Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
bias12

UK Government censorship

Recommended Posts

Exactly so Brain, exactly so.

The presumption of guilt is like thought-crime, only in this case we're expected to hand our own names over (via the opt-out ;))

I still don't get why you are running around like headless chickens over this? If you have Talk Talk you might already have the network level filter service - Homesafe.

You just untick the boxes? (if you are the account holder, if not you have to beg the account holder rofl)

So what is the problem, opt-out of it, untick the boxes?

homesafe_talktalk_block_categories.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get why you are running around like headless chickens over this? If you have Talk Talk you might already have the network level filter service - Homesafe.

You just untick the boxes? (if you are the account holder, if not you have to beg the account holder rofl)

So what is the problem, opt-out of it, untick the boxes?

Speaking personally, the problem that I feel strongly about is that this is disagreeable issue X that our glorious leaders have deemed that a citizen must be placed on a database to partake of. This information would be held most probably by the individual ISPs, but this provides little comfort. I believe in the last year, the government security agents (i.e. police, MI5) have made more than 500,000 demands to see private data of it's citizens, most likely to fight the black plague of "terrorism" (don't get me started on that).

A future approaches my country. A future in which my government tells me what is acceptable to think. Today it is issue X, I worry about tomorrow and issue Y. Is Issue Y far left or right wing political opinions, is it criticism of the current Westminster regime, or is it any issue that the people in power feel like on any particular day? I don't know, but right now my government is gathering the tools of oppression around them. Do you blame me for thinking they might use those tools?

Would you trust your politicians with the same power?

As soon as a system is in place and functional it will be all too easy for the government to add additional subjects to its "child protection list". Pornography, sites that violate copyright, islamic extremist material, political opponents, labour unions, radical political parties; where could it end?

This system is all set to go ahead with no protection for the fundamental rights of the individual. How difficult would it be for a particular influential business to use the tools of government to dictate what is able to be seen by the public? Not difficult, it happened at least twice this week already.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's going to be kind of a trial run . . . same as with the bank bail-in at Cyprus. Expect it soon to be extended all over Europe.

I'm curious when they force us to take our first "Soma".

Edited by nettrucker

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In isolation, this issue is nothing more than a quixotic, highly silly attempt at moralizing to please some prudish base.

However, in the context of all the spying and complete destruction of privacy by both the private and public sector, it's salt in a wound. I'm not British, but I imagine Google and Microsoft being coerced into giving the government my private data. That's bad, but it also doesn't directly affect me. This measure would feel more like the government coercing me into giving them my data myself. They make a heavy-handed law with suspect or poor motivations, and in order to resume my prior behavior and exercise my prior liberty, I have to respond to their coercion. I have to take an action, even if that means just ticking a box on an internet page. I don't mind doing such a thing in order to pay taxes or get a driver's license, but taxes and driver's licenses have a worthy reason for existing. They are even necessary. Their forms, regulations and strictures also aren't expanding and taking over our society in secretive and fearmongering ways.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
A future approaches my country. A future in which my government tells me what is acceptable to think. Today it is issue X, I worry about tomorrow and issue Y. Is Issue Y far left or right wing political opinions, is it criticism of the current Westminster regime, or is it any issue that the people in power feel like on any particular day? I don't know, but right now my government is gathering the tools of oppression around them. Do you blame me for thinking they might use those tools?

Would you trust your politicians with the same power?

As soon as a system is in place and functional it will be all too easy for the government to add additional subjects to its "child protection list". Pornography, sites that violate copyright, islamic extremist material, political opponents, labour unions, radical political parties; where could it end?

This system is all set to go ahead with no protection for the fundamental rights of the individual. How difficult would it be for a particular influential business to use the tools of government to dictate what is able to be seen by the public? Not difficult, it happened at least twice this week already.

ROFL how did you bisect yourself so skillfully with Occam's Razor yet leave the tinfoil hat intact? If you wish to construct a brand new conspiracy theory out of this, it's best to know the subject and not make basic factual errors. Also when trolling the offtopic section - make sure your friends and acquaintances don't add to your thread - gives the game away. Preferably use a second account like some of the others here do, you work in the right area so probably will not face any recriminations, oh and write as if you don't speak english well, it's the fashion, just don't slip up and become fluent again every 3rd post. If you are that hungry I don't mind feeding you so carry on..... ;)

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
ROFL how did you bisect yourself so skillfully with Occam's Razor yet leave the tinfoil hat intact? If you wish to construct a brand new conspiracy theory out of this, it's best to know the subject and not make basic factual errors. Also when trolling the offtopic thread - make sure your friends and acquaintances don't add to your thread - gives the game away. Preferably use a second account like some of the others here do, you work in the right area so probably will not face any recriminations, oh and write as if you don't speak english well, it's the fashion, just don't slip up and become fluent again every 3rd post. If you are that hungry I don't mind feeding you so carry on..... ;)

I'm not trolling, this is a topical conversation on what is happening in my country and around the world.

To say what we are talking about is a conspiracy is to imply that it is hidden, it's not. I read about it most days on the news. This has been censored or that has been censored, some more sites have been added to the secret list by the high court.

I don't have any friends or acquaintances on these forums, I really haven't posted very much at all. Why would I use a second account for talking in the off topic section?

English is my first language, I'm from Glasgow. Everyone else managed fine to understand what I am saying, so that's just rude.

These are serious issues which will continue to affect everyone that uses the internet for the free flow of information, all opinions are welcome, but there is no need to resort to cries of TROLL! just because you disagree. I think most on these boards are mature enough to debate you sensibly without resorting to such base measures.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Whatever.........if you would like to master the power of unreason it's best to study it a little more:

http://www.demos.co.uk/publications/thepowerofunreason

One day if you use it well enough they might call you a 'legend'!

So, unfortunate styles of rhetoric aside, care to throw your hat in the ring and say you aren't concerned by the erosion of privacy, civil liberties and transparent rule of law as established by parliaments (not executive security branches and courts) as a result of 9/11?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So, unfortunate styles of rhetoric aside, care to throw your hat in the ring and say you aren't concerned by the erosion of privacy, civil liberties and transparent rule of law as established by parliaments (not executive security branches and courts) as a result of 9/11?

Read the Demos study - this is exactly what it's about.......

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Mattar,

You really need to stop reading that type of material (off topic) it breeds a certain attitude towards other peoples free views which you have excersized well in this thread. Also the fact that concerns are concerns only and not the actual ironic conspiracy you paint for everyone else you have an issue with. Your post toward Bias has an air of attitude and paranoia all rolled into one, just isn't necessary at all. Your personal bugbears with certain posters have nothing to do with this subject.

Your one man army against the (your repeated mantra) "Conspiritards" is going a little too far. This maybe disneyland in the greater scheme of things to do with control/privacy but they are all stepping stones and shouldn't be taken lightly every time its proposed.

This thread looks like it might get dumped soon (or not :) ), but if anyone was interested SOPA thread is a continuation of these smaller topics as a side note. It will be interesting as they progress this filtering for users to see if it falls on its ass or what and how its rolled out.

Edited by mrcash2009

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the Demos study - this is exactly what it's about.......

oh my...

"The size of the lie is a definite factor in causing it to be believed, for the vast masses of the nation are in the depths of their hearts more easily deceived than they are consciously and intentionally bad. The primitive simplicity of their minds renders them a more easy prey to a big lie than a small one, for they themselves often tell little lies but would be ashamed to tell a big one."

"All propaganda must be so popular and on such an intellectual level, that even the most stupid of those towards whom it is directed will understand it. Therefore, the intellectual level of the propaganda must be lower the larger the number of people who are to be influenced by it."

"Through clever and constant application of propaganda, people can be made to see paradise as hell, and also the other way around, to consider the most wretched sort of life as paradise."

"The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear."

"The leader of genius must have the ability to make different opponents appear as if they belonged to one category. "

"Universal education is the most corroding and disintegrating poison that liberalism has ever invented for its own destruction."

When an opponent declares, "I will not come over to your side," I calmly say, "Your child belongs to us already...What are you? You will pass on. Your descendants, however, now stand in the new camp. In a short time they will know nothing else but this new community."

"The broad masses of a population are more amenable to the appeal of rhetoric than to any other force."

"What luck for rulers, that men do not think."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the Demos study - this is exactly what it's about.......

Now you are off-topic.

And cryptic.

And I suspect too craven to post an argument instead of a link.

Edit: Or if only reluctant to post an argument in this thread, I see you have been busily dismissing the concerns of the majority of the body politic of Western civilization (check some polls) as the stuff of tin-hatted conspiracy theories. That's exactly on par with the sort of people who throw around accusations of socialism/Nazism/fascism/appeasement because of minor differences in policy preferences. Ie, not worth engaging with.

"The best political weapon is the weapon of terror. Cruelty commands respect. Men may hate us. But, we don't ask for their love; only for their fear."

Among other lines, this passage demonstrates that you either do not comprehend the material you have posted, or are deliberately misapplying it to a situation with which it is incompatible. In view of your apparent beliefs on this subject, waving around a text with the above quote in it is downright grotesque. And I thought you were a reasonable person.

Edit again: And now I'm just laughing. I'm quite sure you haven't read this study yourself. From intro to abstract, it's like an argumentative blueprint for making your posts look really stupid.

Edited by maturin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I´ll definately read this book this summer.
Read (or watch) this too. It is a quite more modern adoption of the topic and closer to what we face since 9/11. http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fahrenheit_451

It is indeed hard to get your hands on some books by now in a lot of nations. (including Germany)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope you're not suggesting that Fahrenheit 451 is being suppressed in Europe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope you're not suggesting that Fahrenheit 451 is being suppressed in Europe.
No, it is just a template how europe is ruled. the censored book which are cofiscated whenever found for various reasons are all military and paramilitary teaching books fpr guelilla warfare written in the 40's and up to the 60's....like this one. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/TM_31-210_Improvised_Munition_Handbook or this one http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_totale_Widerstand and a lot more.

A few years ago those books where just banned from public but legal to own, but now aftr 9/11 this books are conficated (and burned?) whenever found.

Edited by Ulanthorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The former is a military manual in an official capacity; the second in an unofficial one. Neither are supposed to propagate a point of view or qualify as the self-expression of a citizen. It's information, and information can be classified by governments. No one but the wildest libertarians and anarchists will deny that security services have a responsibility to keep some secrets, and that the law should back them up. Surely you see the difference between that and an important work of literature?

I won't say that banning already-published material doesn't make me nervous and seem like overreach (also, source please)...

...but if you're suggesting that (not very) subversive allegorical literature like Fahrenheit 451 is being targeted by the shadowy initiatives of governments, I flat out disbelieve you. You know quite well what a huge international stink that would cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Now you are off-topic.

And cryptic.

And I suspect too craven to post an argument instead of a link.

Edit: Or if only reluctant to post an argument in this thread, I see you have been busily dismissing the concerns of the majority of the body politic of Western civilization (check some polls) as the stuff of tin-hatted conspiracy theories. That's exactly on par with the sort of people who throw around accusations of socialism/Nazism/fascism/appeasement because of minor differences in policy preferences. Ie, not worth engaging with.

Among other lines, this passage demonstrates that you either do not comprehend the material you have posted, or are deliberately misapplying it to a situation with which it is incompatible. In view of your apparent beliefs on this subject, waving around a text with the above quote in it is downright grotesque. And I thought you were a reasonable person.

Edit again: And now I'm just laughing. I'm quite sure you haven't read this study yourself. From intro to abstract, it's like an argumentative blueprint for making your posts look really stupid.

You've been 'ric' rolled - those are a series of quotes from Adolf Hitler that don't appear in the link I posted??? So I'm as baffled as you are?

It also confirms that you didn't read the Demos report I linked to.

It's really a cheap trick by ric and shows just how easily some are fooled, I won't laugh at you for that, it worries me too much.

Try again, direct link so you don't get lost, I'm not so interested in the counter terrorism thing, I think they do make valid points on critical thinking, myths, lies and conspiracy theories:

http://www.demos.co.uk/files/Conspiracy_theories_paper.pdf?1282913891

Edited by Mattar_Tharkari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You've been 'ric' rolled - those are a series of quotes from hitler that don't appear in the link I posted??? So I'm as baffled as you are?

Well, that wasn't a very helpful post then.

It also confirms that you didn't read the Demos report I linked to.

Of course I didn't. I'm not a student in your class, to spend my day reading your assignments and compiling a comprehensive rebuttal just because you're too lazy to make your own arguments.

In fact, I read through the first intro/abstract sections, and got far enough to see that the report deals with the psychology of fringe extremist groups and well-known conspiracy theories, and isn't actually relevant to anything I said in the thread. Attempting to underhandedly apply it to the entire civil liberties movement is idiocy of the highest caliber.

And you yourself haven't gone and followed the report's advice to ask 'who benefits.' I suppose everyone in the U.S. who was upset by the Patriot Act (and everything that followed) is actually acting in the interests of al Qaeda?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The former is a military manual in an official capacity; the second in an unofficial one. Neither are supposed to propagate a point of view or qualify as the self-expression of a citizen. It's information, and information can be classified by governments. No one but the wildest libertarians and anarchists will deny that security services have a responsibility to keep some secrets, and that the law should back them up. Surely you see the difference between that and an important work of literature?

I won't say that banning already-published material doesn't make me nervous and seem like overreach (also, source please)...

...but if you're suggesting that (not very) subversive allegorical literature like Fahrenheit 451 is being targeted by the shadowy initiatives of governments, I flat out disbelieve you. You know quite well what a huge international stink that would cause.

I think you don't get my thoughts right. I did never wrote that 431 is censored, no the problem is much bigger.

Im 40 Years old by know and I can remeber that we used to have much more personal FREEDOM in many, many aspects pf life...but it by it the government, federal institutions and federad agencies AND the EU chew that freedom away bit by bit. Just ti life the life my grandpa did until he died in 1987 would be ILLEGAL by now...that's a hard fact. It feels to my that our governtmant AND the opposition both use 451 and 1984 as a template how they want societey to function. That the whole point in my 451 reference.

by the way...a government that hs Secrets is a burocracy not a democracy becaue keeping secrets deny the public ability to develop a advanced opinion. Without a advanced opinion you fall victim to propaganda and currently the propaganda you see from the "Western Alliance" surpassed that from the old "Warsaw Block" in brainwashing capability.

Edited by Ulanthorn

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
@Maturin: That isn't the meaning they were trying to convey, read it more carefully......

I've already told you No. Its content is off-topic except as an indirect attempt to smear a poster, and when you expect people to let a linked wall of text argue for you, you look like a craven nincompoop, as stated earlier.

If you are having trouble comprehending this, then please view the following and my viewpoint will be explained perfectly:

http://archive.org/stream/ulysses04300gut/ulyss12.txt

Edited by maturin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Well, that wasn't a very helpful post then.

sorry mate, i was just stiring the pot :) these kinds of "debates" just end up on the merry go round :( people are going to believe what there going to believe and do what there going todo...unless you tell the same lie over and over again then it becomes the truth.....or so i have heard ;)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I still don't get why you are running around like headless chickens over this? If you have Talk Talk you might already have the network level filter service - Homesafe.

You just untick the boxes? (if you are the account holder, if not you have to beg the account holder rofl)

So what is the problem, opt-out of it, untick the boxes?

http://www.ispreview.co.uk/wp-content/gallery/2013-article-illustrations/homesafe_talktalk_block_categories.gif

Question: is it "us" who are running around like headless chickens, or is it you who is sitting in a pot of slowly boiling water? Look, if an ISP decides to block certain content, that's a business decision, I might not like it, but it's not my company or my ass on the line when someone decides to sue.

But when the government decides to step in and filter content "for my own good".... well if you cannot see the problem there, then I guess things are good for you. If you never read the book Nineteen Eighty-Four I suggest you do so. It's a grim read but it serves as a warning for any citizen. Over-reaction? Dunno, I just don't wish for this sort of thing to become normal. Because the next step would be the government ordering ISPs not to return searches on particular words.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since when did access to "free porn" become a basic right?

Well, I don't think it's that terrible. Let's face it, sexual and violent content of different natures is already banned from appearing on TV for certain periods during the day in a number of EU countries to ensure that children don't see it, and no one is protesting much about that. And considering that there is actual legitimate research saying that pornography is damaging to children in different ways (absurd beliefs about sex, "pornography impotence", i.e. reality isn't as good as porn, "rough porn" giving quite bad and potentially hurtful influences, etc.), I don't see that big a problem in it. Sure, the Internet generation might rage about the perceived right to see anything they want on the Internet, but in the end of the day, this isn't really like someone is attacking our basic human rights. Children simply aren't mature enough to see some things, and that's that.

Agreed. It's far too easy for kids and young teenagers to access, surely nobody is in disagreement over this?

The execution on the other hand is a different discussion.

Edited by Snafu

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×