David Cameron's Internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep

by iamben • 13 years ago

321 205 13 years ago

The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software"

WTF

cjrp3• 13 years ago

"Respect for a partner" is another WTF topic:

http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/3_Scr...

GotAnyMegadeth2• 13 years ago

Wow, that whole section is staggeringly stupid. Is that seriously going to be blocked? Seriously?

blueskin_8• 13 years ago

The other WTF BT did is implying being gay/lesbian is a 'lifestyle choice'.

FuzzyDunlop• 13 years ago

This already happens on Giff-Gaff (a mobile network) and is opt-out only. It's not uncommon to find out a security-related blog on the front page of HN is blocked by the filter, and sites for projects like Metasploit are also blocked.

It's silly.

blueskin_8• 13 years ago

All mobile networks have this censorship, but it was easy to opt out of, and the censorship is very sloppily implemented (for me, changing DNS servers or using any trivial proxy bypassed it before I opted out).

jackweirdy3• 13 years ago

Obviously, living in a house of 5 male students, I won't opt into this.

I will be sending my MP a weekly write up of what we've been watching though. I hope you join me! (In writing, that is)

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

Great idea. I may be joining you in that.

Although the links will probably have a lot of pornography in that since i can bypass it pretty easily without opting out.

But since they really want to know I'm going to give them a list.

retube2• 13 years ago

Oh give me a f*cking break. Attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography on the internet is no different than attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography via other media - magazines, video, television etc.

We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is.

It may be badly implemented, it may be impractical, it may have issues, but lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit.

The Guardian is just churning out more bollox tailored to the world view of it's largely young, largely left-wing, largely public sector readership who believe David Cameron and the Tory party is some sort of devil incarnate.

jsilence• 13 years ago

I wish I could downvote.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

Engaging in the discussion is a better way to get the karma that allows you to downvote.

Why do you think parent comment is wrong?

da_n• 13 years ago

lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit

Before the Snowden leaks anyone who said something about government mass surveillance was some tin-foil hat wearing crack pot. This is no longer true, this is no longer a conspiracy theory it is mainstream. If you still sincerely believe that the government is doing this 'for the children' then you are incredibly naive.

weland2• 13 years ago

We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is.

Except that these rules explicitly targeted only that: the actual distribution of pornography.

This one, on the other hand, is aimed at something a lot broader (protecting children) and can block access not only to unauthorized distribution of pornography, but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others. It's a God-given tool to a conservative government.

A lot of the things we take for granted now are actually far newer than we could imagine. Much of the outrage over the anti-abortion law in Spain was grounded in information that the younger generation can readily access over the Internet, but was far harder to obtain thirty or fourty years ago. Not just pro- and con- opinions from wannabe bloggers, but solid medical and physiological data, life experiences of women who had to go through it and philosophical debates.

The younger generation is a lot less meek than their parents and grandparents were, and a lot more politically unwieldy, precisely because of the ease with which they can obtain the knowledge they need in order to make a decision. Not an objective one, mind you; the Internet isn't an oracle of impartial information. But a decision people are comfortable with. It's hard not to bring up the 1984 mantra on this one.

Edit: it's also worth pointing out something else, which I learned back when they didn't filter porn where I live -- they filtered every single thing the government didn't like (and the list was long) -- and they didn't do it on the Internet (because there was no internet back then).

The Internet is big. It's so mind-bogglingly big that I am astounded at it, every single day, and every time I think I probably know enough of it to be considered a well-traveled Internaut, something comes up and slaps me back to my senses.

Most underage porn viewers will simply stroll to the well-known websites. Xvideos, Redtube, whatever. There are websites where everyone knows they're under heavy scrutiny from the law. Pedophilia, animal abuse and all that have very short lifespans there. There's a lot of porn, but it's well regulated, and generally scam-free.

By definition, a website filter will always be behind on the websites it filters. Because (doh!) a website first has to be live and to have visitors before it is filtered. Block the high-profile websites, and what happens?

Everyone -- including the underage viewers who don't have the psychological maturity required to deal with a lot of the things people film these days -- flocks to the "underground". Those, on the other hand, aren't regulated. There's every sort of crap to be found, from malware to child pornography, especially when augmented by the anonymity of tools like Tor (not that the tools are bad; they're not, but that's not true of their every use). The idea that they won't get to those websites is just laughable. Never underestimate the intrepid spirit of a horny teenager.

retube2• 13 years ago

but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others

oh yeah right, the government actually want to block these topics!! Of course they don't. Britain has one of the worst teenage pregnancy rates in Europe and successive govs have spent a huge amount of time and money trying to correct. As I said, if these resources are blocked it's bad implementation, not deliberate, and I am sure will be rectified in due course.

sbt2• 13 years ago

If I was British, I would do anything I could to urge politicians and the public to dismantle this firewall. Our biggest problem, not just in Britain but in all countries, is that the public does not understand how serious this is at all.

InclinedPlane2• 13 years ago

Even many people on HN don't realize how serious it is.

Cakez0r• 13 years ago

The British are sitting ducks. The only recourse we have is writing to our MPs, which is as good as useless.

salient3• 13 years ago

This should be called what it really is. The Great Firewall of UK.

melling3• 13 years ago

Someone is just using the "slippery slope" argument, which may be true but this article wasn't that convincing to me. The internet for most people is only 10-15 years old but somehow life is not possible without it?

"The internet is a lifeline for young LGBT people looking for information and support – and parents are now able to stop them finding that support at the click of a mouse."

How does the filter work in Britain? Can you go to a cafe with your mobile device and use different settings?

justincormack• 13 years ago

A lot of public internet like cafes is filtered, and this is likely to increase with these new filters.

melling3• 13 years ago

Can someone explain how the filter actually works. Google has a filter, for example. Is it a bunch of checkboxes or do you actually talk with someone on the phone?

3stripe• 13 years ago

Where can you check if BT or O2 is blocking sites?

The O2 status checker is down: http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx

bmj14• 13 years ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1)

As a UK citizen, I've been very disappointed by this debacle. I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (protecting the children, etc) but he does not understand the significant number of unintended consequences that we are likely to see (and are already seeing).

I would suggest doing the following to make this workable long term:

- Centralise the list of sites categorised as obscene/pornographic/etc (why should it be different for different ISPs?)

- Make the list of these sites publicly accessible and searchable

- Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?)

- Implement a process for removal requests where a site is mis-classified and ensure that this appeal process is separate from the initial panel

- Implement KPIs on the effectiveness of the filter that take into account false positives + false negatives

- Remove any automatic categorisation based on keywords, this is too crude

- Make publicly accessible the guidelines for classification

Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :(

1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

jackweirdy3• 13 years ago

A lot of this is being done by the Open Rights Group tech volunteers. If anyone wants to help, there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss strategy, & the mailing list is here https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers

bmj14• 13 years ago

Thanks Jack, I've signed up and look forward to continuing the discussion over there.

InclinedPlane2• 13 years ago

Don't forget Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice.

No matter what the intentions are, if the end result is still widespread censorship it hardly matters.

blueskin_8• 13 years ago

I prefer putting that the other way: Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence.

Practically government operations in a nutshell.

sbt2• 13 years ago

Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :(

The problem is that the incremental cost to filtering additional material is now virtually zero. I'm not sure how this would play out in Britain, but I know many countries where a conservative government would have a field day expanding this list. It is easy for a politician to make the case that something should be blocked (think of the children!), but I am guessing no politician would stake his personal capital on unblocking something even remotely controversial. Unfortunately, now Britain has set a precedent, and I could easily see other governments in Europe pointing to Britain in justifying similar firewalls.

Therefore, I have concluded that we have a binary choice, firewall or no firewall. To me, this is a simple decision, I would not entrust any committee at all with the management of what should be considered obscene.

nodata3• 13 years ago

That's an excellent point.

There needs to be a mechanism added that would make removing an item from the filter as easy as adding an item to the filter. Some way of doing this without putting reputation at risk. Any ideas?

cjrp3• 13 years ago

I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (appealing to an untapped voter demographic, e.g. Mumsnet)

Fixed that for you.

vidarh5• 13 years ago

The Mumsnet founders had to backtrack, and come out against the filter after an uproar from their users, who were widely again the filter.

So unless you mean the Mumsnet founders is Cameron's desired demographic, then no, you didn't fix it.

Theodores• 13 years ago

Censorship in the UK has a touch of 'gentleman's agreement' about it rather than 'by decree'.

If the British government want to ban something outright then they can issue a 'D-Notice' to the press. Notionally the 'D-Notice' system is 'advisory', i.e. a paper could publish if they wanted to.

The British government can also rely on self-censorship, disinformation, misinformation, spin, the art of burying bad news under a mountain of trivia and setting the news agenda.

So, on the surface there is the 'never assign to malice what can be attributed to incompetence' way of seeing it, you have to remember that these are politicians we are dealing with. They know what they are doing.

coldtea7• 13 years ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1)

Sorry, but that does not apply here. This is not the action of some stupid person -- this is legislation, compiled and overseen by several experts, advisors, offices and politicians. Furthermore, it follows a clear pattern of government interference and suppression of free speech.

I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place

I very much doubt it. Would you say the same thing about Blair's lies and action?

rwmj• 13 years ago

It's not legislation. The government just leaned on the larger ISPs. The smaller ISPs are ignoring the whole thing.

bambax5• 13 years ago

I downvoted your comment because I could not disagree more with what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that this is a good idea, only with sub-par implementation.

But it's the idea that is bad; more than bad, it's despicable, it's an abomination.

The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much.

Besides, what raising kids teaches you is that in many ways, kids are little adults; they grow better and are more happy when one treats them with respect.

IanCal4• 13 years ago

The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much.

That's exactly what this filter is though. It's not implemented by the government, it's an opt-out filter implemented by your ISP. If you want to use their defaults then it's there and free, if you want to allow access to everything then control it yourself then fine.

I don't think this should exist, but you're hurting the fight against it by not even bothering to check the most basic of facts.

Ntrails• 13 years ago

Filters are not effectively applied by the majority of parents who feel unmatched to the task of implementing safe/clean internet for their children.

These parents want more help doing so, they don't want to have to learn more/new technology. That is the perceived issue this was designed to resolve.

You may think it's an abomination, many think that children being able to access any manner of pornography by default is more abominable. And if, as I interpret what you say, you believe that children are better off having access to everything online in order to feel trusted and respected? Well I disagree pretty damned strongly. That's ok, but there isn't really a middle ground.

bmj14• 13 years ago

Hi bambax,

Not at all - I'm just trying to keep my comments balanced. By drawing attention to the insurmountable obstacles involved in achieving Cameron's stated goal, I would hope people can draw their own conclusions.

I personally think censorship is both unworkable + immoral, but I think the HN crowd can draw their own conclusions.

goggles997• 13 years ago

The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much.

You are naive if you really think this has ever been the case.

First, stop your misdirection. this is not about reading, it is about viewing. If the only pornographic material that ever existed online was written material, this sort of thing would never have happened.

Second, try to give your young kids porno mags in your house and if work ever leaks out - lets see what happens.

The in my own home argument never applies when abuse or mistreatment is occurring. Showing your kids content that is inappropriate for their age (as deemed by a consensus of society) has always and will always land you in trouble. The internet never changed this nor should it have.

michaelt• 13 years ago

  Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and 
  balanced panel (is this possible?)

When the Arts Council of Great Britain was formed (by Keynes in the 1940s) it was intentionally set up to have an arms-length relationship with the government, with the aim of independence to avoid the political use and censorship of art seen in Nazi Germany.

By all accounts it works better than other countries where the politicians change every few years and the funding objectives change with them.

Of course, the arts council has a natural constituency and source of board members as they can appoint anyone high profile from the arts community. I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users.

twic3• 13 years ago

I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users.

Dave Green, probably.

blueskin_8• 13 years ago

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

twic3• 13 years ago

I believe i know who you think you're quoting there, but it seems he never actually wrote that.

weego• 13 years ago

I suspect it is more a case of Cameron being lead by people who's hearts are not in the right place, but present it in a way that appears to be, so they can then reap the rewards of those 'unintended consequences' later.

salient3• 13 years ago

Completely disagree that this is just an "unintended consequence". This is exactly what David Cameron wants. To muddle the waters, and say they are blocking "obscene" stuff, when in fact they are blocking free speech sites and the like.

Porn filters are always abused (intentionally). Always. I can't stress this enough. You should've learned from the Australians who tried implementing this sort of filter before, too, and it ended up a miserable failure. Not only can you not implement such a system without a ton of "unintended consequences", but it's also very trivially abused, too, by those in power, and they could abuse it for many years before the public even realizes it.

vitalique• 13 years ago

Sometimes malice tries to hide behind stupidity's back.

What you are suggesting (or quite in the spirit of that) is currently being implemented in Russia [1] as a so called Unified Register of Forbidden Websites. It is perceived by a lot of people in Russia as a dumbest initiative by government in the whole IT-regulation field and continues to produce suspicious, erroneous, as well as erratic and simply idiotic bans.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_blacklist

ronaldx• 13 years ago

Hanlon's razor has become an excuse for malice and should not apply:

Stupidity (within government) is malice.

ds92• 13 years ago

IMHO the provisions in your list plus a few more would make the whole thing unobjectionable. My additions:

- It's opt-in. The ISPs are required to notify subscribers that it's available, with clear explanations.

- Allow parents to opt in or out of each of various categories

Such a scheme would accomplish the purported/advertised purposes, without harm to civil liberties and without interference in home life.

Unfortunately, these "how to fix it" ideas are misplaced. The fact that non-pornographic sites, obviously selected by political criteria, are deliberately packaged together with pornography, is not merely a bad implementation. In fact it is clear evidence that the real motive is not to protect children at all, but instead to protect state power, and disempower the public and keep them ignorant.

Given this evident intent and purpose, attempts at partial reform are pointless, and the right thing is say no to the would-be gradualist-censors and call out their plan for the creeping fascism that it is.

alan_cx• 13 years ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity."

Bullshit. That phrase is down there with "what have you got to hide?". Its a disgusting attempt to hide reality, with diversionary language.

And how the hell is "stupidity" a defense? This man is the PM of a G whatever number it is now country. He had the best education could offer and has slimed his way to the top with all his family connections. Stupid? I dont think so.

Camoron does not give a toss about children. He's happy to see them suffer with all manner of cuts. So, these kids can't eat properly, cant get much of an education, have no future worth a jot, but thats all fine 'cos they will now find it a bit harder to find porn? Oh please.

As for your solution, what a nightmare. All that will do is begin a highly creeping policy with will end up censoring in a way not seen in any way before. Who the hell is anyone to tell me what information I am allowed beyond an official secret?

As a father of 6, I despise this "for the children" excuse for conservative, right wing control freaks who seek to control my thoughts. What happened to the old UK conservative notion of personal freedom and responsibility?

Havoc• 13 years ago

To what extent are private commercial interest driving this vs politics?

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

Anybody else think the hacker community will suffer a bit since it will be just that much difficult to learn hacking since the information is in some mysterious way related to pornography?

I keep getting blocked by T-Mobile's porn filter even while accessing certain posts on HN.

I'm referring to people just starting out that have no clue how to bypass the filter just yet. Not someone who already knows some stuff and it's quite easy for them to bypass it.

Say using SOCKS5 and SSH tunneling to a box not covered by this bs filter.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

Why haven't you opted out of content lock?

andygates2• 13 years ago

You have to realise it's something you can opt out of.

If it's like the O2 one, it doesn't say "to cancel this, call customer services". Since most people accept defaults...

Fuxy3• 13 years ago

It's my company phone and it requires a credit card (which i don't have).

I only use debit cards which they don't accept.

It's a personal choice but i shouldn't have to be forced to own a credit card to unlock my fking porn filter.

Did I mention anything i see on HN most certainly doesn't qualify as porn?

Does qualify as hacking though if technical blogs on device vulnerabilities or back doors are considered hacking.

I would qualify it as security research but that just another loose term the ISPs can play with to ban important information on potentially insecure devices.

matthewmacleod4• 13 years ago

Censorship is bad. That said…

This is not censorship. It's an opt-in web content filter, operated by the largest ISPs, with no statutory backing. It's intended to encourage ISPs to provide optional parental controls for every subscriber, and no more.

Frankly, I think this is actually a pretty good outcome, if not deliberately so. It completely kills the arguments for actual Web censorship by eliminating the "think of the children" argument, which is probably the one which the media bang on about most, without imposing any legal requirements or mandatory filtering.

So there are plenty of options for users who don't want to be subject to the filter. Switch to another DNS provider, or don't opt in to the filtering, or even better – switch to one of the ISPs that don't offer this feature and never will.

Ironically, I think that these filters are going to encourage the preservation of Internet freedom in the UK in the long run.

nodata3• 13 years ago

It's opt out, not opt in.

How does it stop being censorship just because there is no centralised list?

matthewmacleod4• 13 years ago

Can you back this up? I've seen no evidence that it's opt-out; new users are presented with the choice before gaining Internet access, and existing users are presented with the choice at some point.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

Cameron's filter is opt our for new customers, but opt in for existing customers.

It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship.

k-mcgrady• 13 years ago

It's technically only opt-out for new customers. And even for them I believe they are specifically asked "Would you like us to use our home safe system to block dangerous material for children blah blah blah". So it's really only a matter of saying "no thanks". I don't think they trick you into using it, or set you up without informing you that you have the right to turn it off.

Edit: I could be wrong but this was how it worked when I last signed up about 12 months ago. The law hadn't come into effect I don't think but my ISP was already offering filtering.

jackweirdy3• 13 years ago

I see what you're saying, but you overlook the fact that it's backed by a blacklist held by Government whose contents are not public.

EDIT: Obviously ISPs also decide whether to block something, but Govt. has a list of sites which must be blocked

matthewmacleod4• 13 years ago

I don't believe this is the case, given that there is no legislation regarding this filter, meaning that there can't be a list of sites which must be blocked.

There's the issue of Cleanfeed and the IWF, but that's not a government thing.

jamesbrownuhh2• 13 years ago

There's no evidence (yet) of there being ANY Government list of sites which must be blocked. All ISPs are going their own way and basically letting the decisions be made by whatever technology partner they have engaged to back-end the filtering.

The only thing close to a UK-wide list of sites which MUST be blocked is the IWF/CEOP list, which exists specifically to deny access to images of child abuse and selected 1970s rock albums. (Search "Virgin Killer IWF") - That filtering is entirely separate and long-established in the UK, known as "Cleanfeed", and generally adopted by most major ISPs (but again not all.)

DanBC26• 13 years ago

Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters.

That's not an outlandish suggestion: mobile providers have had opt out filters for years now. Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters.

matthewmacleod4• 13 years ago

Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters.

I can't buy into a slippery slope argument, because I don't really think this is going to happen. And if it does, we should fight it.

Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters.

Are they? I've not seen evidence of this anywhere.

jdiez17• 13 years ago

Yeah, opt-out filters in mobile data connections are fucked up. I had to give giffgaff my passport information (no, not "the passport number", but all the letters and numbers at the bottom. They were very cumbersome to type, I had to count characters and what not.) I can clearly see people losing interest halfway through and "letting it slide".

bowlofpetunias• 13 years ago

Outsourcing censorship to the private sector is an ongoing trend. See also the various Pirate Bay blockades.

Just because it's executed by private companies and the decision making process is somewhat obscured and decentralized, the net effect is the same.

In a way, it's quite similar to the way we're being drawn into wars which aren't "technically" wars, and intelligence gathering against terrorists of course isn't totalitarian spying on their own people.

They just tilt the paradigms a bit to avoid association with the evils of the past, whilst effectively pursuing the same old agenda.

hoggle4• 13 years ago

You are wrong. This is an opt-out filter and therefore "obfuscated" censorship.

x0054• 13 years ago

Perhaps a solution to this is a very public campaign to opt out of these filters. This would achieve 2 goals:

1. Good plausible deniability excuse. If asked why one has opted out, or would like to opt out of the filter, one could always answer: "Because I saw comparing X and it has convinced me that this is the right thing to do to secure my rights to free speech..."

2. The more people opt out the more likely this project is going to be either a) abandoned or b) made mandatory rather then optional. If the latter happens, I am sure the people are going to take to the streets.

Technical solution to this would be to create a simple website that tests your Internet connection, tells you if it's possible filtered, and based on your ip, tells you who to contact to remove the filter.

girvo• 13 years ago

Are you really sure they'd take to the streets? I, sadly, wouldn't be.

petercooper• 13 years ago

The start? Cleanfeed has been running for 10 years already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

jstanley• 13 years ago

Plus, last year we started to see filtering of file-sharing websites: the Pirate Bay is now blocked on every major UK ISP.

blueskin_8• 13 years ago

...as well as about 4 proxies out of thousands.

Censorship never works because it's so easy to turn it onto a game of whack-a-mole with next to no money and effort even aside from all the other flaws.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

At least those blocks go through a court process and a judge has to approve them being blocked.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

At present the UK has a variety of different filtering systems.

There's the IWF list, there are the mobile filters, There are the voluntary ISP filters and if they're not good enough there's the proposed mandatory filter. Edit {there are also the court ordered blocks of file sharing websites}

This is a serious problem because some of the filtering is too broad and catches stuff that shouldn't be filtered. There is often no way to get things taken off the list.

Sometimes things that should be filtered are not, and again there's no way for users to report that.

The IWF list claims to have a tight focus on images of child sexual abuse and other pornography that is illegal in the UK. But that means the list of sites and news groups and etc are not easily available. I'd hate to be a researcher testing those filters because it'd be easy for police to spin the collection of information into something sinister.

Some kind of standards process might be handy. That would list things the filters must do, should do, must not do, and should not do. It would cover how to report mistakes in filtering, the evidence needed for proof of age, etc. that would improve the filters but keep the government out of providing the filters.

Ideally politicians would know enough about technology to understand what people are telling them about filters - i find it hard to believe that politicians are that stupid.

EDIT: interesting to hear the US reaction to these optional filters. They're in place but I'm happily playing poker with money on my phone.

neverminder• 13 years ago

Judging from natural progression that usually follows such decisions made by any government following is highly likely to happen: The blacklist will expand, not shrink, becoming tight with political agenda. Pressure to stay opted in will increase. Process to opt out will become more complicated in order to keep people from opting out. Final blow - blacklist will br enforced by default and opting out removed.

JunkDNA• 13 years ago

Reminds me of this recent editorial (which is hopefully not paywalled) in the Wall Street Journal about "the Good Intentions Paving Co": http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230402070...

twic3• 13 years ago

Paywalled, but a freedom-hating pirate has fortunately given us what i believe to be a copy of it:

http://casinocap.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/the-road-to-hell-i...

salient3• 13 years ago

I'm very disappointed with UK people. They should've known better. They should've seen this coming from miles away. But they've been reprogrammed to think that surveillance, and to a degree even censorship is "okay" if it's done for "good". They should've known that censorship even for "good" always, and I mean always, leads to censorship for evil, too. It leads to politicians censoring anything they don't like. And the worst part about censorship, is that you may not even find out what has been censored, and what you weren't allowed to know.

David Cameron is nothing short of a dictator. It's just that he doesn't have all the dictatorial powers he would like yet. But he seems to be working hard to get them, and this porn filter, the charging of friends of journalists with terrorism, and other such things are only the beginning. Throw Cameron David and his party out of office, and go to the streets and demand the banning of the porn filters at the next elections. Otherwise, expect much worse to come over the next years.

netcan9• 13 years ago

I'm really disappointed with this whole situation. The government. The parliament. The people & the media. I resent all the apologizing and explaining and the "don't attribute to malice…" excuses. I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal.

This article is right on the right track. This is an attempt to control the discussion, the definition of normal and public morality. It's is not a response to an actual problem. It's old fashioned conservatism and paternalism.

The bottom line here is choice. Parents everywhere have easy solutions for voluntary porn filters. You can have them set up by your the people you buy your internet from or the people that sell you your computer. It's cheap or free and it's available. I do not buy the "it's too complicated" argument. This is parents responsibility and it just ins't that hard to meet that responsibility.

DanBC26• 13 years ago

I think the filters are bad.

But buying and installing filters is hard for many people. They don't know anything about networking or the internet. These people need help setting up wifi.

This is just movong the filter from existing software providers to the ISP. It's not at all ISPs so you can shop around[1] if you want to avoid it. It's optional so you can tirn it off if it's on bu default for you, and not all of them are.

[1] shopping around isn't possible for broadband because of the weird way it's provided in the UK.

sillysaurus2• 13 years ago

I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.

netcan9• 13 years ago

A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call your ISP and ask them to install it. You can get help from your kids' school or you can get help from whoever it is that helps you set up your email or home wifi network. It may not be absolutely trivial, but it is a solvable problem for an adult willing to invest an hour or two and/or a little bit of money. I just hate this "people are dumb, this is hard for them" argument. People are capable if they are interested.

B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering.

This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.

Stubbs• 13 years ago

Shopping around for broadband in the UK is not difficult, broadbandchoices, MoneySavingExpert, uSwitch & MoneySupermarket are 4 places I know off the top of my head where you can type in your phone number & it gives you a list of providers, and there always "cheap broadband uk" in Google too.

furyg3• 13 years ago

For me, it's a question of defaults.

I'm ok with ISPs having a 'child-protect' feature on your internet connection as a benefit. I'm less ok with the government working to develop the filters. I'm not really ok with the government mandating that ISPs provide such a service. And I'm very much against this service being on by default. I'm terrified by mandatory use of the service.

kmfrk• 13 years ago

You'd think David Cameron of all people would support a free-market solution.

bambax5• 13 years ago

Everything is hard when you're not a specialist.

Electricity is much more dangerous than porn. Unlike porn, electricity kills. The trick is to hire an electrician; and if you don't, and let wires hang about in your bathroom, then it's your problem.

belorn• 13 years ago

As hard you think it is to buy and have filters installed, its equally hard for people to disable filters. Both require the same level of expertise, willpower, and time.

whatevsbro10• 13 years ago

I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal.

It's not only possible, it's exactly what's going on. How long did the NSA monitor the whole world before it became widely known?

goggles997• 13 years ago

I am firmly against the concept of internet censorship - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers.

The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles?

There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different.

I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it)

BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding.

I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?

tripzilch2• 13 years ago

Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident.

Bullshit. I work at a kids' technology centre, teaching them computer and Internet stuff. This is in the Netherlands, ages 8-18. (no filters, but they are supervised and we can see what's on their monitors at all times)

The only stuff I have seen them accidentally stumble upon is the odd bikini image in Google Image Search.

I can't imagine any scenario how a four year old could accidentally stumble upon rape porn (which is the type that's supposedly psychologically damaging, right?). In particular because they can't type (they lack the motor skills).

(actually I'd question how four-year-olds "surf the web proficiently" at all, for any definition of "proficiently" and any reasonable definition of "the web". Public libraries are easier to use, they're not proficient at those either)

In a hypothetical thought experiment, give 1,000,000 four-year-olds a tablet with a browser opened on a child-friendly start page, and let them play for an hour. None of them will stumble upon rape porn. The "proficient" ones will find something fun and colourful to play with. Your biggest problem is the ones that don't, get stuck on something boring, and start crying. Good luck with that.

Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters

Also not true. I put this to the test back when we still had these filters enabled. The two smartest kids (ages 11-12) couldn't do it, there's just too many hurdles, passwords, blocking, safeguards going on. It's horrible software, really cripples the machine (which is one of the reasons why we got rid of it, favouring simple supervision). It's quite hard to disable even if you are the administrator of these PCs. Super easy to set up, though. It's a real trapdoor.

I have to admit I believe that they might have had a better chance if they could read English natively. At age 11-12 Dutch kids can read English, but not fast enough to do proper research on the English language web (so the solution would be for English parents to install Chinese filters, they got the experience anyway :-P).

Kids ages 8 or lower couldn't do it no matter the language. There may be the odd (extremely) high-functioning exception, but we were talking about most kids.

And by the time they're 16 it doesn't matter if it's a parental filter or a government one, they can--and will--get around government-grade censorship too. But then, a 16-year-old mind can think of depravities with or without help of the Internet.

Just because children get better at computers than their parents all the time, doesn't mean developmental stages suddenly disappear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages

I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?

Sure! Education. Of the parents. Way before they're parents. It'll take a while before it pays off but when it does, oh boy, just look at all those bad statistics just evaporating!

If you really care about the children you'd put all the money spent on this and other bullshit into improving their education.

ommunist• 13 years ago

In fact, it is not the start. Its a finish. Once the system is in place all you need is to add URLs to block. And it is already in place and seems to work fine. Except it is still avoidable via proxies.

hoggle4• 13 years ago

I always thought of the UK as highly educated and less gullible. This is the entry point for a world as described by fellow UK citizen George Orwell. It's a shame that people's honest hopes & beliefs in conservative "leaders" seem to be what could turn this into 1984.

Death by a thousand cuts.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy

spiralpolitik• 13 years ago

Let me refresh your memory.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28

I'll give you a clue which party implemented this legislation.

It's always been about censorship of lifestyles the Tory party and the Daily Mail don't approve of in an attempt to return Britain to some golden age that never happened.

It's censorship and social control, plain and simple.

staticelf• 13 years ago

I just have one thing to say about the censorship, fuck everyone that is pro this stuff.

chunkyslink• 13 years ago

If you live in the Uk and you want to do something about this you can join the Open Rights Group https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleep...

blendergasket• 13 years ago

This will lead to a blossoming of linguistic creativity. People are going to grow a new sexual slang that evolves arms race pace in order to get around this.

If this happens a person will need to be able to trace the evolution of the slang/code words for whatever they're looking into in order to trace a topic back throughout its history.

All this happens now in a lot of ways and in a lot of different subjects, but I think it's going to become much more important.

leopardkarate• 13 years ago

This is just bad. First of all even though the filter is optional - most large scale ISP's are rolling them out as an opt-out option. I bet a lot of people will not even find out there is such a filter. Secondly, with such ambiguous categories like "obscene" and "extremist" content that have proven to block sites that contain information on LGTB issues and helplines for abuse people get trapped in filter bubbles. People are treated like mindless zombies and it's a self fulfilling prophecy because without alternative opinions or a wide and diverse specter of information people do indeed become mindless zombies. Finally, this is the most lazy and stupid solution to the problem - does the state not want it's people to be able/learn to deal with various information that's out there (because remember - if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there) and to think critically? Or is this a vile and through-through attempt at gagging the internet?

Bonus food for thought: remember how Tories recently deleted their internet archives... ?

NAFV_P• 13 years ago

There could be an unintended side effect of this mess. People will get so fucked off with Cameron and Co., it could lead to a dramatic increase in (black) hacking activity in Britain. I've already bought a black hat in preparation (similar to the one that is sported by Odd Job from Golfinger).

goggles997• 13 years ago

Look, I am against censorship of the internet - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers.

The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles?

There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different.

I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?

mcgwiz• 13 years ago

The basic notion of empowering corporate and political entities to judge for a people what information is and is not "acceptable" is scary to me, and I would imagine, to most Americans. (I expand on this here: http://blocvox.com/americans/93Mz6FfGIku-CcH8JHndIg )

To my knowledge, the word "acceptable" is never used in any pertinent legal code, but it is used by MPs and other officials, and therefore represents the cultural understanding of the law. So one must then ask, what is culturally made of people who are interested in material that is not "acceptable"?

I wonder if my repulsion to this is a cultural thing, Americans having more governmental skepticism and having a tradition of individualism, versus Britons having more faith in (to put it nicely) the potential of government to foster order and maintain cultural heritage.

ericcumbee• 13 years ago

what is the thought on Clean Port 80?

David Cameron's Internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep

Related Stories