LinuxQuestions.org
Visit Jeremy's Blog.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General
User Name
Password
General This forum is for non-technical general discussion which can include both Linux and non-Linux topics. Have fun!

Notices


Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 12-08-2008, 09:58 AM   #1
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Rep: Reputation: 115Reputation: 115
Internet censorship is alive and well...in Great Britain


I find this to be intensely troubling:

Quote:
British Internet users have been blocked from accessing an article on popular online encyclopedia Wikipedia over child pornography concerns, the country's Internet watchdog and Wikipedia said Saturday.

Britain's Internet Watch Foundation added a Wikipedia article on a heavy metal music group to its list of banned Web sites because it contained a picture of a nude girl judged to be pornographic, foundation spokeswoman Sarah Robertson said.

Because the foundation's list is widely used by British Internet service providers to filter out child pornography and other illegal content, adding the site to the list effectively made it inaccessible to the vast majority of the British public. Robertson estimated that the foundation's list affected 95 percent of British residential Internet users.
http://articles.lancasteronline.com/...dia_censorship

It is one thing to pass a body of laws that are intended to protect children; it is another thing entirely for an institution or organization to undertake censorship of what you are allowed to view on the 'net.

Freedom of expression is dying throughout the western world, because people no longer want to be free. More properly, every individual wants to be free, but has all kinds of reasons why the people around him shouldn't be free - and acts on those reasons.
 
Old 12-08-2008, 10:14 AM   #2
weibullguy
ReliaFree Maintainer
 
Registered: Aug 2004
Location: Kalamazoo, Michigan
Distribution: Slackware 14.2
Posts: 2,813
Blog Entries: 1

Rep: Reputation: 259Reputation: 259Reputation: 259
Also reported here --> http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_...s?curid=117771
 
Old 12-09-2008, 06:34 AM   #3
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,809
Blog Entries: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Not all British internet users were blocked. Censoring the page and image in question should only upset pedophiles. Did Wikipedia need to show the actual album cover instead of just mentioning it? After all, when the news media report on x number of child porn images being found on X's computer, they don't actually show the images.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 06:51 AM   #4
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
This means two things:
1) There are always anonymous proxy servers.
2) Some people don't know how to block one picture, so they just block wikipedia instead (it was mentioned somewhere that pictuer was on external server, by the way). Which is pretty stupid.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 07:24 AM   #5
FlGator81
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2008
Location: Baltimore
Distribution: Ubuntu
Posts: 65

Rep: Reputation: 21
Today the do-gooders are "protecting" us from child porn. What will they be "protecting" us from tomorrow?
 
Old 12-09-2008, 07:26 AM   #6
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,809
Blog Entries: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
They're not "protecting" us from child porn, they're trying to stop it being freely available for those who get turned on by such stuff.

Last edited by brianL; 12-09-2008 at 07:27 AM.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 07:45 AM   #7
H_TeXMeX_H
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Oct 2005
Location: $RANDOM
Distribution: slackware64
Posts: 12,928
Blog Entries: 2

Rep: Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291Reputation: 1291
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
They're not "protecting" us from child porn, they're trying to stop it being freely available for those who get turned on by such stuff.
and what effect will that have on them ? will this effect be the expected one or intended one ? very few ask these questions

I think they have other reasons.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:13 AM   #8
unSpawn
Moderator
 
Registered: May 2001
Posts: 29,409
Blog Entries: 55

Rep: Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578Reputation: 3578
For those who feel as strongly as the OP does this is "intensely troubling": what do *you* actually do about it?
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:34 AM   #9
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,809
Blog Entries: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Ask yourself: does the censoring of a slightly pornographic image of a naked 10 year old girl by a few ISPs really matter? Given the many threats to freedom in the world today, is that an example to get worked up about? Is it the thin end of the wedge to get more censorship, or the thin end of the wedge to get that sort of thing acceptable? Do you object to any degree of censorship, or do you draw the line somewhere?
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:41 AM   #10
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Speaking of the technical part - how exactly it is possible to block just one page of wikipedia? As I understand it, this page doesn't have separate static IP address. The only thing that comes to mind is squid configuration, but what kind of ISP will provide internet access only through their proxy? There are also "transparent proxies", but, as I understand it, this wouldn't work if user uses tunnel (443 port) to access external proxy. This means it is easily bypassed. So, what is the point of all this?
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:52 AM   #11
SlowCoder
Member
 
Registered: Oct 2004
Location: Southeast, U.S.A.
Distribution: Ubuntu, Mint
Posts: 938

Rep: Reputation: 38
On the technical side, there's no way any ISP is going to be able to block access to anything if people want to get to it. There are, and will always be, ways to get through.

On the pron part, if the image is what they're saying it is, it should be blocked in any way possible. The best way would be for Wikipedia to remove it themselves. If you start allowing even one image of nefarious nature to be displayed as "art", a precedence will be set, and it won't be long before you get whole sites dedicated to the same type of "art".
 
Old 12-09-2008, 08:57 AM   #12
ErV
Senior Member
 
Registered: Mar 2007
Location: Russia
Distribution: Slackware 12.2
Posts: 1,202
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 62
Quote:
Originally Posted by SlowCoder View Post
if the image is what they're saying it is
It depends on which definition of "pornography" they use. IMO image isn't pornographic. At least, not if you use this definition.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 01:07 PM   #13
malcarada
Member
 
Registered: Feb 2008
Distribution: FreeBSD, Debian
Posts: 31

Rep: Reputation: 16
The image is clearly not child porn if it was it would be illegal
in the USA as well.

The British child porn laws are wrong they should scrap them and
stop censoring the internet.

Last edited by malcarada; 12-09-2008 at 01:12 PM.
 
Old 12-09-2008, 01:41 PM   #14
brianL
LQ 5k Club
 
Registered: Jan 2006
Location: Oldham, Lancs, England
Distribution: Slackware & Slackware64 14.2
Posts: 7,809
Blog Entries: 58

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by malcarada View Post
The British child porn laws are wrong they should scrap them and
stop censoring the internet.
Really? You want freely available child porn do you?
 
Old 12-09-2008, 01:54 PM   #15
jiml8
Senior Member
 
Registered: Sep 2003
Posts: 3,171

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: 115Reputation: 115
Quote:
Originally Posted by brianL View Post
Not all British internet users were blocked. Censoring the page and image in question should only upset pedophiles. Did Wikipedia need to show the actual album cover instead of just mentioning it? After all, when the news media report on x number of child porn images being found on X's computer, they don't actually show the images.
Censoring the page and image in question should upset anyone who opposes censorship and wants to have a free and open internet.

Once the precedent is set and accepted, it can be expanded quite easily. If you look into the internet neutrality fight, you will find instance after instance of major telcos censoring internet content in the US for political or business reasons. Examples include AOL blocking emails to AOL subscribers when those emails were critical of AOL's plans to charge for emails, Verizon blocking text messages from a pro-life group to its membership, and another telco (AT&T, I believe) censoring a podcast of a rock concert when the lead singer began making anti-Bush comments on the stage.

ISPs, backbone providers, telcos - ALL of them - need to be forbidden to censor ANY content for ANY reason.
 
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Court Strikes Down Internet Censorship Law LXer Syndicated Linux News 0 07-23-2008 11:20 AM
Wireless card working great.... but no internet??? Adrian Baker Linux - Wireless Networking 14 01-23-2006 05:46 PM
Linux Hosting Britain ... DrNeil Linux - Enterprise 5 06-03-2005 11:32 AM
Cable internet works great after reboot only KMFDM Linux - Newbie 5 04-06-2004 09:18 PM
Getting on the Internet in Britain with Linux Skyline Linux - General 3 07-01-2003 05:13 PM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Non-*NIX Forums > General

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:10 PM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Facebook: linuxquestions Google+: linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration