UK proposals to block porn sites
Edited
I just listened to a guy online talk about the ramifications of this...I mean breaking down some of the concerns there are several things of greater importance. Is it wise for instance to out-source the task of filtering outside the UK?...inconvenience of making a mistake and forgeting to uncheck the "default blocking" seems more less a concern, but is it not simpler to have not-subscribed as default, rather than blocked?
Anyway Jim Killock of open rights group has said: "We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron."
It doesn't really seem unreasonable...just its implementation and who does it would concern me. It would seem that any company filtering would need to be aware of specific UK issues, and sometimes its not possible to share those with everyone...but it does seem to be an issue of not understanding, or not keeping up with understanding how the internet works...filtering is best done in the home...Its difficult to conceptualise the internet, for instance at national level. It might get rather complicated, the flow of information into a country, exceptions for various reasons - maybe it is best to leave it to parents?
"Moral panic" can be drummed up by all parties to the debate - that won't help though
I just listened to a guy online talk about the ramifications of this...I mean breaking down some of the concerns there are several things of greater importance. Is it wise for instance to out-source the task of filtering outside the UK?...inconvenience of making a mistake and forgeting to uncheck the "default blocking" seems more less a concern, but is it not simpler to have not-subscribed as default, rather than blocked?
Anyway Jim Killock of open rights group has said: "We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory' and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron."
It doesn't really seem unreasonable...just its implementation and who does it would concern me. It would seem that any company filtering would need to be aware of specific UK issues, and sometimes its not possible to share those with everyone...but it does seem to be an issue of not understanding, or not keeping up with understanding how the internet works...filtering is best done in the home...Its difficult to conceptualise the internet, for instance at national level. It might get rather complicated, the flow of information into a country, exceptions for various reasons - maybe it is best to leave it to parents?
"Moral panic" can be drummed up by all parties to the debate - that won't help though
Post edited by dmsmith on
Comments
PERVERT
oh wait that wasn't a porn reference?
Oo
The filters will throw up so many false positives and block useful sites that it is unworkable.
Freudian slip?
Sometimes people mishear - what would that be termed "a freudian ....?"
The Two Ronnies - St. Botolph Country Dance Team :
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_detailpage&v=Dx5Qoin-Jzo
It was asked - how when it is bad that China censors the internet, is it OK when we use software made by a Chinesse firm for filtering it?
To answer the question other questions need to be asked...
To answer the question I am thinking consciously through some of my presuppositions, which are:
Ideological Censorship is always wrong. Some images are wrong. Some content is criminal within the UK. Censorship always curtails freedoms. Freedoms, and rights are curtailed in the making and distribution of some images. Not everyone who has uploaded images or videos wants those to still be available, or re-distributable online.
Censorship means you don't get the option.
Default blocking is not the same as censorship... it is choice architecture when people can tick a box, but when it is already ticked that is a nudge (I think - need to read more) - legal sites are not the target. However some porn is linked to organised crime.
We should develop and use our own UK filtering software, if it is to be done at a national level. ISPs should have a say in how it is implemented.
Some ISPs already have filters...
It would be so easy for the authorities to flip a switch and demand ISPs start censoring political sites, news sites and so on. They are presenting it as a choice rather than a gateway to doing real harm to freedom.
To turn this off I had to phone up vodaphone and politely ask them to remove the filter, which took them about a week. When I set up the account they didnt tell me anything about this.
Mentioned this a while back to someone else and they'd said the same thing happened to them, but they weren't on vodaphone. (they were with "3" iirc)
So Camo's drastic plan seems to have actually been in place for more than one Internet provider for ages already. It's all just a facade to make him look more conscientious and full of moral fibre. (shame hes a Tory then :lol:)
Well I don't see why any ISP has to use software developed by a Chinese company. It may be cernsorship-lite, under the guise of choice architecture as you say. But my own point was poorly made and I read a bit more in the meantime. I was meaning that porn-blocking (ie already ticked is a lesser concern than the UK having a Firewall, but that (the UK having a firewall) may actually appeal to a lot of people also. I prefer to know the real reasons things are done. Cynically looked at it is being done for government to get a firm handle on the internet, and utilising the current moral panic.
China may be the world leader at filtering and censoring but I don't like the idea of getting tips from them however sophisticated their firewall is.
A firewall may be needful in terms of filtering viruses. But its all in terms of how information enters a particular computer in a particular country (sorry I am thinking this out as I type to some extent). The filtering and firewalling works best at the end terminal level is my view, but I can understand some minimal degree of control being needed over the Internet at national level also. We have always had border controls, is it right to conceptualise the flow of information in the same way?
Some countries are totalitarian, but it's not border controls, internet firewalls, that make them totalitarian, its their refusal to tolerate dissent and critique, autocratic leadership and lack of democratic structures, amongst other things, and to some extent peoples brains must become "wired" to compliance to a degree to tolerate a totalitarian regime, some will be more likely to fall in line after a while, others by nature, and values will be less so.
Its seems to me a case that most governments are now trying to catch up with the development of the internet, and get more of a handle on it, which was almost inevitable and understandable, but I don't think the great firewall of China should be our model, or is going to be. Contemporary society seems to have moved further toward anarchic social structures with the era of the internet.
As I try to conceptualise (picture) the internet in my mind (quite impossible), I tend to conclude that filtering / blocking can be done most effectively with an advanced search.
Where I agree is that some ISPs have shrugged their shoulders to nearly all suggestions and just said in effect internet is too big, too complex - that clearly is not the mindset though when it comes to development (though it surely is acknowledged that it is big and complex) - and a big sprawling web is going to be harder to manage. Is there a danger in the internet getting just so complex that no one understands it? My view is that if the internet develops coherently and heuristics improve, it will become easier for the end user to filter without hitting "false positives". I think "Camo" is saying to ISPs "OK you don't like this - come up with something better"
I came across no porn when I searched for WOS - sorry I know I should have WOS bookmarked by now.