Cameron's Blue Dot Internet

I had planned to write a lengthier post about David Cameron's new pornography opt-in scheme for the UK, but over at Head Rambles, Grandad has covered pretty much what I would have said, saving me at least a thousand characters:

And where does this stop?

He stops child porn today? Tomorrow he goes after any violence. The day after it’s incitement to racism? After that any unpatriotic [i.e. anti-government] material. After that, just about anything he disagrees with. Welcome to China.

I do have a bit more to add. I suppose having failed at introducing minimum pricing to protect the plebs from themselves, and having decided [temporarily] against plain packaging for tobacco products to protect children from dangerous logos and trade marks, Cameron and coalition, wishing to appear to be doing something to protect us all, have now decided to do their utmost to break the Internet in the UK.

Because it's clear that nobody in Parliament actually understands how the Internet works nor how easily any "controls" can be bypassed by a monkey with a mouse and keyboard; nor do our dear respected leaders ken that people who want the sort of material that our leaders seek to have "eradicated and stamped out" are unlikely to use any major search engine to find it, but even if they did they would adapt and use terms that were not blocked.

Of course the Government will fail magnificently in its attempts to stick a giant, digital blue dot on the Internet to protect the plebs from pornography of all sorts, and businesses of all kinds will pay the price for that failure, but not before those businesses -- fearing hefty fines or imprisonment -- overreact and/or misinterpret what will certainly be an ill-drafted law and block anything that anybody might deem unsuitable for children, like this blog for instance, which is already blocked by several UK councils' free wifi schemes. Asking for Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to police the Internet is not going to go well at all.

Grandad stopped short of bringing Public Health's tobacco control industry into play on this, so allow me to retrieve my crystal ball:  I foresee the prohibitionists will seize the opportunity to include a ban on anything tobacco or smoking-related, possibly even e-cigs because it "looks like smoking," including written text and blogs, because they'll say our sole focus in life is to protect the children no matter the costs to free speech and liberty.

Lastly, there will be the innocents caught up in this programme, because some people will do it simply for the "Lulz." It's not at all difficult to mask a hyperlink or set up redirects to the sites that simply accidentally looking at will have you added to the sex offender registry, thanks to your panicky ISPs. The only way to police the Internet is to monitor of all our communications, and the only way to enforce compliance is with force and the threat of imprisonment or extortionate fines. Much like how smoking bans are enforced if you think about it. You will be made to suffer in the Orwellian sense, because this move by Cameron has little do with protecting you or anybody -- it is instead a move to consolidate the power of government.

Sadly, the infantilisation of Britain marches apace. We are all children now, at least that is how our government treats us.

And we let them.

Utah: No Smoking Allowed, Nor Dogs, Nor Double Measures

The greatest confidence trick Public Health has ever pulled must be redefining the concepts of "public" versus "private."  Business owners do not own their property -- the [Nanny] State owns them.  There is a massive difference between "protecting" people from, say, eating at a rat-infested greasy spoon diner and "protecting" people from their own choices.  But Public Health and the State see no difference between the two.  In order  to implement "public" smoking bans, the definitions for what are private and public had to be redefined.  Without this con-trick in place, smoking bans could not have succeeded. With this great con-trick firmly rooted in the consciousness of society, backed up by a tangled web of legalese and fines, the State can force private businesses to do whatever the State wants.

We're in Utah this morning, and leaving in about an hour or so.  We've spent two days here. The first day we holed up in Kanab, which is central to a host of amazing sights and natural wonders like Bryce Canyon and Lake Powell.  The landscape here is stunning and we are not sorry for spending two days to see it all.  But for all its splendour, Utah has serious issues with free choice.

You could blame it on the Mormons, who aren't allowed to smoke, nor drink alcohol or coffee, but that blame would be somewhat misplaced. Because I spent some time here years and years ago, and back then you could smoke in restaurants and other places.  I remember several very late nights drinking coffee and smoking in a restaurant that stays open for 24 hours.  So at one time, Utah was much more liberal and accepting of smokers, despite it's predominantly Mormon population and beliefs.

All that has changed since Public Health's New Inquisition took hold in the past decade or more.  Now in Utah, thanks to the Utah Indoor Clean Air Act, it's illegal to smoke inside "public" places -- it's even illegal to smoke within 25 feet of a "public" building's entrance, although the latter is widely ignored.  Break the law and you're liable to pay hefty fines. I am hardly surprised. Here's a slightly-fuzzy-but-still-legible photo I took of a notice posted on the door of a souvenir shop in Kanab.

If there was ever a place where an oppressive anti-smoking law wasn't needed, it's Utah. Because even 20 years ago or more, most places were non-smoking, because most businesses owners here  are Mormons and don't smoke, and the majority of smokers will generally abide by no smoking notices posted by business owners. But that's how Public Health rolls. This is denormalisation, and it must be applied everywhere, under the threat of extortionate fines.

Strange that dogs and other pets are not allowed in a souvenir shop, which did not serve food, due to a state law.  It would be fine if the owner decided she did not want animals in her shop.  But the State decided that for her, and so unless you're blind and need a guide dog, your dog is unwelcome. That said, I saw a dog hanging out inside a coffee shop ... nobody cared.

As for booze, well the beer here is limited to a maximum alcohol content of 3.2%.  This restriction is definitely a product of the religious beliefs here. Public Health should rejoice and praise the Lord, however, since most beers in America tend to fall in the 4% to 6% range, which means Utahns are 0.8% to 2.8% less likely to get some kind of alcohol-induced cancer or liver disease.  I suppose.

You can get full-strength spirits, but there appears to be a twist. You can't order a double gin and tonic. You can get one single measure per person per order.  So no double gin and tonics for Mrs Tyranny, but we worked around that by ordering a "primary" for each of us. Nevertheless, a customer in the restaurant we were at said that he thought the law had been changed to allow double measures and that the restaurant was probably unaware of it.  Regardless, it is or was a dumb ass law.

Let people decided for themselves. Let business owners decide how to run their businesses. It doesn't matter where in the world this should be.  If we want to live in a free society -- and clearly Public Health does not like freedom and liberty and individual responsibility -- then our governments need to stop passing laws that restrict our free choices.

Your Privacy, Governments and Special Privileges

"Most companies do not tell users about government requests for their data."  - Christopher Soghoian.

Watch this Ted Talk video by Chris.  It's about 15 minutes long, and it's U.S.-centric, but do not fret little reader, because what he says holds true all over the world -- in some places it worse. 


H/T: Big Brother Watch on Twitter.

The above is not surprising to me, and I already knew most of this.  Many of you, like me, have installed browser add-ons for a modicum of privacy protection as well as ad-blockers. These only go so far, of course. Your ISP may also keep detailed records of what you do on-line.  You can even mitigate some of your ISP's data collection to an extent, but essentially nearly everything you do on-line is recorded by some entity for possible monetary gain. 

My on-line activities are entirely legal and so I don't worry about the copyright police turning up at my door.  I don't download music or use bit torrent sites for anything. I do, however, use SoundCloud to listen to new musicians and to upload original music I create. If I decide I want to buy music, I usually get a CD and rip that to my computer -- I don't even have an iPod or similar device -- although musicians are increasingly avoiding record labels and are self-publishing their material.  If I want to watch a film, I typically rent it from a service like LoveFilm, and sometimes even buy a Blu-Ray or two if I really like something, like the Fringe series on TV.  I never watch films on-line -- not even on LoveFilm's streaming service.  Perhaps I'm just old-fashioned.

All of that said, I have still taken the time to fully encrypt my hard drives to protect my data from prying eyes. Good luck getting me to reveal the encryption passwords, because I'd rather languish in jail than hand them over to the police or the government.  There is nothing illegal on my computers, but we know that won't stop governments seizing computers to see what you've been up to on-line, or to merely harass you into compliance. Do they really need to know how many times I watched a particular porn vid on xHamster?  Look what happened to AGW sceptic blogger Tallbloke, for instance. He did nothing illegal, and yet the police came in and took away his computers and his modem.  It's unlikely anything like this will happen to me, but I'm prepared just in case someone posts a comment with a link that the police don't like. If they want to know where it came from, they can ask Google.

Of course, fuckwit cum asswipe cum AGW alarmist Peter Gleick actually does something illegal and admits to it, and he gets a pass.  Sorta. Aw, shucks, pardner. Don't believe in government conspiracies so much, me, but why are the nanny state governments going after Tallbloke and the guy who released the Climategate e-mails, which were legally subject to FOI requests anyway since we all paid for them and the research many times over, and not going after Peter fuckwit Gleick?  Boggles, it does.  Must be there are special privileges for those who tend to get paid with money from the public purse.

I still think we need a new Internet.  It will be interesting to see what the next 25 years of interwebby goodness will bring our way.  A total surveillance state, perhaps?  Probably not. With any luck, in an alternate Fringe-like universe maybe the Internet is all about user privacy.  Here, in ours, we are not yet so lucky.

Image via ClickOnF5.org

Once Upon A Civilised Time - Answers for Simon Clark

At Simon Clark's, he's posed some questions  in respect of the smoking ban's 5th anniversary. He's asking for comments and thoughts, so I thought I'd post my thoughts here:

• Have you adapted to the ban? If so, how? 

I have -- no -- we have all been forced to adapt to the ban.  What choice is left for us when those who have defied the ban have been threatened with imprisonment and enormous fines?  How can anyone think this is acceptable, to jail people for smoking in their own private businesses?  It's an outrage.  And no one, not one politician has even tried to do anything about it, which is even more outrageous. Speaking out against it is not the same as doing something.

• Has your social life changed since the ban?  Do you go to pubs as often as you did before?  If not, where do you drink and smoke?

We have no social life any longer.  We used to go out three times a week, at least.  Each week we would spend hundreds of pounds at restaurants and pubs. We had friends that joined us. We had favourite places to go and the business owners knew us by name, or at least by sight.  We had fun, and we felt welcome and a part of society.  Now, we go out maybe twice or three times per year, and even then it's for special occasions like birthdays or an anniversary.  These "happy moments" are indelibly marred by the fact that we have to stand outside in the cold and rain to smoke, whereas once upon a civilised time we could stay indoors and be warm and dry. Now we stay at home and rarely see our friends, who also stay at home.

• Has your local pub made an effort to accommodate smokers?

Some have, some haven't.  If by effort you mean building a shabby lean-to that offers no shelter whatsoever from the wind, sure some have done that.  Animals get better shelters from the weather than smokers do.  This is partly because some local councils are very, very strict in what constitutes a legal shelter, or the pub lies in a conservation area and therefore nothing can be added to a structure.  But mainly it is due to excessive costs. Shelters are not cheap, and businesses are struggling to cover their costs as it is.  

• Would it make a difference if it did or would you still feel unwelcome? 

It makes no difference at all.  It is not that we feel particularly unwelcome in pubs or restaurants.  We feel unwelcome in our own country.  We feel as though Britain does not want us here, that we do not belong in their healthy utopia.  We are now outcasts, a persecuted minority.  We are hated as much as any religious group or ethnicity, and the saddest part about it is that is completely acceptable to hate smokers, to attack us, to consider us as evil human beings for using a legal product by our own choice.  Convicted criminals get more sympathy than we do.  So, no, it makes no difference.

• Do you feel less or more strongly about the ban five years on? 

How do you think we feel?  We are livid.  We feel more strongly about the ban with each passing hour. Do you think we like being reminded of that oppressive boot pressing down on our face every day when we go out?  To us, every No Smoking sign displayed on the frontage of every business, every railway station, every taxi, and the entire grounds of a hospital is a symbol of oppression and hate, akin to the swastika.  Businesses do not have a choice -- they have to put up those signs, which must be a certain size and colour according to the law, else they are fined and possibly put out of business for non-compliance.  Business owners now cower in fear of the Nanny State, unable or unwilling to fight it.  Does that sound like freedom to anyone?   Does that sound like a country you want to live in?  Every day this smoking ban goes on is a day we are not free to make our own choices.  

The worst part is that we have no natural allies on our side.  No one will dare challenge the Nanny State, now that the boot is firmly planted into this nation's soil.  Smokers have lost every battle in the UK.  All of them. Not one victory.  We will continue to lose the fight until we gain a few allies.  But I'm not holding my breath.  Because, honestly, we are looking to leave Britain permanently because it pains us to see how dreadful and hateful this little island has become in such a short time -- and it isn't just the attack on smokers. It's the attack on everyone who does not conform to the Nanny State's will. 

The Queen was wrong when she said we are a tolerant nation in her speech a few weeks ago.

We are not tolerant at all.  This is a nation of despots and haters.  And the good people, the ones who haven't already left, they have had their lives eviscerated and trampled upon by the State and those who seek to profit from it.

Maybe We Need A New Internet

Over the last decade or so, you probably have noticed that all of the world's governments have been trying to limit your on-line freedom.  Communist states, demockeries, dictatorships and monarchies alike all seek to control what you see, hear, and write on the interwebs.  This should not be surprising to anyone.  All governments fear the free flow of information and ideas, even our western governments.  It's simple, really.  The less you know about how your government is screwing you over, the more they can keep screwing you over while filling their pockets with your hard-earned gold.  The less you are able to communicate with your fellow citizens, the easier it is for government to do whatever it likes to you.  But the Internet changed all of that, and now twenty-five years on they figure they have to do something about it.  Governments have even set up GONGOs like ParentPort to convince you it is a good idea.  It's about control.

About a year ago, I read this Electronic Frontier Foundation article that suggested we need an Open Wireless Movement.  I remember thinking at the time that it was nice in principle, but that before everyone actually did so, a whole lot of innocent people might get arrested because someone used their WiFi to do something naughty or illegal.  Indeed, people have already been falsely charged with crimes because they didn't know their network was unsecured and open to any passers-by.  Suffice it to say, the only way an Open Wireless Movement could work is that if everyone opened their networks all at once, which frankly is not going to happen any time soon because a lot of our ISPs allow us only a limited amount of data for uploading and downloading under their fair use policies.

So, it is down to control again.  ISPs control the bandwidth on their networks by various means, governments try to control the content, and ultimately the users and freedom suffer.

It seems to me that what we really need is an open Internet.  One without any gateways or key holders.  Everyone will be able to access it all the time, with no restrictions on content or bandwidth.  It would be free of charge and it would be organic, meaning that nobody could control it, it would simply exist.  Every device would be both a receiver and transmitter, all of them open gateways to the free flow of information.  If you didn't want to see things like porn on this open Internet, you alone (or your parents) would be responsible for installing the appropriate filters on your device. 

To be honest, I wouldn't have the first clue how it would or could work in theory or in practice.  But I can see that such a thing would stop the nannies in their tracks.  If no one had control, then no one could exercise control. 

Well, it's a nice dream.  Maybe some day it will happen.  I'm not holding my breath.  It's 2012 and we still don't have rocket pants or flying cars.  I'd settle for a teleporter in the meantime.

Ain't Gonna Happen Any Time Soon

Big Society or Big Brother - Is There Any Difference?

The oppressive boot-in-the-face nanny state is advancing apace.  Via Big Brother Watch, we learn that government seeks to control everything you do and see -- not just your lifestyle habits, but your on-line viewing habits, too. If you thought that the Tories were for freedom, for choice, for letting people live their lives without government dictating to you, you have thought wrong.  The Conservative party is fast shaping up to be far, far worse than Labour was in noughties.  We are in incredible danger of losing all of our civil liberties under the false pretense of protecting the children.

What happened?  An "independent" panel of MPs called forth the nannies and other interested parties (ISPs and even one porn producer) and concluded that government needs to protect your young, gullible children from all of the evils out there on the interwebs.  Government wants to create an omnipotent busybody department that monitors and regulates everyone's internet activity.  How much do you want to wager that this group will be amalgamated into the new nanny department? 

Read the full inquiry here. It's 89 pages of unadulterated shite, mostly.  So, I'll just provide the panel's recommendations below for your ease of reference:

Recommendations:

1. The Government should urgently review the implementation plans for “Active Choice” and press for an accelerated implementation timetable, more clarity on installation targets for all customers, and funding commitments from ISPs.

2. ISPs should provide better support for internet safety education and initiatives such as ParentPort and improve signposting for these services from their own web domains.

3. Government and industry representatives should draw up guidelines for improving the communication of existing internet safety settings, improving training for retailers, developing a family friendly kite-marking scheme for manufacturers and retailers and improving signposting to pre-installed security settings during device configuration.

4. ISPs should be tasked with rolling out single account network filters for domestic broadband customers that can provide one click filtering for all devices connected to a home internet connection within 12 months.

5. The Government should launch a formal consultation on the introduction of an Opt-In content filtering system for all internet accounts in the UK. The most effective way to reduce overall development cost and create the most flexible solution would be for ISPs to work together to develop a self-regulated solution.

6. Public Wi-Fi provision should also be filtered in this way otherwise home-based controls will be easily circumvented.

7. The Government should also seek backstop legal powers to intervene should the ISPs fail to implement an appropriate solution.

8. Finally, the Government should consider the merits of a new regulatory structure for online content, with one regulator given a lead role in the oversight and monitoring of internet content and in improving the dissemination of existing internet safety education materials and resources such as ParentPort.

Once again, parents, you are utterly incapable of raising a child. Do not forget that.

For the rest of us:  All you really need to do, folks, is follow the money.  Who stands to benefit from such a scheme?  Well, firstly, ParentPort.  That one is obvious. Also, the major ISPs will benefit hugely. Because only the big ISPs will have the financial resources to even attempt to monitor your activity.   The little independent ISPs won't stand a chance, so off they'll go into the ether.  You can count on the big ISPs to support any legislation that will crush their competition like they are gnats!

All big businesses support legislation that will benefit them financially, tobacco companies included.  Yes, the big tobacco companies stopped fighting the display ban because they knew the smaller ones would be unable to compete if no one could see alternative brands.  It is about shareholders -- it is always about money.

And it is never about protecting anyone or anything except for their purses and wallets.

Vote them all out, people.  All of them.  Collectively, they have created this financial mess and are now trying to distract our attention by putting forward all of these terrible restrictions on personal choice and freedom.  If you want to be nannied, move to Australia.  I'm sure there's room for you there.

The Consultation

The plain packs consultation is up here: http://consultations.dh.gov.uk/tobacco/standardised-packaging-of-tobacco-products/consult_view

I've only had a brief chance to peruse it, so I will come back later and give my thoughts on it.  I did notice a couple of leading questions, and the whole preamble looks like it was written by tobacco control. 

Completely Missing That Huge Elephant

When I saw The Independent's blog post title "David Cameron’s oppressive Big Society," I admit I got a little excited before I had even clicked the link.  Surely, someone was to have a go at the Tories for being nannying tyrants like Labour had been before them.  Alas, I was disappointed.  Still, it almost began to cover the nanny state:

But though group security can bring comfort and belonging, it can also perpetuate injustice and ignorance. The understandable craving for affection and status within a group – and what esteemed physicist and author Leonard Mlodinow claims is the deep need for an “affinity with a group identity” – often leads to people immersing and identifying themselves in only a few social networks.

And so we have group-think: too little interaction, and thus empathy for, other groups. Instead, a deep internalisation and fierce defence of one’s own group norms.

And then that huge elephant standing in every pub, every supermarket, every train station, and soon itself to be wrapped in plain packaging if the nannies get their way was completely missed.  Maybe he is completely unaware of it?  I don't know.

The sad truth is that millions of adults in this country simply do not care or they are unaware that their freedoms are being taken away, one by one.  The media doesn't care, either.  Because when this country finally does descend into that Orwellian utopia, the media will still be there, pumping out government-approved propaganda.  I am vaguely reminded of this quote:

"And if all others accepted the lie which the Party imposed-if all records told the same tale-then the lie passed into history and became truth. 'Who controls the past' ran the Party slogan, 'controls the future: who controls the present controls the past.'" - George Orwell, 1984, Book 1, Chapter 3

It was just a blog post, though.  So I won't be too hard on this kid for missing the elephants, in all of the rooms.  And really, it's my fault for having any expectations at all. Which is why I so rarely read or watch the news.

Except for late at night when Babita is on, but I'm not really paying that much attention to the news.