Collateral Damage as UK Censors Internet Archive 272
An anonymous reader noted the latest developments in the controversial censoring of the internet by UK ISPs. Apparently since some content of the Wayback Machine is bad, the whole thing needs to be blacklisted.
Re:That is as expected. (Score:1, Interesting)
Agreed: this is outrageous. No government has the right to censor the intertubes or determine what people look at. I am disgusted that people did not fight for freedoms, like freedom of speech so that we could give it up and turn ourselves into a totalitarian dictatorship.
The UK is not a free society, it has become a totalitarian dictatorship and its government has no right or validity to do this. Censorship is one of the most significant hallmarks of a totalitarian prison state. No free society can allow for censorship. Stand up for your rights people!
This is what we call the totalitarian underwear creepies, just take a little piece of material creeping in your crack - one at a time - and people don't notice what happens til they sneeze. And in the UK they have been chipping away at the expectations of freedom and privacy for a while and getting people used to living with greater intrusions upon their freedoms and privacy all the time.
Years ago, if we would have suggested that one day the government would demand to block access to content and just blatantly censor anything it pleases and monitor all of your communications, Rob Malda is a fucking asshole, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist. The conspiracy theorists were right and it is becoming increasingly obvious by the day that there are those in power who want to implement a total surveillance and censorship klingon romulan society prison like thingy state, which would weaken dramatically the framework of a free society, leading to greater atrocities and establishment of "Staci" like agencies and secret police is next.
Censorship of any kind is an atrocity and a violation of basic human rights and so is mass censorship and the presence of this are a sure sign you are not living in a free society.
PS -> This is McGrew [slashdot.org] posting as AC for obvious reasons.
pfffft (Score:2, Interesting)
So Much for "Supply and Demand" (Score:5, Interesting)
The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand". While this claim is already flawed due to the fact that most producers take illegal images for profit/trade, the claim is undoubtedly wrong in the case of images on an archive which is almost certainly not operated by people who create indecent images. Just how would a producer be aware of the "increased demand" when he doesn't even know that the images are being viewed?
Re:WOW (Score:4, Interesting)
Being in the USA myself, and hearing how bad the USA has become, I wonder how people justify such remarks in contrast to Australia and the UK?
Perhaps some folk would care to compare what is available in the UK and Australia and what is not, list those links on a website to show the world exactly how much is being censored. When the world can see how much is being withheld from the citizenry, it's probable that the UN and other countries will disagree with such censorship. I'm reasonably certain that you'll find instances of political censorship, and that would not look good.
Even wiki entry editing is a form of censorship and we've seen how that is not viewed as a good thing.
I wonder if anyone has any idea how much Australia and the UK are spending to censor the Internet.
I wonder how much (kiddy)porn is actually being censored. Is Al Jezzera on the black list? How about bloggers from Isreal?
Since there is probably already a way around the censoring mechanisms, does anyone know what it/they is/are?
The whole 'Virgin Killer' thing is stupendously idiotic. A picture which has been in the public view for decades gets banned? WTF? If Brits are getting any American television at all, there are far worse things to be seen there, every day. period. Not sure if anyone has seen Little Britain, but what I've seen of it outpaces the Virgin Killer album by miles. I fail to see how they justify that censorship, or any for that matter. Thought police!
Re:That is as expected. (Score:5, Interesting)
While I agree that the picture you paint is truly terrifying I think it is important that one point is reiterated: the fact that the government now routinely threaten groups of people with legislation. The problem with this, as far as I can see it, is that we now have a whole raft of pseudo laws (nuLaws maybe) which we have no redress against. Worse still, very few (if any) of these nuLaws are debated in anyway that could be considered open and there is no standardized way to have them reviewed once they are in place. If the government ever want to increase the scope of these nuLaws they just have to put pressure on the nuLaw enforcers who have a vested interest in doing exactly what the government tell them as their existence depends on it. If the people cry foul the government can simply point the finger and say it wasn't us.
If all of that wasn't bad enough I believe the sort of people that gravitate to this type of organization tend to be conservative and more pro-censorship. It's like the age old joke that you don't want anyone serving as a police officer that wants to be a police officer.
I want off this rock!
Re:Meh (Score:5, Interesting)
Not that free.
The IWF was created to appease the police who were otherwise going to prosecute ISPs and the ISPs were also due to face government legislation back in the 90s otherwise.
Accept the watch list, or face criminal action and legislation. That doesn't particularly sound like free choice to implement it or not to me. I'm not even sure what ISPs don't implement it, I doubt the list is particularly very big. Certainly the list of ISPs that do implement it on the IWF website is pretty comprehensive. Besides even if the free market did come in to play and the ISPs that didn't implement it started growing in size how much choice do you think they'd have to continue not to implement it?
Re:The Real Reason (Score:2, Interesting)
It's for that exact reason I saved a copy of my ISP's terms of service years ago. That, and for protection if they suddenly try to bait-and-switch me - at which point I can sue them for breach of contract for not giving the stated 15 days prior notice before any new changes to the service come into effect.
Re:That is as expected. (Score:3, Interesting)
You or whoever "we" is and I'll assume you're not using the royal "we" have nothing to do with my kids. Your input is (to be honest) intrusive, unwanted and more than a little presumptuous and if all you see around you are terrible parents that says more about your social circle than anything else.
My point is you parent your kids however the hell you want. As long as it isn't abusive or intrusive on my (or anyone else's) rights, I don't care what you do. Nor should you care what anyone else does.
If you think your children seeing boobs is destructive, good for you. If you think the f-bomb is the devil's tool, good. I don't care. Shelter them. The second, though, your parental standards hurt my life, or my ability to raise kids, then you can go to hell, and take your kids with you. Your standards are not mine, and they should never inflict on mine unless there is objective, and provable, harm. Period.
That is my point.
As for the "we", yes, I think people who over shelter their kids do nothing but hurt them. I never said though that people should be able to if they want to. I just don't think everyone should be forced into the most prude, fanciful, and moronic mode of protection. Choice is all there should be, no coercion.
I say its harmful because I've seen over-protected children enter the real world, and become self-destructive. Its a point of data people can use to make decisions, or not. If not, and its true, then they have to live with the consequences. Input is just that, it isn't a directive or mandate.
Do you find developmental psychologists intrusive? Juvenile corrections people? Teachers?
I think advice (again, not mandates) are needed, since we all can agree that there ARE bad parents out there (Like the recent story about the parents who named their kids Adolf Hitler, and Aryan Nation, for example). And while we should never tell them HOW to raise their child, we should provide information and education.
Sorry for the hostile tone, I just don't like being misread as a tyrant. I never presumed to tell you how to raise your kids, and take some affront at being perceived to be doing so. Though I find some amusement in the fact that my "leave parents alone" statement was construed as a "this is what parents have to do" statement.