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. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    That's your endless list? :eeek:

    I took the liberty - my freedom of expression :D - of numbering your points for ease of reply :thumb:

    1) Well let's do nothing then, don't even try, yeah? Thankfully that approach isn't adopted in medical advancement, criminal activity investigation, ...

    2) & 4) well you're not exactly right there ;) Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the treaty that gives you those freedoms of thought, expression etc. - actually states:

    Right to private and family life

    1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
    2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

    Freedom of expression

    1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
    shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
    information and ideas without interference by public authority
    and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
    from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
    enterprises.
    2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
    duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
    conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
    are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
    security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
    of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
    the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
    the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
    maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


    3) In the same way we pay green energy development subsidies you mean?

    5) You honestly think the investigating authorities, in this day and age, have the time/man power/money to check on everyone's sexual proclivities in the UK, or at least the probable millions who access porn at least once? If you're accessing certain sites with content that is deemed illegal - including, as of today I understand, rape videos - then they'll be doing that anyway or should be.

    6) Now you didn't follow the rules did you, :nono: even when you rephrased this in your closing statement ;) Noone can prove beyond a shadow of doubt slippery slope will happen. And if it does you can take them to court under Article 10, the flip side :) Now this is knee jerk http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3388074&postcount=24

    As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. Ask anyone with a couple of kids say between 4 and 14, if they could do it? The door bell rings, the telephone rings, dinner is being prepared, the call of nature, one of them scrawls on the wall, one of them finds the matches ...
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  2. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,358
    Likes Received:
    1,603
    I'm not sure I care enough about the "moral" argument to comment (there are far worse things than porn on the internet), but can they not see that this is just an utter waste of resources? The blocks will be circumvented on day one and there will be countless web pages detailing how to do so across the web.

    So for adults wishing to view pornography there will be an additional check box when signing up to a new ISP (just like mobile providers currently have). For children/adults living with their parents or in a property where they do not have control over the connection there will be an additional 5 minutes work to do the first time they want to view this material, and then the status quo will be restored.

    All in all, nothing will be achieved apart from preventing a very small number of people (mainly little kids) from accidentally stumbling across porn.
     
  3. erratum1

    erratum1 New Member

    Joined:
    30 Apr 2009
    Posts:
    1,924
    Likes Received:
    68
    I have no problem ringing up my isp and saying I want to look at porn, but I guess it might be difficult for some.

    I don't think this is about blocking CP cause the filters don't block Tor or p2p, it's more about a child just coming across hardcore porn.

    Google images>search>porn

    Now I wouldn't want my child seeing that !! Would you?

    In the days of dial up before the cp block the search 'lolita' would bring it up.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  4. Woodspoon

    Woodspoon New Member

    Joined:
    10 May 2008
    Posts:
    502
    Likes Received:
    1
    Welcome to china
     
  5. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    Friends of mine discovered their two children (early teens) had five phones between them and a load of sim cards, they have no idea where they got them, we all know kids don't need to use a home PC to access the net.
     
  6. Niftyrat

    Niftyrat Dremel overpriced like EA games

    Joined:
    15 Aug 2010
    Posts:
    95
    Likes Received:
    1
    And when it comes to custody battles I can just see the line "well he turns off the filter on his Internet therefore he should have only supervised access to his own kids... Ya know just in case"

    And this is the danger of such sweeping gestures. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with any of the various agencies, reasonable arguements are not something they accept as they take a guilty first approach
     
  7. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    Well that actually supports the argument for default blocking on all devices.
     
  8. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    But what Cameron is proposing is nothing to do with child abuse, trying to merge illegal pornographic material that we already have laws against with legal pornographic material is something that pro block campaigners will be all to happy to do in an effort to support their argument.
    We already have laws in place to prevent indecent material, and from what i gather search company's already report and remove illegal pornographic material.
     
  9. stuartwood89

    stuartwood89 Please... Just call me Stu.

    Joined:
    20 Aug 2008
    Posts:
    1,566
    Likes Received:
    52
  10. Xir

    Xir Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    26 Apr 2006
    Posts:
    5,307
    Likes Received:
    93
    Isn't that already the case?

    Three points:
    • Correct, no, they don't do it manually, they'll use an algorythm for it, have you been living under a stone these last few weeks or does GCHQ mean anything to you?
    • Nono, it's not Rape-Video's, it Video's of adults consensually playing rape.
      About the difference between a snuff movie and any given action flick
    • So...you propose to ban matches, unless listed as a "Match-user" :naughty:
     
  11. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    Awesome the ~think of the children~ approach to voiding net neutrality and imposing a filter.
     
  12. kingred

    kingred Surfacing sucks!

    Joined:
    27 Mar 2008
    Posts:
    2,462
    Likes Received:
    87
    Immediately disagree and you *have to be a criminal*
     
  13. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were. But obviously you'd rather an unwitting kid came across something it may well find disturbing at that age than make you admit, by having to opt in, that you might want to access porn at all. Hmmm ...


    There is no true net neutrality otherwise websites would never be taken down at all.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  14. Siwini

    Siwini What is 4+no.5?

    Joined:
    14 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    617
    Likes Received:
    33
    They should apply same filters for adult porn also
     
  15. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,446
    Likes Received:
    2,493
    One small correction: the government is making things that are currently legal illegal. In other words, Cameron is precisely saying that you can't access the stuff that is currently legal: do so after the new rules are in place, and you can enjoy a few years pleasuring Her Majesty (I paraphrase) and have to sign one of those pesky "every time something bad happens to a kid within a three-mile radius, we'll be visiting you" registers.

    For reasons why an ill-defined loosening of the definition of 'obscene' - which is already pretty damn loose, thank you very much the Obscene Publications Act - might be bad see the article: if you're banning things the moral majority hate, like simulated rape and gore, where does Hollywood stand? Hell, a big chunk of the sort of porn Cameron is talking about making illegal is a damn sight milder than something like Antichrist. 18 certificate, by the way. You can pick up a copy at Blockbuster, if you want. Providing you've still got one open near you...

    Remember: you don't have to be pro-porn to be anti-stupid-law. The only reason Cameron is starting with The Big Bad Internet and not The Film Industry is because the latter won't get him gushing column inches from the Daily Mail et al.
     
  16. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,542
    Likes Received:
    1,156
    If a kid is searching for that then they most likely know what to expect.

    I sure as **** did when I first started trying to get around parental controls, and in dealing with a fair few home installations of customers, I don't think I've once seen a kids laptop come back with porn in the history until around the teens anyway, bearing in mind we have customers who buy their seven year olds laptops.

    I've, personally, repaired a pair of laptops from a former customer six times for two kids 4 and 7 in the first encounter, and their browsing histories (The father asked us to check whenever we were there, he wasn't convinced the router blocks were working) were clean as a whistle when it came to porn. Not so for game cheat codes, mind you..

    I think there's a degree of over sheltering kids on the assumption that they must all immediately want to look at dicks and tits because they have one or the other. Absurdity in my opinion, and far beyond what's necessary.

    And what about homes where there's one internet connection and dad's turned on the porn for him? What about those kids?

    Should we start filtering porn except until midnight? Because that's when adult TV channels become live on freeview, so that must be porn hour after all.

    Maybe we should all have profiles at our ISP end so we can't possibly look at age inappropriate stuff until the ISP record shows we're old enough?

    Absolutely ridiculous waste of everyone's time and resources as far as I'm concerned.
     
  17. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Well i couldn't be bother to carry on as i guessed most people would know what Cameron proposes is so full of holes and problems it wouldn't need much explaining. But i guess some people cant see the woods for the trees.

    OOoo numbers,cool :brrr:
    Parents can do all they like about it, like not letting there children use the internet without parental control. Trying to draw a comparison between the lack of parental control, and "medical advancement, criminal activity investigation" is just laughable :rolleyes:

    So who is going to decide what my morals are, you ? the government ?

    But we don't pay green energy development subsidies because some people cant be bothered to implement restrictions on what their children can and cant do. the benefits or drawbacks of green energy its self is a much debated topic.

    "sexual proclivities" has nothing to do with it, you only have to look at a List of UK government data losses to know your personal information isn't safe in third party hands.

    Yes indeed it is :lol:, But taking them to court would be a no-no :nono: as they have cut legal aid so unless you are rich you have no chance.

    That is why there is a plethora of software solutions, Windows even comes with parental controls built in. If parents cant be bothered to setup software so little johnny doesn't view what they deem inappropriate why should the onus be put on ISP's and the rest of society ?
     
  18. Carrie

    Carrie Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    18 Nov 2010
    Posts:
    3,183
    Likes Received:
    992
    For the record I'm not anti porn (yes I've watched it more than once) but I am pro blocking because I see it merely as a minor inconvenience and neither as an "oh **** someone might know" nor a "my freedom rights are being eroded!" and frankly I'm not so lazy that I can't tick a box or whatever it'd take to clear the filters if I wanted to.

    That said, I do agree consistency should be applied wherever possible. For example, if simulated rape scenes are banned from legal porn then they should also be from the "Hollywood" film industry. Cos let's face it, if you get your kicks viewing that you'll still get a degree of stimulation from whichever medium it's in since it's all about being in control at someone else's cost, just less graphic. If they're not, then the same rule should apply to both.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
  19. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    No i would prefer the "unwitting kid" to have responsible parents that care about protecting their child from what they deem inappropriate, and not to put that responsibility on the rest of the world.
     
  20. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,446
    Likes Received:
    2,493
    I saw you mention that you didn't want the "slippery slope" argument, but to dismiss that is to dismiss one of the biggest problems with such filtering. We've already seen it with this government: a system of filtering put in place to block access to known genuine child pornography - something nobody could possibly object to - has been expanded to the point where it blocks other content. The Pirate Bay, for example, is now on the same list - meaning you can't access it directly from any UK ISP, even if the thing you're trying to download is perfectly legal like a Linux ISO or the AFK documentary about The Pirate Bay.

    So, we get more mandatory filtering. Again, it starts in a way that nobody could object to: who doesn't want to protect children, eh? Then it spreads. Suddenly, the 'offensive search terms' Cameron is against start to contain more and more words that the government finds offensive. Let's start with "bomb making." Can't let the terrorists win, hey? We can't object to that - unless we're terrorists ourselves! Then it spreads still further. An embarrassing leak shows a government official accepting a bribe, or pocketing thousands in expenses in a time of supposed austerity? Add his name to the list, the problem goes away. At this point the list is big enough that nobody will notice a few naughty additions: let's add Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party et al to that list. Voila: suddenly, the Tories control all the information you can find about the political landscape. Nice!

    It always starts with something the moral majority can get behind. We're near the beginning of the process here. It's up to the proletariat whether this goes by unnoticed, in which case I guarantee things will turn bad very quickly, or gets challenged. And that's even before we consider the filters themselves: easily bypassed, often blocking non-infringing content. Just today, it was noticed that people attempting to use library computers to access the Open Rights Group's statement on the matter were blocked due to "Category: Pornography." The chilling effects have started. Even if you attribute no malice to the government - in which case, I think you may not be aware how modern 'democracy' operates - there's the Scunthorpe effect to worry about. A 'minor inconvenience' to a single-end user is a potentially fatal drop in traffic to a commercial site incorrectly categorised as pornographic by the government's mandatory filtering system.

    You just wait until you need a Digital Munitions Certificate - available on application from your local police office, following fee payment, background check, statements from people who have known you in a professional capacity for five or more years, interview and installation of mandatory monitoring software on your PC - in order to use a VPN. It'll happen, you mark my words. Just look to China for proof of that.

    EDIT: Oh, and one last thing: Cameron has named only one filtering system as being a beacon of light in the Big Dark Internet: that provided by Talk Talk. Despite proof the system doesn't work - it can be bypassed as easily as using Google Image Search, or Google Translate - he's using it in interviews and in official materials regarding his pet project as being the model by which all others should be measured? Now, a more cynical man than I might point out that the founder of Talk Talk is an old school chum of Cameron's - they were in the same class - and that Talk Talk's chief executive has been a prolific donor into Tory party coffers.

    No, wait. A man exactly as cynical as I. Yeah, that's it.
     
    Last edited: 22 Jul 2013
    stonedsurd and Xir like this.

Share This Page