Dooble, I worry that a few of these things will be far too easy to wrongfully flag.Long story short, my main issue with a system like this would be the potential for misuse and abuse. Parents will, as they often do, "stick with the default". They won't remove the restrictions on young teens who want to go on these sorts of forums because "if we unblock (whatever you want to look at, i.e. the forums) we have to unblock research and you're going to look at it".
Seriously. That's the actual argument my parents gave me when I wanted them to lift their damn web filter (which, incidentally, fires off false positives almost constantly).
Furthermore, if the internet service providers ever sell or make public their "master list of who has the filter off" it'll be a huge issue with employment as mentioned above.
Extremism would be any material that incites extreme religious hatred, as well as supplies terrorist information.
The people who decide are the Government.
The people who make sure that is true are the numerous regulatory bodies that check every single thing that the Government and Parliamentary Clerks do, as well as the entire Judicial System, all the way up to the Supreme Court and the European Court.
If anything is deemed "extremist" that isn't illegal, then it will be left alone.
Added to the filter, yes, but the website and it's owners will be left alone. Just like the owners of research websites.
If someone has legal action taken against them for owning an extremist website, then they enter the Judicial system, which is completely seperate from the Executive and Legislative brances of the Government.
Here they go through a slow and thorough process that checks that the laws really are fair and that they have broken them.
The government has absolutely no control of over-protective parents and never have done.
They have existed long before Cameron proposed these ideas and long before the Internet was around.
The Government is not putting this feature in because it wants to parent every single child in the country.
It wants to provide the means for parents to protect their children. At their own will.
If you have over-protective parents, then I'm very sorry for you. Take up the issue with your parents.
Just because you are unhappy with them is not a reason for a good measure to be removed from the rest of the public.
And I'm very sorry, but parents have the right to parent their children however they like within the confines of the law for so long as you are a legal minor.
If that means that you are not allowed to have the filter off, then that is the case. The Government is not going to step in to sort out a minor trivial domestic issue.
I'm afraid your options are to either convince your parents, put up with the restrictions, or move out.
The issue about your filter-state being recorded and used against you is trivial too.
I would be very happy to say that when this change comes through (if it does) then the initial opt-ins will be, for the very large majority, families with children.
People without children probably won't go in for the filter.
Any chance that the information gets out about you would be nearly useless.
Proving that you don't have the filter on would essentially be proving that you don't have children. Not that you look at research.
And what employer is going to turn away good staff on the basis that they could view research.
Anyone, even those with the filter on could view research. It's on the TV, and it is' in Movies and it's in Magazines. The internet is not the only place to view research and everyone knows it.
There is also the chance that any list that an ISP has would have little to no information on a person on it.
It also takes absolutely zero consideration into who owns the account on an ISP.
My dad owns and pays for our Internet. His name is on the account information with our ISP.
If he has the filter off, I won't be recorded on that account.
An employer might not even know that I live with my parent, so it would make no difference to them. They might not even be able to find out about my Dad on this list when they check me out to employ.
It is just nit-picking at problems that don't actually exist.
fine. it will still make it easier to swallow when cameron pushes for a no-choice filter.
If you read my entire section on the above post about how Laws are passed, you'd know that it's nigh on impossible for something like that to happen, unless every single person in Europe happens to turn a blind eye to it.
You also have to remember that if Cameron wanted to be a dictator for some reason, he'd have to get a really sharp loving move on, because he and his party are up for election in roughly 18 months time.
He seemingly doesn't have a guarantee of even being his Party Leader, let alone the Prime Minister or even a Member of Parliament come the next general election.
I'm pretty sure he knows full well that he couldn't pull controversial moves anytime soon to his election if he wants to be PM or have his party in Government.
And even if he does get in for the next 4/5 years, he's not safe to do as he pleases in that time.
He can't go giving himself ultimate powers or anything. Only the Queen could technically do that.
And if things went very pear-shaped, the country and other MPs have the ability to pull on a General Election early through Referendum.
Believe me. The United Kingdom is 100% safe from evil political leaders taking over.
