Proposals by UK Culture Secretary, Andy Burnham, to introduce cinema-style ratings for websites across the globe might benefit from a little more fact-finding and a little less rhetoric. On the other hand, the danger of open-minded research, is that it might just expose New Labour waffle to the harsh realities of how things …
You Should be Ashamed, El Reg
Just when I think you folk at El Reg might be entering into serious discourse, you go and f--- it up with biased, contrary crap again. It seems you have your goals and objectives and that ain't ever gonna change.
I'm going to get rested for NYE and then drink myself silly. Hopefully I can forget about this crap in the process.
Lemon Incest? Well the French for you, dissolute cheese eating fornication monkeys. Brits prefer their heroes clean limbed and clean living, Keith Richards springs to mind.
Ratings - good idea
But the rating logos will need to state who gave them. Of course, it's not like there's anything else that's different depending on where a site's hosted...
@ AC 16:36
Hmm you sure you haven't already started drinking yourself silly? Because I am having problems deciding exactly what you are complaining about. Unless of course you are in favour of technically unfeasible and unpopular secret filtering (Australian model) or unenforceable ratings for websites (Brit model) and don’t like articles pointing this out.
If of course I have missed your point please enlighten me.
probably good i only have dial-up
so i can't be bothered trying to pull up crap video or all those web sites....oh, wait a minute here...
Short and Sweet . . . For NOW!! I WILL be back!!
@AC 16:36 GMT, I hope you are truly rested in readiness for NYE and are up for the long haul.
BTW, have your last 'glass' on me . . .
You know the one . . . Mind Bleach and Fire Lighters!! That will definitely make you "forget about this crap!!'
As for Mr Mc @18:51 GMT . . . Maybe you could share a straw with AC ??
Like I said in the title, I will be back to read more moronic posts on the subject.
\Pity there's no TWUNT icon, it would probably suffice for the rest of the comments!!
I agree with the US model.
It sets down critieria that will guarantee protection of children, and throws anyone who doesn't comply on a bonfire. This is why US porn is ok.
Unfortunately, accountability has all but gone from the British Judicial System, which has become a marxist protect the weak despite the letter of the law quango, and Judges being little more than child benefit agents, with their cancel the punishment when they've been seen to regret it, and don't punish anyone whose minority group may cause bad press methodology.
Lemon Incest, Un Film de Gainsbourg. Count the English words. But it was from 20-odd years ago so maybe the Academy French is better nowadays.
And I liked the invitation under it to 'send this video as a greeting card', I assume to just your children or granny and not to your BFFs.
Passez-moi mon manteau if it pleases you.
@AC at the top...
... Yep, you go out and get pissed and forget about this.
The fact that the Government is planning on trying to take away more of your rights and controlling what you can see or read or download with ridiculous and unenforceable laws isn't important, is it?
Would it be wrong...
...to express smugness for being a US citizen now? Because, you know, we just voted out Bush, *and* we have constitutionally guaranteed free speech. Just saying.
We can only hope that one day....
....Politicians will get a clue and start to actually understand what the Internet, and all it's vestiges, really are and how they all work.
Then again....it may be years away.
I went to vanbokhorst.nl. And those forklifts are making me a bit giddy.
@forget age of concent
we can not even come up with a unified age for consumpsion of mind autalring drugs in this country (16 for tobaco 18 for acohol none for caffine illagle for most others) that is the basic problem with the internet is it spans the globe so the only way we are going to control it is to have a global goverment
@ the first ac
what exactley are you complaning abut the articley seamed ok to me it pointed out that age ratigns will not work and what most goverments seam to do is to maintain a secret blacklist and we shoudl probley be thnking hard about that
btw how long till the IWF's list gets leaked do you think?
Understanding the Internet renders politicians as history/dinosaurs/dodos.
"On the other hand, the danger of open-minded research, is that it might just expose New Labour waffle to the harsh realities of how things actually work"
That was pretty close to exposing the truth of the New Labour reality being actually waffle. And therefore their being guilty of what is tantamount to a criminal conspiracy stripping the country bare and keeping itself in perceived positions of authority and power, with the subjective and discriminating distribution of capital favours.
And to deny voice to a fix, would be further proof positive of their complicity with media controls to perpetuate the farce/tragedy. Methinks, we know that better is available, and they certainly have been advised that Betas are freely available for nothing more substantial than printed paper, which they promise is available but which they are frightened/unable to deliver without unnecessary strings being attached...... suggesting that they have completely lost the plot and are a fraud, sitting as a government.
J'accuse..... the Sub-Prime Minister without Public Mandate Portfolio.
Perhaps. But I have confidence that technology will shoulder on, so by the time the politicians wrap their lizard brains around the Internet, there will be whole new communications media for them to misunderstand and bollox up.
And, you know porn will be involved. Every new technology...
Image on a low-res monitor
The girl reminds me of the Karate Kid.
Now go and enjoy watching that again this holiday season.
I suppose it would have been ott to explain the full significance of the title of Gainsbourg's song in the main article. The French title is a pun - "Un zeste de citron" - which translates fairly innocuously as "a dash of lemon".
Pronounce it in full-on French and "un zeste" starts to sound remarkably like "incest". The French would have got this straight away. English translators have so far failed to come up with a version that reflects this ambiguity.
Gainsbourg was well known for his rather dubious wordplay. The worst - or funniest, according to taste - incident took place in the '60's when he provided a song called "Les sucettes" for up and coming naive young thing, France Gall.
A "sucette" as every young French person would know is a "lollipop" - and Ms Gall duly went ahead and charted a hit with this song, plus a rather appalling accompanying video that included jobbing actors dressed as, um, lollipops. Shades of Lucy in the Sky....
What Ms Gall did not know, until a friend explained it to her, was that "sucette" also doubles as slang for a blow job. Literally, a "sucking off", as "sucer" means "to suck".
Legend has it that Ms Gall threw a fit and went into hiding for several weeks. It is also said that she never spoke to Serge Gainsbourg again, though that bit of the story is probably a bit, er, over-blown.
New Year's puzzler for any francophiles out there. Do the lyrics from "Je t'aime...moi non plus" actually make sense. Particularly the bizarre line: "Je vais et je viens, entre tes reins".
One can guess at what its meant to mean, but.... the literal image is really rather gross.
Paris...cause this one is about France.
re: Would it be wrong...
Yes it would.
For starters you (the people) voted Bush in.. twice.
You (the people) had the chance to vote him out second time around but you blew it leaving yourselves and the rest of the world to deal with another four years of weapons-grade idiocy.
This time round he had to go (no third terms allowed in the US) so no; you didn't vote him out, he just left because he had to. Yes, you will have a democrat as president next year (assuming some good-ole-boy does not use their constitutionally protected right to carry a gun to pop a cap in his ass first) but given that the alternative was a geriatric with a demented pit-bull waiting in the wings and that both sides are so tied to big buiness as to be almost indistinguisable in that respect this does not say much for democracy in the USA.
And yes, in principle you have freedom of speech protected by the constitution.. but in practice? There are many that tried to speak out against Bush's war in Iraq a few years ago who suffered greatly because of it (The Dixie Chicks spring to mind). "We won't stop you saying it but we'll fuck you up if you do" seems to be the mentality so whoop-de-do on that one.
Sooo.. maybe one too many esses in *smug* there.
(and no, we're no better here in the UK either; the politicians are just as dumb, just as tied to big business, just as deperate for power and just as media driven as yours are and our people are just as compacent, just as ignorant and almost as fat as yours are, too - my only hope is that the financial fiasco sweeping the world might make people wake up and realise how badly conned they have been by those in power but it's a small hope, particularly in a country like mine where sport gets more 'news' coverage than politics or business).
'Short and Sweet . . . For NOW!! I WILL be back!!'
@ Graham Marsden:
Well said Sir, succinct, accurate and restrained. I congratulate you on your use of "Government" and not Nu-Labour, as it matters not which colour is in power (red, blue, yellow, etc...) because the fundamental policy of any colour is to shaft its' electorate as hard and for as long as possible. Which brings me nicely to . . .
How old (or should that be naive) are you? The probability of ANY politician acquiring a clue about ANYTHING (let alone the Internet) is as remote as the outer reaches of the solar system! Well, that's not entirely accurate, they do have a clue on how to line their own pockets, look after number one, rape the country of its' self esteem and stick it to the masses quicker than you can blink. Please wake up!!
. . . and finally . . .
@ David Wiernicki:
How can anyone derive such a sense of smugness in voting OUT a president who was never voted IN!! Unlike yourself, I possess a longer attention span than an amoeba and a far greater memory capacity than a goldfish, which is obvious as I recollect the 2000 presidential election debacle. Nuff said on that point.
As for your Freedom of Speech, well, how can I put it across to you in simple terms? David Blaine springs to mind!! Just an illusion but then again I also figure Git'mo doesn't factor into your vocabulary let alone Extraordinary Rendition, does it??!!
Their is a ray of sun in all my ramblings, to wit, I do like the US restriction of two terms for their leader. At least you're guaranteed to get rid of the shit in eight years time, unlike over here where they can go on and on. The downside is that your president has ultimate say over anything, so what's the point of congress and the senate in terms of running the country? A great hive mind of collective thought come up with a brilliant plan and country hick Bush spits his dummy out.
I do hope Obama works out ok for you. He reminds me of Blair, champion of the people in the face of adversity . . . and what did it get us? The shit we're reaping today, THAT'S WHAT!!!!
\Anymore TWUNT comments yet?
Time for some payback
If France are punishing other people for content hosted in their countries simply because it is visible in France, then it might be time that another country punished the French for this video?
Feeling smug because you voted out Bush?
But you voted him in *twice* so all you are doing is trying to compensate for previous fuckups. Given the massive harm Bush has done to the world I think that you, as a nation, have got one hell of a long way to go to make up for imposing that idiot on the rest of us. It's going to take more than a new president to make up for that.
Re: (sort of) I'm Back!
I too would have used Gitmo rather than the Dixie Chicks as an example of how far free speech is(n't) constitutionally protected in America but I was in a hurry and don't know offhand if..
a) Gitmo is actually in the USA
b) There are any US citizens being held there
..and as far as I know the constitution only protects freedom of speech for citizens of the USA.
But you are most certainly correct in highlighting the evil hypocrisy embodied by that egregious place.
Re I'm Back!! ... 11:35 GMT
Nice rant, MYOFB.
Do you actually propose to do anything to change things though? I wouldn't like to be thinking that you are here just to keep everyone amused with the antics of the politically challenged and serially inept ... for that is something which they themselves would think about providing with a troll.
think of the adults
It's not what they will be censoring. Because we have NO CLUE what they will be censoring.
Where does the list end ? One of them was talking about certain things not being available and that IN HIS OPINION it shouldn't be allowed. Well, why the hell not? It's not hard to avoid the things that will offend you. Furthermore, I am sick of not being offended. I demand the right to be offended. At least once a day. The only people ever managing that these days seem to be the government who not only offend me but make me physically sick every time I hear one of their latest ideas.
What offends you will not offend me. What offends someone who has "think of the children" playing on a loop in their head will certainly not be the same as what offends the majority of the population.
ONLY illegal things should be filtered. And it's pretty hard for a website to be illegal (which is probably why the want to filter the "bad" stuff). I'd like to know why they don't ban or "filter" the dozens of sites that I personally have came across, which thousands have been ripped off by. Sites doing shady things and not only getting away with it, but making money scamming people. People have reported them, even to the police and still nothing is done. If something is illegal, why don't they start tracking the people down and throwing them in jail for it? Pedophiles and criminals in general seem to be stupid and give the game away most of the time.
Re: AMFM - 13:57GMT
High praise indeed but I prefer reality to rant. If you believe that to be a rant then you wouldn't want to read a true rant from me.
As for proposals to change things, well I think they're about to change dramatically over the course of the next 12 months. The last 2-3 months has only been a taster for what is to come and if there are still people asleep to what those in high office are doing with their "power" then they are the lost ones.
Aside of that, only this:
"A citizen must always be ready to defend him/her self . . . Against their Government. Ask the question of Why?"
One final note. It was a surprise, bordering on shock, that during the Queens' speech at the opening of parliament, there was one item missing from the agenda . . .
"My government will bring forward legislation to make it illegal to vote against the Labour party at any future elections. Anyone found to be voting for any other political party will be hung, drawn and quartered"
Then I regained my senses and realised they would do like they always do and tag that legislation on to the end of some obscure and/or boring policy (fishing quotas for example) where there is no-one in the house at 3:00am listening to it. Just like they've done for a multitude of morally inept legislation already.
All the best to You and Yours for 2009.
"don't know offhand if.. Gitmo is actually in the USA"
I'm not sure anyone knows where it is, politically. That, of course, is/was the great attraction to the Pentagon, who could apply whatever rules they thought of that morning, or at least they could until they realised that everyone else was watching. I really wanted McCain to win, as it's going to take at least four years to clean up Dubya's mess (and he is pushing through laws right now to queer the pitch for the Democrats).
To return to the original subject, I heard Burnham waffling on about protection of minors using the Internet, which makes one wonder how he polices his own children's use of it. Presumably he doesn't know about filtering software (which is strange, as his wife is a 'Communications Consultant') but perhaps he has just had the Home Office paranoia chip implanted...
"For those unfamiliar with the intricacies of US porn publishing, the USC 2257 requirement sets a very tough standard for anyone wishing to publish pornography, including requirements to keep records of age of models, consent forms – and a contact address."
Not so much, anymore. That law was struck down as overreaching: http://www.freespeechcoalition.com/webdocs/072205FSCprehearingbrief.pdf
At first I thought when I heard Burnham's statement "ah, good idea, something is needed to help protect the kids", then a couple of seconds later I realised that it's complete crap.
What does Burnham propose to do with a site like YouTube where content is mixed, both adult and non-adult material? What rating would be applied?
And what use are ratings if all they are little JPEG logos? There needs to be a control mechanism, where by the age of the user is confirmed on the browser side and then the user only able to access websites with the appropriate level of rating. If this isn't done, it's completely pointless.
It never ceases to amaze me how little the people in the Labour government know or understand about the internet - surely they've used the web?
I think what is needed is a list of approved kiddie sites, with a certification process and digital signature system applied - much in the way that digital certificates are issued to web sites.
And a web browser created which can only access those sites.
And then the parental users need to create a restricted access account on the PC that enables only the restricted web browser to be used. But educating users to create a restricted access account and teaching them how to set it up will be a nightmare, most non IT literate adults I've come across don't even know that you can have multiple user accounts on the PC!
DNAGoon Guards to InterNetional Rescue.*
I would have to agree with you that the House of Windsor continues to disappoint Right Royally ..... and thus also is Aristocracy cuckolded too.
One can but prompt and encourage and bait and lode the arsenal but if they be reduced to bit part downstairs servants rather than aspiring to the Greatness of XXXXstream Actors, with the World as their Stage on which to Serve, then so be their jolly folly ... but what a Crashing Bore for the Household Cavalry to be nursemaids and an attraction for tourists, as if visiting a Zoo.
I suppose they will blame the staff if they are shamed and tamed as a Pavlovian nodding dog. Introduce some post modern staff with some backbone and fiery imagination would cure that particular aand peculiar ailment and failure of Intelligence, Methinks Meknows We Know.
:-) A little something to put the Fear of GODs into the Realm of all that they Purvey/Survey.
* A riddle, wrapped in a mystery, inside an enigma; but perhaps there is a key which being shared here will have Bonnie Prince Charlie Virtually Energised into Stealthy Front Line Action from the Cloud with Withering Covering Fire from the Rear Echelons with Rare Raw Source, Astute Ammunition and ESPecial Equipment.
England expects ... and all that jazz.
@James Pickett - Communications Consultant
All 'Communications Consultant" means is that the person works with the media: press, radio and television, and probably studied "Media Studies" at univesity.
From the title alone - and I haven't done any checking - but I would guess if you mentioned optical fibre, X25, asynchronous transfer mode, Cisco to her she wouldn't have a clue what you were talking about.
Re: AMFM - 14:46 GMT - Yesterday
I do not and will not, pretend to understand your latest post in response to mine.
Please do not be offended by my revelation, I am more connected to posts such as your previous one @ 31st December 2008 10:07 GMT. That made more sense to the "realistic" side of my being.
But don't despair, despite my inability to decipher the whole of your cryptic message, You have struck a chord with me.
Like yourself, I read the pages of El Reg (along with many others) and despair of the world we find ourselves in. That is nothing new, despair, but hope is around the next corner or so it is said.
And that is where mere mortals fail, with hope in their heart. Am I a mere mortal? No, I am not!! I am me!!
It is at this point I will seem to digress from the subject but history is replete with such activity.
The last time, in our history (if you go back far enough), that we were subjected to Absolute Rule by one "faction" was just a little over 350 years ago.
Back then, mere mortals (subjects) rose up and fought against what they believed was wrong with the system. Nothing wrong with that, especially as in the intervening 350 years or so, "things" got better.
But maybe . . . just maybe, the Parliamentarians have just got too big for their boots this last decade or three and then some??!!
Don't get me wrong, I'm not for or against Cromwell and neither am I Pro / Anti Monarchy . . . I am a realist and the realist inside of me says this:
If it took the Monarchy 1650 years to piss off mere mortals, they must have been doing something right, because it's only taken Parliamentarians 21.21% (approximately one fifth) of that amount of time to completely get up the nose of everyone else since then!!
So, in answer to your question of: "What I propose to change anything" my answer is:
Let's go back 350 years in time, resurrect the Monarchy, bring them forward in time to the here and now & bow and curtsey as all loyal subjects should. The difference??!!
When the "powers" that prevail today bow to the Monarchy, they (the Monarchy) use that fucking sword to draw their blood and stain the carpet a proper colour of RED!!!
\ Too many Icons to choose from, Thumbs Up/Down - Stop/Go - Smile/Frown - Etc . . .But one thing it isn't . . . is a Joke Alert!!
Black Helicopters it is then . . . At least for me!!