I concur that the underlying government intent is usually the ability
to filter "unwanted" content on a general level, rather than the red
herring of child porn. This has been evidenced by all countries that
have so far implemented Internet content filters.
From what I read on the topic over the years (Germany almost
implemented such a generic Internet filter infrastructure a few years
ago, there were a lot of articles about it), this kind of content isn't
just laying around on publicly accessible websites anyway. The kind of
people who engage in this kind of activity know full well that it is
highly illegal and don't just register a domain named illegal-porn dot
com on GoDaddy and throw some pics up there.
It is therefore a valid question of yours to ask, if this kind of thing
is unfit for the purpose it supposedly serves, which real purpose might
be intended behind it?
On Thu Dec 11 12:56:05 2014, [email protected] wrote:
The definition of child pornography varies by jurisdiction. Many popular sites
such as 4chan allow material that would be filtered as child porn in the UK
(i.e., drawings and text). Google and Bing are already censoring this stuff in
their search engine globally despite its legality in the US. Also, any list of
child porn sites would have to be curated by the government and kept secret for
obvious reasons. So we're potentially dealing with a secret blacklist of
sometimes legal material.
No one is going to opt-out, either. I already feel like a criminal opting-out of the huge
"invalid SSL certificate" warnings, let alone something billed as a child porn
filter.
And if we're going to filter "illegal" websites, child porn is just the start.
Why not terrorist sites? Why not piracy? Almost every country with a child porn filter
has followed the same path.
On Thursday, December 11, 2014 3:14:38 PM UTC-4, Majken Connor wrote:
I am totally not informed on this, so please keep that in mind.
We already include a similar form of censorship in the browser with our
security settings around malicious sites. I can imagine that a feature that
works the same way would be the way to go if this were in fact in the
works.
a) Most users would rather not see child porn (especially since it's
illegal), so providing warnings the same way we do for malicious sites
would be useful to many users
b) You still have the option to continue to a malicious site
c) You can turn the feature off
So I will keep an open mind, but I would also definitely like to hear the
context behind these statements.
On Thu, Dec 11, 2014 at 8:58 AM, Kate Black <[email protected]>
wrote:
The prime minister of the UK just said that Mozilla is considering
implementing built-in Internet filters in Firefox.
"Microsoft, Google and Mozilla were "working together to look at" having
"built-in restrictions to block access" to child abuse material - Mr
Cameron said this would be a "game changer""
http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-30426164
"Microsoft, Google and Mozilla will also announce plans to directly block
people from accessing websites which are hosting child pornography from
Internet browsers."
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/11286683/Paedophiles-have-nowhere-to-hide-as-spies-and-police-target-dark-web.html
If this is a lie, which I seriously hope, Mozilla needs to issue a
statement immediately denying that they would even consider building
censorship lists into their browser. Surely a company "dedicated to an open
Internet" cannot ignore this kind of accusation from the leader of a
country.
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
_______________________________________________
governance mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/governance
