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!

The UK's Internet Porn Filter and Fighting Censorship Creep

Soulskill posted about 10 months ago | from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-children dept.

Censorship 234

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian takes the UK government's internet porn filter to task by pointing out how absurd the opt-out process is: 'Picture the scene. You're pottering about on the internet, perhaps idly looking up cake recipes, or videos of puppies learning to howl. Then the phone rings. It's your internet service provider. Actually, it's a nice lady in a telesales warehouse somewhere, employed on behalf of your service provider; let's call her Linda. Linda is calling because, thanks to David Cameron's "porn filter", you now have an "unavoidable choice", as one of 20 million British households with a broadband connection, over whether to opt in to view certain content. Linda wants to know – do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can't hear you.' The article also points out how the filter is being used as a tool for private industry to protect their profits. 'The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" – in other words, filesharing and music downloads, debate over which has been going on in parliament for years.'"

cancel ×

234 comments

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

This is why I like being old (5, Insightful)

boristdog (133725) | about 10 months ago | (#45857979)

As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858041)

While you're at it, ask Linda where you can find the video of her getting creampied by a German shepard.

Re:This is why I like being old (5, Funny)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45858921)

You have a sexy voice Linda. What are you wearing? Obscene content you say? Describe it to me in detail, so that I can make an informed decision.

Re:This is why I like being old (3, Informative)

i kan reed (749298) | about 10 months ago | (#45858251)

Yeah, me too. I have a relationship that would stand up to a "porn's okay" conversation.

Re:This is why I like being old (3, Insightful)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 10 months ago | (#45859265)

Speaking of "porns okay" wouldn't it be nice if you could only opt into good porn. Yes I want adult material but only that which meets the following criteria. Think of the thousands of hours you could save if you didn't have to search :)

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

ObsessiveMathsFreak (773371) | about 10 months ago | (#45858331)

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

Re:This is why I like being old (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858453)

Say that things are commonly misfiltered and that Google already filters for that so it's rather unlikely to show up, and if it does you'll report it to the authorities.

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858473)

Check, mate and match.

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

Charliemopps (1157495) | about 10 months ago | (#45858479)

Yup. Do it to it Linda. I survived the internet for 20 years before your filter showed up, I think I can manage.

Re:This is why I like being old (3, Informative)

carlos92 (682924) | about 10 months ago | (#45858533)

ISP agent: The blocked content includes child pornography, madam.
Linda: Thanks for reminding me that, I will make sure I block CP on my end. I just don't want you or the Government to block pictures of my grandchildren in the swimming pool or something like that.

This reminds me of a project where my team worked from the client's office, and we had to ask the client to let view porn, because their f***ing content filter thought Java source files were porn because they had some comments marked with XXX (standard Java notation to indicate areas that are kluged up or need to be).

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

sentientbeing (688713) | about 10 months ago | (#45858545)

Child porn is already illegal in the UK.

Re:This is why I like being old (2)

grahammm (9083) | about 10 months ago | (#45858621)

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

Reply, "so sign me up to the filter which ONLY blocks child pornography."

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858747)

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

I would request that she just block the child porn. I am 100% OK with that. Their primary argument is that they are protecting the children: so go ahead and do that. The reality is that they aren't willing to do the work to filter out the actual bad stuff, they just want to force their "morality" on others.

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859025)

Still say I don't want my internet connection censored. I can determine for myself what is appropriate and what isn't, thanks. I don't need or want a nanny.

CP isn't illegal to view, it's illegal to produce and distribute. Tell me, what would you do if you were reading through some forum, someone posts a link to "a cute bunny", which turns out to be CP? You've already clicked the link, the file was download to your PC and the image is up on your screen. Have you broken the law?

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859293)

I can't speak for England, but in the US, yes you have broken the law. Your intent doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if you deleted it the moment you realized what it was. You can be charged with viewing it, they just spin it as possession (saw it on the internet? You had to have downloaded it first: possession)

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859055)

Me: That's not a question, Linda. Are we done here?

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858355)

Ask if you can have the list.

Re:This is why I like being old (4, Insightful)

Savage-Rabbit (308260) | about 10 months ago | (#45858525)

As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Making poor Linda suffer for the fact that this unfortunate job has been foisted upon her would not achieve anything. Statistically Linda is highly likely to be a single mom or one half of a low income family and I can't blame her for not being reluctant to take a stand over this and risk losing her job over it. David Cameron, the conservative party and UKIP (out of fear of whom the Tories are doing this and who really deserve your scorn) can, however, shove their entire censorship program where the sun does not shine along with all of the hypocritical spin about how censorship measures that are only rivalled by those used by communist China and Saudi Arabia are being introduced in a democratic country in the name of protecting 'freedom' and 'moral values'.

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858609)

If Linda doesn't want to hear the answer, she shouldn't ask the question. I can see why one wouldn't want to be in that position, but she is.

Re:This is why I like being old (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about 10 months ago | (#45858907)

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who take jobs that largely consist of annoying people. And that includes all cold-calling. We should do nothing to make their job easier and everything to make their job harder.

Re:This is why I like being old (3, Funny)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 10 months ago | (#45858715)

how the heck are you a 50 year old man nearing retirement? In US you'd be halfway through your working life.

Re:This is why I like being old (2)

the eric conspiracy (20178) | about 10 months ago | (#45858959)

It isn't that hard if you reject consumerism and learn how to invest properly (see John Bogle).

Speaking from personal experience.

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

cayenne8 (626475) | about 10 months ago | (#45858997)

how the heck are you a 50 year old man nearing retirement? In US you'd be halfway through your working life.

Well, you see...some of us save a respectable portion of our income over our work lifetime, and don't spend every fscking penny we earn buying crap.

Do a reasonable savings, invest, and yes...get a little lucky here and there from time to time, and at age 50yrs, you should be able to see retirement in the reasonable near future.

Re:This is why I like being old (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859189)

I am in my late 30s and I have already semi-retired (I own a cafe, but I don't participate in the day to day operations). It's called spending wisely and saving money for the future.

Re:This is why I like being old (1)

ILongForDarkness (1134931) | about 10 months ago | (#45859207)

I'd say I'm currently wanking it to the teletubbies. Please provide some better material.

"Yes across the board." (5, Insightful)

grub (11606) | about 10 months ago | (#45857993)


I would hope Linda and others would have the fortitude to say "Yes across the board" and hang up. It's better to face the odd goatse than to have the government spoon feed you.

Re:"Yes across the board." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858633)

It's better to face the odd goatse than to have the government spoon with you.

FTFY

Re:"Yes across the board." (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858889)

Why is Linda saying yes? She asked me the question damn it.

Re:"Yes across the board." (1)

houghi (78078) | about 10 months ago | (#45858979)

I was thinking YES as well. I want to be ABLE to look at what I like. I should even be allowed to see Justin Bieber if I want to.

The answer is simple (5, Informative)

TheNastyInThePasty (2382648) | about 10 months ago | (#45857997)

"I do not wish to have the government choose for me which content is appropriate for my viewing. Unblock all of it. If I am worried about what my children will get into, I will monitor them myself or purchase configurable child blocking software. Thank you. Have a nice day."

Re:The answer is simple (2)

Seumas (6865) | about 10 months ago | (#45858401)

"Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm obligated to receive individual confirmation of each item on the list. Can we continue, now, please?"

Re:The answer is simple (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858429)

No, the simple answer is the make it opt-in instead of opt-out.

Re:The answer is simple (2)

Doghouse13 (2909489) | about 10 months ago | (#45858455)

Agreed. My response is more terse, along the lines of, "I object on principle to having my potential internet access censored."

Re:The answer is simple (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 10 months ago | (#45858987)

"I do not wish to have the government choose for me which content is appropriate for my viewing. Unblock all of it. If I am worried about what my children will get into, I will monitor them myself or purchase configurable child blocking software. Thank you. Have a nice day."

My answer would be "please can you send me my mac code".

"Yeah baby" (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858001)

No big deal, I'll just make it equally creepy for Linda

really? (4, Informative)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 10 months ago | (#45858005)

How hard is it to say, "Give me the total freedom package and piss off!"?

Re:really? (5, Insightful)

bluefoxlucid (723572) | about 10 months ago | (#45858037)

The British have one thing over America: They know how to say "Piss off!" in every situation imaginable. Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over. Violence is bad here, it's taught as "not the solution", and all aggression is looked down upon; we've forgotten how to push back, to shout at people, and to react to someone trying to kill us by throwing a brick at them instead of crying and ducking under a chair.

In America, it would be like, "ohgod, I uh, please don't call me, I don't want to talk about stuff like that it's uncomfortable!"

Re:really? (5, Funny)

Antipater (2053064) | about 10 months ago | (#45858169)

Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over

Just phrase it as "Obama is coming to take your porn!" That'll get 'em riled up good.

Re:really? (3, Insightful)

lagomorpha2 (1376475) | about 10 months ago | (#45858243)

Nah, over here it would be the other way around. Rumors would start about the government subsidizing adult content and the next thing you know the Right in the US would be screaming about protecting the children from Obamaporn.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858513)

Maybe Obama should start supporting rifles so that people immediately start screaming for the second amendment to be overturned.

Re:really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858551)

Nah, over here it would be the other way around. Rumors would start about the government subsidizing adult content and the next thing you know the Right in the US would be screaming about protecting the children from Obamaporn.

Too late.

The media in the US has been purveying Obamaporn and covering for him since about 2004 when he gave that droning speech at the Democratic convention.

Seriously.

Imagine if Bush II had commited a bald-face lie - multiple times! - about his one major initiative. And don't give me the Iraq war bullshit - Clinton I and II were both on board for that, as were most Dems and even on-US intel agencies. Hell, even with support from Clinton, Gore, and allies, we still hear "BOOOOSH LIED!!!" bullshit. (So maybe you shoud go ahead - cite "Bush LIED!" and make my damn point for me!)

And yet Obama bald-face lied about Obamacare - over and over. On multiple points. "If you like your plan you can keep it!" "You can keep your doctor!" "It'll be CHEAPER!"

Hell, Obama's been about to "pivot to jobs" for what? Five fucking years now without doing it? The US media was all over Bush for an unemployment rate that looks downright rosy compared to Obama's continued failure.

Obama the candidate ran against the NSA and Gitmo - citing his past as a scholar to go so far as to call such things "unconstitutional". Yet President Obama seems to have entirely forgotten his past Constitional cares....

Obama the candidate called multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits "unpatriotic". President Obama runs multi-TRILLION dollar deficits year in and year out while the media tries to blame Republcans for daring to shut down the government over a few tens of billions of dollars of spending cuts. Oh no, it's not Obama and the Democrats who are intransigient over the TRILLION dollar deficits, it's the Republicans who want to cut the deficit from $1,000,000,000,000 to $950,000,000,000 per year that cause the government shutdown.

Obama doesn't get a pass in the media?

State rep and part-time Senator before he became President? Sarah Palin was a successul governor of a large state for years before getting picked to be a VP candidate, and the media skewered her. Meanwhile, Obama got away with saying the US had 57 states. (Go ahead, grow some stones and google that....) Imagine what the media would have done to Palin had she said the US had 57 states like Obama did.

Yeah, the US media is full of Obamaporn already.

Re:really? (1)

noh8rz10 (2716597) | about 10 months ago | (#45858863)

Imagine if Bush II had commited a bald-face lie - multiple times! - about his one major initiative. And don't give me the Iraq war bullshit

some interesting points here, but don't undermine them by making a GWB comparison since he was a super bad president and a liar who killed thousands with his ignorance.

And yet Obama bald-face lied about Obamacare - over and over. On multiple points. "If you like your plan you can keep it!" "You can keep your doctor!" "It'll be CHEAPER!"

I'm not ready to judge obamacare yet, because the market is still adjusting to the new normal and we haven't seen how the full package of premiums, state action, and tax breaks some together

Hell, Obama's been about to "pivot to jobs" for what? Five fucking years now without doing it? The US media was all over Bush for an unemployment rate that looks downright rosy compared to Obama's continued failure.

no, employment has gone up and up steadily throughout his term except for the first 9mo where the bush effects were still reverberating. look at a graph of employment under Obama vs employment under bush.

Obama the candidate ran against the NSA and Gitmo - citing his past as a scholar to go so far as to call such things "unconstitutional". Yet President Obama seems to have entirely forgotten his past Constitional cares...

I don't recall candidate Obama running specifically against NSA, but president Obama has definitely presided over an enormous expansion of secret state power. scary,

..

Obama the candidate called multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits "unpatriotic". President Obama runs multi-TRILLION dollar deficits year in and year out while the media tries to blame Republcans for daring to shut down the government over a few tens of billions of dollars of spending cuts.

it's the house of represnetatives that writes and passes a budget. Obama has never vetoed a budget.

Sarah Palin was a successul governor of a large state for years before getting picked to be a VP candidate, and the media skewered her.

you have to admit she was a total joke and had it coming.

Re:really? (1)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#45858315)

It's kind of a split personality though. In some situations it's immediately to "piss off!" But in other situations, like on the tube, it's 100% near-silent passive aggression.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858381)

That must be why we have an unelected hereditary head of state and no real concept of freedom of speech . . . Oh wait thats the uk :D

The Brits can tend to go with the flow worse than Americans. I cant imagine an unelected hereidatry king or queen trying to stay in power in the usa for very long.

Capcha: redcoat (lol)

Re:really? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858653)

While you are right to a degree, it is important to know the difference between assertiveness and violence -- the two have correlation but are not the same.

And come to think of it, I do NOT think you are right in that violence is viewed as bad uniformly in US. "There's nothing in ass-kicking as long as the right ass gets kicked" is a credo in more conservative parts of the country; and even corporal punishment is legal.

If you want to find countries with actual aversion to violence, you'll have to go to places like northern Europe (Scandinavia; Sweden or Norway esp.) or Japan.

Re:really? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858689)

Are you sure you don't just spend all your time with liberal whiners? That's not like any American I know, but I keep away from lefty pussies.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859073)

You are deluded if you think that there is any difference between right and left or between members of any given political party. Politicians are politicians. They are all greedy scum who absolutely do not have the best interests of the people they claim to serve at heart.

Re:really? (2)

dirk (87083) | about 10 months ago | (#45858963)

Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over.

This post is now potentially blocked in the UK.

Re:really? (1)

Doghouse13 (2909489) | about 10 months ago | (#45858481)

Except the poor beggar on the other end of the line is simply doing a job, and probably for mediocre wages because it's what they could get. There's no reason not to do them the courtesy of staying civil.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858719)

Except the poor beggar on the other end of the line is simply doing a job, and probably for mediocre wages because it's what they could get. There's no reason not to do them the courtesy of staying civil.

Exactly, this is why you first polity explain that you are not addressing to her when you shout obscenity, but to the ass-hole that will listen to the recording for quality assurance later.

Re:really? (1)

lgw (121541) | about 10 months ago | (#45859035)

I'm assuming in the UK that no one is actually forced by the government into this line of work? (I'm actually unsure about this, after hearing stories of people legally forced to work unpaid "internships".) If they chose this job, they deserve everything that comes from it. I'll stop before I godwin the thread.

Re:really? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859241)

Many people don't have a choice of job - not sure what the rules are now but it used to be that to receive benefit you had to apply for a certain number of jobs which you would be able to do, and if you were offered the job you had to take it.

Re:really? (1)

RichMan (8097) | about 10 months ago | (#45858965)

You should actually say that to the politician to get results not the anonymous phone support person

Definition. (4, Insightful)

nospam007 (722110) | about 10 months ago | (#45858027)

I guess for the ruling party, the opposition would be 'obscene'.

Re:Definition. (2)

Trepidity (597) | about 10 months ago | (#45858389)

Will be interesting to see if it applies to their own. If an MP has a racist rant on their site, will the "extremist" filter flag it? Will Enoch Powell's speeches on YouTube get the axe? Guess: no.

Re:Definition. (1)

FireFury03 (653718) | about 10 months ago | (#45859019)

Will be interesting to see if it applies to their own. If an MP has a racist rant on their site, will the "extremist" filter flag it? Will Enoch Powell's speeches on YouTube get the axe? Guess: no.

I'm waiting for a newspaper to publish a leaked list of MPs who have said "yes I want the porn" to their ISPs...

Please ... (1, Funny)

PPH (736903) | about 10 months ago | (#45858047)

... hold the gay sex and drugs. I'll have an extra helping of porn, if that's not too much trouble.

Re:Please ... (3, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | about 10 months ago | (#45858153)

Does "drugs" block sites such as those advocating an end to marijuana prohibition? Does "gay sex" block sites such as support sites for homosexual teens? I suspect yes and yes; if not intentionally every time then at least unintentionally some of the time. So no, you damn well won't censor any of my communications with the outside world.

Re:Please ... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858247)

Even if you're not interested in ever taking drugs, the experience reports on Erowid make for some damn interesting reads!

Re:Please ... (5, Interesting)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 10 months ago | (#45858259)

Personally, I'd respond "give me all of it" even though I have no desire to visit gay sex or drugs websites. First of all, should I decide to visit such sites in the future, I don't want to ask for permission to see them. Secondly, I don't want the government deciding what constitutes "gay sex" or "drugs" websites.

Who is determining this and who is preventing them from abusing their position? (i.e. "You oppose me so your site is suddenly an 'undesirable' site and blocked by default.") Government shouldn't be in the business of blocking websites. If the government feels the need to do anything, they can recommend a few of the many free or pay web blocking programs and provide information on how to install/configure them on your local computers. This should appease the "think of the children" crowd without forcing the rest of us to abide by their definition of "right and wrong."

Re:Please ... (3, Interesting)

Krneki (1192201) | about 10 months ago | (#45858373)

I guess Game of Thrones is on your block list.

Re:Please ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859067)

No lesbians and medicinal cannabis for you then, Mistress!

Re:Please ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859297)

... hold the gay sex and drugs. I'll have an extra helping of porn, if that's not too much trouble.

Except girl on girl of course...

Boutique ISP (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858091)

I have NO problem what so ever telling Linda (Infact I would be proud to tell her that!!) that I want to view all the porn and information about where the best place to smoke drugs is when I visit Amsterdam. Give me internet. Oh so much internet. Then again at the moment I have one of those boutique ISP's that wont have such a crappy filter on it.

porn filter price breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858093)

I personally would like to see a porn filter price break. I'm a cheap mother fucker. I also like being efficient, and sometimes it distracts me to have porn around. (I'm known to have weak will.) I wish I had an option for cheaper internet that included a porn filter. That way, it'd be my own choice, and knowing that I'm saving money would be great. And then I could go back to magazines. Those were the days!

Re:porn filter price breaks (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859043)

It'd probably save you money in the form of not having to buy a new keyboard every couple of months, too.

No Nanny State for me (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858155)

The internet should not be fillered by anyone nation. I don't support censorship, if people do not want to view contents. They should simple put out the filter on the browser to whatever setting. Its plain stupid. Unfortunately, government of United Kingdom is a Nanny state, with dim view people being able take care of themselves.

There has to be better way protect people without having a government censor judging for people.

Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (5, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about 10 months ago | (#45858157)

"Internet censorship, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong, and I for one do not support it nor will I endure it, because while ostensibly it is to 'protect the children!', it is inevitably mis-used as a tool by politicians to further their own political and social agendas, and by proxy it is further mis-used by big business to increase their profits by silencing their competition. Lastly it has been proven time and time again that using blacklists to censor the internet simply does not work, and it inevitably will block perfectly 'acceptable' content while sometimes allowing 'unacceptable' content through. Therefore I do not wish to have anything to do with anything having to do with any form of censorship, please do not include me in it, and please do not bother me about this subject again."

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858209)

You're the kind of person who rants at the waitress if your steak is burned, aren't you?

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858275)

You're the kind of person that doesn't indicate there is a problem when your order is fucked up, aren't you?

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858321)

Children, children. Neither throwing a tantrum nor being a passive pushover is the way to get ahead in this world.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858569)

You have obviously never worked in customer service.Throwing a tantrum almost always works.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858611)

That's only because you're not aware of the spit in your food the next time you go there.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about 10 months ago | (#45858709)

Kind of a non-issue in a country where people are arrested and go to jail for offensive speech.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (1)

gnasher719 (869701) | about 10 months ago | (#45858749)

Internet censorship, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong,...

Well, no, I wouldn't agree with this. There is certainly stuff out there that should be censored (and the people putting it up should be put into jail).

However, filtering this out completely is impossible, and I very much suspect that attempting to filter it out is done with the intention of filtering out contents that people _should_ be allowed to see, that is helpful, but doesn't fit someone's agenda.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about 10 months ago | (#45859193)

There is a huge difference between consequences and censorship. Maybe publishing some stuff in the Internet should be enough to put people in jail or make them pay damages, but nothing should ever be censored.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say: (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859197)

sometimes

It [gnunet.org] depends [geti2p.net] on [osiris-sps.org] your [bitmessage.org] definition [freenetproject.org] of [eliasoenal.com] sometimes [torproject.org] .

The Nanny State (5, Insightful)

vikingpower (768921) | about 10 months ago | (#45858177)

is now being turned, all nice and easy, into Nanny State 2.0: a Surveillance State. Police State will be Nanny State 3.0. Rejoice, o Britons !

Re:The Nanny State (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858509)

Surveillance state is a police state.

Stop making a distinction where none exist.

Re:The Nanny State (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859275)

Sadly, UK has actually missed much of "nanny" part (working support system), while heading towards "police" part pretty quickly. Not sure why, but both UK and US have this tendency to gravitate towards harsh parts of nannying and policing, while ignoring and undervaluing "soft" parts that are actual beneficial things.
Like police actually being respectful AND respected.

Palahniuk (1)

snookiex (1814614) | about 10 months ago | (#45858231)

Linda wants to know: do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can't hear you

I suddenly felt like if I was reading a Chuck Palahniuk's book

Re:Palahniuk (1)

3.5 stripes (578410) | about 10 months ago | (#45858347)

Almost, I don't have that uncomfortable, kinda creeped out feeling, and the undeniable sensation that I'll never get those hours of my life back again though...

"Active choice" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858255)

"So how about you block all that crappy granny porn and just give me barely legal? Also unblock all those piracy websites, I feel like committing some crimes. If you don't tell anyone, Linda, I will make you a music CD, how long has it been since you got one of those eh? How long Linda? Does it feel lonely over there? I can fix that for you. So, dinner on Friday at 6? Great, see you then"

Well, that wasn't exactly what I planned, but it works.

The UK is just a fascist regime (0, Flamebait)

WOOFYGOOFY (1334993) | about 10 months ago | (#45858261)

Sorry. Big anglophile here which is to say fascinated by "Engla-land" its history and it's people. Descended therefrom also. Doesn't stop em from seeing that this UK government is a fascist regime. Specifically

They have sought to turn the act of journalism into a "terrorist" (their word not mine) enterprise and consider journalists to BE terrorists. This is such a sad and sick distortion of this word it use itself threatens to undermine the population's faith and credence in legitimate authority and concern with national security.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/03/332673/outrage/ [presstv.com]

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/02-2 [commondreams.org]

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858397)

Sorry, but some fear-mongering delusional "independent journalism" sites are more destructive than terrorists. Sites like nsnbc for instance are a hub for anti-vaxers and chemtrail believers and don't allow comments or feedback. I'd rather be killed by a bomb than a measles outbreak or by paranoid mobs of tinfoil hats.

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858547)

Sorry, but some fear-mongering delusional "independent journalism" sites are more destructive than terrorists. Sites like nsnbc for instance are a hub for anti-vaxers and chemtrail believers and don't allow comments or feedback. I'd rather be killed by a bomb than a measles outbreak or by paranoid mobs of tinfoil hats.

Huh. nsnbc [nsnbc.me] is a real thing, not a typo of MSNBC. Interesting. Thanks, AC.

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858667)

Idiot. Chemtrails are real. There are patents on the technology, conferences where the scientists openly discuss it, and the only thing that is a "conspiracy" is whether or not they are actually using the technology today and the real intent of the technology. Geologists and even regular people have collected samples of the dust that falls from affected areas, sent it to a lab, and the results coming back indicate the very things described by the geoengineer scientists and the patents. Nothing you say will change the fact that chemtrail technology is real.

One question for Linda (1)

BringsApples (3418089) | about 10 months ago | (#45858411)

Linda, what are you wearing?

Briar Patch (1)

ThatsNotPudding (1045640) | about 10 months ago | (#45858657)

Given that both the US and UK governments no longer operate according to their own laws, is it really insane to posit that all those that fully opt-out will be placed on a list curated by the organs of state security? And if any of those on that list dare speak up or protest the doings of NSA / GCHQ, they will be backdoored, child pron / snuff placed on their devices and promptly arrested? "See? the system works! And the rest of you lot best reconsider opting back in or you're next."

As Goering said: "It's the same in every country."

Leave censorship to the customer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858679)

I am all for the ability to censor the web. But their are plenty of tools people can easily use to do this. Mandating that your provider has to deal with this is government intrusion into personal lives at there private residence. Gee, I see 4th graders playing Call of Duty and other adult games all the time in the presence of their parents. Do I find that a issue? Yes, but I don't condone anyone locking up their game console because the kids have bad parents. Yea, porn makes up a lot of internet traffic and yes I am sure little Johnny is getting his jolly's when Mom or Dad are not watching. But like I said, you can filter content at your router, at the computer or even with software. Is the UK turning into a content filter like China? Or North Korea? Could be.

Merely making you vocalize it (1)

OldSoldier (168889) | about 10 months ago | (#45858691)

Search engines can figure out most of this stuff anyway, right? Isn't our privacy on these issues already gone? What's the difference between UK asking you for it and Google just paying attention to your browsing history? Now a-days I'm just going to assume the NSA and my ISP (I'm in the US) can see this stuff anyway.

This is in part a rhetorical question meant to focus on the general lack of privacy these days. We shouldn't get up in arms about being asked, we should be up in arms about not having privacy in these matters be a fundamental right. (Eg a law requiring ISPs to destroy all such records after 90 days.)

Easy answer (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858727)

"I wont even dignify that question with an answer; i pay for internet, not for camerons-morality-net. If my internet "malfunctions", i don't pay the bill 'til thats fixed. "

Repeat after me.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858825)

Thanks for your call Linda. Our household prides itself on cleanliness, which is why I clean my pipes with Mr. Muscle twice a day. Knowing that censorship of crucial parts of my Internet experience was imminent and following the 2008 censorship of Nirvana due to unproven links to child pornography, I already took the step of purchasing an unfiltered anonymous VPN to bypass any and all of BT's infrastructure.

Is there anything I can do for you, Linda? It seems there's nothing to discuss.

(CAPTCHA: Classy)

BIG Lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858867)

I would immediately lauch an allout allin lawsuit against any intrusion such as that call from someone in that capacity.

Re:BIG Lawsuit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858955)

Good luck doing that without disclosing your name my friend.

Not all ISP's are applying the filter. Mine isn't and has no plans to do so.

In any event, it is stupidly easy to get around the filter. Doh!

Good social experiment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45858877)

It would be interesting to measure the impact over time of restricted porn viewing. Pornography is one of the most cited reasons for marriage failures. Given that there is a correlation between family stability and children's success later in life, it's not impossible that countries with less porn viewing might benefit from it. We used to force people to be nice to each other by warning of dire religious consequences. For good or ill, we can't pretend it didn't affect behavior. The removal of many rules of acceptable social behavior over the last 60 years has in its own way made us all guinea pigs in a giant experiment. So having a few nations that try to temper that progression might be useful.

simple question (1)

zlives (2009072) | about 10 months ago | (#45859013)

would you like censored internet? yes or no!!!

You can opt for "self-control" (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 10 months ago | (#45859283)

Yourself + locally (w/ many benefits in added speed, security, reliability, & even anonymity):

Hosts do more w/ less (1 file) @ a faster level (ring 0) vs redundant browser addons (slowing up slower ring 3 browsers) via filtering 4 the IP stack (coded in C, loads w/ OS, & 1st net resolver queried w\ 45++ yrs.of optimization):

---

APK Hosts File Engine 9.0++ 32/64-bit:

http://start64.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=5851:apk-hosts-file-engine-64bit-version&catid=26:64bit-security-software&Itemid=74 [start64.com]

(Details of hosts' benefits enumerated in link)

Summary:

---

A. ) Hosts do more than AdBlock ("souled-out" 2 Google/Crippled by default) + Ghostery (Advertiser owned) - "Fox guards henhouse", or Request Policy -> http://yro.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=4127345&cid=44701775 [slashdot.org]

B. ) Hosts add reliability vs. downed or redirected DNS + secure vs. known malicious domains too -> http://tech.slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3985079&cid=44310431 [slashdot.org] w/ less added "moving parts" complexity + room 4 breakdown,

C. ) Hosts files yield more speed (blocks ads & hardcodes fav sites - faster than remote DNS), security (vs. malicious domains serving mal-content + block spam/phish), reliability (vs. downed or Kaminsky redirect vulnerable DNS, 99% = unpatched vs. it & worst @ ISP level + weak vs FastFlux + DynDNS botnets), & anonymity (vs. dns request logs + DNSBL's).

---

* Addons are more complex + slowup browsers in message passing (use a few concurrently - you'll see) - Addons slowdown SLOWER usermode browsers layering on MORE: I work w/ what you have in kernelmode, via hosts ( A tightly integrated PART of the IP stack itself )

APK

P.S.=> Hosts cut "Pr0n" by default in MOST lists of the 12 my app gets you data from (since those sites get taken advantage of often to serve up 'malcontent') & FAR more (details in the link as to exactly what) - & you ultimately + LOCALLY control it via easy text file edits yourself!

...apk

Turn it off. (1)

ledow (319597) | about 10 months ago | (#45859287)

Hi Linda,

What do you class as adult content? Who decides? Where would an act of fellatio fall in this criteria? Would that be blocked? What about anal sex? What about playing with a vibrator? So all adult content is blocked? What about pregnancy advice? What about information on alcohol consumption? What about contraception? What about advice on which genital piercing to get? So not all adult content, then? So which content to I know that I'm opening up or not? How can I decide? Where's the list?

Cue twenty minutes of questioning, without even bordering on my side of it being considered an obscene communication with Linda, and I could make it just as awkward for Linda, and also waste an AWFUL lot of time, and even get Linda questioning herself as to why she has to ask consenting adults about this. And come to the only logical conclusion: Turn it off, because I can't tell what you have filtered for me in any way, shape or form, so it's too inconvenient to deal with "Is it a problem with my network, or my ISP, or with their filter? (whose filter?!)". Turn it off now, let's save the hassle in the future.

But, fortunately, being a customer of a major UK ISP, I haven't yet been asked. Not even once.

I was asked something similar by a mobile phone provider recently, and about 10 years ago (when GPRS was the norm), but it wasn't in person. It was an automated "I agree" box on a website / portal page. I predict that's how 99% of ISP's that are forced to do this will do it, even if there's a phone call to remind you to do it or you have to phone support to find out that the reason you see a blocked page is because you haven't done this.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered about it. I will bypass any filter that throws up even a single false positive. Sorry, I spend my working life trying to get kids away from the unfiltered net, and there is no way that even in just ordinary usage of my Internet I won't run into this and - when I do - I will bypass it. You don't even have to assume that I would go looking for pornographic material, I guarantee you that it will get in my way at some point. As such, if anyone bothers to ask me (they won't, except in a hands-off way like the 3G operators do), they will be told to remove any and all filters.

Similarly for those ISP's that used to block port 139 for me. I think it's a good idea to block it by default. But I didn't ask you to do that, and I'm clever enough to know what it is and what it does, and do better myself. So take it off, so that a single nmap packet going out on port 139 to my own private server elsewhere on the net (to test that I'm NOT doing anything stupid myself) doesn't trigger 30 minutes of web interception telling me that I have a) a Windows machine, b) exposed to the Internet without anything firewalling it at all, c) that must be infected and d) I must have some stupid option turned on that I don't even have available to me.

Honestly, there's just too much of a pain in the arse in even considering letting you putting it on by default. I will ring my ISP and have them remove it the second I see such a thing. The fact that I can get round it in a matter of *seconds* just with the tools and systems I already have available and already am using is neither here nor there.

And, you know what, I reckon those homes who think the same will do the same. And those homes who are already reliant / believing in the government to filter everything because they are too stupid to parent themselves - they'll leave it turned on.

If anything, the database behind this will see a correlation of IQ / parental responsibility with those who turn it OFF than those who leave it on.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?