The UK's proposed Internet filters..

[Raithe]

Not sure if anyone here is really following it, but apparently we're about to get some lovely filters to our ISP's by reason of the government.

 

Couple of stories on it that might entertain..

 

RT - Block and a hard place: UK’s online porn filter raises more issues than it solves

 

 

UK Prime Minister David Cameron has expanded on his recent set of guidelines for an internet filer that would block pornographic content by default. This has aroused further controversy, as other content may now also face the filter.

 

Internet service providers from the Open Rights Group have confirmed the news, following Cameron’s Monday revelation that by the end of 2013, broadband subscribers will have to make do with a compulsory system installed everywhere to monitor various content the government deems harmful.

 

 

These include social media, gambling and pornography as well as other adult-orientated sites.

 

The argument was that the nation’s children will be prevented from accessing pornography, once parents start ticking and un-ticking the various options available to them – with the block set by default. According to the PM, this will prevent children’s exposure to “corroding influences” on the net.

 

Customers wishing to access legal pornographic material will have to contact their providers in order to have the filter removed.

 

The move has led to several criticisms being leveled at Cameron by censorship opponents, such as that the system may not work, or lead to over-blocking; also that it may be circumvented and, finally that no one knows the extent to which privacy would be affected.

 

But this all may be just the tip of the iceberg, as more worrying facts about the program have started to surface in the course of Friday.

 

Activists from the Open Rights Group have been talking to a number of ISPs expected to become the first to introduce Cameron’s new system. It turned out that the list of resources blocked by default will include far more than just pornography.

 

Recently, the British PM chose to commend a similar online blocking system already in place, HomeSafe, which is currently the leader in the field and covers several categories of websites.

 

The problem is that these categories don’t make clear just how sweeping the changes would be once a user ticks or un-ticks a category, allowing the program to omit a whole host of resources during the initial stages of setting it up.

 

An interesting aspect about HomeSafe is that the company that created it, TalkTalk, is actually run by Huawei – a Chinese company belonging to a former officer of the Chine People’s Liberation Army. This is something the UK government knows, as was evident from an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report from last month. It said that the “alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State” are a cause for concern and could “generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or are more political.”

 

Whether the connection is as direct as the government believes, what is troubling people about TalkTalk is that even when its filter is turned off, its online traffic still passes through Huawei.

 

UK providers will actually be free to pick any filtering system of their choosing, but some take issue with the fact that Huawei is still not off the list. The only consolation is that users could still be able to set up a Virtual Private Network (VPN). However, the Open Rights Group believes that there is a big chance this option may also be canceled.

Also, there's this one..

 

Wired - Cameron's Proposal Extends Beyond Porn

 

 

The British prime minister's internet filters will be about more than just hardcore pornography, according to information obtained by the Open Rights Group.

 

The organisation, which campaigns for digital freedoms, has spoken to some of the Internet Service Providers that will be constructing Cameron's content filters. They discovered that a host of other categories of supposedly-objectionable material may be on the block-list.

 

As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course.

 

 

The ORG's Jim Killock says: "What's clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron."

 

He adds: "The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there's not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website's audience."

[Walsingham]

Again, it's a case of spotting ducks you've no shot for. (NSA surveillance)

 

Child pornography is an enabler of offending, no doubt. But I'd be a good deal happier if there was a serious and coherent strategy for tackling actual proven offenders.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Walsingham

[BruceVC]

Yeah you guys have a real issue with paedophiles and child porn so this should help especially since the real hard core child molesters use peer to peer networking and this won't help at all.

 

Wait that means these steps will have a negligible impact  around the issue they are trying to address so another well meant but ineffective government policy

Edited July 27, 2013 by BruceVC

[Raithe]

Ah, but he's not running it on a "catch child offenders" he's pushing it on a "we can't trust parents to keep an eye on how their kids use the internet and we want to lock off access those unsupervised kids might have to porn". But they're blocking a whole heap more then just pornography.

Also, the Tories did run with a whole heap of the "the Labour government has pushed the nanny state, we don't want to do that." This, seems a whole heap of "nanny state"...

[Nonek]

I didn't vote Conservative to enable the same nanny state measures that Labour is so fond of, and if they want to tackle child abusers perhaps they should build a few more prisons rather than allowing the scum to walk free with an unsupervised tagging system. Very unimpressed by this legislation, the right words and the wrong actions.

[Walsingham]

I believe I am already on record, but will reiterate.

 

Children need to discover sex at their own speed, and in a context which emphasises the emotional and positive aspects.

 

This is why internet pornography is bad for kids. And why they should find porn the way I did. Unexpectedly. In a cardboard box.

[BruceVC]

Yeah you guys have a real issue with paedophiles and child porn so this should help especially since the real hard core child molesters use peer to peer networking and this won't help at all.

 

Wait that means these steps will have a negligible impact  around the issue they are trying to address so another well meant but ineffective government policy

 

 

Ah, but he's not running it on a "catch child offenders" he's pushing it on a "we can't trust parents to keep an eye on how their kids use the internet and we want to lock off access those unsupervised kids might have to porn". But they're blocking a whole heap more then just pornography.

 

Also, the Tories did run with a whole heap of the "the Labour government has pushed the nanny state, we don't want to do that." This, seems a whole heap of "nanny state"...

 

I watched numerous interviews on this the last couple of weeks and the addressing child pornography is part of it. But why would you block porn anyway, is there a real issue in the UK with kids watching it? Have they done surveys and what age are they talking about that these kids are watching porn from?

[Walsingham]

 

I watched numerous interviews on this the last couple of weeks and the addressing child pornography is part of it. But why would you block porn anyway, is there a real issue in the UK with kids watching it? Have they done surveys and what age are they talking about that these kids are watching porn from?

 

 

Listening to 'da yoof' at work I gather they practically swim in the stuff via mobiles. Little bastards.

 

EDIT: Full disclosure - I wrote this next noticed the attractive women thread on this forum...

Edited July 27, 2013 by Walsingham

[Raithe]

Heh. I actually got given a couple of cheesy soft-core porm mags for an Easter Present in replace of Easter Eggs one year as a joke by my mother when i was about hm, 13 or 14.

Which itself was some oddball continuation of a joke from some months earlier from when we were cruising around the Med and we were leaving a Greek port to get back on board the ship. We had passed a news agents on the port that had stacks of greek playboys out, and I made some "hey, how about I get one of those as a souvenir of Greece" comment which got me a clip around the ear (in an amused manner) and a "maybe when you're older." Cut to that following Easter and a couple of Mayfair magazine with a yellow sticky note "Well, you're older now."

[BruceVC]

 

 

I watched numerous interviews on this the last couple of weeks and the addressing child pornography is part of it. But why would you block porn anyway, is there a real issue in the UK with kids watching it? Have they done surveys and what age are they talking about that these kids are watching porn from?

 

 

Listening to 'da yoof' at work I gather they practically swim in the stuff via mobiles. Little bastards.

 

EDIT: Full disclosure - I wrote this next noticed the attractive women thread on this forum...

 

 

Yeah, I mean we would NEVER look at pictures of attractive women, its the kids doing all this licentious behaviour

[Walsingham]

God save us from 'cool' parents. Mine found my stash when I was about 15, complimented me on it not being distasteful, and so I immediately threw it away.

 

Parents should never be aware of any sexual activity their offspring engage in.

[Gorgon]

So much for the internet without rules. I guess it was only a matter of time before well meaning bureaucrats ruined it for everyone else. 

 

This thing about child offenders is beside the point isn't it. Those kinds of pedo networks never stay in the same place for very long. When they do, they get caught. So a blocklist would help very little, not that anyone would mind such a blocklist except for the stuff the government would inevitably sneak in the back door. 

[BruceVC]

So much for the internet without rules. I guess it was only a matter of time before well meaning bureaucrats ruined it for everyone else. 

 

This thing about child offenders is beside the point isn't it. Those kinds of pedo networks never stay in the same place for very long. When they do, they get caught. So a blocklist would help very little, not that anyone would mind such a blocklist except for the stuff the government would inevitably sneak in the back door. 

 

I agree, also there is a train of thought that says that Child Porn is actually used by many pedophiles to suppress there abhorrent sexual appetites. So in fact by making it even harder to get, and already its illegal and hard to see, you may inadvertently make the issue worse as pedophiles will act on there urges

[Raithe]

I'm still kind of pondering on the whole "Chinese Company run by a former CPLA Officer" being  behind the HomeSafe software... Like that's a great idea. Or a good inspiration.

[Malcador]

Election time in UK soon ?

[Woldan]

And people honestly think that the government is so concerned about child pornography that they launch an Internet censorship system? Thats beyond naive.

 

This is how it begins.

[Zoraptor]

Begins? In Britain? They're already a surveillance entity with an ancillary country attached.

 

It's all to protect the children and stop terrorism (and Iceland) though! It cannot be abused because it's Britain, and we fought nazis, For Freedom!

[Nonek]

The respected gentleman might say that, I however could not possibly comment.

[Zoraptor]

I have to admit that every time I hear some shonky reasoning from a politicos I find myself imagining a Francis Urquhart soliloquy to go with it- or a running commentary from Sir Humphrey Appleby if it's merely poorly thought out self serving nonsense.

[pmp10]

And people honestly think that the government is so concerned about child pornography that they launch an Internet censorship system? Thats beyond naive.

 

This is how it begins.

It has begun a long time ago.

This is more of a small jab at ISPs to prepare for assuming control in the future.

Once serious money gets their hands on those ISPs logs they will shape prediction algorithms and that will be that.

Enjoy your freedom while you can.

[Walsingham]

I might respectfully point out that your 'stop fascism' plan seems to consist of simply noising off online. No, for example, political party or writing to MPs or staging rallies...

 

EDIT: Ok, I may be presupposing too much here. But you take my point.

Edited July 28, 2013 by Walsingham

[Zoraptor]

Who exactly are you going to vote for in the UK to get any message across? The Tories and Lib Dems, in the current government pushing the legislation? Labour who started the whole thing off? Move to Birmingham (?) and vote Gorgeous George Galloway? Establishing a new party yourself is... not a trivial undertaking.

 

No point complaining direct or marching or whatever*, it didn't work with millions marching against the Iraq War (justified by outright lying too, so some others would no doubt have been upset were the truth about the forty minute claims etc known) or austerity, they'll just use parliamentary dictatorship to ram it through anyway. Same here, just with special deals like no contest elections for certain independent MPs who vote the 'right' way, and threats to expel anyone voting against the government on a conscience vote. Because you're asking your MP to vote for Principles, and principles on politicians are like teeth on hens. Principles end careers.

 

*I'd actually have gone to the demonstration held in Auckland on Sat, but only found out about it too late. One of the drawbacks of (ironically) avoiding facebook...

Edited July 28, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

So what you're saying is that you feel it's pointless, so you are politely flagging yourself up for the death squads?

 

It strikes me that - since you're not an imbecile - the only logical conclusion is that you don't really think the situation is as serious as you are making out.

[Zoraptor]

Not really. There's just a limited amount of point doing something that you know absolutely will have no effect because it's already been decided. It might make you feel better about things and give you the ability to honestly say that "you never asked for this" but doesn't fundamentally change anything. It's like referring to 'terminal' cancer- the terminal part does not mean that it isn't serious, quite the reverse. It's so serious nothing practical can be done about it.

[PK htiw klaw eriF]

So, are any British forum members watching massive amounts of porn in protest?