Slashdot stories can be listened to in audio form via an RSS feed, as read by our own robotic overlord.

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship Government The Internet Your Rights Online

UK ISP Filter Will Censor More Than Porn 329

Posted by timothy
from the knows-it-when-it-sees-it dept.
The UK's on-by-default censorship, as you might expect, presses with a heavy thumb: coolnumbr12 writes "The Open Rights Group spoke with several ISPs and found that in addition to pornography, users will also be required to opt in for any content tagged as violent material, extremist and terrorist related content, anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking, web forums, esoteric material and web blocking circumvention tools. These will all be filtered by default, and the majority of users never change default settings with online services."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK ISP Filter Will Censor More Than Porn

Comments Filter:
  • Esoteric material? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:24AM (#44397971)

    So will it also block cult sects like scientology and other major religions like cristianity? How about homeopathy?

    • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:51AM (#44398073)

      It'll only block cults that are too small to sue in retaliation.

      • by dintech (998802) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:17AM (#44398171)

        extremist and terrorist related content

        No doubt opting in for porn will get you on the 'special attention at MI5' list.

        • by gadget junkie (618542) <gbponz@libero.it> on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:34AM (#44398211) Journal

          extremist and terrorist related content

          No doubt opting in for porn will get you on the 'special attention at MI5' list.

          No. it will mark you as "normal", but with a less than ignorant approach to technology. Expect a movement to help people opt out of the filter altogether tough. If it happened here, I'd start one myself. Where in the world, except in the book "1984", the government decides what I am allowed to see? it only decides the media, anyhow: child pornography or else will not stop because Joe Soap does not see it by default. And the reasoning by which access to an uncontrolled internet is the fountainhead of social problem is beyond moronic, it's deceitful.

          • by jaseuk (217780) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:06AM (#44398311) Homepage

            Known Child Porn is blocked by all or most UK ISPs anyway. There is no opt-out of this.

            Jason.

      • by lightknight (213164) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:45AM (#44398431) Homepage

        It may look like incumbent interests, right or, as usual, wrong, are working to carve up the public's attention so that they can remain in power...because they are.

        If you tell them that normal people don't need 'their protection'...well, they manufacture circumstances where a public outcry occurs to prove you wrong. In short, they are people who need to feel needed...by taking care of someone else, preferably seen as less capable / intelligent than themselves, so that their selfless nature (need for attention) may be more publicly seen. Lol, I remember when they taught Christians to do good acts, and tell no one, so that God would have something nice to inform others of when they came to lampoon you...I suppose that went out of style at some point, or perhaps the culture has become so political that not walking around proclaiming that you have done something 'selfless' that day for someone else is grounds for others gathering stones.

        It's almost as if these types do not see any inherent worth in themselves...nor do they understand the damaging effects of their actions, the false prison they've placed themselves in, or that they must, at some point, let the children make their own decisions and abide by those consequences...much like how their parents, and their parents before them, sat them on the proverbial throne (or behind the steering wheel of dad's priceless Mustang), guided their hand as needed, but let them understand that this is what it's like to be in charge (it's going to be scary, you're going to have to grow up, and you will, in time, have to make a lot of decisions which, love it or hate it, you will remember and wonder for the rest of your life if there wasn't a better way). The first time you get into a car accident, no one is Mr. Cool...not your parents, not your grand-parents, etc. The fifth time you get into one it will still be nerve-wracking ("Am I cursed?"), but you will at least be able to get the appropriate information out of the glove box, and move your car out of the way of oncoming vehicles...before accessing the realistic damage to the car (sheet metal looks bad, but cleans up strangely well with a rubber hammer....things look worse than they are...usually).

      • by morcego (260031)

        It'll only block cults that are too small to sue in retaliation.

        Or to buy and have their own Members of Parliament...

    • by gweihir (88907)

      How about filtering out psycho-cults like the current British government? Now that would be an advantage!

    • by Yvanhoe (564877)
      The truly hilarious label there is "extremist". What is extremism? Anarcho-terrorism? Anarchism? Communism? Syndicalism?

      Note a single time has there been a "porn filter" that did not include highly political sites in its black lists.

      Would you censor LGBT movements? Would you censor FEMEN? Would you censor news article talking/showing pictures of FEMEN activists? Hey, would you censor anti-censorship webste explaining how to circumvent your filters? Would this make you censor EFF or pirate party?

      NEVER
  • by Goose In Orbit (199293) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:26AM (#44397977)

    Though most people are still too busy cooing over the royal baby to notice...

    • by Godwin O'Hitler (205945) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:51AM (#44398075) Homepage Journal

      I'm not sure royal babies are rich enough in content to keep a whole nation cooing for long.
      I'm sure most people probably won't even notice or care anyway regardless.

      When I was with O2 in the UK five years ago these things were already opt-in.

      Nanny state. Pan. Water. Frog. Heat.

    • by gweihir (88907) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:56AM (#44398481)

      Most people are stupid. That is what budging totalitarian regimes usually ride in on. The Nazis, for example, promised jobs (and did create them) and everybody besides the few that were actually looking at what these guys stood for was happy. The British government now promises a "clean" Internet and everybody is happy, besides those that actually understand what censorship is and how hugely dangerous it is. But people remain stupid, despite ample examples from history. And the enemies of freedom use that and move in slowly.

  • Opt in?? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:26AM (#44397981)

    I don't know how you do it, but I "opt in" by sending a page request in the form of a URL.

  • "Web forums" (Score:5, Interesting)

    by eexaa (1252378) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:27AM (#44397985) Homepage

    ...seriously?

    On the other hand, more stuff they block, more users will opt out. I guess it can easily become a "traditional first thing you do with Internet", like removing IE and installing fox/chrome is now.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      ...seriously? I think most govs see forums as a gateway.
      Post enough and a user becomes liked, builds trust and the same interests gets strangers chatting. A useful person who is respectful or productive might get invited into darker time limited/ or "alphanumeric" chatrooms where they are further tested..
      Beyond that is encryption and historically hard to track, invites into user generated chatrooms that last hours with very few members.
      So from the govs view, stop the meetings, stop the easy entry, stop
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Looking at the image [ibtimes.com] in TFA it appears that Facebook, MySpace, Instagram, G+, LinkedIn and all the other social networking sites people seem to love will be blocked by default. Presumably very large numbers of people will opt-in to seeing them, and hopefully at the same time untick all the other boxes as well. Unfortunately the fact that their choices are logged will probably discourage them for deselecting everything.

    • by dlingman (1757250) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @07:29AM (#44398589)

      So when exactly did the Usenet Cabal get into British politics? Who else would want the end of web forums, and be subtle enough to slip it into the middle of a list of bad stuff?

  • What a surprise (Score:5, Insightful)

    by El_Muerte_TDS (592157) <elmuerte AT drunksnipers DOT com> on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:28AM (#44397991) Homepage

    And in the future years it will also include sites critical of the government, large corporations, etc.

    • by boorack (1345877)
      Content critical of the government, banksters and corporations is already included in this list as "esoteric material".
      • by gweihir (88907)

        Indeed. And soon after "terrorist" material, subject to prosecution by secret courts using secret laws and imprisonment in secret prisons. And then people start vanishing, and everybody will be far too afraid to say anything...

    • Given that they are keeping the blacklist secret surely WikiLeaks is already going to be on said list.
    • Re:What a surprise (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:35AM (#44398393)

      And in the future years it will also include sites critical of the government, large corporations, etc.

      The UK introduced the European Convention and it's freedom of expression guarantees into it's Human Rights Act. Then they added a whole legion of exceptions to freedom of expression such as:

      • - Threatening, abusive or insulting words or behavior.
      • - Causing alarm or distress or causing a breach of the peace.
      • - Sending somebody an object deemed indecent or offensive with the intention to cause distress.
      • - Inciting racial or religious hatred.
      • - Inciting and encouraging terrorism.
      • - Possessing information likely to be useful to a terrorist.
      • - Imagining the death of the monarc.
      • - Advocating the abolition of the monarchy.
      • - Sedition.
      • - Obscenity and Indecency.

      So with all these exceptions the conservatives do not seem to be stepping outside of any legal framework here. Many other European countries have at least some of these exceptions on the books as well as ones on trade secrets, copyrighted material etc. but It is pretty rare to see a government in a democratic western country actually implement across the board opt-out censorship of most or all of the things listed above. They usually content themselves with a subset. Regulation of many cases of things like indecency and obscenity usually happens on a case for case basis through the courts when somebody feels the line has been crossed. Other things on that list seem unenforceable, such as 'imagining the death of the monarch' (seriously?) and 'advocating the abolition of the monarchy'. I know a whole bunch of Britons who'd love to abolish the monarchy and are not afraid to advocate it. Basically the conservatives are testing the limits of the exceptions in the Human Rights act and are using porn as an excuse to get censorship in place. It will be interesting to see what happens if this gets dragged into the UK supreme court. It's also interesting to see the conservatives, who usually can't shut up about how they represent liberty and the free market and how the political left represents the nanny state, turn around and do something like this. I can't imagine many things that you can do that stink more strongly of the nanny-state than this which makes the tories guilty of a massive hypocrisy. Even more interesting is that TFA points out that the HomeSafe system singled out by Cameron is actually operated by Huawei, I take it that I don't have to explain to people here why this is also a massive hypocrisy. The only thing that remains is what to call this thing? Cameron's firewall? Limes Ignis Britannicus?

      • Re:What a surprise (Score:4, Informative)

        by BobTheLawyer (692026) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @09:28AM (#44399219)

        That post is not remotely correct.

        Some of the items on the list are laws enacted after the Human Rights Act, but they are not exceptions to it - the Human Rights Act has priority.

        Others - sedition and advocating the abolition of the monarchy - were criminal offences two hundred years ago, but there have been no prosecutions in recent times and the courts have acknowledged that the idea any prosecution would survive an HRA challenge is "unreal" (see Lord Steyn's judgment in the ex parte Rushbridger case).

    • by spacepimp (664856)
      They already block these.... Terrorist related/extremist. America take note of what happens when you allow even the slightest amount of censorship to occur.
  • Just like 1984. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bejiitas_wrath (825021) <johncartwright302@gmail.com> on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:29AM (#44397995) Homepage Journal

    The ministry of truth will define what is allowable content and which is not. This using the Royal baby as a distraction to implement totalitarian control of the Internet. Just waint until they start blocking all "unwanted" content.

  • by Hentes (2461350) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:37AM (#44398029)

    I just opted in cuz I wanted to read some forums, Mom!

  • by next_ghost (1868792) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:42AM (#44398047)
    How long until the filter includes "fringe political content"? Reply with your guess.
    • 0 days

      and if not from the beginning sites like Wikileaks will probably be on the list very soon, too...

    • That's what the 'extremist' in 'extremist and terrorist content' means.

      • Sure, from the viewpoint of the establishment, it's the exact same thing, but let's define the terms from the viewpoint of average Joe Citizen. Joe Citizen can usually tell the two apart.
      • by Carewolf (581105)

        Especially because they are not blocking just extremist and terrorist content, but extremist and terrorist relatedt conten. That can be anything. Other than that web forums can pretty much covers anywhere you can exercise free speech.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      They could do it in a very quick way.
      Your "fringe political content" link would be flagged to say wikipedia and would not be displayed in the UK. A point would be added to your isp's tacking database
      So the actions of big pharma, UK mil, UK gov, agribusiness, oil, countries the UK loves, organ harvesting, deaths would be blocked/protected as "a matter before a court" can be now.
      Citation needed would be an invite to memory hole.
      In a very short time, interested/trusted parties could delink any historical
    • by Patch86 (1465427)

      "Extremism" says it all. Presumably they mean "Islamists" at the moment. But there's nothing illegal about Islamism- personally I think it's a horrible political ideology, but banning peoples' political parties because they don't seem very nice to people in other political parties seems very, very wrong.

      How long before we had the Communists and the Fascists to the list of "extremists"? What about the Anarcho-Syndicalists, and the Libertarians? Separatist Nationalists? Hard-line Socialists? Parties-to-the-Ri

  • In the news of http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/07/16/0030227/leaked-letter-shows-uk-isps-and-government-at-war-over-default-filters [slashdot.org]
    I have prophesied that it is not about porn and that the filter will expand beyond porn.
    http://slashdot.org/comments.pl?sid=3977245&cid=44294083 [slashdot.org]

  • Huawei or another private company, or a government "ministry for cencorship"? And who controls the people who make the list?

    Just curious...

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Violent material some expanded films and videos, computer games, publications and 'web' gov classification team.
      Extremist and terrorist related content - police/MI5/6
      Anorexia and eating disorder websites, suicide related websites, alcohol, smoking - Medical teams.
      Add in the public–private partnerships and faith based groups, business, foreign diplomats, multinationals, legal teams, NGO's... contractors..
  • Are people so bored, and mentally so obese from their consumption patterns, that they actually take this crap without protesting ? If this happened in the country I live in, I would be nagging MPs, protesting loudly and write mag / newspaper articles. How can Brits just take this silently ?
    • How can Brits just take this silently ?

      Whoa, at least give us a day or two to react.

    • by peragrin (659227) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:08AM (#44398151)

      How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the NSA snoops through their personal files by the minute?

      How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the TSA has the authority to search your car while your not there.(see Rochester NY about a month ago)

      How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the Border Patrol are allowed to randomly inspect and any within 150 miles of the border at any time without a warrant?(again in NY)

      All those things have been done in the USA in the last two years.

      • How can the people of the USA stand idly by while the TSA has the authority to search your car while your not there.

        Well, they also grope you or scan you with invasive scanners if you try to get on a plane.

        Oh, and free speech zones and protest permits. Can't let people who say things we don't like be heard, now can we? If it's to keep us safe, I'll accept anything!

      • by painehope (580569)

        NY sucks, just admit it. I loved NYC when I was a kid - drugs, violence, urban chaos. Then they got all nit-picky and I simultaneously grew up. Now I hate NY, damn near all of it. And flying anywhere North of the Mason-Dixon is a damn nightmare. I've gotten stuck out in several major urban cities by airlines that either overbooked or couldn't coordinate connecting flights. The fact that this has never happened in my hometown, which has a huge airport run by morons, amazes me, but it's true. Also, the TSA s

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday July 27, 2013 @04:56AM (#44398107)

    I'm a school governor here in the UK. We will not be in a position to 'Opt Out' of this blocking for our School'. I expect it to be the same for universities. I would also image that Corporate Governance would find it very difficult to opt out too. So just forget the internet at all those places.

    • by AHuxley (892839)
      Cleared academics will have the 'net'.
      Support staff and students can make do with the filter as they do at home.
      They have all the tax payer funded catalogues, electronic databases and journals for free... why do they need the net?
      If a student needs to do research on the 'net' they can do it in the library under the new CCTV.
      • This is exactly how it works now in Cuba.

      • The technical staff will also have unfiltered access. Not officially, because they are smart enough to know that some day they will have to justify their unfiltered access to a board of directors who can't understand why a forum discussion about the latest exploits and countermeasures would be classified as 'hacking.' No, they'll have unfiltered access because they put the exception in the firewall policy that lets them SSH to their home server and tunnel out.

  • by longk (2637033) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:03AM (#44398127)

    Will they continue to call these connections "Internet" connections? At what point does it really become an "Intranet"?

  • but web forum |Yup, that'll kill it.

  • by HetMes (1074585) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:16AM (#44398165)
    UK's citizen becoming experts on web technology, encryption and obfuscation in 3... 2... 1... I mean, take a man's porn away and he'll build a rocket to Mars to get it.
  • by magpie (3270) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:24AM (#44398187) Journal
    The ISPs don't want to implement this as it will cost them money to run so what they are doing is stymieing it by putting everything that could possibley be non-child friendly on the filtered list. Thus making the net largly usless to the majority of adults, thus getting everyone to opt out and then they can say to the gov, "look we implemented it, infact we went beyond what you asked". As almost everyone opted out they can put most of the kit they had tied up running this to more profitable use.
  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:31AM (#44398201)

    I'm already teaching several friends how to use it. Got a little network set up now. There is porn.

    Well, not photographic porn. We're just not into that. It's all explicit artwork and comics.

    Between this and the NSA/GCHQ/everyone-else revelations, I'm expecting Retroshare and similar things to grow in popularity a great deal. It's like WASTE, but less buggy.

  • by blackest_k (761565) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @05:58AM (#44398291) Homepage Journal

    Opting out of filtering isn't easy,
    I use 3 mobile and after several years of unfiltered content began hitting the blocks fairly regularly and not because of porn.

    With the rather extended winter in Ireland the traditional start of spring and the gardening calender is 17th of March but this year the cold miserable weather continued through to May. One area I looked into was grow lights and thats where I started to run into blocks, as the greatest source of information on grow lights are cannabis growers. The filter provider, who ever that is, obviously thinks its impossible for an adult to want to investigate grow lights for anything else.

    In my youth i might have been interested but as an older adult with little interest in fecking up my life any further not really. I just wanted to have a nice garden.

    So then I went to the phone shop for 3 and asked about getting these blocks removed, having to deal with 20 something women and being the typical neck beard geek wanting the porn filter removed it was pretty obvious what they thought of me and what I wanted the filter removing for. Being the type not to give a crap what anyone thinks of me I jumped through the hoops, I had to provide Id they had to get in touch with the area managers office for his/her personal approval and it was something nobody had asked them for before apparently. Eventually the middle aged pervert got the filters lifted on his internet access.

    The real problem with internet filtering is the blocking of any and all sites deemed to be unsuitable. I'm an adult I can make my own choices. Is my aged mother going to jump through hoops so she can get an unfiltered connection? I don't think so and who else who cares about their reputation will stand up to these tactics.

    The wholesale blocking and censoring of objectionable material is fundamentally wrong because what is objectionable for the censors will never match up with what people being censored want and need to know. Even if 95% of what is blocked we have no interest in its the other 5% which matters.

    I would be surprised to think that many people on this site wouldn't have long been aware that we are monitored and censored already, just mostly unobtrusively. It doesn't make a big difference if your not interested in becoming a terrorist or criminal.

    Unfortunately the public outing of Prism seems to be not causing a retreat on the states attempt to control our access to information but instead a more overt approach. To be honest there is little we can do about it, we change our political leaders of one shade to another and you'd have to be an idiot to think that the surveillance and censorship ever recedes with a change of office.

    Maybe a fringe party might change something if they ever got any power but that will never happen while the majority of people are apathetic to whats going on. Doesn't help that most fringe parties are usually complete loons over some core value which right minded people will never accept.

    There is a chance that the "Porn" filters will not hold, there is a more liberal society, we don't twitch behind the net curtains like our parents generation who are long retired. May be enough people will opt out of filtering if they realise that its necessary to resist the decay of our freedoms to think and make our own informed choices. The wisdom of age, tends to be to keep your head down, work hard and don't get noticed but with popular public support from the younger generations the older generations may quietly revolt too.

    • I'm with Vodaphone. I had a similar issue. There is an art site (furaffinity.net) which I use as something of a social hub for messaging, discussion, journals and so on. This site also happens to allow adult artwork, providing it is tagged - you have to have an account and tick the 'show adult content' button to see it, same policy as deviantart. It was blocked as a porn site.

      So I tried to have the block removed. Simple enough: You make a payment via credit card to verify age on their website. So I did. Or

  • by mysidia (191772) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:24AM (#44398349)

    That's the real question one should be asking.

    There will be plenty of people and companies who suffer by this arbitrary government-supported webjacking --- and probably some small number of companies getting a big fat check by this.

    Personally; I think it's a very bad thing that the UK ISPs are even looking at traffic headers; let alone performing traffic interception and blocking of sites based on someone's opinion that the site is too violent, or offensive and such and such.

    How long before sites that degrade the monarchy or the current government parties or officials, or competing candidates during the election/other politically inconvenient sites get blocked too?

  • .. you will end up on a watchlist. -- Now that is a guess, but I guess it's not too far out of considering recent events.
  • by tlambert (566799) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @06:31AM (#44398373)

    Hey! What happened?!?

    I ticked the "block intolerance" checkbox, and now I can't reach the web filter configuration page any more!

  • I'm a customer of the ISP in question, TalkTalk.

    I do *NOT* have to individually opt-in to "content tagged as violent, extremist, terrorist, anorexia and eating disorders, suicide, alcohol, smoking, web forums, esoteric material and web-blocking circumvention tools".

    I unchecked *ONE* box so that my broadband service is unfiltered. That's all. Those fine grain options become available if *YOU* *CHOOSE* filtering. *YOU* have the control and the choice!

    People keep acting outraged and presenting this measure

    • by hjf (703092)

      I'd rather not have to check any boxes, thank you very much.

      If I were a concerned parent, I'd be okay enabling a filter. But, like its been said, a tiny minority will bother disabling the filter, making it much more easier to track you for whatever reason. What guarantee do you have that this setting will not appear, later, in your credit report? With UKUSA agreements, what guarantee do you have that the US,CAN, AUS will not ban you from entering their countries because you disabled the filter (that blocks

      • by julian67 (1022593)

        It has *nothing* to do with tracking. The ISP *already* knows which sites you visit. If they couldn't know this then you couldn't connect, could you? Doh.

        How do you know what proportion of people will change the default? Are you claiming mystic powers of foresight?

        Why would a credit report note that I did or did not choose to filter, for example, social networking sites or xxx video sites? Credit companies care about financial status, not whether I block access to social networking and gaming sites dur

  • Cultural Anomaly? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by painehope (580569) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @07:17AM (#44398553)

    The last time I was working in the UK, I was assigned a small house as my temporary residence. Where I did not have cable TV, yet at almost any time of the day I could find a nude or semi-nude figure of either sex doing something (generally streaking). My coworkers took 4 hour "pub lunches". I spent the nights pub-crawling with them (until I started wandering into the more "dangerous" parts of town to drink and pick up women - to someone from Houston, London doesn't have a ghetto). I generally woke up mildly hungover next to a woman somewhere between 18 and 36 who may or may not have been rescued from a freak show (depending on how much I'd drank). After kicking her out with taxi fair and a half-hearted promise to call, I stumbled over to the nearby Underground station and got a breakfast and cup of tea that, between the two, clogged my arteries to the point of failure and then rocketed everything back into place.

    After which I'd go into work for 10 hours. On smoke breaks, I could enjoy the nude girls from the Sun or whatever that had been pasted all over the smoking area. The only time anyone looked at me funny is if I mentioned my firearms collection back home.

    How did the British go from a relatively hard-drinking, smoking, swearing, fucking, nude, fighting-in-pubs, generally relaxed culture (I actually had a cop ask me nicely to throw up in a trash can once - in the U.S. I'd have at least spent the night in jail, possibly been in a fight and gotten tasered about four to eight times [it would help if I stayed down, I suppose]) to this? It just doesn't make sense from my experience...

  • by serviscope_minor (664417) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @07:43AM (#44398663) Journal

    When I got 3G on my phone, I had to call them to unblock the porn filters because I wanted to read slashdot. Seriously. It is blocked as a forum and therefore "adult material". I've never downloaded porn on my phone.

    Oddly though the mobile ISPs only filtered data being displayed on the phone, plugging it in and having it presented as a CDC modem device and connecting over PPP went through a different machanism and did not cause filtering. That's a curious aside.

    The reason that it is a good thing that everything of interest will be blocked is that it massively removes the stigma from getting it unblocked.

    While the whole thing is full of stupidity, if it's so stupid then there is less useful information to have on people if they unblock. This (or a massive U turn) is the best we can hope for.

  • by Somebody Is Using My (985418) on Saturday July 27, 2013 @08:23AM (#44398833) Homepage

    It's "slippery slope", Great Britain, not "slippery precipice". You're supposed to ease people into surrendering their rights; first you take away the pornography (for the children!), then perhaps "terrorist material" (for the nation!) and then work downwards from there. You get much less objection from the proles that way.

    Well, maybe they just assume everybody is to bedazzled by the new royal infant (baby!) to notice. Or perhaps they've just given up any pretense of listening to their own citizenry. Which may not be the greatest idea if you take away their porn...

"In the face of entropy and nothingness, you kind of have to pretend it's not there if you want to keep writing good code." -- Karl Lehenbauer

Working...