It's easy to censor the net...just lookup the internet watch foundation ....pretty much every feed into the uk is censored to remove the most easy to find CP
It's easy to censor the net...just lookup the internet watch foundation ....pretty much every feed into the uk is censored to remove the most easy to find CP
The IWF though is a non-profit, transparent, NGO which as you say, censors the 'most easy to find' child pornography.
I'm a strong advocate for a free-internet but even I can't fault the IWF, I think it's a system that works well. They have a tight remit and don't even have the staff to do that particularly well, so they aren't going to be doing any wholesale censorship any time soon.
The IWF though is a non-profit, transparent, NGO which as you say, censors the 'most easy to find' child pornography.
I'm a strong advocate for a free-internet but even I can't fault the IWF, I think it's a system that works well. They have a tight remit and don't even have the staff to do that particularly well, so they aren't going to be doing any wholesale censorship any time soon.
I have no issue at all with the IWF, but it isn't THAT transparent by it's very nature.
To be fully transparent would require them to publish a list of blocked websites, which they can't really do as that would undoubtedly be a major boon to paedos.
But you most certainly cannot argue with their success and the success of CEOPS who they work closely with, they reported recently that they were now little or no paedo websites based in the UK that they could detect.
Of course it isn't just the IWF and CEOPS, but the actions of the police in general, the FBI in the States and all the other agencies.
I find it absolutely disgusting that Cameron is pushing for the great porn filter of Britain using the excuse of pretection of children, when he has cut CEOPS budget and is cutting benefits which is reportedly increasing child poverty. The guy is a complete and utter hypocrite.
I ain't a technological mind but one day maybe soon, this whole internet malarkey could come crashing down around our ears. Then again maybe bob's just rambling...
I ain't a technological mind but one day maybe soon, this whole internet malarkey could come crashing down around our ears. Then again maybe bob's just rambling...
More likely, years from now, we will have moved more towards the whitelisted internet Claire Perry wants.
Obviously blocking out the illegal stuff is a noble endeavour, but David Cameron seems to want to assume the mantle of Britain's moral arbiter with the plans for the Great Firewall of Cameron.
It seems to be pandering to the Daily Mail and Mumsnet crowd whenever they stumble across a part of the internet that (despite being perfectly legal) they find too 'icky' or damaging to their sensibilities. Instead, they might just want to stick to their little cosy corners of the net and, horror of horrors, not look at stuff they don't like.
I suppose there has to be some irony in us all "being asked to think of the children" when those who probably think of the children most are the peados.
If Cameron really gave a damn about the children, he'd be doing something to counteract the ones living in poverty and facing homelessness due to 'austerity' while the rich enjoy further tax breaks.
I suppose there has to be some irony in us all "being asked to think of the children" when those who probably think of the children most are the peados.
"Think of the children, think of the children, a free and open internet's probably going to kill them!"
If Cameron really gave a damn about the children, he'd be doing something to counteract the ones living in poverty and facing homelessness due to 'austerity' while the rich enjoy further tax breaks.
the fat smug face man would not do that he only cares about people with money not the poor people he is I see you next tuesday.
The IWF though is a non-profit, transparent, NGO which as you say, censors the 'most easy to find' child pornography.
I'm a strong advocate for a free-internet but even I can't fault the IWF, I think it's a system that works well. They have a tight remit and don't even have the staff to do that particularly well, so they aren't going to be doing any wholesale censorship any time soon.
Does "censorship" mean "demonstrating to keyboard warriors that if you want to make threats of rape or violence in a civilised society these things have consequences"? If so, bring it on. People can play computer games if they want to live out twisted fantasies, but dealing with real people, whether talking to them in person, on the phone, by letter or by twitter should be governed by real world rules.
This doubly true when people are using real life identities and so can't dismiss threats made against them as easily as they might if those threats were made in the context of an anonymous forum where other users (hopefully) don't know who they are or where they live.
Does "censorship" mean "demonstrating to keyboard warriors that if you want to make threats of rape or violence in a civilised society these things have consequences"? .
Redunited
Posts: 1,103
Comments
redacted
..............................
..........................
........
!!!11
Yes, yes it is. The question is whether or not we're prepared to do anything about it.
The IWF though is a non-profit, transparent, NGO which as you say, censors the 'most easy to find' child pornography.
I'm a strong advocate for a free-internet but even I can't fault the IWF, I think it's a system that works well. They have a tight remit and don't even have the staff to do that particularly well, so they aren't going to be doing any wholesale censorship any time soon.
Not to mention all the monitoring they do at GCHQ.
I have no issue at all with the IWF, but it isn't THAT transparent by it's very nature.
To be fully transparent would require them to publish a list of blocked websites, which they can't really do as that would undoubtedly be a major boon to paedos.
But you most certainly cannot argue with their success and the success of CEOPS who they work closely with, they reported recently that they were now little or no paedo websites based in the UK that they could detect.
Of course it isn't just the IWF and CEOPS, but the actions of the police in general, the FBI in the States and all the other agencies.
I find it absolutely disgusting that Cameron is pushing for the great porn filter of Britain using the excuse of pretection of children, when he has cut CEOPS budget and is cutting benefits which is reportedly increasing child poverty. The guy is a complete and utter hypocrite.
More likely, years from now, we will have moved more towards the whitelisted internet Claire Perry wants.
That would be a complete disaster.
It seems to be pandering to the Daily Mail and Mumsnet crowd whenever they stumble across a part of the internet that (despite being perfectly legal) they find too 'icky' or damaging to their sensibilities. Instead, they might just want to stick to their little cosy corners of the net and, horror of horrors, not look at stuff they don't like.
I suppose there has to be some irony in us all "being asked to think of the children" when those who probably think of the children most are the peados.
"Think of the children, think of the children, a free and open internet's probably going to kill them!"
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE
No they're just shutting it down while they do a clean up and defrag.
the fat smug face man would not do that he only cares about people with money not the poor people he is I see you next tuesday.
anti royal no just ban anything they do not like.
as it's not too they're tast and nobody should be able to enjoy it
the IWF have blocked Wikipedia in the past
This doubly true when people are using real life identities and so can't dismiss threats made against them as easily as they might if those threats were made in the context of an anonymous forum where other users (hopefully) don't know who they are or where they live.
no it doesn't
After which, all the information harvested at the point of the undersea transatlantic cables is then sold to the NSA by GCHQ for a measly £100m.
some people would be happy with real life being censored
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1HTGfskKrfc&feature=youtube_gdata_player