Britain Fumbles Its Attempt to Cleanse the Internet of Porn

[steve2470]

http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2014-01-31/britain-fumbles-in-its-attempt-to-cleanse-the-internet-of-porn?google_editors_picks=true

File it under predictable: The British government’s attempt to force Internet service providers to install filters that block inappropriate content isn’t going so smoothly. Critics of the hastily planned attempt to have the nation’s Internet browsing become porn-free by default warned that much more than smut would be affected, and they seem to have been right. A government working group is now coming up with a white list of websites that have been inadvertently blocked by filters, according to a BBC report.

This effort began in earnest last summer, largely at the behest of Claire Perry, Prime Minister David Cameron’s special adviser on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood. The government threatened to pass legislation requiring filters if Internet providers didn’t put them in place voluntarily; a similar arrangement was already in place for mobile networks. So starting over the summer, Internet providers began activating filters for new customers before expanding the policy more broadly. Over the course of this year, companies will contact existing customers to give them descriptions of various filters blocking pornography, self-harm websites, and other controversial content while allowing users to turn the filters off.

The experience of the last several months points to a contentious year ahead. Various websites, from groups working on issues of sexual violence to Torrent Freak, which offers news about copyright issues, have reported being blocked in the filters. One provider, BT (BT), faced criticism after its list of filters initially had a setting for blocking sexual education that included such subjects as “respect for partners” and homosexuality. There seems to be no universal way to set some line beyond which people shouldn’t go and no clear technical path to get there even if there were.

Another issue is the lack of a reliable way for the proprietor of a website to find out whether his or her site is even being blocked. Each service provider uses slightly different criteria and has different levels of blocking, and there are separate filters for mobile data networks and public Wi-Fi. One carrier, O2 (TEF), managed to set off a firestorm with a tool that allowed people to check if specific URLs had been blocked. Since the tool tested O2?s most restrictive child-safety setting, many websites came up as blocked, giving fodder to critics who had feared the worst about the filters. The company quickly took the tool down.

[another_liberal]

1. I heard recently that it's estimated there are 25 million porn sites on the web . . .

Those sites receive something like ten billion hits a year. Good luck, Mr. Cameron.

[RKP5637]

2. Ridiculous, that's like trying to eliminate ALL sex from humanity than procreational sex.

Humans waste far too much time with hang ups about sex. Thee are ALL types of filters. If people want them, they can easily get them. Next, will be the book burnings. Then, state cameras in homes, you know, just to make sure people follow all state sanctioned sexual guidelines and mandates.

[bananas]

3. Australia almost banned Linux in 1999

http://www.salon.com/1999/06/07/linux/

Will Linux be banned down under?
The source code's four-letter words could run afoul of new Australian censorship legislation.
JAMAIS CASCIO
MONDAY, JUN 7, 1999 09:00 AM PDT

Did the drafters of Australia’s new Net censorship legislation ever imagine that their rules might ban Linux? After all, the Linux source code has quite a few instances of the word “fuck” sprinkled throughout, mostly as commentary about problems with software. Can an operating system be considered unsuitable for minors?

Using grep — the powerful Unix search command — to go through a recent version of Linux, I came up with some comment lines and error messages that were clearly intended as the sort of coarse humor engineers of all sorts engage in.

Some examples:

./drivers/block/cmd640.c:16: * These chips are basically fucked by design

./fs/ufs/ufs_super.c:184: printk("ufs_read_super: fucking Sun blows me\n&quot ;

./lib/vsprintf.c: 9: * Wirzenius wrote this portably, Torvalds fucked it up

The last is particularly amusing — “Torvalds” is, of course, Linus Torvalds, the Finnish computer scientist who started Linux in the first place.

The problem is, while adult engineers might find commentary such as this humorous, the sort of people who want to censor the Internet are more likely to find it offensive. Which leads us back to the simple question: How will the Linux source code fare if the the Australian censorship law passes?

<snip>

[mr blur]

4. Cameron is a clown.

Not a Thatcher-type Evil Clown, just a very stupid clown.

[bemildred]

5. No clue at all, eh? nt

[LuvNewcastle]

6. I wonder how much they wasted on this stupid shit.

It's amazing how much conservatives will spend on depriving people of pleasure.

[RC]

7. Censorship: A refusal to face reality.

Trying to force one's thoughts, feelings, or urges on others, while in denial regarding one's own disposition.
Censors often do not fully understand the situation they are trying to ban. Often contributing their own faulty interruption to words, pictures, events, etc. Few things are truly black and white, as the article in the OP shows.

"Save the children", is often the battle cry of the censor. Sorry, I can deal with the information my own children are exposed to, better than you. I don't need some censor's own hysteria in trying to dumb down the world around them, to save my kids from the reality of world that they will have to live in and cope with as adults. That is my job as their parent.