"If you don't support X, then you're leaving people vulnerable to Y!" has long been a cheap scare tactic trotted out in service of agendas on all sides of all aisles, pretty much since the dawn of time.
I hate that tactic in general, and I hate it here specifically. Not just because it's intellectually dishonest, but because it cheapens the actual victims of child pornography and exploitation -- using them as little more than rhetorical chess pieces.
Recently a judge has ruled that BT must use the same system to block a website used to share links. [1]
The list of blacklist sites itself can only be edited by a small group (iirc 4 people) of unelected and unaccountable people at the IWF[2]
Cleanfeed is also pretty flawed, doesn't work with HTTPS, can be interrogated to get a list of blocked content (using TTLs) and misleadingly returns 404 for blocked content.
[0] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_s... [1] http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/news/2011/07/british-tele... [2] http://www.iwf.org.uk/ [3] http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
I really dont want the government to have knowledge of my preference for midget donkey porn. That is my business, not theirs.
EDIT: And I really think they're "boiling the frog" here. They steadily take away our rights to privacy so there are only a few people mad about it at a time, until they have full control.
But we need to step back a little and think about what they're really doing. They're trying to have full access to everything you're doing online, while the Internet is becoming more and more our main communication method. Then how is this much different from communism where the Government wants to monitor the whole population - "so there are no crimes or anything". It's a very slippery slope, and it has started a while ago. Take a step back and look at everything: Patriot Act, TSA, and now this and other similar laws. What's the end-goal here? 100% complete security - therefore no liberties?