3 ms·

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

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.

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.