Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:21 UTC
Internet & Networking "Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday." And so, the UK nanny state turns to straight up censorship. Let's look at some of the authoritarian policies that David Cameron wishes to enact.
Thread beginning with comment 567742
To read all comments associated with this story, please click here.
Comment by SunOS
by SunOS on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 19:56 UTC
SunOS
Member since:
2011-07-12

Isn't this part of what the IWF http://www.iwf.org.uk do already?

This feels more like a cheap diversion tactic due to how much attention Cameron was getting and how uncomfortable it was making him over questions of Lynton Crosby's postition in and outside of the Government.

Besides if I was in the UK and setup an ssh tunnel to a VPS anywhere outside of it, I guess I could view all the porn I want but remain 'opted in' to Cameron's idealistic moral protection.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by SunOS
by PLan on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 03:52 in reply to "Comment by SunOS"
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

Ah right the IWF ... sometimes people shout "Something must be done!!", especially politicians and the press. And in due course "something" is done. And so it was with the IWF and "Cleanfeed".

Basically, IIRC, BT got together with the IWF and produced for the politicians and press that most magical of things a "block" for illegal pornography. Except of course "Cleanfeed" doesn't actually do that. All "Cleanfeed" actually does is help prevent _accidental_(admitted by their staff) viewing of child porn - it is not capable of preventing someone determined to view such material. However in tabloid and political folklore the IWF/Cleanfeed is still referred to as "blocking" child porn when it does no such thing.

But Cleanfeed is very important in other ways. It crosses the Rubicon as far as censorship goes. If we can attempt to censor pornography why can't we attempt to censor other information on the Internet, say the politicians. And so on and so forth.

So what BT/Cleanfeed started - the myth of "blocking" - has brought us to Cameron's/Perry's/The Daily Mail's policy announcement this week.

P.S. I heard Cameron being interviewed on BBC Radio 2 about this and he actually said that pornography would be blocked but that would not include, for example, Page 3 or Fifty Shades of Grey. So there you have his policy - children will be protected from porn, unless it's popular porn! What a pathetic politician.

Reply Parent Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by SunOS
by Laurence on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 11:46 in reply to "RE: Comment by SunOS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


P.S. I heard Cameron being interviewed on BBC Radio 2 about this and he actually said that pornography would be blocked but that would not include, for example, Page 3 or Fifty Shades of Grey. So there you have his policy - children will be protected from porn, unless it's popular porn! What a pathetic politician.

The Page 3 and Fifty Shades of Grey exceptions are because neither of them as classed as "porn" by previous legislation (eg Page 3 is classed as "partial nudity" rather than "sexual nudity").

This isn't a case of the PM picking what sites to block, this is a case of prior legislation.

Reply Parent Score: 4