sonofsanta Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 "The government is attempting to block all online extremist videos that help to radicalise impressionable young men" "help to radicalise impressionable young men" The only word in that sentence with a definite meaning is "men". Help, radicalise, impressionable and young are all so vague as to be completely useless as a guideline. Wouldn't the WikiLeaks video of the helicopter shooting "help to radicalise" someone, despite absolutely being something that all of us as citizens need to see and be aware of? What do you even mean by "radicalise"? Aren't all young people "impressionable"? How young is "young"? Why only men, anyway?
Garacesh Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) So where's the outrage? Or do we just let this happen?! I think it's a typical case of "First, they came for the.. And then they came for me". I don't want to watch extremist videos, therefore I don't care if they ban them. Obviously there's the 'feature-creep' as to where non-extremist videos that go against the current government are censored too, but that's 'in the future', and of course there's the vagueness of the word 'extremist' anyway. There's no outrage right now because it's not affecting many people - and the people it is affecting just switch the filter off. Not saying this is right. I'm just saying that's how it is. I admit even I, who knows what is happening and what will happen, am a little too complacent about things because so far I've been given the opt-out. You want that to change? Then you change it. Start doing it yourself rather than waiting for others to be outraged. Get on board with campaigns against this filter. Educate people on its potential for abuse, to silence the 'little guy'. Stop waiting for others to do it for you. (Just to have it on record: That's by no way meant to be an attack, but cold motivation, and it isn't directly aimed at just you either, @psydii.) Edited February 11, 2014 by Garacesh
LosOjos Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Oh look, exactly what everyone with a shred of common sense said would happen is happening. You just know if protests were organised the media would play it down as a "bunch of perverts don't want porn filters."
localzuk Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 Theoretically, this would have affected a website I used to run called 'ARMORY' (an animal rights video/image site). It used to have all sorts of animal rights movies online, such as exposé stuff, hidden camera videos, factory farm process videos etc... In the eyes of the government, that stuff would be 'extremist' and therefore blockable. Its simply proof that the government cannot be trusted with powers over internet access - they simply don't 'get it'. I'll be writing to my MP again.
Roberto Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 (edited) They 'get it' very well. All the parties want to censor the internet and now they have. They will position it as censoring things that are unreasonable and use that as a smokescreen to hide behind when it comes to using it to impinge on other things. Now they've got it and someone else had to pay the political price for it, Labour might wring their hands and make political capital out of some of the grossest errors in the filters imposed by the coalition but if they get into power they will find reasons not to turn it off and none of the other parties will give them too much of a hard time over it. Edited February 11, 2014 by Roberto
Garacesh Posted February 11, 2014 Posted February 11, 2014 They 'get it' very well. All the parties want to censor the internet and now they have. They will position it as censoring things that are unreasonable and use that as a smokescreen to hide behind when it comes to using it to impinge on other things. Now they've got it and someone else had to pay the political price for it, Labour might wring their hands and make political capital out of some of the grossest errors in the filters imposed by the coalition but if they get into power they will find reasons not to turn it off and none of the other parties will give them too much of a hard time over it. That's exactly how I see it. Even if any of the big 3 stand up against it, if they lost power I'm Aladeen positive they'd find some reason to keep it on. Maybe they'd spout that they've changed it or some carp (possibly they did, possibly they didn't), but there is no way an asset this close to 'total control' will be wilfully relinquished.
6Foot2 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Link: Senior Tory adviser Patrick Rock arrested on child abuse images allegations - Crime - UK - The Independent ...The Daily Mail quoted a friend of the Prime Minister as saying: “He has known Patrick for a long time and never expected anything like this.”
Garacesh Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Campaigns for kiddie porn filter. Accesses kiddie porn at 10 Downing Street. At first it was possible the filter was 'deflecting attention'.. Campaigning for a filter so people didn't think he was doing it. Now it just seems to be a good ol' case of ID-10-T
mthomas08 Posted March 4, 2014 Posted March 4, 2014 Sounds like as always their is the Political agenda beyond doing the actual job, which is protecting our kids. Having talk to some Parents who know very little about IT they have said they welcomed it and feel more comfortable with it. I also heard one Student who said he hated it. Still at the end of the day they do need to concentrate on the actual goal post instead of worrying about the linesman.
mattx Posted June 15, 2014 Author Posted June 15, 2014 Still at the end of the day they do need to concentrate on the actual goal post instead of worrying about the linesman. An excellent example of Management dribble speak.....
elsiegee40 Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 You raised the thread from the (not very) dead? A, now deleted, spam post raised it. 2
Dos_Box Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Actually I'm going to side with Matt here as, and this is a strange coincedence, I've just picked up a magazine late last night that I'd overlooked (I brought it for a show in Manchester and never got chance to read it) and read a very good article about this very thing. IMO, centralised govt control of the internet is a very bad thing and considering that both Apple and Microsoft have had free filtering tools available for their operating systems for years which take very little time to set up I do have to wonder why they decided to spend so much time and money debatign this at all. Why not just say to concerned parents 'Turn this feature on'? My guess is that many parents will end up turning it off once they find some sites they use blocked (either by mistake or otherwise) and never bother turning it back on again.
cobra427col Posted June 16, 2014 Posted June 16, 2014 Think we needed a NSFW tag due to the language used in the report... jussayin
psydii Posted June 21, 2014 Posted June 21, 2014 Quote from the Beeb today: The Home Office said it wanted to "further restrict access to terrorist material" and use "family-friendly filters" to block other extremist content. "extremist" is already a category on most filter systems.
Arthur Posted July 7, 2014 Posted July 7, 2014 Ministers push for new legislation to track phone usage « The Guardian Ministers are poised to pass emergency laws to require phone companies to log records of phone calls, texts and internet usage, but Labour and Liberal Democrats are warning that they will not allow any new law to become a backdoor route to reinstating a wider "snooper's charter". Inter-party talks, likely to bear fruit this week, are being held against the backdrop of an increased terrorist threat posed by British Muslims being radicalised by travelling to fight in Syria, and by the continuing controversy over the revelations by former NSA contractor Edward Snowden.
sonofsanta Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 BBC News - New broadband users shun UK porn filters, Ofcom finds The industry watchdog Ofcom found fewer than one in seven households installed the feature, which is offered by BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media. ... Of the four main ISPs, all of whom now offer a filter at the point of sign-up, TalkTalk was the only company to persuade more than 10% of people to subscribe. The percentage of customers taking up the option for each service provider are as follows: Virgin Media - 4% BT - 5% Sky - 8% TalkTalk - 36% Isn't the filter developed/sold by the owner of TalkTalk? Seems strange that they, of all the ISPs, manage to get 5-8x as many people opting in as anyone else.
localzuk Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Nah, each one has developed their own filtering system/bought a system in. Talk Talk have had theirs since 2011 - so 3 years longer than everyone else.
Geoff Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Also includes films and music. Britain just decriminalised online game piracy | VG247
abillybob Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Also includes films and music. Britain just decriminalised online game piracy | VG247 Don't want a note a VNP Connection will do you proud!
Fleetwood Posted July 23, 2014 Posted July 23, 2014 Sad thing is, those that will refuse the filtering opt-in will end up going on a "keep a close eye on that one" list. It's lose-lose either way.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now