British Isp's censoring users net connections

[Whiternoise]

Sorry mate but who are you to decide what "titilates" paedophiles? You are doing exactly what you are saying you don't like wikipedia doing by passing your own judgement that the pics are ok as long as they don't "titilate". Let's be honest, it's not like "virgin Killers" album cover is a work of art, it's a naked child with her legs open - you think that's fine to be on a family orientated website like wikipedia?

Ultimately it's the public (and more generally, with the "extreme" sex act, the government's) decision in circumstances like this. Pornography is not considered mass-viewable material by the vast majority of the British public (i say British, if you go to Europe they're a lot more lax about tits on the telly and, not in a perverted way, rightly so). The only reason the IWF removed the censorship is because there was public outcry about it.

I agree strongly with Hex on this one. I, nor he have any right to say what "titilates" - but that also means neither do you. One man's family photo is another man's fap material, as they say(..?). Is the baby's bum on a pampers advert porn? Watch Equilibrium if you want to see this sort of attitude taken to the extreme.

Legally, there are loads of little rules that govern whether something is classed as pornography, and there's a fine line between what's art and what isn't. The rules on child pornography are a lot more strict, naturally, but there are still allowances for family photos. A lot of the laws on child pornography are when the photos were taken without permission of the child, when the child has been deemed to be harmed (physically/psychologically/etc) and so on.

The photo in question, as has been said, was taken by a well known record company, does not appear to abuse the child in question, it was obviously taken with consent (it's not like it was a photo of a baby), and it's even already censored with the "cracked" glass.

Something that i deem to a strong factor in whether something is porn or not is the intention of the artist. It's along the lines of "racism" in the media. Is a joke about Islam worse than a joke about Christianity? Some would say that a "muslim" joke is incredibly offensive, but it's hardly any worse than saying "ooer, Father Dougal plays with the choir boys if you know what i mean". This isn't always the case, of course, but it's generally true. In this case, it's an album cover. It's not porn. Very distasteful, but not porn.

[jamin]

Semantics here is important.

If they believe one image on Wikipedia is child porn, you're okay with them blocking Wikipedia?

Again, the problem isn't the censorship of the image. The problem is twofold:

• They blocked the TEXT about the image and the controversy it caused, which is historically interesting, and broke the site for anyone one an affected ISP whilst they were at it, and
• They did it in secret. Visiting the blocked page didn't give a "this site is blocked because you're a paedo" message, it gave a fake 404.
  
  If they're inserting fake errors into your surfing, can you state with absolute certainty whether ANY content is being seen through a filter of some kind? Given the list is secret, can you be certain that only child porn is on it?

If you think an unaccountable organization should be given free reign to secretly cause text they dislike to disappear, then we're well on the way to fascism

Whoa there big fella. I believe that it is right to block first then ask questions later based on IWF recommendations. You can argue details all day long, but a fake 404 directs any questions from users accessing it to the blocked site in question and the ISP doesn't have to deal with them, why should they.

Stop speculating mate, the issue in question is blocking child porn and the list is secret so that the scumbags making money out of it don't know when and which of their sites have ben blocked. This is not government censorship mate. The IWF only provide information about child abuse and ISPs block voluntarily. Hardly fascism is it.....

www.iwf.org.uk

[directhex]

Whoa there big fella. I believe that it is right to block first then ask questions later based on IWF recommendations. You can argue details all day long, but a fake 404 directs any questions from users accessing it to the blocked site in question and the ISP doesn't have to deal with them, why should they.

BECAUSE THEY'RE THE ONES WHO BLOCKED IT!

Do you know what "404" actually means?

You're actually *encouraging* secret, unaccountable policing?

Stop speculating mate, the issue in question is blocking child porn and the list is secret so that the scumbags making money out of it don't know when and which of their sites have ben blocked.

And neither do sites who don't deserve to be on the list and have been erroneously added. Who is watching the watchmen?

This is not government censorship mate. The IWF only provide information about child abuse

# criminally obscene content hosted in the UK
# criminally racist content hosted in the UK
from http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.113.379.htm

and ISPs block voluntarily. Hardly fascism is it.....

www.iwf.org.uk

Australia is bringing in a mandatory system along the same lines. You don't think it'll happen here? And be handed to clowns of the same calibre?

[jamin]

Do you know what "404" actually means?

You're actually *encouraging* secret, unaccountable policing?

Sigh.

Would you care to re-read please, as I am certainly not enouraging any kind of secret policing. I am advocating a guilty until proven innocent approach with regard to child porn. If a site is reported as having images of child abuse then block it straight away, investigate and if the site is clean reinstate it. (Look I see the holes in that methodology, but its the point I am making thats important.)

Quite frankly mate, freedom of speech and the freedom of the internet are important to me. But when it comes to preventing abuse of any kind, I would quite happily live with a censored internet connection if I knew it help to prevent the exploitation and suffering. The rules and regulations behind this aren't relevant to the point I'm making.

[Agent]

I am advocating a guilty until proven innocent approach with regard to child porn. If a site is reported as having images of child abuse then block it straight away, investigate and if the site is clean reinstate it.

I just reported www.google.com. The site is now blocked.

Not see the issue there?

[Whiternoise]

Surely if it's such a serious issue, and indeed it is, then they can afford to have (you wouldn't really need that many people) a few people checking links as they're submitted. You could have a basic whitelist - so that people mucking around can't submit google, microsoft and so on. But the manpower needed really isn't that much. Image hosting sites such as photobucket, flikr and video sites like youtube are pretty efficient themselves at taking down offensive media.

I reckon you could cope with most of the submissions within an hour with about 20 people. And given the amount of money the government is ploughing into this, that's not that many - they'd be on the minimum wage no doubt.

It takes so little effort to go click, flag, click, flag (by the watchdogs based on user submissions) on the sites that need more investigation that there is no sense in having a pre-emptive system.

[TheAnimus]

I am advocating a guilty until proven innocent approach

Now this, this is a problem.

ANY form of guilty until PROVEN innocent, is bad.

Regardless of the the Gardian reading pain behind it.

Pedo's most commonly abuse people in their own families, as such we should ban all people living together, until they've prooved their not a bit gary glitter.

It pains me so much we've got an articulate, apparently educated, large voter base who keep advocating guilty until proven innocent. It is such a horrific idea. But we keep seeing people saying its a good idea.

How many people are raping children right now? What tiny percentage of people is it that are so defective? There is no national pandemic that means everyone should be suspected, the same is true of terror, why do we need to detain people for 3 months without trail?

It was with cheers that ceaser was given emergency powers.

Just remember what Franklin said:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" (well i think thats a paraphrasing, but true).

Now if thats safety against terrorists, pedophiles, or even global warming. It still applies.

[jamin]

I just reported www.google.com. The site is now blocked.

Not see the issue there?

Oh for the love of god. I honestly expected more from you agent, you have not quoted all of what I posted. Of course I see the issue, but didn't think it relevent to my point.

@Whiternoise

Nice one mate, thanks for the constructive input.

@TheAnimus

Very good point well put mate, I hadn't considered the real world implications of the guilty until proven innocent approach. My points related to cyberspace.

Now I understand that if you officially censor one type offensive content, essentially the floodgates could open, but what would it take to trust the censors?

[Whiternoise]

Pedo's most commonly abuse people in their own families, as such we should ban all people living together, until they've prooved their not a bit gary glitter.

I'm not sure a law to make people take tests and trials before they have kids is such a bad idea..

[Splash]

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "any man who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither".

Or something along those lines anyhoo.

[TheAnimus]

Just remember what Franklin said:
"Those Who Sacrifice Liberty For Security Deserve Neither" (well i think thats a paraphrasing, but true).

Now if thats safety against terrorists, pedophiles, or even global warming. It still applies.

I believe it was Ben Franklin who said "any man who would sacrifice freedom for security deserves neither".

Or something along those lines anyhoo.

3 posts above

[Agent]

Oh for the love of god. I honestly expected more from you agent, you have not quoted all of what I posted. Of course I see the issue, but didn't think it relevent to my point.

Hang on, what's not relivant exactly? You're the one propoising "block it straight away".
So are we supposed to be picky about what is blocked under your "innocent until proved guilty" approach? or should multinational corporations be exempt from this?

What "more" did you expect from me? You can't honestly think that you can suggest a innocent until guilty approach and not expect the issues to be pointed out to you surely?

What's the point of quoting your entire post when I was trying to point out the extremes of one section, and how crazy the idea is?

[Splash]

3 posts above

Dammit, I meant to post it t'pther day as well

[jamin]

What "more" did you expect from me? You can't honestly think that you can suggest a innocent until guilty approach and not expect the issues to be pointed out to you surely?

What's the point of quoting your entire post when I was trying to point out the extremes of one section, and how crazy the idea is?

What I originally posted:

. I am advocating a guilty until proven innocent approach with regard to child porn. If a site is reported as having images of child abuse then block it straight away, investigate and if the site is clean reinstate it. (Look I see the holes in that methodology, but its the point I am making thats important.)

This is how you quoted it:

I am advocating a guilty until proven innocent approach with regard to child porn. If a site is reported as having images of child abuse then block it straight away, investigate and if the site is clean reinstate it.

I acknowledged in my post that the idea was flawed mate.