David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

Australia did this a while back and their Block List was leaked, it didn't just have illegal Porn sites. The Thai Govt. also blocked a lot of Political sites criticising the Thai Royals under the guise of Child protection...

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Leaked_Australian_blacklist_reveals_banned_sites

Anyone who thinks this action by the UK Govt. is about protecting children from Porn and not about Internet Censorship is extremely naiive.
 
doofer said:
Australia did this a while back and their Block List was leaked, it didn't just have illegal Porn sites. The Thai Govt. also blocked a lot of Political sites criticising the Thai Royals under the guise of Child protection...

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/Leaked_Australian_blacklist_reveals_banned_sites

Anyone who thinks this action by the UK Govt. is about protecting children from Porn and not about Internet Censorship is extremely naiive.
Click to expand...

Why would they go through all this effort when they just need to add items to the IWF list instead? That could be done in a much more covert way than a big public announcement which comes down to ISPs pre-checking a tick box.
 
sajtion said:
i am in favour of this and think porn should be banned altogether. the kind of stuff kids and even young adults are exposed is terrible. it can totally mess up the mind. i say good riddance to pornography. i think this society has gone bonkus judging by all the amateur things people post online. yuck
Click to expand...

This is how all men feel in that hollow post fap split second of self disgust and worthlessness. Don't worry, it'll pass.
 
Tinfoilhat

The establishment has historically been able to control the information flow to us loyal citizens via print media and the small selection of tramsmitted information streams. The most popular newspaper in the country backed a party for an election, they would probably win. If one side of, say, a key refferendum decision was given more media space, it would probably be voted for. The mainstream adoption of the internet has changed that. It's fair to say that the current batch of 'non-mainstrem' political parties (UKIP) along with fringe groups such as the EDL would not have achieved the success they have without the existence of the net.
The mainstream parties are terrified of this, because they know that unregulated information flow will eventually lead to their own demise. They are being challenged on a scale not seen before. They know their own idiocy is being exposed. Thus, to ensure their own survival it is essential they restrict what information we can obtain.
Start with porn. Surely no logical person will stand up and make a convincing argument as to why children shouldn't be prevented from watching rape porn!!! What a monster!!! Facts are irrelevant, emotion wins out.
Thus, the system is in place.
Inevitable scope creep will eventually morph it into what they actually want.

They want to be able to tell you what you need to know. they don't want you able to research whatever you want whenever you want.

/hatoffoil
 
No disputing that information is one aspect of power & people who currently possess power seek to consolidate whatever advantage they have.

Controlling the flow of information makes sense if your goal is based around the maintenance & acquisition of control.

The internet is just technology, it's got the potential to educate & engage the global population in meaningful conversations & able to provide vast quantities of information on a myriad of subjects - in theory allowing for us to advance the political system & expand our minds.

Unfortunately it also has the potential to allow unsavoury groups almost unlimited spying potential & the ability to spread misinformation.

Not that they should be so concerned to be honest, most of the population are too busy posting inane face-book posts about some mediocre experience, masturbate uncontrollably & constantly or spending half the evening looking at pictures of cats in hats - when they finally do something a little more cerebral it tends to fall into the same confirmation bias traps & tends to fall further from the reality of the situation.
 
Last edited:
UK porn filter: 5 reasons it won’t work

Source:http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinions/cameron-porn-block-5-technological-reasons-it-can-t-work

6K96mw2.jpg
<--------- Idiot

Pornography will be blocked from every UK home and across public Wi-Fi services according to plans announced on Monday by Conservative prime minister David Cameron. Those still wishing to access pornography will need to speak with their Internet Service Provider (ISP) to opt back in.

In a speech Mr Cameron said the move was taken to crack down on child pornography as well as limiting access to pornography to “protect our children and their innocence."

In addition to the block, Mr Cameron said videos streamed online will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops. Search engines have until October to implement stronger filters to block access to illegal content, and police and experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will have greater powers to trace illegal content and examine file sharing networks.

The new laws will come into practice for all new ISP customers by the end of 2013 while existing customers must be contacted by their ISP and asked whether they wish to use “family-friendly filters” or not.

Since the announcement supporters and objectors have been in strong voice. Supporters backing the protection argue it will give to children and less technologically aware families. Detractors citing the evils of censorship, the moral stigma created by opting against the filters, the shifting of responsibility from good parenting and the hypocrisy of the government’s funding cuts to CEOP last year.

We have a bigger complaint: the new laws suggest politicians don’t understand technology. Consequently - for better or worse - the measures taken to enforce them will fail. Here are the reasons why:
Click to expand...


Reason #1: Filters DON'T work

ImH72Fm.png


The subject may be controversial, but we have been here before with another equally polarising topic: piracy.

Due to legal rulings, ISPs were last year required to block access to prominent piracy sites and for search engines to filter results.

While this may dissuade the most casual of pirates, a quick search will reveal numerous ways to get around these blocks from VPNs (Virtual Private Networks), DNS patches, web proxies, alternative addresses to access the sites in question, browser extensions, anonymous browsers like Tor (simplified version of how it works pictured above), smartphone apps and even via a hack using Google Translate!

The result? In April, illegal downloads of Game of Thrones broke piracy records.

In short, even effectively deployed filters are easily bypassed whether it be for piracy or pornography.
Click to expand...


Reason #2: ISPs are an ineffective police

The final sentence to Reason #1 is particularly pertinent here because even though “effectively deployed filters” are easily circumvented, most ISPs are in no position to effectively deploy them in the first place.

The prevalence of pornography has fuelled the new laws, but prevalence also reflects demand and no ISP has the resources - either in manpower or financial - to keep a lid on it all. “It’s technically not possible,” said Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico to the Telegraph. Furthermore, what isn’t blocked rises straight to the top and most likely stems from the darkest and least well trodden areas of the Internet.

Equally problematic are the mistakes that will happen. “Blocking lawful pornography content ... will lead to the blocking of access to legitimate content” argues Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of ISP industry body ISPA. “It is only effective in preventing inadvertent access.”
Click to expand...


Reason #3: Free software does a job better

Moralists will argue that taking the responsibility for what children surf away from parents and placing it on ISPs encourages neglectful parenting. Whether or not this is true from a technological standpoint the bigger concern is it will push more effective, free filtering software into the background.

To their credit much of this software is already supplied by the majority of ISPs including Virgin Media (Virgin Media Security), BT (NetProtect Plus), Sky (McAfee Parental Controls), TalkTalk (HomeSafe) and many more. There are also family filters built into Windows and Mac OS X as well as the majority of smartphone platforms.

In addition, most third-party routers have integrated parental controls these days and Cloud platforms like Linksys Smart WiFi and D-Link’s mydlink can be controlled from any location with a web browser. Furthermore, all these services let parents tailor settings to their own preferences, limit content based on time of day, specific devices and so forth.

By contrast, the new laws tell families to either block pornographic access for everyone in the household or grant access to everyone in the household. It is a blunt instrument that risks giving parents a false sense of security when better control is already at their fingertips.
Click to expand...


Reason #4: Impacts net neutrality

kUR01ex.jpg


The secretary general of ISPA has already said the new laws “will lead to the block of access to legitimate content” and this means a system of white listing innocent sites must be undertaken.

Where the line is drawn - soft pornography, lads’ mags, tabloids, lingerie shops, galleries, social media websites… - is already a problem, but it also favours the larger sites who will be vetted more quickly.

The concern is this creates a two tier internet where there is no hope of vetting every possible website that may sail within touching distance of a ban. How not? According to Domo (graphic right) last year there were 48 hours of new YouTube video, 571 new websites, 347 new Wordpress blogs, 27,778 new Tublr blogs, 3,600 new Instagram photos and 684,478 new pieces of content uploaded to Facebook every minute.

As such only broad strokes can possibly be used with the major corporations getting preferential treatment while a small online gallery specialising in artistic nudes, for example, may go out of business.

Net neutrality is the principle that all data on the internet is treated equally by ISPs and governments. As battered as it is by search engine rankings and piracy blocks, it cannot remotely hope to exist under the new pornography laws.
Click to expand...


5. Private networks are child pornography’s distribution system

While minors’ inadvertent access to pornography is deeply concerning, child pornography is clearly the deeper evil and it is hard to see from a technological standpoint how the new laws can better control it.

“[Child pornography is] invariably shared over private networks and not found by a simple image search,” argues Daniel Foster, founder of web hosts 34SP.com. “History shows us that they will be quicker at keeping this target moving than law enforcement will be at catching it.”

Where the new laws may have some success, however, are the greater search powers given to both CEOP and the police to examine file transfer networks, but they will likely run into strong opposition on privacy grounds.

That aside it is hard to see how the majority of the new laws can successfully address child pornography or children’s access to pornography and they may in fact do more harm than good.
Click to expand...


Read more at http://www.trustedreviews.com/opinio...arHks7IHz2Z.99
 
gothic_hobbit said:
Everyone should sign this :

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Click to expand...

Was just about to post it again. I'm pretty sure if we shared this on twitter/facebook we could each get a few people to sign in. I really don't get why this hasn't caught everyone's attention more. This does nothing to combat child porn but everything to censor the internet because of one mans gripe with 2 people (sometimes more) having sex on camera.
 
After thinking about this for a few days where's the harm.

If you still want "open internet" you can no problem the list will be 100 000s long believe me.

It might actually stop children from entering sites at an early age (ok when they are in their teens they will but it won't be accidental ;) ) and the people who do go on the list might actually think about getting said filters for their kids in any case.
 
jas72 said:
After thinking about this for a few days where's the harm.

If you still want "open internet" you can no problem the list will be 100 000s long believe me.

It might actually stop children from entering sites at an early age (ok when they are in their teens they will but it won't be accidental ;) ) and the people who do go on the list might actually think about getting said filters for their kids in any case.
Click to expand...

The harms is a slippery slope that we started to fall rapidly into with "TURRURUSM" laws.

Not only that but the children today are many folds better than the adults of yesterday when it comes to technology adoption, literally nothing other than a police state will satisfy the need to protect "children".
 
im suprised how little "uproar" there is on a computer forum about this...

Are people really happy to take this ? Or simply dont care ?

Reckon we can have a poll with some sensible options to vote...?
 
David Cameron should watch this!!!! ;)

Warning Adults only!!! (not sure if i will get the mod hammer for this!!!) :rolleyes:

Youtube "Doug stanhope on child abuse on the internet" :p
 
Last edited:
Hold the phone:

Pornography will be blocked from every UK home and across public Wi-Fi services according to plans announced on Monday by Conservative prime minister David Cameron. Those still wishing to access pornography will need to speak with their Internet Service Provider (ISP) to opt back in.

In a speech Mr Cameron said the move was taken to crack down on child pornography as well as limiting access to pornography to “protect our children and their innocence."

In addition to the block, Mr Cameron said videos streamed online will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops. Search engines have until October to implement stronger filters to block access to illegal content, and police and experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) will have greater powers to trace illegal content and examine file sharing networks.

The new laws will come into practice for all new ISP customers by the end of 2013 while existing customers must be contacted by their ISP and asked whether they wish to use “family-friendly filters” or not.

Since the announcement supporters and objectors have been in strong voice. Supporters backing the protection argue it will give to children and less technologically aware families. Detractors citing the evils of censorship, the moral stigma created by opting against the filters, the shifting of responsibility from good parenting and the hypocrisy of the government’s funding cuts to CEOP last year.

We have a bigger complaint: the new laws suggest politicians don’t understand technology. Consequently - for better or worse - the measures taken to enforce them will fail. Here are the reasons why:
Click to expand...

So they are distracting us with the porn angle and still attempting to get a SOPA'esque thing into law.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom