Slashdot Mirror
Collateral Damage as UK Censors Internet Archive
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.
Once you start censoring internet things it tends to snowball until it gets in the way of agtually getting information.
It's like the UK is purposely going out of it's way to prove internet censorship doesn't work.
I hope that's the goal, because otherwise they are just working to make their people dumber.
I somehow doubt the really objectionable stuff is on web pages that are open to the public.
Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
Big deal. Not all ISPs use the IWF list and it's a free market.
Also, even before RTFA I just knew Virgin Media (The new AOL) would be on there. Got all my less computer literate relatives to stop using them months ago.
If you're reading this from the UK, this pos
Beetle B.
The thing is you cannot have freedom of speech and censorship at the same time. The freedom of speech is one of the most precious freedoms that we have, the freedom to express ideas and opinions. I may not agree with what a lot of people say but they have the right to say it. The power ultimately is in the hands of the people, there may come a time when the military has to choose to either side with the elected official or to side with the people, but that day will not come while the people sit idly still getting trampled upon.
"All tyranny needs to gain a foothold is for people of good conscience to remain silent." [Thomas Jefferson]
This is outrageous. No government has ANY right to censor the internet or anything else or determine what people look at. It is none of their business. I am simply disgusted, people did not fight and die for freedoms, like basic 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 totalitarain 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! Don't let them get away with enslaving you! This is what we call the totalitarian creep, just take away little peices of freedom at a time, and people dont notice what happens. People say "oh, its just a little freedom, not much", but those little peices start to add up. 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, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist. But it is happening right now!!! 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 survellience and censorship society prison state, which would weaken dramatically the framework of a free soceity, leading to greater atrocities and establishment of stasi like agencies and secret police is next. Censorship of any kind is simply 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.
I'm an ornithologist and yes, there is a bird called the "great tit" in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tits
Quite often, I'm finding sites which refer to tits to be censored.
(there are also "boobies" which are seabirds as well)
Databases for people trying to access blocked pages? Oh, wait, that already exists in the UK.
Now let's connect the dots. This is a page that was blocked because it contained child porn. You tried to access it. That makes you... well...?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
What, they haven't blacklisted Google yet? Children can use it to search for bad words!
Excuse me, but please get off my Pennisetum Clandestinum, eh!
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?
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Wouldn't it be better to tell the Internet Archive about the offending images? If it really is child porn then I'm sure they'll be only too happy to remove it.
The trouble with blacklists is that the criteria are almost always emotional and subjective and rarely rational or objective. Since human emotional responses are never going to be precisely the same across the board, their resulting contents are a recipe for annoyance and worse. Why are they even still considered effective by anyone?
"Wouldn't it be better to tell the Internet Archive about the offending images? If it really is child porn then I'm sure they'll be only too happy to remove it."
The UK criminalises "indecent" images of children; defined as images which "offend against the recognised standards of propriety". The US criminalises "pornographic" images of children; defined as images which involve lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genital area.
An image can be "indecent" (illegal in the UK) without being "pornographic" (illegal in the US). The IWF may therefore be blocking access to the Internet Archive due to images which are not considered "child porn" in the US.
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Germany and Austria take anything related to the Holocaust very seriously. Holocaust denial is a felony and will most likely cause you a prison sentence. "Mein Kampf" is the only book that is illegal to own, buy or sell in both countries, and Nazi symbols like swastikas or the Hitler greeting are prohibited. It is also considered "taboo" to say anything along the lines of: "Well, Hitler wasn't all bad, y'know..."
Personally, I think this is a good thing, because it helps people realise the seriousness of the whole thing. People in Germany or Austria will probably not laugh at Jew/Nazi jokes, as these are considered tasteless, not funny, etc.
But:
Germany and Austria also take free speech and its place as foundational pillar of democracy very seriously. It is through demonizing our past and disassociating ourselves with it that we recognise the importance of free speech and privacy. It is for this reason that these countries will never have the "slippery slope" problem of privacy loss and censorship (unless, of course, we are dragged kicking and screaming into it through EU lobbying). Governments in the UK and US (and Australia, I guess) have always been the good guys. There has never been any instance of citizens standing up to oppression on a large scale, which is why most people fail to realise where the slippery slope is (or at least might be) going.
People are slowly forgetting about the horrors of the Holocaust, but the memories of the censorship and privacy invasions by the GDR in East Germany are still vivid in people's memories. Watch The Life of Others if you still don't know what I'm talking about.
Of course I didn't RTFA.
Yes, because those handguns you're allowed to buy will be oh-so-effective pitted against the tanks, armoured aircraft, long-range artilliary and and armed robots of the entire US armed forces. Good luck with that.
"Wanted: Two birds for breeding. Preference given for Great Tits, but will settle for a Common Shag."
Bet that's going to cause confusion, Ma'am!"
Why, without your clothes, you're naked, Miss Dudley!
The best way of preventing another holocaust is to remember the last one. I don't really see how censorship helps this.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Kids aren't raised by parents today, and the average teacher doesn't do much of that either. Kids are raised by TV, computer, and video games.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Wait, isn't Germany the country where videogames can't have red blood? And aren't they the ones the ruined the Fallout tradition of being able to shoot kids (in game, obviously).
Smells like censorship. Smells like censorship that has nothing to do with the Holocaust.
Also, censoring a book, or a thought ("the holocaust never happened") is still censorship, no matter how much you agree with it being banned. Mein Kampf has some historical importance, so reading it does not denote that the reader is an aspiring Nazi. Hell, I've read it, and it didn't make me a Nazi, far from it. It was actually educational, it allowed me to get into the head of a despot, which informed me about future possible despots. Its a (really badly written) warning.
As for holocaust denial... I find it tragically funny. Some of my friends grandparents have tattoos on their arms. Hell my grandfather was among the first US troops to arrive at Auschwitz, he didn't talk about it much, but he was there. How can you deny something that people who are still alive lived through? Ignoring that, if you want to claim that their are "lying Jews" about, there is actual Nazi paper work, and forensic evidence.
Banning denial is silly, since the whole argument is silly. I doubt listening to a denier is going to convince ANYONE with half a brain.
A patriot must always be ready to defend his country against his government. -edward abbey
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.
Is linked to half-way down the comments page on the El Reg article.
http://groups.google.com/group/demon.service/msg/6d14597274f42ecd
Assuming that's a correct description (and it seems to fit the facts) it looks like there's been a (apparently now fixed) faux-pas on behalf of archive.org here to be caching the name of Demon's proxy in their cached static pages.
That doesn't mean that Demon's approach of "one page is on the blacklist; let's shove all accesses to the site through a proxy" is the right one either - that worked so well with Wikipedia, after all.