So, seriously... WTF is going on in the UK?
They're going to institute a "filter" that blocks "horrific" content. That everyone will be locked into unless they choose to opt out. Because who wouldn't be uneasy openly declaring they want access to porn, "terrorist" websites, "violent" content, and more?
Some other links:
What the filter questions may look like
A hypothetical conversation that about sums it all up
Not specific to the UK thing, but on the methodology and reasons likely behind it, while discussing pressure from interest groups to ban content on various websites.
Discuss!
| 13 people marked this as a favorite. |
[Raises hand]
I openly declare that I want access to porn and terrorist websites and violent content.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I've seen uk porn. They're not missing much except a lot of spanking and smoking during sex.
Were I still living over at Lakenheath or Bentwaters, there'd be extra loud cause for forkfingers and raspberries at the local pols.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Were I still living over at Lakenheath or Bentwaters, there'd be extra loud cause for forkfingers
There needs to be an equivalent of Poe's Law for British slang.
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of British slang that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Were I still living over at Lakenheath or Bentwaters, there'd be extra loud cause for forkfingersThere needs to be an equivalent of Poe's Law for British slang.
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of British slang that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
And you bet that the Big Brothers will watch anyone opting any of these choices in. Besides, who - or rather what - defines what constitutes said content? Is the word "terrorism" enough to get the site blocked? This could easily be abused to get any discussion about the topics blocked, and curtail freedom of speech.
[Raises hand]
I openly declare that I want access to porn and terrorist websites and violent content.
*adds a name to the list*
Oh, wait, he was already on here. Nevermind!
More seriously, while I can understand the thought behind the filter, I really don't think this sets a healthy precedence for the future of the internet. Hopefully it will be a monumental failure.
And you bet that the Big Brothers will watch anyone opting any of these choices in.
I bet not. There's a limit to Big Brother's capacities. Even PRISM-scale analysis can't look at the content of everyone's web access. (PRISM looks only at the metadata for exactly that reason.)
David Petraeus.
As someone in the UK it's a bit of a knee jerk reaction largely brought about by the rise of the smart phone and tablets as more and more kids have these and parents can't keep an eye on them 24/7
And ad a parent its very easy to view some pretty distasteful images and the public fear another James Burger
God rest his soul
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
David Petraeus.
King Conrad III of Germany. Was there a reason that we started playing the "random proper noun" game?
If you're suggesting that because the US government has the capacity to investigate a specific person based on specific evidence, it therefore has the manpower to investigate everyone base on no evidence whatsoever,... well, that's a leap of imagination that's totally unsupported by reality.
Certainly if the FBI got a credible tip that "Orfamay Quest" was the alias of a known terrorist, they'd be able to find me quickly and determine my real name, location, and all the email I've sent for the past twenty years. But they're not going to do that on g.p. for everyone on the Paizo forum. The first is a relatively straightforward investigation that would probably take a few days for a one or two person team. Investigating everyone would require ongoing continuous effort by the entire FBI cyberstaff.
So, if they roll this firewall out and get people accustomed to the intrusion and eventually decide to start making some filters NOT optional.... then what?
Certainly if the FBI got a credible tip that "Orfamay Quest" was the alias of a known terrorist, they'd be able to find me quickly and determine my real name, location, and all the email I've sent for the past twenty years.
Or if someone with power just really didn't like you...
It's not like we already have alleged terrorists imprisoned for years w/o even a trial, or have laws that allow for the torture of U.S. citizens (2010 NDAA, though supposedly it won't happen at least until Obama leaves office), or anything...
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Were I still living over at Lakenheath or Bentwaters, there'd be extra loud cause for forkfingersThere needs to be an equivalent of Poe's Law for British slang.
"Without a blatant display of humor, it is impossible to create a parody of British slang that someone won't mistake for the real thing."
Eh wot?
David Petraeus.King Conrad III of Germany. Was there a reason that we started playing the "random proper noun" game?
If you're suggesting that because the US government has the capacity to investigate a specific person based on specific evidence, it therefore has the manpower to investigate everyone base on no evidence whatsoever,... well, that's a leap of imagination that's totally unsupported by reality.
Yeah, it's totally unsupported by reality. Complete f@!%ing science fiction.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation of the article is complete science fiction, yes.
The program can track 320 million phone calls a day, world wide. Every day more than 12,000 million phone calls are made in the US alone.
That's a very big ocean and a tiny teacup to empty it with.
Totally unsupported by reality. And by math, for that matter.
Similarly, it would only take a sextillion such data centers to be able to crack 256 bit encryption. I'm not sure there's space enough on the surface of the Earth to install the equipment.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Your interpretation of the article is complete science fiction, yes.
The program can track 320 million phone calls a day, world wide. Every day more than 12,000 million phone calls are made in the US alone.
According to William Binney, NSA whistleblower, Stellar Wind was already tracking 320 million calls/day five years ago.
I don't pretend to know much about computers. If you're citing the NSA's capabailities from 5 years ago as what they can do today, I doubt you do, either.
I'm using your own sources..... Binney by his own admission doesn't know what they were doing five years ago, as he retired twelve years ago.
Don't confuse "call records" with "calls,". A call record is just billing data, who called whom, when, for how long. Still valuable intelligence, but not nearly as scary as you seem to think.
And yet, he didn't have his security clearance revoked until 2007.
According to many that I've been reading, "call records" (who you talk to, what you read, what websites you look at, what travel plans you make, etc.) are just as valuable as the actual contents of your calls and e-mails. Which they can access anytime they please after you've come up as a flag. Like David Petraues bangin' his biographer. Or like anyone who's posted in this thread after I type the following formula to attract the attention of the NSA spy programs: "terrorist attack," "socialist revolution," "jihad," "kiddie porn."
Everybody say cheese!
I'm using your own sources..... Binney by his own admission doesn't know what they were doing five years ago, as he retired twelve years ago.
Don't confuse "call records" with "calls,". A call record is just billing data, who called whom, when, for how long. Still valuable intelligence, but not nearly as scary as you seem to think.
So, Leisure Suit Larry makes calls to the local free clinic and talks for a few minutes, the home of a local politician in the middle of the day when said politician is in session and talks for 20 minutes, and then to a pharmacy for another few minutes, all in sequence - we don't have any information Larry might find scary at all.
Considering that one of the big IT companies tried to get a go-ahead on running the entire internet on their own hardware a few years back... No. It is not in any way science fiction. That data is text files that don't take up much room, it is quite feasible, realistic, and probable that all such data is connected to each person's data folder. Then, once the system reacts to someone, the data files for that person can be taken out and looked at. That is the first time they are seen by human eyes. I am still waiting for cases like "HA wanted me to pay them in cash to not call me in the middle of the night". You might want to check out the INDECT program in the EU, which also connected these logs to face recognition software matched against surveillance cameras and picture trawls on the internet, GPS data from phones, etc. Each person would have their own "super profile". Once this came out a bit too much, the project went underground and uncommented. Note that anything the EU has is child's play compared to what the NSA can do.
Still, there are quite enough people out there trying to downplay the level of surveillance that exists. Some of them are simply naive, and not paid to do so.
Living in a Magic Kingdom, known for being in the Middle, and a certain party, I do not welcome any great walls of fire for any country.
|
It isn't that totally unimaginable to see that list "accidentally" leaked or stolen someday in the future or the government getting a hold of it by means of warrant or some other method and then it being used against one's political opponents or against others people don't like by the information be made public or used as blackmail.
It has already been stated that the police will have a copy of the list and that social services would like to access the list when making decisions on custody and suitability for adoption.
Instead we're going to freak out about the government/ISP having a list of who turned on Parental Controls? Which I suspect will strongly resemble a list of who has children. Plus, I suppose, a list of those who weren't computer savvy enough to dare change the defaults.
Actually, the list is the list of OPT-OUTs, so it will include people who have set up fine-grained at the device filtering, for example different filters for a child and a teenager.
Most ISP's don't log every IP address visited either.
|
|
Though I don't really see how that would work at the ISP level. Unless each user has to log into the ISP separately to use the net? Which isn't how I've ever seen it set up. I guess for individual smart phones and the like, but for computers on a home network?
What I mean is, you will have to opt-out of the blanket ISP implemented filtering if you wish to provide more fine-grained filtering for devices on the local network.
Imagine these ministers discussing the type of porn, one by one and then making a judgement :D There sure seems to be a bunch of sexists between them, if they forbid female cumshots, but males ones are allowed. Doesn't this go against equal rights?
And this law will be 100 % useless anyway, because free sex sites like motherless, ThePornDude, punish-her,… are the ones that 99 % of the population uses. The only ones they're hitting with this law are the content producers, who prolly already got it hard to sell their stuff to customers.
Unless I'm wrong, nothing seems to be blocked yet and incase it does happen, a fast paid vpn/proxy can always help ;)
Can performers working in the adult industry still make a living anyway? I can't see anyone still buying porn...
Can performers working in the adult industry still make a living anyway? I can't see anyone still buying porn...
that's one huge blind spot if you can't see a million dollar industry.
Imagine these ministers discussing the type of porn, one by one and then making a judgement :D There sure seems to be a bunch of sexists between them, if they forbid female cumshots, but males ones are allowed. Doesn't this go against equal rights?
And this law will be 100 % useless anyway, because free sex sites like motherless, ThePornDude, punish-her,… are the ones that 99 % of the population uses. The only ones they're hitting with this law are the content producers, who prolly already got it hard to sell their stuff to customers.
Unless I'm wrong, nothing seems to be blocked yet and incase it does happen, a fast paid vpn/proxy can always help ;)
Can performers working in the adult industry still make a living anyway? I can't see anyone still buying porn...
Dang it, now I have to clear my cache.
that's one huge blind spot if you can't see a million dollar industry.Can performers working in the adult industry still make a living anyway? I can't see anyone still buying porn...
A MILLION DOLLAR industry...? You didn't, perchance, see the scene where Dr. Evil wanted to take the world hostage unless they paid him a MILLION DOLLARS? =)
It only affects porn produced in the UK, so you can still watch aaaal the acts HMG has just banned (NFSW?) on material made overseas anyway. You can also do most of these things perfectly legally, if you're all consenting adults, so long as you don't film it.
A report from the mass face-sitting outside parliament can be found here. I was also interested to discover that there are no recorded fatalities resulting from being queened at all (in Britain, anyway)
Why is Cameron doing this? Is it just a 'think of the children!' outreach to the concerned mothers of our nation? A sop to the religious lobby (which isn't very big at all)? A chance for MPs to watch sexy stuff in the name of research? I can't see how it's going to achieve anything or help anyone, but I suppose that's the case with a lot of legislation.
Maybe he wants people to sit on his face? And thinks that banning it will leave enough women willing to do it for money without jobs in the UK that he can find a partner?
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I am not amused. One of my preferred studios is British and everything they do falls under the banned acts list.
(ノಠ益ಠ)ノ彡┻━┻
I am not amused. One of my preferred studios is British and everything they do falls under the banned acts list.
oh?
I, for one, feel more proud to be an American at learning this news.
MURICA!!
I'm pretty sure face-sitting and watersports are written right into our constitution.I, for one, feel more proud to be an American at learning this news.
MURICA!!
And practiced on it :P
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Don't try to find logic in the actions of a nation that eats beans on toast for breakfast. There is no logic in such a people. Why they are banning porn is not to be known.
There's a spotted dick joke in there, somewhere.
Actually, there is logic - world-conquering logic, in fact - behind the decision. You see, Studies have proved that female orgasms make the beans congeal or burn at the bottom of the pan, while somebody weeing on a very special friend on camera will cause the toast to become flabby and textureless. As such, not just porn but anything that could potentially be used for porn will be banned from Jan 2015 onwards. Bottoms will be replaced by buckets, breasts by wind turbines and anyone lucky enough to still have reproductive organs should report to their nearest G4S Degenitalisation centre immediately for processing, with the byproducts soon to be found in a frozen lasagna near YOU.