Government internet censorship plans

[Tony L]

Interesting leaked letter between Conservative MPs and ISPs leaked to the BBC here.

My fear is this is the thin-end of the wedge and it won't be long afterwards that political sites, forums and anything that doesn't follow the establishment line finds itself the wrong side of the "default on" state censorship firewall. As a website owner I hate to think the amount of time, effort and frustration it will take to get a site wrongly blocked unblocked, let alone to be compensated for any loss of earnings that may result from such a block.

The notion that parents should actually take responsibility for their children's behaviour is obviously not mentioned at all. I'm firmly against the whole thing and certainly don't want right-wingers like Claire Perry etc dictating their beliefs on others. Governments should never be allowed near the internet. They are just too stupid.

 

[Fox]

Every attempt can be circumvented. There are cleverer people out there than in government. Look at how the pirate bay was circumvented. Within minutes of ISP blocking it was automatically rerouted - as it was designed to do.

And don't for a minute think this is about child porn or downloading movies. It's about access to information that shows all government of every creed and shape and style to be corrupt and self serving. Genie is out of the bottle they will never stuff it back, but yes, opposing govt meddling is the first port of call. Better to not have to take countermeasures in the first place.

 

[Anex]

If they set the Downing St. / Westminster connections to 'Default on' and everyone else agreed to keep quiet, would that make it go away?

 

[Guest432]

 

[jackbarron]

I'm firmly against the whole thing and certainly don't want right-wingers like Claire Perry etc dictating their beliefs on others. Governments should never be allowed near the internet. They are just too stupid.

I completely agree.

And don't for a minute think this is about child porn or downloading movies. It's about access to information that shows all government of every creed and shape and style to be corrupt and self serving. Genie is out of the bottle they will never stuff it back ...

Governments are definitely worried about the political implications of free access to information via the internet and social media.

What happened during the Arab Spring, and is now occurring in Egypt and Syria, are prime examples of this.

America, the UK and France, loved the Arab Spring ... except when it led to Islamists coming to power.

Governments want to control their populations and censoring the internet is a chilling way to do this.

There is nothing more pliable than a nation fed on propaganda - just look at Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Cameron's UK and Obama's America.

Jack

 

[russel]

I completely agree.



Governments are definitely worried about the political implications of free access to information via the internet and social media.

What happened during the Arab Spring, and is now occurring in Egypt and Syria, are prime examples of this.

America, the UK and France, loved the Arab Spring ... except when it led to Islamists coming to power.

Governments want to control their populations and censoring the internet is a chilling way to do this.

There is nothing more pliable than a nation fed on propaganda - just look at Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Cameron's UK and Obama's America.

Jack

I was talking to a colleague who is from Iran, he says the Government there is well on the way to blocking access to the outside world entirely.

 

[davidsrsb]

Looks like the UK is trying to join so much of the rest of the World where opposition politicians and opinions are blocked from access to any media

 

[auric]

Looks like a proposed block is to be placed upon images & ideas that are legal to view and the very act of actively opting out of the blocking procedure may well attract opprobrium from those who wish to judge and categorise others based upon their actions and incomplete information.

Will this proposed block list be published in site level detail along with reasons for blocking so that the censors and compilers of such lists may be held accountable for their actions? The whole process of administration of such lists must be transparent otherwise I fear some form of mission creep may well occur as various lobby and pressure groups gear up for the next election. How long will it before before copyright infringement rules sneak onto this block list or indeed will free open sourced operating systems and encryption software be added to the proposed list at the behest of those selling propriety software while sighting expected loss of trade as a reason?

Not all torrents are rivers of filth and dodgy software but a blanket ban of a torrent site might suggest so in the minds of those building the block lists.

I am already subjected to system level blocking and censorship via my ISP (BT) which forces me through their preferred gateway / DNS system as witnessed by peering into my router log and seeing some rather odd results and warning messages emanating from some sites I choose to visit.

A nanny State or a mumsnet driven State?

 

[Anex]

A Mumsnet driven state is a truly terrifying prospect.

 

[auric]

And, according to the education department's demands, Number 10 is keen for all telcos to adopt a "browser intercept" option that is being tested by TalkTalk - which was the first big name ISP to implement network-level filtering on its service back in 2011. That tool will nag every household about the opportunity to configure the web-blocking services offered by BT, BSkyB, Virgin Media or TalkTalk - such as leaving the technology enabled, disabling it or adjusting the list of banned websites.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/16/prime_minister_demands_default_on_filtering_from_isps/

 

[sean99]

I think you're all overreacting. Google's image search defaults to safe mode and you can choose to turn it off. This was aimed at children: no mention of politics or terrorism.

I understand the concern about government censorship of the internet, particular given Snowden's recent revelations, but that doesn't mean everything is the thin end of some Orwellian wedge.

 

[auric]

I think you're all overreacting. Google's image search defaults to safe mode and you can choose to turn it off. This was aimed at children: no mention of politics or terrorism. . .

I believe it is aimed at parents who for whatever reason do not educate their children about the internet and the usage of search engines but abrogate this to the State.

 

[Anex]

I think you're all overreacting. Google's image search defaults to safe mode and you can choose to turn it off. This was aimed at children: no mention of politics or terrorism.

I understand the concern about government censorship of the internet, particular given Snowden's recent revelations, but that doesn't mean everything is the thin end of some Orwellian wedge.

There's no need to default it to on.

 

[sean99]

I believe it is aimed at parents who for whatever reason do not educate their children about the internet and the usage of search engines but abrogate this to the State.

I disagree. It's not very practical to teach a 5 year old about the world of online porn, fake prescription drugs, computer viruses and Nigerian princes. Perhaps when they're 10 or 11.

It is nice to be able to let your young child search the internet for information without having to constantly look over their shoulder to make sure they don't accidently follow a malicious link. There is software you can buy for this purpose which works pretty well, but it's a nuisance to install and maintain, and frankly it's easier for the ISP to do it.

There's no suggestion that this filter cannot be turned off, merely that it defaults to on, in the same way as Google image search.

 

[stephen bennett]

I didn't see the image - I just thought you'd posted nothing. John Cage levels of funny....

Stephen

 

[sean99]

There's no need to default it to on.

Provided it can easily be turned off by an adult (and not by a young child) I don't see any problem.

 

[davidsrsb]

PF and most other forums would likely be blocked due to some of the threads being a bit too "aggressive" and controversial
Places like ebay would have to be stopped too, due to some of the "adult" products sold.
As Facebook would have to be the first site blocked, I cannot see this working

 

[MartinC]

I completely agree.



Governments are definitely worried about the political implications of free access to information via the internet and social media.

What happened during the Arab Spring, and is now occurring in Egypt and Syria, are prime examples of this.

America, the UK and France, loved the Arab Spring ... except when it led to Islamists coming to power.

Governments want to control their populations and censoring the internet is a chilling way to do this.

There is nothing more pliable than a nation fed on propaganda - just look at Nazi Germany, Stalin's Russia, Cameron's UK and Obama's America.

Jack

Jack

I am not normally in agreement with many of your postings, but in this case you are spot on!

Government is here to serve the people not vice-versa.

That said, default censoring set to 'on' I don't feel is inherently wrong as long as the option to switch off is there - I do think though that it is naïve to believe that kids would be blocked from viewing dubious content, the average 11 year old is probably more computer savvy than their parents.

 

[djftw]

+1

But I think the problem actually goes much deeper that the Internet. There is a sort of moralising neo-paternalist backlash against free expression in general at the moment. The scaremongering lunacy printed in many of the tabloids and op eds in the broadsheets come so close to saying that (consenting adult) pornography causes child abuse I imagine that is what most readers would take away with them. Oblique references to 'extreme pornography' are little more than irrational fear of people with sexual preferences they can't understand. We're also seeing people who are guilty of nothing more than being stupid and offensive treated as criminals for expressing themselves, the Internet already has a good method of dealing with them, ridicule!

 

[Anex]

Each time we give up that little bit of freedom, even down to choosing to switch a filter off, it becomes that little bit more difficult to get away from government controlled censorship the next time there's a 'terrorist' incident and they start drifting off into authoritarian fantasies about total internet control and censoring anything they don't like.

It's not difficult to turn a filter off, therefore it's not difficult for those who want it to turn it on either. And as has been said, not that it will actually work properly anyway.