{"id":186541,"date":"2013-12-25T20:40:00","date_gmt":"2013-12-26T01:40:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2013\/12\/25\/why-government-internet-filters-are-a-really-bad-idea-part-xxxix\/"},"modified":"2013-12-25T20:40:00","modified_gmt":"2013-12-26T01:40:00","slug":"why-government-internet-filters-are-a-really-bad-idea-part-xxxix","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.panix.com\/~msaroff\/40years\/2013\/12\/25\/why-government-internet-filters-are-a-really-bad-idea-part-xxxix\/","title":{"rendered":"Why Government Internet Filters are a Really Bad Idea, Part XXXIX"},"content":{"rendered":"

In the UK David Cameron’s “child protection” internet filters do more than filter porn. They also filter political and advocacy<\/a>:<\/p>\n

Through secretive negotiations with ISPs, the coalition has divided the internet into ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ categories and cut people off from huge swathes of it at the stroke of a key.<\/span>

<\/span> There is no porn filter, and blocking Childline [a confidential service for children and teens] is not an accident<\/span>

<\/span> The idea of an internet porn filter has always been a political fiction, a conveniently inaccurate sound bite used to conjure images of hardcore fisting and anal rape in the feverishly overactive imaginations of middle Britain. What activists actually called for – and ISPs were forced to provide – is an ‘objectionable content’ filter, and there is a vast, damp and aching chasm between the two.<\/span>

<\/span> The language of the mythical ‘porn filter’ is so insidious, so pervasive, that even those of us opposed to it have been sucked into its slippery embrace. And so even when it turns out that O2 are blocking the Childline and Refuge websites, or that BT are blocking gay and lesbian content, we tend to regard them as collateral damage \u2013 accidental victims of a well-meaning (if misguided) attempt to protect out children from the evils of cock.<\/span>

<\/span> But this was never the case. As Wired reported back in July<\/a>, Cameron\u2019s ambitions extended far beyond porn. Working through secretive negotiations with ISPs, the coalition has put in place a set of filters and restrictions as ambitious as anything this side of China, dividing the internet into ‘acceptable’ and ‘unacceptable’ categories, and cutting people off from huge swathes of it at the stroke of a key.<\/span>

<\/span> “As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on “violent material”, “extremist related content”, “anorexia and eating disorder websites” and “suicide related websites”, “alcohol” and “smoking”. But the list doesn’t stop there. It even extends to blocking “web forums” and “esoteric material”, whatever that is. “Web blocking circumvention tools” is also included, of course.”<\/span>

<\/span> And the restrictions go further still. Over the weekend, people were appalled to discover that BT filters supported homophobia, with a category blocking, “sites where the main purpose is to provide information on subjects such as respect for a partner, abortion, gay and lesbian lifestyle, contraceptive, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy.”<\/span>

<\/span> \u2026\u2026\u2026<\/span>

<\/span> O2, the Slough-based BT spin-off, do allow people to check which websites are blocked [5], and although their filter has been around for a few years now, the results are terrifying. Their ‘parental control’ settings can be blocked from accessing Childline, Refuge, Stonewall or the Samaritans \u2013 which is even more frightening when you realise that they could just as easily be switched on by an abusive partner. The most vulnerable people in society are the most likely to be cut off from the help they need. As Adrian Short argues, some websites simply shouldn\u2019t be blocked.<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

FWIW, Peter Hansteen, a self admitted tech geek checked some web sites, and found the following blocked<\/a>:<\/p>\n