UK to get it's own Chinese style web content filtering

Post by **indigolemon** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 10:14 pm

Have a read of this: http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/u ... -material/

Then go and sign this: https://submissions.epetitions.direct.g ... ions/51746

Proper big brother style stuff from the Government

Post by **Doggo** » Tue Jul 30, 2013 11:40 pm

Good post.

Anyone know if "Liberty" are doing anything here?

YouTube · Post by **Sailor** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:35 am

All that's happening is that the government is asking ISPs to have customers opt-out of filters. The filters already exist for many providers and search engines, only we have to select them ourselves.

At the same time, videos streamed online will be subject to the same controls as those sold in shops; the clumsily titled Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre will be being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks; and a database of banned images gathered by police will be used to trace illegal content and who's looking at it.

It's the thin end of the wedge if you want to see it that way. On the other hand, it's only another way of doing what we already can. For instance, isn't the Google Images Safe Search option already a kind of tits/no tits button? And doesn't GCHQ have access to all of our search histories via the Yanks?

I foresee a rash of court cases when the filters start blocking perfectly legitimate sites, especially business ones. And what's the betting someone will hack www.gov.uk and fill it full of iffy links or pics of politicians doing what they do best, ie: shagging each other and the tax payer?

'92 Si VTEC · Post by **jjmartin349571** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 12:51 am

I think that the problem is nobody wants to phone their ISP and announce over the phone that they want to bang one out.

I sure as hell don't anyway

But as to the whole 'porn corrupting kids' charade - If you don't want your kids looking at porn then get a filter on your PC ffs and do some proper parenting by actually keeping an eye on what they're doing and limiting their access. Don't ruin the whole nation's masty sessions just because you can't be arsed to put the effort into raising your kids right

The "S" express · Post by **honda-hardy** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:00 am

im off for a tug before the filter is activated then. bye for now.

The "S" express · Post by **honda-hardy** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:01 am

The "S" express · Post by **honda-hardy** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:01 am

The "S" express · Post by **honda-hardy** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:01 am

The "S" express · Post by **honda-hardy** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 1:03 am

thats better.

Shiny · Post by **Shiny** » Wed Jul 31, 2013 7:48 am

Cameron wants to ban any porn that is violent to women. Who drokking decides the point at which porn is violent?

Can't beat seeing a woman having her tits nailed to a bench or gagging on gentleman's sausage, consenting BDSM isn't violence. It will be banning sexist porn next and all porn will have stories, and flowers...

What about a ball busting movie? Is that fine because the man is the victim?

Cameron is a rhubarb. I'm going to sit in his front room with a spare TV remote and every time he wants to watch tv I'm going to change the channel and say "can't watch that" because that is what the rhubarb is doing to us on a grand drokking scale.