Cameron is at it again.....

[mattx]

http://m.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

 

So after cutting their funding, the moron announces this !!

You could not make it up.

Thats right Dave, all pedos use google to search for their stuff. You idiot.

Edited July 23, 2013 by Dos_Box

[Peter_W]

Once again... The Government deciding on something that they don't understand.

 

There are tones of proxies still working for 'a questionable torrent website' that are not blocked by my ISP.

 

If you are trying to censor the Internet it will not work.

[localzuk]

Yay, a mandated false sense of security for parents. Just what they need.

 

Not to mention the whole 'slippery slope' of it all.

 

If the government really wanted to clean up the web in this country, they would stop leaving the child porn stuff to a charity funded mainly by donations. They would stop messing around with the agencies that exist to deal with it (CEOP, for example).

 

Instead, they'd create a cyber-crime police agency. Fund it properly and put all cyber crime under their remit. Rather than making it a subdivision of some other agency where it gets sidelined.

 

A tool like Tor would blow Cameron's mind...

[plexer]

It's hard enough to stop adult porn nevermind nasty stuff.

 

Cameron just doesn't get it does he. He thinks all he has to say is "right Mr Google it would be awfully nice if you blocked all this stuff" what an idiot.

 

Ben

[Peter_W]

@plexer It's like these movie companies dmca'ing google but not going after the source.

[localzuk]

@plexer It's like these movie companies dmca'ing google but not going after the source.

 

Indeed. And the side effect of that is there are loads of false-hits. The VLC site was in a DMCA takedown notice a few weeks ago, for example.

 

So, with a system like the one Cameron is talking about, who is maintaining the lists, who gets to say what goes on which list etc...?

[Miscbrah]

Enjoy it while it lasts! This sort of dissention will get EduGeek blocked as a terrorist website. I for one welcome our new internet overlords.*

 

*Sarcasm, posted with Tor via proxy.

[sonofsanta]

This from the government who have cut funding to CEOP.

 

It took less than ten years for the CleanFeed system - set up with the express purpose of blocking confirmed images of child abuse - to be shoehorned into blocking torrent sites. I have zero faith that this would ever be kept to its intended purpose.

 

It is the most ostrich-inspired head burying move you could make. The slippery slope, the false sense of security, driving the stuff you're trying to stop further underground so it's even harder to actually stop, the sheer technical impossibility of it - why do people still not understand the distributed anti-establishment nature of the internet? It's like they believe everything is checked by some authority before it's posted!

 

The problem is that on the surface it sounds reasonable, because it is pandering to the kneejerk parenting reaction of "protect the children!" and arguing against that instantly makes you look like the bad guy, despite the fact that what you are arguing for is protecting the civil liberties those children will inherit.

[JJonas]

I have a number of problems with this...

 

False sense of parental security, parents should probably be more concerned about what their kids are doing on things like Kik and WhatsApp

 

I dont trust the government to look after the lists

 

Its the slippery slope of censorship, What will be the next thing added to the list?

 

I wouldnt think the dodgy stuff is stored en-masse on the web, its going to be places like P2P, Tor etc which probably wont be covered

 

If I opt in am I going to be labeled a pervert? are we going to reach a point where an employer says you have opted in to recieve adult material therefore you cant work in a school or we a going to have a really good look at you Internet usage.

[Ephelyon]

"A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it."

 

I'm almost not sure what to make of this part. Does it mean they actually store these images centrally? Is it really necessary to store the exact images you are banning just so you can say "ah yes, that IS a naughty one!"

 

I don't mean not to be taking it seriously, I'm just really not sure what they mean by this database business. Also, is the government sufficiently above the law that they can get around the legislation that says it's not permissible to store or access such imagery?

[CAM]

I guess they could store a hash or some other markers in the image so they aren't actually hosting the picture themselves, just a key to recognise it.

[Ephelyon]

Sounds much more plausible!

[JJonas]

"A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it."

 

Is it just me or can anyone else see certain elements of the Internet seeding lots of rogue URL redirectors?

[X-13]

Also, is the government sufficiently above the law that they can get around the legislation that says it's not permissible to store or access such imagery?

 

In theory, no. The law is the law and nobody is above it.

 

In practice, however...

 

Is it just me or can anyone else see certain elements of the Internet seeding lots of rogue URL redirectors?

 

I actually had something like that a little while ago... I ended up on the Virgin Media "Das ist verboten" page. [blocked by IWF...]

[pcstru]

"In his speech, Mr Cameron will say that possession of online pornography depicting rape will be made illegal."

 

What does this "Posession of On-line Pornography" mean? Are my copies of Straw Dogs, Deliverance, Frenzy, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia are likely to land me in Jail?

[localzuk]

What does this "Posession of On-line Pornography" mean? Are my copies of Straw Dogs, Deliverance, Frenzy, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia are likely to land me in Jail?

 

It does raise a question doesn't it? Considering online video is nearly entirely 'streamed' type now, do you possess it by viewing it?

 

Not to mention, depictions of things are a grey area. At what point does it transition from being 'art' to 'pornography'?

[sonofsanta]

At what point does it transition from being 'art' to 'pornography'?

 

To quote a US High Court judge - "I know [hardcore pornography] when I see it". And that's the problem with all these sweeping censorship rules.

[CAM]

It used to be that deleting unwanted images immediately would be sufficient defence that you weren't storing it. UNLESS you have the technical ability to undelete them (which renders anyone with tech skills unable to use such a defence if it was proved they were storing them in the recycle bin). Not sure what it is now with streaming but Police say people who accidentally stumble on an image won't be prosecuted, but anyone who exhibits a pattern of repeatedly viewing an image or dodgy sites will get picked up.

[X-13]

What does this "Posession of On-line Pornography" mean? Are my copies of Straw Dogs, Deliverance, Frenzy, Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia are likely to land me in Jail?

 

Yes, you dirty pervert. [/joke]

 

but anyone who exhibits a pattern of repeatedly viewing an image or dodgy sites will get picked up.

 

A little bit of Devil's here... But if they know about a dodgy site and leave it accessible, isn't that the same as condoning it?

[JJonas]

What happens to photo storage sites like imgur or photobucket? do they go in the list because they have some adult material?

[Ephelyon]

I suppose the "possess by viewing" argument might work if it's the type that caches and you haven't cleared your browser cache in a while...

[CAM]

If they go through a site's logs and see that someone accessed Image X once and left immediately then that entry can be discarded (reality stored somewhere for future "reference" no doubt) since they likely stumbled on it by accident. If someone visited Image X, hung around, then later came back to Image X and moved on to Image Y and Image Z then you have found someone exhibiting a habit of viewing said images. Of course, if courts really want to nail you for something and want to find a reason to ruin you then this all goes out the window.

 

@JJonas: This is one reason such sites are blocked in schools because their content cannot be policed all the time.

Edited July 22, 2013 by CAM

[speckytecky]

I had such high hopes of this Government and in particular Cameron as PM. Sadly though they have proven themselves of failing to listen to the people who have the real expertise - this filtering announcement being yet another prime example. Letting ministers foam off cluelessly at the mouth (Gove being the chief proponent) and are now firmly marked in history for their ability to waste money devising plans and policy's which are promptly scrapped or turned around. Such a wasted opportunity.

[Dos_Box]

I do get the impression that there is also a great deal of confusion at policy level between just what role ISP's and hosting companies provide. For instance they seem to blame ISP's (who most often just provide the connection) for content on hosting companies servers, regardless of where in the world they are and put pressure on providers to police content they have no control over.

[Peter_W]

What happens to photo storage sites like imgur or photobucket? do they go in the list because they have some adult material?

 

If you go to websites like 'random imgur' there will be 1-2 adult images.