Thoughtcrime vs Pornography.
KJ44
Posts: 38,093 Forum Member
✭
This isn't politics, it's personal.
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm
So it wasn't just about porn. QED
PS a hint of apoplexy ...
http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/cm131023/debtext/131023-0001.htm
The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.
So it wasn't just about porn. QED
PS a hint of apoplexy ...
0
Comments
Given that some Tories have even labelled protest groups such as Boycott Workfare as extremist, it's a little worrying.
I find it curious in this country, when very evil people do very evil things, it seems discussion is not allowed.
The biggest scandal / outrages... will be all over the front pages (media journalists are allowed to talk about these things)
But public forums... absolutely not !!
My worry on the run up to the next election is the increasing negative rhetoric against organisations, groups and individuals whom are critical of the Government, including the likes of the Co-operative Group, trade unions and the Labour party. Going to be a nasty election campaign, and the only way the Tories will win the next election is if they proscribe the Labour party or they end up in bankruptcy and cannot continue to function. And UK Uncut, Occupy London, disability campaign groups and charities. Deeply concerning.
Very true.
There's quite a good piece here about how, even innocent people, tend to change their behaviour and what they say when subjected to widespread blanket surveillance, and in reality, we all have something to hide even when we think we don't.
http://mashable.com/2013/06/13/julian-sanchez-nsa/
Articles on much the same subject talk about how, if we continue down this path of mass surveillance and government control of things like the web, then many things we now take for granted, or recent changes in laws, might never have happened:
http://www.wired.com/opinion/2013/06/why-i-have-nothing-to-hide-is-the-wrong-way-to-think-about-surveillance/
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20130613/12180423457/if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-youve-actually-got-plenty-to-hide.shtml
It is human nature that when we know we are being listened to, tracked and logged, even if we are perfectly law abiding we will moderate our behaviour and often tone down our opinions "just in case". So while most of us really don't have much to hide, it is still something that should concern everyone as it can, and often does, lead to self censorship.
Like baning the unemployed and very low paid from voting
No he wont.
He does however, know that many poor people and those on benefits are amongst those groups who tend not to bother voting, along with the young. And if they do vote, they tend to vote labour.
You can be absolutely sure if young people and the poor were actually people who voted Tory huge numbers, he wouldn't have dared upset them with such massive changes.
He knows that pensioners are far more likely to vote, hence the reason he has pretty much left them alone in the sweeping benefit changes.
You don't combat terrorist views by banning them because that just means more people will be curious and find underground ways to study them. It's the Forbidden Fruit if you can't have it then you will want it just because. I think you can combat terrorist views by arguing against them with reason and logic. You will win as no one is going to come up with a logical argument for flying a plane into a skyscraper.
Of course there are people who can't be reached, but if we want to keep them from bringing more people over to their worldview, we need to be involved in the debates where the potential recruits are.
Anyone who believes he is concerned with the safety of children is deluding themselves.
Then he has the cheek to talk about leaner, more efficient government. The man is a hypocrite.
You know you're right this a**hole will class any anti government or anti royalist or anti establishment as extremist, there's many anti establishment government facebook groups
He has already stated that David Miranda was a terrorist and pressed for an inquiry into the Guardian over their reporting on the NSA/GCHQ leaks.
He has no idea what the word democracy means.
Not to mention trying to censor his own party's speech history, by removing speeches from their website that show just how many of their promises they have broken since taking power.
Of course, it has massively backfired due to the Streisand Effect
Labour did that one too, though.
Yep, it all shows a lack of basic knowledge of what the Internet is. Trying to delete info from one place ignoring that it is available elsewhere.
the d**k head is full of double standards he does all about china north korea cracking down on human rights but he loves to do it
Sky have already pissed me off by not allowing me to use my own superior Netgear router and forcing me to use their crappy Sky Hub as well as banning me from using my own email address through their servers and now they want to ban the sites I use to access free music. When I was with O2 I never had any restrictions and I feel this is just the tip of the iceberg with service providers.
Kinda related; whenever the subject of the 2nd Amendment to the US constitution comes up you get people saying it's archaic and unnecessary in this day and age.
That's the thing though. It might be unnecessary in this day and age but times change and once you've made something a law it can be used against a population in another day and age too.
It might seem ridiculous now but this kind of legislation puts the mechanism will be in place to quash any kind of dissent once it's been branded as "extremist".
The majority of what Sky have blocked is as the result of court orders, but I believe Sky have been accused of going further, and blocking some sites not listed on court orders too though, which is probably what you are coming up against.
All of the major ISPs also block sites subject to a court order too, so it isn't just Sky.
Each time I hear about any sites being blocked I like to time how long it takes me to find a way around the blocks. The longest was two minutes.
Yeah that's a good point.
I think we have both said in similar threads it isn't this government, or even the next few that you have to worry about. Eventually, at some stage further down the line, a government may come to power who realises they have all these lovely laws designed to combat terrorism, civil unrest, public order, copyright infringement and peados can be used for other, much more nefarious means.
So if that's the case then how come the court order doesn't apply to all ISP's? O2 don't seem to have a problem with me accessing such download sites and I can still access them from my mobile.
Yes I found that by accessing them through Opera browser it allows me unrestricted access. I think Opera must use proxys which aren't banned by Sky.
I believe most of the court orders name the largest ISPs specifically, so it doesn't apply to the smaller ISPs unless they are like say Primus, who use the Talk Talk/Tiscali backbone and are subject to Talk Talk's blocking of websites due to court orders, even though Primus themselves aren't named in the court orders.