“The UK government stated in 2006 that they wished to see 100% of UK consumer broadband ISPs’ connections covered by blocking, which includes” — but is not limited to — “images of child abuse. 95% of ISPs have complied, but children’s charities are calling for firmer action by the government as the last 5% cite costs and concerns over the effectiveness of the system. According to Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, ‘The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.’ With a lack of transparency in the IWF list, firm government involvement, and blocking that only ‘includes’ (but may not be limited to) images of child abuse, it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK.”
It will soon be 100%, it seems, with the IWF – an unelected quango – deciding which sites may be accessed from the UK. No-one wants child porn on the web, of course. But child-porn is the excuse, not the reason. What this gives the establishment — not even the elected government, for heaven’s sake! — is the power to block sites they don’t like, without appeal or control or, indeed, even our knowledge.
Now that the establishment has a list of sites which every ISP is blocking, how long before entries in it are added for political reasons? That sites which are (e.g.) seen to be politically incorrect are added?
I give it two years at most.