The UK's proposed Internet filters..

[Walsingham]

Can all sound just a little less like wet hens, please? If I go to Newcastle then I'm heading for the North Pole. But if you wait for me there you will be waiting a long time.

 

It's not unreasonable or absurd to expect that a Society like that of Britain would object to 'public' ( as in unavoidable) nudity or perverse acts. As a culture we don't approve of them.

 

If take a step back, and leave aside the fact that this censorship won't even work, all we are talking about is enforcing laws ( at least in spirit) which apply in real life.

[Gfted1]

If take a step back, and leave aside the fact that this censorship won't even work, all we are talking about is enforcing laws ( at least in spirit) which apply in real life.

Oh, pornography in general is illegal in England? With all the breasts in your newspapers this surprises me.

[Malcador]

No, actually my worry is that opting out of "decency" filters will make you a candidate for secretly spying on what you do use your internet connection for because, clearly if you don't want to be filtered then you MUST be up to something illegal that would be blocked by the decency filter.

Heh, guaranteed it'd be that way. I remember the cops trawling an area taking DNA samples from males to catch a child rapist. They said it wasn't mandatory but the funny bit was that anyone refusing would warrant some more scrutiny.

[Raithe]

Can all sound just a little less like wet hens, please? If I go to Newcastle then I'm heading for the North Pole. But if you wait for me there you will be waiting a long time.

 

It's not unreasonable or absurd to expect that a Society like that of Britain would object to 'public' ( as in unavoidable) nudity or perverse acts. As a culture we don't approve of them.

 

If take a step back, and leave aside the fact that this censorship won't even work, all we are talking about is enforcing laws ( at least in spirit) which apply in real life.

 

Actually, nudity in public is not directly illegal in the UK. If someone complains about you being nude or such, then it becomes a public nuisance issue and that's when you can get arrested. That's slightly seperate from the illegal Lewd acts issue.

Heh, one of the funny aspects was some girl in Brighton was out for a night with friends, flashed a security camera and went on with her life. Two weeks later she was arrested because the guy on the other end of the security camera complained about it.

[BruceVC]

 

If take a step back, and leave aside the fact that this censorship won't even work, all we are talking about is enforcing laws ( at least in spirit) which apply in real life.

Oh, pornography in general is illegal in England? With all the breasts in your newspapers this surprises me.

 

 

No its not illegal in the UK

The UK is a country of hedonists, they would never pass such a pointless law

Edited July 30, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

Hmm, well I admit Ive only paid passing attention to this law. I was under the impression that they are trying to block internet pornography. Is this not the case? If they are trying to block porn, maybe I have misunderstood Wals post that this is simply applying laws that already exist. Can someone straighten a brother out here?

[BruceVC]

Hmm, well I admit Ive only paid passing attention to this law. I was under the impression that they are trying to block internet pornography. Is this not the case? If they are trying to block porn, maybe I have misunderstood Wals post that this is simply applying laws that already exist. Can someone straighten a brother out here?

 

Basically the law if enforced will automatically block certain websites, like Adult Movie sites (porn)

 

You would then have to contact your ISP to get the filter removed. The idea is an underage person wouldn't  be able to remove the blocking as they wouldn't be the  actual owner of the ISP account. There parents would be so in theory this would stop kids watching porn unless there parents say its okay

[Raithe]

Parts of the issues cropping up is that although the big public tell all is mainly based around the "pornography" aspect, its turning out that there are going to be a few other things caught in the filters. The worry is just how many "extra" things are going to be included, and just how easy it will be for any government in the future to add more to said filters...

 

Also, the planned software to be used for the filters is that produced by a compnay that happens to be owned by a chinese corporation, that has its CEO as a former Chinese Intelligence Officer...

 

Edit: I think Wals point is more about the thing that if you walked into a newsagents to get a porn magazine, by law it has to be on the top shelve (thus out of reach of the kids), and if it has anything beyond a women in a skimpy outfit on the cover it'll have something covering that, and it's illegal for said magazine to be sold to anyone under 18.

 

Compared to the internet, where you can wander around and just click "yes I am 18" regardless of whether you are or not.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Raithe

[BruceVC]

Parts of the issues cropping up is that although the big public tell all is mainly based around the "pornography" aspect, its turning out that there are going to be a few other things caught in the filters. The worry is just how many "extra" things are going to be included, and just how easy it will be for any government in the future to add more to said filters...

 

Also, the planned software to be used for the filters is that produced by a compnay that happens to be owned by a chinese corporation, that has its CEO as a former Chinese Intelligence Officer...

 

Edit: I think Wals point is more about the thing that if you walked into a newsagents to get a porn magazine, by law it has to be on the top shelve (thus out of reach of the kids), and if it has anything beyond a women in a skimpy outfit on the cover it'll have something covering that, and it's illegal for said magazine to be sold to anyone under 18.

 

Compared to the internet, where you can wander around and just click "yes I am 18" regardless of whether you are or not.

 

I mentioned this before but the Chinese ownership through Huawei of the suggested monitoring software should be the biggest concern to people, Huawei has been linked to software espionage in the USA

[Gfted1]

Edit: I think Wals point is more about the thing that if you walked into a newsagents to get a porn magazine, by law it has to be on the top shelve (thus out of reach of the kids), and if it has anything beyond a women in a skimpy outfit on the cover it'll have something covering that, and it's illegal for said magazine to be sold to anyone under 18.

 

Compared to the internet, where you can wander around and just click "yes I am 18" regardless of whether you are or not.

Ah, now I understand what he meant.

[Amentep]

Edit: I think Wals point is more about the thing that if you walked into a newsagents to get a porn magazine, by law it has to be on the top shelve (thus out of reach of the kids), and if it has anything beyond a women in a skimpy outfit on the cover it'll have something covering that, and it's illegal for said magazine to be sold to anyone under 18.

 

Compared to the internet, where you can wander around and just click "yes I am 18" regardless of whether you are or not.

Isn't your internet example not equivilent to selling to a minor at a newsagent, but selling to a dad at the newsagent who then hides his purchase by putting it in a box in the living room labeled "porn - do not open"?

[Walsingham]

The fact that Huawei is involved is the real 'smoking gun' for this being a s*** idea. Should have given it to Capita. They'd have spent all the money and done f*** all.

[BruceVC]

 

Edit: I think Wals point is more about the thing that if you walked into a newsagents to get a porn magazine, by law it has to be on the top shelve (thus out of reach of the kids), and if it has anything beyond a women in a skimpy outfit on the cover it'll have something covering that, and it's illegal for said magazine to be sold to anyone under 18.

 

Compared to the internet, where you can wander around and just click "yes I am 18" regardless of whether you are or not.

Isn't your internet example not equivilent to selling to a minor at a newsagent, but selling to a dad at the newsagent who then hides his purchase by putting it in a box in the living room labeled "porn - do not open"?

 

 

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed

[Amentep]

 

Isn't your internet example not equivilent to selling to a minor at a newsagent, but selling to a dad at the newsagent who then hides his purchase by putting it in a box in the living room labeled "porn - do not open"?

 

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed

 

In both cases the child's access to porn is provided by the parent.

 

Parent gets an ISP and leaves the child unmonitored on the internet has provided the child access to porn.

 

Parent goes to the newsagent, buys porn and puts it in a box in the middle of the room and leaves the child unmonitored in the room has also provided the child access to porn.

 

In both cases its the parent purchasing and then providing the access to the porn; the ISP's aren't opening up accounts to kids and selling them porn just as the newsagent isn't.

 

The question is, why is the ISP liable for the parent's lack of monitoring and not the newsagents?

Edited July 30, 2013 by Amentep

[Raithe]

 

 

 

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed

 

 

From what's been said, it's not so much as saying remove the filtering, as just switch it to a position where it doesn't stop access. The interesting thing will be whether it records any traffic whether it's on or off, how many additional "non-porn" elements just "happen" to be filtered as well in the name of protecting minors because apparently you can't trust parents,  and how much security the government is actually going to have  over Huawei's involvement.

 

Also, has no-one explained to the government how some basic tech-smart under 18's can easily access a proxie server to get around this?

[BruceVC]

 

 

Isn't your internet example not equivilent to selling to a minor at a newsagent, but selling to a dad at the newsagent who then hides his purchase by putting it in a box in the living room labeled "porn - do not open"?

 

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed

 

In both cases the child's access to porn is provided by the parent.

 

Parent gets an ISP and leaves the child unmonitored on the internet has provided the child access to porn.

 

Parent goes to the newsagent, buys porn and puts it in a box in the middle of the room and leaves the child unmonitored in the room has also provided the child access to porn.

 

In both cases its the parent purchasing and then providing the access to the porn; the ISP's aren't opening up accounts to kids and selling them porn just as the newsagent isn't.

 

The question is, why is the ISP liable for the parent's lack of monitoring and not the newsagents?

 

 

Okay if that's what you meant then I agree, the ISP isn't  liable but it will restrict access. However in the context of the newspaper example if the parent requests access than a child can use there account and access porn and it would be the same example as a child reading a parents porn magazine left on a table.

 

 

 

 

No his analogy is relevant as the law is intended to prevent minors accessing porn and other possibly harmful websites. If you are 18 then you could open an account at an ISP and request any filtering to be removed

 

 

From what's been said, it's not so much as saying remove the filtering, as just switch it to a position where it doesn't stop access. The interesting thing will be whether it records any traffic whether it's on or off, how many additional "non-porn" elements just "happen" to be filtered as well in the name of protecting minors because apparently you can't trust parents,  and how much security the government is actually going to have  over Huawei's involvement.

 

Also, has no-one explained to the government how some basic tech-smart under 18's can easily access a proxie server to get around this?

 

 

There is very advanced firewall and monitoring software that will be very hard to bypass that companies, governments and ISP can invest in.

 

For example end of the day TCP/IP uses a routing technology to send data. So an ISP gets an assigned range of IP addresses and this clever software would track any IP address that uses its gateways. If you are using some sort of Proxy the software will pick this up as the IP address gets translated or just say this is an invalid address. Also they have the ability to look at data within the actual IP packet, so they wil  see references to hotporn.com and block communication.

 

In can be done with the right technology

[Amentep]

Okay if that's what you meant then I agree, the ISP isn't  liable but it will restrict access. However in the context of the newspaper example if the parent requests access than a child can use there account and access porn and it would be the same example as a child reading a parents porn magazine left on a table.

So then, why is it not the parent's responsibility to monitor the child? Its not like there aren't local solutions to blocking a child's access that doesn't make it a mandatory for all users unless they opt out.

[BruceVC]

 

Okay if that's what you meant then I agree, the ISP isn't  liable but it will restrict access. However in the context of the newspaper example if the parent requests access than a child can use there account and access porn and it would be the same example as a child reading a parents porn magazine left on a table.

So then, why is it not the parent's responsibility to monitor the child? Its not like there aren't local solutions to blocking a child's access that doesn't make it a mandatory for all users unless they opt out.

 

 

I'm not sure if I understand you but at the moment the government feels its not assisting parents or rather making the jobs of parents easier as at the moment porn access is unrestricted. There is no enforced filtering. So with the proposed legislation there will be no porn access unless a parent allows it. Its a measure they think will help as at least they can say " this was the parents choice to allow access"

 

Note I use the porn as an example but it could apply to other types of possibly sensitive websites. At the moment there is no system that automatically blocks access to certain websites in the UK that is legally mandatory, that's the difference between the current law and the future. I don't agree with this, I think its stupid and will be ineffective but this is the way the people proposing this monitoring see it.

Edited July 30, 2013 by BruceVC

[Gfted1]

England is going to have to think up a catchy phrase for their firewall. (IE: China's is referred to as the Great Firewall of China.) Maybe The Snarl in the Parliament? Or The Boner Beater? Or The Channel Chunnel Bungle?

[Amentep]

I'm not sure if I understand you but at the moment the government feels its not assisting parents or rather making the jobs of parents easier as at the moment porn access is unrestricted.

 

Right, so why not an "opt in" system instead of an "opt out" system?

 

 

England is going to have to think up a catchy phrase for their firewall. (IE: China's is referred to as the Great Firewall of China.) Maybe The Snarl in the Parliament? Or The Boner Beater? Or The Channel Chunnel Bungle?

I'm voting for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch myself.

[Gfted1]

 

England is going to have to think up a catchy phrase for their firewall. (IE: China's is referred to as the Great Firewall of China.) Maybe The Snarl in the Parliament? Or The Boner Beater? Or The Channel Chunnel Bungle?

I'm voting for Llanfairpwllgwyngyllgogerychwyrndrobwllllantysiliogogogoch myself.

 

 

I was just thinking to myself: "Self, Tep did a really good job making up a Welsh word." But then I Googled it...sneaky.

[Zoraptor]

Hmm, well I admit Ive only paid passing attention to this law. I was under the impression that they are trying to block internet pornography. Is this not the case? If they are trying to block porn, maybe I have misunderstood Wals post that this is simply applying laws that already exist. Can someone straighten a brother out here?

 

The filters will block all sorts of websites.. If you are in a household with filters turned on, you would be unable to access websites that fall into categories such as web forums, violent material, alcohol, smoking, web blocking circumvention tools as well as suicide related websites, anorexia and eating disorder websites and pornography.

 

 

So no, it isn't just porn, and it isn't just enforcing existing laws. It's basically, well, anything and everything they want. To protect the innocence of children though, so anyone against it is advocating children losing their innocence!

 

And as such their views would be blackballed under this regimen, no doubt.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Zoraptor

[Walsingham]

If they wanted to get children watching less porn, they'd show Susan Boyle in a nightie instead of a complete block.

[Moose]

We need the internet version of Larry Flynt.

[Meshugger]

I think the discussion has taken the wrong path. It should be more about how what we can do to avoid having the internet becoming as controlled as the television and radio broadcasts.