And so it begins...

[Sysman]

It's our revolution and we want it back!

NO. It's now for the RIAA to make money from.

IT ISN'T YOURS ANYMORE: WE WANT IT. YOU MUST PAY US MONEY TO USE IT.

YOURS. THE RIAA.

read behind the lines

[Flashman]

But its for the Childreennnnnnnn.

Who could possibly be against censorship if it protects the childreeennn.



http://nationofshopkeepers.wordpress...tarian-speaks/

Top rant.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

Translation ~ when the internet was just a load of geeks, and quite hard to use, we didn’t realise how it would attack the political class’ monopoly of the MSN. But now we’ve got our heads around it we have realised it is dangerous for us, so we going to crack down on it’

[threaded]

It's our revolution and we want it back!

[OrangeHopper]

Would that be the one above the reservoir?

[xoggoth]

A couple of years ago during a contract gap I did a bit of VB tutoring at a school IT suite. These 14 year olds had to write a bit of code to show images they got off the net. The results were - interesting. I had assumed a posh private school would have adequate controls in place.

[Cyberman]

The best policing of internet usage for children is by parents at home and by teachers at school. The software already exists to control usage for children, but of course our government have probably never heard of fire-walls etc.

If children are determined to access dodgy websites they will always find a way round it though, in much the same way that they get hold of illegal booze, cigarettes etc.

[OwlHoot]

The only possible way they could make it work is to block everything, and then approve sites individually, like the Lord Chamberlain approving each new play.

But to avoid Xog's scenario of one change downgrading a whole site, they'd also have to approve each change (and doubtless charge for the privilege).

The whole thing is totally impractical, and obviously just one of a flurry of "initiatives" announced recently in the futile hope of distracting people from the deteriorating economy.

Or perhaps it's just displacement activity - Like a dog scratching itself when it isn't quite sure what to do next.

[PM-Junkie]

These people are clueless idiots.

I would suggest that fact was established some years ago

[xoggoth]

Considering they can't even take any effective action against scams or child porn sites how would they do anything effective against sites with the wrong certificate? How would one certificate be any good anyway? A site is dynamic, it could be PG one second and a single link would make it XX. If parents don't use the parental controls or commercial programs that already exist what is the point? These people are clueless idiots.

[expat]

...or should I say continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7800846.stm

Particularly revealing is the bit that says..."He also plans to negotiate with the US on drawing up international rules for English language websites".

You can just see it coming can't you....

Film-style age ratings could be applied to websites

This kind of examination and certification would need to be funded. Who would fund it? Oh, I know: a tax on websites.

[PM-Junkie]

...or should I say continues.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7800846.stm

Particularly revealing is the bit that says..."He also plans to negotiate with the US on drawing up international rules for English language websites".

You can just see it coming can't you....