On 23 July 2013 22:40, Richard Bensley <richardbensley@???> wrote:
> Here is a good article on the subject:
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn
"He wants to declare himself the first prime minister to win the war
on on line porn" - What war? Its a legal, tax paying industry.
Millions of happy paying customers, with lots of people's income that
roof's and clothes their children comes from working in that industry.
The only problem he is potentially tackling is the issue of young
children viewing pornographic material, especially violent porn or
similar (this notion can be extended for content relating to under the
age of consent participants, and other extreme subjects such as
violence and gore, drugs, gambling, etc ad infinitum).
The Gov does not having enough information to make the decision they
are trying to make in my opinion - Why is this Internet filtering
malarkey a bad idea?
- Because its a band aid, a temporary fix. As we all know, it can and
will be easily circumvented.
- If the problem is that young people or children can't use the
Internet safely, then parents/guardians should supervise them when
using it, educate them how to use it so they can use it safely on
their own, or don't let them use it at all. The Gov is playing "nanny"
if this really is to "protect the kids". That isn't their job at this
level. We could all real off twenty house hold items such as Scissors
which are far more dangerous, that kids regularly use unsupervised.
What do/did parents and Gov think would happen when they allowed their
kids to access the greatest source of collective information in the
history of human kind? They would just look at teddy bears all day?
- The Gov seems to be putting forward no money to assist ISPs in
filtering content. I don't know how they think this will work, but not
by magic is the sad truth awaiting them.
(Whom, within the ISP company is going to pay to set up and continue
to manage the oodles of transparent proxies on the ISP network, keep
the filtering lists up to date, manage the opt-in/opt-out register?
What happens if a filtering box breaks, does it fail open, to raw
unfiltered Internet, or fail closed so users are left without
Internet?)
-In the above I'm suggesting transparent proxy'ing, but this is no
good, applications can break this way, it's like throwing carrier
grade NAT at the problem, that's not how these technologies are meant
to work so there will be side effects (but Gov doesn't realise that!).
So DNS filtering for example is another idea, but again, who's going
to pay the over head of managing the DNS filters, manage the
opt-in/opt-out list etc etc exactly as above?
- The Internet is not supposed to be filtered, if you think it needs
some content moderation, you don't understand what the Internet is. It
is the platform, and the transport medium over which data is meant to
be shared and communication can occur. It is the national grid of
information; If you don't like the electrical feed you are receiving,
don't use it, get some solar panels/wind turbines/bicycle attached to
a washing machine instead and fuck off. Don't force Southern Electric
to change their service. They provide the electricity, like ISPs
provide connectivity, what you use that electricity for (baking a
cake, torturing innocent children, or casual DIY) is nothing to do
with them.
- This is a downwards spiral that we have all seen time and time again
throughout history; Once one change is authorised (such as forcing
ISPs to block content) it becomes a stepping stone over many years to
slowly enforce more and more regulations until the Internet in the UK
is run by the Gov at the infrastructure level and the content level.
Cheers,
James.
(Not bitter, at all).
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
