Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

torrentfreak.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

121–130 of 176 posts

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#121

Post by Karunamon »

gknoy wrote: post #115
Karunamon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.

Does opt-in vs opt-out make a difference, though, once they have enough data? If oppression or data misuse is the goal, it seems like reversing the set selection criteria would be a trivial way of getting the list of people who like their ${badstuff}, even if they did not opt out of a filter": # obviously not real sql select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list) What am I missing?

Probably the fact that only a minority will actually opt in. Requiring positive action almost ensures that miniscule amounts of people will change from the default.

    (defaultsetting_users) > (nondefaultsetting_users)
..regardless of how desirable the non default setting is.

This, for instance, is why Windows Update got a lot more forceful in its later incarnations. People will not update, even when it's good for them, unless you make it hard to not update.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#122

Post by tetrep »

jivatmanx wrote: post #100
InclinedPlane wrote: post #23

This deserves a lot more of a response but for now I'll just leave this: Liberty is about the ability of the individual to do things that others disapprove of. You don't need liberty if everyone else approves of your actions. As a corollary, the exercise of liberty does not require a justification, because it's a liberty, practicality or "usefulness" or what-have-you play no part in it. It's onerous to require someon…

>People often dismiss out of hand the notion that tyranny could possibly take hold over the first world democracies of the west in the 21st century I think that the two most famous tyrannies, the Nazis and the USSR, have given us a very narrow impression of how tyranny can take hold. We think, as long as there isn't a charismatic Hitler/Lenin figure agitating for revolution and preaching a radical ideology, that we'r…

>We think, as long as there isn't a charismatic Hitler/Lenin figure agitating for revolution and preaching a radical ideology, that we're safe.

i think this is exactly the delusion most suffer from, because there are many people consolidating power instead of just one the concept of tyranny seems farfetched and alien. there isn't a clear target beyond "the government" that is the source of the power creep and so people struggle to fight against it, much like a lion trying to catch a zebra (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zebra#Stripes)

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#123

Post by jlgreco »

tomhschmidt wrote: post #87
markbao wrote: post #65

The terrifying reality of censorship, as told through the lens of that of China: "I knew of some Chinese migrants to Australia who watched a Tiananmen 10-year anniversary documentary, and apparently tears just streamed down their faces. They had no clue that it ever happened ."

Uhhh maybe they came from a Tier 3 city or something. Most Chinese I have talked to know about Tiananmen

Maybe they did. Does that explanation mute the concern?

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#124

Post by cinquemb »

Afforess wrote: post #120
cinquemb wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even so, there are a lot of flaws within it unless some people are considered 3/5ths of persons on the basis of their skin. The idea is to transcend, not regress…

That crap got tacked on at the end in the name of compromise. You should read the first drafts some time.

But it existed, and was the law of the land for some time right?

But I guess since it was tacked on in the end in the name of a compromise all is forgiven, as people can tell from the current state of affairs today.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#125

Post by pyrocat »

gknoy wrote: post #115
Karunamon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.

Does opt-in vs opt-out make a difference, though, once they have enough data? If oppression or data misuse is the goal, it seems like reversing the set selection criteria would be a trivial way of getting the list of people who like their ${badstuff}, even if they did not opt out of a filter": # obviously not real sql select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list) What am I missing?

Human behavior. If you've got a population and you tell them to do X or they'll be labeled a criminal, you'll still have huge swaths of people who won't do X because of laziness, apathy, and/or ignorance. That's why opt-in vs. opt-out makes a such a big difference. Making this opt-in by default makes it extremely easy to target those who opt-out (and make judgements based on that action), but impossible to say anything remotely accurate about those who took no action.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#126

Post by pessimizer »

josh2600 wrote: post #103
InclinedPlane wrote: post #23

This deserves a lot more of a response but for now I'll just leave this: Liberty is about the ability of the individual to do things that others disapprove of. You don't need liberty if everyone else approves of your actions. As a corollary, the exercise of liberty does not require a justification, because it's a liberty, practicality or "usefulness" or what-have-you play no part in it. It's onerous to require someon…

You make a number of excellent points, but the distinction you're drawing is actually more broad than just justification of liberty. Anytime one makes a differentiation between two things, beauty and ugliness, skill and stupidity, light and dark, one is making a value judgement. The act of segregation, in and of itself, implies evaluation, weighing and judgement. I believe that prejudgement (or prejudice) is antithet…

Because Cameron and Osbourne have trashed the economy, and are looking for a distraction? Wouldn't hurt to throw in a crackdown on violent video games - or maybe video nasties; New Zealand just banned Maniac, so there's a good one to put across the cover of The Sun.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#127

Post by pyrocat »

cLeEOGPw wrote: post #7

If the block itself is only a technical measure, it only boosts alternative access methods. But if they make it illegal to do things like watch port or download torrents without government permission, like they do now with the requirement to hand over private encryption keys to the officials require them, then GB will become worse than China in the freedom of information flow aspect.

Baby steps.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#128

Post by legutierr »

jivatmanx wrote: post #100
InclinedPlane wrote: post #23

This deserves a lot more of a response but for now I'll just leave this: Liberty is about the ability of the individual to do things that others disapprove of. You don't need liberty if everyone else approves of your actions. As a corollary, the exercise of liberty does not require a justification, because it's a liberty, practicality or "usefulness" or what-have-you play no part in it. It's onerous to require someon…

>People often dismiss out of hand the notion that tyranny could possibly take hold over the first world democracies of the west in the 21st century I think that the two most famous tyrannies, the Nazis and the USSR, have given us a very narrow impression of how tyranny can take hold. We think, as long as there isn't a charismatic Hitler/Lenin figure agitating for revolution and preaching a radical ideology, that we'r…

Sheldon Woldon at Princeton has been writing about similar ideas for some time, although he makes more of an economic argument:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#129

Post by BecauseWeCan »

gknoy wrote: post #115
Karunamon wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.

Does opt-in vs opt-out make a difference, though, once they have enough data? If oppression or data misuse is the goal, it seems like reversing the set selection criteria would be a trivial way of getting the list of people who like their ${badstuff}, even if they did not opt out of a filter": # obviously not real sql select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list) What am I missing?

You have three groups, those who care strongly about seeing ${badstuff}, people who don't care enough to change the default, people who care strongly about not seeing the ${badstuff}.

By making it opt-out, you will get only those that feel strongly about seeing it. By making it opt-in, and following your query, you won't be able to separate those that really want to see it, from those that really don't care.

The group that doesn't care is big enough to make a difference.

Re: UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

#130

Post by Tichy »

ollysb wrote: post #76

Slightly tin-foil, but any thoughts on the timing of this story? The intersection between those talking about the NSA and those that will be angered by the introduction of internet censorship is pretty perfect.

You mean the birth of a royal baby? Is the filter even still in the news in the UK now?
Post reply on HN