LoL, just LOL
as title (plus a faceslap)
Since the start of this year it has become clear that the UK government has shifted from a hands-off approach to censoring content online by leaving ISPs to work out an agreed code that would prevent regulatory intervention. So-called Active Choice - whereby a subscriber gets to choose whether or not to block websites …
This post has been deleted by its author
Unless you're muslim. And I don't mean this being racist, but.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html
Apparently ignorance is a defence. (Sorry for the daily fail link, first one I found)
@AC 10:32
I read the article and the defence was that he was poorly educated in a closed society. This could have been *any* closed secular society as far as I can tell, but in this case it was a muslim school he went to.
Do you see the difference between leading your comment with 'muslim' and adding it as a point of note at the end?
If she can somehow manipulate the situation to involve a word of 'national security' then she could get this heard in a secret court where the claimant won't be represented, he'll only get told about the result.
Then the secret court can issue an order for him not to mention the case, and if he does he can be sent to prison for contempt of courst *without legal representation*.
Farfetched? It's happening in this country right now - the only thing missing are the black bags but I believe they are on order.
Look , you can disable it - so what's the problem.
Compare with speeding, for a moment. As no one can control a driver's speed, that means we shouldn't have speed limits??? And yes, the results of speeding and the more unpleasant aspects of the pr0n industry can be very simliar.
The filtering solution isn't going to be 100% perfect, but given time, it will improve.
But it has already been alluded to that the "powers that be" will be able to find out who has disabled the filter. Imagine you're trying to adopt, and you get refused... Turns out you're considered unsuitable as a potential parent because you turned off the filter. Or not given custody to your child, or turned down for a job as a teacher, etc....
Scaremongering?
To avoid government censorship one has to explicitly put their name on what is likely to be regarded as 'The Pervert List'.
The government doesn't exactly have great form when it comes to keeping lists and databases secure.
I give it a year before the entire thing is left on an unencrypted laptop on the tube.
"To avoid government censorship one has to explicitly put their name on what is likely to be regarded as 'The Pervert List'."
I hate to raise Godwin but does this remind anyone of the gay and lesbian box on the 1935 German census to prevent discrimination because of gender preference?
Turned out to have other uses.
You know, it occurs that this whole "naughty list" tack misses the point. If things were done the other way round, they'd have a list of everyone who does have filtering, so the set of those who don't is is also identifiable by anyone with a copy of the Electoral Roll, by elimination. Any nationwide filter by its very existence rules out obscurity for the refuseniks.
Icon: well, maybe it was just too bleedin' obvious for anyone to bother explicitly mentioning...
Dude, it's unlikely to be even 1% effective, it's going to be fucking expensive and it's introducing a mechanism whereby the government can start to censor anything they like. Given the lovely new censorship tools Our Glorious Leader and his successors witll then have their sweaty hands on, how long you you really think it will take until it becomes compulsory?
Yeah, coz there's no chance of mission-creep is there? Our Government would never do that, would they?
It's not like they have form for that, is it? They'd never, for example, user anti-terror legislation to catch people who didn't pick up their dog's excretions, would they?
(a different AC)
If you're going to compare it to speed limits, at least get the comparison right...
We have laws against exploitation etc = laws against speeding
They are wanting to do the internet equivalent of putting a governor on every car that is set to limit to a speed the gubermunt thinks is safe (ie 10mph?). With no concern for where or who is driving.
But it's alright because if you can work out how to, you can remove the governor... but 'they' will know that you've done so and therefore every policeman you see will be reaching for his speed gun because you're obviously a lunatic intent on causing destruction and mayhem.
AC #2 or #3 -
"But it's alright because if you can work out how to, you can remove the governor... but 'they' will know that you've done so and therefore every policeman you see will be reaching for his speed gun because you're obviously a lunatic intent on causing destruction and mayhem."
Nono, it's that the average 3 year old knows how to not only remove the governor but also drive at 300mph on country lanes in full view of the cops without them being able to do anything about it.
That's why it's such a massive waste of money. It's not that it'll help stop some kids "accidentally" stumbling upon porn as some clueless reg columnist suggested the other day (i've never accidentally stumbled upon porn accidentally in my life, on or off the internet) - it's that it will be completely 100% transparent to anybody over the age of 5. And it totally skirts round any chance of parliamentary discussion on the issue because instead of legislating he's scared the slimiest of our ISPs into doing it *without* any legislation.
It *is* a total clusterfuck, there can be no doubt. A damn Chinese clusterfuck at that - one that totally removes our ability to take the moral high-ground when talking about freedom in discussions with them too.
Also don't talk about scaremongering when posting as AC - makes you look like an idiot (had to be said - what are we scared of?).
(i've never accidentally stumbled upon porn accidentally in my life, on or off the internet)
I have, back in the day you used to find it in hedges, and sometimes it'd fall out as you were walking by. Skinned my knee and now whenever I see tits I get excited and upset at the same time.
Hows that for a 'knee-jerk' reaction
In all seriousness though, I've never stumbled across it on the www. without looking. Little easier to do on some of the other internets but given this filter won't apply to them it's kind of a moot point
Edit: How'd that apostrophe get there?
Quite right, Anonymous Coward. Why, just the other day, I was casually surfing the web, when I found myself confronted by a wealth of grot; before I knew it, I'd accidentally caused the deaths of three children, and maimed a dog.
My wife was livid when the penalty notice came through the post.
> Look , you can disable it - so what's the problem.
Today you can. That may not be the case in the future, especially once the web sites that don't agree with the government position get added to the censor list.
Once filtering is at the network level it is totally out of your control. It can be turned on without telling you, and returns a 404 for a site on the list so it just looks like it's dead. The list of censored sites is not published, and there is no review process.
Quote
TalkTalk's Homesafe.... harvests all the URL's
All in the interests of keep a few web pages out of the eyes of children.
How long before NoTalkTalk decides that ElReg should be on the blacklist then?
and don't try to tell me that even if you switch the filter off ALL your web pages still won't be logged by this package....