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.

32 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. That is as expected. by luvirini · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Once you start censoring internet things it tends to snowball until it gets in the way of agtually getting information.

    1. Re:That is as expected. by CarpetShark · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Once you start censoring internet things it tends to snowball until it gets in the way of agtually getting information.

      Anything that can be censored is ALREADY information. Censorship is just splitting information into that which is deemed acceptable for grown civilised adults to view/read without losing their minds, vs. that which only the extra-grown, extra-civilised censors can view/read without losing their minds.

    2. Re:That is as expected. by Rogerborg · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Censorship is just splitting information into that which is deemed acceptable for grown civilised adults to view/read without losing their minds, vs. that which only the extra-grown, extra-civilised censors can view/read without losing their minds.

      That's a charitable assumption. This censorship could also be political, malicious, or for that matter completely random. Note that the IWF refuse to discuss details of what specifically led them to blacklist Wayback, other than the usual non-answer of "think of the children".

      If (correction, when) the nuLabour regime feel like making any particular group unPersons, they could pick up the phone to the IWF, remind them that regulation is better than legislation, and have anything they like censored, opaquely and without oversight or appeal. Anyone who questions the IWF axiomatically likes kiddie porn, remember.

      --
      If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
    3. Re:That is as expected. by Thanshin · · Score: 5, Funny

      Once you --- ------- internet ------ it tends to -------- until it gets -- --- way --- ---- -------information.

      What?

    4. Re:That is as expected. by BlackSnake112 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Where have I seen this before? Oh yea can we tag this VForVendetta?

      If the governments want to do anything, they should make the parents responsible for their kids and them selves. Parents should be teaching their kids right from wrong, what those parents want their kids to know. It looks like parents want their kids to be raised at school. Which is wrong. Children learn writing, reading, math... Children are raised at home by the parents. Your job as a parent is not done after the DNA combination and birth of said child.

    5. Re:That is as expected. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      "2 hidden comments"

      Slashdot is censoring my internets!

    6. Re:That is as expected. by squoozer · · Score: 4, 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!

      --
      I used to have a better sig but it broke.
    7. Re:That is as expected. by FluffyWithTeeth · · Score: 4, Insightful

      This isn't the government. The IWF is a private organisation that ISPs voluntarily sign up to.

      In my opinion, this is even worse, as there is NO review process, and noone ot be held accountable for mistakes.

    8. Re:That is as expected. by geobeck · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It looks like parents want their kids to be raised at school. Which is wrong... Children are raised at home by the parents.

      That's a rather absolute statement. Kids are raised by everyone who influences them, including parents, teachers, after school care providers, and others they interact with. Your statement is only completely accurate for sheltered, shut-in, home-schooled kids who grow up completely clueless about the world.

      I try to shape the influence other people have over my son by giving him the mental tools to evaluate what they tell him, but I can't lock him away from outside influences. Nor do I want to. Listening to and evaluating different opinions is the only way you develop interpersonal critical thinking skills.

      Your job as a parent is not done after the DNA combination and birth of said child.

      Tell that to my ex...

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
    9. Re:That is as expected. by Unordained · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Would ya'll please stop misusing this? Semantics are about content, syntax about presentation. Semantic differences are important (though the degree is variable,) syntactic ones are essentially not.

    10. Re:That is as expected. by geobeck · · Score: 4, Funny

      I thought semantics were about pretending to protect you from viruses...

      Oh wait, that's Symantec.

      --
      Find environmentally and socially responsible products on http://buy-right.net
  2. WOW by AvitarX · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
    1. Re:WOW by zappepcs · · Score: 3, 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!

  3. Meh by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Meh by Xest · · Score: 4, 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?

    2. Re:Meh by EvilGrin666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know for a fact (because my work ISP feed gets their feed of them) that JANET does not use the IWF blacklists.

      This leads to the amusing situation where schools (who are clearly in a position to most 'benefit' from the IWF list) who use JANET or a JANET subsidiary for their Internet feed are not subject to the IWFs will.

      Bureaucracy gone mad. :)

  4. Censorship by Beetle+B. · · Score: 4, Funny

    If you're reading this from the UK, this pos

    --
    Beetle B.
  5. Free Speech by Dayze!Confused · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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]
  6. Simply appalling by Eravnrekaree · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Simply appalling by Xelios · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Unless they all use a blacklist. Real freedom would be you determining the level of censorship you want to use, in other words you would be in charge of your own blacklist. What you're describing is an illusion of freedom, the idea that any time an organization encroaches on your freedom you're free to choose another, until one day they all encroach on your freedom in the same way. At that point, the illusion falls apart and you realize you've been had. At that point it's too late.

      I'll throw in a (semi) related quote by George Carlin, "Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you'd know that every year the list gets shorter, and shorter and shorter."

      --
      Murphey's fighting Occam, and we're in the stands.
    2. Re:Simply appalling by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      Coup d'etat!

    3. Re:Simply appalling by _Sprocket_ · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The UK government isn't censoring the internet. Some ISP's are. ISP's are free to choose whether they want to use a blacklist. You are free to choose an ISP that doesn't use the blacklist. Hence, I think a totalitarian dictatorship might be a bit of an overstatement.

      I agree that avoiding hyperbole is a good idea. But only because such a tactic tends to gloss over the details. And that's where the devil can be found in this case.

      On the surface it appears that this is simply a private organization providing a service to private companies. As you stated, ISPs choose to follow the recommendations of the IWF (the exact method of doing this remains a rather large question and is one of the base issue in this particular case). There is no direct government mandate to adhere to the IWF's list.

      However, this glosses over the fact that the IWF was formed with assistance of the UK Government and continues to operate with, among other sources, EU funding. That the IWF works so closely with the UK Government lends an additional air of authority. Despite the lack of official authority or Governmental office, the IWF acts very much like they have both.

      This really does give the appearance of the UK Government imposing bans without the hassle of them getting their hands dirty to do it. But anyone who wishes to make this claim had better understand the how and why of it. Otherwise the public will look at the claims, look at the situation at face value, and dismiss it outright without a full understanding of the players and their actions.

  7. I was out looking for Great Tits, but cannot by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    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)

  8. Can you already see the next step? by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Can you already see the next step? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Misdirected, possibly. Or improperly linked. Possibly a pedophile. I don't want the government to determine I'm a pedo if someone thinks it would be great fun to misdirect a link that I would visit to a pedo site.

  9. So Much for "Supply and Demand" by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 4, 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?

    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
  10. Tell them by 095 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  11. The trouble with blacklists by macraig · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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?

  12. It Depends on the Content by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 4, Informative

    "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
  13. My take on the UK/US privacy/censorship problem. by CrazeeCracker · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  14. Re:Well you can always rise against oppression ! by SlashBugs · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  15. What an advert! by snspdaarf · · Score: 5, Funny

    "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!