Government moves to act on online pornography.

[Xenophon PCDGS]

I note that when the Government were discussing the actions to take on the unit pricing of alcohol, David Cameron stood up in the house and said that his government were not afraid of taking a leading role to ensure this would be effected....only for a U-turn to then ensue.

Will all the Government talk of acting on online pornography now go down the same U-turn road...or will the fact that that industry does not put as much money in the coffers of the Conservative party have a role to play on coming matters.

Or is it just my "cynical slip" showing ?

 

[SS4]

edit: rewritten for clarity

It's not about blocking/restricting access to porn but rather one of censorship. What would happen if the government wanted people to stay at home and so blocked travel websites? In other words it's not about restricting access to porn but testing the restriction of access. I shall leave it up to the reader to decide the logical conclusion but IMO it is not implausible to end with blocking sites the government dislikes. How's that for cynicism Paul?

Also from a civil liberties standpoint by opting in your details will be on a record which will almost certainly include name and DOB probably together with address, phone and email address. Maybe even if there are any under 18s in the property. That list can be obtained by those less scrupulous than ISPs and end up on the open market and therefore expose all those people to spam. Combine with porn's poor reputation and you may even end up with protestations/hate mail. Perhaps most sinister is if it's combined with the above conclusion and there's a ready made list of potential dissidents.

For those familiar with The Simpsons Cameron is pandering to the Helen Lovejoys of the world and the Daily Mail readers. The latter has a reputation for semi-revealing photos of young women lest we forget. Wouldn't be surprised if there was some astroturfing going on either, whether at home or abroad. I would not be surprised if mumsnet has something to do with this too - they seem to have more power than similar fora.

Cameron also needs to differentiate his party from UKIP who've acquired a Libertarian reputation, the latter would not think about doing such a thing although this could backfire horribly for Cameron. That said by choosing porn he [Cameron] has ensured he's able to use the seedy reputation of it to attack anyone who disagrees with the policy of letting children access porn as though you put it right infront of them and pressed play and repeat it enough times to be confused with Squealer's cohorts from Animal Farm.

On top of all that I cannot see it working from a technical standpoint. The Pirate Bay block is farcical but it shouldn't be needed. In fact the opposite should be signed into law together with a net neutrality bill but I doubt ISPs pay as well as content producers (again as the TPB block shows). He [Cameron] seems to be pandering to those parents who don't want to parent their kids but instead have the government do it.

 

[causton]

I am more concerned about what this means for the future. The Pirate Bay is already blocked

I hope the block they're hoping to implement is more advanced than the Pirate Bay's one, as it's not worked!

 

[MidnightFlyer]

I think it is an absolute disgrace. I don't look at the stuff myself but the one overriding principal for me is that I don't know what is best for other people - you shouldn't dictate what others can and cannot do because you don't like it. You don't want your kids to watch it? Install a block on such websites yourself for your own computer, monitor what they look at etc. Same with charity, want to donate or help one, do it yourself, don't run screaming to the government to do it for you. I suppose I feel the same with organ donation: the state shouldn't have power to make it opt-out because they want it to happen - it is down for everyone themselves to decide. Like SS4 said, this is just parents getting the government to do their job for them, and for me that's where authoritarianism stems from.

If I was given the choice, which I won't be as I'm not the billpayer etc in my house, I would opt in, not to watch it, but to send a message to that pathetic moron Cameron that he can shove such policies deep where the sun don't shine.

 

[telstarbox]

My mobile network (O2) blocks not just pornography but all sorts of 'adult' internet sites including Sickipedia on the grounds of child protection. You have to opt in to remove this block, even though O2's own T&Cs only allow phone contracts to be held by over 18s. It's completely unnecessary and I would unblock it but can't be bothered.

If parents don't want their kids looking at certain websites, they should be more proactive in monitoring their kids' internet use, not making hassle for all other adults.

 

[SS4]

Of course The Sun's Page 3 is acceptable. Words fail me :roll:

edit: in case it's not clear the link is to The Guardian's story about Page 3, not the sun and so SFW.

edit 2: I also know the guardian is not the best choice due to bias but they have republican mode so I can concentrate on real stories instead of a woman giving birth as though it'd never happened before

 

[Muzer]

Web/internet filtering is just bad, and anyone considering it who even vaguely knows things about computers should feel bad. It's impossible to do it well. It's not just a really hard problem. It is literally impossible. You either get far too many false positives, or the blocking is very ineffective and merely lulls people into a false sense of security.


The mobile phone filtering is equally bad, and I believe also based on British law (correct me if I'm wrong). It's easier to circumvent it than it is to turn it off, if you don't have a credit card.

 

[telstarbox]

Indeed, it's too much of a blunt instrument. There are many websites which are not porno but would be blocked using a simple keyword approach, such as the sex education website Scarleteen (possibly NSFW).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, it's too much of a blunt instrument. There are many websites which are not porno but would be blocked using a simple keyword approach, such as the sex education website Scarleteen (possibly NSFW). Thus a policy designed to protect children could harm them by restricting access to reliable information about life issues.

 

[jon0844]

I don't see the harm in having ISPs filtering adult content by default (and that includes gambling sites). It's not censorship as the sites aren't being made unavailable.

Mobile operators have had an agreement to block adult content by default for years, so it's not really a new thing.. just an attempt to get all ISPs to do it. I believe the mobile operators have whitelists too, so any site that might be filtered could apply to be included on this list.

While it's not something I'm worried about right now, I have to be aware of the fact that my now 17-month boy will one day get access to a computer. I am not for censorship at all, but there is a difference - just as you restrict access to alcohol, cigarettes and other things.

 

[SS4]

Indeed, it's too much of a blunt instrument. There are many websites which are not porno but would be blocked using a simple keyword approach, such as the sex education website Scarleteen (possibly NSFW).
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---
Indeed, it's too much of a blunt instrument. There are many websites which are not porno but would be blocked using a simple keyword approach, such as the sex education website Scarleteen (possibly NSFW). Thus a policy designed to protect children could harm them by restricting access to reliable information about life issues.

Don't forget Scunthorpe getting blocked
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

I don't see the harm in having ISPs filtering adult content by default (and that includes gambling sites). It's not censorship as the sites aren't being made unavailable.

Mobile operators have had an agreement to block adult content by default for years, so it's not really a new thing.. just an attempt to get all ISPs to do it.

While it's not something I'm worried about right now, I have to be aware of the fact that my now 17-month boy will one day get access to a computer. I am not for censorship at all, but there is a difference - just as you restrict access to alcohol, cigarettes and other things.

Your son will likely see porn from an early age from copies of The Sun lying around. I see no reason why this can't be opt-in.

 

[Eagle]

Your son will likely see porn from an early age from copies of The Sun lying around. I see no reason why this can't be opt-in.

Or why we couldn't have the system the ISPs wanted, which was to ask everyone during the sign-up process.

 

[jon0844]

Or why we couldn't have the system the ISPs wanted, which was to ask everyone during the sign-up process.

Isn't that what will effectively happen? Surely when you sign up, you can opt out of the filtering from day one?

As for Page 3, it's not quite the same as hardcore pornography. In any case, I doubt my son will read the Sun as it's not bought in this household, and I am sure that newspapers will have changed an awful lot by the time he is reading.

I am sure the paper sees its future behind a paywall online and via apps. As such, it's effectively censoring itself.

 

[transmanche]

While it's not something I'm worried about right now, I have to be aware of the fact that my now 17-month boy will one day get access to a computer. I am not for censorship at all, but there is a difference - just as you restrict access to alcohol, cigarettes and other things.

Far better (IMHO) for parents to take a more active role: using some of the controls that (for example) Windows includes. Systems which not only restrict the type of material their kids can see, but also restrict the hours their kids have access to the computer.

 

[SS4]

Isn't that what will effectively happen? Surely when you sign up, you can opt out of the filtering from day one?

As for Page 3, it's not quite the same as hardcore pornography. In any case, I doubt my son will read the Sun as it's not bought in this household, and I am sure that newspapers will have changed an awful lot by the time he is reading.

I am sure the paper sees its future behind a paywall online and via apps. As such, it's effectively censoring itself.

So what's preventing it from being an opt-in system? I'm not too bothered about a list but rather having to opt-out to continue being able to see porn if I so wanted

 

[Eagle]

Far better (IMHO) for parents to take a more active role: using some of the controls that (for example) Windows includes. Systems which not only restrict the type of material their kids can see, but also restrict the hours their kids have access to the computer.

This, basically. Why should it be the Government's job to restrict what children view on their parents' internet connection? Parents should be more proactive rather than just expecting that all the nasty stuff on the internet won't reach them.

 

[Muzer]

I don't see the harm in having ISPs filtering adult content by default (and that includes gambling sites). It's not censorship as the sites aren't being made unavailable.

Mobile operators have had an agreement to block adult content by default for years, so it's not really a new thing.. just an attempt to get all ISPs to do it. I believe the mobile operators have whitelists too, so any site that might be filtered could apply to be included on this list.

While it's not something I'm worried about right now, I have to be aware of the fact that my now 17-month boy will one day get access to a computer. I am not for censorship at all, but there is a difference - just as you restrict access to alcohol, cigarettes and other things.

As an 18-year-old, speaking to worried parents everywhere, I'll just say this: I only found porn when I started looking for it. Moronic newspapers exaggerating everything can make it seem like porn is around every corner of the internet, but it isn't really.

I was lucky to have sane parents who didn't filter my internet. I have seen so many internet filtering systems, and feel sorry for children who have to endure them even at home. None of them work. Full stop. It makes viewing legitimate sites that happen to use too many "bad" keywords a chore, whilst also being so easy to work around as to be useless.

 

[Oswyntail]

This, basically. Why should it be the Government's job to restrict what children view on their parents' internet connection? Parents should be more proactive rather than just expecting that all the nasty stuff on the internet won't reach them.

Today I clicked on an advert on FB that purported to show me flights to Melbourne, and it took me to a porn site. How on earth does anyone expect parents to be able to be "proactive" in such a situation? If one accepts that the Government does have a role in child-rearing (and one does, unless one throws state education out of the window) one can allow it a role in this aspect.
However, because of the 1960s philosophy of the Internet and IT world in general, it is almost impossible to put any sensible controls in place (If only because there will always be some spotty nerd somewhere who thinks it is amusing to break them). However, would the free-for-all brigade please advise what we should do, if anything, to protect the young people involved. Yes, anyone over the legal age has the right to have their picture taken in legal activities, and even publish those pictures on the net. But not otherwise, not 17, 15, 13 year olds, not new-born babies - yes it does happen.
Before you mock the government for actually trying to do something, please give a sensible answer about what you would do to regulate this area - or why you would do nothing.

 

[tbtc]

Can you imagine the hysteria if Labour had announced this? You'd have had lots of froth about NANNY STATE and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD and the like.

The strange thing is that the Tories have just announced that they don't want to bring in "brown paper packages" for cigarettes because there's no evidence yet (i.e. Australia has only recently introduced this).

Yet (at a time when they are keen to seize the initiative away from the Lynton Crosby stuff) they come out with a policy that has absolutely no evidence to support it, technology people are already tearing holes in it, seems to go against the "freedom" that Tories believe in and is irrelevant to the Child Abuse that this cobbled-together policy was intended to "solve".

But... WON'T SOMEONE THINK OF THE CHILDREN???

 

[SS4]

Today I clicked on an advert on FB that purported to show me flights to Melbourne, and it took me to a porn site. How on earth does anyone expect parents to be able to be "proactive" in such a situation? If one accepts that the Government does have a role in child-rearing (and one does, unless one throws state education out of the window) one can allow it a role in this aspect.
However, because of the 1960s philosophy of the Internet and IT world in general, it is almost impossible to put any sensible controls in place (If only because there will always be some spotty nerd somewhere who thinks it is amusing to break them). However, would the free-for-all brigade please advise what we should do, if anything, to protect the young people involved. Yes, anyone over the legal age has the right to have their picture taken in legal activities, and even publish those pictures on the net. But not otherwise, not 17, 15, 13 year olds, not new-born babies - yes it does happen.
Before you mock the government for actually trying to do something, please give a sensible answer about what you would do to regulate this area - or why you would do nothing.

Whilst there is little protection against bait and switch links don't you think this response to be disproportionate? I still don't know what it can't be opt-in and I'd like to know why you think making it the parents' choice is somehow a free-for-all

Your Router can block sites based on domain or keyword and on mine it's far from difficult. You can even add your computer's "internal" IP address to allow access to the blacklist from the given machine and the router is usually password protected too.
--- old post above --- --- new post below ---

Can you imagine the hysteria if Labour had announced this? You'd have had lots of froth about NANNY STATE and POLITICAL CORRECTNESS GONE MAD and the like.

Just goes to show what you can get away with when you have the support of the Press

 

[theboywho]

I'm not too sure this is a matter of civil liberties but one of moral obligation. The pornography 'industry' is damaging to both the participants and those who watch.

Ted Bundy claimed that pornography was an underlying cause of his murderous actions. I wholeheartedly believe that it cannot be a good thing and leads to further damaging behaviour.

 

[Muzer]

Today I clicked on an advert on FB that purported to show me flights to Melbourne, and it took me to a porn site. How on earth does anyone expect parents to be able to be "proactive" in such a situation? If one accepts that the Government does have a role in child-rearing (and one does, unless one throws state education out of the window) one can allow it a role in this aspect.
However, because of the 1960s philosophy of the Internet and IT world in general, it is almost impossible to put any sensible controls in place (If only because there will always be some spotty nerd somewhere who thinks it is amusing to break them). However, would the free-for-all brigade please advise what we should do, if anything, to protect the young people involved. Yes, anyone over the legal age has the right to have their picture taken in legal activities, and even publish those pictures on the net. But not otherwise, not 17, 15, 13 year olds, not new-born babies - yes it does happen.
Before you mock the government for actually trying to do something, please give a sensible answer about what you would do to regulate this area - or why you would do nothing.

Sounds like you have a virus - I highly doubt Facebook would be advertising porn sites.

What does this have to do with child porn, in any way?

 

[Johnuk123]

Your son will likely see porn from an early age from copies of The Sun lying around

Should you really be pointing forum members in a direction they obviously shouldn't be going.

 

[tbtc]

I'm not too sure this is a matter of civil liberties but one of moral obligation. The pornography 'industry' is damaging to both the participants and those who watch.

Ted Bundy claimed that pornography was an underlying cause of his murderous actions. I wholeheartedly believe that it cannot be a good thing and leads to further damaging behaviour.

Since the same could be said of religion (e.g. serial killers have murdered and used religion as a justification), would you ban that too?

Only difference is that porn hasn't caused wars, suicide bombers or crusades.

 

[SS4]

I'm not too sure this is a matter of civil liberties but one of moral obligation. The pornography 'industry' is damaging to both the participants and those who watch.

Ted Bundy claimed that pornography was an underlying cause of his murderous actions. I wholeheartedly believe that it cannot be a good thing and leads to further damaging behaviour.

Do you have any proof beyond what a convicted murderer said?

 

[Muzer]

I'm not too sure this is a matter of civil liberties but one of moral obligation. The pornography 'industry' is damaging to both the participants and those who watch.

Ted Bundy claimed that pornography was an underlying cause of his murderous actions. I wholeheartedly believe that it cannot be a good thing and leads to further damaging behaviour.

It is possible for rail enthusiasts to cause accidents if they take photos or wave at the driver in front of the yellow line. Therefore, all passengers should have to choose to "opt in" if they want enthusiasts to be allowed on the platform. Only if all passengers opt in are rail enthusiasts allowed in. However, telling the staff that you're not an enthusiast gets you let in anyway, because they don't actually check.

Absurdity? Yes. So is the idea of porn filtering being in any way effective.

 

[jon0844]

I've just heard someone on the BBC saying 'nanny state' but it isn't as if any sites are being blocked or censored. It's the option of some filters being set to on or off, with the default being on when you sign up until you select off. Simple.

Now I can well agree that we can't be sure filters will work and that some people won't find easy ways around it, but it will filter most things.

 

[SS4]

Should you really be pointing forum members in a direction they obviously shouldn't be going.

It's pretty ubiquitous so I see no harm in it. I could be wrong so anyone who's not heard of The Sun please reply and quote this post

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Niemöller has an approproate quotation for these situations.

 

[Muzer]

I've just heard someone on the BBC saying 'nanny state' but it isn't as if any sites are being blocked or censored. It's the option of some filters being set to on or off, with the default being on when you sign up until you select off. Simple.

Now I can well agree that we can't be sure filters will work and that some people won't find easy ways around it, but it will filter most things.

Wrong. We *can* be sure filters *won't* work. Anyone who takes approximately two seconds to google will be able to find a way around it. Any moron could do it.

You haven't addressed the real problem of false positives, and the fact that if there's a physical infrastructure in place for filtering sites it could easily be abused if not by this government, by future ones.

 

[ralphchadkirk]

Should you really be pointing forum members in a direction they obviously shouldn't be going.

Because it's clearly not common knowledge amongst teenage boys that you can get a peek at a pair of tits in The Sun :roll: