8 ms·

Censorship - Won’t someone think of the adults?

39 points by mhw 16y ago

semanticist 16y ago
Except it's not 'The Government' proposing to 'pressure' ISPs, it's one lone back-bench MP.
- eftpotrm 16y ago
  For such a far-reaching scheme I was curious why it wasn't getting more coverage... Who is the well-informed and clear-minded (ahem) politician in question?
  - mhw 16y ago
    According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063 it was raised by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times, but they then link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874 where they say that Conservative MP Claire Perry called for an opt-in system. I would link to the Sunday Times article, but it's behind the Times paywall, so we're unable to find out what our elected representatives have been saying.
    - jerf 16y ago
      The Government's problem with an opt-in system is that once you agree it should be an opt-in system, who says it has to be a Government opt-in system? Why not a private service? How will they ratchet from an opt-in to an opt-out to a mandatory system if they aren't even the ones running the opt-in system?
      - iuygtrftghyujik 16y ago
        That's easy - you just have a quiet word with the owners of the company. Just like the US did with the cell phone companies to get warrantless wiretaps on 1000s of phones. Then of course since the system is private there is no question of any political motivation and the list of banned sites is also secret as it's "commercially sensitive"
    - semanticist 16y ago
      Transcription here, including the culture secretary basically saying 'now that you've said this, the internet will freak out'. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-23c.235.0 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-23c.235.0
    - eftpotrm 16y ago
      Ah! Would this be the same Ed Vaizey who seems to think net neutrality is stifling the rights of Internet highwaymen to set up private tolls....? Bright chap, good understanding of the Internet evidently. Oh well.
madmaze 16y ago
Censorship of the internet, any at all, is a problem. As soon as we are filtering in any way shape or form, it will not stop. The Internet is what it is, open/free/uncensored, and it is no-ones responsibility to censor what is said or shown. If someone would like to "protect" themselves from freedom of speech and freedom of press then it is their own responsibility and no one elses.
- joshhart 16y ago
  Kiddie porn is OK?
  - sp332 16y ago
    Kiddie porn is bad because of mistreatment of kids, duh. By the time it's on the internet, it's way too late to do anything useful about it.
    - AngryParsley 16y ago
      Cannibalism is bad because it involves killing human beings. By the time the human meat is at the supermarket, it's way too late to do anything useful about it.
      - thwarted 16y ago
        And yet despite cannibalism being bad, there are no limits on you talking about eating meat, actually eating meat or owning a grill, which are all unrelated to eating humans.
        AngryParsley 16y ago
        Of course. I'd even tolerate the sale and consumption of in-vitro human meat. (Computer generated imagery, if you're following the metaphor.)
      - rapala 16y ago
        Most people shopping at the supermarket could not see the difference between human meat and cow meat. Kiddie porn is not that hard to spot. It's interesting how we tie the act of consuming a product to the act of producing it. Sometimes it's more obvious, like when you buy your meat straight from the butcher. But is it as unethical if you buy the meat vacuum packaged from the supermarket? How about possessing kiddie porn, does it make you a child molester?
Swizec 16y ago
What about the good old "The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it" rule? Why can't we just continue routing around censorship like we have for the past 20 years?
- cryptoz 16y ago
  Maybe, but that can become a tough game. For example, look at the recent takedowns of 70+ .com domain names. The US Government made a decision for the whole world what content is okay. Yes, we can keep routing around the damage. But as governments become gutsier about how they take content down, they may successfully censor content for 99% of the Internet users. The rest of us - the nerds - will always be able to overcome any censorship that is imposed. But the masses may not follow our tricks; maybe it's too much trouble for them or they just don't care enough. Either way, it's bad news.
  - Swizec 16y ago
    When you think about it like that, hippies had the same problem in regards to certain wars once upon a time. Women also used to have this sort of problem 60-ish years ago. The point is, governments' minds can be changed.
- wladimir 16y ago
  Yes, we'll certainly keep routing around it. But wouldn't it be even better and more efficient if that wasn't necessary in the first place?
num1 16y ago
I've always wondered how we have created the system within which we find ourselves. It is possible for someone to write this well about an argument and obviously be in the right. But somehow, their argument will either be completely ignored or rebutted with a comment that doesn't properly argue the article. The injust law will then be passed regardless. I'm talking in generalizations and not about this issue specifically. However it is a recurring theme that some invasive law will be proposed, and reasonable people reasonably argue why it shouldn't pass, and it passes anyway. How have we allowed this to happen?
- wladimir 16y ago
  Well, in a democracy the largest mob will win the vote, and not the one with the best arguments. And this largest mob is influenced by the mass media very strongly, so the 'vote' of the majority is really that of a powerful minority that controls the mass media. (which obviously presses for stronger control to be even more powerful) This is an issue with democracies everywhere in the world. I'm not sure how this 'recurring theme' can be broken, if at all.

39 points by mhw 16y ago

semanticist 16y ago

Except it's not 'The Government' proposing to 'pressure' ISPs, it's one lone back-bench MP.

eftpotrm 16y ago
For such a far-reaching scheme I was curious why it wasn't getting more coverage... Who is the well-informed and clear-minded (ahem) politician in question?
- mhw 16y ago
  According to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063 it was raised by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times, but they then link to http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-11822874 where they say that Conservative MP Claire Perry called for an opt-in system. I would link to the Sunday Times article, but it's behind the Times paywall, so we're unable to find out what our elected representatives have been saying.
  - jerf 16y ago
    The Government's problem with an opt-in system is that once you agree it should be an opt-in system, who says it has to be a Government opt-in system? Why not a private service? How will they ratchet from an opt-in to an opt-out to a mandatory system if they aren't even the ones running the opt-in system?
    - iuygtrftghyujik 16y ago
      That's easy - you just have a quiet word with the owners of the company. Just like the US did with the cell phone companies to get warrantless wiretaps on 1000s of phones. Then of course since the system is private there is no question of any political motivation and the list of banned sites is also secret as it's "commercially sensitive"
  - semanticist 16y ago
    Transcription here, including the culture secretary basically saying 'now that you've said this, the internet will freak out'. http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-23c.235.0 http://www.theyworkforyou.com/debates/?id=2010-11-23c.235.0
  - eftpotrm 16y ago
    Ah! Would this be the same Ed Vaizey who seems to think net neutrality is stifling the rights of Internet highwaymen to set up private tolls....? Bright chap, good understanding of the Internet evidently. Oh well.

madmaze 16y ago

Censorship of the internet, any at all, is a problem. As soon as we are filtering in any way shape or form, it will not stop. The Internet is what it is, open/free/uncensored, and it is no-ones responsibility to censor what is said or shown. If someone would like to "protect" themselves from freedom of speech and freedom of press then it is their own responsibility and no one elses.

joshhart 16y ago
Kiddie porn is OK?
- sp332 16y ago
  Kiddie porn is bad because of mistreatment of kids, duh. By the time it's on the internet, it's way too late to do anything useful about it.
  - AngryParsley 16y ago
    Cannibalism is bad because it involves killing human beings. By the time the human meat is at the supermarket, it's way too late to do anything useful about it.
    - thwarted 16y ago
      And yet despite cannibalism being bad, there are no limits on you talking about eating meat, actually eating meat or owning a grill, which are all unrelated to eating humans.
      - AngryParsley 16y ago
        Of course. I'd even tolerate the sale and consumption of in-vitro human meat. (Computer generated imagery, if you're following the metaphor.)
    - rapala 16y ago
      Most people shopping at the supermarket could not see the difference between human meat and cow meat. Kiddie porn is not that hard to spot. It's interesting how we tie the act of consuming a product to the act of producing it. Sometimes it's more obvious, like when you buy your meat straight from the butcher. But is it as unethical if you buy the meat vacuum packaged from the supermarket? How about possessing kiddie porn, does it make you a child molester?

Swizec 16y ago

What about the good old "The internet sees censorship as damage and routes around it" rule? Why can't we just continue routing around censorship like we have for the past 20 years?

cryptoz 16y ago
Maybe, but that can become a tough game. For example, look at the recent takedowns of 70+ .com domain names. The US Government made a decision for the whole world what content is okay. Yes, we can keep routing around the damage. But as governments become gutsier about how they take content down, they may successfully censor content for 99% of the Internet users. The rest of us - the nerds - will always be able to overcome any censorship that is imposed. But the masses may not follow our tricks; maybe it's too much trouble for them or they just don't care enough. Either way, it's bad news.
- Swizec 16y ago
  When you think about it like that, hippies had the same problem in regards to certain wars once upon a time. Women also used to have this sort of problem 60-ish years ago. The point is, governments' minds can be changed.
wladimir 16y ago
Yes, we'll certainly keep routing around it. But wouldn't it be even better and more efficient if that wasn't necessary in the first place?

num1 16y ago

I've always wondered how we have created the system within which we find ourselves. It is possible for someone to write this well about an argument and obviously be in the right. But somehow, their argument will either be completely ignored or rebutted with a comment that doesn't properly argue the article. The injust law will then be passed regardless. I'm talking in generalizations and not about this issue specifically. However it is a recurring theme that some invasive law will be proposed, and reasonable people reasonably argue why it shouldn't pass, and it passes anyway. How have we allowed this to happen?

wladimir 16y ago
Well, in a democracy the largest mob will win the vote, and not the one with the best arguments. And this largest mob is influenced by the mass media very strongly, so the 'vote' of the majority is really that of a powerful minority that controls the mass media. (which obviously presses for stronger control to be even more powerful) This is an issue with democracies everywhere in the world. I'm not sure how this 'recurring theme' can be broken, if at all.