UK Govt's Censorware Blocks Tech, Civil Liberties Websites 148
A few days ago, we mentioned that the UK's ISP-level censorware software not only does a poor job of its stated job (blocking porn), but blocks at least some sex education sites, too; now, reader badger.foo writes to say that's not all: "It fell to the UK Tories to actually implement the Nanny State. Too bad Nanny Tory does not want kinds to read up on tech web sites such as slashdot.org, or civil liberties ones such as the EFF or Amnesty International. Read on for a small sample of what the filter blocks, from a blocked-by-default tech writer."
Re:Any wide-scale blocking will have such problems (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe. And, maybe, sex-education sites should make more effort to not appear like porn...
It's probably a "key word" filter, maybe some generic tit's and cock pictures.
Seriously, a "sex education" web site by definition should be talking and , you know, sex? And what parts of the body are involved with sex?
Are you suggesting modern "sex education" web sites should roll it back to the 1950's?
Re:I have to agree (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm not really sure if the Tories are a good source of information on how to lead a healthy sex life. Unless of course you subscribe to the "do as I say, don't do as I do" school of thought.
So you WERE serving malware (Score:5, Insightful)
Their is nothing scummier than the owner of a website complaining about THEIR inconvenience when someone attempts to protect users from malware put onto users machines by that site.
Here's a message for you, you CRETIN 'mi'. You, and YOU ALONE are responsible to your users for the actions of ANY affiliate you allow to operate via your website. If you make money from serving ads, you are 100% responsible for any damage caused to users by those ads. And if an ad 'broker' has engaged in sickeningly criminal activity by placing malware on a users machine at ANY time, your use of that ad broker is a direct attack against your users.
The ONLY ads you should permit are those filtered through your own servers, and limited to JPGs or similar.
I'll be blunt. I would happily see the law changed so people like you, mi, do serious jail time if you, or any agent you contract with, serves malware via your website, or actively seeks the potential to do the same. You have ZERO right to make advertising revenue at the expense of risking serious criminal damage to your users' computers.
Re:This is not censorship as the user is in contro (Score:3, Insightful)
You use words and phrases such as "pond scum", "mouth foamers", "cunt", "shrill bitch" yet you claim *others* are hysterical?
It's this kind of huge exaggeration and irrational and maniacal reaction that makes discussion futile, or at least too boring and wearisome to pursue. I assume this is intentional as it serves to obscure the facts and clears the field of rational actors leaving the discussion in the hands of people with an axe to grind.
The funny thing is that in your reply you perfectly fulfil the description of an intolerant, unreasonable reactionary who is either deluded or dishonest, all the while clearly imagining yourself to be reasonable, honest and right thinking.
Re:Useless Article (Score:5, Insightful)
He should have researched his subject, and posted from an informed viewpoint, instead this article is a waste of time.
No, he shouldn't have.
We need to start using the tactics our opponents use. Let the public get the impression that the UK system is bad, by any means. If the UK government has to take the time to patiently explain why the article is wrong, it puts them on the defensive and puts a sliver of doubt in the mind of the public.
It doesn't matter if it's inaccurate or if it's immoral or unfair or anything like that. What matters is whether it's effective.
To quote an old geek saying, it's not enough to be right, you also have to be effective.
A widely-read article that's well written, facially correct (everything he says is true), and casts doubt on the UK filters. That it isn't a fair assessment is immaterial - it serves the right purpose.
Let the UK government respond - we shouldn't be helping them justify the system.