Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Gov't Wants To Block Internet Porn By Default

Posted by timothy on from the get-naked-for-the-cctv-instead dept.

airfoobar writes "Yet another country wants to 'protect the children' by blocking all internet porn — not just child porn, all porn. The British gov will talk with ISPs next month to ask them to make porn blocking mandatory (and they appear more than happy to comply). As an effect, adults who want to access pornography through their internet connections will have to 'opt in.' Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well."

36 of 642 comments (clear)

  1. cp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    o-+-[

    You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

    1. Re:cp by Jeremiah+Cornelius · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is not about porn.

      It is about using porn to get people to roll back the advances and advantages that they acquired with the advent of wide-spread Internet communications access.

      "Back in your cage, you!"

      --
      "Flyin' in just a sweet place,
      Never been known to fail..."
    2. Re:cp by Urkki · · Score: 4, Funny

      o-+-[

      You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

      I'm sorry if this bursts the fantasy bubble of some readers, but... ASCII was born in 1963.

      But man, Unicode porn... And it's already legal in many jurisdictions!

    3. Re:cp by Mista2 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      After porn, it will be other harmful content, then wikileaks, then anyother site the government doesnt want you to get to. And as they have to sniff you traffic to see if it's porn, they may as well keep all those logs on you, and get to them without any need for a pesky warrant, or due process.

    4. Re:cp by kasperd · · Score: 5, Insightful

      There are still tons of free CP out there!

      Have you got any evidence to back up that statement? More likely there wasn't tons of it to begin with, and most of the blocked sites are legitimate. Recently there was news about a group that audited the sites in the Danish and Norwegian lists, and of the hundreds of sites they audited only three were found to have illegal content. They managed to get those three sites taken down in a couple of days. They were not just filtered, they were completely taken down. (Which would then leave the filter in a state where everything filtered was legitimate content).

      the ISPs have only managed to hide it from plain sight.

      That is true. Instead of filtering, they could work on getting every one of those sites taken down, that would bring them one step closer to the source. Even better would be to prosecute the site operators. The best would be to go after the people who produce it in the first place.

      Sometimes you have to stop and wonder why they are fighting it to begin with. Are they fighting it because they think it is distasteful? If that is the only reason to fight it, then it is nothing but censorship. But that of course isn't the reason we should fight against it, the reason we should fight against it is to stop the abuse of children which is happening to produce it.

      If you accept that the real crime we want to prevent is child abuse, then distribution of child pornography is really not a major crime. The child porn however is evidence of a major crime. Seen in that light, fighting distribution of child porn is really just hiding the problem. Even if they succeed in stopping all distribution of child porn on the internet, it still means they have done nothing to stop the real problem, they have just hidden it very well.

      Now go back and think about some of the moves that have been done in the fight against child pornography. How many of the moves suggest the fight is because people find it distasteful? How many of the moves suggest the fight is to stop child abuse?

      --

      Do you care about the security of your wireless mouse?
    5. Re:cp by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Please define porn first. A two adults sharing a dirty voip (internet call) porn, how about when it is a video call.

      So will companies that sell porn have to identify themselves as such in and then why would they. Porn has an international supply so how are foreign companies targeted.

      The reality of this is 24/7 monitoring and censorship of all internet communications, including phone calls, otherwise how can you block porn.

      The same old lie spread again and again, to protect children. So is the government saying that content suitable for a 16 year old is suitable for a 6 year old how about a 5 year old and a seventeen teen year old. The reality is if you want an internet suitable for children is has to be a children only internet, one that has been censored of all unhealthy commercial content, one where content is approved, so no commercial, no junk food, no raunch targeted at minors. Everything other than this for children is a lie.

      --
      Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
    6. Re:cp by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      When the child porn filter was introduced in Denmark, people were using the same arguments.

      "It's a slippery slope. Soon it will be expanded to include sites like allofmp3.com and TPB".

      Other people were using arguments like yours, calling the first group tinfoil hats, etc.

      Then allofmp3.com was added to the list.

      "It's a slippery slope. Soon it will be expanded to include sites like TPB".

      "Of course not, take off your tinfoil hat. allofmp3 was included because it's outside the civilized world, TPB is in Sweden".

      Then they blocked TPB.

      So far, the people with the tinfoil hats and slippery slope arguments have been correct every time.

      At least we haven't yet gone as far as filtering regular porn.

  2. Oh wow. by contra_mundi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?

    1. Re:Oh wow. by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Hey now. Personally I think we should thank Britain. Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse we here in America will always have something to feel good about. You are to us what Mississippi is to the south. At least we can point at you, with your fifty bazillion cameras and nanny state BS and go "Well at least we aren't them!". So thank you Britain, for always stepping up to the plate.

      Seriously, I thought the religious ninnies in the USA were bad. When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA? I thought being a giant bunch of prudes was OUR gig! And wouldn't you just looooove to snatch the PCs of the ones pushing this? You know they probably need TB sized drives just to hold all the kink.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Oh wow. by jonbryce · · Score: 5, Insightful

      and if they do want to block porn, then why not start with the photos on page 3 of our biggest selling newspaper?

    3. Re:Oh wow. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

    4. Re:Oh wow. by chrb · · Score: 5, Informative

      Apparently they don't actually want to block all porn:

      Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has refused a request from a West MP for the Government to take action to stop children being able to access internet pornography.

      Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

      But Mr Vaizey made it clear ministers will not take any steps to force internet service providers (ISPs) to tackle the problem.

      He said: "We believe in an open, lightly regulated internet. The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary about regulating or passing legislation."

      The minister suggested it was for parents to take responsibility for what their children see online, rather than the ISPs that make money from pornography.

    5. Re:Oh wow. by lambent · · Score: 5, Insightful

      How is it not opt-in the way it is already? Nobody forces you to look at porn when you open a web browser. They very act of going to specific sites to look at pornography is opt-in by itself.

    6. Re:Oh wow. by supertrinko · · Score: 4, Informative

      Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.

      --
      If it rhymes it must be true.
    7. Re:Oh wow. by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Are you nuts? The porn industry is one of the biggest driving forces behind the "fight against online porn".

      Think about it: Internet gives you free porn without the embarrassing trip to your local porn shop. Who do you think is the biggest loser in this?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:Oh wow. by RDW · · Score: 5, Informative

      For perhaps the only time in living memory, the Daily Mail has one of the more measured articles about this:

      http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339926/Internet-pornography-Parents-allowed-block-sexual-imagery.html

      'The plan is to allow parents to 'opt out' of the sites and they will then be blocked at the source, rather than using conventional parental controls...Adults who wish to view the material would have to choose to 'opt in'.'

      The Metro is even clearer:

      http://www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

      'He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves...Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.'

      So Vaizey (and right now it's just him having a chat with the IPSs, not government policy) wants a scheme where parents can REQUEST a default filter for their connection, but Dad can opt back in when he's 'working late' at the PC.

    9. Re:Oh wow. by bursch-X · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Going to a porn site is also pretty opt-in. It's not like porn sites are randomly set as your default page in your browser.

      --
      There are two rules for success:
      1. Never tell everything you know.
    10. Re:Oh wow. by BasilBrush · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hell, if pictures of nude women with their breasts on show but genitals covered are considered pornography, then perhaps we should be keeping children out of art galleries.

      The well-proportioned human form is a thing of beauty. The sight of it is not something that corrupts anyone.

    11. Re:Oh wow. by arth1 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      If anything, they are attracted to it because adults try to hide it from them.

      Having full access to anything I wanted to read[*] as a kid, and parents who would explain whatever I asked about (or provide more books if they didn't know), I was frequently the only source of information for my friends who came from more restrictive homes.

      Which was wrong; their parents should have explained things before they went to friends for information. Cause even though what I knew wasn't far off the mark, I was still a kid without any grasp of just what was important information, how to teach, or what the other kids didn't know but should have been told first.
      So there were probably some kids who knew about semen, menses, orgasms and syphilis, but not about foreplay or foreskins, or that intercourse didn't have to lead to either orgasm, pregnancy, or being sold to the gypsies. Blame their parents.

      Sex ed in school was OK, but too little, too late. By then, a good part of the class were already past their virginity (mostly those from prudish homes were "active"), some girls were on the pill, absolutely all of us were masturbating, and many were well into watching 8mm porn movies and experimenting with more or less successful and sometimes dangerous toys. Mostly because they weren't allowed to, and had to find out on their own.

      [*] One thousand and one nights in six huge volumes with non-censored pictures was challenging reading for a four year old, the biblical Canticles even more so for a five year old, and Lady Chatterley's Lover didn't make much sense to an eight year old. Thankfully, I had parents who could explain sex, moral views of other cultures, Victorian values and the strength of carnal desires in adults (anyone past puberty, i.e. old people).

  3. Opting in by Arancaytar · · Score: 4, Insightful

    "Opting in" will likely place customers on a permanent record that will be "accidentally" leaked to a "citizens for decency" movement to publish.

    1. Re:Opting in by Patch86 · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this (they have it as a "Parental filter" that is on by default, but can be turned off very easily by editing your account settings (which are linked to by the "this material is blocked" placeholder page).

      I turned it off immediately due to the horrendous number of false positives- ever YouTube clips with the "log in to watch" adult flag were being blocked. If this were rolled out accross the ISP landscape I'm sure most people would turn it off for a similar reason, once they find their iPlayer videos and certificate 18 films on iTunes getting nixed.

    2. Re:Opting in by Thiez · · Score: 4, Insightful

      > If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.

      There are plenty of things people do that they are not ashamed of, but that other people who have the power to make other peoples lives miserable/difficult/whatever might find objectionable.

  4. Poor Assumption by crow_t_robot · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

    Except, they haven't...not even close.

  5. So lets start. by Haedrian · · Score: 5, Insightful

    1. How are you going to block porn? Would you like me to register a new domain in 2 minutes and bypass your blacklist?

    2. What about porn which comes from filesharing - such as torrents or upload-services? Oh right, they're the next step. *Marks*

    3. This is going to backfire horribly. 18 year old kiddy living with his mom can't get her to opt in. Married Man with very controlling wife can't get to opt in. So lets visit the bowels of the internet to get porn - and get a virus collection while we're there.

    4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

  6. Re:What in the heck?? by PinkyGigglebrain · · Score: 5, Insightful

    ... Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc??? How would they do this without killing almost all of the internet??

    I think that is their plan, both in method and intent.

  7. I'm ambivalent... by IrrepressibleMonkey · · Score: 5, Funny

    On one hand, something does need to be done about the corrosive, depraved, negative sexual imagery that pervades large parts of the internet - it's definitely not something I want my children exposed to.

    On the other hand... er, let's just say the other hand is busy right now.

  8. Revenue opportunity for ISPs? Or am I too cynical? by Bloodwine77 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I'm sure ISPs will be happy to remove the porn block ... for a fee. Basically turning porn on the internet into a premium service.

  9. Re:What in the heck?? by Eil · · Score: 4, Insightful

    In order to block pornography by default, what they'll have to do is put the entire country on its own network and erect some kind of great firewall between citizens and the world-wide Internet. At the firewall level, filters would then be easily implemented to block any content that the government might find objectionable.

    The good news is that there several other countries who have successfully deployed such technology to their citizenship, so the U.K. should be able to seek technical and political advice from them:

    • China
    • Cuba
    • Iran
    • North Korea
    • Saudi Arabia
    • Syria
  10. What is porn? by houghi · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Please tell me what porn is. Then once you are done I will come up with two things.
    1) Something that you explain is porn and clearly is not.
    2) Something that you explain is not porn and clearly is.

    And what again is so bad about porn and what again is not bad about violence?

    --
    Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
  11. Terrible journalism by litheye · · Score: 5, Informative

    This article is completely inaccurate and hyperbolic. It's just one MP (not a minister or anyone with any real power) calling for this and there are no signs that it is gaining traction with the actual government. In fact, the minister responsible said this: "The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary before it regulates and passes legislation". Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jJiC8J_CirrU_ieNBO6oiEXvFlbw?docId=N0237401290546543448A

  12. Re:VPN? by SuricouRaven · · Score: 4, Informative

    I work in a school, maintaining the filter, so I know a little about how they evade censorship. The kids will not turn to VPNs, for they will have no need to: They will simply exchange pornographic files via IM software or email instead, or on USB stick. Same way they get games right now. I also imagine they wouldn't think twice about sending some unsolicited to a friend, either expecting the friend to approve or just as a joke.

  13. Blocking legal material by Andy+Smith · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Most pornography is legal.

    The blocking of material should be decided on a legal / illegal basis. Blocking a subset of legal material will, you would hope, violate some trade regulation. The law-abiding producers of legal pornography have as much right to do business, without government interference, as the charity shop selling home-made cakes.

  14. Why is porn bad? by mangu · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

    I was raised in a small village with several farms around. By the age of ten I had seen all sorts of animals having sex, cattle, horses, dogs, birds, snakes, the rule is: if it moves it fucks.

    Why should children be "protected" from seeing sex?

    1. Re:Why is porn bad? by CosmeticLobotamy · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Murder in real life makes 99.9% people want to vomit. If you watch a horror movie and start fantasizing about being the killer, there's something incredibly wrong with you.

      Squirting DNA at other people in real life is virtually irresistible and damn near the meaning of life. If you watch porn and DON'T want to have sex, you either recently had sex (with zero or more partners) or there's something incredibly wrong with you.

      I don't understand why people even compare the two. They're nothing alike, except that they can both be seen on TV if you film them and put them on TV.

      But my usual disclaimer when I say that: I don't support censorship of it. Kids will learn to screw. I watched a bunch of porn as a kid, and it was only a minor contributor to why I'm a miserable piece of crap adult. Just teach kids how condoms work so it doesn't destroy them when they figure out how to con their classmates into scratching their itches.

  15. Re:likely to have the opposite effect by multipartmixed · · Score: 4, Funny

    I can't believe you just implied that Northern Irish children are too stupid to use a VPN.

    Shame on you! It's people like you that cause Troubles!

    --

    Do daemons dream of electric sleep()?
  16. Tilting at windmills by TapeCutter · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Don't send your thankyou note just yet. This is just another beat up from the Murdoch crowd. If you read between the lines it is not the government but rather one MP with no power to do anything except rant...

    Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

    Equating that to "the government" is like saying the US government is going to assasinate Assange because of the rantings of one hypre-ventilating congressman. This proposal will get even less traction than Australia's "great firewall" which (as I predicted several years ago) has gone nowhere, and never will.

    TFA is dishonest and written in a way that feeds the parinoia of many slashdotters, which I suspect is the main reason that tripe like this makes it to the front page..

    --
    And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.