Cameron is at it again.....

[tmcd35]

A In my case with GiffGaff you have to go into the web account management interface and put in your passport number for checking.

 

That's interesting but throws up three immediate questions

 

1) The ISP's systems are linked into the central passport office database? (doesn't sound like a good idea, but a-ho)

2) Everybody wanting an (unfiltered?) internet connection needs a passport

3) Little Johnny didn't pinch Daddy's passport form the draw and disabled the filtering when he wasn't looking...

 

I bet they wish they hadn't scrapped the National ID card now...

[Dos_Box]

And you just know you will have to opt-out anyway because of all of the false-positive websites that get blocked you use! Edited July 22, 2013 by Dos_Box

[Geoff]

I bet they wish they hadn't scrapped the National ID card now...

 

That's next weeks policy announcement.

 

And you just know you will have to opt-out anyway because of all of the false-positive websites that get blocked you use!

 

I'll be interested to see if they block facebook, because surely some of the stuff on there falls well within their definitions.

[mthomas08]

No, that's not so bad really but do you honestly believe it'll stop there? As usual, this is an example of a government using an emotionally charged subject (child protection) to put in infrastructure that will later be used for all sorts of oppressive behaviour. A forum post slating the government? Can't have that! Blocked. A footballer doesn't like this website's photos of him and has lots of cash to throw at the problem? Blocked! A website detailing some embarrassing government blunders gained via a whistle blower? Blocked!

 

We have to fight crap like this otherwise little by little we're going to lose all freedom we have. Look at North Korea: as extreme an example as they are of a controlling paranoid government, do you not think that deep down, all governments would love to be able to control the people to the extent they do? I know this all sounds so far fetched but I'm getting sick of being fed crap now and being expected to enjoy it because "it's for the kids" or to "catch the terrorists." Our fears are being plundered and as a nation we're letting it happen.

 

The saddest part of it all is that most people don't even notice or care. They're winning.

 

I feel you are over thinking it, I cant see the government banning forums for those who want to openly criticise them. That's like stopping protesting.

 

That reminds me of this hate preacher who claimed his human rights were being abused and it took far too long to get him thrown out of the country. All this "technicality" garbage excuses people are using.

 

The government are trying to ban illegal stuff e.g. child porn and forcing ISPs to give an opt in/out etc for normal porn to protect families and children. I don't see how that's comparing to basic forum discussions etc.

[X-13]

I'll be interested to see if they block facebook, because surely some of the stuff on there falls well within their definitions.

 

People have used Facebook has been used to groom children, therefore Facebook is evil and should be banned to protect children.

 

What? You mean I should tell my kids NOT TO TALK TO PEOPLE THEY DON'T KNOW? Don't be silly, that involves doing things.

[Geoff]

People have used Facebook has been used to groom children, therefore Facebook is evil and should be banned to protect children.

 

What? You mean I should tell my kids NOT TO TALK TO PEOPLE THEY DON'T KNOW? Don't be silly, that involves doing things.

 

Well that and I'm wondering how much lobbying £££ facebook is willing to throw around to stay off the 'bad' list.

[JJonas]

So to opt-in I need to buy a £75 passport? ker-ching

 

also I wonder how long before opting-in shows up on a CRB check?

[X-13]

Well that and I'm wondering how much lobbying £££ facebook is willing to throw around to stay off the 'bad' list.

 

That depends on who they sell user data to.

 

If they send data about film/music "likes" to MPAA/RIAA then they'll have a LOT to spend.

 

MPAA/RIAA already got the government to misuse [whatever the filter is called] to block COMPLETELY LEGAL* torrent sites. [ironically, the wiki page for "internet filter" is filtered.]

 

 

*Completely legal as they don't host ANY infringing material. PirateBay, et al are google for torrents.

[sonofsanta]

The government are trying to ban illegal stuff e.g. child porn and forcing ISPs to give an opt in/out etc for normal porn to protect families and children. I don't see how that's comparing to basic forum discussions etc.

 

Because there will be false positives. Because someone, somewhere, very soon, will have an agenda to push and will use these rules to get their way. With the level of understanding that the government has shown regarding the technical underpinnings of the internet, I expect you could get any site you didn't like banned by going to an article through an anonymiser, posting a dodgy link/image, then reporting the site and watching it get taken down "to be on the safe side".

 

Example: all the legitimate parody/remix/whatever videos that get taken down on YouTube through DMCA complaints, despite the fact they clearly meet the legal definition of "fair use" under law. The problem there, and the problem we will have here, is that with the resources involved the fight is as one sided as Mike Tyson vs Stephen Hawking. They get you taken down, no matter how erroneously, and you are effectively shut out from fighting your corner by virtue of the incredible financial barrier.

[psydii]

No one from ISPA was available to day to talk to Radio 4. Hmm. Says to me that they might not really have got a robust argument for the default on policy.

 

The question I look forward to having answered (in about 5-15 years time): is this better than nothing. I have doubts.

Edited July 22, 2013 by psydii
sonofsanta said it better.

[tmcd35]

Well that and I'm wondering how much lobbying £££ facebook is willing to throw around to stay off the 'bad' list.

 

Ahh, when viewed along side this story - BBC News - Election countdown: 94 weeks to go - it all makes sense now. You cynical old dog, you!

 

This isn't going to happen at all, he just want donations for his election campaign from BT and Virgin Media to make it all go away

[Gatt]

Hmm - only glanced through the speech and not too impressed on how he plans to do this:

 

Also, is it just me or is it coming across as if he is blaming the ISPs and Search providers for the amount of child related imagery?

 

As others have hinted - whats next? what happens to those who "opt-out" eihter so they can look at pr0n or because of false positives?

 

He has also, rather foolishly, stated that typing in words such as "child" and "sex" will provide a list of options for what you meant.. Nice one Dave taht's bound to work, cos they wont think of putting in lots of "safe" meta tags ont heir nasty images so they appear..

 

I doubt this will be very effective, because the people that are doing this, arent making their images searchable anyway - ok the odd amateur may do, but the big fish so to speak will not be putting content anywhere public or searchable.. No! They will all be behind firewalls and special secure VPNs and secretive mailing lists or whatever

 

So here we have another rushed through policy that is only going to affect the innocent users of the internet and annoy them even more...

 

Finally - what will be the next thing to be censored by No 10 - free speech?? - we are getting closer and closer to "1984" every day

[Geoff]

Because there will be false positives. Because someone, somewhere, very soon, will have an agenda to push and will use these rules to get their way. With the level of understanding that the government has shown regarding the technical underpinnings of the internet, I expect you could get any site you didn't like banned by going to an article through an anonymiser, posting a dodgy link/image, then reporting the site and watching it get taken down "to be on the safe side".

 

This has already happened before. The ISPs self regulation in this area under the guise of the IWF url filtering list has already gone down this road.

 

Scorpions tale leaves IWF exposed ? The Register

IWF block causing problems for Fileserve

[LosOjos]

I feel you are over thinking it, I cant see the government banning forums for those who want to openly criticise them. That's like stopping protesting.

 

That reminds me of this hate preacher who claimed his human rights were being abused and it took far too long to get him thrown out of the country. All this "technicality" garbage excuses people are using.

 

The government are trying to ban illegal stuff e.g. child porn and forcing ISPs to give an opt in/out etc for normal porn to protect families and children. I don't see how that's comparing to basic forum discussions etc.

 

I feel you put too much faith in a government that does not deserve it (and no, this isn't a Tory bash - I don't trust any of them!)

 

Child porn is already "banned" by virtue of the fact it's illegal. Blocking pornography is not going to do anything except give the government the power to filter as they see fit - which is exactly what they really want I suspect.

[flyinghaggis]

Oh-hum, Getting ISP's to install a central filter that I can opt out off via a simple web interface isn't such a bad, end of the world as we know it, idea. How ISP's go about confirming that it's an adult that turned the filtering off is perhaps more interesting.

 

To me the key question is exactly who decides on the "naughty list" of websites to be censored. It worries me that our PrimeMinister has started off with the straw man argument of approaching from the Daily Mail 'think of the the children...' side of the debate rather than treating people like they have a brain.

 

I'd have taken him more seriously if he'd said 'there's unsuitable content for minors on the web; how can we stop them accessing it?". As it stands I suspect this has far more to do with individuals/groups lobbying him than protecting children.

 

Still, at least now the the Daily Mail can claim the moral high ground in it's stand for family values....

 

 

Edited July 22, 2013 by flyinghaggis

[LosOjos]

Still, at least now the the Daily Mail can claim the moral high ground in it's stand for family values....

 

[ATTACH=CONFIG]19703[/ATTACH]

 

That screenshot is priceless - proudly claiming victory over the net pron block while displaying multiple scantily clad women right alongside it. *slow claps*

 

EDIT: oh and the best is last, talking about how a minor looks so grown up in high heels and a mini skirt... you couldn't make it up!

Edited July 22, 2013 by LosOjos

[psydii]

I suspect that it may have involved photoshop. The Mail Online can be vile, but that seems... well to good to be true for all the Mail haters in the world.

[localzuk]

I suspect that it may have involved photoshop. The Mail Online can be vile, but that seems... well to good to be true for all the Mail haters in the world.

 

I think it is a photoshop, but they're all real things that have been on the site more than likely.

[Geoff]

I'd have taken him more seriously if he'd said 'there's unsuitable content for minors on the web; how can we stop them accessing it?".

 

The answer to that, much as people wont like to hear it, is that we can't if they are determined enough to get at it. School Techs, I would of thought, were some of the most experienced dealing with this issue on a regular basis. We have full control of our network, internet access and client PCs yet even we do not able to get it right 100% of the time. So given that, what possibility is there for an ISP to?

[LosOjos]

I suspect that it may have involved photoshop. The Mail Online can be vile, but that seems... well to good to be true for all the Mail haters in the world.

 

Maybe a little reorganising but it's all there: Internet porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM David Cameron pledges 'opt in' rule | Mail Online

[sted]

Children can’t go into the shops or the cinema and buy things meant for adults or have adult experiences – we rightly regulate to protect them.

so no under 18 has ever bough fags/alcohol and no under 16 has ever had sex?

 

In other words, the search engines are not doing enough to take responsibility.

 

so someone has to constantly check every image on the internet (as you could upload img001.jpg wait till google caches it as say a train then swap it for something illegal)

 

You’re the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the earth from space who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information.

 

sorry that not much of a challenge its just getting data in in the right format with the right markers (gps coordinates) in theory anyone with access to imagery and a fast pc could do it

 

But it used to be that society could protect children by enforcing age restrictions on the ground whether that was setting a minimum age for buying top-shelf magazines, putting watersheds on the TV, or age rating films and DVDs.

 

and how many parents let kids watch non age appropriate dvd's?

 

And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account.

unless they force yopu to install software on each device to use the net how else could they do it but at a network level?

 

A place where your children are safe

 

better invest in a foam rubber room then. You can never have total safety the best you can do is teach your kids the basic rights from wrongs and let them work out the fine detail themselves

[X-13]

Maybe a little reorganising but it's all there: Internet porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM David Cameron pledges 'opt in' rule | Mail Online

 

One of the images on their "related stories" is a very young child in a bikini... BAN THE MAIL!

[Geoff]

Yeah so about those tabloid 'page 3' photos....

[psydii]

Maybe a little reorganising but it's all there: Internet porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM David Cameron pledges 'opt in' rule | Mail Online

 

Dear God. You are right. I really honestly thought it was entirely a (justified) joke. But no. it is an acutal summary of the links on that page. How on earth do the people who run and write for that site live with themselves. Crass, hypocritical scum.

Edited July 22, 2013 by psydii

[X-13]

Yeah so about those tabloid 'page 3' photos....

 

That argument should be fun...

 

The Sun [Well, page 3] is apparently loved by soldiers.

 

So, it's "Think of the children" Vs "Support the troops"...