UK minister looks for delete key on user generated content The UKCCIS is go, with the aim of making the internet safe for kids. But is this the beginning of the end of the internet as we know it, or just a Minister reaching for the inevitable soundbite to round off a PR triumph? As we reported, Monday saw the launch of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS). This is one of …
"TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."
Really. Is it.
Expert opinion like "yeah you really should pay £50,000 more than you can afford in your wildest dreams for this house, because it's a great investment" that's STILL showing on all those fucking "I Wanna Nu HOUSE!" shows?
Or perhaps the conspiracy theories shown on Panorama etc, which even I, as a man who changes his tin foil hat every month to prevent anyone developing a microwave that can bypass its countours following satellite imagery, laugh at?
Or Big Celebrity Strictly Come Wanking Pigs Brother? Those are expert and informative, for sure.
Expert opinion my furry arse. It's about as authoritative as the definition of short selling, wear and tear and immigration rules on Wikipedia....
Conclusion: the man is a twat. And you can put that on TV, because it's an authoritative opinion.
Another very stupid politician standing up doing the king canute ( or take a couple of vowels away and rearrange) act - back tide I say and begone.
I find there is far more harmful content in a politicians speeches as they are more damaging to peoples minds than any amount interwibble xxx content.
Can we have a delete key for the house of commons ?
oh just fuck off you fucking fucks. Is my message to these fucking idiots, just before they get shot by a firing squad from the "British Liberation Army" *sigh* I can dream right? Shame a large percentage of this country is manned by repellant retards that believe in this kind of vomit.
Sorry about the language - but they just make me sick. The politicos and the populace.
Jacqui Smith (Home Office) also wants a big delete button.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/01/17/home_office_smith_speech_web_terror_crackdown_insanity/
Conclusion: This is government policy across any and all departments which could possibly have anything to do with the Internet and even though if the talking head changes the policy will stay the same.
And that's how it was possible to "subtly" upgrade the suggestion from the Byron report that net nanny software be made available to parents to a big delete button in Whitehall.
The last time I looked at a TV for expert or authoritative opinion was watching "Yes Prime Minister", which taught me that ministers are almost invariably going to say something mind numbingly stupid every time they open their mouths. Oh look, they were right.
Mine's the one with Humphrey the cat and a batch of "lost" discs from the Department of Administrative Affairs in the pocket.
http://www.mvps.org/winhelp2002/hosts.htm
It's not going to stop a dedicated teen finding out what's going on and circumventing it, but it's free and doesn't require much tech savoir faire on the part of the parent. Other solutions which lock down the PC locally are a second best bet, while the very worst idea is to pass browser requests to an external service and have them decide what's appropriate or not. Having an external site monitor your web traffic (ie, spy on you) in the guise of "thinking of the children" has got to be one of the most unethical tricks you can pull, IMO. The Jesuit maxim of "get 'em while they're young" is as repugnant on the web as it is in meatspace.
I came across a firefox extension a while back which took this approach. I think it was extension #588, but after checking it now, that's being used for something else. I can only hope that the company went bust and they forfeited the ID number. No doubt it won't be the last time someone tries selling the public spyware in the guise of "protecting the children". Parents, be warned!
It used to be that TV was denigrated by radio listeners, and before TV, radio listeners were denigrated by readers...
Now some no-nothing from government is making the same connection between the internet and TV. As another commenter noted (Mike Crawshaw), TV isn't exactly covering itself in glory right now...
Kids are curious - they always have been, always will be - it's all part of some weird thing that happens called "growing up". Now when I were a lad (nostalgia hat on) - we weren't allowed out round the neighbourhood to play unless we had a good understanding of what we could and couldn't do out there - and if you didn't have that knowledge, you were accompanied by an older brother / sister. It amazes me that although the playground seems to have changed from local streets to the internet, parents still allow kids to wander at will - often unsupervised (computer in the bedroom - keeps them off the streets - keeps them out of the parent's hair...)
I realise this is a tech site, and so the visitors on here who also happen to be parents will be aware of what the internet is - a place where there really is too much information sometimes - and plenty of it that isn't suitable for these almost middle-aged eyes - never mind young children clicking randomly from one page to another. Knowing some IT-literate friends who have children, they have their computers in communal areas, which are always in sight. It seems that often, it's when the kids know more about technology than their parents when the problems start to occur.
I don't have any answers to this, as I'm not a Daily Mail / Express reader - just my observations.
All the child protection legislation assumes children are helpless victims, not people who have to right to participative in decisions that affect them (under the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child). This means that children cannot even e-mail MPs, as MPs haven't had a police check for suitability when working with children (www.wimps.org.uk has to anonymise their e-mails). Youth groups cannot run their discussions on Bebo, in case two friends away there is some swearing: they would be responsible for exposing children to swearing.
Can't Minister's get the point that much of the user-generated content is produced by young people, therefore it cannot be inappropriate according to their own values: only the values of politicians and newspaper editors who should retire now as they are still living in the 20th century.
What a patronising law, we can't talk about adult topics unless it's sanctioned by a government body as acceptable to small children? Isn't that just a creepy censoring government hiding behind the excuse of protecting kids?
Are we all supposed to talk like "diddums my dibby powitician is stoopidy", baby talk for them?
What about Tard Children? Don't they need EXTRA care? Can't we make the Internet safe for tards? Wrap the corners of the DSL box in padding so they don't hurt themselves perhaps?
How about dotty old women with dried up vaginas that are bitter about men and live on their own in their sad little rooms with lots of cats? They need EXTRA EXTRA care, why they even have Curfews because sounds late at night frighten them.
Or it's just another smothering nanny law courtesy of your unelected Prime Minister and his creepy Blairite ministers?
...the internet is global? Is he trying to kill off the UK hosting industry? If they start dictating what is allowed online I'm sure I wouldn't be the only one moving websites abroad and then waving a proverbial finger in the governments direction.
I just wish these clueless fucktards would keep their hands off what they don't understand.
"TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."
If they do they are deluded. The days of impartial, informative TV are long gone, if they ever existed in the first place. Is the bias on TV fairly modern or as access to the internet revealed 'factual' TV programming for the sham it is? TV is full of junk science and opinion masquerading as fact. The hideously bad BBC Panarama episode on wireless networking springs to mind. It seems to me TV is just like the internet, the bloggers just have bigger wallets.
So let me get this straight. The content in question is perfectly legal, so the logical response to it is to ban it because some children might see. Right. While we're at it, why don't we ban cars as well? Children aren't allowed to drive them but one might get in my car at some point, and we can't be having that now, can we?
"TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."
Its very clear where this is all heading - Think China - think Bloggers getting arrested think UK next...
This is fundementally where we are heading.
As he says people often turn to TV (controlled content tells you what they wish to tell you wish things such as news being filtered by GOV to ensure we get to hear what they want us to hear)
God forbit we have a few brains cells and can think for our ownselves and have our own views.
If they wanted kids to be safe on the internet either ban internet for kids since its bad for them exactly like alcohol and smokings and let them use it when they are 16 or 18.
Or just simply offer an insentive to parents to go via content filtered connection such as AOL
This is just another step to 1984.
This government seems to want to rubberstamp every little frickin thing we do before we are allowed to to it. Soon we'll have to fill in a 10 page health and safety risk assessment before even pressing the power button on our computers.
The internet is the last bastion of free speech in this world, luckily it was originally developed to survive a nuclear bomb so hopefully it should survive nu labours bum fuckery of our remaining civil liberties </rant>
These fuckwits couldn't find their arses with both hands behind their backs - and stapled to their arses.
They'll shout a lot, get a few headlines and then quietly kill it once it's eplained to them what a bunch of ignorant cock-pockets they are and how it would only ever be a political clusterfuck if they did more than just waffle.
"These are either the words of someone who hasn’t the first idea how user-generated content works – or alternatively, a man with a very sinister plan indeed."
Considering he is expounding upon the subject, I think we can bin the first thought and accept the second.
"Governments across Europe are not altogether happy with the way in which user-generated content is allowing debate to open up on issues in ways they can no longer control."
Oh dear. What a Shame Not. Get Used to IT Being So. You may Consider that a Fully Transparent Global Meritocracy will Virtually Appear and Present Closed Closetted Government with their Weaknesses in the Greater Global InterNetional Context.
Governments are Not there to Actually Lead, that is the Leader's Job, they are there to Server the Will of the People which they are Duty Bound Surely to Gather and Reflect? The Napoleon/Caesar Types will just espouse their own hidden agenda/dodgy views and always refrain from answering questions which need dodging because of what is hidden or not there. Politician's Block to Prevent Discovery thus ForeStalling Recovery..... which is Scandalous and probably Treasonable in Noble Times.
Presently they Sit in Judgement of those Needs and whether to Feed with Cash Donated .... which would be All Taxation. And that is a Rank Abuse of the System which will always Disadvantage and Discriminate against the Poor and the Less Well Educated, Allowing Virtual Slavery to Flourish.
Obviously a State of Affairs which is Inequitable and Cruel and thus with no Place in a Supposed Civilised Society in the 21st Century. For it to Survive will Render the Notion of a Global Civilisation with any Power or Control of Civilisation, Null and Void. A Myth Perpetuated to Rig the Great Game for Dark and Ancient Orders, with Apparently Zero Ability to Change the State of World Affairs with IT and Media BroadBandCasting [also sometimes known as TV] into a Beta Game for One and All.
You may like to Consider that that is AI Beta Plan Constructed as an ARGonaut's Quest.
Given that laws in the UK are fairly puritanical, anything more than soft porn is hosted abroad. So how does this idiot think he is going to get cooperation from companies hosting hardcore porn in say, Russia? I can't see even the Germans or Scandinavians agreeing to this.
If they are so worried about making the Internet safe for kids, why don't they give a shit about the streets of major cities? If a child of mine saw some porn on the Internet, I wouldn't be quite as worried as if they got stabbed on the way home from school.
The irony is still, that whilst the UK spirals off racing towards a fascist despotism, China gingerly babysteps towards a more open society (sure it ain't going quickly but a generation ago China was a completly different place to how it is now, I know a great many Chinese who say that China was bad, but now it seems far better then where the UK is going, and these people left China for a land of freedom, now they've seen it, they wanna go back.) Infact every Chinese person I know at the moment is looking to going back.
This guy is from the labour statist government. He REALLY believes that the state should intervene in everything - he's only taking it to its logical conclusion. What everybody needs to do is vote the buggers out at the next election - anybody who voted labour is basically getting what they voted for.
Well media companies seem good at detecting that we arn't in their region so we don't get their streaming content (Japan and the States both have sites that are good at this) as such it wouldn't be mind boggelingly difficult for a neo-fascist puritan government to get all IP addresses that arn't in the UK black listed... as such turning out the lights and creating a nice happy environment for us all to live in whilst we roast dog on spits huddled under bridges paying a few bags of crisps to hookers for a few hours of aids infested in out in out ontop of a rug of old bin bags and animal carcases. Until one day the cleaners come and gun us down.
No one from outside the country will know of our plight, not being allowed to leave the protected green zones created in brighlty lit utopian cities fed a constant stream of government sponcered media.
The futures bright, the futures nugov.
The UK will do it the same way as China, Thailand, and some South American countries do it... The technology exists to allow only what "the Man" says is acceptable to be online. It'll be too bad when the UK is part of the aformentioned list, but that's they way it's probably going to do. No one in the West has covered themselves in Glorious Uprisings for Freedom in the past few years and I don't think anyone has the gumption start now either.
Just an excuse to introduce censorship.
We are, as a society (global or otherwise) going through the same sort of nonsense that followed the spread of the printing press. All sort of "interested" parties do not like this new fangled technology which we, the masses, have the sheer nerve to use as a communication and reporting medium. They spent years taking over the TV industry to turn it into the trivial, dumbed down heap of dung it is today and now we have the internet and they have to start all over again.
Expect a big push towards subscription based access to everything from diskless workstations. That is how they'll strangle the freedom of the net. In order to access your applications and data you'll have to go through portals and sign acceptable use agreements and those sites that contain "unwanted or inconvenient content" won't be accessible.
(assuming you could do it) is like putting a document in a red cover with "TOP SECRET" on it - it must be read - whereas putting "READ ME" on the cover means it can safely be ignored. We should be educating children about what's on the web, not creating more forbidden fruit. Anyway kids are a lot smarter than politicians - they'll find a way.
Could it not be argued that the IWF is being used to activate a Graet Firewall of the UK?
Start with the soft option (everyone hates kiddie porn, possible the more it gives you wood the harder you say you hate it)
And the ratchet it all up; chat rooms suicide sites,bittorent bans, horse fuckers, I assume the next to fall under the easy option will be hooker sites, as they have done with the classifieds in the local newspapers
Is it something in their DNA that makes them want to do it?
As someone earlier mentioned,`anyone critical of the UK gov may have to have their content hosted in Russia´, yeah and probably have to live there too!
In response to Andy Burn'em (Books, Computers or anything not approved by Govuk). The job of controlling content in the lives of children, whether online or elsewhere is the responsibility of parents. The whole point of our having evolved this way , where mature humans give birth to young that have a relatively prolonged immature stage, is so that the relevant information that will equip the young for survival can be imparted to said young by their parents during this stage. Just like most of the other animals on the planet.
If the parents don't know how to do this , then teach them, surprisingly learning how to be a parent starts in childhood ( Oh no , can't do that it's sexual stereotyping) . Governments should be around to lead and by bringing together resources provide infrastructure for society, they are NOT for controlling every last detail of people's lives, so tell Andy to either help parents to parent , or fuck off and mind the business of his own family
why *should* the internet be made suitable for children?
The internet is basically a place for everyone to communicate with each other. If you don't want your children communicating with random strangers, which is exactly what the internet is designed to facilitate, then don't let them use it. Exercise some f*cking parental responsibility instead of ruining it for the rest of us.
the old farts who want to enjoy their retirement and see all the stuff they were never allowed to access while at work? And with age running against them, they need the nasty bits advertised Real Big and Everywhere to make sure they don't get lost on the way.
Get Inphormed, and turn off the telly already.
"...to block material that is not actually illegal to possess."
Not forgetting, of course, their plans to criminalise possession of material of acts that are not actually illegal to do!
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/30/scotland_extreme_pr0n_law/
http://www.caan.org.uk/
...and pure shit spews out once again. Which would be fine if the uncomprehending cretin in question was some pisshead in a pub in Hackney. Instead he's a man with the power to wreak genuine havoc, who presumably objects to being compared unfavourably to a retarded two year old.
As for:
>The main difference is that government can regulate broadcasting
Yes, I've noticed that when Humphreys chews you up and spits you out.
Idiot.
"TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion" - that's the sound of a man lining up his next career move.
He's a NuLabour robot who would vote for his immediate family to be woodchipped into hamburgers if the whips told him to - take a look at his TheyWorkForYou profile:
- Voted strongly against a transparent Parliament.
- Voted very strongly for introducing a smoking ban.
- Voted strongly for introducing ID cards.
- Voted very strongly for introducing foundation hospitals.
- Voted strongly for introducing student top-up fees.
- Voted very strongly for Labour's anti-terrorism laws.
- Voted very strongly for the Iraq war.
- Voted very strongly against an investigation into the Iraq war.
- Voted very strongly for replacing Trident.
- Voted very strongly for the hunting ban.
So it's entirely unsuprising that he's calling for more regulation and less freedom "for the sake of the children".
Ah, bless their cotton socks!
As several of my fellow posters have already noted, the government are clearly lacking the degree of control they want over our information sources.
Once upon a time they had a thing called the BBC, which (all this delivered in the voice of Mr. Chumley-Warner, by the way) provided everything that the noble people of this great nation needed to know. Here, the government had a media mouthpiece that provided single-source information and all was well in the world. Before that, they had the bible and *that* contained the 'manipulated truth' required to stablise a social order. You can still see that archaic practice in operation in many nations elsewhere in the world.
Now we have this marvelous invention called the Internet, and with the clear evolution into web 2.0 applications we have large-scale, open-source communication (such as we see here, on this forum) and frankly it scares the government witless.
Good, I say, let them be afraid. We can share information, opinion and intelligence on a scale far greater than they can and at greater speed than they can imagine. They are right to be afraid of it. Maybe it will be the catalyst to bring them back to the transparency and honesty that they *should* practice, rather than merely paying lip-service to it.
They cannot control the Internet. We won't let them.
Mines the one with the B.L.A. armband - consider me recruited!
interesting. I was just thinking.
You don't ban "free speech" what you ban is Cameras, dictaphone and video cameras (they can all aid terrorism) unless you have a license (which is assigned by a government agency.)
You don't ban "public speaking" what you do is ban crowds larger then 3 people (they a: maybe terrorist b: they provide a terrorist target) without a license (which is assigned by a government agency.)
You don't ban posting on the internet, what you do is ban hosting websites within the country without a license from the appropriate government agency and all sites must be moderated.
You arn't banned from accessing foreign sites, but isp's are requried to implement a government run black list.
See I was recently struck by a problem when formulate a story to write, how would it be possible in the distant future for anyone to get out of a controlled area without being detected, going by whats going on now it would be impossible right? Until I realised that maybe some point the government(s) decided that it was immoral to set these systems in place, the risk connected to having such things out weighed any possible benefits. So when a fascist/repressive power arises they don't have all these wonderous technologies...
Also these kinds of technologies just facilitate the rise of undesriable forces.
This [censored] [snip] government [snip][censored][censored] is [snip] great.
Long [censored] xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] live
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx[snip]king Brown. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
That's all I have to say on the matter.
Message from your Government, may it live forever, Brown is Great:
Message censored for you own mental health benefit.
Your Government, always watching for your benefit, always listening to help you.
Governments should be afraid of their people.
The internet is the place where criticism of governments is posted. And most of it is right. That scares the government witless and they want it stopped. They don't want people thinking for themselves. They want the kind of society mentioned by Bill Hicks. I've mentioned it before and here's the Anglicised version....
"Go back to bed, Britain. Your government has figured out how it all transpired. Go back to bed, Britain. Your government is in control again. Here. Here's EastEnders, here's Big Brother. Watch this, shut up. Go back to bed, Britain. Here is Jeremy Kyle. Here is 56 channels of it! Watch these complete retards bang their skulls together and congratulate you on living in the land of freedom. Here you go, Britain! You are free to do what we tell you! You are free to do what we tell you!"
Count me in for the BLA...
im confused....
have i missed 'Big Celebrity Strictly Come Wanking Pigs Brother' sounds great - can i series link it? :)
when can we get this lot out? im amazed... i never thought i would see a day when im seriously tempted to vote tory!
do these people needed to be retarded to work in government? does the position come with a labotomy? how can educated people seem so retarded? is it that the intelligent ones are working for companies whereas the idiots get into politics
every time i hear a story like this i start thinking of guy fawkes... am i alone? my best mate's great nan considered guy fawkes as a working class hero. i can see his point.
im sick of politicians governing over subjects they dont understand and arent intelligent to get their heads round!
yeah - lets set up a government run quango to monitor all internet content. i guess it will be run by one of jacqui's mates or something. the cost - well i would imagine billions.. so will cost trillions...
what plent are they on? i seriously believe that society is split into 2 groups now. those evolving and those not. all politicios seemingly in the latter group.
don't they do something like this there? This is of course to "protect" citizens from malignant and corrupting Western influences and not to stop them finding out the "truth" (but it's the internet so it's only opinion and lies anyway, so why be worried?? Oh yes, Big Brother needs things to do and they can impose 'Values' on us through TV and print media but online, people seem to think for themselves...
Oh, I'm still talking about China...aren't I?
"TV is where people often look for expert or authoritative opinion."
Took your advice, Andy, and watched Esther Rantzen reprising one of her "That's life!" ploys on the telly last night. This involved a couple of very young kids pretending to be lost and distressed in the middle of a large shopping mall. The cameras recorded hundreds of people ignoring the children, and some people actually taking evasive action, before one woman had the courage to intervene to offer help.
In another clip from the film Esther interviewed an elderly grandmother who was helping her young grandson to make a 'den' in a public park when she was approached by a PC who said he was responding to a couple of phone calls from members of the public who were concerned about her behaviour. Naturally, the the boy was upset and confused because his gran had been questioned in his presence as if she was a criminal.
This climate of fear, created by meddlesome jobsworths like Burnham, does little to protect our children from real paedophiles and a great deal to further the government's Big Brother society.
I've said it before and I'll say it again - the solution to this is simple - ban children from the Internet and ring fence them into a special child friendly 'kindernet' if you will with only whitelisted sites and content localised to each country. When they reach the appropriate age of consent, they can use the adult internet. Much like being able to enter a pub or nightclub when coming of age but being confined to the play areas when a child.
Simple - next problem.
Andy Burnham is an idiot and the meat of this article is sound. But there seems to be an increasingly right-wing Daily Mail-esque smell coming from more and more Register articles these days. One that's made worrying when you consider that:
a) they are generally dressed up as 'setting the facts straight' unbiased pieces supposedly from a more scientific/technical viewpoint.
And b) That with point A being such a useful, informative and interesting service all by itself - there is really no need to inject cynical, sensationalist vitriol into such pieces.
The link to the Swedish bloggers story is a prime example. In the article above it's cited as an 'abortive attempt [by] the European Parliament to clamp down on blogs' - and indeed is supposedly 'just one example of this trend'. Very sinister indeed. Since no other such examples are offered, this one clearly demonstrates the point fully, right? Er, no.
The whole point of the article linked is that as per standard Euromyth template, the row centered around one Eurocrat who'd come up with a wheeze and got a committee to have a look at it. Said wheeze probably involved a couple of big lunches, and may have been a waste of taxpayers money - but it was always a stupid, ill-conceived and completely unworkable idea without any substantial support - and inevitably ended up discarded. The article actually makes a point of how crazily paranoid, self-serving and sensationalist it was to start extrapolating that this was part of some kind of 'trend'. Yet a couple of months on... that's exactly what we see in another Reg article.
WTF?
On you tube a cute little girl talking about the some what vitriolic extreme right wing self wanking US TV talk show host Bill O'Reilly or a man whose vitriolic out pourings rants and bloopers routinely provides much more material for all comedians then he wishes one could say , but that be another tale.
Little girl link http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=k8x14cLGh5o
Bill O'Reilly's reply link http://au.youtube.com/watch?v=daF-8xAGybk&feature=related
Thus it becomes a moot question , as to whom is exploiting who by whom , so in one sense perhaps we should censor silly billy , until children are old enough to understand irony ?
In regard to this so called intertubes censorship by talking cowardly little steps of implying security by eliminating the improbable what if , rather then that which happens in real life under false pretenses and it ultimately became absolute suppression as the fatal European spring/summer of 1933 showed , perhaps one should read out aloud to all politicians voters the poem by Martin Niemoller "First they came for..........."
Wiki link with references at the bottom of the page =http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_they_came...
Although it is a well know fact to all cynics , that with many if not all self wanking so called patriotic charlatans pretending to be morally upright politicians "stupid is as stupid does" regardless of morals or ethics for they are so dumb and stupid words just cannot describe their level of incompetence or stupidity .
It's a sick sad world we live in .
I don't believe the stupid actions of government are actually that. The stupidity seems to be very well coordinated in a particular direction, somewhere very sinister indeed. It's very cynical of them to use "The Children" in their plans.
Hopefully it won't work, but the smoking ban worked and that should have failed.
"This involved a couple of very young kids pretending to be lost and distressed in the middle of a large shopping mall. The cameras recorded hundreds of people ignoring the children, and some people actually taking evasive action, before one woman had the courage to intervene to offer help."
And why did that take courage? Because the Think Of The Children!!! brigade would have the mum so scared that her first reaction on finding her children being led by someone else (especially male) would be "YOU STOLE MY CHIDLREN!!!!!".
On one hand they tell parents to supervise their kids, whilst surfing the net, they also have them surfing the net at school too. Kids know what they shouldn't be looking at, but look at it anyway. How many kids have TV's, video recorders, HDD recorders, computers, mobile 'phones in their bedrooms where they can watch all sorts of nonsense *without* supervision? The only way round this is to stop access to it from home, and just have terminals in libraries or exclude us from using the net altogether. Just in case...
They've already made having certain files on your PC illegal (you could be a terrorist), which will have the side effect of stopping research into certain subjects such as nuclear physics (dirty bombs), child psychology (a right can of worms, dealing with kids and troubled youth), politics ( terrorism), chemistry (bioterrorism), religion (yet more terrorism), molecular biology (even more terrorism) etc. etc. Thing is, these are the kind of subjects the govt wants and needs for us to stay ahead in scientific development. If they stigmatise such things questions like "Why aren't there more male nursery nurses?" will never be answered. As other posters have said, the climate of fear will only destroy us. What's it to be, Mr Burnham?
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
