1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Jul 2013.

  1. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    10,139
    Likes Received:
    619
  2. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,278
    Likes Received:
    36
    Legislated morality...
     
  3. ev1lm1nd666

    ev1lm1nd666 New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    118
    Likes Received:
    1
    Yet another case of the government treating the symptoms instead of the cause. Biggest bunch of crooks in this country. The governments not even doing anything in reality for as usual they are leaning on the ISP's to do all the legwork. And all this coming from a government who (a), have been stealing money they are not entitled to (expenses row) and (b) have no clue what to do with the internet as when they commission a report by people who DO know what is going on they blatantly ignore said advice as it doesn't fit their political agenda. Shoot/sack em all and get someone with a working brain in power
     
  4. steveo_mcg

    steveo_mcg New Member

    Joined:
    26 May 2005
    Posts:
    5,841
    Likes Received:
    80
    ******* Torries...
     
  5. Corky42

    Corky42 What did walle eat for breakfast?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    170
    The argument for block-by-default web filters is near nigh non existent, where as the argument on why block-by-default web filters is a bad idea would be endless.
     
  6. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    In this instance - that of default pornography blocks - and without resorting to the time old favourite "slippery slop" and "someone will always find a way round search keyword standards" arguments, I'd be interested to know what the endless arguments are. Particularly as the block can manually be removed. So do please fire away.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  7. coyote

    coyote New Member

    Joined:
    14 Dec 2004
    Posts:
    65
    Likes Received:
    0
    This government is not fit for purpose. They have already been advised that the cretins are using peer to peer not searching the net. Wrong end again!
    I wonder what the next restrictions on the net will be? I also wonder if the users that don't click yes to the filter will be put on a list of potential wrong doers? Who knows these days.
     
  8. rollo

    rollo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    16 May 2008
    Posts:
    7,663
    Likes Received:
    93
    Could be worse, could have china in charge of the Internet there restrictions are nothing compared to what the uk may get.
     
  9. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    5,807
    Likes Received:
    185
    One issue in my opinion is that by taking away the onus of stopping their children from seeing inappropriate material away from the parents and dumping it on the ISPs etc, there will be some parents who will now think their child is 'safe' and so won't bother checking, and then when the child does find something they shouldn't, whether by accident or deliberately, the parent will blame the ISP or whatever, which is wrong and it encourages lazy parenting in my opinion.

    It's better that they actively do something about it, a friend gave the example of magazines in a shop, a parent wouldn't let them pick whatever magazine they want, in case they choose something which isn't suitable, does that mean you stop people being able to buy/sell those magazines unless they sign up to something? (doesn't have to be pornographic, magazines such as cosmopolitan often contain content not suitable for children)
     
  10. mighty_pirate

    mighty_pirate New Member

    Joined:
    23 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    3
    ... Is the name of a website that will be blocked.
     
  11. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
    I was also thinking this morning that anyone who takes the block off may be looked at more closely. And yes, once again taking away responsibility from the parents who for the most part are clueless about computers anyway so are probably happy to have the responsibility taken. After all, why blame yourself or the kids when you can blame the ISP?
     
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 What did walle eat for breakfast?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    8,238
    Likes Received:
    170
    Ok :D
    Any person with a little knowledge can by pass it using proxies, VPN's
    The internet isn't about a family/child friendly environment, Its about freedom of expression/speech.
    Higher BB charges for everyone, because some parents cant exercise parental controls.
    Governments dictating what is and isn't morally acceptable.
    People who opt out having their name on some list that could be used for who knows what.
    Knee jerk reactions from politicians to block the next thing to offend the daily news papers.

    And even though you said about the obvious slippery slope it would only be a matter of time before the list of government approved web sites gets added to.

    Now im going to take cover, and wait for the normal Bit-Tech belligerent reply's :worried:
     
    r3loaded likes this.
  13. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    It wouldn't matter what political party was in power they have to do something and more importantly to be seen to be doing something, for years the party line was that if you smoke a joint your on the road to ruin and will end up a smackhead.

    Now it's a case of viewing legal porn will lead to illegal images and will turn you into a child abuser and child killer, while that may be true for an extremely small number of people it's obviously not the case for the majority or there would be literally millions of child murders.

    I think it is near impossible to stop illegal content online as it's a global problem and not confined to just this country but if any measure succeeds in preventing even one child getting abused then it has to be tried but as internet savvy people know there will always be people that find a way around whatever restrictions are in place.

    A recent PC mag article on privacy explained a program that was originally developed by the US Navy and is now freely available to anyone, this program uses many layers of encryption and it's near impossible to identify who's using it, how the hell do you stop that?
     
  14. Phil Rhodes

    Phil Rhodes Hypernobber

    Joined:
    27 Jul 2006
    Posts:
    1,415
    Likes Received:
    10
    You want counterarguments? Fine.

    Beyond GeorgeStorm's very valid point there is the issue of implementation. It is impossible to reliably implement filtering of the sort that Cameron seems to want. To the extent that it can reasonably be done, it is already being done by things like Google's safesearch feature.

    I really wish news articles like this wouldn't quote people like the Pirates as it gives the bad guys carte blanche to tar everyone with a counterargument with the same brush, but they got it right when they said it would either be not enough or too much. Cameron reveals his own complete ignorance of the technical reality - and piss-poor management technique - when he expects that people simply figure out a way to make what he wants happen. To quote a feeble movie, merely demanding results will not guarantee them, but what I think we can quite confidently guarantee is that no matter how poorly the filter technology actually works, no politician will ever, under absolutely any circumstances, say "Well, you know what, you were right. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea after all."

    P
     
    r3loaded likes this.
  15. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    The problem is people blaming the porn. These people, in most cases, are going to abuse and kill and the porn they view doesn't make them more likely to do anything.

    It's exactly the same as blaming computer games for gun crime in the US.
     
  16. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    Most people are for free speech and expression but that does not extend to child abuse, "Expressing yourself" by abusing a child, recording it and posting it online is totally unacceptable, I wonder what the abused child who also has the right to " free speech and expression" would have to say about it.
     
  17. Maki role

    Maki role Dale you're on a roll... Staff

    Joined:
    9 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    1,560
    Likes Received:
    56
    So who's going to pay for all this? Oh yeah, us! Cameron's simply a massive tool, he tries to please everyone and as a result pleases nobody and gets nothing of value done. Now the democratic way of handling this would normally be vote for somebody else, but therein lies another issue, they're all idiots.

    I simply don't want the government to extend any more eyes in the interest of security, it's ridiculous. It's easy to call somebody paranoid for thinking as such, but all it takes is one determined individual and that system can be used for such ill. Illegal is one thing, but what's judged as distasteful simply by the government is several steps too far. We're already monitored to a ludicrous level, I honestly don't feel comfortable with even more applied.
     
  18. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    9,433
    Likes Received:
    361
    I'm all for filtering child porn, but don't we already have that in place?

    I mean, have we all forgotten the Scorpions album cover that was blocked on Wakipedia in the UK a while back?

    If that's still functional, and sick people are still getting their hands on child porn, surely that should be evidence that this style of system cannot work, and marking this latest "drop it on the ISP" ploy as a massive waste of time and money?

    I'm not happy about this, as despite the whole "It's only for illegal things and porn" attitude, how long before someone petitions the government to take another website out of the UK because it's "Morally reprehensible"? How long before they start dictating what's morally right?

    Governments like to pat themselves on the back, and blocking websites that a petition brings up is a fairly easy way for them to do that - Regardless of actual content discussion. Never mind the fact that the people making these decisions wouldn't know what an ISP was if it came and bit them, without their aide telling them of course.
     
  19. koola

    koola Banned

    Joined:
    11 Jul 2004
    Posts:
    2,401
    Likes Received:
    10
    Tor and that web is deep and disturbing. Nothing can stop it yet.
     
  20. mi1ez

    mi1ez Active Member

    Joined:
    11 Jun 2009
    Posts:
    1,389
    Likes Received:
    13
    I think CPC's own Tracy summed it up perfectly:

    http://www.tkingdoll.com/2013/06/a-gentle-reminder-porn-and-internet.html?m=1
     

Share This Page