David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter editor
- Start date
I wonder where it leaves artists like Nan Goldin, Sally Mann and Jock Sturges?
Brilliant photographer
http://sallymann.com/selected-works/family-pictures
Brilliant photographer
http://sallymann.com/selected-works/family-pictures
Jackobi
swallows anything
It is already happening, which is why the Internet Watch Foundation exists, to compile a blacklist which the (BT) Cleanfeed system utilises, and the majority (near 100%) of UK ISPs implement Cleanfeed 'voluntarily'. The IWF's original remit was to focus on blocking child sexual abuse images, but it expanded to include 'content that incites racial hatred', and more recently copyright infringing content, Pirate Bay, Newzbin etc.
Although IWF do not compile lists of copyright infringers, as they do with other remits, they are added to the IWF blacklist which is distributed to ISPs. The technical effect of Cleanfeed sanitises internet content in the UK, and subsequently search engine results.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
And have you seen much child abuse images on the internet? I am not casting aspersions, I am serious, have you ever accidentally stumbled across this material on the internet? I am guessing you haven't. Ever. DO you know why, because there isn't that much of that type of material on the internet, or the internet as at least you know it. Meaning, what you can access from a search engine, like google or yahoo. Because, funnily enough, not alot of people are into abusing kids. I am not saying there isn't a problem. Certainly exists, but you are no more likely to accidentally stumble across it than you were to find roman coins whilst looking for your car keys. And the vast majority that is out there is known about and categorized, cataloged and shared to police forces. Therefore, if they come across something new, that's not in the database, they know that it requires investigation. Cameron et al do not care about this. They care about controlling the internet. SOmething they know fuck all about, other than it is a means of dissent. And that must be stamped on by a boot. Forever.
stuff_it
Too skool for cool
I wondered the same thing. Certainly if it doesn't initially there is a lot of scope for the law to extend into a lot of BDSM stuff were this or a future govt willing to take it that far.
pissflaps
i've got a headache in my pants...
unsure of the tone of your post so i'll presume you agree with me... a bit... or not... hey ho.
meanwhile:
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Yeh I find being a wit a piece of piss, but simulating it, aye, that's harder
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
The accused may never again be shown. Nor can cross of iron.
Pickman's model
Starry Wisdom
Works by kautsky will still be freely available
I tried to check this because I'm pretty sure my isp hasn't implemented this.On looking up piratebay.se it resolves to piratebay.sx which I didn't know about.Can others access the .sx variant?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.sx
pissflaps
i've got a headache in my pants...
werd.
Definition of Extreme Porn, according to Section 63 the CJIA 2008:
For more information, you can visit the Backlash UK website.
ruffneck23
front left
google have already come out and tried to explain to dave that policing the internet aint gonna be easy, but once again he refuses to believe the experts
teqniq
DisMembered
Whilst I don't doubt there is a lot of truth in what you say i really feel to some extent Cameron is playing to the gallery on this; that and a combination of he and his advisers not actually having a clue of how the internet actually works. In reality I think this will be very difficult to implement
weltweit
Well-Known Member
Perhaps everyone will opt out of the filters and Cameron will have egg on his face..
I like a bit 'o' porn especially for a quick stress wank.....I love the ease of use of the internet.
Now I'm gonna have to opt in or out or whatever, there's gonna be a record somewhere of that transaction.
To me that's a big infringement of my privacy and could have a knock on effect if I wanted to further my career.....
Now I'm gonna have to opt in or out or whatever, there's gonna be a record somewhere of that transaction.
To me that's a big infringement of my privacy and could have a knock on effect if I wanted to further my career.....
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
unsure of the tone of your post so i'll presume you agree with me... a bit... or not... hey ho.
meanwhile:
I do agree with you. My point being is this is nothing but a scare tactic to allow the government control over the internet the same way in that they are able to control the print media. Here's some statements clarifying my stance:
Child porn is not rampant on the internet.
Pornography is old.
The first thing that was ever drawn on the caves in Lascaux was a buffalo.
The second thing that was drawn on the caves in Lascaux was a big jizzing buffalo cock.
Pornography can be damaging, to young people and isolated people who may have difficulties forming relationships because it blurs the boundaries as to what sexual behavior should and could be. THe government has no right to govern anyones sexual behaviour. Unless it causes harm to another person against their will.
The issue should be tackled at the root cause of the issue. Educate young people as to what sex can be, do not leave it to pornographers.
Educate people, parents and schools and young people how to apply filters to avoid viewing material they find upsetting.
The government has no right to govern what I see, watch read or listen to. That is for me to decide.
Moralistic laws are inept and antiquated with no place in any modern society.
Society must move away from its need for vengeance and tackle issues at root cause and via rehabilitation.
Censorship is wrong.
Hurting people is wrong.
Jackobi
swallows anything
The copyright infringement issue is a bit deceptive as not all ISPs are required by court order to block infringing sites. ISPs which use Cleanfeed do not necessarily block copyright infringing sites.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
That is not the irony at all. The irony is that this is what it is being presented as. It has no more do to with protecting children from pornography than me contributing to this thread is my application to NASA for their next space mission.
stowpirate
skinflintish camera nut
The impact/dangers of Technology need to be more fully investigated before we can use it? For years this idea of censorship has been seen as something sinister? But why does it have to be a nasty party idea?
Yes,I'm not about to try looking for child porn sites to see if they are blocked and Newsbin2 has shut down probably because of this.
Boris Sprinkler
Dont be scared
I did some work a while back with Netclean (http://www.netclean.com/), UK customs and Excise, Danish, Dutch and Swedish police. they are blocked.
But, the list of sites and the db of data files they use, is actually quite small (ok big enough to be upset about, but in terms of these days of big data, it's not big). Anything new - images,videos that is found is added as a hash value to the db. So when the feds raid suspects houses they scan machines according against the db, any hash matching hash values and they take everything out of your house away, it somehow gets reported to the local papers and the ocals come round to do your windows in and spray paint nonce on your car.
Another thing to remember, when they report that someone has x'thousand images on thier computer, or visited something x amount of times. They are talking web parts. FOr instance. Visit amazon.com, that's 150 (at least different) web parts just from loading the first page.
weltweit
Well-Known Member
I can understand the urge to purge the internet from child porn materials, but I doubt such materials are out in the open anyhow. And or but, where will paedphiles tend to go? they will tend to go where kids are which is what they are attracted to, which means to my mind, they will flock to facebook.
As to filters for normal porn, to help prevent young people accessing it and having their minds polluted.
Firstly I never stumbled across any porn on the internet, if I wanted it I had to actively look for it.
Secondly kids these days are more IT savvy than their parents so if they want porn, filters are unlikely to stop them. If they can't access it on their home broadband they may get it on their phones or in some other way outwit their parents.
As to filters for normal porn, to help prevent young people accessing it and having their minds polluted.
Firstly I never stumbled across any porn on the internet, if I wanted it I had to actively look for it.
Secondly kids these days are more IT savvy than their parents so if they want porn, filters are unlikely to stop them. If they can't access it on their home broadband they may get it on their phones or in some other way outwit their parents.
Similar threads
