Message: 2 Date: Wed, 24 Jul 2013 09:44:59 +0100 From: James Bensley
<jwbensley@???> To: Hampshire LUG Discussion List
<hampshire@???> Subject: Re: [Hampshire] OT:UK Mandatory
ISP Filtering Selection Form Leaked Message-ID:
<CAAWx_pUbWF7vWvwav4526i_MXU4d2mWLKrk5J_ECe1W8x8G11w@???>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 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).
Just to say you have articulated my feelings far better than I could
whats next? Parents who cant be bothered to cook for their kids is
Camerroon going to cook for them instead, If you cant handle the
responsibility of having children, then DON'T.
That is not to say the the up-loaders (hence the abusers) of child porn
should not be hunted down and prosecuted! But that the rest of the
country should be allowed our own freedom of expression and not have to
justify ourselves to the government
Just my rant
Pete
--
Please post to: Hampshire@???
Web Interface:
https://mailman.lug.org.uk/mailman/listinfo/hampshire
LUG URL:
http://www.hantslug.org.uk
--------------------------------------------------------------
