Great Firewall of Cameron blocks sex-abuse charities


#1

[Permalink]


#2

Can anyone give me an example of the sites that were blocked in error?


#3

Why I am not surprised…

How is it done? What methods people use for workarounds and what’s the level of uptake of the workarounds? How fast do the ISPs move to close the technical holes like they tend to do in China? Do the ISPs conform happily and eagerly, or do they grudgingly drag their feet? Questions, questions, questions…


#4

The article gave an example, I can think of anymore, but I think that cannabis site was NORML UK. As a vehement anti-prohibitionist, I belong to many such sites - and the blocking will have been ‘accidental’ (note quotes). Y’see, I think Big Pharma is now running very scared; it fears it’s losing the battle in America, so it’s doing its utmost to ensure it doesn’t over here. Cannabis oil would, it’s no hyperbole to say, transform my life, it’s the only thing on my mind from the second I wake up to the second I go to bed (that’s only a turn of phrase, because I’ve been unable to get out of bed for over four years, and that is entirely the fault of the NHS).

I believe although, sadly, I can’t prove anything concrete, that CRUK is paying off the government on behalf of Big Pharma. I don’t trust CRUK and I’m far from the only one. Every time I see someone fundraising for it, I just think “if only you knew the truth about what’ll happen to that money…” CRUK’s slogan is ‘Together We’ll Bear Cancer Sooner’ - to which I reply “Really, so why are you doing your utmost to prevent the one thing known to cure it from becoming legal, then…?”

CRUK has even published articles claiming that cannabis CAUSES more cancer than cigs, and I believe that it’s behind many - if not all - the scaremongering in the Fail et al every time the MoDA/weed legalisation is up for debate.

Scumoron knows EXACTLY what he’s doing, this is another of his diversion tactics; he knows full fucking well that no amount of censorship will stop ISIS (and there’s another can o’ slugs; yes I know they’re calling themselves ISIL now, bit he’ll attempt to block every permutation, which means the website for the Egyptology exhibition at the British Museum could have problems, as could the homeless charity Crisis and, if he includes ‘IS’, then it could pretty well take down the entire Web. I don’t think you’ve thought this through, have you Dave…?).

We need anonymising networks like Tor more than ever now (though I’m not ENTIRELY certain I trust Tor 100%, but I can’t find owt else…).

Ah, nowt like a fecking good rant to start t’week - an’ don’t yer worry, there’s plenty more where that came from. Nowt a Yorkshireman likes more than a good moan.

Now, I wonder if I’ll get me knuckles skinned by the off-topic ogre…?


#5

With which ISP must I engage to get a David Cameron blocker?


#6

You need CockBlocker.


#7

You would have thought someone who had been to Oxford would know exactly what Isis means there.


#8

Let’s not make it completely a party-political issue. The Labour Party are still run by the same creepy authoritarians as when they were in government. Both major parties not only fail to understand the Internet, but default to positions of opposing freedom of expression as we saw when they were more than happy to collude on enacting the DRIP legislation without proper scrutiny.


#9

What’s the problem? The Great Firewall of Cameron’s beneficent moral effects will wipe out all sexual abuse, so those charities are nothing but obsolete reminders of a dark time before Strong Leadership cured Great Britain’s moral sickness!


#10

A fair point, well made!


#11

What’s especially irksome is that both of these acronyms were invented by western media - the actual group call themselves neither of these things.


#12

I read somewhere that Cameron was a shareholder in the company that makes Sativex but can’t find anything through google now…


#13

You don’t need to work around it, you just turn it off. There is no single content filter, each ISP has their own parental controls, which you currently have to choose whether or not you want them when you sign up.

Cory refers to TalkTalk’s filter as “mandatory” in the article, but it’s the choice of whether or not you want it that is becoming mandatory, not the filter itself. If you are a TalkTalk (or soon, Sky) customer, and you haven’t already chosen to either enable or disable the parental filter, you’ll be asked to make a decision when browsing and that decision saved.

I think parental filters tend towards the utterly pointless and certainly overblock content, but this post seems to conflate multiple events to make it sound like there’s a single inescapable blocking system mandated by the government, which currently does not exist; ignoring, for a moment, the court orders that have been used to block certain torrent sites at the DNS level, but that’s another issue, which is certainly more deplorable than the decision on whether or not to enable parental filters. Referring to a “Great Firewall of Cameron” and misdescribing a choice as mandatory muddies the entire issue and makes it more difficult to discuss this rationally.

The sites that have been overblocked, such as sex-abuse charities, GBLT support sites, NORML, and more, were blocked by individual ISPs parental filters and not some government mandated list of Evil Sites™ and as far as I’m aware, all of those who have complained to the ISPs have had their sites removed from the respective lists.

I am certainly not in favour of the way this has been implemented (if anything, simply because parental filters are by their very nature crap and their weaknesses are never explained to users being asked to make a choice on enabling them by ISPs) and I am categorically opposed to DNS-level blocks imposed by court order, but fear mongering about the issue and spreading misinformation makes it harder to properly discuss and counter it.


#14

True in most of the use cases here. However, you may be in a situation where the unblocking is impossible or unfeasible to ask for, or the law changes, or a million other speculative cases. Better have technical measures up our sleeves, for the cases when an unilateral no-negotiation opt-out is the top choice.


#15

This topic was automatically closed after 5 days. New replies are no longer allowed.