IMPORTANT - 'UK.gov says: Regulate the internet' -- This means no more internet porn

[Yandros]

The US, CA, EU and AU government and pushing similar censorship adgendas. They want to turn the internet into a controlled mainstream, like TV, radio or newspaper where you can't break their rules about content.

Unless we have protests against internet censorship, this spells the death of the internet porn industry.


The article:
(google 'UK.gov says: Regulate the internet' to get the original source article)

UK.gov says: Regulate the internet

Eradicate smut and unemployment

By John Ozimek ? Get more from this author

Posted in Government, 20th October 2008 08:57 GMT

As unemployment looks set to soar in the months ahead, quangocrat and soon to be outgoing head of Ofcom Lord David Currie appears to have discovered a cunning plan to find jobs for tens of thousands. The time for regulating the internet is nigh ? and Ofcom could be the body to do it.

In fairness, Lord Currie seems merely to be recognising a change in political direction. Until very recently, the government approach to internet content was mostly hands off. This is no longer so, as recent initiatives on terror, suicide and porn all indicate.

Answering questions from the floor at the Royal Television Society conference in London last month, Minister for Truth Andy Burnham said:

"The time has come for perhaps a different approach to the internet. I want to even up that see-saw, even up the regulation [imbalance] between the old and the new."

The idea that the internet was "beyond legal reach" and a "space where governments can't go" was no longer the case.

In his final annual lecture for Ofcom last week Lord Currie expressed a belief that tighter regulation was coming. He said: "Ask most legislators today and, where they think about it, they will say that period [of forbearance] is coming to an end."

His comments are not so much a call for a new role for Ofcom as a recognition that such a role may be coming. A spokesperson for Ofcom added that decisions would need to be taken by the government, particularly as to where any new regulatory responsibility would lie.

Ofcom is not pitching for such responsibility. Rather it is highlighting the importance of issues that are likely to arise from this new government direction.

One such issue is just how practical it would be to put in place any form of regulation based on site ? or even page ? classification.

According to Andy Burnham, the introduction of a ratings system for internet content would not be "over-burdensome". We have asked the Ministry of Truth (aka Department for Culture, Media and Sport) on several occasions how such a system might work and how its Minister?s view that such regulation would be easy to implement could be squared with general consensus that it would be unworkable. Or, as one expert put it: "bonkers". We asked again last week.

The Ministry did not feel they could elucidate further. A spokesperson explained that as the UK Council for Child Safety on the Internet had only just been set up, and would be making recommendations about regulating the internet in due course, "it wouldn't be helpful or appropriate for us to speculate about what those recommendations might be".

In other words, Ministerial speculation is okay, but speculating about speculation is not. The Reg took up the challenge and with the help of a pencil and the back of an envelope came to some startling conclusions.

Youtube puts up approximately 10 hours ? or 600 minutes ? of new content every minute. Classifying that material would take 600 people watching 24 hours a day. Assuming that individuals could function productively for six hours, YouTube has just gained an additional 2,400 employees.

They would also need managing, and if the decisions they were called upon to take were more challenging than a simple adult/non-adult divide, a large number of extra bodies would be required to ponder borderline decisions made.

That takes the total extra staff to 3,000, maybe 4,000-plus ? for just the one company. But while YouTube is the largest and most obvious recipient of government attention, the same principles would hold with any web site that hosted significant amounts of user-generated content.

Once material has been classified, there is then the small issue of applying that classification. The IWF has been engaged in discussion with the government about a possible future role for it in the policing of extreme porn. According to the IWF, there would be a certain reluctance to add potential extreme porn sites to their filtering system as they fear that the numbers involved would be too large and the result would most likely be a serious degradation of service.

A similar conclusion has been reached by Australian ISP?s, which fear that the government there is about to impose compulsory content filtering on them.

A report in January of this year suggests that filtering at the levels now being proposed would cripple internet speed.

Thankfully, not every Member of Parliament is quite so gung ho when it comes to internet content. Don Foster, LibDem Spokesperson for Culture, Media and Sport said: "Andy Burnham?s comments reveal his naivety about the online world. While people justifiably have anxieties about internet content, and we are right to address issues such as child safety online, our response to this should not be to apply inappropriate regulations to the medium."

[Sarah_Jayne]

So, some member of the House of Lords gives a lecture about something that might happen and how the company he is giving the lecture to might be able to be involved in what might happen. Then that company says it isn't really even pushing for that power and we jump right to it being signed into law?

[JamesK]

Won't happen.

[Yandros]

Already happening in Australia, where I live.

for original article, google: Aussies to get no opt-out of filtered internet

Aussies to get no opt-out of filtered internet
Under the government's Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists
By Darren Pauli, Auckland | Tuesday, 21 October, 2008

Australians will be unable to opt-out of the government's pending internet content filtering scheme, and will instead be placed on a watered-down blacklist, experts say.

Under the government's A$125.8 million (NZ$142 million) Plan for Cyber-Safety, users can switch between two blacklists which block content inappropriate for children, and a separate list which blocks illegal material.

Pundits say consumers have been lulled into believing the opt-out proviso would remove content filtering altogether.

The government will iron-out policy and implementation of the internet content filtering software following an upcoming trial of the technology, according to the Department of Broadband, Communications and the Digital Economy.

Department spokesman Tim Marshall said the filters will be mandatory for all Australians.

?Labor?s plan for cyber-safety will require ISPs to offer a clean feed internet service to all homes, schools and public internet points accessible by children,? Marshall said.

?The upcoming field pilot of ISP filtering technology will look at various aspects of filtering, including effectiveness, ease of circumvention, the impact on internet access speeds and cost.?

Internet Service Providers (ISPs) contacted by Computerworld say blanket content filtering will cripple internet speeds because the technology is not up to scratch.

Online libertarians claim the blacklists could be expanded to censor material such as euthanasia, drugs and protest.

Internode network engineer Mark Newton said many users falsely believe the opt-out proviso will remove content filtering.

?Users can opt-out of the 'additional material' blacklist (referred to in a department press release, which is a list of things unsuitable for children, but there is no opt-out for 'illegal content'?, Newton said.

?That is the way the testing was formulated, the way the upcoming live trials will run, and the way the policy is framed; to believe otherwise is to believe that a government department would go to the lengths of declaring that some kind of internet content is illegal, then allow an opt-out.

?Illegal is illegal and if there is infrastructure in place to block it, then it will be required to be blocked ? end of story.?

Newton said advisers to Communications Minister Stephen Conroy have told ISPs that internet content filtering will be mandatory for all users.

The government reported it does not expected to prescribe which filtering technologies ISPs can use, and will only set blacklists of filtered content, supplied by the Australia Communications and Media Authority (ACMA).

EFA chair Dale Clapperton said in a previous article that internet content filtering could lead to censorship of drugs, political dissident and other legal freedoms.

?Once the public has allowed the system to be established, it is much easier to block other material,? Clapperton said.

According to preliminary trials, the best internet content filters would incorrectly block about 10,0000 web pages from one million.

[The Duck]

Just another step in the totalitarian tiptoe towards global control.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by kandah

Just another step in the totalitarian tiptoe towards global control.

Its absolutely essential that we keep the internet open. Without the internet governments can do whatever they want and no one will ever know.

Hopefully people will catch on to their censorship plans and start protesting.

[Scott McD]

Well isn't that just great...

[Barefootsies]

Let them try.

This will be the exact catalist most of the US, and UK need to get their citizens off their lazy asses and start a revolt and uprising long over due.

Bring it on. Time to wake up the masses.

[halfpint]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Let them try.

This will be the exact catalist most of the US, and UK need to get their citizens off their lazy asses and start a revolt and uprising long over due.

Bring it on. Time to wake up the masses.

Agree but the Brits dont do shit about anything apart from sit on thier asses and complain. The French on the other hand dont take any shit from thier Goverment... They strike

[scottybuzz]

Originally Posted by halfpint

Agree but the Brits dont do shit about anything apart from sit on thier asses and complain. The French on the other hand dont take any shit from thier Goverment... They strike

France don't give a shit about the internet, they have better things to do with their time.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by Barefootsies

Let them try.

This will be the exact catalist most of the US, and UK need to get their citizens off their lazy asses and start a revolt and uprising long over due.

Bring it on. Time to wake up the masses.

We can have the revolt AND the internet. The very fact that they are trying to censor the internet is cause for revolt.

Spread the articles out to people. If everyone tells two people then the information goes viral and we have a better chance of holding on to the internet, our freedom, and our $$$.

[Sarah_Jayne]

read it..it is think tanking

[pigman]

Darknet ftw

[GregE]

For what it's worth, Obama has gone on record as being opposed to censorship.

Depending on how things go this November, that promise may well be put to the test sooner rather than later

[INever]

If mandated filters block all torrent and tube sites but allow for non-explicit tours I'd say that's a win win. The problem with this industry is we don't have lobbyists helping to write the legistlation.

[AtlantisCash]

France Governers also keep saying that since sometime, thats why i don't like France Government, Everybody should do something to censorship, Nobody have right to remove freedom of internet, need a big reaction from preventing this...

[buzzy]

Originally Posted by halfpint

Agree but the Brits dont do shit about anything apart from sit on thier asses and complain. The French on the other hand dont take any shit from thier Goverment... They strike

There would be riots on the streets of London if they done this to the internet, 100%

[tony286]

I told you guys, that all these full free scenes would cause this. Old politicians don't understand forums, p2p, rapid share or news groups. My grandmother could understand a tube.

[notoldschool]

Mccain has been pushing this for years. If he is elected this article will go from big talk to FACT. I love morans who call themselves adult webmasters who are voting republican. If I went to shows i might be tempted to spit in someones face for being so fucking ignorant. People will always say this is tin foil talk but those are the idiots who will be saying I cant believe they did it. its coming fo sho.

[Yandros]

Originally Posted by notoldschool

Mccain has been pushing this for years. If he is elected this article will go from big talk to FACT. I love morans who call themselves adult webmasters who are voting republican. If I went to shows i might be tempted to spit in someones face for being so fucking ignorant. People will always say this is tin foil talk but those are the idiots who will be saying I cant believe they did it. its coming fo sho.

I know, its patently ridiculous how self deceptive people are.

I predict they will try bring their filter in by the end of the year, in Australia where I live.

Google nocleanfeed for the anti censorship movement which is starting up in Australia.

[Manowar]

they've been saying this for ages

[Rochard]

Yeah, I'm sure they said this about porn mags in the 1970s too. It's called Freedom Of Speech.

[rowan]

I run a web crawler that indexes about 150 million sites every month or two. If AU enforce the blacklist then I'll easily be able to see which sites are blocked... bring it on!!!

[ukxtra]

Originally Posted by buzzy

There would be riots on the streets of London if they done this to the internet, 100%

Yeah course there would, as long as it's not raining, or snowing, or too windy or too warm or......

[GatorB]

Originally Posted by Yandros

I know, its patently ridiculous how self deceptive people are.

I predict they will try bring their filter in by the end of the year, in Australia where I live.

Google nocleanfeed for the anti censorship movement which is starting up in Australia.

OK first of all in Austrailia they have filters not an outright ban on porn which would be impossible. Secondly within 45 minutes of the filters being in place some 13 year old will have hacked them. CP is illegal in the US and yet the government still can't prevent people from acessing it on the internet so how are they going to ban porn?

[marcjacob]

Originally Posted by Sarah_MaxCash

So, some member of the House of Lords gives a lecture about something that might happen and how the company he is giving the lecture to might be able to be involved in what might happen. Then that company says it isn't really even pushing for that power and we jump right to it being signed into law?

Your are correct, but this is GFY. Why let common sense get in the way of a good sig spot.

[AlienQ - BANNED FOR LIFE]

Those guys in the House of Lords or what ever must be on some pretty serious drugs.
Pipe dreams from hell and it's pretty funny they managed to write the meeting down on paper high as fuck with a wack job of an idea. Then on top of it all get it out to the press. I guess they will be losing some credibility soon.

[marcjacob]

Originally Posted by kandah

Just another step in the totalitarian tiptoe towards global control.

Do you ever read the quotes made? Or do you just assume that it backs up your bizarre belief that the EU want to control the world?

You need to get out more

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by Rochard

Yeah, I'm sure they said this about porn mags in the 1970s too. It's called Freedom Of Speech.

Actually..when I moved here hardcore magazines were censored and you couldn't buy actual hardcore porn videos in a sex shop. People still did and imported things but it wasn't legal. That was only 12 years ago and thing have changed but porn mags were regulated here.

[Sarah_Jayne]

Originally Posted by AlienQ

Those guys in the House of Lords or what ever must be on some pretty serious drugs.
Pipe dreams from hell and it's pretty funny they managed to write the meeting down on paper high as fuck with a wack job of an idea. Then on top of it all get it out to the press. I guess they will be losing some credibility soon.

Okay..a lecture is like being invited to talk to a school not actual policy discussion. Heck, Ron Jermey gave a lecture to Oxford a few years back.

[Tat2Jr]

Originally Posted by notoldschool

Mccain has been pushing this for years. If he is elected this article will go from big talk to FACT. I love morans who call themselves adult webmasters who are voting republican. If I went to shows i might be tempted to spit in someones face for being so fucking ignorant. People will always say this is tin foil talk but those are the idiots who will be saying I cant believe they did it. its coming fo sho.

Word. We're only one or two votes away from gutting the 1st amendment.... will only take 1 or 2 supreme court fillings to do it. Those 1 or 2 are coming sooner rather then later. Kennedy, Souter, and Breyer are McCain's age (IE - knocking on death's door). If McCain/Palin are in power those justices are gonna be molds of Scalia and Roberts. Not good. Not good at all - and these republican adult webmaster's reasons for not protecting themselves from this possible dangerous tilting to the left of the court are just plain ignorant.