Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Censorship The Internet United Kingdom

The UK's Internet Porn Filter and Fighting Censorship Creep 234

Posted by Soulskill
from the won't-somebody-think-of-the-children dept.
An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian takes the UK government's internet porn filter to task by pointing out how absurd the opt-out process is: 'Picture the scene. You're pottering about on the internet, perhaps idly looking up cake recipes, or videos of puppies learning to howl. Then the phone rings. It's your internet service provider. Actually, it's a nice lady in a telesales warehouse somewhere, employed on behalf of your service provider; let's call her Linda. Linda is calling because, thanks to David Cameron's "porn filter", you now have an "unavoidable choice", as one of 20 million British households with a broadband connection, over whether to opt in to view certain content. Linda wants to know – do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can't hear you.' The article also points out how the filter is being used as a tool for private industry to protect their profits. 'The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" – in other words, filesharing and music downloads, debate over which has been going on in parliament for years.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

The UK's Internet Porn Filter and Fighting Censorship Creep

Comments Filter:
  • by boristdog (133725) on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:18PM (#45857979)

    As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

    And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

  • by grub (11606) <slashdot@grub.net> on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:19PM (#45857993) Homepage Journal

    I would hope Linda and others would have the fortitude to say "Yes across the board" and hang up. It's better to face the odd goatse than to have the government spoon feed you.
  • Definition. (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nospam007 (722110) * on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:22PM (#45858027)

    I guess for the ruling party, the opposition would be 'obscene'.

  • Re:really? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bluefoxlucid (723572) on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:23PM (#45858037) Journal

    The British have one thing over America: They know how to say "Piss off!" in every situation imaginable. Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over. Violence is bad here, it's taught as "not the solution", and all aggression is looked down upon; we've forgotten how to push back, to shout at people, and to react to someone trying to kill us by throwing a brick at them instead of crying and ducking under a chair.

    In America, it would be like, "ohgod, I uh, please don't call me, I don't want to talk about stuff like that it's uncomfortable!"

  • Re:Please ... (Score:4, Insightful)

    by MozeeToby (1163751) on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:33PM (#45858153)

    Does "drugs" block sites such as those advocating an end to marijuana prohibition? Does "gay sex" block sites such as support sites for homosexual teens? I suspect yes and yes; if not intentionally every time then at least unintentionally some of the time. So no, you damn well won't censor any of my communications with the outside world.

  • by kheldan (1460303) on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:33PM (#45858157) Journal
    "Internet censorship, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong, and I for one do not support it nor will I endure it, because while ostensibly it is to 'protect the children!', it is inevitably mis-used as a tool by politicians to further their own political and social agendas, and by proxy it is further mis-used by big business to increase their profits by silencing their competition. Lastly it has been proven time and time again that using blacklists to censor the internet simply does not work, and it inevitably will block perfectly 'acceptable' content while sometimes allowing 'unacceptable' content through. Therefore I do not wish to have anything to do with anything having to do with any form of censorship, please do not include me in it, and please do not bother me about this subject again."
  • The Nanny State (Score:5, Insightful)

    by vikingpower (768921) <exercitussolus@g ... m minus caffeine> on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:35PM (#45858177) Homepage Journal
    is now being turned, all nice and easy, into Nanny State 2.0: a Surveillance State. Police State will be Nanny State 3.0. Rejoice, o Britons !
  • Re:really? (Score:4, Insightful)

    by lagomorpha2 (1376475) on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:41PM (#45858243)

    Nah, over here it would be the other way around. Rumors would start about the government subsidizing adult content and the next thing you know the Right in the US would be screaming about protecting the children from Obamaporn.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Friday January 03, 2014 @01:59PM (#45858453)

    Say that things are commonly misfiltered and that Google already filters for that so it's rather unlikely to show up, and if it does you'll report it to the authorities.

  • by Savage-Rabbit (308260) on Friday January 03, 2014 @02:05PM (#45858525)

    As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

    And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

    Making poor Linda suffer for the fact that this unfortunate job has been foisted upon her would not achieve anything. Statistically Linda is highly likely to be a single mom or one half of a low income family and I can't blame her for not being reluctant to take a stand over this and risk losing her job over it. David Cameron, the conservative party and UKIP (out of fear of whom the Tories are doing this and who really deserve your scorn) can, however, shove their entire censorship program where the sun does not shine along with all of the hypocritical spin about how censorship measures that are only rivalled by those used by communist China and Saudi Arabia are being introduced in a democratic country in the name of protecting 'freedom' and 'moral values'.

  • by ILongForDarkness (1134931) on Friday January 03, 2014 @03:11PM (#45859265)

    Speaking of "porns okay" wouldn't it be nice if you could only opt into good porn. Yes I want adult material but only that which meets the following criteria. Think of the thousands of hours you could save if you didn't have to search :)

  • by AmiMoJo (196126) * <mojo @ w orld3.net> on Saturday January 04, 2014 @12:10AM (#45863185) Homepage

    If you are unemployed and the local call centre is hiring then your choice is to take the job or lose your benefits.

  • by TheGratefulNet (143330) on Saturday January 04, 2014 @12:30AM (#45863277)

    wrong way to approach this.

    the right way is: "I don't search for CP, and so it won't be an issue."

Prediction is very difficult, especially of the future. - Niels Bohr

Working...