Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Government Seeking To Expand Scope of 'Voluntary' Website Blocking

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the camel-nose-is-a-powerful-wedge dept.

The Internet 75

An anonymous reader writes "The UK Internet Watch Foundation, which already works with most consumer broadband ISPs to block websites that contain child sexual abuse content, could soon see its 'voluntary' remit extended to include internet sites that contain 'violent and unlawful' content."

cancel ×

75 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I knew it (4, Insightful)

Lunaritian (2018246) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400808)

This is exactly why we should not allow internet censorship at all; the more sites are already censored the easier it is to add another one to the list.

Re:I knew it (2)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400896)

This is exactly why we should not allow censorship at all

FTFY

Re:I knew it (2)

poetmatt (793785) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401258)

censorship is never for protection of citizens or "protecting the children". It's for protection of business models and corruption. Someday people might learn this. Voluntary censorship is no different.

Re:I knew it (3, Insightful)

JosKarith (757063) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401488)

Censorship always follows the wedge model - first the part that slides in easy, like CP. Then it becomes used to silence things not illegal, just distateful - like Hate Speech. Then it's used to silence anyone trying to argue against you. I've seen this working in a University society where a code of conduct was brought in to stop the worst of the trolls and within 2 years it was being used as a weapon to silence someone who the president took a personal dislike to. Power always corrupts, and tools always end up being used for purposes other than the original reasons for them. In the UK the expanded surveillance powers granted in the wake of 7/7 have been used to spy on people to make sure they recycle properly, to see if a family really does live in the cachement area of their preferred school, to check to see if people scoop the poop and so on.

Re:I knew it (1)

iserlohn (49556) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401978)

In much of the EU, hate speech is indeed illegal. This is because they experienced first-hand the destruction that would happen if revisionism, racism and incendiary rhetoric were to take over political discourse.

Re:I knew it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402650)

As a result, they've learned to be much more subtle with their subversion of freedom and liberty. Hence this story.

Re:I knew it (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402808)

In much of the EU, hate speech is indeed illegal
And once it is made illegal, then you get to start adding to the list of what is considered Hate Speech to include stuff such as whatever is said by someone whose philosophy or ideas you disagree with.

Re:I knew it (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36407054)

Then it becomes used to silence things not illegal, just distateful - like Hate Speech.

Many types of hate speech are illegal in the UK. Incitement to religious hatred, for example. Makes it quite risky to criticise some religions, e.g. Mohammed was a paedophile (married Aisha and the marriage was consummated when she was age 9) and since paedos are generally hated and persecuted it isn't much of a leap to start hating those who hold him in high regard and seek to live their lives according to his example.

We need strong ground rules, aka a constitution. Unfortunately I can't see how we will ever get a good one now because it wouldn't be born out of revolution or a strong desire to prevent past abuses. Rather it will be classic British political compromise that suits no-one. If we can't even allow shops to open all day on a Sunday...

Re:I knew it (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401638)

If it really is voluntary I don't have a problem - say I provided a public access computer in a bar, I'm responsible for what is accessed through it regardless of whether I ask people to sign disclaimers and the like, I'd like to be able to restrict access to porn and so on. I don't want to censor those sites (ie actually prevent them "broadcasting"), I want to prevent my systems from accessing them by using a blacklist such as the one mentioned in the story.

Now, if I go home and use my own systems then I'm happy to bear full responsibility for unfiltered access, so I don't use a blacklist.

There's a difference between censoring and voluntary filtering. You could argue that virus protection software is "censorship" because it prevents the free speech of the virus writers, but it's really just a filtering mechanism.

Of course, since BT have opened everybody's routers to outside access by default (all customers are "automatically opted-in" apparently, and it's tricky to opt-out of), we start hitting some very weird problems over my responsibilities for "my" internet access.

Re:I knew it (1)

JasterBobaMereel (1102861) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401848)

Voluntary as in all the ISP have the option of opting in, they do not have to consult with their customers and if the ISP opts in then all the customers are blocked, and have no option but to go to another ISP

Also Voluntary as in and ISP who decides not to opt in will be hounded until they do ...

Re:I knew it (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36413934)

I'm responsible for what is accessed through it regardless of whether I ask people to sign disclaimers and the like

If that's the law, then it is already broken, and likely deliberately so to coerce "voluntary" censorship. Or in more legal terms, that would mean that censorship is constructively mandatory.

Re:I knew it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401048)

This is exactly why we should not allow internet censorship at all; the more sites are already censored the easier it is to add another one to the list.

Exactly so. The IWF have too much power to block information and no accountability. They will abuse their power and may be doing so already. They need to be shut down.

Re:I knew it (4, Insightful)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401068)

I don't entirely mind allowing it if it's truly voluntary, just like any other blocking software. Of course, having a system where the ISP opts in on all of their customers behalves, and publicising it in such a way that even questioning their use of the list is likely to elicit a response of "Why do you care unless you're some kind of pervert?" is certainly stretching the definition of 'voluntary'.

As it stands, are there any ISPs who don't subscribe to the IWF list? How hard would it be for one of us to start our own that doesn't subscribe to some unsupervised qango's blocklist?

Re:I knew it (1)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401136)

Of course it's truly voluntary. I mean, sure, every two-bit politician buffing his image for the upcoming election will appear in endless daily mail hit pieces about how you must be a piratical paedo-terrorist with a predilection for violence, because why else would you have opted out of this common-sense approach to law and order; but, yeah, totally voluntary.

Re:I knew it (1)

Tx (96709) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401246)

Last time I was bitching about the IWF's lack of transparency here, someone pointed out AAISP [aaisp.net.uk] as one ISP that doesn't subscribe to the IWF list. Unfortunately if I want more than 2Mbps, I have to use cable, so not an option for me.

Re:I knew it (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401502)

Check out Xilo internet, if you dont want to use Cable..... I just signed up with them for ADSL2 - BT did not want to upgrade our exchange. The result? 10mbps download, 1mbps up.

Re:I knew it (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402570)

I Checked them out too, they are twice the price of BeThere though. Freedom is expensive.

Re:I knew it (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402116)

We already have a voluntary censorship tool: the mouse. Only content approved through clicking is displayed. User error might let a small amount through, but the eyelids provide adequate redundancy. Should hospital wards and nursing homes for quadriplegics whose eyelids have been burned off have filtered internet? This I admit is an important question that deserves investigation and debate.

Re:I knew it (1)

Butterspoon (892614) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404764)

As it stands, are there any ISPs who don't subscribe to the IWF list? How hard would it be for one of us to start our own that doesn't subscribe to some unsupervised qango's blocklist?

Yes: my ISP, Andrews and Arnold Ltd. See http://www.aaisp.com/news-censorship.html [aaisp.com] . Getting fantastic 35Mbps (as measured by those speed test sites) FTTC as well!

Re:I knew it (1)

AmiMoJo (196126) | more than 3 years ago | (#36407088)

Just use Tor or any number of VPN services.

Actually I downloaded the Tor live CD the other day but was getting SSL certificate errors from the site so I'm not sure if I should trust it. There is a GPG key but I have not checked the ISO against it yet.

Voluntary? Impossible. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401366)

Government is founded on and defined by the principle of coercion: it is the organization holding the special right to employ coercion as its business model. No other organization can hold this special right; otherwise Coercion is the essence and key tool of every government; otherwise it wouldn't be government.

Where government is present, voluntary association is not. Calling anything having to do with government "voluntary" is nothing but a blatant lie -- everything government does must be either a direct threat of coercion or an implied threat of coercion, by the very definition of government.

Re:I knew it (3, Interesting)

elrous0 (869638) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401398)

What do you have to hide, citizen?

Re:I knew it (2)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401470)

You have to look at from a purely self serving government department point of view (The IWF is a government department in all but name). The more successful they are at their job, the less relevant they become, and they might need to scale back their operation (i.e. fire people) unless they find themselves more work to do. The devil makes work for idle departments.

So they're going to "grow their business" into general censorship in order to stay "relevant" and more importantly in order to keep getting paid. Couple this with hefty bonuses/salary increases for senior management upon such expansion, and general "market thinking" among UK government officialdom anyway, and you have an office that will grow like a tumour until its remit includes oversight and approval of every website, foreign and domestic, with the registration and bureaucratic fees alone drawing in several million pounds for the office every years.

Unless of course, someone actually calls a halt to this process. Fat chance of that though.

Re:I knew it (2)

Yvan256 (722131) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401534)

And it always starts with "for the childen" so that the law can pass in its first stage.

Re:I knew it (1)

flibbidyfloo (451053) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404808)

This is exactly why we should not allow internet

What about sites that put malware on a system? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36406322)

Well??

Why doesn't the UK save some trouble ... (3, Insightful)

jbeaupre (752124) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400812)

... and just route all their traffic through China? DNS, traffic, all of it. The system is all set up and running, waiting for them to join.

Re:Why doesn't the UK save some trouble ... (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401296)

China are too open-minded and so don't censor heavily enough for the UK?

Re:Why doesn't the UK save some trouble ... (1)

Kamiza Ikioi (893310) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402144)

Brits are heavy Google users and Baidu doesn't translate to English very well yet. But I hear that is changing soon, and the new English version BendOver.co.uk is set to release.

"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400826)

That is a surprisingly rational way to refer to child pornography: it both describes the real problem (that children are being abused) and excludes things like "sexting" (at least as a descriptive term it does; I am not a UK citizen and I cannot comment on whether the government there considers a teenager taking a nude self-portrait to be "sexual abuse").

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401236)

That is a surprisingly rational way to refer to child pornography: it both describes the real problem (that children are being abused) and excludes things like "sexting" (at least as a descriptive term it does; I am not a UK citizen and I cannot comment on whether the government there considers a teenager taking a nude self-portrait to be "sexual abuse").

True but one good phrase does not excuse a fundamentally wrong organization. They decide what the public are not allowed to see or know about without any form of oversight. Who's to say they are not blocking other things they consider objectionable like communist websites, political forums, or news stories about royals, or themselves?

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

easyTree (1042254) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401374)

For future readers, today's footnote-comment seems appropriate:

"The better the state is established, the fainter is humanity. To make the individual uncomfortable, that is my task. -- Nietzsche"

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

thijsh (910751) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401476)

They probably are, and if they aren't they *will*. It is inevitable that a system made for censoring will eventually be abused... In Australia the list of censored sites leaked once and had several legitimate sites on it. This is why we need Wikileaks, Openleaks or any organization that helps leak these kinds of things because otherwise we would never find out about this kind of abuse! And we need evidence of the inevitable widespread abuse to fight these kinds of dangerous censorship, just warning ahead of time doesn't seem to work when you are labeled a terrorist pedophile...

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401492)

Trust me; "sexting" is very much a part of that definition to the law, as ridiculous as it may sound.

A teen taking pictures of themselves is easily rationalized to "sexual abuse" and they can be prosecuted for it. Heaven help them if they distribute said image to their boyfriend/girlfriend, because then it becomes distribution of child pornography and they will forever be labeled a sexual predator.

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401600)

This a quintessentially equivocating bureaucratic term. It both includes and excludes precisely nothing. It is general enough to be all encompassing, and vague enough to be selectively exclusionary. It will be used by the censors office essentially at will, and at random, to enable them to exercise their powers where and how they see fit and so none may gainsay them.

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

toriver (11308) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401770)

You would have a point if it weren't for the weirdness that Bart and Lisa Simpson cartoon porn also counts as child porn many places.

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403234)

To be fair, she is his sister. Even in Arkansas we frown on that.

Re:"Child sexual abuse content" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36406614)

Unless it's a government sponsored logo from some over price agency, for some trumped up sporting event.

Stop Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36400836)

Please fight this bullshit to its death.

Re:Stop Big Brother (1)

jimmypw (895344) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400926)

No need, It can just be circumvented by not using your ISP's nameservers. Nor is circumventing it illegal. Not that I look up any controversial material I need my own recursive nameserver for other reasons. I think I'll just ignore it instead.

Re:Stop Big Brother (1)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401014)

China's censorship is far from all powerful. It's as leaky as a sieve, and that's is good enough.

Most people WILL use their ISPs DNS, so when the censorship extends even further, and it will, your fellow electorate will be fully stupefied by it.
Is this something to ignore?

Re:Stop Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401294)

No need, It can just be circumvented by not using your ISP's nameservers. Nor is circumventing it illegal.

That is a good idea until some PSA explain that pedophilew and terroriswt use rogue foreign D.N.S. and that even if you are not one of them(very unlikely) you are as guilty because you support their sick way of interweb acess.

Re:Stop Big Brother (2)

TheCRAIGGERS (909877) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401402)

No need, It can just be circumvented by not using your ISP's nameservers. Nor is circumventing it illegal. Not that I look up any controversial material I need my own recursive nameserver for other reasons. I think I'll just ignore it instead.

You can be sure that, once people become accustomed to censoring websites for the children and "violent" websites, the next step is making it illegal to circumvent. Protecting the children is good, right? So obviously circumventing it is bad. The (mostly false) logical steps from "circumvention of a law" to "breaking it" is too easy in the lawmaker's mind.

Wouldn't it be easier, safer, and better to just fight it now, before it gets that far?

Re:Stop Big Brother (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402484)

No it can't. DNS servers have nothing to do with it. They can censor specific pages of websites without blocking the whole site.

Hello tyranny (1)

commodore6502 (1981532) | more than 3 years ago | (#36400988)

"Internet filtering across the public estate is essential. We want to ensure that users in schools, libraries, colleges and Immigration Removal Centres are unable to access unlawful material." - Yeah but if I WANT to access unlawful material, like nude women, orgies, how-to-build-a-home-riffle, and other shit the government disapproves of? It's called FREEDOM jackasses in parliament.

Remember to buy the products from Cisco (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401164)

If you guy want to catch up with us chinese.

Next step (1)

penguin_dance (536599) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401210)

Next it will include content that "paints the government or government officials in a bad light."

Re:Next step (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401830)

Three words: English defamation law

So, while you're waiting for the courts to decided if your blog post comparing some government official to a horses' posterior, your website is blocked due to "unlawful" content.

Re:Next step (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 3 years ago | (#36403448)

Three words: English defamation law
So, while you're waiting for the courts to decided if your blog post comparing some government official to a horses' posterior,

Six words (including two abbreviations) and two dates: Parkins v Scott (1862), Thorley v Kerry (1812).

Easy enough to avoid (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401250)

Become a customer an ISP that does not have a relationship with IWF. AAISP is one... there are others.

potentially quite a good thing to at least look at (1)

awsx123 (2204510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401276)

before everyone cries censorship, i think it's worth pointing out that everyone here reading this is likely to be a rational thinker, e.g. of a certain minimum level of psychological complexity.

do you all realize this is a specific developmental level? a level which, even in the developed world only perhaps 60 or 70% of adults reach? and outside the developed world, far fewer?

an attribute of this particular developmental level is a capacity to internally generate ethical judgement. in other words, rational thinkers do not need to be "protected" and are better served by being given free access to information and encouraged to make their own mind up.

not so for people below this developmental level, who may easily be swayed into unethical behaviour through emotional arguments. a society which does not make some effort to shield such people from content which might cause them to behave in antisocial ways is heading for trouble.

of course - an ideal solution would manage this without censoring those people in society capable of independent, critical thinking.

but considering that any society consists of humans at a variety of developmental levels is fairly important for looking at this in a rational and big picture way. at very least, developmental psychology should alert us to the fact this is a complex problem with no easy solutions and certainly no panacea solution.

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

countertrolling (1585477) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401484)

Nice one! :-) But I think a far better solution is to protect society from 'underdeveloped' people by locking them up.. I mean, what the hell.. If we're going to delve into the absurd here, may as well go all the way

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (3, Insightful)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401532)

not so for people below this developmental level, who may easily be swayed into unethical behaviour through emotional arguments. a society which does not make some effort to shield such people from content which might cause them to behave in antisocial ways is heading for trouble.

If we accept this argument, we must then accept that these people cannot be relied upon to participate properly in a democratic system without supervision, and it's a short step from there to disenfranchising the whole lot of them altogether.

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

awsx123 (2204510) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402236)

these people already aren't "participate properly in a democratic system without supervision" in the sense that they are making irrational, emotional judgements which are being fashioned (or "manipulated" if you like to look at it more cynically) by those in society who are in positions of power and influence.

and guess who the powerful people are? by and large, the rational people, the critical thinkers. developmental level is a very big factor regarding how likely we are to occupy a position of power and influence in society.

example - the bosses of some companies are quite direct about telling their staff which political party they are "supposed" to vote for.

so actually - i am just shedding light on how it's ALREADY working in a sense. just trying to add an extra dimension in to our meaning-making, that of cultural evolution and individual levels of psychological development.

do we believe in evolution? do we believe in the science of developmental psychology? then why not make use these ways of knowings to make things work a bit better!

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402722)

Great idea. Why don't we give them a 2 and a 1/2 party system with a biased media and plenty of entertainment. They will never know.

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36402688)

before everyone cries censorship, i think it's worth pointing out that everyone here reading this is likely to be a rational thinker,

I would dispute that premise. For example I have read many posts here that support religious views. Then again they may have all been trolls...

60 or 70% of adults reach?

That number sounds too high, however it may just be my confirmation bias kicking in. Do you have anything to support those numbers?

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

tompaulco (629533) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404740)

i think it's worth pointing out that everyone here reading this is likely to be a rational thinker,
I would dispute that premise. For example I have read many posts here that support religious views.
Okay, everybody but you. Is that better?

Re:potentially quite a good thing to at least look (1)

heathen_01 (1191043) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404774)

Its certainly more precise, I'm not convinced its better though.

Join the Open Rights Group (1)

Cholten (253069) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401358)

If this angers you then join the Open Rights Group [openrightsgroup.org] (the UK equivalent of the EEF).

Re:Join the Open Rights Group (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401704)

While I love the cause of the Open Rights Group, it appears to be all talk and no action. It's great to make an animation against the extension of copyright term on sound recordings and "show your MEPs". They'll look at it. And do what they want anyway.

The ONLY way to stop this nonsense is to rally the people, as in the general public. How is this to be done? By letting the genie out of the box. For sound recordings, the genie is still in the box. How to let it out?

Find pristine vinyl recordings that ORG believe are currently out of copyright. Find volunteers with high-end turntables and other equipment to rip these to ogg vorbis and FLAC formats. Create a website where ORG themselves distribute these sound recordings. ADVERTISE this everywhere within the UK (50 years, so 1960 and earlier) and rest of EU (70 years, 1940 and earlier). THEN tell the people that if their representatives vote in favour of the extension, they will LOSE access to these recordings.

Currently, the public doesn't have anything, so cannot lose anything either. There's no perceived benefit. This has to change.

Yes I'm an AC but the point remains valid.

Re:Join the Open Rights Group (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36406754)

The US government will never let this happen. One call from the White House to 10 Downing Street and this will be over. The US does not want any recordings to hit the public domain until 2067 (in 2065 this will, of course, be extended).

Block the movie studios and book stores (1)

gr8_phk (621180) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401444)

Because there are a lot of fictional works and movie depictions of Rape, Murder, Robbery and other "violent and unlawful" stuff. Movie trailers and excerpts of books are often online at studio and store sites. I think they call it advertising.

Re:Block the movie studios and book stores (1)

BitterOak (537666) | more than 3 years ago | (#36405042)

Because there are a lot of fictional works and movie depictions of Rape, Murder, Robbery and other "violent and unlawful" stuff. Movie trailers and excerpts of books are often online at studio and store sites. I think they call it advertising.

Actually, according to this article [cnn.com] which I read today, the UK government is completely banning the movie Human Centipede II because of violent content. It will not even be legal to view the movie in your private home on DVD.

Re:Block the movie studios and book stores (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36466722)

Strictly speaking it was banned by the BBFC which is a NGO funded by the film industry.

Heh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36401712)

Unlawful = not pro-Israel/zionist

Internet Watch Foundation “Crapland” c (1)

David Gerard (12369) | more than 3 years ago | (#36401892)

The Internet Watch Foundation’s “Crapland” child-friendly Internet theme park has gone bust after only three days.

An information board at the entrance depicts the classical painting Smell The Glove by Scorpionaggio [newstechnica.com] (courtesy National Portrait Gallery) and welcomes the visitor on a “flight of the imagination, travelling down the magical pathways that teenagers have used to get their porn for centuries,” and which have been specially opened up for the lucky children invited to come. “Just like Michael Jackson’s Neverland.”

Advertisements promised a “Clean Kiddie-Friendly World Hollywood Special FXs, Blind Faith plane ride, Nevermind swimming baths, Houses of the Holy rock climbing & much more!”

The reality when it opened on Saturday evening was somewhat less impressive. Spurious 404s, lying customer service staff (“for the authentic Internet experience!”), HTML 2.0 and web searches through AltaVista. “It looked like a website from 1995 or a paper chart of what it should look like,” said customer Jimmy Wales. “It was like they’d stacked dial-up modems on both sides of a path together, stuck some printouts on a TV and stuck a keyboard in front. We were waiting two hours and they charged us £10 for a photo with Mary Whitehouse.”

Two curtain-twitchers and a Whitehouse were attacked by irate Internet users. A posting on 4chan showed a busybody having a fag behind the grotto.

Then, on Tuesday evening, Crapland closed. A statement by the management said this was due to “intentional organised crowd manipulation and event sabotage and unscrupulous and inaccurate negative bias media that quoted our words accurately in full.” A woman dressed as a particularly hefty Pepperpot stood outside shrieking: “The IWF’s dead. Go home.”

Cable internet users who unwittingly signed up for the Crapland experience are giving up and getting DSL broadband instead. “It’s been a complete Virgin killer.”

Secret (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402314)

The biggest issue I have with the IWF is that they don't even display a blocking message. Their firewall software just returns a fake error message. They are effectively filtering UK internet without anyone knowing. Most people have no idea who the IWF are or realise that most UK internet connections are censored.

They already are doing it..sorta (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36402414)

The three largest ISPs in the UK (90% of all internet users) all hijack your DNS NXDOMAIN responses by default, eg you are opted in without asking

see.
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Virgin+media+DNS+hijack [google.com]
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=Talk+Talk+DNS+hijack [google.com]
https://encrypted.google.com/search?q=BT+DNS+hijack [google.com]

none of it by explicit consent (like "yes i pay you to sell my privacy and out of the deal i get nothing of any value")

its not the politicians you want to be afraid of, its these so called "entrepreneurs" who are desperate enough to think selling your own customers data to anyone who pays them is perfectly acceptable business and secure practice, and wont cost businesses time and money [zimbra.com] (he still doesnt know why his DNS is screwed, he had to work around it).

get root or even DOS 62.6.40.178 & 92.242.132.15 (the middleman marketing companies servers) and their neighbours and you have 10million+ BT users DNS settings, its such a dumb idea that one of those sociopaths on "the apprentice" could of invented it

jerks

Huh? (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | more than 3 years ago | (#36404524)

WTF is 'Violent and unlawful content'?????? Are they going to ban you tube now, how about the 9-11 plane crashes - 3000 die, that's pretty violent and unlawful!! Actually I think it's distasteful watching people die and gaining entertainment from it, but the line is too hard to draw between that and safety videos and newsworthy videos.

Re:Huh? (1)

sjames (1099) | more than 3 years ago | (#36414228)

News video of police violently suppressing peaceful protest. It doesn't get any more violent and unlawful than that.

Get the Real Criminals! (1)

transami (202700) | more than 3 years ago | (#36407630)

This is major b.s. they should be THANKFUL when some dumbass posts such content on the web so they can use it to track down the originating perpetrators of the ACTUAL CRIME and arrest them.

Why stop there? (1)

doccus (2020662) | more than 3 years ago | (#36408552)

Indeed, why stop there.. you can next also block any site that 'promotes immorality' or 'encourages civil disobediance'. And while at it, why not have a 'make your neighborhood safer' website where you can post the names of 'troublemakers' and politically inconvenient types.. Hey.. why not dispense with websites altogether, and just incarcerate anyone who might commit a crime in the future....

What makes the UK GOV think? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#36409354)

Censor this Hit me, Beat Me, Suck me, Fuck me.

Check for New Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>