News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Yes, it IS difficult to explain, it sounds so good at first, doesn't it?

You already have laws agains "illegal" content. All based on non-consensual sex.
Child-porn / underage sex is non-consensual.
Bestiality is non-consensual.
Rape is non-consensual per definition.
I can think of a few more really.

Now however, in this statement, there is a change in quality. It's not about blocking non-consensual sex anymore, it about blocking "simulated" non-consensual sex.

Again, this sounds great, block "simulated" rape. Who could be against it?

For me, the next step would be to ban "simulated" child-porn. Doesn't that sound just as good?

What is simulated child porn?
The law says under 18 hmmmmm.

• No more japanese in school uniforms.
• No more old american girls with a plaid skirts and pigtails and a lollipop.
• No more shaved pubes.
• Heck all asian girls look underaged to me, ban them too!

Talk about a slippery slope.

 

I cant believe Claire Perry said what she did on twitter

EDIT:

From reading the link RedFlames kindly provided on Claire Perry's site being hacked and her defamatory, threatening comments to Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) on twitter, i followed his link to the Sun's article on the subject.

So if anyone you know has problems with understanding why this is a bad idea, just point them to the Sun article. Something that should interest the majority is the following from the article...

 

Hmmm

Explained to my GF about this, was not looking forward to it but was pleasantly surprised that she is dead against it and saw the danger in censorship and the pointlessness of the filter. Great stuff.

On the other hand I was completely disappointed in my friend (who's the most deviant person out of anyone I know), he not only agreed but wanted it to go further. He could not recognize that he wanted to censor someone (consenting) and yet wouldn't like it himself... frustrating.

Think we should setup a petition with Avaaz pointing to the UK petition? 24 million members, might create more sign ups from British members and awareness in general. They helped out with ACTA and other such evils - http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php

I could do it as a member, but perhaps someone more articulate might want to do it?

 

I don't know about porn censorship, but they certainly should block politicians' access to Twitter.

 

Something i don't understand (maybe someone can enlighten me), In the past Sally Bercow made headlines over a libellous tweet about Lord McAlpine. Maybe foolishly i was expecting a similar thing when RedFlames posted details of David Cameron’s technologically illiterate self-appointed wannabe Net Nanny, Claire Perry being defamatory, and threatening to Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes)

Even though it only happened yesterday and a letter is being sent to Claire Perry asking her to retract her statements there has been nothing in the headlines. Am i showing my lack of understanding on the difference of what is libellous, defamatory, or threatening, by that i mean is being libellous worse than being defamatory, or threatening ?

Or are the headlines just being biased ?

 

Lord McAlpine has lots of money, that probably has something to do with it...

 

Say, Does Dennis publishing own any top shelf grumble mags?

If so, I would like to buy 2000 shares ;-)

Numbered are the days of ALT-TAB and "Hidden folders", bring back the good old "porn stash" under the mattress.

Frankie Boyle says (or words to extent).......

LOL.

 

The issue I take with laws like this isn't in the way that they can be abused or how badly written they are; it's in the complete and utter lack of knowledge that most of the people enacting them have regarding the systems they're attempting to limit or thwart, Claire Perry's website and reactions, for example.

My concern is that these people will eventually win their way and ISPs will have no choice but to acquiesce, which will lead to successively deeper cycles of idiocy as random things get blocked, and it all still proves to be ineffectual simply because it's impossible to completely block things in the manner they're attempting (See: TPB ban. There's over 100 proxies to that now.)

Plus if it does just turn into a list of websites and domains that get blocked; who monitors the list, will it be up in the public domain for people to see? Or will it be hidden away, with no sanity filter to stop the odd politician from banning whatever website they take a disliking to on the day?

I mean, unless they go the completely extreme method of blocking any URL and searches for "Proxy" or "TOR"; there'll always be a way around such a system, most of the children I know of are intelligent enough that, were they to put their minds to the task; could easily thwart any blocking system in their path, even if it was just by going through one of the numerous proxies that are designed to allow access to Facebook and similar.

Sadly; we're stuck in a time where those of us who are knowledgeable enough about such a system aren't in a high enough position of power to ensure that such frankly insane actions aren't pushed forwards like this.

 

Well at least Claire Perry is starting to make headlines, maybe it will open peoples eyes a little.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/24/guido-fawkes-threatens-sue-mp-hacking

 

I imagine that David and Claire took some advice from their IT department in the matter, and the conversation went a bit like this:

 

Which reminds me that I've got a box of study documents I haven't opened in over a decade that probably holds a white paper bag on the bottom that needs to be discarded before my kids start burrying through it.

 

That would be an episode, Glad to be of assistance

I just had a giggle thinking about my awkward episode with porn many many years ago.

Back in my school days, my mother found my grumble stash and I got a dose of the old "you effing dare bring that filth into my home again", She slammed my bedroom door afterwards while I was sitting about with my mates, Embarrassing no, Funny yes, Let me explain..
She never ever looked on the back of my door, And being a rebel teenager I chose this place to enshrine with all the choice centerfold's from Hustler and the like.
My mates thought the whole episode was funny as f*ck, The irony made me giggle too.
This brought on a fresh wave of piss taking "I hear your mum likes to bang centerfolds" etc etc from my mates, You had to be there.
Anyways, The following week I come across my prized mags stashed between some records but can't figure out why the hell they are back in my room, or how the bloody hell they got there.

My Dad (bless his memory) pulls me to one side and tells me with a wink to not let mother find them again!
Seems the dirty sod found them lying in the recycler and decided he would miss them too.

Good times, Cheers Dad!

 

http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-filter-will-censor-other-content-too-isps-reveal-130726/

Oh dear.

 

^ Now that is just ridiculous. If you leave all the boxes ticked, what's the point in surfing the net at all?

Re. the whole "censorship" thing, people need to be careful with the words they use - the only censorship taking place is the new legislation regarding rape porn; the filter itself is not censorship.

 

Oh, cool. The British government is going to get the Chinese government to monitor and censor our Internet access for it. Now that's what I call outsourcing.

 

Well we all know how well the UK government has handled other large IT projects in the past.

 

can the isp's just block all the mp's internet connections, and leave the rest of us to get on with it. make it look like the web is censored to the mp's

 

most MPs/civil servant's couldn't organise a shag in a brothel... it's not matter of *if* they'll mess 'it' [whatever 'it' happens to be at the time] up, it's when, and how badly...

 

SOURCE

 

IET Warns UK The Great Firewall of Cameron will be Ineffective and Harmful.

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/07/iet-warns-uk-isp-internet-porn-filter-will-be-ineffective-and-harmful.html