Slashdot Mirror
UK Govt's Censorware Blocks Tech, Civil Liberties Websites
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."
I mean, where will the people in the UK get their week old news from!
I kid but in all seriousness this is exactly why the filters should be done by the individual, We dont need the government telling us what is best for us, especially when the filters cant seem to tell the difference between "porn" and slashdot. I guess we can all blame AC for posting goatse every day
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
Our hobby site got blocked by Googe/SafeBrowsing twice this months. No, we weren't hacked. No, we weren't hosting malware. We just happened to use the same advertising broker, that was fooled into showing malware ads earlier.
If one wanted to make a good case, they could point out, how you can disappear from the Internet for mere association with someone else — and how suspicious it is, that that "something else" just happens to be a direct (if small-scale) competitor to Google...
No, I don't like governmental censorware — as Heinlein put it in several of his books, the real danger comes not from content, but from the government's attempt to tell their citizens, that they can not be trusted to view it. That UK is doing just that is an outrage. But the fact, that the automated censor happens to be mis-categorize some content has nothing to do with it — the censorship is scandalously wrong whether or not it functions as designed.
In Soviet Washington the swamp drains you.
They blocked the BNP website. (I don't agree with the BNP or anything those racist thugs stand for, but I don't condone political censorship.)
Also the PPUK website.
He states, based on a single "URL checker" from O2, that every website he tried to check including slashdot, other tech news/resources sites and his own blog are "blocked by a parental controls regime - according to the URL checker".
But a little testing would have shown him that disney.com is blocked on this. As is www.gov.uk - the UK governments own official site. The parental controls he's ranting about are bunkum. He should have researched his subject, and posted from an informed viewpoint, instead this article is a waste of time.
This.
Every single site I tried was either not listed or "blocked by the parental control regime".
I don't agree with filters, but this particular one (the parental control) is an opt-in filter which just seems to block everything by default.
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
So, what he's saying is that the blocklist labelled "Parental Control (opt in u12 service)" - i.e. Opt In Under 12 year old - blocks a lot of stuff. Pretty much everything, in fact.
That would be scary, except that it isn't the default opt-out list, and it is apparently intended as a whitelist of known ok sites. Any whitelist based system will block most stuff, because that's kind of the point.
I liked this guys post called Content filtering is stupid, but you are stupider.
To quote: "However, and unfortunately, most of the last couple of days’ Twitter chat about content filtering has involved gibbering idiots who know fuck all about fuck all talking embarrassing nonsense.". I think that sums the OP nicely.
A comma? Did it punctuate you?
I just checked to see if the filter would block children from accessing the website of the UK's most important helpline for children, childline [www.childline.org.uk]. Guess what? It does - you really really really couldn't make this shit up. Lets hope the little darlings aren't feeling suicidal as a result, because it also blocks their access to the Samaritans [www.samaritans.org]. Speechless!
No volcanos here
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.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Oh, wait, even XKCD is blocked according to http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/. Even wikipedia is blocked.
Probably the people behind this wants that the UK population be at least as stupid as them. In the race to the bottom there is no winner.
The article is bunk and the language used is deceitful and apparently deliberately so.
I'm in UK and my ISP is TalkTalk, the first ISP here to introduce such a filter. It is entirely optional. The *account holder* controls it, not the government or the ISP or anyone else. I can switch it off or on at will and it takes just a minute or two to take effect. It is even customisable, for example I can allow/disallow any of the following categories:
Dating
Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
Gambling
Pornography
Suicide and Self-Harm
Weapons and Violence
The above are default blocked *if* I enable the filter and don't deselect them. Additionally I can add:
File Sharing Sites
Games
Social Networking
Using the term "censorship" implies that something is redacted, withheld or forbidden or otherwise placed off limits in a way that is outside of the user's control. That is absolutely not the case. The account holder is fully able to switch the filter off or on as they see fit. I was informed of the availability of the filter via email from my ISP and tried it in various options in order to satisfy curiosity and then decided it can remain permanently off.
What the government has done is to require the major ISPs and telcos to implement a filtering system that allows the account holder to opt in or out and even to have fine grained control. Basically this means that adults control their accounts as they like but that children whose mobile phones and internet access is the responsibility of their parents are obliged to defer to the responsible adult.
Allowing adults full discretion is not censorship by any stretch of the imagination. Parents having some say in what their children consume is also not censorship - it is part of parenting.
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.
If you do that, Wales might have to secede from the United Kingdom.