News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Something to think about:

All this pro-filtering argument is "think of the children!"; if that is the case, why don't we think about the world and government we are leaving behind for them? would you want to have grown up in a world where your parents are gradually trading away your future rights and protections for the sake of a little more reassurance that they are 'safe'?

for all that people malign the Star Wars prequels, the one thing Lucas got fantastically right was demonstrating how the need to fulfill our short term goals can lead us down a path where the long result is the very thing we fear most.

the onus when it comes to the internet is on the client side. the internet is such a vast web of information that asking an intermediary to filter it is both asinine and technically wasteful, effective client-side blocking tools should be opt-in and available to parents, but the burden is on them as responsible parents to make sure that their child is safe.

 

@miller, That is why we have the Obscene Publications Law, and the Protection of Children Act 1978
I am not arguing for a totally unrestricted internet, just one that adheres to current laws.

 

I have to agree with Gareth and others here, none of what he says is tin-hat; as he says, you only have to look to history to see what large organizations and governments do with such powers. Usually we get to find out much later as the scope of the misuse is buried. The perpetrators then get off scott free after some whimsical 'investigation' that costs us millions.

There are numerous ways to filter porn & adult themes, DNS filtering setup on your router, Windows 7+ integrated family safety, third party software. All it takes is for parents to spend half an hour at most to set up some protection or get someone in to do it for them. As for mobile devices, perhaps don't buy your young kids an internet enabled device, or better still legislate for better family safety controls to be implemented into said devices.

There is no need for this invasion of privacy, something that will end up being used for other means.

Edit:

As this means for new contracts, you will have the 12 million+ contracts that have not been changed in the last year and the 5 million contracts that have never been changed not being enforced. IPS's hate to remind their customers to update their contract as they are most likely still paying for a 10MB line @ 100MB line price.

 

Heres my piece. I dont care. Comment of the day.

 

Oh christ, don't talk to me about those arses. I go over there on occasion for work. No hotmail, facebook, twitter etc. Pretty much any site strongly associated with the west is blocked up harder than me after a night of all you can eat meat buffet!

 

Woo, immodest ironic apathy, that'll win out

 

Good man! That comment also applies to the Royal baby.

 

I can see the banners now!
Don't be a t022er....vote conservative......

 

I don't really have an issue with this, and I don't see why anyone else does :/

I imagine I'd currently opt out of any filtering on my home broadband connection, but I've never bothered to enable adult content on my phone.

But that's sort of irrelevant. All this is doing is attempting to give some measure of choice as to whether or not you want adult content freely available on your home computers, the same way Sky restricts adult channels. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't give them the code to watch porn on TV and I won't give them the code to watch porn on the internet.

This doesn't restrict choice, it offers it.

 

I just wonder how this will apply to sites that aren't exclusively pornographic but do have some content, e.g. reddit and their r/gonewild (and others).

 

Read what others have said about why this is a bad idea, in other words

I find it difficult to believe much has changed from six months ago, when...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746

 

If you're going to become a parent I would like to think you would use one of the many bits of kits out there just now that allow you to filter content instead of letting the government decide what your child can and can't see online.

Not that any of these filters will do any good of course.

 

As posted in another thread.


Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746

 

I have to admit, this announcement shows a level of sophistication I had not expected from the government. Without a hint of irony, I can say that this is a very smart move.

 

Thing is the more something is blocked, the harder people work to find ways around. Then you end up with things like Tor, or other private VPN's that can't be monitored.

Personally I've got no worries about pronz being blocked, I'm not interested in that side of the internet, but where would these internet policing acts stop?

 

Except the default choice should be open access.

I don't live in the UK and this law doesn't (shouldn't?) affect me, but as a citizen of a country with its own warped cyber-laws, I urge all you UK residents to oppose this nonsense. Gareth is bang on with his slippery slope arguments - it took almost no time at all for ruling political parties here in India to start abusing the IT Act of 2000, which began life innocently enough as a framework within which to pursue cybercrime.

After a set of amendments in 2008, the Act was invoked by MPs, political parties and the generally well-connected to suppress freedom of speech, control the flow of information, and block websites at will.

In eight years I cannot recall a single time the IT Act was invoked to prevent or prosecute a cybercrime, but I've lost count of the amount of times it's been misused and abused by those in power. Again, I hate to sound melodramatic, but please consider writing to your representatives or signing petitions or doing whatever works to turn the clock back on this dickery.

 

And then when they have mastered untraceability (because they were forced to), some of the less wholesome members of society will use this new found ability to view illegal material. Illegal material which they hadn't really thought about beforehand, but now nobody can see what they're doing.

 

I can see internet, government and ISP chaos in the future because tragically we know that despite all these safe guards being put in place there will be another Mark Bridger who will commit a child murder after viewing illegal content.

Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?
The government would love that as they could monitor everyone legally for a change and just keep quoting the old "If your innocent you've nothing to worry about" mantra.

 

Why do I have a feeling some ISPs will manage to trick people in to paying extra for "bonus safety features"?