> the EU convention lists internet access as a human right.
They're not stopping you from accessing the internet, they're essentially just giving people access to filtering software.
They're not stopping you from accessing the internet, they're essentially just giving people access to filtering software.
The real worry is that this system is Government controlled and built into everyone's internet connection.
Personally, I'm expecting it to soon have three settings, not two:
a) Family friendly browsing (opt-in)
b) Access to more adult sites (opt-out)
c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice).
... and my guess is that they'll then make it illegal to bypass the filter or do anything other than use the official choice buttons.
This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."
> c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice).
This already exists. The IWF provide sites that must be blocked and ISPs block those sites. It also happens when a company uses a court order to force and ISP to block a site.
Places I expect this to block in future:
1. Discussions of how to bypass the filter (eg Tor)
2. News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)
3. Information during times of disorder (eg the tweeting by people involved in the Arab Spring).
4. Whatever the government of the day deems extreme porn/extremist/dissident. The future internet won't come with optional DA notices. Any new discussion like Snowden simply won't appear.
Essentially, it's a selective kill-switch for the internet, and I think Edward Snowden said it best. This is about power, not safety. This is a mechanism for the establishment to protect itself.
If this was ISP-led, you might find the market reflecting a plurality of option, with consumers having a choice. Instead, this is Government-led, with ISPs expected to fall into line:
https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...
> Across the internet value chain, we expect industry – from retailers to device manufacturers – to ensure that all internet-enabled devices, whether a TV, games console or smart phone, are supplied with the tools to keep children safe as a standard feature
> We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers.
> And while Government looks to the industry to deliver, through the self-regulatory mechanisms already established under UKCCIS, we are clear that if momentum is not maintained, we will consider whether alternative regulatory powers can deliver a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access that is easy to use.
No it isn't.
It's pointless having these discussions with people who are thoroughly ignorant of what's actually happening while they're spinning off into wing-nut territory.
What is really happening is already really fucking bad. You don't need to invent fanciful nonsense ("News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)") because reality is bad enough.
As for the "control" part, maybe I have misunderstood. Do you mean to say the ISPs have not included things like the IWF into their censorship mechanisms? Because that looks to me like a list of things to compulsorily ban.
Now, I may be putting two and two together, but to me this looks like:
a) The government at a minimum "influencing" ISPs to introduce variable-level filtering.
b) Mandatory filter lists.
c) An onward programme of debate about what should be in or out of the block.
As for the Ryan Giggs thing, that was simply my speculation. However, I'm currently finding a lot about the way that politicians see control measures goes beyond my wildest fancies - eg RIPA used for school catchment areas.
Good quote, thanks. We need simple phrases like that to get past the Daily Fail/Porno Perverts consensus in the UK.
Seriously people, pester your MPs about this. They listen if people pester in volume because it literally takes up their (or their aides') time to go through your letters.
Use a service like https://www.writetothem.com/ and pester the heck out of your MPs until they start taking some sort of action.
d) blacking out communication during civil unrest
e) political blackmail of opposition
No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either.
> and built into everyone's internet connection.
Not everyones.
> This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."
I'm fully aware of that, I'm just tired of hearing the same incorrect arguments. It only hurts a side if they lie or don't know what they are talking about.
I take your point, but I don't think it invalidates the phrase "government controlled."
I agree they aren't all using the same software, and much is "voluntary." However, the UK web filter is:
a) In the 2010 Conservative Manifesto:
> establish a new online system that gives parents greater powers to take action against irresponsible commercial activities targeted at children;
http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmani...
b) Announced by the government:
> all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-came...
c) Implemented voluntarily by the main four ISPs (three down, one to go), but with the expectation all will obey it because it's policy:
> "Preselected" parental filters are now official policy, and should extend to small ISPs, according the the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) new strategy paper.
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-d...
... So, yes, it's not on every connection at the moment. But this is a government programme instituted by direction from the Government. When you combine it with the IWF and mobile filtering, it's not a misrepresentation to say that the Government is drawing up censorship lists and is approximately half-way through the job of making them unavoidable.