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. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Moreover, a government does not need to stage a 9/11 to get people to agree to an invasion of Iraq. People are stupid and will agree to anything if you spin it right (and if anything, 9/11 was a bloody inconvenience. Records show that a plan to invade Iraq was already on the table as soon as Bush got elected. Then 9/11 happened and they had to be seen to do something about Afghanistan --a diversion of precious military resources that were meant to go to Iraq).
     
  2. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    As is evidently clear from the ISP's bending over and accepting Cameron's proposals without him even having to try getting new law's through the house of commons. something that i think would be opposed/rejected.

    The four major ISP's have agreed to be 'nudged' into enforcing this filtering, and have now said how the ISPs will filter content

    So now every web site any person in the UK visits will have their traffic routed through these system, but matches to the database will be dismissed rather than acted upon (if you opt-out). Who needs PRISM or GCHQ when the ISP's are going to be logging every web sites people visit.

    On a more positive note the e-petition is over a quarter of the way to the magic 100,000 :lol:
    Although im not sure how much good it will do, as this filtering is just an agreement between Cameron and the ISP. No law has been proposed so how can it be debated in the house of commons ?
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Already John Gilmore's quote of "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." has come true, its less than a week after the announcement :hehe: The filtering isn't even close to implementation, yet ways to circumvent it for free and in less than 30sec are readily available.

    EDIT: I'm hoping that now this has been reported on another site other than the provider i wont get slapped for posting a link to the news article :worried: So if i shouldn't have posted the link to the news article mods feel free to remove the link, and sorry.

    Hackers Have Already Cracked The UK Porn Filter
    http://www.businessinsider.com/hackers-have-already-cracked-the-uk-porn-filter-2013-7
     
    Last edited: 29 Jul 2013
  4. IanW

    IanW Grumpy Old Git

    Joined:
    2 Aug 2003
    Posts:
    7,031
    Likes Received:
    735
    Funny how this was announced IMMEDIATELY after PRISM was outed. :eyebrow:
     
  5. tuk

    tuk Don't Tase Me, Bro!

    Joined:
    28 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    493
    Likes Received:
    10
    I don't agree with this analysis, yes people are stupid & can be easily duped but even Americans are not so dumb as to accept spending trillions on a war kicking on now 2.5x longer than ww2, trillions of tax dollars spent on military contracts almost bankrupting the country, at one point and maybe still 25c of every tax dollar was going on the 'war on terror'.

    9/11 was the starting gun, & the justification for the next decade of invasion & control of the Mesopotamian oil fields, a war responsible for the death of 1-2 million people, a high percentage of which were innocent civilians, apart from the American people the rest of world would also need convincing, what better way than video images from multiple angles of those jet liners slamming into the world trades and then both collapsing, replaying over and over and over and over.

    btw it doesn't take a massive conspiracy, all you would need is one well connected man with beard on a leash, a couple of suitcases full of money & a cia handler or two, maybe the man with beard used to work for the cia in the 70's fighting communism when GB senior was head of the cia, ....then when the time is right, you can publicly catch and kill the man with beard, thus tying up the only loose end & seeming to justify the war on terror.
     
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    Then why link 9/11 to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, which was the target of the exercise?

    Moreover nobody, not even the Bush administration, expected that war to last that long or cost that much. A couple of years at $60 billion was the estimate. Ten years later the cost comes in at $3000 billion (which is incidentally what it would cost to fix the credit crunch). It was certainly not presented that way. Another way in which you can get something past the population: you start with a thin end of a big wedge. By the time the real cost becomes apparent, people are already overcommitted.
     
    Last edited: 30 Jul 2013
  7. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    My ISP has to give me 1 years notice that they will start filtering my internet. On top of that, they also staunchly refuse to censor my connection anyway... so I'm wondering how this will play out.
     
  8. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    I suspect that not filtering content will become a selling point for ISPs, like not capping or throttling service. In the end, the free market economy will decide.

    Hey, the Tories believe in a free market economy, right? :p
     
  9. law99

    law99 Custom User Title

    Joined:
    24 Sep 2009
    Posts:
    2,382
    Likes Received:
    59
    Ha ha... yes. That is an amusing point.

    be careful what you wish for
     
  10. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Not sure why the open rights group feel the need to start their own petition, but it seems they have :thumb:
    https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleepwalking
    In other news ( I have always wanted to say that :D )
    Source

    Source

    An if you need yet more examples of why Cameron's plans are bad news you just need to look at the Australian model on WikiLeaks
     
  11. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    As someone who will be expanding our family very soon, I am pleased that porn will be opt-in. I won't be, therefore my kids won't stumble over stuff that conditions their brain to think that a woman being spit-roasted, or gang-banged, is normal life.

    Also, some of what I'm doing at the moment involves kids that are subjected to everything they should not be. The evidence proves that children replay what they see and hear from TV, films, music videos and the internet, as well as copying their own parents tragic behaviors. Those parents out there who fail to protect children in their learning years need ... I dunno. Something.
     
  12. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    It isn't a opt-in porn filter, its a default-on filter that will not only be blocking legal pornographic material but also yet to be announced non pornographic material.

    Software is already provide for free by all the major ISP's to block access to materiel YOU deem inappropriate for YOUR children, why should a whole country have to their internet use monitored just because some parents want to defer responsibility's to the government ? are you saying the government or some private firm knows better than you what is suitable for your children ?

    While i agree that children play out what they see, this default-on filter will do nothing to stop children viewing inappropriate materiel. Ways to circumvent it are already widely available and its still six or more months away from being introduced. The default-on filter will in fact do more harm than good to the very people it is meant to protect, what with giving parents a false sense of security and making them think they don't need to discuss what is a healthy attitude towards sex.
    Then there is the problem of blocking access to sexual health information, or access to information for children being sexually abused, or vital support and information for young people online.

    The announcement made by Cameron is nothing more than spin, meant to make the country and parents think he is serious about protecting children when in fact he has cut CEOPS funding by %10 this year. We are told, "There are 50,000 predators, downloading images on peer-to-peer, not Google, peer-to-peer. Yet from CEOP intelligence, only 192 were arrested last year." Does that sound like Cameron is serious about child exploitation ?

    Education of both parents and children is whats needed, not a default-on filter for an entire country. Incidentally this is something the government proposed six months ago, but how much have you been made aware of ways to install and setup free filtering software ? have you seen any information about the possible dangers of the internet for children ?

    But putting the "wont somebody think of the children" argument aside for a moment, you also have to look at the potential of over and under-blocking, filtering political oppositions, filtering Wikileaks as happened in Australia, misidentifying websites as adult content, the potential misuse of a list on who do and don't filter content, potential for a bad government having dirt on its citizens (PRISM and Tempora).

    I could go on forever, but this post has already become longer than i intended :blush: If anyone thinks default-on filter is a good idea you really need to look past the spin and do some more research into the harm this will cause.
     
  13. Porkins' Wingman

    Porkins' Wingman Can't touch this

    Joined:
    23 Feb 2008
    Posts:
    2,895
    Likes Received:
    128
    a) There's no such thing as 'normal life'. Let that be one of the things you teach your children.

    b) Your lack of faith in your children's ability to be able to discern whether or not they should routinely adopt practicing something they've seen in electronic media is disappoint. You don't even have to show them any porn to be able to explain the porn industry and enhance their understanding of human behaviour. But instead you'd prefer the State to help you pretend it doesn't exist. Healthy not.
     
  14. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Interesting replies. Not convincing. Just interesting.

    Responsible adults have managed for plenty of time to protect their kids as best they can. Times have changed, and with the internet the kids now have the ability to suck in anything and everything that was once restricted to them.

    Either you want the tools to stop them seeing it, or you don't. Be clear about that.

    I hate PRISM more than average ignorant Joe Bloggs, but when it comes to protecting children - get real. Seeing 2 year olds making their dolls **** each other aint funny. Seeing what the older kids do is much worse. Parenting is getting worse. Kids are being removed from their birth parents much sooner, thankfully.

    A kids childhood is a one-off experience and needs to be the best it can be. I want tools. I applaud tools. If it is opt-out of porn and beheading videos ... I'm opting out - I don't need that crap anyway.
     
  15. CrazyJoe

    CrazyJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    119
    The tools exist right now, are you using them?
     
  16. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,173
    Likes Received:
    1,636
    I think that you know that the children who you speak of are not the product of accidentally stumbling across some graphic websites, but of long-term ineffectual, neglectful or even abusive parenting. If they had access to graphic materials that was just one more symptom of their upbringing, not the defining quality.

    You don't want your kids to see bad things on the web? Don't give them unsupervised access. Simples. Don't give them their own computer before 12, don't give them unfiltered access before 16. Use the many tools that already exist. And most of all, have sensible, age-appropriate discussions with them about sex before they hit puberty. If you fill their heads with good information, there will be no room for the bad information to go.

    If parents are too feckless or disinterested to do that, slapping the plaster of a web filter on is not going to compensate in any way for bad parenting. The children you see are not there because they had unfettered Internet access.

    But most of all, forum_user, do NOT let the government decide what your children should or should not see. Why should you let politicians influence what your children know and how they think? You wouldn't let politicians do that to you, would you?
     
    Last edited: 4 Aug 2013
  17. Teelzebub

    Teelzebub Up yours GOD,Whats best served cold

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    15,796
    Likes Received:
    4,484
    Seriously how many 2 year olds have computers? They may walk in on their parents having sex but I doubt that's going to do any harm
     
  18. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Am I right in thinking you guys are just crapping your pants that the government are taking away your civil liberties, etc? Is that what fills these 11 pages?

    Guys, get your asses down to the next protest at a government building and don your anon masks. But don't try and argue against something like this unless you do that. This 11 pages is a complete waste otherwise.

    In the meantime mumsnet and me will be phoning our ISPs and adding filters.

    Better still - if you guys reckon you know best - get mumsnet to join you on your anti-government marches.

    Is that really going to happen? Nope. conversation over. Filters - win. Kids safe. You guys get to bang on for another 11 pages while it is all going on. Meanwhile rest of UK gets on with life.

    Of course ... you are right ... at some point we WILL all be taking coloured pills to numb our emotions, books WILL be burnt to prevent proking hope and dreaming of a better future. History WILL be deleted and rewritten to promote a safer world under the control of MumsNet ... I mean SkyNet.

    (added) I was trying to recall what they call people who type it out then do nothing - just came to me - keyboard warriors!! The lot of ya. Go on! I dare ya. Go do a proper protest in the streets then I might support you in a common mission statement. But while you talk and do nothing else - we're all heading the same way ...............
     
  19. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,576
    Likes Received:
    379
    Haha, that's one thing these filters won't guarantee.

    Also what's wrong with discussing something? Maybe you should actually read the thread.
     
  20. Teelzebub

    Teelzebub Up yours GOD,Whats best served cold

    Joined:
    27 Nov 2009
    Posts:
    15,796
    Likes Received:
    4,484
    Actually you're the one that thinks he knows best, how many kids do you have again?
     

Share This Page