This is no victory

December 20, 2012 13 Comments
By

The Mail seems to believe that it’s campaign to get the government to censor the internet for parents rather than parents doing it for themselves is a good thing. You’d think that by now people would have realised that giving any government control of something usually leads to unforeseen circumstances such as the government using the legislation in ways that no one ever anticipated.

Mail.

Children will be protected by a block on online pornography which parents will have to choose to have lifted, David Cameron vows today.
After weeks of confusion over the Government’s plans to protect youngsters, the Prime Minister makes clear that under the proposals, web filters will be ‘default on’ for houses with children.
In an article for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister says it is ‘utterly appalling’ that so many children have been exposed to the ‘darkest corners’ of the internet, adding: ‘A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got.’
He announces that Conservative MP Claire Perry, who has led the campaign for a broader, automatic block on adult material for all internet users, is to be appointed as his adviser on reversing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood.
She will be in charge of implementing the new web filter system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.

Anyone remember the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act? Remember how we were told it was ‘necessary’ in the fight against terrorism to be used to monitor suspected terrorists? Remember also the use it was put too in checking litter bin use, peoples locations vis school catchment areas…

Derby City Council, Bolton, Gateshead and Hartlepool all used RIPA powers to snoop on dog fouling, and Bolton used powers under the Act to investigate littering.

The most prolific user of the Act in 2008 was Durham County Council which used the legislation 131 times almost exclusively against traders suspected of selling counterfeit goods or suspected of selling age-restricted products to kids.

Anyone want to bet that as soon as the government can force ISP’s to censor their content that the range of content that can actually be censored will increase to the point where any criticism of the government or anything they don’t want us to see is included?

Think we’d discover about MP’s expense scandals, Islamic grooming gangs, social services ‘disasters’ even mention of the family courts scandal?

Well we would, though we’d have to go via various unblocked sites (probably based abroad) to get it. It’s not like the UK’s attempt to block the Pirate Bay was terribly successful. I’m pretty sure that most bloggers and other net savvy individuals will find things out, but ordinary people???

Asking governments to take on powers it really ought not to have is a recipe of disaster because there is always mission creep and frankly politicians cannot be trusted, one government might initially behave itself but the next one?

The Mail may be crowing about victory, but this is no victory at all, they’ve just campaigned for the government to have the power to censor them.

 

13 Responses to This is no victory

  1. Andrew Duffin
    December 20, 2012 at 11:50 am

    And here’s another slippery slope that we are already progressing down nicely: Secret courts.

    Originally, they would only be for cases where National Security was seriously at risk. Remember that?

    Well, the day before yesterday, they were suddenly going to be used in cases of “serious crime and terrorism”. A good long slide down the slope there!

    And yesterday the creature Ken Clarke said that they “could” (read “would”) be used in all cases where someone is claiming damages against the MoD.

    Tomorrow – ALL cases agains the gummint.

    Soon – all cases where it suits that PTB to do so.

    See why it’s so important not to give the State an inch?

  2. Tatty
    December 20, 2012 at 2:00 pm

    ‘A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got.’

    State Sex Education with all associated websites and literature exempt, of course.

  3. December 20, 2012 at 3:19 pm

    We should immediately start a campaign to have the Daily Mail celebrity peek-a-boo proto-porn and the Sun’s page 3 censored as part of the banning. Bloody idiots! If ever there was a case of ‘be careful what you wish for’ this is it.

    • Loki
      December 20, 2012 at 3:55 pm

      I agree. How fucking ironic would it be if the first sites to be banned were those who had ‘fought’ for censorship. Lets takes down the Fail and Sun!!! :twisted:

  4. Mark in Mayenne
    December 20, 2012 at 4:13 pm

    I doubt that the msm will worry too much about not being allowed to publish anything the goverment doesn’t like. Do they do any good investgative journalism these days?

    • December 20, 2012 at 4:22 pm

      Not often, no.

  5. December 20, 2012 at 4:23 pm

    “She will be in charge of implementing the new web filter system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls.”

    How?!?

  6. December 20, 2012 at 4:26 pm

    And what’s ‘a house with children’? How is it defined?

    Will you have to notify your ISP if you give birth?
    Are you ‘a house with children’ if you are an elderly couple who have grandkids over to stay?

    They clearly haven’t thought this through. It’s as unworkable as the Jobsearch website in Longrider’s post…

    • ivan
      December 20, 2012 at 9:31 pm

      As I said in the comments to the DM article, How do they know if it is a house with children?

  7. December 20, 2012 at 5:20 pm

    Actually I just noticed something else in DC’s article. It doesn’t talk about ISP lines it says when parents buy a new computer they will be asked these questions when they switch it on.
    So who will pay the cost of making Microsoft, linux, Android and all the other operating systems compliant with a UK requirement to build in this feature?

  8. Fluffy the Destroyer
    December 20, 2012 at 8:36 pm

    You are all totally correct of course. When any law of this kind comes along, it is not a case of IF it is abused, it is ALWAYS a case of WHEN it is abused.

    They don’t like the likes of us, and one way or another they will silence us. They have (your) money, lawyers, power and the police. You are someone sitting in the livingroom.

  9. December 21, 2012 at 10:13 am

    You’d think that by now people would have realised that giving any government control of something usually leads to unforeseen circumstances

    People are blind.

    • Furor Teutonicus
      December 21, 2012 at 5:39 pm

      No. They are not blind, they are imbicilically stupid.

      Look at the comments pages.

      The stupid mother fuckers actualy thing it is a GOOD idea!

United Kingdom Time

Subscribe

Email us at contact orphans of liberty [all one word] at gmail dot com

Authors

For more about these renegades, click on the name to go to a short profile:

AK Haart
Churchmouse
James Higham
JuliaM
The Quiet Man

Orphans logo


Feel free to take this for your sidebar.