5 ms·

I find the write up for the United Kingdom interesting.. 1. Spying - indefensible.. 2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with

I find the write up for the United Kingdom interesting.. 1. Spying - indefensible.. 2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation. 3. "Porn Filter" - The main problem with the filter is that it isn't a porn filter, it is an "objectional website" filter. It is a great example of the Government nannying its population. The filter should be opt-in rather than opt-out. I think calling it anti-Internet is a bit of stretch... The fact you can opt out though is obviously a good thing. Personally I don't mind it's existance. I can see it's use especially in helping protect children from adult content which is so easily accessed. Sure. The UK should be on the list for Spying. The rest seem's a lot like padding.

mnem 13y ago
The full title of the report is: "Enemies of the Internet 2014: entities at the heart of censorship and surveillance". It doesn't seem outlandish to include points 2 and 3 as serious examples of censorship.
Already__Taken 13y ago
> helping protect children from adult content It won't do this > so easily accessed This won't change. It just a power grab. People at the top want control. Whatever they call it is just feel good doublespeak.
sp332 13y ago
Most journalists publish on the internet. By invoking anti-terror laws to go after journalists, the government gets a lot of power over internet hosts and providers.
shawn-furyan 13y ago
Corey Doctrow, who incidentally happens to live in London, begs to differ regarding the UK filter's utility in "helping protect children from adult content": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-came...
cs02rm0 13y ago
2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation. Possibly something to do with government employees turning up at the Guardian and destroying some hard disks. As for the "porn" filter, I definitely think censoring parts of the internet is anti-internet. Yes you can opt out, but who wants to be on a leaked list of self-confessed wankers?

mnem 13y ago

The full title of the report is: "Enemies of the Internet 2014: entities at the heart of censorship and surveillance". It doesn't seem outlandish to include points 2 and 3 as serious examples of censorship.

Already__Taken 13y ago

> helping protect children from adult content It won't do this > so easily accessed This won't change. It just a power grab. People at the top want control. Whatever they call it is just feel good doublespeak.

sp332 13y ago

Most journalists publish on the internet. By invoking anti-terror laws to go after journalists, the government gets a lot of power over internet hosts and providers.

shawn-furyan 13y ago

Corey Doctrow, who incidentally happens to live in London, begs to differ regarding the UK filter's utility in "helping protect children from adult content": http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-came...

cs02rm0 13y ago

2. Terrorism laws to go after journalists - What does this have to do with the internet? I wonder what this was referencing. If it is stopping Greenwalds partner at the airport.. I fail to see what is wrong with stopping someone trying to smuggle national secrets out of the country.. it sounds like a person who needs to be stopped reguardless of occupation. Possibly something to do with government employees turning up at the Guardian and destroying some hard disks. As for the "porn" filter, I definitely think censoring parts of the internet is anti-internet. Yes you can opt out, but who wants to be on a leaked list of self-confessed wankers?