Join 3,514 readers in helping fund MetaFilter (Hide)


"I am absolutely clear that the state has a vital role to play."
July 22, 2013 9:20 AM   Subscribe

Online pornography to be blocked by default in the UK, announces Prime Minister David Cameron in a speech today. Internet users will have to contact their ISPs to opt out of the filter. Possession of pornography depicting rape will also be illegal. Here is the full text of the speech. Coverage by The Independent, the Telegraph, and a shortened video of the speech at the Guardian.

"Other measures announced by the prime minister included:

* New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops.
* Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content.
* Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks.
* A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it.

Mr Cameron also called for warning pages to pop up with helpline numbers when people try to search for illegal content." [BBC]

The Guardian has many related stories at their Internet + Censorship section.

The Daily Mail has cast this as a victory for their long-running campaign for a default-on internet filter.

Likewise the move is welcomed by UK women's groups including End Violence Against Women.
posted by Drexen (154 comments total) 23 users marked this as a favorite

 
Hah. Good luck with that one.
posted by stenseng at 9:23 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


The Daily Mail has cast this as a victory for their long-running campaign for a default-on internet filter.

They might change their tune when they find the filter blocks their sideboob sidebar.
posted by Sys Rq at 9:24 AM on July 22, 2013 [39 favorites]


Yet another thing that's more important than jobs, I see.
posted by Benny Andajetz at 9:24 AM on July 22, 2013 [33 favorites]


New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops.

Good luck with that. /s, just in case that is not abundantly clear.
posted by jaduncan at 9:25 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Hah. Good luck with that one.

You mean distracting everyone with a tabloid driven set of laws while the Tories finish dismantling what was left of social democracy in Britain? That's a decent bet.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:25 AM on July 22, 2013 [47 favorites]


Possession of pornography depicting rape will also be illegal.
So this'll include 50 Shades et al, will it?
posted by bonaldi at 9:25 AM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


I would assume that it would mean that there's a kink.com style bit at the start with safewords etc given out; it would be very hard to argue that was rape.
posted by jaduncan at 9:26 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Worst kind of mock "think-of-the-children" garbage.
posted by Artw at 9:27 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


I often muse about moving to Britain. They speak close to the same language, they have the NHS, the cops don't carry guns on a regular basis.

And then I read crap like this and remember that the unwritten constitution does not guarantee free speech, the right to remain silent and there is that ubiquitous surveillance.

On the third hand, they do tell you when they restrict rights, as opposed to the US where that sort of thing is hidden.

It's a wash, but honestly, has anyone ever encountered a filter that a.) worked and b.) didn't substitute a great deal of right wing moralizing for actual pornography censorship?
posted by Hactar at 9:30 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Jerry Barnett's take.
posted by Human Flesh at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


When it says that you'd have to contact your ISP to access pornological dementertainment, would that be as simple as ticking a box?
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:31 AM on July 22, 2013


Sys Rq: "The Daily Mail has cast this as a victory for their long-running campaign for a default-on internet filter.

They might change their tune when they find the filter blocks their sideboob sidebar.
"

Yeah, I never open Daily Mail links at work because they're usually NSFW.
posted by octothorpe at 9:32 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


No, you see, that's different, because
posted by Sticherbeast at 9:33 AM on July 22, 2013 [20 favorites]


I propose an amendment:

Have your pr0n blocking, but all elected UK politicians have to report on whether they've requested an exemption on their computers, both in their homes and offices, and any and all devices they have access to.
posted by slater at 9:33 AM on July 22, 2013 [32 favorites]


Meanwhile Nick Clegg is mutilated and rolling in offal muttering "my name is Reek, it rhymes with freak."
posted by ennui.bz at 9:35 AM on July 22, 2013 [25 favorites]


I didn't know the Prime Minister was on r/NoFap.
posted by polymodus at 9:35 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


as simple as ticking a box

Under the Anti-Benny Hill Entendre Act, Cameron made that illegal, too.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 9:35 AM on July 22, 2013 [22 favorites]


I don't even. The economy is in the toilet and everything sucks so you're going to try and break the Internet? Really? I mean even on casual inspection it's clear this will piss everyone off and not work. Aren't politicians in the job of at least trying to get people to like them?

Fun fact. Higher level domains are much easier to block than sub domains. You might not be able to access metafilter.com from the UK without being on the pervert list because a keyword search will turn up BDSM and transsexual.
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


Someone please set up a blog documenting the myriad of ways in which people will circumvent this kind of idiotic censorship.
posted by Foci for Analysis at 9:36 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


Reminds me of the days when internet filters would block sites about places like Scunthorpe and Essex.
posted by hattifattener at 9:39 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


Any ideas what this law/filter is officially called?
posted by Foci for Analysis at 9:39 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Man, now the Brits will have to buy a newspaper or go to any phone booth when they want to see boobs!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:39 AM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


Porn depicting rape to be BANNED in crackdown on 'poisonous' websites as Cameron unveils protection for every home.

Oh? Let's see what else is on the sidebar...

Pretty in pastels: Kendall Jenner [17] displays her model figure in an aqua bikini as she lounges poolside... to promote lemonade

Good to know the Daily Mail has their priorities straight here. Sexualizing kids to sell lemonade? A-fucking-OK here, guys!
posted by Talez at 9:39 AM on July 22, 2013 [14 favorites]


I know you all are probably sick of us American's bringing this up in every UK politics thread, but this seems like an idea straight from the bullshit table at The Thick of It's fake Department of Social Affairs and Citizenship.
posted by Think_Long at 9:40 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I strongly suspect this will be used to block more than pr0n.
posted by Optamystic at 9:40 AM on July 22, 2013 [13 favorites]


On the upside, think of the precious savings.
posted by bicyclefish at 9:41 AM on July 22, 2013


Someone please set up a blog documenting the myriad of ways in which people will circumvent this kind of idiotic censorship.

Well, proxies are one, VPNs are another, and there is always TOR.

Coincidentally, these are some of the main ways people avoid the Great Firewall of China.

There is always a sense of classiscm in this as well. When told about the futility of filtering, from the myriad tools that allow you to poke holes in it, they say it's about not about filtering the people that circumvent it, just all the other people. Which is to say they don't care taty upper middle class technocrats can dance around the restrictions, they just don't want the dumb yobs to see the porn.
posted by zabuni at 9:41 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


Raise high the drawbridge filter, Gloucester's troops approach!
posted by chimaera at 9:42 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Possession of pornography depicting rape will also be illegal.

It's not totally clear from the BBC article, but is it just possession of *online* pornography depicting rape that will be illegal? Is possession of print pornography depicting rape already illegal in the UK, or is this new restriction just aimed online?
posted by mediareport at 9:42 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


It won't go anywhere. It's unworkable. Anyone who's clicked on an innocuous site at work or on their phone only to have a warning message appear knows this.

But there's no real downside for Cameron here. He gets to be the crusading hero to the Tory base, trying to clamp down on the rot that's beset our country. When it's eventually dropped as unworkable, he gets to say 'hey, I tried, but the ISPs wouldn't help/the boffins can't do it/something something Labour'.
posted by liquidindian at 9:42 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


The wide extremes in the UK is a puzzler. Massive overt sexualized ads you can't avoid hitting you in the face placed right next to children material is ok. But, online private content you can access, as you want, and can presumably set up parental controls as strict or loose as your family dynamics allows for is now hidden behind a government shame filter?
posted by edgeways at 9:43 AM on July 22, 2013 [19 favorites]


Oh, it is of course totally unworkable and anything it's aimed to stop will totally ignore it. A distraction, basically. Between people falling for this and people fawning over the royal baby bullshit I don't know which is more depressing.
posted by Artw at 9:43 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


It's interesting, coming on the heels of Tumblr relenting when they tried to quietly de-list porn Tumblrs and wordpress.com arbitrarily deleting sex blogs they judged as inappropriate pornographic content, it's been a busy month for anti-porn lunacy.
posted by Phalene at 9:45 AM on July 22, 2013


Thanks for making the USA look slightly less ridiculous, UK!
posted by gottabefunky at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2013 [15 favorites]


Of course, none of this shit works. Nobody who gives it a second's actual thought expects it to. Like the drug laws: they don't exist to do the job they claim to do.

The real reason such things exist is to give the appearance of control and thus muster the political support of the disapprovers - who, it's safe to say, do not in general include people who actually try and think things through. Useful side effects including demonising people who don't think that way, actual laws you can use to make life horrible for such people, and the approval of other powerful entities who disapprove in principle of people having too much choice when they should be taking what they're given and be grateful.

None of this shocks or even particularly disappoints me - it's what reactionaries do. What does increasingly piss me off is the lack of cogent and effective political opposition based on reaffirming the benefits of freedom, of personal privacy and choice, of respecting the individual, and of seeking evidence of harm and of effectiveness of mechanisms of reduction before imposing more rules.

It's not about the porn. It's about the constant war of attrition on the respect the individual deserves from the state, under the banner of specious excuses and unapologetic rejection of thoughtfulness.
posted by Devonian at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2013 [32 favorites]


Speaking to Jane Garvey on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour, Cameron denied that the initiative was timed to deflect criticism over lobbying by his election strategist Lynton Crosby.
posted by vacapinta at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


Is there a way to shame David Cameron? There needs to be a punishment of some kind for this level of weapons grade stupidity. When is the earliest he can be kicked out of power? Are there any petitions or protests scheduled yet?
posted by ishrinkmajeans at 9:46 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


* A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it.

I don't really understand how an archive will allow them to trace illegal content? As a way of identifying something is illegal, yes. Sure. Like a fingerprint database. But tracing it?
posted by zarq at 9:47 AM on July 22, 2013


So now drugs are illegal, drink is being priced out of peoples price range (minimum price legislation) and now we can't look at porn without the government's say so. This is pretty puritanical, except they are allowing gay people to marry. Jesus, what a fucking country. Maybe the goverment could stimulate the economy in some sort of keynesian way to create real jobs? No too busy pissing around with this shit.
posted by marienbad at 9:48 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


The BBC article, at least, is an example of online comment sections sometimes actually being quite heartening.
posted by Drexen at 9:49 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I don't really understand how an archive will allow them to trace illegal content? As a way of identifying something is illegal, yes. Sure. Like a fingerprint database. But tracing it?

They will host it on a website and charge you for accessing it.
posted by Nomyte at 9:49 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


The idea that households will have to opt in to see apparently objectionable content is chilling to say the least.

The UK is maintaining its form of trying to break the internet. Last year's Meltwater case, now thankfully with the European Court of Justice and ruled upon by the UK Supreme Court, effectively ruled that browsing newspapers' websites without permission could infringe copyright.

Honestly, this new initiative is what you get when older lawmakers whose salad days predated the internet try to make law in the digital era and sell it back to over 50s voters. Both groups are typically unequipped to understand the technological burden and the social impact and appear not to care about the long term implications.

Meanwhile, the Daily Mail still ploughs its furrow of identifying which semi-famous teenage girls' boobs have yet to fully grow so they can be commented on with less euphemism and the Sun delights us with the - never subedited, of course - political views of topless women on a daily basis.
posted by MuffinMan at 9:49 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


You know, this morning during another wave of royal baby bullshit about how there would be an official birth communication that must be signed by the PM, I mentioned offhand to my wife that it would be really annoying to be PM and have real fucking work to do that was derailed by having to sign some stupid baby proclamation.

I guess it's a relief to see that Cameron does not appear to have real fucking work to do.
posted by COBRA! at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [17 favorites]


Zarq - I think they mean automatically identifying it rather than tracing it. A lot of terms are used loosely and inaccurately in this, er, 'debate' - through carelessness, ignorance and in the service of deliberate obfuscation. It's something of a hallmark of this class of moral panic.
posted by Devonian at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Does this include Breathless Royal Baby Newz Porn? Or, rather, could this be banned here in the US via some UK decree? I mean, even if THE BIRTH COULD COME AT ANY MOMENT NOW!!! (I heard that on MSNBC this morning, after turning my TV on. I quickly aborted my TV viewing no pun intended. Yes, I had to shout, to give you the full effect.)
posted by raysmj at 9:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you have access to backbone traffic and are de-duplicating it for further offline analysis, you can trace the flow of unique files, regardless of their filenames, by using the duplication signature, which is likely derived from a hash of the file's content. It's not clear if this law presupposes this level of access or if it is possibly intended to provide such access under the cover of "think of the children!" or whatever.
posted by feloniousmonk at 9:51 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


Ah. Thanks, Devonian.
posted by zarq at 9:51 AM on July 22, 2013


Leaked letter shows government leaning on ISPs over internet filtering

In the letter, the government asks ISPs to change the name of their parental filtering offerings from "active choice +", which correctly implies that filtering will only be activated if you want it, to "default-on", which wrongly implies that you'll wake up one day to find that porn and other adult content has been blocked.
...
The government also asks ISPs to implement a "browser intercept", which will force existing internet users to make a choice about whether to activate filtering. The term, which in itself suggests a pop-up window taking over Firefox or Chrome, actually refers to customers being asked whether they'd like to activate online filtering when they access the online interface for their broadband subscription, as currently occurs with TalkTalk.

Finally the letter also asks ISPs to commit to funding an awareness campaign despite there being no details as to what such a campaign would include. "I know that it will be challenging for you to commit to an unknown campaign," it reads. "But please can you indicate what sum you will pledge to this work that the PM can announce."
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:52 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:55 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


He gets to be the crusading hero to the Tory base

Sure out in public, but once Mistress Tara refuses to peg them next session because of what they've done to her site traffic, those torries will change their tunes very quickly!
posted by The 10th Regiment of Foot at 9:56 AM on July 22, 2013 [11 favorites]


10 questions about Cameron’s 'war on porn'
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 9:56 AM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


I don't really understand how an archive will allow them to trace illegal content? As a way of identifying something is illegal, yes. Sure. Like a fingerprint database. But tracing it?

They will host it on a website and charge you for accessing it.


From what I heard (second hand) from a US federal public defender, the latest thing in illegal internet pictures is... baby porn.

Cameron is going to have to get a special department of trained paedophiles just to manage the database without filing PTSD claims.
posted by ennui.bz at 9:58 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you want to stop the "corrosion of childhood," maybe the first step could be to stop cutting benefits to poor families with children, you bastard.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 10:02 AM on July 22, 2013 [42 favorites]


TIL people still say "pr0n". We get signal!
posted by thelonius at 10:07 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Obligatory clip of how difficult it is to get pornography in the UK
posted by infinitewindow at 10:08 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


I guess the VPN industry has discovered lobbyists...
posted by Zed at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The 10th Regiment of Foot: "Sure out in public, but once Mistress Tara refuses to peg them next session because of what they've done to her site traffic, those torries will change their tunes very quickly!"

I see your point but take issue with the idea that they are interesting enough to pay for interesting sex.
posted by MCMikeNamara at 10:11 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


Is there a way to shame David Cameron?

Unfortunately, he's still running an older version of PMware, so emotional support is quite limited.
posted by one more dead town's last parade at 10:14 AM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


(waiting patiently for Charlie Brooker to have a go at all of this)
posted by DirtyOldTown at 10:16 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I love the pivot in Cameron's speech from

No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.

to

I know there are lots of charities and other organisations which provide vital online advice and support that many young people depend on. And we need to make sure that the filters do not – even unintentionally – restrict this helpful and often educational content. So I will be asking the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to set up a working group to ensure that this doesn’t happen as well as talking to parents about how effective they think the filter products are.

to

I have asked that we use these interactions to keep up the campaign, to prompt parents to think about filters, and to let them know how they can keep their children safe online. This is about all of us playing our part

Yes: just hit the filter button and your kids are safe! Except, well, the filters aren't perfect, so no, they won't be. And even then, really, filtering isn't sufficient for safety. Everything else aside, this is an internally inconsistent policy proposal. A large part of politics is selling ideas, and that may require contradictory statements at times, but it's rare that you see someone undermine their own ideas in the same speech.
posted by cjelli at 10:17 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


Can anyone help me? I was trying to find the Star report, but I keep getting this popup that tells me what I want to know about the cigar is illegal.
posted by cjorgensen at 10:17 AM on July 22, 2013


I wish Jim Gamble was still CEO of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP). He seemed to have a good handle on these issues, and how doing this kind of blocking wouldn't be useful at all. What a complete waste of time and effort. It also sets a dangerous precedent. What's next? Blocking searches on terrorist terms? Hate crimes? Thought crimes?
posted by gemmy at 10:21 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Obligatory clip of how difficult it is to get pornography in the UK

This video contains content from Channel 4, who has blocked it in your country on copyright grounds.

I'm in the UK so utterly confused
posted by MrCynical at 10:21 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


So everyone who wishes to have unfiltered internet access will have to sign a “perverts' register” of pornography users?

What happens if, say, a child goes missing? Do the police haul in all registered porn viewers in the area for questioning? Or will porn viewers be subject to extra monitoring in the interests of public safety?
posted by acb at 10:22 AM on July 22, 2013


Is there any case law in the US for this kind of opt-in ban on something? It seems like that would be legal here, no?
posted by gerryblog at 10:29 AM on July 22, 2013


Better get one last look, cousins!
posted by thelonius at 10:31 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


Went to the Wiki to see if I could find stats about global consumption of porn and found this gem about China's ban:

Directors, producers, and actors involved in pornographic movies have been barred from competing in any film competitions.

That should learn 'em.
posted by wensink at 10:31 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


What happens if, say, a child goes missing? Do the police haul in all registered porn viewers in the area for questioning? Or will porn viewers be subject to extra monitoring in the interests of public safety?

Well, if real-life policing is anything close to the simple-minded "if you've ever been in a group we find beneath us, your are guilty" policing depicted on tv, I'd say the answer is "yes" to both of those questions.
posted by Thorzdad at 10:32 AM on July 22, 2013


What is it about people wanting to try and "protect" their precious little crotch droppings from the realities of the world? I mean, not everything can be Mary Poppins, but frankly, this level of delusional idiocy just strikes me as burying your head to try and protect your ass from invisible butt munching giant crabs.

This level of authoritarian claptrap is really kind of myopic. It is a waste of time trying to enforce some puritanical morality on a population that, quite frankly, has more important things to worry about. I guess the tradition of the Witchfinder General never really died out.

I do feel sorry for any parents who believe that making sex taboo is a good idea. I really hope they understand the damage they are doing to their children's psychological make up.

The effective way to make people have healthier attitudes about sex is not to ban pornography. It is to educate on the many varied ways in which people have sex. I don't mean a tourist view of the different kinks and various sub-sub-sub-scenes. I mean just talking to pubescent teens about what is going on with their bodies. These urges caused by their rapidly changing hormones and strange physical changes that they are going through are just a part of becoming adults. They are not losing their innocence. They are not becoming bad and wicked creatures with unnatural impulses. They are becoming sexually viable creatures, and their beliefs and attitudes about sex are not entirely dictated by the media they are surrounded by, but by whether or not anyone talks to them about what they are seeing and guides them as to how to interpret it in a healthy way. Talking about consent, talking about mutual attraction, about all the ins and outs of how people who fancy each other might go about showing it, and how sex is all a part of that. To deny that humans have a biological imperative towards sexual activity is so much like being a Breathairian, it's mind boggling.
posted by daq at 10:36 AM on July 22, 2013 [9 favorites]


Cameron is going to have to get a special department of trained paedophiles just to manage the database without filing PTSD claims.

This is no joke.

I know two State Police troopers whose previous jobs were in the division that handled Internet crime. They spoke highly of the commanding officer who had placed strict limits on how many hours of such sewage they had to look at per day. (They said they kept a wastebasket for visiting officials who dared to peek, for barfing into.)

I can't imagine doing that job. *shudder*
posted by wenestvedt at 10:41 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


How will locals get information about FC Scunthorpe?
posted by yerfatma at 10:42 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Is there a way to shame David Cameron?

I wouldn't rate your chances.
posted by running order squabble fest at 10:43 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


Is there a way to shame David Cameron?

If there is, I am guessing that you'll need to opt in to view it.
posted by wenestvedt at 10:45 AM on July 22, 2013 [12 favorites]


Shitty policy making IS what he gets off on.
posted by Artw at 10:50 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Legislating porn is the tech equivalent of legislating abortion. The politicians are less informed about the science/technology than they are interested in drafting good law.
posted by ooga_booga at 10:51 AM on July 22, 2013


The nation is forced to take advice on child protection from a man who left his down the pub.
posted by Abiezer at 10:57 AM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


"Is there a way to shame David Cameron?"

I can think of one way...
posted by Drexen at 10:59 AM on July 22, 2013


Good luck to all the British husbands who will have to explain to their respective British wives why they disabled the porn filter.
posted by surrendering monkey at 11:00 AM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


The government asks ISPs to just lie and say the filters are already implemented as default-on:
4. Using the phrase "default-on" instead of "active-choice +"

The prime minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions are "default-on" as people will have to make a choice not to have the filters (by unticking the box). Can you consider how to include this language (or similar) in the screens that begin the set-up process? For example, "this connection includes family-friendly filters as default [or as standard] - if you do not want to install this protection please un-tick the box" (obviously not intended to be drafting). Would you be able to commit to including "default-on" or similar language both in the set-up screen and public messaging?
LOL what.
posted by jaduncan at 11:02 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Good luck to all the British husbands who will have to explain to their respective British wives why they disabled the porn filter.

"For porn", surely.
posted by jaduncan at 11:16 AM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


"Reminds me of the days when internet filters would block sites about places like Scunthorpe and Essex."

What's past is prologue.
posted by BigHeartedGuy at 11:23 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


By the way, I find the juxtaposition with the Kate Middleton thread perfect.
posted by computech_apolloniajames at 11:26 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Netcraft website: "In the July 2013 survey we received responses from 698,823,509 sites, an increase of 25.8M."

So with only 700 million individual sites to index - and god knows how many pages hosted on these, or subdomains, or etc. - I expect that the filter will be complete and working correctly sometime around never or so.
posted by caution live frogs at 11:30 AM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Heh, I hope it goes well.

"Good luck to all the British husbands who will have to explain to their respective British wives why they disabled the porn filter."

This sort of enhances the concerns of some women's groups who say that porn is about women's sexuality existing to serve men and that women shouldn't be allowed to have sexual boundaries around porn in their relationships (because let's face it, it's the women who feel hurt by partners use than men, ugh women amirite! They just don't understand men have a NEED to use other women's bodies for sexual gratification throughout their lives!)
posted by xarnop at 11:32 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


"You know, this morning during another wave of royal baby bullshit about how there would be an official birth communication that must be signed by the PM, I mentioned offhand to my wife that it would be really annoying to be PM and have real fucking work to do that was derailed by having to sign some stupid baby proclamation.

I guess it's a relief to see that Cameron does not appear to have real fucking work to do.
"
posted by COBRA!

Fortunately, Parliament is on one of its many holidays right now.
posted by marienbad at 11:38 AM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


LOL what.

That was last week - it looks like, possibly partly as a result of that leak, Cameron decided to double down on this and push for a bill that would force ISPs to put in these porn filters as default-on.

The UK ISP TalkTalk already has a filter that roughly does this - it's called HomeSafe, and was used as a proof that other ISPs were just being difficult by not putting in filters of their own by the tabloids - although it had some minor issues (possibly NSFW for pixelated pornographic content).
posted by running order squabble fest at 11:45 AM on July 22, 2013


I see your point but take issue with the idea that they are interesting enough to pay for interesting sex.

David Cameron is an old Etonian. I'm pretty certain that he is into some interesting things.
posted by TheWhiteSkull at 12:11 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


the last time I was using a public filtered Internet service, they blocked a marriage equality website. This wasn't a homophobic institution (actually pretty supportive of LGBT rights, though not their mission), but someone (maybe an outside programmer) had defined marriage equality as "pornographic".
posted by jb at 12:26 PM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


Why is this schmuck still in power?

the last time I was using a public filtered Internet service, they blocked a marriage equality website.

This. Filters routinely block things that shouldn't be. I've seen Metafilter blocked before.
posted by JHarris at 12:30 PM on July 22, 2013 [7 favorites]


"Good luck to all the British husbands who will have to explain to their respective British wives why they disabled the porn filter."

Several years back (and before the internet was really a big thing) I had a temp job with cable tv provider... one of the guys who worked there told me the channels with by far the biggest churn (ie people subscribing and unsubscribing) were the pr0n ones. Apparently they would get many many calls on a late Friday/Saturday night that were basically drunken bellows of 'I WANT THE PORN!' then almost as many come Monday 'Er, can you turn off our er Adult Channels please' (mainly from wives/gfs)
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:30 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


the last time I was using a public filtered Internet service, they blocked a marriage equality website.

The pcs in my local library block Boing Boing and all of tumblr
posted by fearfulsymmetry at 12:33 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


This is not about tits. It's about creating a distraction that will allow, and later justify, the installation of PRISM-type surveillance. They don't give a flying fuck if your kids find their way to Playboy, but by pretending to care, they can explain why they are copying every bit that flows.
posted by stonepharisee at 12:44 PM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


This is all posturing bollocks of course, meant to distract from the Lynton Crosby stuff, although the royal sprog will now be performing that duty – its first as an heir to the throne! how sweet! – but I'd love to see what The Sun's reactions is when Page 3 is declared porn. (Not that it will be, if this ever goes through; Page 3 will be classified as "commentary (with tits)", which is, obviously, an entirely different thing.)
posted by Len at 12:48 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


strict limits on how many hours of such sewage they had to look at per day.

After a year of having to monitor bestiality, decapitations and child pornography, a Google worker claims he was left completely traumatised. But rather than helping him out, Google decided that since he was a contractor he should be fired instead and can live with the nightmares.

Judges do rotations out of various courts to avoid the effects of man's inhumanity on man.

And as someone else said about the USA wars 'the us is acting like Zimmerman to the world as Trayvon' - David Cameron may be doing "the right thing" - no matter how futile the effort of blocking software is.

So long as your world POV accepts the position of Government to protect citizens from themselves.
posted by rough ashlar at 1:10 PM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


Page 3 looks pretty safe.
posted by running order squabble fest at 1:15 PM on July 22, 2013


Hah. Good luck with that one.

Back in the 90's I'd totally have been down with that sort of hep cat jive. Back when I used to make photoshop (or 'Ye Olde Lithography Shoppe', as it was known then) mashups of JPB's Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace.

Now...

Not so much: I've seen how my PRC friends from IRC had to dissapear, as their proxy ghosted kingdom became part of the middle one, and how even the fact they were running the networks didn't mean they could speak freely anymore.

More than that, though: if things can be ghettoised they can be controlled. Which includes genres of information on the internets. It doesn't matter if a small minority of people can evade the controls, because it's quite easy to criminalise a small minority of people if they become a problem.

Also a beachhead put in place to detect porn can be used to detect DRM infringements, or people posting torture pics from government re-educations stations. And will be.
posted by titus-g at 1:33 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


One ISP is fighting back:

If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.
Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

posted by Lanark at 1:45 PM on July 22, 2013 [22 favorites]


They just don't understand men have a NEED to use other women's bodies for sexual gratification throughout their lives!

Nasty men and their shameful erotica. Let's argue about them for a bit while this administration attempts to build a precedent for commandeering an entire technological medium.
posted by forgetful snow at 1:51 PM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


So, not content with stealing failed Liberal Party of Australia political strategists, Cameron's now stealing failed Australian Labor Party internet policy? What's next? Presumably doing something horrible to refugees?
posted by Jimbob at 1:53 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


Jimbob: What's next? Presumably doing something horrible to refugees?

Come now, come now. We've been doing horrible things to refugees since before Australia existed. Give us some credit, at least.
posted by Len at 2:08 PM on July 22, 2013 [6 favorites]


He's just doing this in case the scenario in "The National Anthem" episode of Charlie Brooker's Black Mirror ever came true, he could say "I can't do that even if it did save a life".
posted by oneswellfoop at 2:10 PM on July 22, 2013 [5 favorites]


(That said, if someone arrived in Plymouth on a boat that set sail from Western Sahara, we're not going to turn round and tell them to fuck off to Dublin.)
posted by Len at 2:24 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


The image on the Gizmodo article on this cracked me up.
posted by homunculus at 2:54 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


"More than that, though: if things can be ghettoised they can be controlled. Which includes genres of information on the internets. It doesn't matter if a small minority of people can evade the controls, because it's quite easy to criminalise a small minority of people if they become a problem.

Also a beachhead put in place to detect porn can be used to detect DRM infringements, or people posting torture pics from government re-educations stations. And will be.
"

Yeah, this. Last month, when the US media was briefly enraged by NSA spying, there were some editorials warning about how the technological capacity for a police state was already in place. Not that today's government would do such a thing, but what about tomorrow's?

It reminds me a bit of the US "no fly lists" that had thousands of duplicate and erroneous names, like Senator Ted Kennedy's. The British government wants to filter the Internet, effectively banishing certain subjects from the public commons. Can they guarantee that this will never be abused? How would anyone know if they did decide to filter embarrassing websites like Wikileaks?
posted by Kevin Street at 3:17 PM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


"Nasty men and their shameful erotica."

It's not anti-sex to point out that exploiting other people to fill your sexual needs can be a problematic endeavor. I was pointing out specifically the comment as mentioned as being a sign of the fact that women's feelings about porn tend to be neglected in favor of males-- hence highlighting one among many reason's women's rights groups absolutely should be concerned about the state of porn and media depictions about the female body and sexuality and statistically high use of it to fill men's desire's on men's terms.

I did not say I was in favor of a ban, but this conversation feels to me the way listening to a bunch of people complain about being required to stop smoking in restaurants feels. You can still get porn, but requiring people make a deliberate decision and being old enough, doesn't seem actually problematic. There is always concern about slippery slopes whenever people make laws-- sometimes for good reason, sometimes not. I'm not sure I would vote for THIS government in the US to have that power of censure or that the UK government is using that power for good reasons, but I still don't think this move is ITSELF all that problematic. If they're planning some bullshit and this is the stage they're laying it on, that should be become apparent in time.
posted by xarnop at 3:32 PM on July 22, 2013 [4 favorites]


I did not say I was in favor of a ban, but this conversation feels to me the way listening to a bunch of people complain about being required to stop smoking in restaurants feels.

Requiring people not to smoke at restraunts has a purpose. This does not have a purpose, and will in no way help it's stated goals.
posted by Artw at 3:41 PM on July 22, 2013 [9 favorites]


I often muse about moving to Britain. They speak close to the same language, they have the NHS, the cops don't carry guns on a regular basis.

And then I read crap like this and remember that the unwritten constitution does not guarantee free speech, the right to remain silent and there is that ubiquitous surveillance.


Is there an anglospheric -- hell, anyspheric country in the world that isn't at least partially batshit insane? Because I would like to move there too.

I used to think of Canada, but their conservatives are doing their best Republicans of the North impressions, despite not having a majority of voters.
posted by Celsius1414 at 4:08 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


Jimbob: What's next? Presumably doing something horrible to refugees?

Come now, come now. We've been doing horrible things to refugees since before Australia existed. Give us some credit, at least.


Doing horrible things to refugees is, in part, how Australia came to be.
posted by His thoughts were red thoughts at 4:11 PM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


I know two State Police troopers whose previous jobs were in the division that handled Internet crime. They spoke highly of the commanding officer who had placed strict limits on how many hours of such sewage they had to look at per day. (They said they kept a wastebasket for visiting officials who dared to peek, for barfing into.)

I can't imagine doing that job. *shudder*


To (some of) reddit and 4chan, this is entertainment.
posted by klanawa at 4:27 PM on July 22, 2013


Is there an anglospheric -- hell, anyspheric country in the world that isn't at least partially batshit insane? Because I would like to move there too.

New Zealand?
posted by acb at 4:37 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


xarnop: "I did not say I was in favor of a ban, but this conversation feels to me the way listening to a bunch of people complain about being required to stop smoking in restaurants feels. You can still get porn, but requiring people make a deliberate decision and being old enough, doesn't seem actually problematic."

Eh. I don't care about porn particularly, but I do care about LGBT youth from disapproving families who may have just had yet another wall built in front of their access to accurate and unbiased information about their bodies, sexualities, and communities.
posted by ArmyOfKittens at 4:42 PM on July 22, 2013 [16 favorites]


So, wait, can the PM just announce new policies like this, or does it actually have to be drafted as a bill and then debated and amended, etc., so it's not a guarantee?
posted by klangklangston at 5:18 PM on July 22, 2013


I do care about LGBT youth from disapproving families who may have just had yet another wall built in front of their access to accurate and unbiased information about their bodies, sexualities, and communities

Beyond the difficulties with implementation and enforcement, this gets to one major problem with this form of censorship: namely, who decides what is "porn" and how is that decision reached?

This is quite far from a slippery slope argument, BTW. What is done to "protect children" can have far-reaching effects, as defenders of Prop 8, NOM, and other bigots showed with the ridiculously broad arguments they made and continue to make for justifying taking away LGBT rights — and which are now being made by Putin in Russia, to justify violence against sexual minorities.
posted by Blazecock Pileon at 5:24 PM on July 22, 2013 [11 favorites]


It's also worth keeping in mind that the "extreme porn" law, and before it the Obscene Publications Act, has been used in the UK in recent times against gay men for distributing videos they have made of themselves performing legal acts. Which is kind of messed up.
posted by running order squabble fest at 5:28 PM on July 22, 2013 [10 favorites]


I can certainly see the problems with restricting free speech and expression, but this seems more like requiring a warning label than criminalizing the content. I'm biased due to having young children. After years of making our home computers as safe as possible (filters, passwords, constant supervision) it took my nine year old daughter about 5 minutes with her grandparents' computer in a spare room to see more p0rn than I have in 38 years. (They'd recently removed the password protection since we only visit about twice a year, and forgot to tell us.) Of course Bing asked "are you 18?" but evidently that just piques her curiosity. Well, luckily we have a good therapist but right now I can't see anything wrong with requiring a bit of extra set-up to access certain content--even if it only blocks some of the worst stuff.
posted by TreeRooster at 7:08 PM on July 22, 2013 [2 favorites]


zarq: " * A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it.

I don't really understand how an archive will allow them to trace illegal content? As a way of identifying something is illegal, yes. Sure. Like a fingerprint database. But tracing it?
"

No professional experience here, but my understanding is that child pornography is often traded between individuals. So you can apply social network analysis to the graph whose vertices are people and whose edges (well, hyperedges, really) represent shared possession of a file.

JHarris: "Filters routinely block things that shouldn't be. I've seen Metafilter blocked before."

That's nothing. I've seen filters block LWN, the Debian homepage, and the OCaml Language Manual.
posted by d. z. wang at 8:03 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


If this thing would block sites that had porn on them, then we'd lose most of the internet. Definitely sites like Tumblr, Facebook, Reddit and DeviantArt. I wonder if they're allowing for that? I bet not.
posted by HypotheticalWoman at 8:29 PM on July 22, 2013


I've seen filters block LWN, the Debian homepage, and the OCaml Language Manual.

Hacking tools filter list plus enthusiastic intern, maybe.
posted by jaduncan at 8:30 PM on July 22, 2013


I can certainly see the problems with restricting free speech and expression, but this seems more like requiring a warning label than criminalizing the content. I'm biased due to having young children.

No, I think you're biased for other reasons. Having kids merely brings undeveloped attitudes to the fore, it doesn't change your mind.

After years of making our home computers as safe as possible (filters, passwords, constant supervision) it took my nine year old daughter about 5 minutes with her grandparents' computer in a spare room to see more p0rn than I have in 38 years.

Um... to me, it seems like there's probably something else going on there. Somehow I manage to go long periods on the internet without ever seeing porn, but the moment a kid gets online it's FLESHAPALOOZA. Might I suggest your grandparents run Windows Defender Offline?
posted by JHarris at 8:31 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


...biased for other reasons...

Right. I suppose I do have the underlying opinion that there are images online which can hurt a young child (or anyone else I suppose) both in immediate and subtle ways.

...something else going on there...

Yes indeed, it is called unbridled curiosity. Kids who have recently learned about sexuality (from reputable sources and their own development) are eager for details and descriptions of how it looks and feels, not to mention the experiences themselves. There are good ways for them to learn and bad, and an unfiltered internet search it turns out is in the latter category. I don't think there is any malware to blame, just some easy-to-guess search terms and the image search results they generate. Rest assured that the grownups all feel suitably chastised and the computer was locked away for the remainder of the visit. Now safely several states away we are gradually working through a bunch of new negative impressions about sex that I'd rather have prevented than been forced to cure.
posted by TreeRooster at 9:22 PM on July 22, 2013 [3 favorites]


The American Revolution was fought by a scrappy band of pornography lovers whose descendants, even today, recoil at the idea of their government seizing at their right to read and view what they want. These differences between the mother country and America remain today. In conclusion, the Anglosphere is a land of contrasts.
posted by Hollywood Upstairs Medical College at 10:06 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


the difficulty with children is a real one. Young children are being exposed to violent porn and kinky porn. This is starting to shape their sexual views, and they act out these behaviours. From a govt,, societal and parental pts of view its a real concern which is why the parents in this thread are more sympathetic to the stated intention behind this. Fair enough, filters don't work well am
and have propensity towards abuse. However we as a society still have a responsibility towards our children - what sh ould be done to protect them?
posted by zia at 10:16 PM on July 22, 2013


How about not let your children on the computer unsupervised? Why should government try (and inevitably fail) at doing your job?
posted by Celsius1414 at 11:17 PM on July 22, 2013 [8 favorites]


The major mobile networks already have default-on blocks in the UK so you can get a idea of what may be blocked by looking at the url checker for o2.
posted by pixie at 11:49 PM on July 22, 2013 [1 favorite]


If you're in the UK, and you care about online surveillance like PRISM, or mandatory filtering of the internet, please consider supporting the Open Rights Group. (referral link.)
posted by salmacis at 12:57 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


I'm sure the government will be able to guarantee that sex education sites like Brook, LGBT information sites like PinkNews, Wikipedia articles like 'Same-sex marriage', and the websites of rape crisis centres won't be filtered by overzealous filter providers.

Because I've used plenty of filtered networks where the people filtering the websites have concluded that any mention of sex should be filtered as pornography, even if the websites are helping teenagers have safe sex or get support for being LGBT. Indeed, my alma mater used to filter access to the Wikipedia article on 'Same-sex marriage' because it contained the word "sex" in the title.
posted by tommorris at 4:07 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


From a govt,, societal and parental pts of view its a real concern which is why the parents in this thread are more sympathetic to the stated intention behind this.

To be exact, a couple of people, who have identified as parents, have expressed sympathy with it. Others who have not done so may be parents, and simply not have felt the need to share that information.

Further, being sympathetic to a stated intention and being sympathetic to an implementation are really very different things. If you are asking who is sympathetic to the stated intention of children not watching hardcore pornography, then I think you'll get few demurs. However, that does not preclude anyone from thinking that this is a pretty lousy way to achieve that goal.

First, the ISPs don't want to do this - it's a terrible piece of customer service, it's an added layer of complexity and they don't really get anything out of it. And, when a legitimate business loses earnings when their bicycle repair shop is banned, it's the ISPs who will have to deal with that, not the government. So, these filters will, if they are implemented at all, err on the side of inclusion - because if porn does get through, the ISPs will perfectly reasonably spread their arms and demand to know whether the government wants to settle with Fister's Bike Repairs, or if it would rather butt out and let them try to work within the mess it has made.

So, the filters are not going to work. That's pretty much a given - no filters work. However, filters produced by Internet content filtering companies like NetNanny have the advantage of being installed voluntarily for a specific purpose, and of competing in a marketplace where failure to filter content is damaging to their business - whereas if all ISPs are filtering from the same hymn sheet, a failure to filter is not going to lead to a change of provider.

Certainly, merely having children does not inevitably mean one has to support without question bad policy. Tom Ewing has written an interesting article here, from the position of a researcher and a parent:
So what can I do as a parent? Listen, discuss, etc etc. but also try where possible not to lean on my own experiences. Looking at a child liking a book or hating a vegetable and mapping that back is harmless, you end up anachronistic at worst. Trying to map back, failing, and hitting the “everything’s changed stop the world!" panic button is worse, doubly so if you have the ear of a legislation-happy Government. What I try and do - I type it now to make it more likely - is take a deep breath, assume I know nothing, and if it really bugs me look for evidence - ethnographic and quantitative, and on both sides of whatever “position" is emerging. It’s the hardest thing about being a parent - when all you have is experience, all your experience seems relevant. But it’s not.
klangklangston: So, wait, can the PM just announce new policies like this, or does it actually have to be drafted as a bill and then debated and amended, etc., so it's not a guarantee?

Basically, at the moment this is posturing - the ISPs are free to do what they want. What he is saying is that if they don't put in filters (which many of them already have to some degree or other) and don't make those activated by default with a new account (or switched on by default after a certain point with an existing account), then he will seek to introduce a bill requiring them to do so.

It's a sort of cod classical liberalism - the market gets to decide, but then if the market makes a decision we disagree with we will then regulate it.
posted by running order squabble fest at 4:28 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


It bears pointing out that this is an attempt to censor *all* porn.

Not just porn aimed at straight men, but all porn.

That includes porn made by and for gay men, and porn made by and for women.
posted by motty at 5:49 AM on July 23, 2013 [2 favorites]


I seem to remember that, in Egypt, they were having a massive unemployment problem causing some civil unrest. Then the government shut down the internet (thereby taking away the pr0n) and then shit got real.

Okay, I know that Egypt didn't shut down the internet to take the porn away but still.
posted by VTX at 6:05 AM on July 23, 2013


the difficulty with children is a real one. Young children are being exposed to violent porn and kinky porn. This is starting to shape their sexual views, and they act out these behaviours. From a govt,, societal and parental pts of view its a real concern which is why the parents in this thread are more sympathetic to the stated intention behind this. Fair enough, filters don't work well am
and have propensity towards abuse. However we as a society still have a responsibility towards our children - what sh ould be done to protect them?


It's simple - which is not to say easy or cheap or entirely without controversy, but still: science-based sex education, beginning when kids are quite young (and of course it's all age-appropriate) and continuing throughout their primary and secondary education,not just awkwardly and quickly covered in a week when they're 11. Accessible computer-use education for carers - parents, uncles, aunts, older siblings, teachers, etc.

Responsibility to children also includes educating them, not just protecting them.
posted by rtha at 8:59 AM on July 23, 2013 [5 favorites]


Obligatory clip of how difficult it is to get pornography in the UK

I was thinking about this yesterday - I have accidentally come across videos of seemingly non-consensual adults which have made me feel really quite disturbed (and I have kinky friends so I know what roleplay looks like - this wasn't it) , but then I thought baout how easy it might be to find, say, child porn online. I would imagine it's not as easy as typing 'sexy children' into Google. If I wanted to find it, I'd have literally no idea how to go about it. It's well hidden, and it isn't something you can come across by accident. I know people try their hardest to make sites kinky when they want to - I used to have some park photos up on Flickr, and one was of a cute little girl paddling in the foreground; I had so many favourites on it from suspicious accounts that I took it down and did the same for any young relatives' photos; I also had a suspicious amount of favourites on a candid photo of me aged 17 in tights and a dress. If the issue is trying to prevent people sharing images and videos of anything that would be forbidden in an R18 video, it's just going to make people cleverer about how they do it.

The BBFC actually rarely rejects films and only suggests R18 films are cut for scenes of non-consensual activity, scenes appearing to involve animals or children, and Nazi content. A Serbian Film was even granted a cert here, and even The Human Centipede 2 was released after cuts. If the job of censoring or granting certificates to online streaming sites was given to the BBFC, for example, 90% of it would stay online.
posted by mippy at 9:39 AM on July 23, 2013


zia: " Young children are being exposed to violent porn and kinky porn. "

That's a parental failure. Not a government one.

As parents, we have a collective responsibility to educate ourselves. And then we have to talk to and educate our children. Try and protect them from seeing such things online before they can handle them emotionally and psychologically. Place filters on them when they browse online and watch television. Pay attention to their online habits and activities. There are tools available online that can help us do these things. It behooves us to be aware of them and take advantage of them when necessary.

That is not and should not be the government's responsibility. It's not their job. It's ours as parents.
posted by zarq at 10:56 AM on July 23, 2013 [3 favorites]


Yes, I'm not clear on why I - a consenting adult - should be told that I cannot enjoy legal porn, just in case someone else's kids see it. It's their responsibility to password protect their computers, put computers in public rooms, talk to their kids about sex, etc.

This is aside from very real and provable fears that Internet filtering is often homo- and trans- phobic, and often just sex phobic and block important sites with information about safe sex, etc.
posted by jb at 11:24 AM on July 23, 2013 [1 favorite]


MP pushing the Government’s web porn filter thinks a screenshot and hyperlink are the same thing
posted by Artw at 6:20 AM on July 24, 2013 [4 favorites]


That would be hilarious if it weren't so pathetic. And scary.
posted by rtha at 8:21 AM on July 24, 2013


Blogger threatens to sue MP

Meanwhile, Claire Perry has posted an odd tweet:
"Hungry family means I have to rejoin the (non-Westminster) real world. Suggest all those bloggers w made-up names (bless) do the same!"

I don't know what she means by "hungry family"? She's a former investment banker with a Harvard MBA, so I doubt her family is actually hungry.
posted by vacapinta at 8:28 AM on July 24, 2013


Probably just meant to suggest some financial concerns, of whatever level of seriousness (bless).
posted by Artw at 8:47 AM on July 24, 2013


UK Prime Minister More Interested In Regulating The Internet Than Regulating Porn
posted by homunculus at 10:54 AM on July 24, 2013 [1 favorite]


It probably means that she's about to cook supper.
posted by jaduncan at 10:57 AM on July 24, 2013


Yes, you're right jaduncan. It was posted at 7pm.
posted by vacapinta at 11:03 AM on July 24, 2013


Or that, yeah.

Hey, she does all her social media checking within work hours, that's healthy, I guess.
posted by Artw at 11:52 AM on July 24, 2013


It amuses me that she also doesn't understand why people like nyms, but I guess this should not be entirely surprising in someone who misunderstands technical and social norms quite so often.
posted by jaduncan at 1:01 PM on July 24, 2013


THE PORN MINISTER | Letter to David Cameron | Dan Bull
posted by homunculus at 2:40 PM on July 25, 2013 [1 favorite]


What with the astonishing lack of understanding of anything even remotely technical displayed by your average representative (British or American), I'm frankly surprised they haven't legislated the internet into cybershrapnel by now.
posted by JHarris at 5:07 PM on July 25, 2013


SOPA.
posted by Artw at 5:27 PM on July 25, 2013


BBC: Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM

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.
posted by KatlaDragon at 5:19 AM on July 26, 2013


It's exciting to know that we are literally using the same vendor kit and management as the Chinese firewall. Proven technology and all that, although something something wake up with fleas.
posted by jaduncan at 6:52 AM on July 26, 2013 [4 favorites]


UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal
posted by homunculus at 2:49 PM on July 26, 2013 [1 favorite]


Who exactly is responsible for 'nudge censorship'? We have no legislation, a contradictory official government policy, and ISPs promising that they will deliver a 'pre-selected' censorship approach.
posted by homunculus at 10:53 AM on July 27, 2013


UK ISP's "active choice" on censorship: if you want censorship, go somewhere else, like North Korea
posted by homunculus at 11:51 AM on July 29, 2013


UK ISP's "active choice" on censorship: if you want censorship, go somewhere else, like North Korea

Eh. That's just a publicity stunt by a 2nd-tier ISP. There isn't actually anything in effect so they can do whatever they want for now.
posted by vacapinta at 2:46 AM on July 30, 2013


I would say yes and no. They can do whatever they want, but we can predict that most ISPs will grumblingly buckle under - thus removing the onus on Cameron or Perry to try to push bad (and probably doomed) legislation through parliament. ISPs standing up now and saying "we are not going to do this unless we are legally forced to" has some value...
posted by running order squabble fest at 3:37 AM on July 30, 2013 [1 favorite]


Open Rights Group: Government wants default blocking to hit small ISPs
posted by KatlaDragon at 8:04 AM on July 31, 2013


Web filter at British Library: Sorry, Hamlet is too violent
posted by homunculus at 12:27 PM on August 14, 2013 [3 favorites]


« Older Days after British and International news reporter...  |  The SCP Wiki... Newer »


This thread has been archived and is closed to new comments