TG-1 * Transgallaxys Forum 1

Die SUPER-NAZIS --- Hitlers Erben --- Sie sind mitten unter uns => Das IT-Netzwerk des heutigen Terrorismus => Topic started by: Krant on July 28, 2013, 11:16:58 AM

Title: UK superspies its own citizens: 1 CCTV camera per 32 citizens
Post by: Krant on July 28, 2013, 11:16:58 AM

UK Prime Minister calls for further Web Blocking
July 27, 2013 · by Ed · in Europe, Pirate Party News

In a widely criticised move, this week David Cameron (The UK’s Prime Minister) indicated his intention to force Britain’s ISPs to filter pornography, this would be achieved by making account holders “opt in” for access to otherwise black-listed sites on the public web.

The Prime Minister also demanded that Search companies (such as Google, Yahoo and Bing) do more to block images of child abuse, including the blocking of search terms.Threatening poster at UK railway stations about CCTV

Announcements such as this do not come as much of a surprise to many activists and campaigners in the UK, who have been warning about the creep of such measures for years. What is surprising, however, is that the announcement came not from self-appointed “protectors of decency”, but instead from a Prime Minister whose government has been rapidly expanding the proliferation of “Open Data” and, as pointed out in an open letter by Pirate Party UK, flies in the face of the results of their own consultation released in December 2012, sourced from the industry, experts, charities and parents.

The industry and campaigners have been warning that the sort of blocking increasingly seen in the UK over the past 12 months is both ineffective and dangerous. In a nation where there is estimated to be one CCTV camera per 32 citizens and where there were threats to “switch off” Social Networking websites during last year’s unrest in London which was swiftly mimicked in other UK cities, campaigners will increasingly have their work cut out.


It is likely that Mr Cameron will realise how unworkable his proposals are, and after conversations with the industry and campaigners followed by a series of increasingly vague speeches on the subject, they will be quietly dropped in the run-up to the UK’s general election in 2015. However, once proposals like this are mooted, headlines grabbed and knees jerked, they become “normalised” in the minds of the electorate and become one step closer to blind acceptance.

So will the UK become a filtered state in the near future? We will be keeping a close eye and reporting on any developments.
Title: Stasi Cameron and his forced Sleepwalking into censorship
Post by: Krant on July 30, 2013, 01:42:13 PM
In support of the Britons' defense against Stasi Cameron censorship I pass on this blog entry:

July 25, 2013 | Jim Killock
Sleepwalking into censorship

After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK's "pornwall" we've established a little bit about what it will be doing. To be fair, the BBC were pretty close.

The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled. As we’ve said repeatedly, it’s not just about hardcore pornography.

You'll encounter something like this:

EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs

(1) Screen one

"Parental controls"
Do you want to install / enable parental controls
☑ yes
☐ no


(2) Screen two [if you have left the box ticked]

“Parental controls”

Do you want to block

☑ pornography
☑ violent material
☑ extremist and terrorist related content
☑ anorexia and eating disorder websites
☑ suicide related websites
☑ alcohol
☑ smoking
☑ web forums
☑ esoteric material
☑ web blocking circumvention tools

You can opt back in at any time


The precise pre-ticked options may vary from service to service.

What's clear here is that David Cameron wants people to sleepwalk into censorship. We know that people stick with defaults: this is part of the idea behind 'nudge theory'
and 'choice architecture' that is popular with Cameron.

The implication is that filtering is good, or at least harmless, for anyone, whether adult or child. Of course, this is not true; there's not just the question of false positives for web users, but the affect on a network economy of excluding a proportion of a legitimate website's audience.

There comes a point that it is simply better to place your sales through Amazon and ebay, and circulate your news and promotions exclusively through Facebook and Twitter, as you know none of these will ever be filtered.

Meanwhile ISPs face the unenviable customer relations threat of increased complaints as customers who hadn't paid much attention find websites unexpectedly blocked.

Just as bad, filters installed with no thought cannot be expected to set appropriately for children of different ages.

Of course, all of this could be easily avoided by simply having an 'active choice' as the ISPs originally suggested: with no preset defaults, forcing customers to specify whether they wanted filters, or not.

It's really very surprising that Cameron's campaign has spent six months insisting on a system designed to fail consumers, threatening ISPs with legislation if they didn't use the inaccurate, error prone method that Number 10 seem to believe in.

If it all seems to work badly, at what point is it ok for ISPs to start running their own businesses, and change the setup screens?


We've launched a petition calling for David Cameron to drop his plans for default Internet filtering. Sign the petition here: