Does anyone think there is enough support for this policy for it to pass through Parliament?
I get the impression it is a deeply unpopular policy and will shunted into the long grass on grounds that is
1. impractical to enforce in the long term
2. Controversial vote loser for the Tories supposedly opposed to government intervention.
In it's present two part form? Nope, i can't see it getting through.
If it sticks to the principle of being a filter and drops the element of censorship that seems to be piggybacking on it? Why not.
All a filter can and will do is prevent people from accidentally stumbling across content they don't wish to see. That's fine by me, although being as it's possible to apply parental locks now it strikes me that those that want filters are probably already applying them so this is about those folk who either don't give a toss or are too stupid/bone idle to take responsibility for parenting their own kids and go figure it out for themselves.
If this is about blocking content then apart from needing to be wary of the agenda lead mission creep enthusiasts like our very own Dave Knight , there's the small matter of not being able to prevent the determined user from gaining access anyway.
Vote loser? Not really - not the way our political parties operate. No political party is going to want to run the risk of exposing themselves (pardon the pun considering) to spin accusing them of supporting the hardcore porn industry and all that entails.
Does anyone think there is enough support for this policy for it to pass through Parliament?
Most of it isn't going to "pass through Parliament".
Cameron has always known it would never pass through Parliament, and then the government would need to pay for implementation (which if you were going to try and have a proper stab at it, would cost more than the NHS).
So Cameron has threatened ISPs that they must launch this measure "voluntarily" or he will hit them with legislation, leaving censorship in the hands of a collection of quangos and private businesses (Talk Talk's filter is outsourced to Huawei to run. You know, the one with major ties to the Chinese government? What could possibly go wrong there!).
ISPs are furious that Cameron has announced more than what they're actually going to do in many cases, and deliberately misrepresented it (as the email leaked to the BBC shows).
In effect, Cameron has used threats to try and bypass the democratic process.
The only sections that require parliamentary legislation are the ban on the possession of "rape" images and the spurious suggestion that ATVOD will regulate online video so it has the same censorship as BBFC issued content.
The rape images is the only one that (sadly) has any chance of passing, despite the Conservative manifesto at the last election actually saying they'd consider repealing the law it's now extending. Still, I don't think it's a sure thing - there are a lot of people speaking out against it, and while I don't care for her Louise Mensch has spoken out very strongly against it and that is likely to result in a Tory fracture. It's also possible that in review in the Lords it will get neutered to nothing regardless - insert "realistic" or "actual" in it and you've already got it down to covering virtually no material whatsoever.
ATVOD are already trying to push their influence in the way suggested, but won't ever be able to do much as by law they are only able to affect anyone who produces content in the UK and sells it from UK servers, and that's limited by EU law (I suspect ATVOD as a quasi-governmental quango are going to lose a significant case and get shut down entirely in the next ten years anyway).
Remember when Dave promised to get rid of unelected quangos?
If the options are:
1: Exactly where you are now *. No restrictions, no censorship, no blocking, no change at all
2. Choose to switch on blocking and trust your ISP to somehow operate it in a way which allows your electronic life to function reasonably well
.......I don't think such a move would damage the current government.
But - turning to possible attempts at Censorship. This could be 100 times more dangerous for Cameron. I have already said that I have not made up my mind about simulated rape scenes. But I was disturbed at the Phone 5 Live programme earlier this week when an expert guest was asked what the internet would look like "post restictions" Her reply was - It will look like an R18 movie. That is pretty alarming. That is a lot of creep.
* Of course - where we are now could change anyway. There is some creep but it is very much stop-start.When Megaupload was shut down I expected to see many, many similar websites disappear. It did not happen.
I suggest people actually read what is said in those two. The loopholes are that at no point is actual distribution mentioned as a crime. To do so might embroil ISPs in a dispute over their status as simply passing information rather than having any responsibility for it's contents. In addition note that viewing extreme porn is not in fact a crime. In a digital age this means that if the files aren't on your computer then you haven't actually committed a crime defined in either of those two acts.
. It's also possible that in review in the Lords it will get neutered to nothing regardless - insert "realistic" or "actual" in it and you've already got it down to covering virtually no material whatsoever.
It will have realistic in it without the Lords putting it there. It will just be an amendment to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008
Part 5 Criminal law
Section 63 Possession of extreme pornographic images
7)An image falls within this subsection if it portrays, in an explicit and realistic way, any of the following— .
(a)an act which threatens a person's life, .
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals, .
(c)an act which involves sexual interference with a human corpse, or .
(d)a person performing an act of intercourse or oral sex with an animal (whether dead or alive), .
and a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person or animal was real.
Criminal Justice and Licensing (Scotland) Act 2010
Part 2 Criminal Law
Section 42 Extreme Pornography
6) An image is extreme if it depicts, in an explicit and realistic way any of the following— .
(a)an act which takes or threatens a person's life, .
(b)an act which results, or is likely to result, in a person's severe injury, . (c)rape or other non-consensual penetrative sexual activity, .
(d)sexual activity involving (directly or indirectly) a human corpse, .
(e)an act which involves sexual activity between a person and an animal (or the carcase of an animal).
I was disturbed at the Phone 5 Live programme earlier this week when an expert guest was asked what the internet would look like "post restictions" Her reply was - It will look like an R18 movie. That is pretty alarming. That is a lot of creep.
.
Then we get to the situation where it's not an option at all as anyone opting out is going to find it near impossible to avoid illegal content as everything isn't going to be R18 rated by the British classification board.
Oh you have a choice, we're not dictating anything, but if you opt out at best one will end up worrying themselves to death as to what does and doesn't fall foul of the rulings, rulings even the people making them don't know what does.
I would imagine that everything is open to creep. Even the R18 standard.
If we return to an era when Adult Content ( legally viewable in the Uk) is pretty much exactly the same as a Match Of The Day episode with the actual goals edited out, then I would be tempted to claim that it would damage the government who were responsible.
The good news is that independent Satellite installers would return to the incredible boom years of the early 1990s.
Ah, I see the real motivation behind the howls of "censorship" etc is becoming clearer now reading this thread.
When internet 'campaigners' talk about attacks on "civil liberties" and "freedom of speech". What they really mean is attacks on the freedom to steal (sorry, "share") music, films and other content etc from torrent sites etc. They object to government attempts to make this more difficult.
But if all the governments efforts are so "useless" and "doomed to fail". Why are they complaining so much? They can just carry on as usual, can't they?
Ah, I see the real motivation behind the howls of "censorship" etc is becoming clearer now reading this thread.
I haven't seen anything in this thread which revealed any hidden motivations.
The major studios release 2 or 3 porn scenes every day. I am pretty sure that David Cameron knows that out of the 2 Billion people who view these scenes, only a very small number are paying a monthly subscription to the content provider. My impression is that, after a bit of noise early on, he is not trying very hard to stop this practice (from a UK ISP point of view).
There was talk a while ago about the government looking carefully about "what creates happy people" as opposed to "what creates growth" . I can only guess but maybe he is content that the film makers in Los Angeles are making huge profits despite the file sharing and that he should leave it alone....
We've already been through the reasons why the first is already in place and not the problem it's made out to be. As to the second I'm sure that what was actually mean was that rather than creating a whole new offence of accessing a web site which by definition contains no illegal material the message will be one informing them that the website in question was shut down due to contravention of whatever applicable law. I'm being generous in assuming that by they it's the owners that are being referred to.
Ah, I see the real motivation behind the howls of "censorship" etc is becoming clearer now reading this thread.
When internet 'campaigners' talk about attacks on "civil liberties" and "freedom of speech". What they really mean is attacks on the freedom to steal (sorry, "share") music, films and other content etc from torrent sites etc. They object to government attempts to make this more difficult.
But if all the governments efforts are so "useless" and "doomed to fail". Why are they complaining so much? They can just carry on as usual, can't they?
Yes, you've nailed us. That's the motivation of every single person complaining about this policy.
Ah, I see the real motivation behind the howls of "censorship" etc is becoming clearer now reading this thread.
When internet 'campaigners' talk about attacks on "civil liberties" and "freedom of speech". What they really mean is attacks on the freedom to steal (sorry, "share") music, films and other content etc from torrent sites etc. They object to government attempts to make this more difficult.
But if all the governments efforts are so "useless" and "doomed to fail". Why are they complaining so much? They can just carry on as usual, can't they?
Since when did censorship have anything to do with copywrite theft? If you think you're now seeing things more clearly a quick trip to a well known high street optician is in order.
Since when did censorship have anything to do with copywrite theft? If you think you're now seeing things more clearly a quick trip to a well known high street optician is in order.
Talk Talk's filter by default ticks the box blocking "file sharing sites".
The CPS have prosecuted people for footage of animated Tony The Tiger images before, so the realism aspect is certainly not a given.
You are referring to the case of Andrew Robert Holland the charge you are referring to was immediately dropped when the audio was played in court - apparently the CPS was sent a copy without audio and had never heard the soundtrack or bothered to watch the whole video, and had failed to realize it was CGI and a spoof with at the end the tiger turning to camera and speaking. Immediately the true nature of the video was realized that charge was dropped.
Andrew Robert Holland plead guilty to a second charge relating to another video of 17 clips of people's genitals being mutilated. However, it was also discovered that these scenes had been created by a special effects department as a spoof. Andrew Robert Holland was allowed to vacate his guilty plea, and claimed he had been so disgusted by the film he put it off after only a few seconds, and was cleared of the offense.
Talk Talk's filter by default ticks the box blocking "file sharing sites".
Going by the demo video it has Kid Safe option pre ticked off. If you tick it on it opens a list and you remove the tick from the things you want to have access to. The list is:
Dating
Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
File Sharing Sites
Gambling
Games
Pornography
Social Networking
Suicide and Self-Harm
Weapons and Violence
Since when did censorship have anything to do with copywrite theft?
Since the technology was introduced to enable censorship of things like child porn, and then copyright holders got High Court rulings forcing ISPs to use the technology to block a couple of sites involved in enabling massive amounts of copyright theft.
There is also the issue of who does the file sharing copyright theft if it is it the ISP account holder or their children. Having the default setup block file sharing, unless the ISP account holder chooses to permit it, might stop some children.
And once everyone's ISP has the ability to block their customers access to such sites and activity what is to stop legal action by copyright holders to force ISPs to block offending file sharing sites.
Then there is the issue of blocking extreme porn sites, if depictions of rape is added to the list. How many more porn sites are going to be blocked by the ISPs. How many consumers of porn are going to be worried about accidentally accessing illegal pornography. Rape and non-consenual fantasies are pretty common themes in porn. Maybe fewer people will access free porn and more will opt to pay licenced porn sites where all the porn on offer is legal.
The list is:
Dating
Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
File Sharing Sites
Gambling
Games
Pornography
Social Networking
Suicide and Self-Harm
Weapons and Violence
This all seems to be grossly straying from the original line pumped out by Cameron.
Comments
It's the vote loser that dare not speak it's name.
In it's present two part form? Nope, i can't see it getting through.
If it sticks to the principle of being a filter and drops the element of censorship that seems to be piggybacking on it? Why not.
All a filter can and will do is prevent people from accidentally stumbling across content they don't wish to see. That's fine by me, although being as it's possible to apply parental locks now it strikes me that those that want filters are probably already applying them so this is about those folk who either don't give a toss or are too stupid/bone idle to take responsibility for parenting their own kids and go figure it out for themselves.
If this is about blocking content then apart from needing to be wary of the agenda lead mission creep enthusiasts like our very own Dave Knight , there's the small matter of not being able to prevent the determined user from gaining access anyway.
Vote loser? Not really - not the way our political parties operate. No political party is going to want to run the risk of exposing themselves (pardon the pun considering) to spin accusing them of supporting the hardcore porn industry and all that entails.
Most of it isn't going to "pass through Parliament".
Cameron has always known it would never pass through Parliament, and then the government would need to pay for implementation (which if you were going to try and have a proper stab at it, would cost more than the NHS).
So Cameron has threatened ISPs that they must launch this measure "voluntarily" or he will hit them with legislation, leaving censorship in the hands of a collection of quangos and private businesses (Talk Talk's filter is outsourced to Huawei to run. You know, the one with major ties to the Chinese government? What could possibly go wrong there!).
ISPs are furious that Cameron has announced more than what they're actually going to do in many cases, and deliberately misrepresented it (as the email leaked to the BBC shows).
In effect, Cameron has used threats to try and bypass the democratic process.
The only sections that require parliamentary legislation are the ban on the possession of "rape" images and the spurious suggestion that ATVOD will regulate online video so it has the same censorship as BBFC issued content.
The rape images is the only one that (sadly) has any chance of passing, despite the Conservative manifesto at the last election actually saying they'd consider repealing the law it's now extending. Still, I don't think it's a sure thing - there are a lot of people speaking out against it, and while I don't care for her Louise Mensch has spoken out very strongly against it and that is likely to result in a Tory fracture. It's also possible that in review in the Lords it will get neutered to nothing regardless - insert "realistic" or "actual" in it and you've already got it down to covering virtually no material whatsoever.
ATVOD are already trying to push their influence in the way suggested, but won't ever be able to do much as by law they are only able to affect anyone who produces content in the UK and sells it from UK servers, and that's limited by EU law (I suspect ATVOD as a quasi-governmental quango are going to lose a significant case and get shut down entirely in the next ten years anyway).
Remember when Dave promised to get rid of unelected quangos?
1: Exactly where you are now *. No restrictions, no censorship, no blocking, no change at all
2. Choose to switch on blocking and trust your ISP to somehow operate it in a way which allows your electronic life to function reasonably well
.......I don't think such a move would damage the current government.
But - turning to possible attempts at Censorship. This could be 100 times more dangerous for Cameron. I have already said that I have not made up my mind about simulated rape scenes. But I was disturbed at the Phone 5 Live programme earlier this week when an expert guest was asked what the internet would look like "post restictions" Her reply was - It will look like an R18 movie. That is pretty alarming. That is a lot of creep.
* Of course - where we are now could change anyway. There is some creep but it is very much stop-start.When Megaupload was shut down I expected to see many, many similar websites disappear. It did not happen.
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/asp/2010/13/section/41/enacted?view=interweave
I suggest people actually read what is said in those two. The loopholes are that at no point is actual distribution mentioned as a crime. To do so might embroil ISPs in a dispute over their status as simply passing information rather than having any responsibility for it's contents. In addition note that viewing extreme porn is not in fact a crime. In a digital age this means that if the files aren't on your computer then you haven't actually committed a crime defined in either of those two acts.
Then we get to the situation where it's not an option at all as anyone opting out is going to find it near impossible to avoid illegal content as everything isn't going to be R18 rated by the British classification board.
Oh you have a choice, we're not dictating anything, but if you opt out at best one will end up worrying themselves to death as to what does and doesn't fall foul of the rulings, rulings even the people making them don't know what does.
The CPS have prosecuted people for footage of animated Tony The Tiger images before, so the realism aspect is certainly not a given.
If we return to an era when Adult Content ( legally viewable in the Uk) is pretty much exactly the same as a Match Of The Day episode with the actual goals edited out, then I would be tempted to claim that it would damage the government who were responsible.
The good news is that independent Satellite installers would return to the incredible boom years of the early 1990s.
When internet 'campaigners' talk about attacks on "civil liberties" and "freedom of speech". What they really mean is attacks on the freedom to steal (sorry, "share") music, films and other content etc from torrent sites etc. They object to government attempts to make this more difficult.
But if all the governments efforts are so "useless" and "doomed to fail". Why are they complaining so much? They can just carry on as usual, can't they?
"It doesn't mean, for instance, it will block access to a newspaper like The Sun, it wouldn't block that, but it would block pornography."
How convenient.
I haven't seen anything in this thread which revealed any hidden motivations.
The major studios release 2 or 3 porn scenes every day. I am pretty sure that David Cameron knows that out of the 2 Billion people who view these scenes, only a very small number are paying a monthly subscription to the content provider. My impression is that, after a bit of noise early on, he is not trying very hard to stop this practice (from a UK ISP point of view).
There was talk a while ago about the government looking carefully about "what creates happy people" as opposed to "what creates growth" . I can only guess but maybe he is content that the film makers in Los Angeles are making huge profits despite the file sharing and that he should leave it alone....
To tackle child abuse images, search engines have been told they will have to redact results from specific searches, while anyone accessing websites shut down by the police for containing such images will see a message warning them that what they were doing was illegal.
We've already been through the reasons why the first is already in place and not the problem it's made out to be. As to the second I'm sure that what was actually mean was that rather than creating a whole new offence of accessing a web site which by definition contains no illegal material the message will be one informing them that the website in question was shut down due to contravention of whatever applicable law. I'm being generous in assuming that by they it's the owners that are being referred to.
Yes, you've nailed us. That's the motivation of every single person complaining about this policy.
Well if he has he's treading dodgy waters what with his hands off stance when it came to mission creep and press legislation
Since when did censorship have anything to do with copywrite theft? If you think you're now seeing things more clearly a quick trip to a well known high street optician is in order.
Talk Talk's filter by default ticks the box blocking "file sharing sites".
Andrew Robert Holland plead guilty to a second charge relating to another video of 17 clips of people's genitals being mutilated. However, it was also discovered that these scenes had been created by a special effects department as a spoof. Andrew Robert Holland was allowed to vacate his guilty plea, and claimed he had been so disgusted by the film he put it off after only a few seconds, and was cleared of the offense.
Going by the demo video it has Kid Safe option pre ticked off. If you tick it on it opens a list and you remove the tick from the things you want to have access to. The list is:
Dating
Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco
File Sharing Sites
Gambling
Games
Pornography
Social Networking
Suicide and Self-Harm
Weapons and Violence
Since the technology was introduced to enable censorship of things like child porn, and then copyright holders got High Court rulings forcing ISPs to use the technology to block a couple of sites involved in enabling massive amounts of copyright theft.
There is also the issue of who does the file sharing copyright theft if it is it the ISP account holder or their children. Having the default setup block file sharing, unless the ISP account holder chooses to permit it, might stop some children.
And once everyone's ISP has the ability to block their customers access to such sites and activity what is to stop legal action by copyright holders to force ISPs to block offending file sharing sites.
Then there is the issue of blocking extreme porn sites, if depictions of rape is added to the list. How many more porn sites are going to be blocked by the ISPs. How many consumers of porn are going to be worried about accidentally accessing illegal pornography. Rape and non-consenual fantasies are pretty common themes in porn. Maybe fewer people will access free porn and more will opt to pay licenced porn sites where all the porn on offer is legal.
This all seems to be grossly straying from the original line pumped out by Cameron.