If it's based on keywords, which it is, there's a very good chance that, yes, SG might actually be blocked if it triggers too many of them. That's why people are or need to be up in arms about this bullshit, because it's pathetic censorship at it's best.
Comment has been collapsed.
So why did you ask how you can opt out when it is explained in the article?
Comment has been collapsed.
He didn't ask how he could opt out. He wrote, "As I am 23 years old I can opt out of this censorship (I want access to forums), but what about those who don't want to/can't be bothered to 'opt out'?"
Comment has been collapsed.
I reckon censorship is utterly useless, especially with the internet. The more you try to limit people, the more they'll want to break the rules.
For you though, there shouldn't be any issues.
Comment has been collapsed.
Begins mad scramble to save as many SG forum posts as possible
Comment has been collapsed.
Isn't that that law where you have to go to your 80 years old lessor and ask him/her to remove the porn filter for you? Maybe you should vote for another party at the elections next time.
Comment has been collapsed.
i live in the UK also, censorship is a piece of sh*t if you ask me, i mean whats the point
Comment has been collapsed.
"Any web site containing too many blacklisted words including terrorism, weapons, violence, depression (depression???), war, and Taliban could also find access from British Internet users prohibited."
So there go all news sites. Possibly US DoD site too. Game and film reviews and walkthroughs. Steam. I could go with the list all day.
This is as stupid as it is pointless. What about graphic content, e.g. tumblr, where most of content is pictures without any written keywords?
Not to mention it's been tried and failed many times before. For example my ISP provided service where all connections to "dangerous" IP were blocked. It was on by default for like, two months, when it turned out that users have been denied sccess to hundreds .org sites, including wikipedia and gimp.org, and many irc servers due to shared hosting. After the bomb blew, they changed it from opt-out to opt-in. I don't know if the service even exists anymore, because nobody is using it.
And while we're at it, why not include curse words in the list?
EDIT: I'm also thinking about not-so-new kind of attack on website by massively posting forbidden words in comments and forums.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, curse words should be blocked. If a website has one page with an innapropriate word like say, FUCK, then the whole website should be banned.
I bet it makes sense to them, they don't even need to ask anybody else's opinion, if you give them this idea, that's what they will do. And they get paid to do that.
(I don't actually believe that)(I do actually)
Comment has been collapsed.
I believe that too. They are incompetent, have too much freedom, influence, power and money. But they are still as stupid as you can get. I don't know who they are, btw, but it makes no difference to me.
I like to talk about stupidity, can anyone redirect me somewhere where I would be needed?
Comment has been collapsed.
So if i write too many of these words here: terrorism, weapons, violence,terrorism, weapons, violence, depression, war, and Taliban, i can ban sgifts from uk? Depression, depression, depression, depression. Muahahaha.
Comment has been collapsed.
It basically breaks down to this:
either it's exactly as you say,
or the filter list can be manually manipulated, making it untrusted and unreliable, allowing sites someone likes and disallowing ones he doesn't,
or some intricate algorithm is used to determine if the site should be blocked, making it unreliable, allowing bad sites and hurting good ones at random.
Comment has been collapsed.
If I'm correct, you have a choice to opt-in the under 18 safety programme when you log on your ISPs website. I have TalkTalk and that's how they do it... The only thing that will change is that more sites will be added to the filter and by default it will be turned on (it is now turned off by default).
Comment has been collapsed.
Poor wording in the article. Forums like SteamGifts won't be blocked, more likely forums that deal with sensitive or 18+ topics, and that's if the Government even manage to get that approved. Afaik, D.Cam has laid out plans mainly to block porn, and it would be on an opt-in basis with your Internet Service Provider.
Don't blame me, I didn't vote Tory.
Comment has been collapsed.
It's based on keywords. They're going to fire this bullshit censorship randomly.
Comment has been collapsed.
Of course he does. He's the biggest wanker in the UK.
Comment has been collapsed.
I love you, Corinne, but we need to talk about how quickly you find these things. I'm worried about you.
Comment has been collapsed.
From what I've heard the filters will be turned on automatically for those who start new broadband contracts. Existing users/customers will be asked by their ISP if they want it switching on or not. But it's pretty stupid especially as a some of it is to stop kids from seeing stuff they shouldn't, heaven forbid the parents should actually do their jobs.
Comment has been collapsed.
I don't know what UK law is, but here where I live if parents allow their children to inappropriate content they are responsible for their demoralization and subject to family court.
I'm often told that it's not parents fault, because they didn't know, because they don't understand the Internet.
Well, if you let your kid unsupervised near a gun, motor saw, or even a car, can you explain, that you didn't know how it works?
Comment has been collapsed.
Nothing to do with the EU this time. It's the Brits' own idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
Nope. Sorry to burst your bubble, but the others members of the EU don't have a state-imposed internet filter AFAIK (and I live in one of them, so I should know), much less a EU-imposed one. Funnilly enough, at least another country in the Commonwealth does (Australia).
Comment has been collapsed.
Correct me if I'm wrong... But this filter can be turned off by request?
Comment has been collapsed.
The thing is that it could be turned on by request. Imposing it is pretty much bullshit imo.
Comment has been collapsed.
It can be turned off by request but all access will still go through the filter and logged. Regardless of who you are.
Say a 50 year old man lives on his own. Of course he doesnt want the filter. Still, anything that is flagged by the system is still logged by the ISP. If he's looking up GTA5 details, looking up BDSM porn, just joking about offing himself on twitter., everything is logged.
The filter is going to be made by the same company that make the Chinese internet filter.
Comment has been collapsed.
We're becoming a sanitized version of a dystopian comic book?
Actually, you may be right.
Comment has been collapsed.
Apparently Cameron doesn't like history. Someone should tell him what happened when the British Empire tried to tax playing cards in one it's former colonies.
Comment has been collapsed.
Because China has such GREAT censorship policies right?
Comment has been collapsed.
Like every movie that has time travel or doesn't have a happy ending.
Comment has been collapsed.
Bullshit. This filter hits a lot more things than child pornography and you will be on a list the government holds for those who turn it off. On top of that, even over-18 year olds do not always control their own internet. Sometimes a landlord is the one in charge of it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Dave C makes the point that there are certain things on the internet that pollute the minds of children. I was once told that pornography is damaging to the mindset of a young individual.. I didn't believe it at the time but now I see how valid that was. However much you argue for the right to look at nude pics, there is no excuse to remove children's right to innocence.
Comment has been collapsed.
Then why is the internet being hit, but Page 3 of The Sun is perfect happy to keep going, where they regularly have 16 or 17 year olds topless and available to look at by millions of people? This isn't about protecting children or Page 3 would be hit as well.
Comment has been collapsed.
Pretty sure, yeah, but that's what I've seen some of their ages claimed to be and they sure as hell look it too.
Comment has been collapsed.
the age of consent here is 16 and you can pose topless at 16 indeed i believe the sun has had page 3 girls that are 16 in the past, its hardly my area of expertise though im not what youd call a fan of the sun i prefer broadsheets over tabloids
Comment has been collapsed.
Age of consent is sixteen, however, laws against distribution of child pornography go up to eighteen. 16-18 years old is a grey zone for a lot of relationships, let alone for posting 17 year old with their breasts on show for the national public.
Comment has been collapsed.
bullshit, i watched pornography since i was like 5-6 and apart from being a bit shy and having some anger issues im perfectly fine, if people dont want their childern minds "poluted" anyway, then they should watch on them more, hell my parents barely watched me when iwas on the internet and i was as much of a wanker as a teenager chimpanzee
Comment has been collapsed.
Someone whose looked at porn all their life will find it difficult to tell how much of an effect it's had.. there's no benchmark or comparison. There are different ways of looking at it, it would be more productive to read a book, learn something new or spend time outside with friends instead of looking at nude pics. It's a choice between character building and perversion (don't take this the wrong way, everyone has desires).
There is some truly revolting, and commonplace material on the internet and it's the right thing to do to get rid of it, even if this means using a broader filter.
Anyway the system is opt-in, parents that don't want their children looking at anything unsuitable or even illegal have the option to keep their children safe.
Comment has been collapsed.
Without getting into a censorship debate right now, the problem is that it isn't opt-in. This is opt-out. That's the biggest issue. Anyone who doesn't want to be censored goes onto an ISP's list, which the government then holds. And the British government has proven time and time again in recent year that they can't be trusted with sensitive data.
Comment has been collapsed.
I find it strange that they use the opt-out list as adequate grounds for allowing observation. It sounds like a contrived way of getting legal permission to surveil anyone when they feel like it, like the whole porn thing is just a smokescreen for getting this system in place. Moreso when you read that any ISPs that don't agree to it will be hounded by suits until they cave in.
I very almost physically facepalmed when I read about getting the system from China. :|
Comment has been collapsed.
It's not society's place to control what kind of content children can see. It's up to the parents. If children see porn or whatever on the internet, it's the parents' fault for letting them use the internet by themselves. There are also parental locks available for browsers and PCs in general, so those should be used instead of nationwide opt-out censorship. Censorship never leads to anything good and protecting the children is just an excuse.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yep. The part where they mentioned youtube (or areas therein) may be censored was one of the giant red flags.
Once in action, there would be no way for the public to track exactly what sites / subjects are filtered. It would be entirely possible after a period of adjustment to sweep political issues under the carpet, to funnel public perception towards its own interest (in things like support/opposition of foreign issues). Even if this system is going into place with the best of intents, it only takes a few steps by a few bad people to turn the entire thing on its head. :/
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually there are laws that define what children are allowed to see. They can't go to a cinema and see an 18 rated film, but they have the option to download it for free and watch it without consequence. The internet is uncontrolled so the decision has been made to apply the laws of everyday life to the internet.
Comment has been collapsed.
Those laws are actually more like guidelines. In the end it's up to the parents what kind of content they let their kids access. Government isn't supposed to raise the children, that's the parents' job. The censorship won't magically stop the children from getting access to content they're legally not allowed to buy themselves. Parents actually buy children lots of 18 rated games and let the children play them. I'd assume that applies to movies as well.
What kind of entertainment the children can access really is up to the parents and the censorship will only lead to more censorship, which might not be opt-out anymore. The internet is uncontrolled for a reason and it should remain that way. People, who want to control the internet, are basically against free speech.
Comment has been collapsed.
You're right, the age ratings for movies are a guideline.
I'm not against free speech, and I do not believe it is down to any government, organisation or system to decide what barriers are placed on people unless absolutely justified, but it is common knowledge that there are things on the internet that no one should be allowed to access regardless of age or any other specification.. perhaps it is now out of hand and something must be done to prevent it spiralling further out of control.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree that there are things on the internet that no one really should see, but censorship is not the solution. It will only make the people, who want to access the censored content, much harder to catch, when they start using Tor and other anonymizing networks as a way to access it. The real criminals probably already use those, so even internet surveillance is pretty much pointless.
Censorship and surveillance only harm the normal people by breaking their right to privacy and denying access to information.
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure that even off the internet, the government isn't allowed to follow me and take notes on my daily habits just because I didn't want to be protected from adult content. I'm all for raising the content filtering up to the ISP level (to make it more comprehensive), but it has to be tightly legally controlled so that it doesn't devolve into censorship. I can appreciate that porn can sneak past certain low-grade filters in the form of pop-ups or embedded side-bar advertisements, but that doesn't excuse the additional stuff they're slipping in there.
Unregulated, a filter becomes a censor. Without high-profile knowledge of what sites are being blocked, and what the triggers for this were, sites can vanish from access without anyone realising. Until these filters have a strong form of quality-control to prevent random people's opinions becoming an enforced on others, all we have is an assumption of good-will to go on. Businesses, and even governments, have their own agendas. It's not a matter of "if" but "when" they try to manipulate a system like that to their own ends.
Comment has been collapsed.
That's all well and good, but that doesn't explain why they are applying this law to grown adults. It is one thing to protect a group, but another to completely crush the freedoms of an unrelated group. This is akin to defending a religion's right to have food that is free of traces of pork by banning all meat within the country.
Here is a better solution : TAKE AN INTEREST IN YOUR CHILDS LIFE. The only way kids are accessing pornography on the internet is because their parents/guardians are not monitoring their internet activity nor taking the proper measures to block such content. Failing that, if they want radical action, why don't they simply make it so that a mandatory age-check is required before a connection can be established, and create "child safe" internet access zones where the machines are preset with a full compliment of blocker software, and each machine has someone to watch over it while in use? :V
However much you argue for the right to protect children, there is no excuse to completely erode an entire people's right to free exchange of information. Do you know what else is harmful to children? Fairground rides with minimum height restrictions! We better ban those too just in case those who are supposed to be responsible (the parents, the ride operators) let them go on one! Oh! Don't forget alcohol and prescription drugs! Better ban those too!
Even with an opt-out system for adults, you simply cannot justify the targeted tracking of individuals for the purpose of literally deciding whether or not they should have free access to information. "In my opinion, this person should not have free access to information, their views/values do not coincide with mine". Do you have any idea how much of a slippery slope this shit is? There is no real 'quality control' on the measures in place. Have we really learned nothing from China?
Another fine case of people who do not understand a subject (or the concept of personal responsibility) attempting to dictate law upon it.
Comment has been collapsed.
Likely because it is difficult to decide who is eligible for opting out and who is not. It is a more simplified process to allow users to opt out if they wish. Freedoms are returned to the user after opting out.
Parent's are often clueless of how to filter their connection - the parent is fighting for meat-free food while their son is feasting on pork.
Comment has been collapsed.
Who is eligible to have their basic rights upheld, heh. They couldn't manipulate the law to allow for whimsical internet surveillance, and now we have something that looks an awful lot like a smokescreen issue to push for what they really want. It's not just the fact that it's on by default, but the fact that simply opting out is grounds enough to have your activity tracked. With a pinch of salt and humour :
Gov : "We want the right to read any mail we want"
Law : "We do not find this conducive to a healthy society"
Gov : "We want to scan the external envelope to determine harmful physical contents, and the right to inspect inside if we believe it to be harmful"
Law : "This sounds reasonable, passed!"
Gov : "Thanks for not specifying what constitutes 'harmful', sucker! NO TAKEBACKS"
Comment has been collapsed.
guess the only page in the uk to be avaliable will be bring back the porn
talking seriously, the internet is not going to take kindly what cameron is doing right now, there is going to be retaliation and cameron is going to learn the hard way you dont mess with the porn.
Comment has been collapsed.
If only the attempt to fund the organisations that are supposed to track down and restrict the distribution of illegal pornography was placed at as high a political priority. Regardless the issue is the collateral damage that a scattergun approach to censorship automatically entails
Comment has been collapsed.
16 Comments - Last post 14 minutes ago by Gamy7
2,129 Comments - Last post 52 minutes ago by MeguminShiro
16,479 Comments - Last post 1 hour ago by tmznix
5 Comments - Last post 2 hours ago by adam1224
951 Comments - Last post 5 hours ago by Cauix
54 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by GoatPimp
26 Comments - Last post 6 hours ago by lewriczin
147 Comments - Last post 5 minutes ago by jimmy09172000
36 Comments - Last post 11 minutes ago by jimmy09172000
51 Comments - Last post 21 minutes ago by Rattacore
9,840 Comments - Last post 27 minutes ago by Lakraj1209
131 Comments - Last post 42 minutes ago by Carenard
2,631 Comments - Last post 53 minutes ago by JASVOR
91 Comments - Last post 55 minutes ago by Lexbya
Read this where it says "According to the civil liberties organisation Open Rights Group, the filters will not just block pornography but “also restrict access to sites deemed unsuitable for under 18s including information on alcohol and other drugs, forums, YouTube and controversial political views.”" So does that mean this steamgifts forum will cease to exist in the UK and does this mean all violent shooter games will also disappear? As I am 23 years old I can opt out of this censorship (I want access to forums), but what about those who don't want to/can't be bothered to "opt out"?
EDIT: What does this mean for every violent 18+ game on steam?
Also look at this!
Comment has been collapsed.