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

Jim Killock from Open rights group has offered to explain how the filters will include legitimate sites to Diane Abbot MP
https://twitter.com/jimkillock/status/362824335381114880

I think if these filters block access to the Daily Mail then I am all in favour of them.

I only got a 'thank you for letting me know your views' brush-off from oli letwin

I only got a 'thank you for letting me know your views' brush-off from oli letwin

To give Diane Abbot credit she has always replied with opinions to my letters to her over the years

That's not saying a great deal- a sheep will baaa back at you if you baaa at it.

Doesn't mean it's understood you, or will do anything as a result.

True dammit, he replied to an email i sent a couple of weeks ago about cycling issues at great length, which prompted another email back from me......still didn't get the impression that he was going to represent my views in parliament.....

They start by introducing a porn filter. But that's just so they get the filtering enabled (basically everywhere because it defaults to ON).

Then they can, quite conveniently and quietly, filter out whatever they want.

Someone getting a little too vocal about a dodgy government policy? Let's just add them to the blacklist for a while to turn their public volume down.

It's all about getting government control over the internet because the internet scares them because it hasn't been controllable.
I agree. It's the "nothing to hide" argument again. "It's okay, only the bad forums will be blocked".

But then they've got the button. The button to block anything they like with one push.

Presumably my initial thoughts that VPNs would be a simple bypass are incorrect because they will block all VPM IPs.

That means they're also banning private internet access.

It'll be illegal and/or impossible to go online without being monitored. Scary stuff.

Will they publish the block list, or will that be up to Internet users to infer?

Is there going to be an appeals process for, as an example, Mumsnet to try to get off the block list?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches

Oh dear, I just bought a pressure cooker.

Are there any ISP's who would refuse to filter on principle?
#notvirginmedia

I believe it's not going to be optional, the gub'mint will legislate.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches
I'm calling bullshit on this story.

Are there any ISP's who would refuse to filter on principle?
#notvirginmedia

Yes. Arnold & Andrews.

See http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html and http://revk.http://www.me.uk/2013/08/what-could-determined-small-isp-do.html

RevK is the owner (I believe) of A&A.

How do you differentiate between a pervert VPNing into an uncensored country and someone VPNing onto a remote network abroad for work purposes?

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches

I'm calling bullshit on this story.
Scratch that - I'm calling bullshit on the reason for the searches.

Her husband travels to Korea and China a lot, and had recently posted images of explosives on his public Facebook page.

Police overreaction? Sure. Google search mining? No.

How did they know what they were searching for? Scanning through FB for bomb images? Where'd you find the bit about his facebook - did I miss that?

The original of that story is here: https://medium.com/something-like-falling/2e7d13e54724

Given travel patterns, and association with boing boing (political inference), I'd say there was a good chance this was someone flagged up (and I suspect a very large number of people are flagged and then subsequently ignored as no signals emerge from their behaviour).

Then given the recent Boston bombings and googling for similar components, I think the signals emerged and the investigation created.

Do I think Google searches alone did that? No.
Do I think it happened? Given the (known) reputation of the person who posted it, Yes.

'they' can block access to sites 'they' don't think we should be looking at
they' can monitor our searches and Internet use read our emails using clever algorithms that detect things 'they' deem dodgy
This whole Internet is turning into a bland shopping mall
We anarchists/antichrists will have to go back to meeting in the middle of the woods again and write hand delivered letters to each other in lemon juice,then eat them.
Canute/tide springs to mind
X

Statement from the Suffolk County Police Department:

Suffolk County Criminal Intelligence Detectives received a tip from a Bay Shore based computer company regarding suspicious computer searches conducted by a recently released employee. The former employee’s computer searches took place on this employee’s workplace computer. On that computer, the employee searched the terms “pressure cooker bombs” and “backpacks.”

Google - yes. Monitoring - no. Dumb employer paranoia - probably. Police massive overreaction - absolutely.

Police massive overreaction - absolutely.

Indeed. But imagine the critique they'd get if he indeed was a bomber, and they didn't react on these 'warning signs'. I think society (or papers rather, and the people buying the papers) are just as responsible for the overreactions as the police are.

On the one in a million chance that he was a bomber...

It's a sad indictment of pretty much everyone involved, in that case.

• A pressure cooker bomb used.

• Someone googles for pressure cooker bomb.

• OMG THEY MUST BE BOMBER TOO!

It's not difficult to understand why agencies like this require such massive budgets if they react to the most inconsequential nonsense. This will, of course, be to the detriment of other law enforcement. Law enforcement that is starved of budget, and that could make an actual positive impact on people's lives.

Algorithms artificial intelligence do not make
Dumb

It's not difficult to understand why agencies like this require such massive budgets if they react to the most inconsequential nonsense. This will, of course, be to the detriment of other law enforcement. Law enforcement that is starved of budget, and that could make an actual positive impact on people's lives.

Yes this is a major issue. Was listening to Stella Rimmington (ex MI6 boss) talking about why people like Lee Rigby's killer were on the suspicious list with ('say') 2000 other suspects and to properlty monitor EACH of these suspects movements would take 20 people each working a 6 hour shifts with back up office support, helicopter on call and cars.

In terms of harm reduction they'd be better off arresting every red light jumping cyclist at a junction which only need 4 coppers

In terms of harm reduction they'd be better off arresting every red light jumping cyclist at a junction which only need 4 coppers

"they" are monitoring us, don't give them ideas.

Rimmington

Hehe