Well UK is the country that has just passed a porn ban, and wants to pass a new law to monitor all Internet communications in the country. That puts things into perspective for what we used to think about this "modern western country".
US is actually not that far behind from doing this and more - Constitution or not. They'll just pass the laws and deal with it 10-20 years later. After all US still has the Patriot Act, and that never seemed too constitutional to me.
What's funny is that the Eastern Europe countries are probably the least likely to go this path anytime soon, and that's because it wasn't that long ago when they had revolutions over this kind of thing. But UK and US hasn't really done that in a long time, so neither the Governments nor the people there really get what it means to have mass-surveillance and have the Government know everything you did or want to do, and how bad of a thing that truly is.
Well, that's the thing: even in the US, as bad as it has become, saying vile racist comments on the internet wouldn't get you put in jail.
Is the guy a scumbag? Obviously. Should people go to jail for speaking their mind? That's probably where we diverge and think each other are crazy, but the key is: if you can be put in jail for, say, racism then a corrupt government need only make disagreement be framed as racist, for example. It's safer to just allow anyone to say what they want (with obvious exceptions like yelling "FIRE!") and point out why their argument is stupid.
Do you realize that this comment is misleading? People make this sort of argument all the time, and I think it's one of the reasons that we waste so much time on irrelevant points. It's basically a game that people play.
Has anyone given it a name? It would be nice to call people out on this.
Whilst we're "fact checking", which UK ISPs are offering "opt-out"? Talk Talk is "opt-in" for new accounts. O2 is "opt-in" for their mobile network too. I believe several other mobile networks are "opt-in" too...
[edit] Just to clarify, by "opt-in", I'm referring to opting in to receive everything. Perhaps "opt-out" in reference to opting out of the block, is clearer.
Mobile networks have always done silly blocking, and it takes a phone call to them to ask them to remove it. I assume it's more about them not wanting you to use more data than anything else.
It's a bit ridiculous (from the article) "meaning that any new TalkTalk users who require access to such content will first have to "opt-in" through a highly embarrassing call to customer services."
It's hardly "highly embarrassing" to ask them to remove a filter.
If they do go that route though, and as the article claims, ask you to opt-out once a year, then they'll simply lose customers to ISPs that don't hassle their customers.
"It's hardly "highly embarrassing" to ask them to remove a filter."
I completely disagree. Many people would be very embarrassed phoning up to have an adult content filter removed. You can argue that they shouldn't be, but that's a different thing altogether.
US is actually not that far behind from doing this and more - Constitution or not. They'll just pass the laws and deal with it 10-20 years later. After all US still has the Patriot Act, and that never seemed too constitutional to me.
What's funny is that the Eastern Europe countries are probably the least likely to go this path anytime soon, and that's because it wasn't that long ago when they had revolutions over this kind of thing. But UK and US hasn't really done that in a long time, so neither the Governments nor the people there really get what it means to have mass-surveillance and have the Government know everything you did or want to do, and how bad of a thing that truly is.