News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Told ya so.

 

Greetings!

Thats worrying...

 

But its OK because we would prefer to detain someone for 7 hours, then we feel protected
Just as we would prefer to have the choice *cough* of internet filters to protect the children.

Not that we are protected, and not that internet filters will protect children. in fact who cares as long as we feel better

 

The government is protecting us by going into newspaper offices and destroying hard drives.

I wonder if they destroyed the cloud too?

 

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-plan-for-internetporn-filters-risks-hurting-lgbt-community-8778956.html

http://www.shoutoutuk.org/2013/08/21/theblock-protecting-childrens-innocence-or-is-the-government-invading-our-right-to-privacy/

http://churchm.ag/maybe-uk-shouldnt-censor-pornography/

When Feminist and Church bloggers start speaking out against this so called optional filter, you know something must be wrong.

 

Effin' A.

Meanwhile Cameron tried to do his own Tony Blair with Syria: go in under the assumption that Syria's government used WMD rather than conclusive proof by weapons inspectors, without UN approval, and without any plan whatsoever of what that intervention consists of and what the long-term consequences might be or how to manage them. Luckily this time parliament put a stop to it.

 

Sorry to disagree Nexxo. As far as I am aware the vote was about military action if the UN inspectors found that it was the Syrian government was responsible for using chemical weapons. Not before.

With regards to the filtering system, as others have pointed out we have had child pornography being removed for quite sometime and all that seems to have happened is that they have found other ways around it.

If children are accessing pornographic material then you have to look at how they are accessing it. Is it by their mobile phone, computer/tablet, magazines, etc. I also think parents need to take a bit more responsibility as well for their own children and what activities they are using their computer and mobile for. You probably won't ever be able to stop kids sharing their dvds and magazines between themselves or electronic copies that they have.

 

I stand corrected. But a Labour amendment called for “compelling evidence” that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack before UK involvement. This was rejected by 332 votes to 220. This leads me to think that the evidence that Cameron was looking for was a bit less substantial.

In any case such actions would still require UN approval, and there was a glaring absence of an exit strategy and management of the aftermath.

 

Very true Nexxo. Our politicians are incapable, it seems, of running a peaceful(ish) country let alone a war.

Oh and Nexxo, I don't think that you can be classed as simply an ordinary geek. I'm sure you're closer to Bit-Tech Legend.

 

I'm but a humble follower of the Way of Relix.

 

I still want my filters to shield those innocent little eyes from crap. But I reckon most of us are in agreement about how we're being dragged towards Syria.

I have a bad feeling no matter what, we're going there whatever ...

Oh, how things change when a different party/coalition is in power.

 

No filter can be a substitute for education.

 

Indeed. The filter has to be inside the head. And usually it is; research shows that prepubescent children pay no attention to porn. It is just adults acting yucky and weird (again), and they ignore it. As for the really bad, traumatic stuff: they'd have to go looking for it to find it, and no child goes looking for Al Qaida beheadings.

Personally I just wouldn't let a child browse the internet unsupervised. I'm sure there are stupid or careless parents who would, but generally they spend their money on Sky TV rather than broadband (where their little tykes can tune into Adult Babestation). I think that the way to deal with bad or inadequate parenting is not to restrict the flow of ideas and information to the whole of society. I strongly object to a society which believes that certain ideas and information are dangerous, and that people should not be exposed to them because of what they might think, feel or do. That way totalitarianism lies.

Cameron, meanwhile, by trying to push through another moronic policy, has demonstrated that he does not have the intelligence to properly think through the ramifications of his policies. If anybody is going to censor the internet, this government should not be the one doing it.

Yeah, but how would we have known about Syria in the first place if it wasn't for those graphic images of real violence that are all over the news, and hence the internet? The videos and photos posted by citizens on the net? Shouldn't we, you know, filter that stuff to protect our little children's innocent eyes? What imagery of violence is harmful and should be filtered, and what imagery of violence should be legitimately shown to the world because it concerns is all? Who gets to determine that?

Think about it, because that censorship is already happening. We get shown graphic pictures of children firebombed in Syria, but we don't get to see the wedding party that was bombed by a US drone in Afghanistan.

At least they learned from their mistake. For now.

 

Insert witty comment here...

 

It would seem the filter may not even be legal.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/bt-seeks-legal-clarity-before-implementing-pornography-filters/

You would think things like this are checked before hand, well unless they don't understand the technical details of how a filter would work..

 

I would imagine that they just have to change the contract from the ISP to say you consent to the filter which would get around the above paragraph nicely.

 

They cant get around it just by bringing in new terms, as it is only legal to intrude on private communications if you have a warrant or both the sender and recipient of information agree that it is acceptable, even if it is done unintentionally.

So unless they get the recipient (the rest of the world) to agree the ISP would be breaking EU law (supposedly) Then there is the problem that if they do change the terms does this mean they no longer need a warrant to monitor any and all internet traffic in the UK ?

 

You would still need a warrant because to intercept communications by other means would not have been consented. Agreeing to the filter as part of an TOS would be consenting. They could also then make the case that the filtering servers are the recipient. Anyway, my point is not to try and find loop holes. My point is that I'm sure the British government would hardly let a silly thing like EU law get in the way of implementing the filter.

 

@theshadow2001, Either they would need a warrant, or would need consent from both the sender and recipient of the information. Unless ISP's send out consent letters to the entire world asking if its OK to monitor people connecting from the UK, they maybe breaking EU law, well at least BT is worried enough to seek clarification from the government.

And when it comes to EU law getting in the way of UK law, it has happened many times. Most notably when the EU forced the change in RIPA http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/bt-seeks-legal-clarity-before-implementing-pornography-filters/
If the government cant do anything about EU migration laws, why do you think they would flout EU law when it comes to such a trivial matter as an internet filter.

@Gareth, I would respectfully disagree, the ISP is a third party in the same way the post office is a third party when you send a letter to someone, or your phone company is the third party when you make a call. Yes ISP's monitor and block certain traffic, but afaik this blocking is done on certain ports known for spreading virus, Torrent ports, etc, etc, not on specific URL's.

But what do i know, I'm no lawyer Although BT must be concerned about break EU law, other wise why would they ask the government for greater legal clarity ?