Slashdot Mirror
UK Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban
nk497 writes "A new bill presented to the House of Lords demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content. The Online Safety Bill, raised in the Lords by Baroness Howe of Ildicote, asks for ISPs and mobile operators to 'provide a service that excludes pornographic images' and for device makers to include ways to filter content at the point of purchase. The Bill follows efforts by one MP to make users "opt in" to access pornography, and comes despite ISPs already agreeing to offer all customers parental control software. However, as a Private Members Bill, it doesn't have the backing of the Government, so is less likely to actually be passed."
Seriously, I can't understand you US and UK people. Pornography is nice. It's one of the basic human instincts. Why do you want to deny it? Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you? Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank. And did so as teen too. Stop being so fucking jealous.
That woman is actually stupid enough to believe that a single country can stop porn on the net.
-jcr
The only title of honor that a tyrant can grant is "Enemy of the State."
The political cycle
10 introduce bill that screws over the people, sponsored by either the fundamental right or a corporation
20 society tries to rally and shoot it down
30 if people are down trodden enough pass bill; break, else throw out bill
40 sleep 5 years
50 goto 10 with same bill
Politics and corporations are moving at a glacial pace compared to society, it's getting stupid.
The problem with slashdot is that most of its users were bullied and stuffed into lockers as kids!
Nearly all ISP's in the UK have a service which allows the customer's Internet connection to be set to "off." When the "off" setting is activated, all pornographic Internet content can no longer be accessed. This technology is cutting edge — no other filtering is 100% effective.
It's called "change the channel" or "disable connections to the primary Internet."
Seriously -- if the government or some other organization wants to create a walled playground for their own fun and games, then by all means do so. Lots of organizations run networks of interconnected computers spread out geographically around the world. Some of them even keep their network separate from other people's networks, with the most security-conscious even using air gaps and other barriers. The most famous of these networks is The Internet. But it's not the only network out there that can host and serve content.
Thankfully if you RTFA it looks like this is just the ranting of someone in the House of Lords, and it appears that those with a pint of good sense over in the Government are quite opposed to this whole idea, with the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport saying that "self-regulation...can be more effective than a regulatory approach in delivering flexible solutions that work for both industry and consumers.”
coding is life
Offer a 1£ a month internet plan with a firewall that drops every incoming packet, since it is the only theoretical and practical way to prevent the user from getting any porn (breaking encryption and steganography for each possible algorithm for incoming traffic is theoretically impossible and practically next to impossible). So this is what the law says must be done.
just remember to offer users a trial period so they cannot claim they are unsatisfied with the service after subscribing.
Warning IANAL and I don't live in that fascist place (I am in another one)
---- MISSING MISCELLANEOUS DATA SEGMENT --- [sigdash] trolololol
Anyone trying to put a bill through like this should be able to answer this question first. Preferably in essay form, and then present something comparable to a thesis defense.
Reading comprehension is a great thing... or possible you didn't RTFA (or the summary):
"(the bill) requires ISPs and mobile operators provide a "service which excludes pornographic images" unless the customer opts in, is over 18 and the company has verified that fact.".
So basically this bill - if it goes through - would require you not only to prove to your ISP that you're over 18, but also to pretty much ask your ISP "Can I pretty please be allowed to look at pretty women online?" (or pretty men, if thats your thing). And while it says noting in TFA about it, Im damn sure the ISP would not only keep a list on hand on who of their customers like to look at pretty women (or men) online, but would also refuse if they think it's possible that your computer might be used by under 18s.
Everything in the world is controlled by a small, evil group to which, unfortunately, no one you know belongs.
The whole point of the House of Lords is that they're not elected, and hence don't have to spend their time pandering to the electorate; they can make sensible decisions that no elected politician would be allowed to do. Opposition to the Lords comes primarily from those trying to push through unpopular legislation, not because they try to push through unpopular legislation; which they can't do unless the elected politicians support it.
There is absolutely no point in electing two different groups of politicians because you'll get roughly the same mix of parties in both. Switching from indirect to direct election of the Senate was one of the most disastrous decisions in the political history of America, for the same reason.
No! They were supposed to hide the incriminating documents from that one time in Australia! No one in the world must know that "confidential child pornography blacklist" is a euphemism for "censor any website we like without oversight!" How will we crush dissenting opinions now?!
Bio questions? Ask me to start a Q&A journal. Computer analogies available for most topics!
Traditionally you grabbed your torch and pitchfork, met with your friends and stormed their mansion.
I think the backbencher Claire Perry doesn't think that far. Her track record:
-called for an opt-out anti smut web filter
-called for Remembrance Sunday to be a bank holiday(withdrawn by her after wasting enough of everybodies time on it)
-called for an opt-out anti smut web filter again
She seems to have a Conservative safe seat and it's good to know she puts it to good use. Since she isn't that obviously such an over-the-top kook like the transatlantic ones with their big trousers, silly noses and unfortunate names I feel the need to call her out.
That woman is a bad joke. And not even a good one. Besides, Boris "Boris Johnson" Johnson looks like he could object to limiting the steady flow of porn from the internet. So she could be in real hot water ones he makes PM. Which would be a blessing since hot water washes all the santorum away.
20 minutes into the future
Parental control software is utterly useless, the vast majority of kids know a lot more about computers than their parents and have no trouble bypassing a parental control system that is purely software based... It's a classic case of client side security.
If you want something like that to be even remotely effective, it has to run at a layer further up the network that the kids have no access to.
That said, porn and sex are a fact of life.
Your kids will encounter them at some point wether you like it or not... When they're really young they wont be interested in it, and when they get older they will actively seek it out.
To a kid, if a subject is forbidden then its automatically more interesting... The more you try to prevent them seeing porn, they more they will look for it, and this is nothing new.
When i was a kid, internet access was very rare and porn on computers was pixelated and dithered.. So we acquired porn from magazines and on vhs tapes.
And something else important to consider, if you try to prevent your kids from learning about such things as porn, then they will just get introduced to it by other kids at school instead... Surely better for you to educate them in a controlled environment, so they are prepared for what they will encounter when they venture out into an environment that you don't control.
If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from any thoughts or violence, sex, bad language etc, then they will be completely unprepared when they encounter such things form other kids at school, and will have far more interest in them because its new to them and forbidden at home.
http://spamdecoy.net - free throwaway anonymous email - avoid spam!
Reading the provisions in the bill its not so much a ban on porn but rather restricting access to it unless the primary subscriber has expressed a desire to see it and can prove that they are 18 or over.
All of the mobile (cell) providers in the UK already operate a similar system for Internet access over their networks. The ISPs will introduce a similar system if they feel that their consumers want it.
If the subscriber opts in though anyone in the household will be able to get all of the porn that they want so its pretty much a fig leaf exercise for the Daily Mail readers.
You may think me a tired, old, cynic. I'd have to disagree about the tired bit.
Bill demands service from ISP which could be chosen or rejected by users. Users will still have this wonderful opportunity to see humans degrade themselves on camera for money.
So, no, "UK Bill DOES NOT Demand Web Pornography Ban"
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
My poor brothers across the pond. I can only imagine your pain. Blue and swollen pain.
Wouldn't you think of the children? Those very children, whose future you are selling out by putting all of your current and past expenses on their tab?
Wouldn't you think of the children, those very children that you are leaving with all these hatred around the world because of all the illegal and immoral wars that are you sending children into?
Wouldn't you think of the children, the same children that have no sound economy to look forward to, because you have chased away all of the savings and investment capital and all of the manufacturing and production out of your countries, because you just have to buy everything you, including the biggest governments can with fake money?
Wouldn't you think of those children, whose freedoms you are stealing by creating all these laws that ensure that the children basically end up leaving in prison like conditions, strip searched at every point, fined, jailed, regulated, taxed, etc.?
Wouldn't you think of the children, same ones that will have no knowledge or real education but huge debts, because you are lying to them that they need all that government education while putting them on the government guaranteed (and thus seemingly endless) loan needle?
Wouldn't you think of the children, who won't be able to run their own businesses due to all of the protections you are giving to your preferred monopolies, all of the regulations, laws, taxes, licenses, bail outs, stimulus, etc.etc., everything you do, when you prop up failing corporations you like so much and ensure that nobody can compete with them?
But at least you are making sure that the children don't see those 'offending' pornography images and videos. Of-course that's just a pretence that you are running in order to secure some form of total control over the information on the Internet, the only real outlet of actual data that those very children can use to learn something useful about the world around them.
You can't handle the truth.
... especially in the House of Lords mean nothing. They are individual bills introduced by members to usually provoke conversation versus any real intention of becoming law. They get debated and discussed and almost always get struck down. It is a customary process that allows the UK to consider and discuss things that would not be discussed by normal routes. So even mentioning (and mis-characterising it) is just to just sensationalise something that shouldn't be. The fact that the UK Government is actually considering unwarranted surveillance of the Internet in the UK is far more "dangerous" because of the way they are introducing it, via the Queen's Speech, which means it is setting out what the Government supports and actually plans to do over the next 12 months. Usually what is in the Queen's Speech gets banged into Law one way or another.
D.O.U.O.S.V.A.V.V.M.
Porn definitely should not be used as sex ed. The fact that porn was your only source of sex ed shows a huge failure on the part of your parents, your school, and your culture. But anyway I'd be willing to bet that the banning of porn would just happen to catch valid sex ed information, too.