Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

Who gets to decide what content is blocked?

By what mechanism are they accountable to society?

Who has access to the "Yes I'm a pervert, unblock me!" lists?

What happens if you don't like the answers to the previous question and it turns out Urban is blocked by default?

You do realise, right, that this method's already been in place for most mobile operators for several years? First time I encountered it I was trying to place a bet with William Hill via smartphone and got a 'blocked' message, with a link for a callback if I was the account owner and wanted it opened. Took 30 seconds for vodafone to call me, check my ID, and turn it off. So if, per your example, Urban was blocked (and it probably would be) you'd call your ISP, or go to the settings on your account page and turn it off.

Loads of companies out there compile content filter lists (as they're commonly used not just by ISPs, but by businesses for controlling staff access to the web). So who will decide depends upon which service company your ISP uses.


By the way, your ISP already knows if you're a pervert. I really don't get this argument that asking to turn off a child mode filter will tell them something about your browsing habits that they don't already know in great detail.
 
You did notice, did you not, that Cameron is conflating adult content lists (e.g. ones that might block Urban) with child porn?


That's because he's a prick who has nary a clue what he's talking about. It doesn't mean that adding the equivalent of google's safesearch as a default for ISPs is a terrible idea.
 
Let's have a bit of a look at what these filters (already implemented as opt-in by the big 4 at least) actually do in practice.

The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned. UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks. Politicians in both the UK and US have raised concerns about alleged close ties between Huawei and the Chinese government.

The company says the worries are without foundation and prejudiced.

On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011. TalkTalk told the BBC it was comfortable with its relationship with Huawei, and that the service was very popular.

Homesafe is a voluntary scheme which allows subscribers to select categories - including social media, gambling and pornography - that they want blocked.

Customers who do not want filtering still have their traffic routed through the system, but matches to Huawei's database are dismissed rather than acted upon.
(my bold)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

Here's some more detail ...

https://nodpi.org/2010/08/07/talktalk-becomes-stalkstalk/

Related initiative from Vodaphone, also passing everyone's browsing history to unaccountable third parties.

https://nodpi.org/2011/06/22/vodastalk-vodafone-and-bluecoat-stalking-subscribers/

BT Internet's Phorm (partnered with Huwei) also passed browsing history to unaccountable third parties, but in the name of ad targeting rather than porn sniffing - http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/02/29/phorm_roundup/

http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/080518-phorm.pdf
 
Isn't that the Talk Talk/Huawei thingie? Still not sure what you're on about tbh.
The post by Bernie Gunther #456, I don't know which service it is but its categories seem pretty specific and include "esoteric materials" which could catch a lot.
 
The post by Bernie Gunther #456, I don't know which service it is but its categories seem pretty specific and include "esoteric materials" which could catch a lot.

The comments below the linked story elaborate. Apparently the 'esoteric' one cropped up at Orange, who are French and apparently think it's important to protect the public from cult / occult sites.
 
Isn't that the Talk Talk/Huawei thingie? Still not sure what you're on about tbh.

The links about the details of the current opt-in setups like the Talk Talk one are a separate thing to the following post about censorship opt-out options.

The point of the former post was to show that any ISP with this stuff installed is apparently going to be forwarding everybody's internet history to unaccountable third parties whether they've opted in or not.
 
What someone else said : There's stacks of stuff that will get caught up with these blocks. But if you complain then people will be invited to assume that you're a peeeeeeeeeeeeeedo, or at least that you are naive about / soft on peeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeedos.
 
I think there's something different going on with the consumers of child porn than just "fantasies" and capitalist transactions. There is several things going on.

1) Nonces who download child porn are usually paying for it. They are likely to paying quite a bit of money, probably I would have thought a lot more money than normal porn due to the risks involved in producing it and not being caught and because it is a "niche" market (ugh).

Thus their money is being used to prop up the child porn industry, their money is directly used to go to kids being raped. They know this and see no problem with it. It is very different to shopping at Primark or whatever, at shops like Primark people shop there because they can't afford to buy reasonably nice clothes at higher prices, and the low prices of Primark are because of low labour costs. Clothes, food, and many other unethically-produced goods, are a necessity, and child porn is not. Nobody needs to buy child porn except nonces and other scumbags who don't have a problem with it.

2) It is well accepted that a lot of people who have an abnormal sexuality like paedophilia don't want to act on their urges and feel a huge sense of shame about it, that's why countries like Germany have actually set up helplines to help people not to act on their urges and to try and offer them psychological help. To look at paedophile material on the internet means that you have overcome that sense of shame and guilt - or maybe you never had it in the first place. In other words you don't see anything wrong with being a nonce as almost everyone else in the world does (including people who have those urges but don't want to have them), you don't want to get help for it, and you also don't see anything wrong with consent issues, people's pictures being used without consent etc.

You can tell that with groups like NAMBLA these people actually produce propaganda about why there is nothing wrong with paedophilia, so in other words they don't care that what they are doing is wrong.

3) The only people who know, or want, to know where you download and how to download CP securely on the internet are paedophiles, nobody else knows how or wants to know how. So if you are looking at child porn it means that you are talking to other paedophiles and trading images with them, including with the producers of the images. Somebody must have told you how to download it, it's not the sort of thing you just search for on google.

So you have

A person who is paying money to see kids abused and fuelling an industry which would not exist without them, because nobody else wants to buy child porn except paedophiles
A person who has contact (probably real life contact as well) with other paedophiles to talk about and share images of child abuse.
A person who doesn't give a fuck about what they're doing

Are people really going to say that in the decent society these people should be allowed access to children and that it should not be noted on their record?

Noone is saying that at all. The government is using the "think of the kids shtick" to introduce censorship via the back door. I am not sure how you are able to qualify some of your above statements, but I am not sure of the accuracy of some of them. Paid for child abuse images may exist to an extent, but it is not rife. There is work undertaken by special police groups to work to identify the victims involved and when sites are identified they are added to blacklist already in place to block access. Access to such known sites is already blocked. This blacklist is shared between law enforcement in many countries in order to try and close them down. Furthermore, new data identified is added to a database of known child abuse content. Paedophiles (and terrorists and other bogeymen), as you state above, will be incredibly wary about sharing their data, and due to the illegal nature of this content it is unlikely to be in a way using normal internet protocols, which are easily traceable, and leave an audit trail as to the origins.

With this in mind, it is easy to view how transparant Cameron's plan actually is. The government will has started censoring the internet for their own purposes.
 
Here's solid evidence that Bumface & Co don't give a shit about porn or kids having access to it:

Their unwillingness to tackle the ongoing Page 3 issue.

Apols if this point has been made, but it makes the cases of hypocrisy and opportunist authoritarianism against them more or less open/shut.

The only other factor would be that Murdoch has more direct control over the government than those who profit from porn. On balance, I'd say that's true, though it could be a slightly closer contest than the psychopath criminal Conservative Party would want us to think.
 
Back
Top Bottom