I said the IWF list was just the thin end of the wedge. The objective of stopping people accidentally encountering child porn on the web was a crazy one (IMHO) as it did not even try to stop people that want to access such material, and (as has been shown) has side effects.
The only real reason for IWF blocking list was to get in place a mechanism to allow arbitrary web sites to be blocked. Then the list can be conveniently expanded to other things. Start with something nobody can object to like "child porn", and build from that.
The quote on that article is "Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the government put pressure on them". This kind of shows why the otherwise pointless IWF block list was encouraged so much in the first place - it was a foot in the door.
The latest is to add all porn (completely legal porn) on the basis children might see it, and allow adults to opt-in to access it. It's think of the children mentality. Of course these blocking systems are trivial to get around. There are already plenty of ways for parents to control what their children see on their computer. And, whats to bet that such opt-in systems will be on IP and so mean (with NAT) that the whole house has opt-in, including the kids machines?
You can see where it goes. I am sure terrorist web sites will be next on the list, after all, who can argue with that. Of course, any extreme political web sites will need to be next. Basically any wrong thinking.
Thankfully, due to other oppressive governments around the world, there are already well established and well documented ways to bypass all of this crap to allow people to communicate and access the Internet without trace and without filters.
Utter incompetence on the part of our government, IMHO.
Oh, and they are talking of doing it without legislation. OK, so they want communications for a perfectly legal purpose between two parties via a communications network to be intercepted and blocked without the specific (opt-in) request of either of the parties, and somehow this is legal under RIPA?