3 ms·

Of course it's ridiculous. Why does it take Jimmy Fucking Wales saying this for BBC to run a story saying that? Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he

Of course it's ridiculous. Why does it take Jimmy Fucking Wales saying this for BBC to run a story saying that? Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. It's probably the latter. AFAIK, everyone who didn't grow up online doesn't seem to "get" it.

electromagnetic 13y ago
I think it's for the average john smith. "Hey look, we have an internet information expert saying this is stupid" is much more effective than "Hey look, we have a greasy 17 year old neckbeard complaining he won't be able to look at porn". While both are arguing the same points, it's the former that is more worthy of listening to. It's one of the whole reasons I hate how journalists go talk to people on the street. I honestly don't give a crap about the opinion of some chick down the street from a house fire/arson that stood around for 3 hours before media interviewed her. Put the damn Fire Marshal on so he can tell me what's important. The media just makes me want to go troglodyte.
- s-phi-nl 13y ago
  On your second paragraph, see http://xkcd.com/756/ http://xkcd.com/756/.
gaius 13y ago
No, I'm afraid you don't understand it. What Cameron proposes is perfectly do-able if you have a) billions of pounds b) physical access to the submarine cables and c) buy your computing power by the acre. GCHQ ticks all those boxes. The people saying "haha I'll use a VPN" are the ones who don't "get" it.
- WizzleKake 13y ago
  From a technical standpoint, it's do-able. The extent to which it would be effective is certainly debatable. My point is that it's a stupid idea that reflects a profound naïveté about the internet as a social phenomenon.
- jwdunne 13y ago
  The thing I take issue with is that the government DOESN'T have billions of pounds. This is a government of austerity that consistently derides the previous government of stupid spending. They take any opportunity of insulting Labour about how their bad spending habits have ruined our economy yet then want to fund something as stupid as this? Kids will see porno, whether its blocked of not. It's the same as people being able to download torrents after the pirate bay was blocked or making drugs illegal doesn't stop people getting drugs. This is a deeper issue that can't be solved by closing off parts of the Internet. We need to improve society in general, not make it harder for the people who want to seek this sort of thing out.
  - tankenmate 13y ago
    I don't believe Cameron is proposing the Govt to foot the bill and/or to host the equipment; that will be foisted upon ISPs. Having said that some influential companies and government departments will benefit from said structure.
    - jwdunne 13y ago
      Thanks for clarifying that, this makes it easier to stomach. There will still be a large expenditure on the side of the government, as is with most things in government. Such e penditure would be best spend influencing innovation and business, not requiring a sector to implement mandatory technology which probably has large costs. It seems like the consumer will really foot the bill here. It seems a lot of decisions are made which cause the average joe to spend less, which isn't great for the economy.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
ihsw 13y ago
> Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. That's awfully disingenuous, it may be neither -- PM Cameron and his cronies may in fact fully understand that their legislation will have little effect on child abuse. They may in fact be interested in establishing a police state, which implies that they're not morons and that they fully understand that the internet as a communications medium is far too open. Or they're indeed morons that don't understand the internet, but they're being lead by the nose by their military/surveillance-industrial corporate masters. War efforts are winding down and they need another excuse to pour billions down a rabbit hole.

electromagnetic 13y ago

I think it's for the average john smith. "Hey look, we have an internet information expert saying this is stupid" is much more effective than "Hey look, we have a greasy 17 year old neckbeard complaining he won't be able to look at porn". While both are arguing the same points, it's the former that is more worthy of listening to. It's one of the whole reasons I hate how journalists go talk to people on the street. I honestly don't give a crap about the opinion of some chick down the street from a house fire/arson that stood around for 3 hours before media interviewed her. Put the damn Fire Marshal on so he can tell me what's important. The media just makes me want to go troglodyte.

s-phi-nl 13y ago
On your second paragraph, see http://xkcd.com/756/ http://xkcd.com/756/.

gaius 13y ago

No, I'm afraid you don't understand it. What Cameron proposes is perfectly do-able if you have a) billions of pounds b) physical access to the submarine cables and c) buy your computing power by the acre. GCHQ ticks all those boxes. The people saying "haha I'll use a VPN" are the ones who don't "get" it.

WizzleKake 13y ago
From a technical standpoint, it's do-able. The extent to which it would be effective is certainly debatable. My point is that it's a stupid idea that reflects a profound naïveté about the internet as a social phenomenon.
jwdunne 13y ago
The thing I take issue with is that the government DOESN'T have billions of pounds. This is a government of austerity that consistently derides the previous government of stupid spending. They take any opportunity of insulting Labour about how their bad spending habits have ruined our economy yet then want to fund something as stupid as this? Kids will see porno, whether its blocked of not. It's the same as people being able to download torrents after the pirate bay was blocked or making drugs illegal doesn't stop people getting drugs. This is a deeper issue that can't be solved by closing off parts of the Internet. We need to improve society in general, not make it harder for the people who want to seek this sort of thing out.
- tankenmate 13y ago
  I don't believe Cameron is proposing the Govt to foot the bill and/or to host the equipment; that will be foisted upon ISPs. Having said that some influential companies and government departments will benefit from said structure.
  - jwdunne 13y ago
    Thanks for clarifying that, this makes it easier to stomach. There will still be a large expenditure on the side of the government, as is with most things in government. Such e penditure would be best spend influencing innovation and business, not requiring a sector to implement mandatory technology which probably has large costs. It seems like the consumer will really foot the bill here. It seems a lot of decisions are made which cause the average joe to spend less, which isn't great for the economy.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

ihsw 13y ago

> Either David Cameron is an abject moron or he (and his cronies) don't understand this whole internet thing. That's awfully disingenuous, it may be neither -- PM Cameron and his cronies may in fact fully understand that their legislation will have little effect on child abuse. They may in fact be interested in establishing a police state, which implies that they're not morons and that they fully understand that the internet as a communications medium is far too open. Or they're indeed morons that don't understand the internet, but they're being lead by the nose by their military/surveillance-industrial corporate masters. War efforts are winding down and they need another excuse to pour billions down a rabbit hole.