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. GeorgeStorm

    GeorgeStorm Aggressive PC Builder

    Joined:
    16 Dec 2008
    Posts:
    6,606
    Likes Received:
    389
    This bit is weird, since there are already ways for parents to block porn. :eyebrow:
    All your references to under 10s, why would you give and under 10 year old unrestricted access to the internet in any case?

    The reasons people are mentioning the CEOP is, as far as I'm aware, because this block was to do with helping stopping child pornography apparently.

    Also
    Well it shouldn't just be them, it should be you.
    Blocking something just encourages people to find ways around the block to access the stuff they want. Educating people about why it isn't suitable etc should be far more important. Putting a blanket over it doesn't stop it happening, nor does it stop people knowing what it is.
     
  2. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,988
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    That makes no sense to you because you made it up out of wholecloth. Try reading what I posted, following the links, and then actually making comment thereon.
     
  3. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Yes A filter is better than no filter, that is why it should be down to parents to decide what is filtered and what is not, and at what age for their children. Instead what is being proposed is to have the government or some private firm filtering every request for a website made by every person in the UK, or do you think people who opt not to have the filters will be on a different network to everyone else ?

    And tbh i find that you calling a survivor of child sex abuse irrelevant and saying she is rambling very offensive, especially when it has been shown that these filters will block children's access to relevant support that may help them should they find them self in a similar situation.
    Just because its a blog does that mean when she says "What I actually learned from the whole experience was that my parents were not willing to discuss issues of sex and sexuality with me. So when the abuse happened, when I would have needed to discuss those things with them and get help, I didn't feel able to do so."
    That we should just ignore the fact the parents want to click a button to hide sex from their children instead of talking to them in a appropriate manner about relationships and sex.

    When you also say "a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking." these methods already exist, they have been around for over a decade. what is needed is education not denial, something the government promised six months ago yet there has been no public awareness campaigns to make parents aware of the dangers of the internet and how to protect their children.

    Its a shame you didn't bother to read the rest and got bored as then you would have some understanding of the double standards and spin being pedaled by Cameron. But then again i wouldn't expect you to take the time to educate your self, after all its easier to just tick a box and be happy that the government is taking care of everything for you i guess.
     
  4. Nexxo

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

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,253
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    I would argue that as an MP it is her job to know what she is talking about. It is not enough to just mean well-- because an MP actually has quite a bit of power. And that needs to be wielded wisely.

    It has already happened in Australia and Finland. Once legally in place, internet filtering has been abused for political reasons. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

    There is also concern amongst IT experts that from a technological viewpoint an effective, no-false-positives filtering system cannot be designed --even though the government plans to make it mandatory for ISPs to achieve the impossible. But demanding something does not make it so.

    What Gareth points at is conflict of interests. Huawei has been scrutinised by the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee for having back doors in its hardware and firmware that can be exploited for espionage, and for sharing with the Chinese state industrial secret knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with. TalkTalk's filtering system is run by Huawei.

    So David Cameron is effectively suggesting that all public internet traffic should be monitored by a Chinese company that has been flagged up as a security risk for the UK. Nice. Now you can say that the browsing habits of the British public are hardly of interest to China, but it is not as simple as that. Every time a government official accesses his home internet for instance, the Chinese government potentially has a look in. Apart from the blackmail material that this offers, or the security risk (where and when is Mrs. Cameron booking the family holiday this year?), it also means that if said government official emails a work document to or from his home ISP, it basically passes under the eyes of the Chinese State. I know, I know, people should not use the internet to transmit sensitive documents without using encrypted VPNs. But as you yourself say: even MPs don't know that much about how the internet works. Everybody needs protecting these days...

    That Cameron has personal and financial connections with TalkTalk should be a cause of concern in itself, just because it constitutes a potential conflict of interest, and that is always a no-no.

    Now you reasonably argue that all this may never happen: Huwaei may never get the contract (in fact, I'm fairly sure that the secret service will make certain that it won't). But the point is: it never occurred to David Cameron that there could be a problem. He is just making it up as he goes along. And he keeps changing the goal posts: first it is an opt-in filter, then it is an opt-out filter, then it is mandatory that ISPs comply, and the content filters start expanding... Sorry, but Dave is the most powerful man in the UK. When he makes a decision to do something government, I expect it to be really well thought out. I expect it to be informed, impartial and for the public good, not political expediency.

    And that, indeed, is cause for concern based on the evidence so far.

    In short: although our concerns are based in facts, your dismissal of those concerns is based in hope?

    I think that is the basic difference between our standpoints. We argue that you cannot give the government power over access to information, because basically (as experience teaches us time and again) politicians cannot be trusted. It is why, for instance, despite fierce criticism of press practices in the Levenson enquiry, the new Independent Press Standards Organisation will remain independent from government. It is considered that important to have a separation between State and the free press; between government and the free flow of public information.

    You argue that basically, we can trust the government to do the right thing (more so than parents, in fact); to wield its power to block access to information on the internet in an informed, impartial manner for the public good; that internet filtering will happen in a considered and intelligent way, using effective software applied by trustworthy companies.

    I'm sorry, but I can think of many recent examples in which the government, and for that matter companies, did not act in an informed, impartial manner for the public good. And thus far nothing that Cameron has proposed shows any signs of being informed, impartial and for the public good rather than for political point scoring. There is nothing that you have brought to the debate that suggests that we should view this endeavour with anything but the greatest concern and skepticism.

    Nobody is saying that there should not be a form of filtering of inappropriate internet content for children. We are arguing that this filter should be managed by the parents, not the government.

    Parents already have options to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet. It does not need the government to implement another one. It's the difference between you deciding what books your children can read, and the government deciding what books the public can read (you want access to those books? You'll have to request a special library subscription through the local authorities please... Yes, even if you just want to read Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Canterbury Tales or Flowers for Algernon, sorry).

    And before you say that some parents just need the help: if parents are capable of arranging internet access privately, they are capable of arranging filtering and supervision of its use privately. All they have to do is talk to the ISP that they order their subscription from, who can helpfully set them up with the right parental controls. All they have to do is supervise their kids' internet access and have sensible conversations with them about what can be found out there and why they want to avoid it.

    The point that the blog made is that it is not about the internet porn, or the access to it. It is about the parental attitude to discussing sex and intimacy with their children and giving them the knowledge and skills to make sense of it and resist its harmful influences. Like the messed-up children that you see at work are not the product of visiting a few nasty websites, but of a long-term failure in parenting.
     
    Last edited: 5 Aug 2013
  5. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Thanks for all your replies! I have skim read alot of it and will go back later when chilled from todays activities. Some of it I agree with - either totally, morally, as possibilities or conspiracy, and some of it I disagree with - I think mainly because of the replies containing the what-ifs. Also in some of your previous replies you guys mentioned certain as pects or points that I tried to address and probably didn't do a great job at it.

    I guess I am approaching this from an optimistic angle. That seems reasonable to me because as long as they manage to make it do what it says on the tin then that works for me. And it is not allowing a government to dictate what my kids can read and watch - the government are providing the tool and I am agreeing that if the tool works as suggested then the tool is the right one for me to assist me in parenting as I see fit. Clearly I am not wrapping them up in cotton-wool for the rest of their lives. I want them to focus on what matters rather than the adult stuff, or the nasty stuff. This might help. Notice I've gone from I want this filter!! To - it might help. You guys are not convincing me away from it, but I agree there are many hurdles to jump over before a filter might work as needed.

    It is odd we can grow meat at £200k per burger from a dead cows stem cells, but we cannot filter out the crap kids do not need. (currently, that is!)

    Side note - Speaking of Huawei, I noticed one day when I scanned for wifi clients in my local vicinity (which is usually very quiet due to a village location - a load of Huawei clients with MACs assigned - it was utterly bizarre and unexpected. Anyone any idea what that might have been?

    (added) Nexxo I do agree parents should be responsible for their kids. And a filter should not be needed. But I take you back to my mention of Steam. The few guys who oddly hated any notion of increasing Steam's security, fought with any poster daring to suggest helping the naive, ignorant, daft, whatever you want to call the victims of phishing. But Valve recognised it was needed. Probably due to the amount of man hours and expense it was costing them to assist and investigate account thefts and trawling through account histories. But I like to think that someone at Valve HQ was thinking of the victims too. Yes people should be able to protect themselves - but a lot cant do that.
     
    Last edited: 5 Aug 2013
  6. Nexxo

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

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,253
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    As I said: there are points where we do all agree, and we need to not let that obfuscate the points where we don't.

    Where we do agree:
    - The internet is a brain dump of the human psyche: both its brilliance and its monstrosity.
    - Children need regulated exposure to the internet, so that they can access the brilliance but be protected from the monstrosity (until they are old enough to make sense of it).

    Where we disagree:
    - Whether parents are best placed and trusted to regulate their children's internet exposure, or the government.
    - Whether the parents should have ultimate responsibility for their children's internet exposure, or whether this can be partially abdicated to government.

    EDIT: As for Steam, that's a very different story because it is about protecting financial transactions, not the free flow of public information. Of course some many parents will need help to set up internet filters on their computers. But ISPs can help them set up and use the already existing software. The crucial difference is twofold: 1. It squarely makes it the parents' responsibility to deal with this issue. No abdication to government: these are your kids, your responsibility (legally and otherwise). 2. Filtering happens at the point of access: only the computer (and parents) know which sites were accessed and blocked. By having filtering happen at the ISP level, the ISP knows what sites were accessed and blocked. Even when the filter is turned off, sites are still routed through its system (it just does not act on any of it) and a record is still being generated. Such a record can be abused, whether by government, the NSA (as we are finding), a criminal hacker or a disgruntled employee at an ISP company looking for someone to blackmail.

    Then there are the golden opportunities for the Prenda lawyers crowd. How many equally helpless and naive parents will get letters in their mailbox suggesting that their internet browsing history (as supplied by their ISP internet filter) suggests that they downloaded this copyrighted fetish porn film illegally, and if they wish to avoid the embarrassment of a very public lawsuit, they might want to pay this fine...
     
    Last edited: 5 Aug 2013
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    While its nice to be optimistic, IMHO its best to hope for the best but plan for the worst.
    And while it would be great if this filter done what it said on the tin, that just isn't going to be the case.

    Two years ago even Mumsnet abandoned support for anti-pornography web filters after the following discussion took place on the flaws with such a system...http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1141192-recent-decision-by-MNHQ/AllOnOnePage
    The problem with this filter is that it will give parents a false sense that they are protecting their children from unsuitable material, while little johnny sits in his bedroom with a laptop bypassing the much vaunted TalkTalk's type porn filter (A year on, TalkTalk's porn filter flaws remain)

    Forcing a whole country into having their web usage monitored isn't addressing the problem, at best its putting a sticking plaster on it and hoping it goes away. The only way to address the problem IMHO is to educate parents on ways to monitor and filter their children's net usage, the dangers of what they do online, like posting images of them selves, who they talk to, what information they give out.
     
  8. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    Out of all the talk about the ethical responsibilites, anyone here notice the sheer logistics problem a filter like this presents?

    Opting out (or in?) would place you on a list that is less than savory. Not speaking a word would make it rather irritating if you were to stumble upon something the government deemed *unsafe* even if its not. And the worse part of all is that the use of this would cause quite a bit of ire to certain groups.

    The weirdest thing about internet filters is that the ones who do want to access content will find a way. As evidenced by the persistence of a certain bay with corsairs, the idea of an internet filter not only costs a large amount of money, but nominally only reduces access to content for the average person.

    In other words. It's illogical unless it's for other uses aside from content restriction. The argument of "for the protection of the kids!" or "for moral austerity!" is a rather absurd notion as the end result of content viewing is still at the discretion of the parents. There is no reason the government needs to involve themselves. Especially since its the taxpayer's money that is funding this filter which can still be bypassed by VPNs or proxies.

    To me, it's a logistical nightmare to do so. Plus, the porn industry would go mad.
     
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Personalty i would prefer the money that is going to be spent on network level filtering to be spent on making parents more aware of the potential dangers of the internet for children, and what they can do to protect and educate them on safe internet behavior.
    As well as more money going to CEOP so they can catch the scum destroying children's lives.
     
  10. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    But that's too hard! Everyone knows the government knows best. ;) /sarcasm

    Sarcasm aside though, an informational campaign would at best be taken lightly. Scare tactics only go so far and the willingness to be educated is something that has to be taken more seriously. Network level filtering is a very weak panacea for a problem that the most avid of users would circumvent anyways.

    Look at Australia.
     
  11. Nexxo

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

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,253
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    It's a behaviour change problem. Call in the psychologists.

    Effective campaigns can be designed to teach the naïve. The parents who simply don't care, never will.
     
  12. Elton

    Elton Officially a Whisky Nerd

    Joined:
    23 Jan 2009
    Posts:
    8,575
    Likes Received:
    189
    Doesn't it go back to the question of who should be taking care of the children then? It takes a village, but if the village doesn't care what can we do?

    Block by default is still admittedly a very...suspicious prospect as it really doesn't "save the kids!" as much as it blocks certain information sources. Which in of itself is a dubious goal at best.
     
  13. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Guys I have to concede that I am beaten. Not in content (I still believe) but in sheer quantity of text! If I was not so busy right now I know for a fact I could lose most of today writing out a huge response to everyones points ... and then probably hit the submit button ... have that "You are not logged in" page appear ... lose my reply in a Safari quirk ... scream ... and then go lie down and breath into a bag.

    I would like to reply one point though. Nexxo, I agree in an ideal world parents should be the ones bringing up their kids in a great way, teaching them morals, boundaries, routines, kindness, helping them become who they want to be. Add to that a great education and a happy and satisfying adult life and we have the ideal world.

    But it is not like that is it?

    You have the parents who neglect and abuse in all manner of ways, and in the worst case end up beating to death, or starving to death their child as seen with the polish couple (I say polish only to identify the example quickly). In a best case the parents are just not that good at parenting, but maybe doing their best. You know, the parents who cant stop themselves shouting all the time rather than finding the inner strength and patience to listen, analyse and understand how to help their kids develop properly. My point there is there is a very wide spectrum of parents between murder and shouting and there are thousands of levels between. It is not as simple as "parents, parent your children". It is much more complicated. Just like my point regarding the extra security haters on the steam forums - their argument made no sense. They made no argument except that victims should be victims. Don't help the victims. Made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.

    As an example of one type this filter may help (out of thousands of different levels. parenting is not black & white for everyone) - I'm aware of nice families, where their hearts are in the right place, they do their best, but they have no knowledge of much, no experience of much, no education as such. To call them simple or slow is offensive but I do not know how to say it politely tbh. They provide for their kids best they can. Firewalls, software blockers, anti-virus, malware - it's all voodoo to them. Computers clogged with crap thanks to the kids exploring the internet. The computer crawls under the weight of the junk it contains. I'm fairly certain you guys have seen these computers as well. The kids of able to do whatever they like because the parents have no idea about computers.

    A default filter for these types is perfect. A default filter means that the kids are in some small way being shielded while toddlers and youngsters - ok so when they get a bit more clued-up they may well bypass the filter, but as youngsters, they wont. I see the filter as worth having even just to cover this scenario.

    The way I see it, the filter is provided as a tool. The parents will be deciding whether to use that tool. The tool will be as simple as saying yes or no to what appears to be a list of internet activities like porn, forums, sensitive subjects like suicide. The government is NOT dictating what the kids see - the parents are. I don't get why you guys are arguing "DONT let the government dictate what your kids are doing" - because they are not. They are providing a tool. So far. I do expect if it successful at blocking the right material, and not accidentally blocking the wrong material, that the filter will go default on.

    You guys arguing about losing your rights, or having people dictated to, I don't see your point. You will still have an unfiltered internet. Even if it does go default on, you will still be able to request it turned off. So you guys get what you want ... and people who want to use the filter should be able to use it without being mocked or rubbished. I dont get why you guys are behaving like that. You get what you want, and parents who do want it get what they want ... everyone should be satisfied.

    You guys keep saying parents should install the software filters/blockers, that parents should know what they are doing, that parents should be responsible and prevent their kids from accessing the content they don't want their kids accessing.

    I do not think it is as simple as that. Parents are not as clever with computers, and do not have as much time as you guys to learn new tricks, and be able to detect a bypass that little Johnny might be using. You guys are techies. Most other parents are not. So I understand you guys may install the software blockers, set up your own filters, and see that as the solution. But you guys know all this stuff, and if you don't you have the ability to learn it all in minutes. But computers are voodoo to the majority of people out there and always will be.

    SteamGuard made a massive difference in Steam account being phished and I think a filter like this WILL help those out there who cannot help themselves.

    But I do agree we will see headlines like "Tory HQ website blocked by Tories own filter system due to the word paedophile being mentioned in an inquiry article". And we can all laugh about it ...

    No time, no money. And a lot of parents do not have the capacity to learn these things.

    You can only educate those who agree to it and even then there is no guarantee any of it will stick. Safety online covers more than kids seeing pics of boobies.

    Also, the word 'forcing' is nice and emotive, but actually you still have the choice to opt-out or opt-in, whichever it becomes. So as an adult male who loves porn - no problems. As a clueless parent who knows nothing and does not have the get-up-and-go to learn about online safety - no problems. (added) and again, ANYTHING is better than NOTHING - even if it does have to be provided by our government.

    As long as you guys still get the unfiltered internet you want, I do not see this proposal as an issue.

    Oh, and when the kids are old enough, I'll have my unfiltered internet back as well.
     
    Last edited: 6 Aug 2013
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Parents don't need time to watch public service adverts akin to the ones run in 1998

    (Warning some people may find this disturbing)


    We have had similar things on the danger of playing with matches, smoke alarms, not getting into unlicensed cabs, there has been loads in the past, check out http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/08/21/mind-the-gap-a-compe.html

    Why since the internet boom has the government not taken the dangers of the internet seriously and warned parents and children, some people may find the infomercials annoying but they have been proven to work.

    I use the word forcing on purpose because that is what is happening, its not as you think a simple opt-out or opt-in, there wont be two separate networks one for those who opt-in and a different one for those who opt-out.
    All web traffic in the UK is going to be monitored, when any person in the UK goes to any web site it will be routed through the web filtering machines, and if you have opted-out it simply wont check the blacklist to see if the site you are visiting is on the list.

    But make no mistake, the government or a private firm will know how many times and what web sites every household in the UK has visited, and just as happened in Australia this blacklist will be expanded and by introducing a opt-in or opt-out filter in the UK it leaves the door open for a mandatory filter later down the line, just as happened in Australia.
     
  15. Nexxo

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

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,253
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    Let's try and keep it succinct (a challenge for me, I know!).

    You appear to be making three points:

    1. Some parents are either just inadequate or uncaring, and that's a fact of life, whether we like it or not. If they don't look after their kids, the state unfortunately has to.

    2. Other parents try hard, but they just don't understand computers, so may not be able to protect their kids from harmful internet content without assistance from the state.

    3. Look, it's just a filter. You can opt out. What's the biggie?

    Our argument is:

    1. When parents are inadequate or uncaring, we possibly have a lot more substantial worries than what websites these kids access. Baby P., Victoria Clombier and Daniel Polka did not die of exposure to inappropriate websites. Such parents need a lot more specific parenting support or supervision, or possibly their kids should just be taken into care.

    2. If parents are caring but no good with computers, all they have to do is restrict internet access to when they are in the room to see what the kid is accessing. Don't give them their own tablet or laptop at age eight. Don't let them access the browser without an adult in the room. There is no electronic substitute for parental presence and attention.

    There could also be a government website that explains to parents the risks of children having unfettered access to the internet (even with tilted in place). Every ISP could have a link on their homepage and in their welcome pack. The government could have some ads on TV. Teach people, don't treat them like idiots.

    3. As for the filter: there is no reason that this should be a blanket tool at ISP level imposed by the State, rather than a local solution installed on the PC offered by commercial companies. When you order an internet connection, your friendly ISP provider simply goes: do you want is to install some kiddie safety filters on your PC? It could be a simple software package where parents click on a download link on the ISP homepage, or shove a CD from the welcome pack into the PC and the thing downloads and installs itself (a bit like any browser plugin or extension). Job done, no esoteric computer skills needed.

    A State-imposed filter will inevitably comply with the 'moral majority', because governments are run by politicians, and politicians like to curry favour with public opinion (which is why Cameron is proposing this in the first place). Moral majority means: the self-righteous conservative barely-literate Daily Mail reader (arguably the same people whose parenting we worry about). That could mean: no sites discussing homosexuality. No sites discussing sex, in an educational sense or otherwise. No sites discussing politically incorrect views. No sites discussing Winnie the Pooh. No sites discussing The Diary of Anne Frank. Wait, don't believe me? Look at the list of books banned by government in various Western countries. That is what state censorship looks like in practice.

    At a more fundamental level, State-imposed internet filtering suggests that certain ideas are dangerous, that some people just cannot handle such ideas responsibly (and by extension manage their children's exposure to those ideas responsibly) and that the government knows better what ideas people can handle than the people themselves. Next stop: thought crime.

    A State-imposed filter at ISP level can be abused, and history shows us that it will be abused. Let's not give an at best incompetent, at worse somewhat corrupt government more tools to control and monitor the flow of free public information when there are plenty of good alternatives to keep control in the hands of the parents.
     
    Last edited: 7 Aug 2013
  16. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    Don't you mean to say - a state provided filter that bill payers decide whether to use or not to??
     
  17. Nexxo

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

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,253
    Likes Received:
    1,681
    Good point, and now we get to the issue of informed consent.

    Suppose I am a caring parent, and I am offered the choice to filter out sex sites pre default. Of course I leave that ticked --don't want my children to see kinky porn, child porn, rape fantasies and such. All good, no?

    However a few months later my child has to do a project on WWII and the Nazi occupation of Europe. The Diary of Anne Frank comes up as required reading. My child googles it up --and cannot access the site. It is blocked. Wait, what?

    Unlikely scenario? The book was banned by a Virginia school because of its “sexual content and homosexual themes.” Additionally, the book was previously banned by several schools in the United States because it was “too depressing.” Most recently, in May of 2013, a Michigan mom tried to get the book banned due to its “pornographic tendencies.” (I've read it --it's required reading in Dutch schools, and rightly so-- and indeed it has some brief musings by an adolescent girl on her burgeoning sexuality, but nothing that no young adolescent has thought about before).

    The problem is that when a concerned parent ticks a box (or in this case, leaves it ticked), they do not really know what they are consenting to being filtered out. They do not really know what slips past the filter. They are trusting the supervision of their precious vulnerable little things to a piece of software somewhere. And that is stupid and wrong.

    And then there is the issue of what gets filtered that you weren't asked about. After all, the filter is now in place --nothing to stop the government putting a few filtering criteria in place pre-emptively. You don't need to ask people whether they want to be able to access terrorist websites, because obviously no right-thinking person would. Then that little pre-emotive list gets longer... It's already happening in other countries.

    ISPs can jump on the bandwagon. I'm on Virgin Media. Sky has a cracking offer on their internet access --only I can't see it, because Virgin per default filters out special offers by competitors...

    It has been argued in this thread that this is not about the porn. This is about the government having a legal framework and technology in place to filter our access to information on the internet if it wants to do so.

    Like many acts invoked since 9/11 were meant to be used only on case of terrorist emergency are now used fairly routinely (e.g. stop and search without warrant; UK customs officers being able to confiscate your computer, mobile phone, memory sticks and other media, download the data thereon and keep that forever without needing a warrant or your permission. And yes, they can also demand your passwords without warrant), this technology will be abused. And most people won't even realise when it happens.
     
  18. erratum1

    erratum1 New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    68
    Unemployment cuts people being made homeless people comitting suicide nobody gives a fig.

    "I'm alright jack doesn't effect me"

    But wait.. Cameron could take away our porn?....13 pages of out rage.

    This ****ing country! :rolleyes:
     
  19. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,988
    Likes Received:
    2,943
    You are aware you're on a technology website, right? In the Article Discussion subforum? Where people discuss articles that have appeared on the site? Articles that are, by the nature of the site, about technology?

    If you want to discuss other government policies, try the General or Serious sub-fora - or, alternatively, find a website that exists to write articles about such matters. You won't find 'em here - but that doesn't mean that anyone, least of all the people who write said articles, doesn't have an opinion on same.

    :rolleyes:
     
  20. CrazyJoe

    CrazyJoe Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    4 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    1,412
    Likes Received:
    119
    Fix your settings to 100 posts per page and then it's only 3 pages of "out rage". Better?
     

Share This Page