News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

No, you're making the speech as it's what politicians do.

Wanting to moralise and scare-monger is why you're implementing this half baked internet filter pile of crap but nice of you to remind us about what it is you want to do.

 

Image removed, due to containing offensive language.

And yes, I do get the irony

yodasarmpit

 

Why do I see so many parents buying their ridiculously young kids ridiculously priced electronics if they won't teach them to use them responsibly and properly!?

"Are you sure we should be jumping on the sofa with your Ipad flying about filming it?" "Yeah, it'll be fine Chloe, if one of us jumps on it my parents can just get me another tomorrow. It was my birthday after all."

*True story.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Di5B1TiApDo

 

Few years time and it will be the only ISP. (ISPy)

Great loyalty deals available, get a friend to sign up and we'll delete your search history for the last 12 months!
Conditions apply, we won't really delete your search history.

 

Click on source link below to enable the links



Source: http://www.reddit.com/r/unitedkingd...homes_connected_to_the_internet_to_be/cb7s1bs

 

Ok, so it's bad, we all pretty much agree that it's a bad thing.
Now what?
Sign a petition and bitch in forums?
That's not going to do much and it's very easily ignored.
I've no idea what to do but something needs to be done to stop this that can't be ignored.

 

It's very late and I cannot put together a detailed reply right now, but I can lend my voice to the opposition of this proposed "filter".
It's easy to attack anyone opposed to this filter, or brand them something unpleasant in the name of a clean, safe Internet. But a government deciding what legal content is OK or not is something that could be potentially terrifying. I do not care about the opt in - it's 10 minutes of my life. I care about what it could lead to in the not to distant future.

 

Best typo ever while talking about porn

 

Sadly as Cameron wants to push this through parliament before the end of 2013 it may not be possible to do anything, the e-petition on the matter (signatures:11,101) will close on the 18/06/2014 after Cameron has pushed it through.

I couldn't find any information on what happens if it gets the needed 100,000 signatures so it can be considered for debate in the House of Commons before the closing date, or if it would be considered for debate in the House of Commons after Cameron has rushed through the new legislation.

 

The story here is not a porn filter; The story is, in fact, the story itself...

Allow me to qualify that statement.

The Snowden revelations have divided the country in to two camps. The first are those who believe the government will use the system as intended, or don't really care. The second are those of us who recognize the threat government access to the population's personal correspondence poses to the democratic process...and we are in the middle of public discourse on the topic.

This announcement is designed to pervert that process of public discourse. It is misdirection.

Let's put was announced in to perspective - That preexisting filtering systems would be used proactively instead of retroactively. That is all...

However, those of us in the second camp currently perceive any government interference with the internet with absolute suspicion, thanks to the Snowden revelations. It is this suspicion that compels us to invent fantastical theories of how an opt-out porn filter could be abused - The so-called 'slippery slope'.

Gareth, for example, claimed that these systems may be used to control access to political information a la China. That idea doesn't hold weight with me, as all the countries pointed to as an example already had oppressive state controls prior to internet proliferation. For the UK to follow the exact same template our press protection laws, and other real world checks and balances, would need to be dismantled. While I'll politely say the the theory doesn't hold weight with me, I can see how it would seem outright ridiculous and paranoid to someone in the first camp I outlined.

The true threat to the democratic process are the Snowden revelations. This well-timed announcement is to distract us from that with something related, but far, far more galvanizing and sensational - Child pornography and rape(!!!)

Next time you're at the pub, a dinner party, or just a get-together of friends bring the topic of government spying up. Watch how quickly those critical of spying find themselves being painted as defending violence against women and children. Then watch them undermine the legitimacy of their position to those in the other camp by inventing outlandish theories of how it could be abused.

This story is the government using our own (government-induced) paranoia against us. It is intelligent and sophisticated, because our cultural, political, and legal environment simply does not permit them to be as crude with information manipulation as their Chinese counterparts.

 

I don't know where you got this from, but Cameron on Radio 2 yesterday afternoon said specifically that this is not the case: things that are currently illegal (child abuse, child porn, etc.) will remain illegal, and all currently legal forms of pornography will remain legal. It is not censorship.

There is so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding surrounding this proposed legislation, it doesn't surprise me at all that there is so much resultant hype.

Granted, it's a bit stupid and somewhat pointless, but I agree with Carrie that it's being blown hugely out of proportion. What's so bad about having to opt in to look at porn on the internet? Have you guys never bought porn from a newsagent? Kinda like that, but you only have to do it once, and most likely over the phone rather than in person.

 

Sorry what preexisting filtering systems are we talking about hear ? the one all the main search engines use to report and remove illegal content, or the one we call parents ?

These are not fantastical theories....

And it has happened in other countries already...

So as you can see Internet censorship already happens across the word, you only need to read this Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship to get a idea of how any kind of filtering system can be abused.

While it is true some of the countries that enforce Internet censorship already had oppressive state controls i wouldn't class Australia, , India and France among them, And what does it say about our society if we are willing to sit idly by as peoples freedoms are slowly being eroded ?

The problem is they are not invented outlandish theories

Indeed it is , sadly i fear that the vast majority of people are to busy with their lives to take the time and see it for what it really is

 

Perhaps from the speech Cameron gave, right at the end when he talks about Extreme pornography law change.

 

Don't have much time to reply, but...

When I say preexisting, I mean the same system used to block The Pirate Bay in the UK, or the Wikipedia entry for the Scorpion's Virgin Killer album (the filter was reversed incidentally, so if you fancy looking at a government-sanctioned picture of a naked child you can look it up. I'm not posting the link incase I get censored modded).

Point is, these systems are already in place. An opt-in porn policy makes no difference in their potential for abuse.

As for it happening in other countries I meant that those opposed to internet censorship tend to conjure the worst-case scenario. i.e. Counties listed as "Pervasive censorship". There is no foreseeable pathway to that level of state control in western democracies, so painting that picture undermines the painter's legitimacy.

Certainly, we might have a few isolated incidents, but not to the level of blocking access to political opinion.

As for the countries you singled out, they are on separate lists. (copy pasta)

Australia & France - Countries in this category are on the RWB "Under Surveillance" list, but are not already included in the pervasive, substantial, or selective censorship classifications. Included are countries in which changes are underway or are being considered that give cause for concern about the possibility of increased Internet censorship.

India - Countries included in this classification were found to practice selective Internet filtering in at least one of the four areas (political, social, conflict/security, and Internet tools) for which ONI tests, but which were not already included in the pervasive or substantial censorship classifications. This classification includes countries where a small number of specific sites are blocked or filtering targets a small number of categories or issues.

 

@Gareth, I didn't realise that, but I really don't see this as a big change and I have absolutely no objection to it. People want to watch porn for titillation - fine. People want to watch rape for titillation - wtf? Lock them up.

If you haven't listened to the Radio 2 interview I suggest that you do - Jeremy Vine's questioning is excellent and really puts Cameron on the spot, and like you say he really struggles to give a succinct precis of what exactly is being filtered out; it's obvious that he doesn't really have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to the finer points. He keeps playing his "we're working closely with the service providers" trump card even when it is impertinent to the question being asked. In saying that, I think he did OK considering Vine is an interrogative monster.

 

We allready have that, please look up what's been happening in the last few weeks.
Prism, Tempura, GCHQ, Snowden...

Does your Newsagent have your name, adress, account, telephone and internet access data? No?

The point is, who decides what "extreme pornography" is?
What is allowed? only straight, white, middleaged married couples doing it with the lights out? Who decides?

 

i noticed reading the first part of the speech about the criminal problem, there is no mention of the creators or initial distributors of said material:

"Obviously we need to tackle this at every step of the way – whether it’s where this material is hosted, transmitted, viewed or downloaded."

Not where it's being created? surely that's a smaller number of people and would do more to combat the problem. How is that the ISPs responsibility?

"It goes that the search engines shouldn’t be involved in finding out where these images are that they are just the ‘pipe’ that delivers the images and that holding them responsible would be a bit like holding the Post Office responsible for sending on illegal objects in anonymous packages."
"So to return to that analogy, it would be like the Post Office helping someone to identify and order the illegal material in the first place – and then sending it onto them in which case they absolutely would be held responsible for their actions."

How is the issue in that analogy the post office, and not the company creating and selling the illegal material? You have to go for the source or you're just treating the symptoms. Is the government ramping up to an anti-drug campaign where teenage peddlars are arrested in droves but growers/importers will be punished only by the breakup of their distribution network? Do you think that'd stop them? Does anyone think this will stop the people who abuse children from doing so? Would it even be a deterrent?

I'm all for preventing child abuse, but i'd like to see it done by preventing child abuse, not deterring perverts from watching child abuse.