No anon pr0n for you: BT's network-level 'smut' filters will catch proxy servers too BT's new network-level nudie no-no filter system will block access to sites promoting proxies and anonymisers, The Register has learned. However, the one-time national telco has insisted that it won't choke VPN connections over its network now that its Parental Controls service, using DNS lookup technology, is in place. On …
In campaigns such as this, being absolutely grammatically and factually correct, is essential.
There is no list
How the system (probably) works is:
* Every user account at an ISP is given a flag
* That flag is either checked as ON (filter) or unchecked OFF (don't filter)
* But no one - at each ISP - has compiled a list displaying the Filter-Status of all accounts
(Obviously a list COULD be created ... but - honestly, Guv - no one has done so)
See how easy it is? ;-)
There is no list
How the system (probably) works is:
* Every user account at an ISP is given a flag
That is a list. "Each user account" is a list that can be enumerated and iterated, "a flag" is something that can be extracted from each entry in the list. It is unequivocally and unquestionably a list.
No, it is only a list if you see the individual records displayed in such a manner (usually a table/spreadsheet structure).
I did make the note in my post that producing a list of the records would be stupidly easy. But, until/if such a list is produced; then there is no list. (honest, Guv)
"This is meant as a simple tool to help those that want filtering on their broadband connection to implement it without them having to install lots of software or build their own filter servers."
Yeah, let's enable lazy parenting!
If my (alebit non-existant) child who can't swm runs into the river and begins to drown, I can demand some kind of system put in place to prevent that, right?
I mean, after all, by your logic, it's not my responsibility to teach him/her to swim.
"Yeah, let's enable lazy parenting!"
Lazy? You obviously don't have kids. Or if you have, you aren't paying enough attention to them. Modern households have all sorts of devices that can access the internet. Since one typically *can't* insert blocking software on most of these devices, the only option that reaches round the perimeter is to perform blocking at the ADSL router or further upstream. So the option for the non-lazy parent is either to build their own router (you could, in fairness, probably do it either by forcing OpenWRT onto the device or by connecting it to a raspberry pi with a wireless dongle and configuring your own system) or get the ISP to implement a tried and tested system upstream and give you the controls for it. I doubt that many readers even of these forums would be confident doing this job themselves, however bullish they may be in public about their IT skilz. Certainly most of us work to an hourly rate that makes it ridiculous to do so when we've already paid (implicitly, like it or not) for the ISP to do it.
The controversy here is *not* the filter, which is undoubtedly a service that many parents would probably be willing to sign up to. The controversies are our beliefs that the list of subscribers will eventually be made public (and used for vindictive purposes) and that the controls we are offered will eventually prove to be only limited in scope, with certain sites (that we aren't allowed to know) blocked (although we won't be allowed to know that either) "for our protection".
If the ISPs were introducing these services purely for commercial reasons, we might worry much less on both counts since they'd be legally liable for any abuse or cock-up. (That would, of course, lead to an opt-in system because the ISP would have no legal right to block by default.) However, since it is the government calling the shots, the ISPs will certainly try to claim legal immunity if anything goes wrong. We are left with a censorship machine that no-one is legally responsible for and which is managed by those who shriek loudest on the issue of the day.
With respect, there is an element of lazyness or at the least a lack of knowledge with regards to the filters.
I agree that there are certain devices can parental controls can not be install onto and that it is not always practical to setup ones own gateway and squid proxy.
Like you I believe that the informed don't necessarily have a problem with filtering, but with the onus on OPT-OUT internet filtering with no proper oversight.
A TINY amount of money could have be spent on educating parents to be (with a mention in pre-natal classes) and those already with child (via TV/radio/print adverts) and would have yielded a better result.
It really is getting pretty fucked up here in the UK imho.
Without a constitution protecting free speech, we have so far (quite well) got along with a government of appointed representatives, and a 'check peer group' of non appointed peers (sic)..
Until the last 10-20 years this seemed to work well enough - the odd bill that came up to the House of Lords that was clearly utter shite, got kicked back by someone with a clue.
What's changed ?
We now have people with slogans on a t-shirt being jailed for 6 months, censorship being enforced across the internet ISPs, and stuff like national identity cards allowing the tracking of our citizens (aka 'tesco club card') being accepted by the majority ('you've got nuffink to fear if you ain't dun anyfink wrong' mantra)
it's fucking pathetic.
Maybe the time has come that we NEED a constitution - written by a small number of educated non-fuckwit people like the US one... to ensure the fuckwits don't/can't get there way... if there's on thing that we should have learned by now, it's that 'popular polices' are generally shite - the last thing I want is the 'public' determining what I can and can't do - half of them are below average intelligence for a start (sic).
"Without a constitution protecting free speech, ... [snip] ... Maybe the time has come that we NEED a constitution - written by a small number of educated non-fuckwit people like the US one"
I hate to disagree with someone who reckons the UK is governed by fuckwits, but I think the written US constitution is currently under the same pressure as our unwritten one. History does not care whether we write down our principles, only whether we defend them.
The government already clearly stated that the next step will be mandatory filtering of "extremist" without any opt-out (and would you really want to be listed on that opt-out list)?
So the current "porn" / think of the children approach serves to
1) Have the infrastructure in place, paid by the ISP/user (not the government - which is great at least those of us on a proper ISP won't pay for nanny state filter - for the moment)
2) Get the mass used to see "Blocked site" web page, and not question it
The next step with the mandatory "extremist" filter will be blocking anything as extremist as people leafleting Mc Donald's (infiltrated by the Met extremist squad) and obviously send a report with your IP address (and probably subscriber details) to the relevant authorities to kick your door at 6am next day....
The most dangerous man, to any government, is the man who is able to think things out for himself...
H. L. Mencken, The Smart Set, December 1919
This post has been deleted by its author
"The government already clearly stated that the next step will be mandatory filtering of "extremist" without any opt-out (and would you really want to be listed on that opt-out list)?"
Assuming that we are talking about purely objectionable material as opposed to illegal then why not opt out? I am no extremist (unless you consider dispatching an occasional trout with a blow to the head extreme), but if there was a choice I would definitely opt out even though I have no interest in such material.
Block the illegal stuff by default sure, but as an adult, I will opt out of any filtering of legal material regardless of how our Puritanical Overlord(s) tries to tarnish and demonise the individual.
As for your points numbered 1 and 2 and the quotation, I thoroughly agree :)
"IP address (and probably subscriber details) to the relevant authorities to kick your door at 6am next day."
Now I *really* have to take issue with you. That is nothing but unfounded scaremongering.
I know several members of the Met and not one of them would be willing (or often able) to get up early enough to kick someone's door in at 6am. Now 11:30 after morning break, maybe.
And the paperwork wouldn't be ready in a day either, so you'd have at least a week to ring round for a replacement door.
does this mean my 3D glasses will stop working early next year? I only got them at the cinema a month ago (i have two pairs because i forgot one of them and had to buy another) this is outragous it was a legitimate purchase (£3.50 x 2) and now theyll be as good as useless just because the government thinks it has the right to block access because of the "children". I dont even have children and the govenrment knows that because i put it on the census. how can they have the right to do this? im going to vote the other way next election because of this. I am f*****g furious.
Shocked that "alcohol" is blocked in the BT "light" filtering which I guess will be the default for new customers. Tried to find a local Weatherspoons to take the kids on my phone to find that O2 had "blocked" all access to "alcohol related content" which apparently included the local kid friendly pub. This is getting beyond a joke.
yes I'm concerned about my kids learning their sex education from Porn BUT as a parent I'm doing something about that, not just blocking everything and sticking my head in the sand.
Many years ago, when the smoking ban was being discussed, I was very opposed to it. It's wasn't about the ban or whether or not you smoke it was about the principle of the fact the government are removing choice from us.
At the time any establishment could have been smoke free by choice, some tried and failed (because more people preferred the smoking places) so the government then banned it...whether or not you think this is right or whether you prefer the smell of BO or smoke is irrelevant, because at the time we (the ones opposing the ban) kept harping on about how once it is over give it a few years and the government and the NIMBY twats from the likes of mumsnet will eventually get their crusade around to something you DO care about.
Ladies and Gentlemen (more the later) I give you internet porn
The trouble is that now the snowball effect has come in, and the fact that they cite the precedents of the past decisions (like the smoking ban and extreme porn), meaning that it is almost impossible to stop a government member on a moral crusade now and things will only get worse. Don't say we didn't warn you, but because no one really stood up and fought for their right for choice previously that right has now been completely removed from you. Good luck getting it back. (the off button will soon disappear and anything the uk government doesn't want you to see will be hidden)
We may as well just pack up our balls and move to China....
The difference between smoking and internet filtering is causing harm.
Someone smoking near me has been proven to be harmful to me. Now I agree that smoking laws have gone too far, but that's another debate (private business should be more or less free to decide)
Me watching whatever the hell I want to (exceptions being very few things) harms nobody else. Being offended cannot count as being harmed.
Concluding: I reject your analogy
But if I listened to people campaigning I'd also believe that guns both do and don't kill people.
I could see that maybe watching porn and having a tug in the middle of a McDonalds or whatever maybe should be banned, but watching porn and having a tug at home shouldn't be, much like smoking a fag at a McDonals or whatever should be banned, but smoking one at home shouldn't be.
Unless of course McDonalds were to open separated "Have a tug" or "Smoking" areas in their restaurants.
The filters - if they must exist - should be opt-in, they should follow publicly available lists, and there should be clear ways of complaining about being on a list when inappropriate.
But to compare this to a ban on smoking is simply strange.
I don't think any of the few of us in this little mini-thread believe smoking and surfing the web are related.
And - judging by a scan of your post history, Eguro ... I think you probably know that is the case too?
But just in case: The "little-dig" is related to the (oft used on here) maxim ...
When they came for the Socialists I didn't complain, because I am not Socialist
When they came for the Greens I didn't complain, because I am not a Green
When they came for the ...
And so, when they came with the filters and you wanted some support ... You were left wondering where every one else had gone.
The anti-smoking legislation was the first big test for the Lobby-Firm Machine that infests every world capital. Politicans don't meet normal-people, they meet vested-interests (on all sides of whichever fence is under threat).
What the lobbyists learned from their huge (easy) victory in the Ban-Smoking campaign, was that the key to getting something "banned/restricted" was to play on fears for the safety of children (I believe the UK is now bringing in laws on smoking in cars?)
The anti-smoking campaign also used the threat of workplace health and safety (which was the reason the Smoking Pubs compromise was not allowed) ... A failure to find a way to link Internet-Censorship to a "secondary cause" is probably the only thing keeping the "debate" alive. If the lobbyists can find a second prong then - rather than pushing ISPs to do the filtering for them - the government would be much more likely to legislate.
The only hope against this constant lobbying pressure is for the majority of normal people to stick together. United We Stand ... and all that.
But sadly, all too often, we don't.
I like a good expansion and explanation!
So thank you.
As far as a second prong goes, I'd say they could probably find use in feminism and women's rights. Pornography has been argued to degrade women and be a cause of sexist behaviour. That plus children will become perverts must surely equal "win".
It'll be interesting to see how far they'll be allowed to take this censorship business before the majority of people actually wake up to this. I'd love to see such a day, but I think they'll be wise enough to push it to the limit and then rest for a while to let things settle into a rhythm, before potentially pushing further.
I think the "100 Women" or whatever the recent BBC worldwide "campaign" was called, is a possible second-prong (though I think it has a good way to run before it can be used, in this context, effectively).
Woman are increasingly - indeed, in certain aspects have always been - seen as vulnerable. They can't get top jobs, they get gang-raped on buses and some have to stoop to being photographed while knickerless, just to make ends meet.
Vulnerability is almost everything, as far as the modern state is concerned. And a vunerable minority most certainly IS everything.
To demonstrate: A big change in society, over the last decade or so, has been the shift in the State's policy towards children. The State has been convinced that as a vunerable group children must now fall under its protection; because parents - who were once left, as far as possible, to bring up their children on their own - have done such a terrible job (or, at least, that is what the State has come to believe).
And so, it is now all but impossible to argue against a proposal designed to protect children. Protecting children is a mission of the State. It is policy. It is not up for debate.
And a secondary, related, point:
Majorities: With the smoking ban, the figures (put about by the anti campaign) were that roughly 20% of UK adults smoked. At 80:20, the pro-campaign stood little chance.
However; I am certain that there is not a majority of UK adults currently caring for minors. Nor is there a majority of children (when compared to the number of adults).
However, I do wonder what the ratio of parents to non-parents; who VOTE is? And, I wonder how many people would agree with something, because they are led to believe it protects children (whether it does or not).
Do you believe we should keep children safe from harm? Of course you do.
;-)
Rather than smoking, a better analogy is government mandated use of crash helmets on motorbikes and seatbelts in cars.* In the event of an accident, not wearing either does not increase the risk to anyone else but yourself. Not wearing either does not increase the chances of an accident occurring. There is no increased risk at all to others. However, the campaigners won, and the government took upon itself the right to directly control the risk you can voluntarily take, largely on the basis of upset relatives (resource allocation was rarely used by any of the supporters of legislative action) - basically the same "won't somebody think of the children!!!!!!!!" argument as we are seeing here.
*I was thinking about this in another context earlier today, coincidentally.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
