Mass Internet censorship to go live in the UK

[Katzii]

I'm not saying it's right, but I can see they're reasoning.  Really, though, it should--and is--the responsibility of the parent to talk their children about that if this truly is "for the children."

 

But as we already established, it's not.

 

There's no reasoning behind it, though.  The Internet has been around for decades and, up until now, there's been no issue with it corrupting the minds of children.  It's another scaremongering exercise and another scapegoat to turn on instead of addressing the real issue which is that parents don't do their job properly.

 

That, and I bet that Cameron's kiddie was caught looking at porn or something.  Would explain why he's suddenly on this stupid campaign.

[Tani Coyote]

That, and I bet that Cameron's kiddie was caught looking at porn or something.  Would explain why he's suddenly on this stupid campaign.

"How dare my child discover what the world really is instead of the crap we spoonfeed them on Saturday morning cartoons!

Also I want to one day be a grandpa but there's no disconnect here."

Overly protective parents, ugh.

Overly protective parents with political power, double ugh.

[iDEATH]

Another great article dunno if it's been linked to yet

http://www.ultraculture.org/uk-forcing-internet-censorship-even-esoteric-sites/

 

Scariest part is, (all hypothetical of course but we'll see what happens) the idea that we'll be given a list of what we want to have access to (pornography, forums, pro-ana etc etc.) with the added caveat that some may come with a small warning "Your selection may be used against you in court"

 

Now the extent to which this could be used is debatable but it's scary. Wanting a free internet means accepting everything, including sites like terrorist sympathising sites, doesn't mean you'll ever even see them.

If for whatever reason you were to find yourself on trial for something terror related (perhaps for posting a joke on  twitter/facebook as we've seen in the past) will opting in to see terrorism related sites be used against you?

 

There's no link whatsoever between viewing porn and sexual assault. But the government obviously doesn't care about that seeing as their "think of the children" attitude has the same lack of substance. So if someone was falsely accused of rape, would opting into porn be used against them in court.

 

Fucking ludicrous.

[Stacy]

"Its all over now Boys and Girls, thanks to Uncle Jimmy we're all Paedophiles now".

 

Fucking absurd.

[Tara]

There's no reasoning behind it, though.  The Internet has been around for decades and, up until now, there's been no issue with it corrupting the minds of children.  It's another scaremongering exercise and another scapegoat to turn on instead of addressing the real issue which is that parents don't do their job properly.

Well like I said earlier, the internet has only been publicly accessible for what will now be two decades, but it has only recently caught the interest of children and teens.  I'm not attempting to justify the matter by any means, but you can't compare the same issue from the perspective of an internet user in 1993 as you can an internet user from 2013.  There is reason to be concerned.  Suppose the internet never existed and the only way to get porn was through the public library.  If my public library decided to let my children rent porn without any parental consent, I might be a tad outraged.  The internet does not have a librarian to ask for ID cards when checking out adult material, so parents do have to actively monitor their children, which is a little difficult when that's become 80% of just about everything they do.

 

Again, not justifying this measure by any means, nor am I denying that there is indeed a huge political motivation behind it, but to dismiss it as a non-issue, especially by comparing the issue from the perspective of a time before the internet had any sort of practical use, is simply ignorant.  But it is the responsibility of the parent, not the government, as we've all said a million times before.

[Mollfie]

I was flicking through MCV magazine while at work and even they're concerned about how it might affect games.

[Katzii]

Well like I said earlier, the internet has only been publicly accessible for what will now be two decades, but it has only recently caught the interest of children and teens.  I'm not attempting to justify the matter by any means, but you can't compare the same issue from the perspective of an internet user in 1993 as you can an internet user from 2013.  There is reason to be concerned.  Suppose the internet never existed and the only way to get porn was through the public library.  If my public library decided to let my children rent porn without any parental consent, I might be a tad outraged.  The internet does not have a librarian to ask for ID cards when checking out adult material, so parents do have to actively monitor their children, which is a little difficult when that's become 80% of just about everything they do.

 

Again, not justifying this measure by any means, nor am I denying that there is indeed a huge political motivation behind it, but to dismiss it as a non-issue, especially by comparing the issue from the perspective of a time before the internet had any sort of practical use, is simply ignorant.  But it is the responsibility of the parent, not the government, as we've all said a million times before.

 

There's still not a justification there.  It's not that children and teens have just "recently become interested" in the Internet at all; it's that it's become a mainstream thing universally.  Twelve years ago, when I first got the Internet at home, it was a niche thing; now nearly everyone has it.

 

At the end of the day, if you have a kid, you have a responsibility to do what's right by that kid, which includes ensuring their Internet is safe.  It's not for the rest of the country to become babysitters and have to lose out just because parents are too irresponsible to either filter their own internet, or tell their kids to go outside and play, or read a book, or something else.  So really, it is a non-issue that shouldn't be made an issue.  As usual, technology is a scapegoat for something that firmly lies in human error.

[Conando]

Wow, I was hearing about this on the Daily Show, Colbert Report, and Conan. I thought it absurd just at the porn blocking bit, but it's going to block out anything that isn't family friendly? How is that even legal? Saying "well people can opt out of it" isn't good enough; this is like China levels of shit right there. It undoubtedly also sets a precedent. I really hope some judge with balls overturns this for you, my British friends.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Wreck-It Ralph

[Tani Coyote]

I really hope some judge with balls overturns this for you, my British friends.

Doing some quick research, judicial review is very weak in the UK; it only applies to acts by lower bodies and not by Parliament (unless Parliament's law is in violation of European Union law; even then it cannot compel Parliament to fix the discrepancy). The Supreme Court is meaningless as it cannot invalidate Parliamentary decrees, and while the House of Lords can delay legislation and request reconsideration, they cannot block a law entirely.

My guess is the House of Lords' aristocratic and clerical roots, and original function as a Court of sorts, left a bad taste in the UK public's mouth for unelected, separate judiciaries. From what I can gather it appears the Lords advise rather than rule; politics being what it is, it goes without saying such a power has little value.

Which really is a shame. Short of scaring the ruling coalition's pants off with threats of voting in Labor or something, there's no way to block this.

Wasn't there some attempt to redistrict Britain so the Conservatives could secure more of the seats they currently hold or something?

Edited August 2, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[iDEATH]

Which really is a shame. Short of scaring the ruling coalition's pants off with threats of voting in Labor or something, there's no way to block this.

 

I honestly don't think that even this would help. I think (by which I mean, I hope to god) that the Tories' days are numbered. This government has been an absolute joke. The past few years living in the uk have felt like a slow decline into a dystopia. If this country has any sense then there's no way the tories will be re-elected.

So what's the problem? Well, if this does come to pass, and the internet in the uk is subject to censorship dictated by the government, then no party has any reason to get rid of it. No matter what party takes the Tories place, they're going to have stuff they want to hide and a censored internet is suited to their needs.

If this does come to pass, it's going to be hell trying to rid ourselves of it....

[Tani Coyote]

I honestly don't think that even this would help. I think (by which I mean, I hope to god) that the Tories' days are numbered. This government has been an absolute joke. The past few years living in the uk have felt like a slow decline into a dystopia. If this country has any sense then there's no way the tories will be re-elected.

So what's the problem? Well, if this does come to pass, and the internet in the uk is subject to censorship dictated by the government, then no party has any reason to get rid of it. No matter what party takes the Tories place, they're going to have stuff they want to hide and a censored internet is suited to their needs.

If this does come to pass, it's going to be hell trying to rid ourselves of it....

 

For me the biggest reason to be pessimistic would be all the tyrants who assumed absolute power via a democratic mandate. It really goes to show the voting public has no real sense of long-term thinking or in many cases respect for democracy. While Britain has a long democratic history and so I wouldn't say we need to worry about a dictatorship of any sort, that isn't to say there aren't ways to trim around the edges, slowly invading privacy rights and making it harder to keep the government accountable.

 

You don't need to control the public's votes, only their access to information. Sun Tzu wasn't just describing war when he said information was crucial to victory; it applies to any conflict, whether economic, political or military. Consider how, for example, different things would be if not for the recent leak of illegal government surveillance over here. We'd be none the wiser to the fact we were being watched, and we wouldn't do a thing to keep the government in line. An ignorant populace is the best thing any politician can ask for, as it removes the threat of that pesky thing called elections. Every time a politician was thrown out, it was almost always because of something the population knew about and disproved of... what if that never happened?

 

We can see why North Korea engages in such active propaganda. Would we have voted out the Republicans if we were told troop deaths overseas only totaled a few dozen, if the economy was roaring, if Katrina had been a miraculous success for federal emergency forces? 

 

There's a vicious cycle here. While parliamentary supremacy allows this to be easily overturned, sufficient censorshipt restricts the flow of information to a point any new party could say they would repeal it, never do so, and the population would be none the wiser. The moment censorship wins, democracy loses.

Edited August 2, 2013 by Ogilvie Maurice

[Badnik Mechanic]

So the first filter went online the other week.

 

And remember how I said it would impact non porn sites? Well guess what. The porn filter is blocking tons of non adult websites.

 

BishUK which is a Sexual Health website for young people has been blocked. The owner of the website wasn't even notified his site had been declared 'unsafe' by BT.

 

However, it's not just sexual health sites which have been blocked. It also considers the following porn sites...

 

 Doncaster Domestic Abuse Helpline

Reducing The Risk (a site about domestic abuse)

 

And it's not just BT's porn filter... TalkTalk's porn filter thinks that this site is a porn site.

 

 Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre

 

Source: BBC

[SnipSnap]

Ok, automated stuff blocking the wrong things is really getting on my nerves...

[Debug Ring]

So, they've blocked people who are concerned about their health, possible domestic abuse, and rape victims from getting the help they could do with? Now come on, that's just plain fucking wrong.

[Vertekins]

Let Assclown Cameron dig himself into a deeper hole I say.

 

This once great country is better off without him when the voters who aren't thick as pig crap finally kick his incompetent ass out of Parliament.

[Lady Soniko]

Just thought I'd drop in and say TalkTalk are dishing out the "you need to tell us to remove the adult/parent lock, or manually knock them off in your settings if you are the administrator of your account" type deal.

 

I know they said they would do this when they first brought up the censorship in the beginning, but it seems to be taking effect rather sooner than later.

[Stacy]

Use proxies and tell Mr. Cameron to:

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoXfiSU_wqE

[Lady Soniko]

Don't really need to since I'm the admin of our home internet, so I just toggled Parental Controls back to "off" and I have access to all the content from the dark corners of the net again haha.

 

Besides most proxy sites don't support flash or shockwave playback, so videos are out of the question.

[Tara]

My main concern would be people who want to research these topics at the library or a public setting, where these kind of controls would most logically be utilized.  Basically, imagine this predicament:  A woman is in an abusive relationship.  She wants to find help, but the censorship prohibits her from searching at home.  Her husband pays the bills so she can't ask him to have their ISP unlock the parental controls, because naturally he'll ask why.  Imagine said husband is extremely bull-headed (which many abusive spouses are), so there are only two choices of replies that he'll probably believe:  "I need it so I can visit the domestic abuse hotline," which will set him off, or "I need it so I can look at porn," which will also probably set him off.

 

So the woman does the smart thing and makes a stop at her local library in hopes that she can access the website from there.  Oops!  It's been blocked there, too!  Well, that sure is an unfortunate circumstance that couldn't have been prevented at al- oh wait, yes it could have.  Even if you can just ask your ISP to disable the parental controls and such, it's not as easy as that.  This legislation, rather intentionally or otherwise, has the potential to make life harder for people who are clearly suffering, and that is what I am against first and foremost.

[iDEATH]

If you want advice on dealing with rape, you're a dirty fucking pervert!!

 

This is embarrassing, but in the ISP's and David Cameron's defense, nobody could have seen this coming......oh wait...no...literally everyone with half a brain seen this coming.....every-fucking-one.....

 

This whole thing is a fucking joke....

[SuperLink]

I don't know if the thing even works properly because I have BT and none of these websites are blocked for me, I haven't come across a single blocked site anywhere else either and I didn't have to change any setting or anything.

 

Weird.

[JezMM]

I'm on BT too and have noticed zero change.  Maybe they auto detect whether you'd want it depending on how much dirty content you look up.

 

I mean um

[Amomynous]

Seriously, I have a hard time wrapping my head around politics, I've tried, when they all explain what they're party is about it seems reasonable and actually about running the country but in practice they do all kinds of weird stuff they don't tell you about and I'm honestly left wondering who really stands for what. But seriously  I think I'm gonna vote just to get David Cameron out of here.