Linked by Thom Holwerda on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:21 UTC
Internet & Networking "Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography, David Cameron will announce on Monday." And so, the UK nanny state turns to straight up censorship. Let's look at some of the authoritarian policies that David Cameron wishes to enact.
Order by: Score:
Not surprised
by andrewclunn on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:36 UTC
andrewclunn
Member since:
2012-11-05

Didn't the Conservative party run partially on attacking the now ubiquitous surveillance state in the UK? Come on UK. Fight back! I expect a full scale, "Yes David Cameron, I like titties!" campaign, shaming this ass hat.

Reply Score: 8

Proper education
by gpsnoopy on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 15:45 UTC
gpsnoopy
Member since:
2007-04-17

"At the age of thirteen, he went to Eton College [...]"

"Cameron passed 12 O-Levels, and then studied three A-Levels in History of Art, History and Economics with Politics."

"Cameron then began his Bachelor of Arts studies in Philosophy, Politics, and Economics (PPE) at Brasenose College, Oxford." (Wikipedia).


Because neither Eton nor Oxford are very good schools, despite their reputation. In fact Oxford is poor at sciences, except for their Physics and Computer Sciences department.

Oxford will cost you around £9000 per year to study there nowadays. It is more about your social background and class rather than your intellectual worth.

Given all of the above, I don't even think David Cameron knows anything about the Scientific Method.

Reply Score: 6

RE: Proper education
by Kochise on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 16:00 UTC in reply to "Proper education"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Hmmmm ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9Eo5MdHMNcw (4h28m, really)

Kochise

Reply Score: 0

RE: Proper education
by unclefester on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 08:36 UTC in reply to "Proper education"
unclefester Member since:
2007-01-13

What a load of unmitigated crap. Oxford is consistently ranked between No2 and No10 of the worlds best universities depending on which ranking system is used. To enter Oxford you need o be in the Top 1% of British matriculants.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Proper education
by orfanum on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 13:35 UTC in reply to "Proper education"
orfanum Member since:
2006-06-02

+1 For postgraduate work, many actively leave Oxford and seek technically better departments/supervisors elsewhere. However, it's still often heard in UK academe: "Which of the two universities did you go to?", and I suppose affiliated academics are still disproportionately drawn from the Oxbridge graduate pool, wherever they are employed subsequently.

The reason why the UK is slipping relatively in world research tables isn't because of recent austerity cutbacks, it's due in my estimation to there not having been a successful transition to a full and proper meritocracy established in the UK. Also, state education is risible.

You would not believe how many foreign-born nationals have to shipped into the UK just to keep its creaking system going, when, if only the UK would pay the smallest amount of educational attention to British citizens in the first instance, both our economy and learning base would be much more solid (and other countries would not be crippled by brain drain).

I work in UK HE.

Orf

Reply Score: 3

"Children to be protect"
by ronaldst on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 16:15 UTC
ronaldst
Member since:
2005-06-29

Another step towards a continent wide firewall.

Soviets would be proud of these little collectivists.

Reply Score: 4

RE: "Children to be protect"
by v_bobok on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:45 UTC in reply to ""Children to be protect""
v_bobok Member since:
2008-08-01

Collectivists? You mean capitalists and corporatists, kiddo.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: "Children to be protect"
by ronaldst on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 04:13 UTC in reply to "RE: "Children to be protect""
ronaldst Member since:
2005-06-29

Nope. Collectivists. They dedicate their lives to do these things. It's their core value.

Reply Score: 2

RE: "Children to be protect"
by aligatro on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 18:04 UTC in reply to ""Children to be protect""
aligatro Member since:
2010-01-28

Another step towards a continent wide firewall.

Soviets would be proud of these little collectivists.


Why would Soviets be proud of this? They were just people like you and me. They never asked for censorship shit, it was done by their government.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: "Children to be protect"
by Savior on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 07:22 UTC in reply to "RE: "Children to be protect""
Savior Member since:
2006-09-02

Why would Soviets be proud of this? They were just people like you and me. They never asked for censorship shit, it was done by their government.


The word "Soviets" usually refers to the government of the Soviet Union, not to the people.

Reply Score: 5

RE[2]: "Children to be protect"
by zima on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 15:43 UTC in reply to "RE: "Children to be protect""
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

Why would Soviets be proud of this? They were just people like you and me. They never asked for censorship shit, it was done by their government.

Soviets (~"councils"), in union, were the government.

Reply Score: 2

What's going on?
by anda_skoa on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:00 UTC
anda_skoa
Member since:
2005-07-07

I think this is a modern version of "waging a war abroad to hide problems at home".

The Internet is like a far away country to a lot of people, or as Angela Merkel put it recently "Neuland" (recently discovered land).

Like any of those wars in the past the war against "The Internet" allows politicians to show that "they do something", and that this something has to do with "protection".

Just like people continue to believe that any military effort abroad is for their "protection", "safety" or "freedom", people do believe the propaganda about "anarchy and chaos" of anything related to "The Internet".

People have been trained to not care about anything that outside their proverbial backyards, and until they stop treating IT as something as alien as little grey men they will deliver us all into a bright new, safe and controlled future of straight jacked like societies.


P.S. sorry for all the scare quotes, just marking words that are usually over used and abused so much that they don't mean anything anymore in certain contexts.

Reply Score: 8

So...how long
by Soulbender on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:13 UTC
Soulbender
Member since:
2005-08-18

So...how long until you guys rename England to "Airstrip One"?

Reply Score: 3

RE: So...how long
by Kochise on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:39 UTC in reply to "So...how long"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

I more thought about "V for Vendetta"...

Kochise

Reply Score: 5

RE: So...how long
by Vanders on Fri 26th Jul 2013 16:19 UTC in reply to "So...how long"
Vanders Member since:
2005-07-06

I assumed that's why Heathrow and Gatwick have both announced plans to build new runways.

Reply Score: 2

Huh
by peteo on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 17:45 UTC
peteo
Member since:
2011-10-05

"Elections aren't until 2015, so what's going on?"

Huh? That's exactly why this happens now, as it's not election material.

Reply Score: 2

Comment by SunOS
by SunOS on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 19:56 UTC
SunOS
Member since:
2011-07-12

Isn't this part of what the IWF http://www.iwf.org.uk do already?

This feels more like a cheap diversion tactic due to how much attention Cameron was getting and how uncomfortable it was making him over questions of Lynton Crosby's postition in and outside of the Government.

Besides if I was in the UK and setup an ssh tunnel to a VPS anywhere outside of it, I guess I could view all the porn I want but remain 'opted in' to Cameron's idealistic moral protection.

Reply Score: 5

RE: Comment by SunOS
by PLan on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 03:52 UTC in reply to "Comment by SunOS"
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

Ah right the IWF ... sometimes people shout "Something must be done!!", especially politicians and the press. And in due course "something" is done. And so it was with the IWF and "Cleanfeed".

Basically, IIRC, BT got together with the IWF and produced for the politicians and press that most magical of things a "block" for illegal pornography. Except of course "Cleanfeed" doesn't actually do that. All "Cleanfeed" actually does is help prevent _accidental_(admitted by their staff) viewing of child porn - it is not capable of preventing someone determined to view such material. However in tabloid and political folklore the IWF/Cleanfeed is still referred to as "blocking" child porn when it does no such thing.

But Cleanfeed is very important in other ways. It crosses the Rubicon as far as censorship goes. If we can attempt to censor pornography why can't we attempt to censor other information on the Internet, say the politicians. And so on and so forth.

So what BT/Cleanfeed started - the myth of "blocking" - has brought us to Cameron's/Perry's/The Daily Mail's policy announcement this week.

P.S. I heard Cameron being interviewed on BBC Radio 2 about this and he actually said that pornography would be blocked but that would not include, for example, Page 3 or Fifty Shades of Grey. So there you have his policy - children will be protected from porn, unless it's popular porn! What a pathetic politician.

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Comment by SunOS
by Laurence on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 11:46 UTC in reply to "RE: Comment by SunOS"
Laurence Member since:
2007-03-26


P.S. I heard Cameron being interviewed on BBC Radio 2 about this and he actually said that pornography would be blocked but that would not include, for example, Page 3 or Fifty Shades of Grey. So there you have his policy - children will be protected from porn, unless it's popular porn! What a pathetic politician.

The Page 3 and Fifty Shades of Grey exceptions are because neither of them as classed as "porn" by previous legislation (eg Page 3 is classed as "partial nudity" rather than "sexual nudity").

This isn't a case of the PM picking what sites to block, this is a case of prior legislation.

Reply Score: 4

RE[3]: Comment by SunOS
by PLan on Fri 26th Jul 2013 13:42 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Comment by SunOS"
PLan Member since:
2006-01-10

I'm not clear the filters will be based purely on legality - the TalkTalk HomeSafe system isn't.

Reply Score: 2

The tabloids are happening
by firesock on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 21:20 UTC
firesock
Member since:
2013-07-22

It's just reputation management for the Conservative Party, and Cameron as well. Tabloids have got behind this in a big way and it's a quick fixup which they can spin well.

And electoral votes in the UK are driven so much by the media it's scary.

Reply Score: 4

RE: The tabloids are happening
by Fergy on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 05:47 UTC in reply to "The tabloids are happening"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

It's just reputation management for the Conservative Party, and Cameron as well. Tabloids have got behind this in a big way and it's a quick fixup which they can spin well.

And electoral votes in the UK are driven so much by the media it's scary.

You don't think this is the first step for a bigger push of controlling the web? Seems to me they use "save the children!" for laying down the infrastructure. Next they will 'block' terrorist then evil movie pirates then people who are against the government.

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The tabloids are happening
by novad on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 10:42 UTC in reply to "RE: The tabloids are happening"
novad Member since:
2010-06-10


You don't think this is the first step for a bigger push of controlling the web? Seems to me they use "save the children!" for laying down the infrastructure. Next they will 'block' terrorist then evil movie pirates then people who are against the government.


You said exactly what I was going to say...

The US showed us how far "anti-terrorist measures" can go. Once the state-firewalls are up at every national provider there's nothing more to do.

And this covers only "legal measures". What about all the derogations secret services will have to protect us from evil?

It's a very sad day for UK but don't worry... Others will follow.

[Irony] Our kids must be protected. Parents are too stupid for that.[/Irony]

Reply Score: 3

RE[2]: The tabloids are happening
by firesock on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 18:32 UTC in reply to "RE: The tabloids are happening"
firesock Member since:
2013-07-22

Oh it definitely is a step, but I don't think that's deliberate. Just 'moving the goalposts' or 'changing the context'. Like how we now point to mobile phone operators and say, well they block NSFW stuff and the world didn't end! (So not even the first step really)

So the same end result, but by way of slow shift instead of deliberate plan.

Reply Score: 1

RE[3]: The tabloids are happening
by Fergy on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 18:54 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: The tabloids are happening"
Fergy Member since:
2006-04-10

Like how we now point to mobile phone operators and say, well they block NSFW stuff and the world didn't end! (So not even the first step really)

I just went to xvideos.com with my phone from my mobile connection. What do you mean that they block NSFW stuff?

Reply Score: 2

firesock Member since:
2013-07-22

I've had blocks on both http://oglaf.com/ (usually NSFW) and http://www.ma3comic.com/ (usually risque, sometimes NSFW) before.

It depends on operator you're with, but most major operators have implemented this. And you can get through by registering a few more details and leaving a credit card behind. (Some may even do this automatically, but I haven't come across any.) A database of porn users anyone?

It's already had some lovely wins of blocking charity and help sites.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by lucas_maximus
by lucas_maximus on Mon 22nd Jul 2013 22:06 UTC
lucas_maximus
Member since:
2009-08-18

There wasn't a majority electing the Government. Most people that voted for the libs dems voted so that the conservatives didn't get in.

Argh well I don't live there anymore.

Reply Score: 4

Comment by Luminair
by Luminair on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 04:05 UTC
Luminair
Member since:
2007-03-30

cameron and his conservatives are scared dishonest assholes

Reply Score: 2

Comment by MOS6510
by MOS6510 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 04:25 UTC
MOS6510
Member since:
2011-05-12

I'm willing to take a wild guess it's not about porn. This porn filter will probably be a success, because the government will find a way to make it look like one.

So what's next? Torrent sites? They contain porn and files that damage your computer (and music/movies/series).

Obviously we should be protected from those too.

More success. So what's next?

Islamic propaganda, bomb making/science sites? Non-English/Western sites? Swiss banks? Sites that refuse to register with the UK authorities? WikiLeaks? Drugs, weapons?

If we put in some effort we can make a rather long list of categories that are in some way damaging to children, adults, the economy, our free way of living, etc...

And what I apply to have porn and Swiss bank sites de-filtered? Does that lead to increased financial scrutiny? Puts me on the suspect list when there's a sexual assault in an area where my mobile phone was detected?

Asking to de-filter stuff, to make the Internet as it was, makes you a suspicious suspect.

Besides, if I de-filter stuff, what happens if I access the Internet from my phone? Or tablet using free WiFi <somewhere>. Then I'm still getting blocked.

Reply Score: 8

RE: Comment by MOS6510
by zima on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 15:44 UTC in reply to "Comment by MOS6510"
zima Member since:
2005-07-06

And watch out about your avatar, it's satanic! ;)

Reply Score: 2

metalf8801
Member since:
2010-03-22

The only way they can hope to block all porn if they only show white listed websites and even then someone will game the system to get porn onto a white listed site. Meanwhile the majority of the Internet will be blocked.
The other option would be to use a black listing system which will either
A. Have a very aggressive black listing system that will block lots of false positives while still letting in some porn
or
B. Have a less aggressive black listing system that will let in more porn while still blocking sites that are not pornographic

Also this will create a false sense of security for some UK parents who will believe they don't have to monitor what their kids are looking at online as closely as they used to. Will those parents be able to sue the Prime Minister (David Cameron) when their kids find porn online while the filters are turned on?

Edited 2013-07-23 05:34 UTC

Reply Score: 5

It has been done before
by Ishan333 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 09:08 UTC
Ishan333
Member since:
2012-06-27

I don't remember who said this but I'm paraphrasing it anyway : "True fascism starts with the censorship of pornography."
Just think about that...

Reply Score: 5

I'm not convinced
by roblearns on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 13:23 UTC
roblearns
Member since:
2010-09-13

The theory behind blocking pornography is that it does some public good.

And you'll be told, to protect women, but that isn't the case.

Relatively speaking the number of women employed in the pornography field isn't many compared to the massive numbers of men addicted to pornography.

The toll on society is great. At the same time, I don't favor censorship.

The main issue with pornography is that for many its available for free. If economics worked the way it used to in the past - there'd be no excuse for government intervention.

But the phenomena of delivering services for free in order to profit from addicts mean there is no longer the barrier.

Look in years gone by - they had pornography but it was printed in a magazine - it cost a few dollars, and you had to go to the store and actually purchase it at checkout.

Well my belief in freedom of commerce, speech, private ownership of networks - is all strong enough that I wouldn't support the governments actions.

However I feel no need to over simplify. They are addressing a real problem - even if the world is so focused on women, they have to express every problem and solution in terms of how it impacts women.

The real problem here - is pornography is negatively impacting men.
And - as men are human beings too - it's sad that its having this impact, and I'd like to see a solution. Just not the government's solution.

p.s. I'm not from the UK - so my 'support' was neither requested nor required - I'm just joining the discussion because its interesting. True, it's important to stay vigilant against attacks on freedoms, but at the same time, some talk of the underlying issue is important too - pornography is a menace, if you ask me ;)

Edited 2013-07-23 13:29 UTC

Reply Score: 3

RE: I'm not convinced
by Ravyne on Wed 24th Jul 2013 00:51 UTC in reply to "I'm not convinced"
Ravyne Member since:
2006-01-08

I wonder what your viewpoints are on the following:

If the real problem, as you say, is not exploitative production of porn and resulting shifted perceptions (that is, "harm to women"), but really is the addictions of men facilitated by free/cheap and easily available product to consume, what role is there for government to play? Why isn't the solution "Its your responsibility to stop doing things that harm you." Admittedly, for a small few, this is easier said than done. But what would be the wisdom in implementing any beurocracy or process intended to curb such isolated addictions? Especially to the extent that responsible consumers of porn are affected -- I suppose this all hinges upon your response to my second query, which is:

What harm does the porn itself actually cause? Not many reports of habitual masturbators robbing corner stores to keep up with their porn habits are there? Similarly few of "porn deals" gone bad. So the harm seems to be the perception of porn addicts as, ultimately, not pulling their weight in society. On a case-by-case basis this may or may not be true, but the fault ultimately is the addiction itself, not their drug of choice, whether it be pornography or heroin.

Leaving even governments aside, why should it be anyone's prerogitive to decide for someone else whether they are doing too much percieved harm (or good) to themself?

I agree that there should be help -- non-profits, community organizations, even perhaps government offices -- for those who want to rid themselves of such addictive behavior, for whatever addictions they suffer -- but what I would disagree with is for anyone to take it upon themselves to define what the standard is, and to track and prosecute those who would fall on the wrong side of it.

Reply Score: 2

And I thought Thatcher was bad...
by orfanum on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 13:31 UTC
orfanum
Member since:
2006-06-02

Once more, the apparent proponents of 'free' hide behind the Daily Mail mob mentality.

Yes, why not do this when for years abuse in state-run and state-affiliated institutions was known about and glossed over?

Just get the police to do its job of prosecuting those who have *actually* abused. Not filtering for those whose actions might (depending on other circumstances) lead to others abusing in the future.

What next, not prosecuting murderers 100% but making FPS games illegal?

We are heading for a 'justice' system that will mirror the situation in Minority Report.

What makes me hopping mad is that people who oppose this will be painted as not wanting there to be censure or opprobrium for crime per se whereas the truth of it is, in my view, that the state increasingly abdicates full responsibility for applying any kind of law where it really matters.

Adulterate the food chain with non-labelled horsemeat - prosecutions slow

Banking crisis - strip one or two of their knighthoods and just talk about changing the law (half-a-decade on)

Newspaper hacking scandal - still no statutory law based on Leveson

I had better stop now. I can feel my spleen beginning to rupture!

Reply Score: 4

"welcome to the New World Order "
by MrMysteryGuest on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 14:01 UTC
MrMysteryGuest
Member since:
2013-03-01

Pornography is not inherently a bad thing, the pornography industry has in the past been partially responsible for the development of key multimedia and entertainment technology, all of which are used in mainline entertainment now.

This is once again about control of the internet and the observation of the public's actions.

It wont work. It will be abused by the state.

OpenDNS already operate a family safe DNS settings - the simplest solution would be for the default DNS of ISP's to mirror that solution and for others to change the DNS look ups they use.

What causes me concern is the following lines(in the linked article)
"The intention is to introduce the system, which uses a Microsoft-developed industry standard called PhotoDNA, this year if possible"

So a founding organisation of PRISM will effectively be in control of what images we see online.

It also appears that running a VPS with a squid based web proxy or VPN will bypass this pathetic attempt of censorship.

Reply Score: 4

Wish They Did That Here
by im_herb on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 16:37 UTC
im_herb
Member since:
2013-04-08

Its not like they're telling folks they can't have it, and I think its a good thing to have it blocked by default. I have several teenage sons, and porn has been a problem and a blight in too much of our lives, not to mention our society.

Pornography is a scourge and a pestilence.

Reply Score: 1

RE: Wish They Did That Here
by WereCatf on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 16:55 UTC in reply to "Wish They Did That Here"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

Its not like they're telling folks they can't have it, and I think its a good thing to have it blocked by default. I have several teenage sons, and porn has been a problem


How, exactly, is porn a problem for you, then? Sexuality is inherently natural and absolutely nothing to be ashamed of and definitely not something you can just lock in the closet and run away from; teenagers want to and will find ways of experimenting and learning about their own bodies and their sexual feelings and seeing as how few outlets they have for that, how our society seems to consider sexuality altogether something abhorring what other choices do they really have other than porn or actually going out and doing it with random people?

Edited 2013-07-23 16:56 UTC

Reply Score: 4

RE[2]: Wish They Did That Here
by MOS6510 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 18:23 UTC in reply to "RE: Wish They Did That Here"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I kind of doubt porn is in any way a realistic representation of how real sex takes place.

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wish They Did That Here
by Kochise on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 20:26 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wish They Did That Here"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then where are the "real life" screening of sex ? Are parents so eager to "educate" their offspring about this "essential" part of adulthood ?

You'd be surprised how "vanilla sex" is not so "vanilla", And Sex 1 the City such a close depiction of reality.

Kochise

Reply Score: 4

RE[4]: Wish They Did That Here
by MOS6510 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 20:45 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wish They Did That Here"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

"Real" sex can be found too, just not on porn sites. Porn sites are more entertainment than realistic situations and actions.

I can imagine if you're a kid, don't know about sex and visit porn sites you may get ideas about sex, men and women that are far from the truth and could cause problems now or later in life.

I'm not saying I'm in favor of filters or blocks, but I don't find the argument valid that porn sites offer educational content with regards to sex.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wish They Did That Here
by Kochise on Wed 24th Jul 2013 06:25 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wish They Did That Here"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Then a warning should be presented at the beginning of each porn, or at the bottom of the screen during the replay : "these sex stunts are performed by professionals, don't try them at home"

http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/DontTryThisAtHome

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[6]: Wish They Did That Here
by MOS6510 on Wed 24th Jul 2013 10:56 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wish They Did That Here"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

But I do want to try them at home!

Reply Score: 2

RE[3]: Wish They Did That Here
by WereCatf on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 21:43 UTC in reply to "RE[2]: Wish They Did That Here"
WereCatf Member since:
2006-02-15

I kind of doubt porn is in any way a realistic representation of how real sex takes place.


That's not what I was even saying. I was saying that it fulfills a need, a need that the kids will then satisfy some other way if porn isn't available. And if that other way happens to be with real people it may end real bad.

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wish They Did That Here
by Kochise on Wed 24th Jul 2013 07:31 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wish They Did That Here"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Kids envy what adults cherish : fast carz, noizy guns, bad boyz attitude, eazy money, bumpy girlz, ...

If the real value of adults were friendship, hard labor, contained ego, kids would follow that path.

But how should they with semi-naked girls are shown on the ads to promote cars, drillers, whatever ?

The whole society values should change first instead to censor the net. They should censor real life first.

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE[4]: Wish They Did That Here
by MOS6510 on Wed 24th Jul 2013 10:52 UTC in reply to "RE[3]: Wish They Did That Here"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

In that case I doubt children go on a raping rampage if they can't watch porn.

An increasing number of adults is addicted to porn. If they can't handle it, can kids? If they see loads and loads of video I suspect it may convince a number that what they see is normal.

Again, I'm not saying the government should introduce filters to protect our kids, but I do think parents should be aware of the dangers of Internet access and that includes a lot more than porn.

Reply Score: 2

RE[5]: Wish They Did That Here
by Kochise on Wed 24th Jul 2013 11:43 UTC in reply to "RE[4]: Wish They Did That Here"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

You imagine the chain of action : government to censor adult's porn, so adult's become more responsible and take care of the children ? WTF ?

Adults pass a driver license before being granted access to roads with a vehicle, governments all across the globe should instate a child license to ensure you have the necessary knowledge, abilities and envy to raise kids. Just like dangerous dogs' owners now requires a license.

That would soon cut the earth population in half ? I'd say a quarter. And it won't be much of a problem after all : less jobless, less pollution, more cherished and well educated people. Reproducing like wild rabbits haven't done Mother Earth a favor in the last century.

Kochise

Reply Score: 3

RE[6]: Wish They Did That Here
by MOS6510 on Wed 24th Jul 2013 12:09 UTC in reply to "RE[5]: Wish They Did That Here"
MOS6510 Member since:
2011-05-12

I imagine parents taking care of their children, even though most probably aren't very good at it.

If the government censors porn parents would still have to take care of their children. The porn censoring just adds a false sense of security. Not all porn can be censored and xxx stuff can still be send by email or via IM, webcams.

Everybody is trying to stop child porn and that's still around. You can't kill/stop it, so how can you stop porn that isn't illegal?

Porn blocking will just make a lot of parents believe that the Internet suddenly has become safe and they don't need to do anything. If something happens they'll point at the government and the government will point back.

It's a lot of hassle and it's making things more complicated. Leave porn blocking to the parents. Let them choose how to handle it.

Reply Score: 2

RE[7]: Wish They Did That Here
by Kochise on Wed 24th Jul 2013 13:33 UTC in reply to "RE[6]: Wish They Did That Here"
Kochise Member since:
2006-03-03

Will they know how to ?

Kochise

Reply Score: 2

RE: Wish They Did That Here
by daedalus on Wed 24th Jul 2013 10:10 UTC in reply to "Wish They Did That Here"
daedalus Member since:
2011-01-14

If porn is such a problem for you and your family, why not just opt into a scheme which blocks that sort of content? OpenDNS or something similar, as someone else mentioned. The end result is the same, but you don't have this worrying move towards total censorship.

There have been discussions in Ireland over whether this sort of thing will be brought in over here. already they censor such sites as TPB, and like sheep, we tend to follow the UK in many aspects of law.

Reply Score: 1

What's going on?
by kjn9 on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 17:22 UTC
kjn9
Member since:
2006-01-17

Elections aren't until 2015, so what's going on?

There has been a very slick PR campaign in the UK, led by Claire Perry MP, and backed by a number of prominent female journalists and a newspaper or two. Their combined technical knowledge is close to zero, and they have ignored the obvious technical difficulties in their proposals, even when explicitly advised of them:

http://jameskennett.blogspot.co.uk/2012/04/internet-porn-filtering....

It is literally pointless trying to reason with them, because their stance is not a product of reason. Rather, they have a visceral dislike of online pornography, and a determination to see it regulated by government, irrespective of any technical or ethical difficulties. Many of the basement-dwelling porn lovers who step up to argue with Perry serve the latter's cause as useful straw men. Anyone more sensible is quietly ignored. Perry et al are highly skilled at PR and politics, and they have got what they said they wanted. If it doesn't work, they will be back asking for more, and they will probably get it. "Think of the children" is an irresistible political proposition.

Having said that, I am surprised by the ease with which mainstream search engines can apparently be used to find child porn and extreme porn. The regulation, or self-regulation, of search engines is overdue. The ones that pretend not to be evil will have to lose this large and lucrative slice of their market, which will go instead to offshore search engines that make no such pretence.

Reply Score: 1

Past, present and future
by CapEnt on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 17:34 UTC
CapEnt
Member since:
2005-12-18

This is all smoke and mirrors to hide a simple truth: governments are scared to hell with the Internet, and wants to control it no matter what.

In a close past, if you wanted pornography, you just went to a newsstand and bought a magazine.

I bet that every single parent that today wants this entity called "the government" to look after their own children did managed to get grip with that porn magazines multiple times when they was still minors. Did the bulk of them turned to be criminals? Degenerated members of the society? No. Indeed, the "adventure" to get these magazines even became a kind of tradition, portrayed multiple times in several family movies from 70s and 80s.

Now, we have the present. Porn is easier to get, and more fun. And the same parents that once masturbated frenetically using these magazines wants that their own children be a kind of pure angel devoid of any "bad" motivators (or even have feelings at all in some cases), as if they will be able to ban all kinds of sexuality (because imagination can do wonders when you cannot get "explicit" stuff). In their ingenuity, the UK government found a very good canon fodder.

Edited 2013-07-23 17:39 UTC

Reply Score: 4

This is not censorship
by Nikato on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 20:39 UTC
Nikato
Member since:
2005-12-17

This appears to return power to parents. If families want porn they can opt in to it. This way they can't claim that the government did nothing to try to protect innocent children.

Reply Score: 0

Comment by abstraction
by abstraction on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 21:32 UTC
abstraction
Member since:
2008-11-27

Wait... porn is bad now?

Reply Score: 2

RE: Comment by abstraction
by Ultimatebadass on Sat 27th Jul 2013 08:25 UTC in reply to "Comment by abstraction"
Ultimatebadass Member since:
2006-01-08

THINK OF THE CHILDRENS!!1111eleven

Reply Score: 2

Shocking terrible idea
by jhowie on Tue 23rd Jul 2013 21:55 UTC
jhowie
Member since:
2013-05-12

The Conservative Party in the UK used to synonymous with kinky sex and scandal. They were also the byword of individual freedom. The UK pioneered pornography in the form of the Page 3 girl and the "Sunday Sport". The News Of The World was as much 40-odd pages of badly-written smut and erotic storytelling as it was a newspaper. Much has changed in such a few short years.

Does this mean that the UK public will have to opt-in to such shows as Sexcetera and others on regular cable and satellite stations, that come on after midnight? If you want pornography in the UK all you need is a basic television package. Will they have to be card-carrying pornographers to buy certain newspapers at the local newsagent?

The UK has so much else to worry about you would really hope that the ruling coalition would focus on that, first.

Reply Score: 1

Comment by rklrkl
by rklrkl on Sat 27th Jul 2013 07:44 UTC
rklrkl
Member since:
2005-07-06

It is quite amazing that virtually none of the UK media have labelled this porn block as censorship, which is exactly what this is. The major UK ISPs have been increasing such censorship over time - there's been 3 major events so far and I bet we'll see more even after the porn blocking goes in:

First one was child porn blocking. This is illegal and nasty material that I don't have too much of a problem with the UK blocking of, but I did suspect they'd extend it later on to other areas (I was right).

Next up was the blocking of prominent torrent sites (TPB being the most high profile). Whilst they don't actually host any illegal/copyrighted content themselves, torrent sites can be done by dubious "incitement of others to infringe copyright" laws. Personally I have a bit of a problem with this - rather than chasing down the original uploaders which would take a lot of time and resources but be the correct thing to do, they just blank ban a bunch of sites because it's cheaper/easier to do so.

And the latest blocking? Well that's actually of sites that have no illegal content or even copyright infringement incitement either! I totally disagree with this and I can guarantee that there will be many false positives and you won't ever be able to see the list of sites that are being blocked either.

Next up will be blocking of offshore gambling sites - after all, the UK gov doesn't get its tax share of the profits! Of course, anyone with any tech knowledge (Tor, VPN, proxy) can get around this, but you can bet UK gov will have a go at these workarounds at some point too.

Sadly, the UK is now half way down the slippery slope and expect UK gov to grease that slope up further soon.

Trivia point: The major UK broadband ISPs have blocked TPB, er, except Vodafone on mobile devices! Yep, you can view TPB on Vodafone and they haven't blocked the actual torrenting either! Unless Vodafone block TPB, that's where most people will go to get their pr0n fix after the porn block goes in place...

Reply Score: 2