5 ms·

I think the dystopian worry isn't that they're giving individuals access to filtering software. That would be a worthy goal. The real worry is that this system

I think the dystopian worry isn't that they're giving individuals access to filtering software. That would be a worthy goal. The real worry is that this system is Government controlled and built into everyone's internet connection. Personally, I'm expecting it to soon have three settings, not two: a) Family friendly browsing (opt-in) b) Access to more adult sites (opt-out) c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice). ... and my guess is that they'll then make it illegal to bypass the filter or do anything other than use the official choice buttons. This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."

DanBC 13y ago
There are different filters. Some of them already have granularity. > c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice). This already exists. The IWF provide sites that must be blocked and ISPs block those sites. It also happens when a company uses a court order to force and ISP to block a site.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  The difference being that this is centrally controlled. Because of this, it's speed of censorship will be much quicker. Places I expect this to block in future: 1. Discussions of how to bypass the filter (eg Tor) 2. News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs) 3. Information during times of disorder (eg the tweeting by people involved in the Arab Spring). 4. Whatever the government of the day deems extreme porn/extremist/dissident. The future internet won't come with optional DA notices. Any new discussion like Snowden simply won't appear. Essentially, it's a selective kill-switch for the internet, and I think Edward Snowden said it best. This is about power, not safety. This is a mechanism for the establishment to protect itself.
  - desas 13y ago
    This is not centrally controlled. The ISPs that have been pushed into this run their own filters, the government don't run the filters, don't have access to the filtering software and don't recommend a particular filtering product.
    - joering2 13y ago
      For how long? In United States every radiostation output it plugged to Government blackbox before its aired. Supposedly ut was for safety and emergency transmissions but of course they can cut you off transmitting at any point.
    - summerdown2 13y ago
      I think it's still fair to say it's centrally controlled because the government introduced it as part of policy and sets the rules on what needs to be blocked. The fact ISPs find their own ways of complying doesn't change the fact this is government-driven. If this was ISP-led, you might find the market reflecting a plurality of option, with consumers having a choice. Instead, this is Government-led, with ISPs expected to fall into line: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225783/Connectivity_Content_and_Consumers_2013.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... > Across the internet value chain, we expect industry – from retailers to device manufacturers – to ensure that all internet-enabled devices, whether a TV, games console or smart phone, are supplied with the tools to keep children safe as a standard feature > We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers. > And while Government looks to the industry to deliver, through the self-regulatory mechanisms already established under UKCCIS, we are clear that if momentum is not maintained, we will consider whether alternative regulatory powers can deliver a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access that is easy to use.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > The difference being that this is centrally controlled No it isn't. It's pointless having these discussions with people who are thoroughly ignorant of what's actually happening while they're spinning off into wing-nut territory. What is really happening is already really fucking bad. You don't need to invent fanciful nonsense ("News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)") because reality is bad enough.
    - summerdown2 13y ago
      I'm happy to be corrected. But my understanding is that this is a government programme introduced in their manifesto and applied by "voluntary" means by the big 4 ISPs, with a strong government understanding that the others will soon fall into line. That's what I mean by "central". As for the "control" part, maybe I have misunderstood. Do you mean to say the ISPs have not included things like the IWF into their censorship mechanisms? Because that looks to me like a list of things to compulsorily ban. Now, I may be putting two and two together, but to me this looks like: a) The government at a minimum "influencing" ISPs to introduce variable-level filtering. b) Mandatory filter lists. c) An onward programme of debate about what should be in or out of the block. As for the Ryan Giggs thing, that was simply my speculation. However, I'm currently finding a lot about the way that politicians see control measures goes beyond my wildest fancies - eg RIPA used for school catchment areas.
rmc 13y ago
Or alternatively that it'll be used in court cases or job interviews. What happens when schools start demanding that all their teachers "opt-in"? At a recent obscenity trial in UK, a prosecutor claimed that people who attend sexual health clinics engage in more risky behaviour. What happens if you're asking in court if you've "opted in" to porn?
keithpeter 13y ago
>>...we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."<< Good quote, thanks. We need simple phrases like that to get past the Daily Fail/Porno Perverts consensus in the UK.
- elohesra 13y ago
  Hear hear, it was very eloquent, and I'll be using it in a letter to my MP. Seriously people, pester your MPs about this. They listen if people pester in volume because it literally takes up their (or their aides') time to go through your letters. Use a service like https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/ and pester the heck out of your MPs until they start taking some sort of action.
dobbsbob 13y ago
You forgot setting d) blacking out communication during civil unrest e) political blackmail of opposition
IanCal 13y ago
> The real worry is that this system is Government controlled No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either. > and built into everyone's internet connection. Not everyones. > This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children." I'm fully aware of that, I'm just tired of hearing the same incorrect arguments. It only hurts a side if they lie or don't know what they are talking about.
- summerdown2 13y ago
  > No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either. I take your point, but I don't think it invalidates the phrase "government controlled." I agree they aren't all using the same software, and much is "voluntary." However, the UK web filter is: a) In the 2010 Conservative Manifesto: > establish a new online system that gives parents greater powers to take action against irresponsible commercial activities targeted at children; http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmani... b) Announced by the government: > all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crackdown-internet-pornography http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-came... c) Implemented voluntarily by the main four ISPs (three down, one to go), but with the expectation all will obey it because it's policy: > "Preselected" parental filters are now official policy, and should extend to small ISPs, according the the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) new strategy paper. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-default-blocking-to-hit-small-isps https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-d... ... So, yes, it's not on every connection at the moment. But this is a government programme instituted by direction from the Government. When you combine it with the IWF and mobile filtering, it's not a misrepresentation to say that the Government is drawing up censorship lists and is approximately half-way through the job of making them unavoidable.

DanBC 13y ago

There are different filters. Some of them already have granularity. > c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice). This already exists. The IWF provide sites that must be blocked and ISPs block those sites. It also happens when a company uses a court order to force and ISP to block a site.

summerdown2 13y ago
The difference being that this is centrally controlled. Because of this, it's speed of censorship will be much quicker. Places I expect this to block in future: 1. Discussions of how to bypass the filter (eg Tor) 2. News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs) 3. Information during times of disorder (eg the tweeting by people involved in the Arab Spring). 4. Whatever the government of the day deems extreme porn/extremist/dissident. The future internet won't come with optional DA notices. Any new discussion like Snowden simply won't appear. Essentially, it's a selective kill-switch for the internet, and I think Edward Snowden said it best. This is about power, not safety. This is a mechanism for the establishment to protect itself.
- desas 13y ago
  This is not centrally controlled. The ISPs that have been pushed into this run their own filters, the government don't run the filters, don't have access to the filtering software and don't recommend a particular filtering product.
  - joering2 13y ago
    For how long? In United States every radiostation output it plugged to Government blackbox before its aired. Supposedly ut was for safety and emergency transmissions but of course they can cut you off transmitting at any point.
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    I think it's still fair to say it's centrally controlled because the government introduced it as part of policy and sets the rules on what needs to be blocked. The fact ISPs find their own ways of complying doesn't change the fact this is government-driven. If this was ISP-led, you might find the market reflecting a plurality of option, with consumers having a choice. Instead, this is Government-led, with ISPs expected to fall into line: https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/225783/Connectivity_Content_and_Consumers_2013.pdf https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm... > Across the internet value chain, we expect industry – from retailers to device manufacturers – to ensure that all internet-enabled devices, whether a TV, games console or smart phone, are supplied with the tools to keep children safe as a standard feature > We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers. > And while Government looks to the industry to deliver, through the self-regulatory mechanisms already established under UKCCIS, we are clear that if momentum is not maintained, we will consider whether alternative regulatory powers can deliver a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access that is easy to use.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > The difference being that this is centrally controlled No it isn't. It's pointless having these discussions with people who are thoroughly ignorant of what's actually happening while they're spinning off into wing-nut territory. What is really happening is already really fucking bad. You don't need to invent fanciful nonsense ("News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)") because reality is bad enough.
  - summerdown2 13y ago
    I'm happy to be corrected. But my understanding is that this is a government programme introduced in their manifesto and applied by "voluntary" means by the big 4 ISPs, with a strong government understanding that the others will soon fall into line. That's what I mean by "central". As for the "control" part, maybe I have misunderstood. Do you mean to say the ISPs have not included things like the IWF into their censorship mechanisms? Because that looks to me like a list of things to compulsorily ban. Now, I may be putting two and two together, but to me this looks like: a) The government at a minimum "influencing" ISPs to introduce variable-level filtering. b) Mandatory filter lists. c) An onward programme of debate about what should be in or out of the block. As for the Ryan Giggs thing, that was simply my speculation. However, I'm currently finding a lot about the way that politicians see control measures goes beyond my wildest fancies - eg RIPA used for school catchment areas.

rmc 13y ago

Or alternatively that it'll be used in court cases or job interviews. What happens when schools start demanding that all their teachers "opt-in"? At a recent obscenity trial in UK, a prosecutor claimed that people who attend sexual health clinics engage in more risky behaviour. What happens if you're asking in court if you've "opted in" to porn?

keithpeter 13y ago

>>...we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."<< Good quote, thanks. We need simple phrases like that to get past the Daily Fail/Porno Perverts consensus in the UK.

elohesra 13y ago
Hear hear, it was very eloquent, and I'll be using it in a letter to my MP. Seriously people, pester your MPs about this. They listen if people pester in volume because it literally takes up their (or their aides') time to go through your letters. Use a service like https://www.writetothem.com/ https://www.writetothem.com/ and pester the heck out of your MPs until they start taking some sort of action.

dobbsbob 13y ago

You forgot setting d) blacking out communication during civil unrest e) political blackmail of opposition

IanCal 13y ago

> The real worry is that this system is Government controlled No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either. > and built into everyone's internet connection. Not everyones. > This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children." I'm fully aware of that, I'm just tired of hearing the same incorrect arguments. It only hurts a side if they lie or don't know what they are talking about.

summerdown2 13y ago
> No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either. I take your point, but I don't think it invalidates the phrase "government controlled." I agree they aren't all using the same software, and much is "voluntary." However, the UK web filter is: a) In the 2010 Conservative Manifesto: > establish a new online system that gives parents greater powers to take action against irresponsible commercial activities targeted at children; http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmanifesto2010_lowres.pdf http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmani... b) Announced by the government: > all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters. http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-cameron-crackdown-internet-pornography http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-came... c) Implemented voluntarily by the main four ISPs (three down, one to go), but with the expectation all will obey it because it's policy: > "Preselected" parental filters are now official policy, and should extend to small ISPs, according the the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) new strategy paper. https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-default-blocking-to-hit-small-isps https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-d... ... So, yes, it's not on every connection at the moment. But this is a government programme instituted by direction from the Government. When you combine it with the IWF and mobile filtering, it's not a misrepresentation to say that the Government is drawing up censorship lists and is approximately half-way through the job of making them unavoidable.