The filters are voluntary OPT OUT for the end user*.
I know it seems insignificant, but it makes a big difference.
Also, I am right in thinking, this hasn't been proposed as a bill yet to the house of commons/lords? I feel as Cameron has a long history of broken promises.
Compare a filter where the user has to opportunity to opt out and thus get access to everything they have access to today, with something like the Australian filter (no opt out) or the Chinese filter (no opt out).
The filters already exist for many people using mobile technology - mobile phones with data plans or mobile broadband dongles have exactly what's being proposed.
I agree that it is a big difference that the filters are opt-out. And I have no idea what websites will be caught up. Wikipedia? (See photographs on articles like Anal Bleaching or etc etc.)
> Also, I am right in thinking, this hasn't been proposed as a bill yet to the house of commons/lords? I feel as Cameron has a long history of broken promises.
It could be pushed through as a voluntary agreement with industry. "Self regulate or we'll regulate it for you".
See the history of UK legislation around computers is scary. Reading some of the documents they clearly have clueful people giving them advice, but then you read what the politicians say and they're idiots.
> Compare a filter where the user has to opportunity to opt out and thus get access to everything they have access to today, with something like the Australian filter (no opt out) or the Chinese filter (no opt out).
Oh hey, at least our filter wont be as bad as theirs right? Same stupid argument used with the NSA scandal.
Calm down, I've already said the filters are stupid and pointless.
But there is a very big difference between an optional filter where people can opt-out and "the government is banning things!" - the government isn't banning anything, it's just forcing filters to be opt-out.
Campaigns against the filters will be more effective if they concentrate on what the filters actually are, rather than the not-real scenarios being presented.
It's the "calm down" attitude that allows politicians to trample over our rights simply because zealots campaign for it to happen. If more people displayed the outrage they should be displaying then maybe technologically illiterate politicians wouldn't be so cocky.
It's not about banning, it's about authority thinking it can provide a moral compass as to what it deems "abhorrent".
It's about records being kept as to what exactly individual households wish to see on the net and what happens when such lists get hacked and leaked.
It's about declaring to an authority what you wish to view in a supposed free society.
It's about opposing an infrastructure of filtering and censorship which has the potential to be misused.
He once organised a bunch of people who went to the big Apple Store on Regent Street and opened a webpage on all the devices there. The contents of said page informed readers (potential buyers) that they could get the same devices at a nearby high street retailer who didn't indulge in shady tax avoidance schemes.
Another time he went around sticking Margaret Thatcher heads on the ladies in girlie mags.
