Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov. Wants IWF List To Cover 100% of UK Broadband
wild_quinine writes "The UK government stated in 2006 that they wished to see 100% of UK consumer broadband ISPs' connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse. 95% of ISPs have complied, but children's charities are calling for firmer action by the government as the last 5% cite costs and concerns over the effectiveness of the system. According to Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, 'The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.' With a lack of transparency in the IWF list, firm government involvement, and blocking that only 'includes' (but may not be limited to) images of child abuse, it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK."
Some ISPs will never comply. Super Awesome for the win!
http://superawesomebroadband.com/
I'll get me coat
Super Awesome Broadband
"it's more "Any kind of filtering is bad"
thin end of the wedge type of thing. First it's Child porn, once that's gone we'll move on to the next most horrific thing, until eventually all we have left are things we don't consider bad at the moment."
Actually, they're already starting to use child pornography as a wedge tactic for wider censorship of the internet. A research paper for the Coroners and Justice Bill mentioned that a clause criminalising foreign ISPs who violate UK virtual child porn laws "could potentially provide a test bed for the future development of wider internet regulation."
"To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
Strictly speaking, if you want to put a numeric identifier on it, Australia would be in the second world although the term "New World" is generallay used.
Er.. No, second world was the east European communist block. Australia, has never been in the soviet sphere of influence as far as I know.
If I have nothing to hide, you have no reason to search me
Next chance I get, I'm off.
Shamefully reposted from the last time we had a story like this:
--
I left in 2007.
There wasn't one single thing that made me go, but the accumulative weight of paranoia and illiberalism.
Shamelessly ripped off from here:
* The government can ban any groups it labels 'terrorist' (Terrorism Act 2000)
* The government can monitor any and all private communication (Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000)
* Armed forces can be deployed on UK soil in peacetime (Civil Contingencies Act 2004)
* Property and assets can be seized without warning or compensation (Civil Contingencies Act 2004)
* Spontaneous protest is now illegal around Parliament (Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005)
* Without trial, any British citizen can be tagged, put under house arrest and banned from using the telephone or internet (Prevention of Terrorism Act 2005)
* Any citizen can be imprisoned without charge for 28 days (42 days has passed the house of commons) (Terrorism Act 2006)
* The executive can change any current legislation without consulting Parliament, with very few exceptions (Legislative and Regulatory Reform Act 2006)
* Arbitrary punishments with no legal precedents can be issued with little legal recourse, based on hearsay evidence (Anti-Social Behaviour Act 2003)
* British citizens can be extradicted to the United States with no evidence presented (Extradition Act 2003)
* Compulsory identification for all British citizens, with an unlimited amount of details stored in a central database, which the private sector will have access to (Identity Cards Act 2006)
* Upon arrest the police have claim to your DNA, even if you are released without charge (Criminal Justice Act 2003)
Note that some of this predates 9/11.
The government is not-so-gradually putting in place all the mechanisms that a totalitarian police state needs.
What's sickening is that this is largely supported by or ignored by the public.
Every letter I wrote to my MP was replied to by a "we need it to keep people safe, and the public support this measure" fob-off.
In theory I should stick around to try and change things, but it's like staying in a pool that other people are shitting in.
--
I first left for France, now I'm living in Spain. These countries are not Utopias, but they are a hell of a lot better than the UK. There are no moral panics about predatory paedophiles, and the 'content industries' are not so powerful. And it doesn't rain so much.
Indeed - the recent Wikipedia / Virgin Killer example shows that their definition is not just about abuse. Another example would be to note that the law now covers images up to 18, even though the age of consent is 16, so anything above that is entirely legal to do.
The IWF like to talk about "child abuse images", but their actual list covers anything which is potentially an "indecent" image of somebody under 18.
I'm particularly displeased at the BBC's bias on this article - they reproduce the spin that this is just about images of child abuse, and don't give any opposing point of view (apart from a brief statement from Zen Internet - good on them). No mention of the issues with Wikipedia (it only appears in "See also", which is presumably an automated list).
They also mention the NSPCC and the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety, implying that two organisations are lobbying for this - but the NSPCC are in fact a member of the latter group!
You can complain about bias: http://www.bbc.co.uk/complaints/
Indeed. And another problem with the UK's censorship is that you don't even know the site is censored - they just falsely return a fake 404 error.
We should aspire to be like Saudi Arabia - their censorship system presents "an official government page instead, telling you that it is blocked. You can even fill in a form explaining why you think the site should be unblocked".