News UK ISPs implement IWF censorship

Hazar! being on AOL has its advantages for once. But on a more serious not this sucks. We're getting closer and closer to a total police state. Bye bye freedom of speech...

 

Im just astounded that the ISPs didnt have to tell their customers! If they can do something like this without any warnings/notifications then what else can they do?

 

I think the UK needs a new flag:

 

Who makes the decisions for this organisation?

Who is that person accountable to?

P

 

as far as i'm concerned if it catches just 1 peado its completely worth it

 

In which case is this not a detrimental change of service in which anyone can get out of their contract with?

 

if this doesn't completely freak you out then I'm not sure how much you really value your status in the "free world". The whole concept of free is to allow the dissemination of all materials and ideas, no matter how unpopular or "unethical". This includes hate speech, porn, and anything else that may offend someone or something.

 

Works just as well for this.

 

Free disemination of hate speech, offensive material and ideas is one thing... however when the material may/does involve someone against their will and/or not capable of making a "grown up" decision then that crosses the line. Not that a monitoring and blocking system like this is the best way to address it...

 

I'm sure pretty soon we are all going to be driving lada's and fishing though a hole in the bottom of our cars.

 

Why should they? its much easier for a sudo-government to stay in power than it is for them to do the work of proper government. Hence the current situation we have in the UK and the attitude coming up from the schools. Why both to do a job when you can outsource, pass-on or just ignore it and get away with it!
i know it sounds very daily mail of me but its news ive always picked up on. people seem unwilling to take charge of their freedoms and just roll out the

"Ive got nothing to worry about as ive done nothing wrong".
or

 

Problem is, it doesn't work like that. Paedophiles use such images to "warm up" for the real act, so to speak.

You mean like opposing its censorship as an infringement of freedom of expression?

The tactics may appear heavy handed, but Wikipedia was asked to just remove/edit the offending image. It decided not to, on the grounds of "principle". I'm not sure how freedom of information was served by this. I'm not sure how removing the image would have deprived legitimate web surfers. If you think you know, please tell me.

Of course Wikipedia complained that Amazon.com was not censored, suggesting it was because Amazon had money and could sue. However Amazon censored itself by replacing the covers by the later, censored versions.

As I said: tactics may have been heavy-handed, but Wikipedia could have quite easily nipped it all in the bud. Just remove the image or (as some sites have) blank out the offending bits. This was simply a battle of will and guess who lost?

 

Dear IWF,
Can i have permission to create a post containing the words porn and paedophile. Thank You.

Its only a matter of time til the internet has all obscenities blocked so it will just appear as a load $%^& or censored. Microsoft is even developing software to censor videos so you don't hear swearing. When will it stop.

 

When the general public is mature enough to handle freedom of expression --both doing it and receiving it.

 

I don't think its the fact that they are censoring or watching what we do. Its the fact that they don't tell the customers. We pay for the service so we should at least know what the provider is doing to it, especially when it comes to our privacy. Instead we have to learn about the latest IWF, Phorm and Anti-piracy laws from third party sites.

Virgin Media seem to jump on every bandwagon, as if its what its customers want (guess who i'm with).

 

OK have I missed something. is the fact that 1 wikipedia page now being unavailable a side issue to the fact that the uk majority now has a firewall ready to block whatever a non governmental organisation feels is wrong. this has not gone through a court or any other legal procedure and has been activated with such glaring issues such as now showing most of the uk as 6 ip ranges at at least wikipedia causing us to very likely soon be banned from editing content. the fact that this has only come to light because of 1 wikipage is what really worries me. at least the Australians are getting to debate their countries great firewall experiment, we get no notice at all .

rubbish piffle and balderdash. its not just a case of "principles" but also of legalities. The content is not hosted in the uk and is not illegal where it's being held, and yet you apparently feel a company should remove content because it offends in a different country. better hope we don't get anybody complaining that in their countries banks are illegal, and would the uk please remove all web reference to banks. Now the system is in place will it be removed, no of course not its far to convenient a tech for the government to want to get rid off. yes Wikipedia could have nipped this in the bud by doing what the IWF demanded, but just like giving in to terrorists once you start its suddenly very difficult to stop. (hey if the censorship brigade is allowed to use child porn as a reason to support their argument, I think its fair game for the anti's to claim the terrorists will win argument.) I think heavy handed is an understatement.
Lets not also forget that the IWF is now reviewing Amazon.com, as they sell the album online, legally it would appear, and have a picture as well.
The only thing that i really find funny about all of this is the though of how many people have rushed to find a copy of the picture since its been reported on the bbc, the guardian and other places, so they can feel suitably offended at a picture they would never normally have witnessed.

 

Nexxo, you really surprise me.
Usually i agree with your posts 100%, but on this matter i could not disagree more if i tried!

You seem to be OK'ing steamrolling everyone's rights in an inept way to try to stamp out child porn that won't even work...

A noble goal, but the method stinks, doesn't solve the problem and causes much more harm than it prevents...
much like the 'war on terror' and DRM really.

My god, if that required to happen, the general public would not be allowed to do *anything*

Are you really saying that the majority should be restricted because of the actions of the (very) few?

 

I'm trying to understand the story here based on vague information in these posts: So Wikipedia had an article about a ....book? which had a cover with a picture of kiddie porn? They got blocked because they refused to take it down, but Amazon didn't because they used the censored cover?

I like Wikipedia enough and all, but wouldn't the right course of action have been that if Wiki refused to take down the pornagraphic image to threaten legal action with one last (very short) window to remove the offending image? If they failed to comply it would be as anyone else having such imagery on their personal site-- police would come in, take everything.

It would be the death of Wiki, but only because someone couldn't be arsed to throw some black bars over a .jpg-- and really, Wiki deserves to die if thats their policy.

I'm all for the dissemination of truth, free speech, and even unpopular ideas. But one controversial book cover versus a censored version isn't going to change the entire known universe.

At a certain point Freedom can be abused. Hiding behind free speech to show pictures of exploitation without the intent to inform and end such behavior immoral if not illeagal.

I would also like to state that the designer of the cover and the publisher who allowed it should also be punished. Artistic expression is one thing, but if it adds no value or worse-- takes value away from a product, then it was a bad decision.

So let's see:

Exploitation is bad and should be stopped and prevented.
The punishment of the masses in order to detain the few is bad.
Police States, Big Brother, Big Sister (Nanny State), and the abuse of power by government officials to fullfill their own ideal societies based on absolute control are bad.
This is nothing new, its just the internetworking of individuals makes it harder to achieve now.
Just as horrifying is that the ISPs did not even notify the individuals on their service about the changes. It looks like it was 90% of the ISPs so it might not have left people with anywhere to go, but I'm sure they still didn't mention it because of fear of lost sales... So, ISPs, wouldn't that mean its a BAD IDEA if you're scared to tell your customers?

@Nexxo - I normally agree with your posts. I don't agree with the one above. Unfortunately I can only fall back to Voltaire atm: "I don't agree with what you have to say, but defend to your death, the right to say it."

In short, I end with

What the flapjack...

 

On that argument ... I support them monitoring your phone calls and your movements and who you meet or talk to

... yanno "if it catches just one peado it's completely worth it"



Whisperwolf .. good post