be a clear warning to those criminals out there who think they are safe using BlackBerrys to orchestrate or commit crime. There is no where to hide.”

UK law states that any high profile figure that is involved in a case can be blocked from mention in the media, legally. This law also includes Twitter and UK representatives say they are using the new privacy feature to help uphold privacy injunctions ordered by their courts.

In the past celebreties and well known political figured could petition the court for an injunction to uphold their privacy which barred the media from specifically mentioning their name in connection with a case.

Vanessa Perroncel, a women who was accused of having an affair with a prominent political figure, said“I think it’s getting out of hand, obviously it’s a very expensive thing to do. [Injunctions are] only there for the rich, really. I guess they can have this luxury.”

So the privacy feature at Twitter would be utilized in cases of an injunction of this type by the UK court system. Twitter’s head of global public policy, Colin Crowell confirmed that the technology is designed for just this type of scenario.

Crowell elaborated on the policy regarding the UK:

”Our policy is, now that we have the ability to cater things to a particular jurisdiction, is to work through that on a case-by-case basis.”

If you are outside the UK, you will still see the tweets. Crowell explains further:

“We will seek to notify the user promply that some authorised entity has requested that the tweet be witheld. We will also be transparent to other users in that jurisdiction, we won’t simply surreptitiously delete it.”

While it may only be the wealthy who can afford such injunctions, the new Twitter privacy feature is making it easier for the government to censor certain news.

The main point of contention from the House of Commons committee on privacy was whether or not Google should automatically de-index certain content with some sort of algorithm. Google’s short answer to that request: No.

According to PaidContent, the Parliament members based their line of inquiry on a specific case of a man who won a case against the News of the World publication to unlawfully filmed him engaged in a sex act. He now spends a lot of time filing individual takedown requests with Google to have certain links removed from search results.

The MP’s seemed to believe that because he won the privacy case, Google should preemptively remove any pertaining search results automatically, via some sort of algorithm. Google counsel responsed by saying that would probably be possible, but it’s a poor idea:

If a user has their privacy violated by a web page and wants that removed, we have a public-facing web form that they use to let us know. We have removed hundreds of URLs in this case so that they no longer show up in our search results.

I don’t dispute that someone could perhaps build something [like an algorithm]. My policy point is that doing so is a bad idea. Ultimately, the decision about whether something is unlawful is something for a human to make.

Right now, if someone wants results removed from Google search, they can file a complaint online:

When a page is updated or removed, it will automatically fall out of our search results. You don’t need to do anything to make this happen.

However, if you urgently need to remove content from Google (for example, if you’ve already removed, updated, or blocked a page accidentally displaying confidential information like credit card numbers), you can request expedited removal of those URLs.

Our removal tools are intended for pages that urgently need to be removed—for example, if they contain confidential data that was accidentally exposed. Using the tools for other purposes may cause problems for your site

The point is, Google waits for you to make the removal request, and only after all other options are exhausted, will they yank something from search results. This is a human process, done on a case-by-case basis, and Google wants it to stay that way.

While this inquiry has more to do with private illegal content and methods of removal, the UK Parliament isn’t the only entity that is pressuring Google to control search results. Copyright holders have currently been in meetings with Google (and other search engines) about adopting a “code of practice” that would govern search. It would basically make search results that promoted “piracy” harder to find and search results promoting “legal entertainment content” easier to find.

With the recent shut down of MegaUpload, many users are lost as to whether or not they will be able to recover their files. The Pirate Party has set up a page where users affected by the closure can add their names to an investigation by Pirate Parties International to bring complaints against U.S. authorities.

The FBI has caused incalculable damage, far in excess of the losses claimed by the content lobbies, in a fruitless attempt to prevent access to the media content hosted on Megaupload, some of which they claim to have been infringing copyright under US law. However, as much of the unlawful content will still be available via other services on the web, this action not only shows us the futility of these measures but also serves as a reminder that these files are not necessarily, nor have been shown to be, illegal in any country, including the US.

In contrast, by closing the service they have impeded the access to millions of archives of both private individuals and organisations, potentially causing huge personal, economic and image damages to a vast number of people. In addition, the Pirate Party understands they may have violated Articles 197 and 198 of the Spanish Penal Code by misappropiating personal data.

The widespread damage caused by the sudden closure of Megaupload is unjustified and completely disproportionate to the aim intended. For this reason Pirates of Catalonia, in collaboration with Pirate Parties International and other Pirate Parties [including the Pirate Party of the United Kingdom], have begun investigating these potential breaches of law and will facilitate submission of complaints against the US authorities in as many countries as possible, to ensure a positive and just result.

Those who had legitimate files on the file sharing network can add their name to the list here.

According to a blog post, the service will work just like the North American service – a once-a-month subscription fee. As would be expected, new users are being offered a one-month free trial, and after that it will cost subscribers £5.99 in the U.K. ($9.24) and €6.99 in Ireland ($8.88).

With this move, Netflix will attempt to expand the already impressive reach of their streaming service. Last week the company announced that some 20 million subscribers had streamed over 2 billion hours of content in Q4. That’s over 100 hours of content per person during the period.

Netflix’s biggest rival across the pond will be Lovefilm, the Netflix-like European company that was acquired by Amazon in January of 2011. Amazon just singed a multi-year agreement with Sony as well as deals with the BBC and ITV in order to expand the Lovefilm catalog.

Netflix’s move to UK and Ireland will come with Facebook integration, or “social driven suggestions.” That partnership is still struggling to get off the ground in the States, due to some decades-old privacy laws. However, the initiative cleared a major hurdle in December as the House passed a bill that would allow the integration to continue.

Today, Amazon announced a new deal with Sony Pictures Television to expand the content for LoveFilm.

“Our latest major content agreement means we’ll be able to exclusively offer our members world-class content from Sony Pictures,” said LoveFilm CEO Simon Calver. “The number of recent high-profile deals we have secured means we are able to keep expanding the service, offering our members high-quality films and TV and the ability to watch as much as they want for one low monthly price.”

Other recent LoveFilm deals include those with Warner Bros., Entertainment One, StudioCanal, Disney, Momentum and Lionsgate.

The Sony deal is a multi-year agreement that will give members exclusive streaming access to new and forthcoming Sony Pictures titles during the second subscription pay TV window, as well as catalog titles and TV series, from next June.

LoveFilm members will get access to titles like The Social Network, Salt, Transformers, The Karate Kid, Wallace & Gromit, and more.

Forthcoming Sony Pictures releases, catalog titles and TV series will be added to the LoveFilm instant service which is accessible via PC, PlayStation 3, Xbox 360, ipad, and various Internet-connected TVs and Blu-ray players. DVDs are still being offered as well.

The referral to the OFT comes from another regulator, the Advertising Standards Authority (ASA), who decided to report to the OFT based on 48 advertising code violation perpetrated by Groupon in 2011.

Here’s what the ASA had to say in a statement on their site:

Following repeated breaches of the Advertising Code by MyCityDeal Ltd t/a Groupon, the Advertising Standards Authority is now referring complaints that we receive about Groupon’s ads to the Office of Fair Trading (OFT). We are referring complaints that specifically concern Groupon’s:

• Failure to conduct promotions fairly, such as not making clear significant terms and conditions
• Failure to provide evidence that offers are available
• Exaggeration of savings claims

We are taking this approach because, given Groupon’s track record, we have serious concerns about its ability to adhere to the Advertising Code. It is in the public interest that we refer the matter to the OFT, the OFT being better placed to address any underlying issues concerning Groupon’s trading practices generally.

In 2011, the ASA has formally investigated and upheld complaints against Groupon’s advertising on 11 occasions. We have also informally resolved 37 cases. We will continue working closely with the OFT on these issues to ensure consumers are protected.

The OFT already has an ongoing investigation of Groupon – one which they started in July. The original investigation concerned trading practices, but they have added the ASA’s complaints about advertising practices to the list.

Last week, the ASA banned a Groupon deal offering a discount on cosmetic surgeries like breast enlargements and rhinoplasties in their customary 24-hour window. They said that the deal was nixed because it forced people to make huge life-altering decisions in a hurried amount of time.

Groupon has responded to the investigation, saying:

Groupon constantly strives for business practices that are in the best interest of consumers. We are constantly evolving business process to ensure customers receive the best possible experience at the highest standards. We are cooperating fully with the OFT to ensure that the rights of consumers are protected.

Groupon burst into the UK when they acquired CityDeal, a European deals service headquartered in Berlin, in May of 2010.