UK.gov's web filtering mission creep: Now it plans to block 'extremist' websites Whitehall is carefully floating plans that might result in ISPs being forced to start blocking "extremist" websites. The first hint reached us in October, when the Premier – basking in what he believed to be a victory against the ubiquity of smutty websites, with big name ISPs set to bring in network-level filters – told …
Why indeed - so long as it's not THEIR government they'll raise a hue and cry. If it's something that a good Guardian reader hates, like Tories or Murdoch (hate hate hate), they'll go to the ends of the earth to expose it.
And if you want to see the average Guardian reader's opinions on Evil Web Filth, take a little jaunt on to Mumsnet and read some of the many threads cheering for filtering 'Der Porn'. Mumsnet is by Guardian readers, for Guardian readers (the founder's husband was a Guardian columnist who now works for the BBC on Newsnight) and the censoriousness has to be seen to be believed. Mostly it comes not only in the form of 'protecting the children' but also 'objectification', which is the term used by 'feminists' to describe the way men look at women.
"And if you want to see the average Guardian reader's opinions on Evil Web Filth"
If you want to see what commentards on Mumsnet think, look at postings on Mumsnet.
If you want to see what commentards on El Reg think, look here.
If you want to see what commentards on the Guardian think, look at Mumsnet?
Sorry, one of us is confused, and I'm pretty sure it's not me.
"the founder's husband was a Guardian columnist who now works for the BBC on Newsnight"
So? He's also responsible for some of the worst dumbing down of Newsnight I've seen in years, but I'm not sure where that fits in this picture. Is that his wife's fault, or his?
It's what Daily Mail readers want. The DM has been campaigning for the fascists since Oswald Mosley's day.
First they came for the Communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Communist.
Then they came for the Socialists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Socialist.
Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.
Then they came for me,
and there was no one left to speak for me.
Nah they got you when they came for people who trot out trite clichés.
Personally I'm against this, but let's not kid ourselves that "omfg this is exactly the same as Nazi Germany" because apart from anything else it's a very easy way for the government to say that there are no credible objections apart from a load of people ranting on the Internet.
Write to your MP if you want to object, I will be. Be polite and courteous, he/she may not agree with you but they will listen.
@Steve David 3: If you start off thinking that, it becomes a self fulfilling prophecy. It's the Russell Brand way of getting involved in politics, the "Nothing happens, so there's no point in trying to change anything" thought process which results in nothing happening, because you've not made an effort to make anything happen.
Its worse than that though.
The people with common sense and technical knowledge DO speak out, regularly, just the Government doesnt listen because the hysterical screaming nutters from the "think of the children" brigade just start shouting and screaming louder even though they are in a minority.
I've already seen what happens within govt...there's a site I use and went on for a mo via an internet machine whilst waiting for a report. The site discusses "speeding" issues. It was blocked as a site of "criminal activity." So not only was it blocked but I'm recorded as trying to access a "criminals'" site. In 10 years time, they'll probably end up with a white list of sites you can access (BBC, mumsnet) and you have to submit a request to direct.gov for access to anything else. For your own security and safety obviously.
"I hope you're watching, Daily Mail/Guardian/Mumsnet readers. This is what happens when you say "If only the government would DO something". That's exactly what happens."
No it isn't.
Government has a range of options in how it reacts to things. Censorship is merely one of the most extreme options.
How far will they go with this liberty stripping?
We wish to inform you that your post has been deleted due to offensive content (pornographic language or imagery damaging to minors). If you believe this to be an error, please contact your local police station. To facilitate speedy resolution, please bring with you a list of all potentially illegal sites which you may have accessed in the previous month.
El Reg must be quaking in it's boots. I wonder how long it is before this site is added to the censor list?
And then, of course, each of us in the UK who's registered on this site just needs to wait for them to track our email addresses to our home addresses before the knocks at the door and the black bags over our heads....
"I wonder how long it is before this site is added to the censor list?"
If they're censoring sites with swearwords then El Reg will be on the list from the very start, as will a multitude of sites, especially ones with comment systems that don't have strict filtering in place, and such a swearword filter setting will include major ones such as YouTube, Amazon and eBay (try searching for 'fucking').
It's going to get very silly once the filters are implimented.
They're likely to revert to the old attempt at shaming people by making it a case of "phone us if you want to enable access to porn". If that is how they do it then personally I will probably phone up and say "yes I'd like the porn turned on thanks" to see who ends up feeling more embarassed. I'm sure we'll also end up with potential future abuses of this when someone on the list of porn users is found guilty of a crime.
I can see the headlines now.
"Man found guilty of murder also played violent video games and viewed porn!"
"Given how many Aged Parents don't understand technology and leave passwords and crap to the kids, I really do wonder how it will work."
Indeed. I seem to remember mum and dad leaving it to me to sort back when we had dialup, although I think I was probably a little older than a kid, more a "horrible mannered acne ridden little shit" at the time.
"Only the adult account holder will be able to change the filter settings."
Ok, lets chew this over. Those of you that may have read any of my other posts on this particular subject will know I am rabidly anti-government censorship, ID Cards, Nanny state, privacy invasion etc. etc. but this...this is interesting.
It's clear, at least as far as porn-blocking goes, that the gubmint is placing the control over that filter in the hands of the end user - Us. They aren't going for mass-censorship or some kind of "great wall" filtering, they're just making sure the tools in question are shoved under the nose of everyone and that we make a choice, informed or not, as to whether that censorship is in place for us. If we change our minds, in either way, we can change the settings at any time.
Now, for us techie types, that might be a no-brainer exercise, but for the average Daily Mail reader type installing and understanding such software is often some sort of techno-sorcery that should be consigned to the devil immediately. How often, on these very pages, have I read the argument that the responsibility for protecting children online should reside with the parents? Well, surely here is our Gov. ensuring that that is precisely the case? Aren't they just saying "Here, unwashed masses, here is the tool you need, make sure you make a choice and don't blame us when Little Johnny goes looking at Teh Pr0n because we took the action that you asked for."
The introduction of filtering in this manner neatly sidesteps the more fascist methods favoured by groups such as MumsNet and their sophist arguments whilst as the same time taking some sort of positive action.
If they then extend that filtering to other types of sites that some people find undesirable but it remains our choice whether and when to implement that filtering then I have to say I think the gov. have taken an appropriate level of action.
....Now, I need a stiff drink whilst I wait for the downvotes.
"""UKIP - I think those are the extremists the Tories are most afraid of."""
Love the irony here. The comments all bemoan the march of "The League of Liberal Fascists" ie those that will do good *to* you, whether you damned well like it or not. They know what's best for us, despite never having met us, and they will go to frightening length to smash their goodness down on our heads.
Now ask yourself where this malign influence is coming from and who is spewing new law at us at a rate totally unprecedented in the history of civilisation.
And it is UKIP who are the extremisms ??!!??!!
Assuming we're still talking about Cleanfeed, it's not simple DNS redirecting, read up on how Cleanfeed works in wikipedia. The current blocks used against torrent sites etc by BT, VM et al work even if you are using third-party DNS servers outside the ISPs control. A particular IP address flags a request to be checked against the blacklist, but the blacklist can then block individual pages etc at an IP address, so it's not nearly as crude as simple DNS manipulation. However proxy servers etc can obviously still be used.
A particular IP address flags a request to be checked against the blacklist, but the blacklist can then block individual pages etc at an IP address, so it's not nearly as crude as simple DNS manipulation. However proxy servers etc can obviously still be used.
Are you implying it does DPI to inspect my HTTP request, determine whether the URI specified is on a black list or not before deciding whether to forward the packet on or reset the connection?
From the Wikipedia article linked above (can't vouch for accuracy):
« In the UK the use of Cleanfeed was later extended in some named ISPs (not universally across all ISPs running the system), following a lengthy court case (MPA v BT - see below) to block websites that link to (without necessarily themselves hosting; a legal principle known as 'facilitating') copyrighted material distributed without its owner's authorisation. »
Not planning on mission creeping at the behest of our Copyright-hoarding Masters at all, aren't we?
But by post-Snowden logic, by blocking these sites all we'll be doing is *forcing* them damn terrorists into using ever-harder-to-crack encryption, darknet etc to fuel their radical ideas.*
Surely they'd be better off monitoring who's watching them, than trying and failing to block them entirely... All GCHQ then has to do is sit and watch, like lions watching the watering hole. Why drive the prey away?
* not that I buy entirely into that idea, anyway.
"......we'll be doing is *forcing* them damn terrorists into using ever-harder-to-crack encryption, darknet etc......" Which ignores the possibility the NSA and chums aren't already subverting the darknet. Forcing the nutters to give up the broad option of the general Internet for the much more limited options of the darknet could actually make them easier to monitor.
This post has been deleted by its author
Well my money would be on them starting with the "Yes" campaign sites in Scotland, as early as possible in 2014, because that would be well within the typical Tory backbencher's view of 'Extremist'. Not Scottish by the way, just a good example of where this could go if it is allowed to continue.
They'd never do that
The Yes campaign is so utterly full of crap it's self-defeating (for example, the White Paper whose founding ideas on Europe and currency union didn't even last until the weekend before being knocked into very small pieces, or Nicola Sturgeon being just a terrible excuse for a human). Blocking them would just legitimise the shower of shit that's fronting the Yes campaign.
In the interests of balance I'd like to add that I've nothing against the idea of an independent Scotland (I live north of the border). But the SNP have no idea at all of how to run a country- assertions of things that are blatantly false or impracticable does not make them true or practical, no matter how much you claim reality is 'scaremongering'.
A "regional assembly" that would have added nothing except another layer of bureaucracy, justified the removal of yet more power from the local councils, and been funded entirely from whitehall, thus making it entirely beholden to the national government anyway. Disenfranchising the people and stealing more power to the centre of the state does not make a more independent or representative government.
It is not 'Game over' until the SNP are on the list. I had some SNP fanboi slagging me off somthing rotten because as a Sassenach living in Old Reekie I'll get to vote next year.
He hated me because I was English. No matter that my Wife is Scottish. He called her a traitor to the cause.
Well Mr Salmond, if for some chance you manage to get the note through and you get your wish, I will relocate my business to somewhere more welcoming like Swansea. You will lose more than 40 skilled jobs in the east End of Edinburgh.
and we did nothing, because we don't like extremists, do we?
Then they came for the excremists
And we did nothing, because we thought they can't type
Then they came for the "extremists" and "excremists"
And we did nothing, because we thought they have a short-memory loss combined with extreme case of invertedcommaism
Then they came for the rest of us, and said its for our own good
And we bent over and let them take us from all sides
er... technically speaking, they can't take you from "all sides" if you bend over (don't ask me how I know this). That said, bending over does open a possibility otherwise unavailable...
Oh dear, this is what our beloved Prime Minister meant, see? Filthy, filthy minds! We must cleanse them with fire, I say!
"[B]y the end of 2014 all existing customers will have been presented with an unavoidable choice about installing family friendly content filters which the user will not be able to skip,"
I wonder if the filter options will be..
O Yes please filter my interwebs and give me a completely false sense of security as I am a complete twonk when having to make decisions affecting my family.
O No I am an adult and can monitor my children's internet activity myself.
O Ferk Off! and mind your own bloody business.
No prize for guessing which I'd go for.
[B]y the end of 2014 all existing customers will have been presented with an unavoidable choice
So inavoidable that I bet most of those here won't even see it. Everything else BT try to make 'inavoidable' seems to be done with DNS hackery. Means I'll likely never be given the choice to take option 3
I'll wager that it will be a case of
a) Yes please, I would love you to filter my internets.
b) No thank you, I have a reason to want to access harmful material (and understand that this will be interpreted as a risk factor for me becoming a Sex Offender, and that information of my opt-out will be made publicly available in the community for the purposes of crime prevention, community cohesion, and Child Safety).
The DCMS claimed that kids fondling slabs would now be better protected about the supposed evils of sex and violence lurking online.
...unless they use their slabs on networks with the filters switched off.
Which is why securing the device will always be better than securing the network (and don't fool yourself into thinking that there aren't ways around the filter either - it's already been done).
It feels sometimes like some parents would rather offload the effort onto others. Scared of of technology? Then get the ISP to sort it out. Can't/won't talk to your children about sex? Then get the school to do it (and then complain when they get it wrong). The list goes on...
"to counter the extremist narrative ...
In my inexpert view (I've never met an extremist, and would probably just think: nutter, if I ever did) it seems that the best way to neutralise the views they hold, is to make "our" stories better than theirs.
If you spend a large amount of your formative youth hearing about how bad the west is, how morally bankrupt we all are and that our whole society is venal, ungodly and otherwise damned - then the best defence would be a charm offensive instead of confirming their worst fears by raining down firey death on anything that happens to bear a passing resemblance to the CIA's Most Wanted list.
Maybe our lot should be out there with stories about how caring we are, how we all love small furry animals and our mothers. That we have a highly charitable society that doesn't want to screw over the rest of the world and that, best of all, we'll open some Pizza Express and Starbucks in their towns, too. Maybe even a Hooters in their capitals? So that their leaders can "know thine enemy"?
Then, once their children can see all the good things we have to offer, just like their communist counterparts did a generation ago, all the hate, fear and insecurity will evaporate. Instead of bombing the crap out of their villages, we'll parachute in washing machines, Playboy, waffle-makers and icecream instead.
Make them just as dumb, fat and happy as the rest of us.
I have a vague memory of a story about a parachute drop that starts as though one of the characters is a peacenik conscript and he is objecting to the dropping of bombs or agent orange but it turns out that what they are dropping is toilets and the hardbitten professional marine is the good guy; Robert Heinlein I think.
And it really is a simple one. I have no desire to tell my ISP whether I want to access porn or not. I know they can tell by watching where I go on the net but that is allegedly illegal since it is a breach of my rights to privacy and if they say anything I intend to sue. However, if I refuse to say yes or no to the filters will I be able to access the internet. If not I wonder if that constitutes a breach of contract.
Now they are saying that the same filters that will block access to Porn will be used to block access to sites which are extremist but no one has defined what constitutes extremist of course most people in the UK will think that they are talking about Muslim jihadi sites but being of Irish descent I wonder if they will also block sites that call for British decolonisation of Norther Ireland or how about Argentinian sites that call for the Falklands/Malvinas to be handed back (as if they had them before) Argentina.
If these things come to pass, then I for one will sue my ISP for refusing me access to the service I am buying by implementing things that I do prevent me making use of that service.
you can't sit on the fence. You're either a porn-addict (at best), and peado-terrorist deep inside you at worst, and you WILL declare your filthy true nature! OR - you are a good, tax-paying, law-abiding, tory-cum-labour voting citizen. If you can't decide, or won't, it shall be decided for you. Remember, the default for the filters is "on". There you go, good citizen, sit!
> However, if I refuse to say yes or no to the filters will I be able to access the internet.
The filters will default to on as pushed for by Cameron. Say nothing and you get the "Government approved" sites only.
> Now they are saying that the same filters that will block access to Porn will be used to block access to sites which are extremist but no one has defined what constitutes extremist
This is the entire point. They won't classify it because then they can add whatever they want to the block list and nobody can say "that doesn't follow your rules". You can't see what is on the list and presumably if your site ends up on the block list you have nobody you can appeal to to get the block lifted.
The original proposals were just about porn but later stories mentioned violence, drugs, tobacco, alcohol and a whole bunch of other stuff. I am not fooling myself into thinking that once the block goes in that all of that and more will be blocked.
> If these things come to pass, then I for one will sue my ISP for refusing me access to the service
They will have no choice but to change their terms and conditions as the ISPs are not in control of the block list. They have no more control over it than you do.
I mean it really takes an idiot of epic proportions to really consider this stupidity as a realistic proposition.
Thankfully we have a pretty decent judiciary that will laugh this out of the statue books...just like they did the entire us going to war against Iraq thing...
Oh wait...shit!
We're boned.
@ codejunky
Looks that way.
Well...I'd say that but I'm not sure we're allowed to look at anything not gov approved...
I reckon its about time that ever good and decent Britisher gets a good sized trout (or any other suitable form of fish) and marches on Parliament for a good round of smack the fish upside a moronic politicians head.
Two hits in one swing gets bonus points.
When are the lazy bastards next in session?
"... counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites."
It seems to me that instituting a process by which ISPs will block online sites at the behest of a representative of the government is showing the extremists and their potential followers that their ideas are quite effective.
How do you counter a narrative by blocking it? Surely you do it by speaking out against the nonsense that the extremists are spouting?
Yesterday, Newsnight ran an item about apostasy (leaving your religion), in which an Islamic "scholar" put forward his view that this was like treason and hence deserved capital punishment.
What on earth is the point in banning websites when your aspiring jihadi can just go down to the mosque on Friday and get his indoctrination first hand?
Doesn't anyone in the Government remember the USSR samizdat literature? Even if you could effectively censor the web, stuff would simply get passed round on USB sticks or whatever.
Like the smut filters, it's pure posturing for Daily Mail readers.
Where once you had the freedom to object, to think and speak as you saw fit, you now have censors and systems of surveillance coercing your conformity and soliciting your submission. How did this happen? Who's to blame? Well, certainly, there are those who are more responsible than others, and they will be held accountable. But again, truth be told, if you're looking for the guilty, you need only look into a mirror. I know why you did it. I know you were afraid. Who wouldn't be? War, terror, disease. There were a myriad of problems which conspired to corrupt your reason and rob you of your common sense. Fear got the best of you.
Divide and conquer – a mainstay of the British establishment since your kingdom was lost to foreign invaders. Sorry, that government merely exercises the will of the people is popular fiction – how is that EU referendum going or windmill farms or mass immigration? There are agenda's at play and the man in the street has little control over the apparatus of government and almost zero influence on the decision making processes. There is an enemy, it is within but it is not us.
This post has been deleted by its author
Creeping scope...
ISPs can hijack outbound (from you) DNS queries, so using OpenDNS etc becomes a problem.
So you could use DNSCrypt, or a VPN, unless they manage to MITM that, or engage DPI and block that too (just wait for it...)
And what happens when a household who HAS blocked it has a technically competent teen who gets around it, visits something dodgy and the vans arrive? I'd love to see the T's & C's on the filter which will invariably have tiny print along the lines of "Can't guarantee to block it all, but we will still report you should your connection do anything untoward, and this blocking service is no protection to you in a court of law".
Personally, given the fact the "blacklists" will be classified and you know full well that 'quite a lot' of legitimate content will suddenly get labeled as 'extreme' or 'inappropriate' (I predict the Labour website will vanish if the coalition stay in power!), I intend to keep the filters off and run my own filtering, until such time as it becomes too onerous and/or impossible.
AAISP are a niche ISP who have been around a long time and offer (according to many) a well respected service.
One of the head honchos is the Reverend Adrian Kennard, who writes a bog which includes contributions and comments on various subjects, including this one.
He has pretty much committed in public to offering an unfiltered service. Which will be interesting given that the connection between his datacenter and his customers is frequently supplied and operated by BT.
http://revk.www.me.uk/2013/11/brave-move.html
As if we didn't see this mission creep coming when it was described as "Family Friendly Filters" well im a single grumpy old man so I'm not having this and my MP who happens to be DC can go JUMP but wont be welcome at any exit point i know of.
If they start banning Base Jumping sites my personal site will be shut down and i will need to purchase a VPN to tunnel to a more liberal country like north Korea or Iran. :-(
i will be telling my isp (a wholly owned subsidiary of BT) that i DO NOT want to have family friendly filters on my internet connection i dont want ANY filters and will only accept blocking of sites that have been subject to a court order allowing them to individually be blocked like the pirate bay and newzbin2. I think that is reasonable.
"i will be telling my isp (a wholly owned subsidiary of BT) "
BT Sheffield (Plusnet) presumably?
Sad to say, even if you were to leave, and others (me included), it would make no difference. BT make so much money off HMG directly and indirectly that they don't have to care about plebs like you and me. Just look at the BDUK "competitive tendering" fiasco for one of the more visible examples (or CfH, or ... take your pick).
BT: default provider of overpriced telephony and datacoms to the naive and illinformed.
The Guberment will block all sites that use incorrect spelling or use txt speak or show hairy arm pits or..........disagree with Prime Ministers question time or just fill in an excuse.Ya know everyday it feels more like being a contestant in a series of that Les Dawson show Blankety Blank
Ahh, this explains why a certain video streaming site i frequent (to watch american tv series mainly) presented a `site not available` page a few days ago. Took all of 30 seconds to bypass the stupid block, so whats the point?
And as far as i know, the site in question isnt doing anything illigal or `extreme`, its just presenting links to streams hosted elseware. Theres mission creep right there, pointless, half arsed, easily bypassed mission creep, but mission creep nontheless.
> Took all of 30 seconds to bypass the stupid block
For the benefit of any readers not familiar with the subtleties of 'reverse-polish-computerspeak', a translation of the original comment into plain English:
The authorities were extremely clever and resourceful, and the security measures they have deployed have me completely flummoxed. The highly effective block has solved the problem of video streaming in one fell swoop and the Government need not worry about this issue ever again. Well done, Dave & Co!
F**k em.
I knew this was coming once I saw the list of crap on the "banned" list.
"Esoterica" anyone? Anorexia promotion sites?
this looks like the sort of thing a middle class mum who couldn't program her browser web filter would be worried about.
There's an election coming up. I think the voters of her constituency should show their feelings to Claire Perry her tireless efforts to protect the UK population from itself.
...until eventually following Japan and ending up with the level of control below. The UK is not as passive as Japan, so it would have to start with something subtle....
Secrecy law approved in Japan — AP: Prison for ‘inappropriate reporting’ — Official: We’re on path to be fascist state — Fear Fukushima cover-ups to worsen
http://enenews.com/secrecy-law-approved-by-japan-lawmakers-ap-prison-for-inappropriate-reporting-official-were-on-path-to-be-fascist-state-fear-of-more-fukushima-cover-ups
......They'd have offered Malware / Banking Trojan filters first to begin with.... But no, instead this reeks of China 1.0.... or rather China 0.1 (because from past disasters we can be sure of a comedy of errors)....and expect there to be a whole host of websites that 'accidentally' get blocked from Wikileaks type sites to Pirate Bay spin-offs....
I never thought Cameron would be as big a twat as Tony Blair was but on viewing photographs of the pair side by side I can see they were cloned in the same vat.
They both have that smug 'I know much better than you do, what is best for you and you are going to benefit from my wisdom' expression, they also have those same cloned public speaking mannerisms that all of our EuroPoliticalClones exhibit (have bred into them).
Don't anyone for one minute think this is only going to be Britain doing this we are heading for Eurotopia and are well on our collective way.
What's next? Burning/banning questionable books and or checking your personal property to make sure there is nothing offensive or extreme that the children could access?
It's beginning to look as though Dolores Umbridge is real and living at Number Ten!
Oh dear - once more into the breach, dear friends, with grandstanding politicians who think they can wave a magic wand and everything on the net will be warm and cuddly. Well - I'm here to tell you, friends - it ain't gonna happen. This is absolutely nothing to do with keeping children safe on line (that's the parents' responsibility in my opinion) or offending folks' sensibilities but has EVERYTHING to do with outright censorship. Who is to decide what is "undesirable" and should not be seen? I expect they will appoint the City of London police to oversee all this business, as it seems they can order alleged file-sharing sites in other countries to do their bidding. Doing the same to other sites deemed "extremist" without any due process whatsoever should be child's play to them. I believe there may be an election coming up. Anything to do with that, possibly?
until some very unlucky kiddie in your area disappears
You can bet the first people to be trawled in will be all those who opted for a full smut internet experience
And after your home is trashed, and you've been beaten to a pulp, it turns out said kiddie is at the bottom of the local canal after being stamped on by her drunken drug addled and known to the police/social services step-dad......
Step-dad, preacher, teacher. Statistically speaking, child abuse is generally committed by someone well known to the victim, not someone unknown from the interweb.
There's probably a further comment to make here about the prevalence among abusers of celebrities and/or about the Catholic church's representatives, but my lawyer told me not to.
There is a book - currently (though perhaps not for long) freely available on the internet - called On Liberty.
It was published in 1859 and it was written by British philosopher John Stuart Mill.
It would be quite good - I think - if all people desiring to hold office, were to read and understand it.
In it we find grand gems of wisdom, such as:
"If a person possesses any tolerable amount of common sense and experience, his own mode of laying out his existence is the best, not because it is the best in itself, but because it is his own mode. Human beings are not like sheep; and even sheep are not undistinguishably alike. A man cannot get a coat or a pair of boots to fit him, unless they are either made to his measure, or he has a whole warehouseful to choose from: and is it easier to fit him with a life than with a coat, or are human beings more like one another in their whole physical and spiritual conformation than in the shape of their feet?"
As far as extremism and the silencing of opinions is concerned:
"But the peculiar evil of silencing the expression of an opinion is, that it is robbing the human race; posterity as well as the existing generation; those who dissent from the opinion, still more than those who hold it. If the opinion is right, they are deprived of the opportunity of exchanging error for truth: if wrong, they lose, what is almost as great a benefit, the clearer perception and livelier impression of truth, produced by its collision with error."
We do no one any favours by blocking out opinions and views. Instead we (our "extremist" counterparts) should clash those opinions in an effort to find truth or a common ground. If views are never tested then we are never given the chance of exchanging them for other views or of spreading the views because they've been tested.
Quotes taken from: http://www.billstclair.com/Serendipity/on_lib.html
Coat icon because a coat is apparently more complex than a human life in the view of some people.
Trust me, they've all read it.... it’s basically the first book studied on a PPE course.
That, of course, doesn't mean that they understood it. If they did understand it then the chances are that they've managed to convince themselves that it’s no longer relevant because it doesn't suit their purposes once in power.
so you come to the Divorce court for a messy separation from your wife and her Lawyers tell the court that you didn't have the "Family friendly Filters" on your internet service
SLAM DUNK no more access to your kids you will never see them again will loose your house will be put on a register somewhere and loose your job.
YOU don't think it will Happen just YOU wait..................! remember when it happens "I TOLD YOU SO"
They had to send out their henchmen with sledgehammers to smash the Guardian's computers. With this "extremist filter" in place, any media wanting to report anything ouside the government's approved news will be threatened with their site being blanked.
No more need for computer smashers ..... and no more free press - simples!
Trouble is (like most things) that most people allow themselves to be convinced by the argument 'nothing to hide, nothing to fear'. It needs to be clear to people that this is relevant to theit daily livres, and I don't think it really is clear because of the terms being used. People need to see this as something that threatens their access to The Sun or Bingo, or cheap fags. Or increases the latency of their trades. Let's go out there and spread rumours.
Politics, and bumbling lead politicians, are getting ever more desperate in their efforts to try and remain relevant and personally necessary in an age in which it be discovered their shenanigans be purely status-quo self-serving and easily replaced with something considerably better in Command and Control of IT and Media.
Minnows of Limited See in Vast Oceans of Brilliant Sharks.
We really should be asking the Chinese if they can lend a hand. I think they've got some experience of making sure the population is sufficiently protected from the free flow of information. I guess it'd be ridiculous to allow people to read all the info and make their own minds up about stuff.
We really should be asking the Chinese if they can lend a hand. I think they've got some experience of making sure the population is sufficiently protected from the free flow of information. I guess it'd be ridiculous to allow people to read all the info and make their own minds up about stuff. ...Kevin Hutchinson Posted Saturday 30th November 2013 07:12 GMT
Dave appears to have that intelligence deficit covered, Kevin? ........ http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25176613
And just what does he look like in that video picture freeze? Quite the most pompous and pretentious of prats and a prig, methinks. Mother Nature at her most brutally honest and cruel?
PS .... Interesting use of the pronoun, "who", in relation to the country, China, Kevin. Not many folk know that's how think work in the World of Worlds with Great Gamers and Much Bigger Beta Picture Makers ...... Ab Fab Fabless AI Artists/Cyber Partisans/Virtual Patriots.
....have all run the figures through their think-tanks etc.
They know that with increasing population and dwindling resources, if they want to keep what they have they have to clamp down hard on the rest of us so we don't dare get up and take it back.
So all this terrorist crud is really a smokescreen to enable them to deal with any 'troublemakers' in the future that might stir up the masses to realise what's going on. Stamp on any dissent. In the meantime they will continue syphoning off all we have and locking themselves away safe from harm.
The western Govts of the world are terrified of another 'Early 90's Eastern Europe' scenario happening. Whereby enough people wake up one morning and think "Hey, you know what? This isn't working for me anymore! It's time for a REAL change!"
If Russell Brand had kept going on about the politics I wonder how long it would have been till he was found 'accidentally on purpose' dead in a hotel room.
The problem isn't that sites recruiting for al Qaeda will get filtered out. Given that they help cause death and destruction, good riddance. I think that this is the goal, and not defining 'extremist' has more to do with not offending Muslims than any hidden intent to scrub the Internet of legitimate political dissent.
So am I OK with this? Well, there's one problem. Now, if you don't have children who need protecting against online smut, and thus don't want your Internet filtered... now you can be suspected of being a terrorist!
"not defining 'extremist' has more to do with not offending Muslims than any hidden intent to scrub the Internet of legitimate political dissent."
Perhaps, but I am not wholly convinced that holds true.
I am sure there is much potential leverage to be had by deliberately avoiding defining words such as "extremist" or "hate". It's far more convenient for Kim Jong-Cameron and his pseudo-puritanical weasel logic to leave such terms wholly undefined.
"So am I OK with this? Well, there's one problem. Now, if you don't have children who need protecting against online smut, and thus don't want your Internet filtered... now you can be suspected of being a terrorist!"
Why stop there? If we don't personally sanction his logic then by inference we're already sexually deviant, extremist alcoholics with gambling problems and suicidal tendencies as far as Cameron and fellow weasels are concerned (when viewed in the context of likely scope for such internet filters).
The man thoroughly enjoys demonising his electorate whilst bastardising democratic principles and hijacking the misfortune of others*.
This whole saga is a poisoned chalice and still has a long way to run.
*As you can probably tell, I am not his greatest fan ;)
"Now, if you don't have children who need protecting against online smut"
Here's a concept. As the parent that's YOUR JOB. Either you are willing to do your job, or just don't breed.
It's not beyond people to install a net nanny etc. Kids that will be traumatised by on-line smut are too young to gave their own mobile and shouldn't be using the Internet without supervision.
There's a lot more than just smut to worry about, news sites can be hard even for an adult.
Just because Britain's parents want to shirk the responsibilities is no excuse. Not knowing how is no excuse (learn or pay someone, just like you'd hire a plumber).
The problem with government approved censorship is you cannot get around it with explicit IP addresses or simple VPN because government can see who you are connected to.
If accessing a type of political web content becomes a criminal offense, like it is in many parts of the world, you're reduced to using TOR, with the slowness, lack of functionality,lack of history, and limited tools that go along with that.
It also becomes hard to find websites. You get these sites on the black web, which you have to already know about to find.
And if Britain falls, if the English speaking world falls, what nation is going to host this stuff? How will those nations access an internet that is controlled by the USA?
The "Protect the childrens from paedos" line was ust to get an emotional response and shut down dissent (as any dissent could be construed as supporting padephillia). Now the die is cast the glove can come off and the Tories and get censorship installed, which Labour will then increase and accelerate.
Thing is, his grand scheme won't work simply because it can't work. He will cause BILLIONS to be wasted on this futile task, while the schools and hospitals get sold off to pay for it all and the nation crumbles at his feet.
His censorship will be routed around and turn those of who believ in freedom of speech and thought into criminals.
Screw Mr. Cameron. Screw his Etonian-old boy clique. Screw the Tories. And screw Labour, their lick-spittle imitators. Where is the alternative party in the UK?
"Where is the alternative party in the UK?"
It's not permitted. Just look at the way Occupy were treated by the media (regardless of whether you support their aims or methods). Anyone vaguely off-consensus will not be allowed access to the media except in order to be made fun of, and if anyone looks like being at all threatening to the establishment consensus, well, there's plenty of recent evidence what happens (just ask the Guardian).
A lot of people feel their vote is worthless and has zero power to change. So they don't vote. Spoiling your paper just sounds retarded and doesnt gain anything.
So at the next election why don't we try the following - Vote for anyone but the incumbent MP!
That way in theory every current MP would lose their seat, that would include safe seats, Cameron, Millipede etc. All gone. A total change at Westminster. Total chaos for all of them, total upset and a total show that the power to kick them out still rests with the 99%.
Sure we might still end up with a lab/Lib/Con/Co govt, but it would all be new faces and an extreme show of democracy. A campaign could even be setup to provide a more equal divide of the parties by advising voters the alternative to vote for in their ward to create a three way spilt or even a 4 way. Would be interesting to see how a govt would operate with 25% Tory, 25% Labour, 25% Lib and say 25% Independants.
Would be a more useful use of a vote I reckon.
This post has been deleted by its author
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
