One more simple idea. If Cameron is so concerned "for the kids" the government could fund free distribution for parents who want to use blocking software. It would be much cheaper than their present program of trying to "protect" everyone.
Again, the guy who usually trolls here makes the most sensible post I have seen on this subject lately. You can just simply opt out. Here is another very simple solution for parents who are concerned what their children can access: Let them install software themselves and if it blocks something legitimate that they want to allow them to access they can unblock it for them. That is what friends of mine have done when their kids were young.
Have you considered that the ban on liquids, which at the moment really covers bottled water, is really being pushed by airport vendors like "Hudson News"? It would seem these vendors have a significant amount of revenue to lose if our water bottles could make it through security.
I sometimes even wonder if the airlines are in on it too. Come on, is that tiny little glass of water and ice enough to keep a human hydrated for a X hour flight?
The airlines allow cartridge razors, however ban safety razors (double edge). Safety razors provide a close shave and are extremely economical. I highly doubt someone could hold a safety razor in their hand and attack someone. It's almost the equivalent of saying a mechanical pencil could be used as a weapon. Gillette, BIC, etc... are they lobbying to keep old school safety razors out too as it would impact their cartridge razor sales?
Back to water bottles. If they could really contain a threat of explosive liquid lets just screen them. Our government spent millions of dollars on specially developed body scanning technology. How about they create a screening system to detect liquids in bottles. The person who invents it and their lobbyist friends can both get rich, we get to save $$$ brining water back on the plane again.
It's brilliant don't you see - the government forces ISP's to block all porn. Then some kind soul comes up with a free work-around that happens to proxy all your traffic. Could that kind soul perhaps maintain a large data center in Cheltenham? or maybe they got their cousins in Maryland to help out ...
Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disturbing?
It's actually much, much worse than it may at first seem.
With a system like that, a hacker only needs to compromise one system per ISP, place some malware/virus/other malicious program on the page, and then watch every single person who ends up redirected to that page get their computer infected.
So yet again we have a 'for your own good' measure put out by the government screwing over people and putting them in an even worse position than they were before.
Aren't the current nanny/police governments just grand? /s
Adding to the above, I've tried a variety of Google queries constructed using the article title and distinctive words chosen from the first page of the article text, and Google can't seem to find me a more accessible copy.
At this point the best hope for success would be for the author of the Techdirt article to provide a magic NoScript incantation to get that site to work, to post an alternative link, or just to pastebin a copy of the article and point us to that. It's going to take either preexisting knowledge of the rest of the article/alternative locations or google-fu beyond anything most people are capable of, it seems.
Well, that or turning off NoScript and going to a popular website, which is about as safe these days as sleeping with a streetwalker without a condom.
The weird thing is that articles on major news websites are usually syndicated all over the freaking place, so google should have found a dozen copies, with a high likelihood of at least one of them being on a site that was compatible with my browser setup, but in this case it just isn't showing up.