ubernoir wrote:
I'm not clear about what you are referring to when you say filtering has been deployed in the UK. If you mean the recent Mandelson plan -- that remains talk at the moment -- if you mean the throttling of p2p traffic by ISPs -- are you saying that AT&T etc doesn't as a routine part of traffic management at peak times? I am not aware of the UK government itself doing any filtering (GCHQ aside) although plans for an uber database have been floated but with that there is a certain amount of scaremongering and tabloid journalism involved.
You say filtering which implies there is a blockage. I am not aware that I am blocked or censored in the UK from any global site. It would seem I need educating. Let's run some tests.

According to Wikipedia about 98% of the UK is filtered, so its likely that you are. The IWF claims there are only about 100 URLs on the list at any one time, so you probably haven't noticed 'cause I'm guessing you're not into child porn. :) I don't suggest running tests...

100 URLs is a pretty tight list that is targeted specifically at something that no one is worried about filtering. The fact that its managed so well is the reason no one is complaining about it.

According to Wikipedia the list in Australia is an order of magnitude larger and has had some problems with it.

Australia sort of demonstrates what the problem is with this. Once the infrastructure exists, expanding its use is just a matter of policy. Conservatives in Australia are calling for censorship of numerous categories of material.

When you think about the ultimate scope that these things will have - consider the fact that this website received a DMCA takedown notice, and consider the amount of money behind that sort of thing.

RE: ‘Anonymous’ Declares War on Australia Over Internet Filtering | Threat Level | Wired.com