News UK ISPs implement IWF censorship

[CardJoe]

http://www.bit-tech.net/news/2008/12...f-censorship/1

The Internet Watch Foundation has teamed up with a huge number of UK ISPs to implement a transparent proxy system designed to censor objectionable material.

[Mankz]

Go away internet Nazis.

[TomH]

Absolutely stupid, IMO. And who do they think they are, diddling with the service we pay for without so much as a fore-warning? This sort of behaviour (proxying, asymmetric routing) can wreak havoc on systems that rely on these ISPs.

I should hope this example (of Wikipedia false positive) has been a necessary wake-up call to the realities of such stupid systems, for the ISPs involved. Unfortunately, my natural reaction is to be pessimistic.

[Bluephoenix]

Worst. Implementation. Ever.

what are the blockheads over at IWF thinking using that kind of system? its pracically the same as a failure fltering example given in my CCISP course, and there are about 10 different ways to do it that don't involve messing with the IP routing.

simply implement passive monitoring, and actively block requests to known bad IPs. DUH!

[Burnout21]

this is a problem with two sides to it.

I would rather have internet nazi's track IP addresses on certain websites rather than block them, at least they could monitor the situation, rather than ignore it.

If a kiddy fiddler can keep him self under control via use of the internet, then id rather that than have them pratice on a real child. Its a sick fact that people are like this, and personal i like two see them locked up in a prison wing full of loving dads if you get what i mean.


Next i imagin they will start blocking access to torrent sites.

[UrbanMarine]

And it begins................

[Darkedge]

bad bad bad.. Piss off IWF if this is what you are going to do

[bowman]

Censorship in any way or form is completely unacceptable. Is this the 'free world'? I guess they weren't happy with the world record for most CCTV cameras per individual in the western world, they just had to have another fascist feather in their hat..

The worst part is that it's spreading all over Europe too.

[steveo_mcg]

Pretty soon the only way to be sure your not being censored in some way or another is going to be https.

I can't believe they though a hand full of transparent proxies were a good idea for most of Britain. Total fudge solution to a total non problem, welcome to daily mail Britain ffs.

[liratheal]

Oh, hi there Big Brother, and Sister Nanny State.

Go eat a dick

[cpemma]

...a fact that very few of the newsgroups have more than 10 per cent illegal content. If the IWF can ban a newsgroup that is 90 per cent legal, what's next? And where does it stop?

OMFG, what stupid arguments you anti-censorship people come up with to justify your freedom to do whatever you like, sod the rest of humanity.

So what percentage of kiddie porn is acceptable on someone's website or home computer?

[Evildead666]

Is there any way of getting onto the Internet without using an ISP ?
IE a 56K modem or something?

As this continues we'll be told its for our own good....must protect all the children from the Internet....

I would rather bypass all this crap and go direct....

[Evildead666]

Originally Posted by cpemma

OMFG, what stupid arguments you anti-censorship people come up with to justify your freedom to do whatever you like, sod the rest of humanity.

So what percentage of kiddie porn is acceptable on someone's website or home computer?

What percentage of blocking countrywide access to a legitimate website is acceptable ?

This isn't going to stop a paedophile from getting his goods....it might delay him some, but I also doubt Wikipedia is a Paedophile site...

[Cobalt]

Even Australia went through (a mockery) of a legislative process before introducing internet censorship. No such luck in the UK apparently. I guess net-neutrality just went down the drain.

The system itself is also horrifically flawed. It doesn't stop someone from finding anything they want. They were probably already using secure connections so how exactly was this meant to do anything?

[p3n]

Surely people should be able to opt-in to this or ignore it - failing that be able to opt-out instead...

[amacieli]

This is the country with a million road cameras per square mile, so why we are surprised?

[Xtrafresh]

*starts countdown to total obidience.*

Kiddie pron makes me sick, but people using it as an arguement for their own megalomaniac schemes.
They set up whatever dumb filters and cameras they like, and whenever they are questioned they just flash this one arguement, and get carte blanche again. Revolting.

I really do hope that the next few generations of leaders we'll have will understand the value of freedom and transparancy of government.

[chrisuk]

What's also quite funny is that they've not blocked the URL of the image, which you can get via a google search. So you can get the image, served by wikimedia, but can't get to the page whose content is completely legal (other than the picture, which is probably legal anyway considering how long it has been on sale here.)

I'm all for blocking illegal content, but it should be only be content that is absolutely 100% illegal. Its a great showing for the Police as well, they were consulted and the outcome was that it might be illegal - well freaking done. TBH, the only people who should have the power to block content in the UK should be the CPS based on whether or not the content would bring about a criminal prosecution.

[Flibblebot]

But the IWF isn't part of the government. The IWF is an independent organisation (i.e. not government regulated, although they do get funding from the EU) and a "self-regulatory body" - which presumably means they're answerable to nobody but themselves.

No kiddie porn is acceptable, but as a part of the whole of the UK internet population, the total number of active paedophiles who use the internet to get their kicks is miniscule, probably a fraction of a percentage point. To filter the traffic of most of the country because of the actions of this tiny minority is absurd - not so much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, more like using a ton of TNT to crack the nut.

[Miser]

Originally Posted by Flibblebot

But the IWF isn't part of the government. The IWF is an independent organisation (i.e. not government regulated, although they do get funding from the EU) and a "self-regulatory body" - which presumably means they're answerable to nobody but themselves.

No kiddie porn is acceptable, but as a part of the whole of the UK internet population, the total number of active paedophiles who use the internet to get their kicks is miniscule, probably a fraction of a percentage point. To filter the traffic of most of the country because of the actions of this tiny minority is absurd - not so much using a sledgehammer to crack a nut, more like using a ton of TNT to crack the nut.

I just thought of a way to punish a paedophile different from sending him to prison with a bunch of "loving dads."