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

Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

goawaycameron.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

131–140 of 166 posts

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#131

Post by pbhjpbhj »

gaius wrote: post #112
rmc wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you imagine what would happen tho' if a bloke was reading a porn mag That does happen. The likes of "Nuts" or "Zoo". Most of those lads mags are as pornographic. The double stardard is that if a straight woman has lots of sex, she's a slut who should be ashamed; yet if a straight man has lots of sex, he's a stud and should be congratulated.

I have not read either of them but I suspect we may have different definitions of pornographic . Are we talking photos of actual sexual activity here, or just girls in their underwear? Do you consider Page 3 to be porn?

Pornography is defined by intention of the producer or by the action of the viewer/consumer. Page 3 is porn because it's designed to be sexually titillating. A picture which was taken showing someone's feet, say, may have been taken without any desire to be sexual but nonetheless can be used as pornography.

Nuts and Zoo and what have you have photos which are intended to be sexually enticing, ergo they're [soft] porn.

Generally the demos can control [via the government, to an extent] the production of works intended to be pornographic but not the private use of pornography.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#132

Post by elohesra »

keithpeter wrote: post #89
summerdown2 wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the dystopian worry isn't that they're giving individuals access to filtering software. That would be a worthy goal. 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…

>> ...we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children." Good quote, thanks. We need simple phrases like that to get past the Daily Fail/Porno Perverts consensus in the UK.

Hear hear, it was very eloquent, and I'll be using it in a letter to my MP.

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.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#133

Post by pbhjpbhj »

alan_cx wrote: post #19
treerock wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt it. Or I'm going to have some trouble. I reckon a large proportion of people will opt out and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to remove the opt out option in the future.

I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want access to porn. It has nothing what so ever to do with protecting children. The UK gov is enforcing a morality on the UK people which frankly its rarely applies to its self. Also, BT are going to or are blocking proxy and proxy info sites. Why would any one want to…

>Why would any one want to opt in to that? //

Come on, seriously are you saying you can't imagine why?

If you don't block proxies then you may as well not block anything. Regardless of whether you think not blocking anything is the better way - surely you can see why people would want to block porn on their internet connections?

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#134

Post by pbhjpbhj »

c0n5pir4cy wrote: post #23
mschuster91 wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

IIRC even the small providers have to implement filtering with the IWF blacklist, so there's no way to get a filter-free experience.

There's a UK ISP called Andrews and Arnold that will give you a filter free experience with the caveat that you have to filter your own network, but they are not really a home ISP as such.

Presumably they still block the sites like ThePirateBay for which court orders have been made?

I asked this last time A&A were mentioned, still haven't found an answer, just curious?

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#135

Post by pbhjpbhj »

dijit wrote: post #41
gygygy wrote: post #32

Tor.

Tor. except where your exit node is another machine in the UK, or you need faster than dial-up speeds. How long until this is also illegal?

Surely the only way to make Tor [or similar] illegal is to make encrypted connections illegal?

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#136

Post by hahainternet »

colinbartlett wrote: post #108
DanBC wrote: post #87

This thread elegantly demonstrates the problem. Most people - even in a technical audience with a deep interest in the subject - have no fucking clue what's actually happen nor how it's happening. This is how stupid laws get passed. People don't bother to write the correct letters to the correct people to get the stupid laws stopped. I find it profoundly depressing to realise that so few people know what the filters…

As an American, I haven't paid much attention to this until now. Can you please enlighten us?

ISPs are implementing optional filters that are no different to the standard 'Protect yer kiddies' software ones. They're doing this ostensibly to avoid regulation and government interference.

Because of this, lots of people are decrying regulation and government interference. It's quite frustrating.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#137

Post by hahainternet »

madaxe_again wrote: post #84
DanBC wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken metal. Were we bad actors, You were bad actors. A serious criminal offence had been committed and you not only didn't report it, but you destroyed the evidence.

And whom exactly would have been pursued? The directors of the defunct company who had variously jumped the country or disappeared? Or us, for being in possession of such data? Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

> Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

Kafka does not run the criminal justice system. Your actions are disgraceful.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#139

Post by DanBC »

summerdown2 wrote: post #74
DanBC wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are different filters. Some of them already have granularity. > 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.

The difference being that this is centrally controlled. Because of this, it's speed of censorship will be much quicker. 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. Whate…

> The difference being that this is centrally controlled

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.

Re: Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

#140

Post by hahainternet »

nly wrote: post #120
alan_cx wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want access to porn. It has nothing what so ever to do with protecting children. The UK gov is enforcing a morality on the UK people which frankly its rarely applies to its self. Also, BT are going to or are blocking proxy and proxy info sites. Why would any one want to…

Exactly. In an opt-in system, enabled means "they displayed a preference against incidental access to porn" and disabled means "they've never bothered to change it". In an opt-out system enabled means "they've never bothered to change it" and disabled means "this guy irresponsibly exposes his kids to sleaze, and spends his free time downloading demeaning hardcore pornography". We all know that, at some point, the sta…

The slippery slopes being written out in this thread are beyond comedy into absolute absurdity.
Post reply on HN