Wikipedia Censorship

seems like o2/Be are blocking this

If so use open DNS, Infact use it anyway as o2/Be own DNS servers are crap.
 
Changing DNS servers won't help, they're not faking the DNS results, they're actually re-routing IP traffic (something only an ISP can really do).
 
Burnsy2023 said:
So who is going to complain to their ISP? If I have time I'll write a strongly worded email/letter.
Click to expand...

I would, but I was running a TOR Exit Node for 6 months or so, I've not really got a leg to stand on to yell at them for breaking/obscuring T&Cs. While not illegal and while it's morally justified, being a TOR Exit Node is almost certainly against the T&Cs.
 
Burnsy2023 said:
So who is going to complain to their ISP? If I have time I'll write a strongly worded email/letter.
Click to expand...
Post a template here and we can all have a mass protest. Not that it'll do any good mind - this is, after all, government sponsored censorship by the back door. The best we can probably hope for is that they'll fix the implementation so that Wikipedia is no longer broken.

PS - as I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with the principle (implementing countermeasures against online child pornography). I do however have a problem with the application in this particular case (censoring the image itself rather than the text would be an improvement, though only a very minor one given the proliferation of other sites showing the image - Amazon included).
 
Berserker said:
PS - as I've said elsewhere, I don't have a problem with the principle (implementing countermeasures against online child pornography). I do however have a problem with the application in this particular case (censoring the image itself rather than the text would be an improvement, though only a very minor one given the proliferation of other sites showing the image - Amazon included).
Click to expand...

I think a message to say the site has been blocked because of illegal material is also important rather than just a 404.
 
VeNT said:
drawing VS photo

cos it's drawn it must be art, not porn
Click to expand...

In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it. Indecency is to be interpreted by a jury, who should apply the recognised standards of propriety. A child is a person who has not reached the age of 18.

Under UK law, an image that appears to be a photograph of a child, but is not a photograph, is referred to as a "pseudo-photograph". It is also illegal to make, distribute, show or possess with a view to showing or distributing an indecent pseudo-photograph of a child, under the Protection of Children Act. As of the commencement of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, this prohibition will be extended to encompass "tracings" of photographs. [74] In 2008, the Government announced further plans to criminalise all non-realistic sexual images depicting under-18s.
Click to expand...

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/05/28/government_outlaws_pictures/
 
Burnsy2023 said:
That worries me. I think child porno is sick and very wrong, but this will just end up criminalising art. If it's non realistic, then what's the issue? Will writing about it become illegal too?



I always misuse that word :(
Click to expand...

Reading the article it does indeed suggest the next step is to make writing illegal too.

I just read the link on the bottom about "sexually suggestive texting" gets you up to 10 years :eek:

The offence will be committed if someone sends an unsolicited text message to someone else which a court finds was designed to give the sender sexual gratification or to humiliate, distress or alarm the receiver.
Click to expand...

Now when my current gf and I, and previous girlfiriends have sent "rude" texts to each other it has quite often been with the intention that I got sexual gratification from it.

The world is slowly going mad.............:(
 
Aod said:
remote-desktopping into my uni account it works fine, but it doesn't work in my res.

honestly, i think all this fuss is ridiculous.

whats more ridiculous is that if you view the wikinews page about this debacle:

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British..._Wikipedia_amid_child_pornography_allegations

the offending album cover is there, and viewable.
Click to expand...

And the link to the film, Child Bride which even shows the famous skinning dipping picture of the naked under age girl which cause controversy at the time of release.

That picture is far more shocking than the album cover and definitely falls within "child pornography" IMO.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom