How to get Windows 10 for free | How to install Windows 10: There is still a way to avoid paying…
“……..….Recently, it has become technically feasible for ISPs to block home users’ access to websites irrespective of where in the world they are hosted……...”
When I saw this statement that the Government was going to enforce ISP’s to use this technology to block internet content by the end of 2007 I was more than curious. Worrying at first glance but it is aimed at blocking child abuse content which must be a good thing. So government censorship of the internet is on the agenda. Read on: click here
However, looking further on the subject of “Cleanfeed” came across this site where you can you can check a web site to see its category. No surprise that PCAdvisor is an “allowed” site but where is the “Arts & Entertainment” section!!
Your post should read:
"Big Brother has ALWAYS been watching you". :-(
with a government which seeks to use its legislative power to starve an illegal market of oxygen, so the use of Cleanfeed to block traffic to child porn sites has my vote, but............
I would be far from sure about an attempt to block access to sites which "glorify terrorism". It's the use of that word 'glorify' which bothers me, because such controls require that someone arbitrarily defines it. Possible Synonyms are:-
and I would be concerned to think that someone would ban me from seeing a site which lauded terrorism. I think that in a free society I should have the right to examine such material, so I can make up my own mind. I don't want to live in a world where the country which styles itself the birthplace of democracy starts shielding me from the arguments put forward by terrorists.
On the other hand, I'm quite happy to be prevented from seeing images depicting the sexual abuse of children.
There's a difference, and I hope our government continues to recognise it.
"On the other hand, I'm quite happy to be prevented from seeing images depicting the sexual abuse of children." Shouldnt have to be "prevented" shouldn't want to see them AT ALL!!! think you worded that slightly wrong.
Try not to respond until you've thought something through. Your comment is so silly, and potentially so offensive that I can't be bothered to say more. If you can't understand something properly it's better to say nothing.
Agree with FE, but I don't think Hairyplums was trying to be offensive.
The nanny-state doesn't credit any of us with any ability to make out own decisions
I can vouch that 3g is already blocking websites; this can be bypassed though in a very simple way. Clean feed (a term I am familiar with) is date positive, it’s political and when you bring politics to the net you bring brash knee-jerk reactions. The terrorism act has supplementary clauses that should keep a whole team employed just updating and revising articles.
A quick test of BNP and combat 18 shows that combat 18 is banned under “hate speech” yet BNP are allowed as “Government & Politics”. Comparable? Well apart from them both (IMO), opinions – there’s a word, being scumbags, one is allowed and the other not. The BMP were up on charges a while ago but walked away acquitted, what happens when they or others are found guilty? Will they be removed from the clean feed list?
An anti vivisection website using an ISP domain (antiVS.ISPname.com) returns a result of “Allowed: Hosting Providers, can it be so simple as to hide your terrorist website underneath ihateamerica.myisp ? Not to say the site is that of a terrorist
Politics are the activities of governments, politicise the net and you get an extension of whoever is in power.
Can we really say that the National rifle association click here returns a result of allowed: “Government & Politics” Yet Guns for sale in America click here is banned under Violence & Weapons.?????
Shoot me down - (the NFA have been known to do just that - literally) but I find this whole thing a pathetic joke.
decisions about what will be legal or otherwise are made by democratically-elected representatives. Subjects like child abuse are relatively easy to deal with from a legislative point of view because decisions about what is or isn't acceptable to society are clear-cut, nobody would seriously suggest that there's any kind of a grey area here.
With terrorism however, the lines are not so clearly drawn, and the very word 'terrorism' is often used in the wrong context. Some politicians use it when describing almost anyone who advocates violence as a means of achieving political ends. There's a good deal of disparity around when the subject of a definition crops up - one person's terrorist is another's freedom fighter.
For that reason - if for no other - I advocate caution when considering any legislative act which seeks to prevent law-abiding citizens from accessing information. It appears that our government has considered and rejected the idea of preventing us from accessing sites which glorify terrorism, and as I said in my earlier post - I hope it continues to recognise the difference between child porn and terrorism. Both are illegal, but in different ways.
The most important test to be applied when taking a “controversial” case to criminal court is ……. “Is it in the public interest”. Requires a need to sit back and calmly think about it, and ensure this is the real reason for any action. Not in the interest of that party, that minister or that group but in the interest of the public at large.
And I think the same principal should be applied to internet content and I’m sure the public interest is served by blocking child abuse content. There must be other similar material on the net which falls into the same category.
However there are grey areas, as pointed out, like terrorism which will need care and vigilance. And I sincerely hope the difference between child porn and terrorism is kept in separate camps.
But who does the deciding. The political aspect is a little worrying because a slight touch of the technology here or there could ban sites merely for political gain. If left to individual ISP’s to enforce I’m sure it would be a shambles. So I’m still unsure how the rules are going to be made and enforced.
And must admit I wasn’t previously really aware of “Cleanfeed” - whether there is one program for the job or several. Here is a brief explanation: click here
Above I highlighted that PCA were under the category of “Arts & Entertainment” to show it is not foolproof testing.
This thread is now locked and can not be replied to.