Governments should totally make laws requiring that cancer be cured. Boom. Done. End of problem.
It's like passing a law that requires toaster-makers to produce fully functioning anti-gravity belts, with safeguards against accidentally hitting birds.
So if the company does unintentionally filter out legitimate content, what is the penalty? Presumably it means I can sue them at the very least. Goodbye, British internet!
No, they intended to put the filter in, so they have a good claim that they intentionally filtered legitimate* content. So, no foul.
* "legitimate" is totally the wrong word. What Cameron is proposing doesn't fit the definition, no matter how you twist it. Who is to say an eating disorder website is illegitimate? And that the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue is?
Maybe we should give them three strikes to get it right...
So, when Cameron recounts this episode in his memoir, will the chapter be titled The Long Tail of Fail, or The Ex Cathedra and the Bizarre? ("With enough filters, all porns are shadow.")
Just have all the ISPs include a clause in their bill that says "By paying this bill, you agree to opt-out of all internet censorship and filtering". Boom, problem solved!
Wouldn't this still require primary legislation to go through Parliament? We have a few months until the next session to get out the opposition to this creepy proposal - and don't hope the Labour Party will oppose it, they're even more pro-censorship than the coalition. We have to lobby MPs of all colours to say this is a bad idea.
But if it does become law, we then have to start demanding our ISPs begin blocking the likes of The Daily Mail which is claiming credit for this proposal. There's no way the Sidebar of Shame and Page 3 can be allowed to continue if other sites are going to be blocked. And when that's done, let's really start playing with their minds by demanding that pages featuring dogs and cats are blocked (they're NAKED!) and we can't possibly allow Chiquita bananas to spread their corrupting phallic filth to our children.
Really annoys me that I'll have "parental filters" applied to my broadband connection when I haven't got, and have no intention of ever having, children. Discrimination? Erosion of civil liberties?
How about , since there is no reliable way to selectively filter, just block everything by default, it is the safest. then every customer is forced to "choose" to turn off the filter.
Hey, one American government - one of the states, I think - passed a law defining pi = 3. Never underestimate!
The government knows best, dear. Better a million people be blocked from things they want to view than even one tiny, innocent child sees something that might disturb them even a teensy bit isn't it?
We should thank those brave people who tirelessly view bad pages and take notes on what they find so they can make their filters even better. The government of course will be offering some "suggestions" they will incorporate to help you have a safer Internet experience as time goes by.
We think it's for the best if eventually we don't bother your busy self with notices that you tried to see something we think is bad, but rest assured, we'll be keeping an eye out to help you make wise choices and may even ask you to come in for counseling and correction if you try too hard to see disturbing images and sites or keep searching for stuff that might cause unrest or unnecessary questions..
We really want to make sure nothing upsets you or causes you to worry that the government isn't doing things in the best and safest fashion for your comfort and convenience.
We'll do the deciding so you don't have to, that's true freedom.
To lawmakers and bureaucrats, you will always be our little helpless child who needs protection from the big, bad world. Not that the U.S. is a lot better these days but you do need to recall Brits are "subjects" before they are citizens.
operate filters that do not "unintentionally filter out legitimate content"
Right, if this doesn't show that Cameron is being an obtuse asshole, nothing does.
Also, I'm sure websites like boingboing.net will be "legitimately" filtered because a boobie was shown on here once or twice.
I know corporatists are coming after our Internet, but I thought they'd do it in less obvious, more insidious ways than this. They are getting more and more brazen as time goes, it seems. Then again, why not? They keep getting away with it...
Maybe we should give them three strikes to get it right...
I like that idea, but then they'll just lock up their mistakes with endless bureaucracy and it never reaches a single strike. In other words, they'll simply redefine what a "strike" means (for them), etc.
If it bothers him so much, what Cameron could do is tax the rich (him and his rich buddies for a small percentage) and send out educational packets that help inform parents on how to monitor their children's web surfing and subsidize giving them a free (OPTIONAL) coupon for content filtering software stuff like this:
But, of course, to Cameron... taxing the rich for this would be absolutely obscene.
Wait, if they are required to use filters that don't filter out legitimate content, the only way to guarantee that is to not filter anything. If they are not required to filter out all forbidden naughtiness, then problem solved.
But for fuck's sake! This makes Cameron look even more clueless than usual. And remember, this was they guy who openly mentioned Iran and China as reasons why we need to keep nuclear weapons. The man's a fool.
I hate to keep going on about this, but seriously, I hope enough Scottish people are watching this fiasco and seeing another reason to vote Yes in next year's referendum. We stand a fairly good chance of creating a free country, and they are in short supply.
So the bill was defeated. Score one for the forces of pi.
This post-removal system needs work.
Might one ask if youse could move the border back down to Hadrian's wall if you do? That way I won't have to move house. Ta.
next page →