Jump to content
SubSpace Forum Network

Recommended Posts

Posted
unfortunatly one body has 100% of the power and noone to answer to on this matter which effectlivly meands they can say what is and is not illigal
Posted (edited)
The status of the image is not illegal anywhere in the world; the IWF's decision was made alone, but it doesn't surprise me considering that the UK has been progressively moving towards a police-state.

Acctually under the UK definition of Child Pornography it IS illegal.

 

A very messed up law passed recently means the current definition in the UK gives no room for context (ie your children in the bath) or artistic licence. A image of a naked child of any age (under 18) is illegal.

 

This by blocking the site they have prevented us UK users for accidentally breaking the law and risking a criminal record...i guess we should be thankfull.....

 

 

Oh ya and this is coming into force in 2009 smile.gif

 

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/ex...olice_confused/

Edited by doc flabby
Posted
considering that the UK has been progressively moving towards a police-state.

 

Unfprtunatly this is true.

 

This is another of many examples where political correctness has enterd the relms of stupidity.

Posted

Wow... I thought these kind of things only happened in countries like China where the government is abusive...

 

What's next? They'll ban Google from UK because you can search for that album cover??? What the fuck, seriously...

Posted

The funny thing is, that by making a big thing about it, the IWF has effectively increased traffic to the image (Wikipedia has gotten near 400k unique visitors today) and increased by-passing to view the image.

 

Oh, and what about diaper commercials? And videos on Youtube? And personal non-digital photos? Will the UK ban those too (since they also fit the definition of "potentially illegal")? What will happen to someone who does take a photo? And what if they're a minor themself? We might as well ban everyone aged 18 and under from existing altogether at this rate.

Posted (edited)

lynx, i found the article on hidemyass.com with a link to the original post. No i didnt do research into the matter, i just found it humorous and idiotic at the same time.

 

 

The IWF says its blacklist is used, on a voluntary basis, by 95% of UK-based residential Internet Service Providers. A statement on the IWF website says it added the Wikipedia article to the blacklist after the article was reported by a user, and an IWF assessment found it to be “potentially illegal.”

whoever that user is, we should go over there and kick his ass.

Edited by rootbear75
Posted

they have withdrawn it from the list:

 

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm

 

It is very good that they have backed-down on this. Censoring wikipedia would have lead to a landslide of controversial content being blocked and eventually lead to people requesting that anything offencive be added to the lists and political correctness getting another win over common sense.

 

I think this probably has a lot to do with the baby P case. Just about every service that is connected to children in the UK has moved the line at which it takes action significantly to avoid being criticised for making even a small mistake. It doesn't seem like a massive stretch of the imagination to see a possible link here IMO.

Posted

I'm wondering... does this have anything to do with DNS? If someone uses OpenDNS, for example, would it 'ignore' domain restrictions set by the ISP?

 

If so... then I strongly suggest you guys to use it :/

You just have to set the correct IP in your connection's properties as DNS server. I switched to that after my university had problems with their DNS, I kept losing DNS resolving ability at least once every hour and had to 'repair' the connection. It sucked.

Never had a single issue with OpenDNS yet

Posted (edited)

Wow, nice one, thanks.

opendns.com was down, but thanks to 'wikipedia', it showed the DNS server addresses.

 

And on topic:

Why don't they spend their time tracking people making and uploading child porn, rather than wasting their time exposing and then blocking a highly accessed website with a 30 year old album with a picture of a half naked kid on it.

Edited by Adam01
Posted
Why don't they spend their time tracking people making and uploading child porn, rather than wasting their time exposing and then blocking a highly accessed website with a 30 year old album with a picture of a half naked kid on it.
Looks like fully naked to me, with shattered glass in front of her genitals...

 

But I still agree with you blum.gif

 

 

 

opendns.com was down
That, or your ISP doesn't want you to go there? :(
Posted
I'm wondering... does this have anything to do with DNS? If someone uses OpenDNS, for example, would it 'ignore' domain restrictions set by the ISP?

 

If so... then I strongly suggest you guys to use it :/

You just have to set the correct IP in your connection's properties as DNS server. I switched to that after my university had problems with their DNS, I kept losing DNS resolving ability at least once every hour and had to 'repair' the connection. It sucked.

Never had a single issue with OpenDNS yet

at pay-for-net hotspots you will...

i had trouble at an airport when flying back. I couldnt connect to the hotspot site... because it blocks ALL traffic (including DNS requests) unless you pay...

 

gay...

 

oh and If anyone wants the DNS servers for OpenDNS (you don't have to sign up)

Primary: 208.67.222.222

Secondary: 208.67.220.220

(it is suggested you sign up though)

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...