7 ms·

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) As a UK citizen, I've been very disappointed by this debacle. I suspect that C

by bmj1 13y ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) As a UK citizen, I've been very disappointed by this debacle. I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (protecting the children, etc) but he does not understand the significant number of unintended consequences that we are likely to see (and are already seeing). I would suggest doing the following to make this workable long term: - Centralise the list of sites categorised as obscene/pornographic/etc (why should it be different for different ISPs?) - Make the list of these sites publicly accessible and searchable - Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?) - Implement a process for removal requests where a site is mis-classified and ensure that this appeal process is separate from the initial panel - Implement KPIs on the effectiveness of the filter that take into account false positives + false negatives - Remove any automatic categorisation based on keywords, this is too crude - Make publicly accessible the guidelines for classification Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

jackweirdy 13y ago
A lot of this is being done by the Open Rights Group tech volunteers. If anyone wants to help, there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss strategy, & the mailing list is here https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers
- bmj1 13y ago
  Thanks Jack, I've signed up and look forward to continuing the discussion over there.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Don't forget Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. No matter what the intentions are, if the end result is still widespread censorship it hardly matters.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  I prefer putting that the other way: Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. Practically government operations in a nutshell.
workbench 13y ago
> Cameron's heart What heart?
sbt 13y ago
> Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( The problem is that the incremental cost to filtering additional material is now virtually zero. I'm not sure how this would play out in Britain, but I know many countries where a conservative government would have a field day expanding this list. It is easy for a politician to make the case that something should be blocked (think of the children!), but I am guessing no politician would stake his personal capital on unblocking something even remotely controversial. Unfortunately, now Britain has set a precedent, and I could easily see other governments in Europe pointing to Britain in justifying similar firewalls. Therefore, I have concluded that we have a binary choice, firewall or no firewall. To me, this is a simple decision, I would not entrust any committee at all with the management of what should be considered obscene.
- nodata 13y ago
  That's an excellent point. There needs to be a mechanism added that would make removing an item from the filter as easy as adding an item to the filter. Some way of doing this without putting reputation at risk. Any ideas?
  - etherealG 13y ago
    I'd suggest that removing a site should be automatic but adding one requires a review by an actual person.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    You're trying to solve, with extra policy, technology and ingenious ideas, something that wouldn't be a problem in the first place without the stupid law. That's how some supporters of free speech and people against censorship are now on the defensive -- trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place. That's a huge, wide open, Overton's window here.
    - whatevsbro 13y ago
      > trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place Next, apply this same reasoning to governments themselves. For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. No, voting doesn't count. Obama vs Romney is a prime example - which of them was not going to be serving Wall Street's interests? Writing to your representatives isn't working all that well either. SOPA? CISPA? NDAA? -Where are they now, and in what form?
cjrp 13y ago
> I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (appealing to an untapped voter demographic, e.g. Mumsnet) Fixed that for you.
- vidarh 13y ago
  The Mumsnet founders had to backtrack, and come out against the filter after an uproar from their users, who were widely again the filter. So unless you mean the Mumsnet founders is Cameron's desired demographic, then no, you didn't fix it.
  - cjrp 13y ago
    Interesting, but I'd still maintain that his original intention was in fact to appeal to these sorts of voters (even if it was misguided).
Theodores 13y ago
Censorship in the UK has a touch of 'gentleman's agreement' about it rather than 'by decree'. If the British government want to ban something outright then they can issue a 'D-Notice' to the press. Notionally the 'D-Notice' system is 'advisory', i.e. a paper could publish if they wanted to. The British government can also rely on self-censorship, disinformation, misinformation, spin, the art of burying bad news under a mountain of trivia and setting the news agenda. So, on the surface there is the 'never assign to malice what can be attributed to incompetence' way of seeing it, you have to remember that these are politicians we are dealing with. They know what they are doing.
coldtea 13y ago
>"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) Sorry, but that does not apply here. This is not the action of some stupid person -- this is legislation, compiled and overseen by several experts, advisors, offices and politicians. Furthermore, it follows a clear pattern of government interference and suppression of free speech. >I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place I very much doubt it. Would you say the same thing about Blair's lies and action?
- rwmj 13y ago
  It's not legislation. The government just leaned on the larger ISPs. The smaller ISPs are ignoring the whole thing.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    There was a private members bill called the online safety bill / act. These rarely become law and that one didn't have government support. Hague at the time said the gov opposed claire perry's "on by default" request. Perhaps people are confused by that bill?
  - coldtea 13y ago
    It's not legislation yet, but it's official government policy, and with threats to make it into law if the government is not satisfied: "Cameron gave the companies an October deadline to comply with the demands to filter the terms. He said that if the government is not satisfied with the progress it is prepared to take legislative action."
    - bmj1 13y ago
      This actually is a very scary way for the government to make things happen. The democratic process is for new laws to be debated in the houses. Cameron circumvented this process quite deliberately.
      - DanBC 13y ago
bambax 13y ago
I downvoted your comment because I could not disagree more with what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that this is a good idea, only with sub-par implementation. But it's the idea that is bad; more than bad, it's despicable, it's an abomination. The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much. Besides, what raising kids teaches you is that in many ways, kids are little adults; they grow better and are more happy when one treats them with respect.
- IanCal 13y ago
  > The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much. That's exactly what this filter is though. It's not implemented by the government, it's an opt-out filter implemented by your ISP. If you want to use their defaults then it's there and free, if you want to allow access to everything then control it yourself then fine. I don't think this should exist, but you're hurting the fight against it by not even bothering to check the most basic of facts.
  - slashdotaccount 13y ago
    In that case it should've been an opt-in filter with possibility of white-listing any blacklisted host (using a password assigned to contract's owner).
    - DanBC 13y ago
      This cilter is aimed at people who are so bad at Internet that they cannot search for, buy, and install any of the existing parental filter software. They don't know what a website is. While you answer is sensible (not sure who downvoted you) it's no good for the people asking for these filters. Obviously, what has been provided is also hopeless so there os that.
      - vidarh 13y ago
        > it's no good for the people asking for these filters. Are anyone asking for these filters? If there was a lot of demand for them, you'd think the ISPs would have long ago offered equivalent filters as a service.
michaelt 13y ago
Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?) When the Arts Council of Great Britain was formed (by Keynes in the 1940s) it was intentionally set up to have an arms-length relationship with the government, with the aim of independence to avoid the political use and censorship of art seen in Nazi Germany. By all accounts it works better than other countries where the politicians change every few years and the funding objectives change with them. Of course, the arts council has a natural constituency and source of board members as they can appoint anyone high profile from the arts community. I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users.
- twic 13y ago
  > I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users. Dave Green, probably.
blueskin_ 13y ago
"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."
- twic 13y ago
  I believe i know who you think you're quoting there, but it seems he never actually wrote that.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Daniel Lapin, although sometimes falsely attributed to Hitler.
weego 13y ago
I suspect it is more a case of Cameron being lead by people who's hearts are not in the right place, but present it in a way that appears to be, so they can then reap the rewards of those 'unintended consequences' later.
salient 13y ago
Completely disagree that this is just an "unintended consequence". This is exactly what David Cameron wants. To muddle the waters, and say they are blocking "obscene" stuff, when in fact they are blocking free speech sites and the like. Porn filters are always abused (intentionally). Always. I can't stress this enough. You should've learned from the Australians who tried implementing this sort of filter before, too, and it ended up a miserable failure. Not only can you not implement such a system without a ton of "unintended consequences", but it's also very trivially abused, too, by those in power, and they could abuse it for many years before the public even realizes it.
vitalique 13y ago
Sometimes malice tries to hide behind stupidity's back. What you are suggesting (or quite in the spirit of that) is currently being implemented in Russia [1] as a so called Unified Register of Forbidden Websites. It is perceived by a lot of people in Russia as a dumbest initiative by government in the whole IT-regulation field and continues to produce suspicious, erroneous, as well as erratic and simply idiotic bans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_blacklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_blacklist
ronaldx 13y ago
Hanlon's razor has become an excuse for malice and should not apply: Stupidity (within government) is malice.
ds9 13y ago
IMHO the provisions in your list plus a few more would make the whole thing unobjectionable. My additions: - It's opt-in. The ISPs are required to notify subscribers that it's available, with clear explanations. - Allow parents to opt in or out of each of various categories Such a scheme would accomplish the purported/advertised purposes, without harm to civil liberties and without interference in home life. Unfortunately, these "how to fix it" ideas are misplaced. The fact that non-pornographic sites, obviously selected by political criteria, are deliberately packaged together with pornography, is not merely a bad implementation. In fact it is clear evidence that the real motive is not to protect children at all, but instead to protect state power, and disempower the public and keep them ignorant. Given this evident intent and purpose, attempts at partial reform are pointless, and the right thing is say no to the would-be gradualist-censors and call out their plan for the creeping fascism that it is.
alan_cx 13y ago
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Bullshit. That phrase is down there with "what have you got to hide?". Its a disgusting attempt to hide reality, with diversionary language. And how the hell is "stupidity" a defense? This man is the PM of a G whatever number it is now country. He had the best education could offer and has slimed his way to the top with all his family connections. Stupid? I dont think so. Camoron does not give a toss about children. He's happy to see them suffer with all manner of cuts. So, these kids can't eat properly, cant get much of an education, have no future worth a jot, but thats all fine 'cos they will now find it a bit harder to find porn? Oh please. As for your solution, what a nightmare. All that will do is begin a highly creeping policy with will end up censoring in a way not seen in any way before. Who the hell is anyone to tell me what information I am allowed beyond an official secret? As a father of 6, I despise this "for the children" excuse for conservative, right wing control freaks who seek to control my thoughts. What happened to the old UK conservative notion of personal freedom and responsibility?

by bmj1 13y ago

jackweirdy 13y ago

A lot of this is being done by the Open Rights Group tech volunteers. If anyone wants to help, there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss strategy, & the mailing list is here https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers

bmj1 13y ago
Thanks Jack, I've signed up and look forward to continuing the discussion over there.

InclinedPlane 13y ago

Don't forget Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. No matter what the intentions are, if the end result is still widespread censorship it hardly matters.

blueskin_ 13y ago
I prefer putting that the other way: Any sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from incompetence. Practically government operations in a nutshell.

workbench 13y ago

> Cameron's heart What heart?

sbt 13y ago

> Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( The problem is that the incremental cost to filtering additional material is now virtually zero. I'm not sure how this would play out in Britain, but I know many countries where a conservative government would have a field day expanding this list. It is easy for a politician to make the case that something should be blocked (think of the children!), but I am guessing no politician would stake his personal capital on unblocking something even remotely controversial. Unfortunately, now Britain has set a precedent, and I could easily see other governments in Europe pointing to Britain in justifying similar firewalls. Therefore, I have concluded that we have a binary choice, firewall or no firewall. To me, this is a simple decision, I would not entrust any committee at all with the management of what should be considered obscene.

nodata 13y ago
That's an excellent point. There needs to be a mechanism added that would make removing an item from the filter as easy as adding an item to the filter. Some way of doing this without putting reputation at risk. Any ideas?
- etherealG 13y ago
  I'd suggest that removing a site should be automatic but adding one requires a review by an actual person.
- coldtea 13y ago
  You're trying to solve, with extra policy, technology and ingenious ideas, something that wouldn't be a problem in the first place without the stupid law. That's how some supporters of free speech and people against censorship are now on the defensive -- trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place. That's a huge, wide open, Overton's window here.
  - whatevsbro 13y ago
    > trying to imagine how to make a censorship system "better" instead of questioning it's legitimacy in the first place Next, apply this same reasoning to governments themselves. For example, there's practically nothing we can do to make governments better. No, voting doesn't count. Obama vs Romney is a prime example - which of them was not going to be serving Wall Street's interests? Writing to your representatives isn't working all that well either. SOPA? CISPA? NDAA? -Where are they now, and in what form?

cjrp 13y ago

> I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (appealing to an untapped voter demographic, e.g. Mumsnet) Fixed that for you.

vidarh 13y ago
The Mumsnet founders had to backtrack, and come out against the filter after an uproar from their users, who were widely again the filter. So unless you mean the Mumsnet founders is Cameron's desired demographic, then no, you didn't fix it.
- cjrp 13y ago
  Interesting, but I'd still maintain that his original intention was in fact to appeal to these sorts of voters (even if it was misguided).

Theodores 13y ago

Censorship in the UK has a touch of 'gentleman's agreement' about it rather than 'by decree'. If the British government want to ban something outright then they can issue a 'D-Notice' to the press. Notionally the 'D-Notice' system is 'advisory', i.e. a paper could publish if they wanted to. The British government can also rely on self-censorship, disinformation, misinformation, spin, the art of burying bad news under a mountain of trivia and setting the news agenda. So, on the surface there is the 'never assign to malice what can be attributed to incompetence' way of seeing it, you have to remember that these are politicians we are dealing with. They know what they are doing.

coldtea 13y ago

>"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) Sorry, but that does not apply here. This is not the action of some stupid person -- this is legislation, compiled and overseen by several experts, advisors, offices and politicians. Furthermore, it follows a clear pattern of government interference and suppression of free speech. >I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place I very much doubt it. Would you say the same thing about Blair's lies and action?

rwmj 13y ago
It's not legislation. The government just leaned on the larger ISPs. The smaller ISPs are ignoring the whole thing.
- DanBC 13y ago
  There was a private members bill called the online safety bill / act. These rarely become law and that one didn't have government support. Hague at the time said the gov opposed claire perry's "on by default" request. Perhaps people are confused by that bill?
- coldtea 13y ago
  It's not legislation yet, but it's official government policy, and with threats to make it into law if the government is not satisfied: "Cameron gave the companies an October deadline to comply with the demands to filter the terms. He said that if the government is not satisfied with the progress it is prepared to take legislative action."
  - bmj1 13y ago
    This actually is a very scary way for the government to make things happen. The democratic process is for new laws to be debated in the houses. Cameron circumvented this process quite deliberately.
    - DanBC 13y ago

bambax 13y ago

I downvoted your comment because I could not disagree more with what you are saying. If I understand you correctly, you're arguing that this is a good idea, only with sub-par implementation. But it's the idea that is bad; more than bad, it's despicable, it's an abomination. The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much. Besides, what raising kids teaches you is that in many ways, kids are little adults; they grow better and are more happy when one treats them with respect.

IanCal 13y ago
> The government should not be in charge of what my children can or cannot read in my own home; I'm in charge of that, thank you very much. That's exactly what this filter is though. It's not implemented by the government, it's an opt-out filter implemented by your ISP. If you want to use their defaults then it's there and free, if you want to allow access to everything then control it yourself then fine. I don't think this should exist, but you're hurting the fight against it by not even bothering to check the most basic of facts.
- slashdotaccount 13y ago
  In that case it should've been an opt-in filter with possibility of white-listing any blacklisted host (using a password assigned to contract's owner).
  - DanBC 13y ago
    This cilter is aimed at people who are so bad at Internet that they cannot search for, buy, and install any of the existing parental filter software. They don't know what a website is. While you answer is sensible (not sure who downvoted you) it's no good for the people asking for these filters. Obviously, what has been provided is also hopeless so there os that.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      > it's no good for the people asking for these filters. Are anyone asking for these filters? If there was a lot of demand for them, you'd think the ISPs would have long ago offered equivalent filters as a service.

michaelt 13y ago

Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?) When the Arts Council of Great Britain was formed (by Keynes in the 1940s) it was intentionally set up to have an arms-length relationship with the government, with the aim of independence to avoid the political use and censorship of art seen in Nazi Germany. By all accounts it works better than other countries where the politicians change every few years and the funding objectives change with them. Of course, the arts council has a natural constituency and source of board members as they can appoint anyone high profile from the arts community. I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users.

twic 13y ago
> I don't know what the equivalent would be for internet users. Dave Green, probably.

blueskin_ 13y ago

"As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation."

twic 13y ago
I believe i know who you think you're quoting there, but it seems he never actually wrote that.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Daniel Lapin, although sometimes falsely attributed to Hitler.

weego 13y ago

I suspect it is more a case of Cameron being lead by people who's hearts are not in the right place, but present it in a way that appears to be, so they can then reap the rewards of those 'unintended consequences' later.

salient 13y ago

Completely disagree that this is just an "unintended consequence". This is exactly what David Cameron wants. To muddle the waters, and say they are blocking "obscene" stuff, when in fact they are blocking free speech sites and the like. Porn filters are always abused (intentionally). Always. I can't stress this enough. You should've learned from the Australians who tried implementing this sort of filter before, too, and it ended up a miserable failure. Not only can you not implement such a system without a ton of "unintended consequences", but it's also very trivially abused, too, by those in power, and they could abuse it for many years before the public even realizes it.

vitalique 13y ago

Sometimes malice tries to hide behind stupidity's back. What you are suggesting (or quite in the spirit of that) is currently being implemented in Russia [1] as a so called Unified Register of Forbidden Websites. It is perceived by a lot of people in Russia as a dumbest initiative by government in the whole IT-regulation field and continues to produce suspicious, erroneous, as well as erratic and simply idiotic bans. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_blacklist http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Russian_Internet_blacklist

ronaldx 13y ago

Hanlon's razor has become an excuse for malice and should not apply: Stupidity (within government) is malice.

ds9 13y ago

IMHO the provisions in your list plus a few more would make the whole thing unobjectionable. My additions: - It's opt-in. The ISPs are required to notify subscribers that it's available, with clear explanations. - Allow parents to opt in or out of each of various categories Such a scheme would accomplish the purported/advertised purposes, without harm to civil liberties and without interference in home life. Unfortunately, these "how to fix it" ideas are misplaced. The fact that non-pornographic sites, obviously selected by political criteria, are deliberately packaged together with pornography, is not merely a bad implementation. In fact it is clear evidence that the real motive is not to protect children at all, but instead to protect state power, and disempower the public and keep them ignorant. Given this evident intent and purpose, attempts at partial reform are pointless, and the right thing is say no to the would-be gradualist-censors and call out their plan for the creeping fascism that it is.

alan_cx 13y ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." Bullshit. That phrase is down there with "what have you got to hide?". Its a disgusting attempt to hide reality, with diversionary language. And how the hell is "stupidity" a defense? This man is the PM of a G whatever number it is now country. He had the best education could offer and has slimed his way to the top with all his family connections. Stupid? I dont think so. Camoron does not give a toss about children. He's happy to see them suffer with all manner of cuts. So, these kids can't eat properly, cant get much of an education, have no future worth a jot, but thats all fine 'cos they will now find it a bit harder to find porn? Oh please. As for your solution, what a nightmare. All that will do is begin a highly creeping policy with will end up censoring in a way not seen in any way before. Who the hell is anyone to tell me what information I am allowed beyond an official secret? As a father of 6, I despise this "for the children" excuse for conservative, right wing control freaks who seek to control my thoughts. What happened to the old UK conservative notion of personal freedom and responsibility?