UK ISP on porn filters: if you want internet censorship 'move to North Korea'
UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has publicly lambasted David Cameron's automatic porn filter decision and says it will not be using them, explaining "sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea".
The statement, pointed out by TechEye, might have a comical-sounding turn to it. But the people behind Andrews & Arnold feel strongly about their role as a service provider.
"It is not our role to try and censor what you do with the internet. We do not try and log or limit what you are accessing. It is your responsibility to stick to the laws that apply to you. We have no intention of putting in place any censorship systems or using censored transit feeds."
"Active choice" it argues, "is not a choice".
DON'T MISS: North Korea: we'll kill activists launching pro-democracy literature via balloons
It points out bluntly that a censored internet, if it were to be implemented by Andrews & Arnold (which it never will be) would provide "restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) -- but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn". Reiterating what many of those opposing the filters have already come out to say, these measures are not going to solve the problem they are aimed at solving, and will probably just create another one along the way.
The statement goes on to pinpoint exactly why the crusade has occurred -- "under the guise of some emotive topic such as stopping child abuse which nobody could argue with" -- and says such a step is more likely to cause the internet to run slower or with breaks, than achieve anything else. If it succeeds, that would only result in driving "the offensive use underground and using encryption so making it harder to find and deal with".
The rant goes on to depict the slippery slope we may all succumb to if the measures are implemented: "If we accept censorship for child abuse, then we have to accept it for terrorism, and then maybe political extremist views, and then maybe not so extreme views, and maybe wrong thinking or pictures of policeman (oh wait, they just tried to make that illegal too!)"
Asking if a reader might have children that access internet at home unsupervised ("is that wise?"), it then suggests those individuals invest in their own controls.
Hilarious rants aside, the release does provide some practical information on how users can protect themselves from intrustion and surveillance, which it sees as a more pressing problem.
Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/25/isp--north-korea
UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has publicly lambasted David Cameron's automatic porn filter decision and says it will not be using them, explaining "sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea".
The statement, pointed out by TechEye, might have a comical-sounding turn to it. But the people behind Andrews & Arnold feel strongly about their role as a service provider.
"It is not our role to try and censor what you do with the internet. We do not try and log or limit what you are accessing. It is your responsibility to stick to the laws that apply to you. We have no intention of putting in place any censorship systems or using censored transit feeds."
"Active choice" it argues, "is not a choice".
DON'T MISS: North Korea: we'll kill activists launching pro-democracy literature via balloons
It points out bluntly that a censored internet, if it were to be implemented by Andrews & Arnold (which it never will be) would provide "restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) -- but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn". Reiterating what many of those opposing the filters have already come out to say, these measures are not going to solve the problem they are aimed at solving, and will probably just create another one along the way.
The statement goes on to pinpoint exactly why the crusade has occurred -- "under the guise of some emotive topic such as stopping child abuse which nobody could argue with" -- and says such a step is more likely to cause the internet to run slower or with breaks, than achieve anything else. If it succeeds, that would only result in driving "the offensive use underground and using encryption so making it harder to find and deal with".
The rant goes on to depict the slippery slope we may all succumb to if the measures are implemented: "If we accept censorship for child abuse, then we have to accept it for terrorism, and then maybe political extremist views, and then maybe not so extreme views, and maybe wrong thinking or pictures of policeman (oh wait, they just tried to make that illegal too!)"
Asking if a reader might have children that access internet at home unsupervised ("is that wise?"), it then suggests those individuals invest in their own controls.
Hilarious rants aside, the release does provide some practical information on how users can protect themselves from intrustion and surveillance, which it sees as a more pressing problem.
Source: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-07/25/isp--north-korea