UK ISPs To Begin Censorship of Porn Websites

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISPs To Begin Censorship of Porn Websites

Posted by timothy on Tuesday October 11, 2011 @12:50AM from the just-wipe-this-blood-over-your-threshold dept.

An anonymous reader writes "In a plan sponsored by the UK government, four major UK ISP's, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk and Sky, are set to implement blocking of porn websites, requiring subscribers to 'opt-in' if they want to visit blocked websites (or to put it another way, 'opt-out' of internet censorship)."

24 of 186 comments (clear)

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

Blocking porn websites? by LilBlackKittie · 2011-10-11 00:53 · Score: 5, Insightful

Good luck with that.
Moral panic panic. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 00:54 · Score: 2, Interesting

The Bible, Qur'an and Torah are full of sex, weapons and violence. I hope the new net filters will remove all trace of them off the net.
Actually this is misreported. Most the ISP's are making it opt-in. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography
BT is providing filtering software as part of their install package. Mcafee no less. Botnet admins are probably rubbing their hands with glee.
1. Re:Moral panic panic. by second_coming · 2011-10-11 01:52 · Score: 2
  
  A common misconception. Porn is not illegal in the UK: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_status_of_Internet_pornography http://www.melonfarmers.co.uk/faqvideo.htm
2. Re:Moral panic panic. by hairyfeet · 2011-10-11 02:55 · Score: 2
  
  Personally as long as it is opt in and up to the INDIVIDUAL parents I don't see a problem with this. I wouldn't want to tell some parent they HAVE to let their little Suzy see a cock anymore than I'd want them telling ME what kinds of games my boys are allowed to have. Every parent should have the right to decide what they think is appropriate for THEIR child and if the ISPs want to give them an easy to use option to exercise that right? As long as it isn't forced on anybody I think that's a good thing.
  
  --
  ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
3. Re:Moral panic panic. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 03:18 · Score: 2, Informative
  
  But what it is, is not so clear. You can drive over to Blockbuster and rent movies that have nude, under-18 girls in them. Child nudity does not make something child pornography prima facie, although it has been prosecuted as such in the past by overzealous officials. I have baby pics of all my kids in some state of undress/bathing, and it's cute, not pornographic.
4. Re:Moral panic panic. by Anonymus · 2011-10-11 03:33 · Score: 2
  
  First of all, "anyone under the age of 18" what? You didn't even reply to the questions he asked. Does it matter if they're nude? What level of nudity? Does it need to be sexual?
  Second, you said "universally agreed on" and then tried to state an (incomplete) US-only definition. Even in the USA there are plenty of arguments and controversy over what constitutes child pornography, and then if you look outside the US (ie, universally), there are even more ideas.
5. Re:Moral panic panic. by timftbf · 2011-10-11 04:22 · Score: 2
  
  I mean its not like the "innocent little angels" are equipped with their own penises (erection capable - oh the horror!) and vaginas or something...
  
  I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and". Although Internet porn spam might make you believe otherwise...
6. Re:Moral panic panic. by IgnoramusMaximus · 2011-10-11 04:50 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and".
  
  Well, that is a matter of grammatical debate. Imagine you have a mixed set S of items A and B. In the set A has a property PA and B has a property PB. So when you refer to the set, you can say "Items in S have properties PA and PB" (without distinction of which member has which, just simple enumeration of properties) or "Items in S have property PA or property PB" (which specifically offers additional information on mutual exclusivity of PA and PB). Both are correct.
7. Re:Moral panic panic. by king+neckbeard · 2011-10-11 05:17 · Score: 2
  
  I would suspect that ephebophiles outnumber genuine pedophiles by quit a large number. Hell, sexting is probably at least an order of magnitude more common than porn involve what most people would consider real child porn.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
Wrong. by richy+freeway · 2011-10-11 00:55 · Score: 4, Informative

Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.
1. Re:Wrong. by richy+freeway · 2011-10-11 00:56 · Score: 4, Informative
  
  Replying to my own post, but there's clarification here http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography?INTCMP=ILCNETTXT3487
2. Re:Wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2011-10-11 02:52 · Score: 5, Insightful
  
  Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.
  Of course its wrong to have to opt in to pornography, because it makes pornography seem as if it is somehow bad. And the fact that these initiatives are instigated by religious groups is also noteworthy.
  Notice also the hypocrisy here. They want to prevent children from watching pornography (according to these people, sex is an exclusive right to people 18 years of age and older), and yet there are no, ABSOLUTELY NONE, restrictions on religious content. Children can be exposed to the bigotry, hatred and irrationality of religious content but something as normal and natural as sexual pleasure is "harmful". Clearly we live in a sick society.
Nothing new by IrquiM · 2011-10-11 00:56 · Score: 3, Informative

Vodaphone already have this on their 3g sticks. Had to opt-in for porn to be able to surf Norways biggest newspaper (and also the recent winner of the best ipad newspaper app.)

--
This is blinging
1. Re:Nothing new by HopefulIntern · 2011-10-11 01:29 · Score: 4, Funny
  
  Ditto this for Orange mobile internet (on my Desire). The guy I phoned up to turn the block off was cheeky as well, convo went as follows:
  
  Indian guy: "So you wish to turn off Orange Security?"
  Me: "Yes"
  Indian Guy: "You don't like security?"
  Me: "No...I don't..."
Wrong by Barence · 2011-10-11 00:59 · Score: 5, Informative

This story is completely inaccurate. Consumers don't have to opt-in to receive adult content: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/370450/confusion-reigns-as-government-announces-porn-ban
1. Re:Wrong by richy+freeway · 2011-10-11 01:01 · Score: 2
  
  The first and only accurate news report regarding this I heard was on Radio 4 this morning. By the time I've got to work suddenly everyone has to opt in to porn!
Re:Strangely okay with this... by nhstar · 2011-10-11 01:01 · Score: 3, Insightful

however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.

--
--- no sig to see here... move along.
Re:Strangely okay with this... by MoonBuggy · 2011-10-11 01:21 · Score: 2

Would you really want to? A typo is just going to lead to the kid reacting somewhere along the spectrum from "Meh" to "Dude, WTF?!", and then closing the page. Genuine curiosity seems like the last thing you'd want to place technical measures in the way of. Either way, the blocking software just creates a counter-productive air of mistrust between the parent and child.
Re:WTF??? by Noughmad · 2011-10-11 01:22 · Score: 4, Funny

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father's Internet. Prepare to die.

--
PlusFive Slashdot reader for Android. Can post comments.
Re:WTF??? by Penguinisto · 2011-10-11 01:37 · Score: 2

ASCII porn from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem needed to die.

--
Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
Re:Oh god damn it! by Dog-Cow · 2011-10-11 02:00 · Score: 2

I think it's funny that you've gone off on this totally inappropriate rant instead of reading either the article or the rest of the comments which have preceded yours.
Re:Strangely okay with this... by niftydude · 2011-10-11 02:04 · Score: 2

What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?
dictoinary.com used to. I accidentally typed that at work once. Awkward!!!

--
You can never know everything, and part of what you do know will always be wrong. Perhaps even the most important part.
That's not censorship. by xyourfacekillerx · 2011-10-11 02:48 · Score: 2

Submitter, why quote something so sensational and so wrong? It's like saying Google censors websites becaue it ranks them in a way that hides far away results, and I'm opting out of censorship by clicking to the next page. The pages are there, they can be viewed. By definition, that is not censorship. Just filtering. I see no harm here.
Re:WTF??? by shikaisi · 2011-10-11 02:56 · Score: 2

You can have my porn when you pry it out of my cold, dead, sticky, hands.

--
No left turn unstoned.