Beefy's Corner - The Off-Topic Chat Thread

  • Please bear with us on the new site integration and fixing any known bugs over the coming days. If you can not log in please try resetting your password and check your spam box. If you have tried these steps and are still struggling email [email protected] with your username/registered email address
  • Log in now to remove adverts - no adverts at all to registered members!
Status
Not open for further replies.
Joe said:
In this case there's no way it's reasonable. We're not under a constant threat of terrorism; certainly not enough of a threat to justify censorship of this degree. He came up with this "porn filter" a while ago and it was obvious that this would just be an excuse for him to start adding things to it. He even announced it at the same time as the birth of the royal baby so it would slip through without the public noticing. It's funny how parents can't be trusted to keep their own kids from seeing pornographic images online but page three of The Sun is totally fine. He doesn't care about the porn; he's just easing us into his own version of the Chinese Firewall. He's going to need to pass it through parliament, so our MPs need to be told their constituents don't support it.
Click to expand...

We're seeing a similar thing here in Canada. Somehow, a bill about online bullying has turned into the framework for a pervasive surveillance state. Funny how that goes.
 
Schad said:
We're seeing a similar thing here in Canada. Somehow, a bill about online bullying has turned into the framework for a pervasive surveillance state. Funny how that goes.
Click to expand...

Is there enough support for it? I still think most of our MPs would be opposed to Cameron's proposal but it's worrying that it's seriously being considered. Seems like Canada would largely be opposed as well.
 
Joe said:
Is there enough support for it? I still think most of our MPs would be opposed to Cameron's proposal but it's worrying that it's seriously being considered. Seems like Canada would largely be opposed as well.
Click to expand...

Doesn't need to be...the Conservatives have a clean majority, and they've done a decent job thus far selling at as "won't somebody please think of the children!?", because no one is against protecting kids from bullying, are they? In reality, it's being used as a stalking horse for a bunch of anti-terrorism and surveillance measures that bear no relation to the issue, but they'll get it through and then use the suicide of Rehtaeh Parsons (a girl from Nova Scotia who killed herself after being raped, photographed and harassed) as political cover, because **** them.
 
The problem is that the internet (apart from all its marvels) can also be used for dissemination of evil and the instigation and planning of crime...police tactics have to be updated and changed. This is the equivalent of getting a court order to listen to phone calls and rifle through your dustbin. The big difference is such snooping may become general and less targeted. However, remember that this will be done by machines looking for key words...not a human eavesdropping on you personally.
 
fran-MLs little camera said:
The problem is that the internet (apart from all its marvels) can also be used for dissemination of evil and the instigation and planning of crime...police tactics have to be updated and changed. This is the equivalent of getting a court order to listen to phone calls and rifle through your dustbin. The big difference is such snooping may become general and less targeted. However, remember that this will be done by machines looking for key words...not a human eavesdropping on you personally.
Click to expand...

This website would probably end up blocked along with most other forums, for the reason you've highlighted. A programme that blocks any website containing certain key words would pick up things which have been said in our off-topic threads or in general chat. Cameron wants to block websites where graphic videos of conflict can be posted, and we've had those on here before, so I guess this is one of the sites which Cameron deems to be potentially inciting violence.
 
TheSecondStain said:
There's no need to defend your friend. He can answer for himself.
Click to expand...

You could do with being a little less touchy. I haven't jumped on you or even disagreed with you; I was merely expanding on the conversation and I think that was pretty obvious.
 
Joe said:
This website would probably end up blocked along with most other forums, for the reason you've highlighted. A programme that blocks any website containing certain key words would pick up things which have been said in our off-topic threads or in general chat. Cameron wants to block websites where graphic videos of conflict can be posted, and we've had those on here before, so I guess this is one of the sites which Cameron deems to be potentially inciting violence.
Click to expand...

Oh, what? Down with Cameron!!!
 
I'm not sure what shocks me more, the sole hideous case of Ian Watkins, or the fact that there were TWO mothers of said babies colluding with him. What punishment should be handed out there?

On the other point, for what it's worth TSS, and I have no agenda or side here at all, I don't honestly think Joe was jumping on you.
 
Apparently what's been reported in the Watkins case so far is very much just the tip of the iceberg too. The mind boggles. And not in a good way.
 
Le Tissier's Laces said:
I'm not sure what shocks me more, the sole hideous case of Ian Watkins, or the fact that there were TWO mothers of said babies colluding with him. What punishment should be handed out there?

On the other point, for what it's worth TSS, and I have no agenda or side here at all, I don't honestly think Joe was jumping on you.
Click to expand...

Yeah, from what I've gathered what was meant by the word "plotting" was that he was in the process of paying one of the mothers when he was arrested. Disturbing stuff.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom
Back