UK "default on" ISP censoring will include "web forums" by default

We've replied about this on ORG's blog.

Welcome to LFGSS Jim.
Good work!

Porn filter ridiculous and will fail
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/aug/02/jimmy-wales-cameron-porn-filters

just got a response from my mp: Siobahn McDonagh MP for Merton

Dear Siobhain McDonagh,

I have been reading with concern information surrounding Mr Cameron's "porn censorship" Bill.

Leaving aside the generally distasteful nature of any kind of mass censorship, the government appears to be using "child pornography" as an excuse to block all kinds of other content, from genuinely useful websites (for example eating disorder websites which could provide support and assistance to people suffering with these conditions; or websites about alcohol, which could potentially include information on alcohol dependence and overcoming alcohol related problems), to websites so vaguely defined as to be absurd (including "web forums", which would includes popular sites such as Mumsnet , the consumer action group and Moneysavingexpert; and "esoteric" sites which, without clarification, is completely meaningless).

The Open Rights Group has published information here after speaking to ISPs about what they have been asked to implement: https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship

Had it not been for some of the sites which would doubtlessly fall under the wide reaches of this proposed filter my mother who is severely limited in her mobility due to poor health would not have had access to the essential information and resources she needed to successfully appeal her case after her appalling treatment at the hands of the atos attack dogs the government have seen fit to sick on the disabled and would have been forced to live on an even more meager amount than she does now.

As someone who is of a technical bent I am aware the system may be opted out of but for those who are not tech savvy like my mother this system will undoubtedly mean that information they desperately need is kept from them that they may not be able to access because they lack the requisite skills.

It is my hope that you will understand how damaging this Bill is to the right of the UK's citizens to live their lives without large-scale, government-mandated censorship. It is also my hope that you intend to bring this matter to the attention of Mr Cameron who seems unable to comprehend the implications of his own scheme.

The Internet is truly one of the pinnacles of human achievement. To have a repository of the bulk of human knowledge available at arms reach for almost every person in developed countries is truly a wonderful thing and something that should not be censored based on the arbitrary whims of people who have already shown that they do not understand the technology enough to make such an important and destructive decision based on facts rather than knee jerk reactionary politics to appease those who see danger in anything they do not understand.

I look forward to your reply.

Yours sincerely,

Thank you for writing to me about the proposal for an opt in internet filter that would prevent
children accessing pornography. This is an idea suggested by David Cameron, but you have a
number of objections.
I am afraid, however, that I do not in principle think it is unreasonable to block pornography
on the internet. I cannot understand how anyone with children would not want to block such
content. Of course, I sympathise greatly with people who fear that internet filtering could
restrict people’s opportunities to do what they want on the web, and that it would be the thin
end of the wedge. In general I support the idea of everyone having as much freedom as
possible to surf the net, and even to view content that might be considered to contain adult
themes. For instance, I do not want to deny users the opportunity of streaming programmes
like Game of Thrones, which has strong adult themes, or Life of Brian, which was highly
controversial at the time it was made. However, I do think that with this freedom should come
certain responsibilities. And for me, internet providers should restrict pornography.
We need to find a balance between the right to use the internet as an amazing tool that can
advance human knowledge and understanding, and stopping children from viewing wholly
inappropriate materials. Whether or not the Prime Minister’s proposals are suitable or
workable has yet to be seen, but I hope such a balance can be found.
I hope that this helps summarise my views and is useful, and if there is anything else I can do
for you please do get in touch

reads like a copy & paste statement rather than a reasoned response to the points i raised.

Reads like a copy & paste statement rather than a reasoned response to the points you raised.

^repost

Hatbeard, that reads like a copy & paste statement rather than a reasoned response to the points you raised.

The important thing to note here is that I won the MP competition. Ha!

So an MP’s brain generally operates in the following way in this context:

Issue: opt-out is insidious; catchment is broad, vague, and highly dubious.

Response: children mustn’t see pornography.

It's weird isn't it:

Us: Your proposal seems too broad and will trap lots of legal and legitimate uses of the internet.

Them: Pornography should not be accessible by children, surely you understand that.

They really are not listening to the concerns at all.

They really are not listening to the concerns at all.

You seem to be fundamentally misunderstanding the premise of a government ...

Oh, I understand that well enough.

Too many broken premises.

They really are not listening to the concerns at all.

GCHQ is...

It's weird isn't it:

...

They really are not listening to the concerns at all.

Not weird but expected from politicians who think and speak in soudbites that appeal to the lowest common denominator
They don't care about a bunch of geeks and freaks who are able to access forums and probably vote green

Still not received anything from my MP. Which I'm hoping is because he's considering all the issues and doing relevant research.

Not sure if it's been said in this way or not but if they think slightly blocking Internet porn is a way to stop children being over sexualised they're so wrong.

All they need to do is look at the mainstream media, adverts for clothes, perfume, a lot of things bring sex and sexuality into children's minds long before they'll ever see porn!

I ooze sexuality, especially around children.

I mean there are plenty of adverts I've seen on TV and wondered how the fuck they could allow them to air.

Like that fucking herbal essences advert, What The Fuck.

Homer: These fortunes are terrible. They're supposed to predict stuff and ease you through times of doubt and sickness.
Manager: Well with all due respect sir I suppose you could come up with better fortunes?
Homer: You will be aroused by a shampoo commercial.
Manager: That's not bad!

From Last Exit To Springfield.

Children should be protected from pornography.

It is surely the job of parents to protect them, not governments.

I find it odd that there are no children on the streets any more due to pedos on every corner, now they are safely at home being safe on the internet they seem to be at risk once angain. Sounds like the children are the problem. Ban them.

Children should be protected from pornography.

It is surely the job of parents to protect them, not governments.

Very true but what can a parent do when their child isn't home?

Filters should be set on the device not the gateway, full parential controls with passwords.

It is because so many parents lack the ability to do this on the belief that little timmy dosen't look at that sort of thing that the government is coming down so hard. Thing is that little Timmy will still look at that sort of thing because parents will have to switch off the filters to continue to see the bits of the web they do use.

I'm fine for free public wifi in shopping centres and starbucks etc... to have filters. Even if this blocks web forums because as a business it is up to them how they allow access to the internet and if their filters are too strong whereas somewhere else has more liberal filters then the people who are bothered about this can go elsewhere and the people who don't need to see the latest sweet black and yellow hip hop slave bike can drink their flat mocha choca chino with edlerberry syrup in peace.

Very true but what can a parent do when their child isn't home?

So. Many. Things.

I find it odd that there are no children on the streets any more due to pedos on every corner, now they are safely at home being safe on the internet they seem to be at risk once angain. Sounds like the children are the problem. Ban them.

Which given that 90% of child abuse is performed by a family member/close friend of said family is a bit of a failure- the street corners are significantly safer than the home environment.