Slashdot Mirror
British MPs Propose Censoring Internet By Default
judgecorp writes "An all-party inquiry by British MPs has proposed the Internet should be censored to prevent children seeing 'adult' content. Users would have to opt in to see adult content. The proposal is similar to that already used by mobile operators."
From the article: "The move, first suggested in 2010, has been firmed up , after a cross-party Parliamentary inquiry examined the state of online child protection. The current proposal is a 'network-level "Opt-In" system,' going beyond the 'active choice' model launched by ISPs ... last October. ... They also want the Government to 'consider a new regulatory structure for online content, with one regulator given a lead role in the oversight and monitoring of Internet content distribution and the promotion of Internet safety initiatives.'"
When the parent opts in, how does that prevent a child from using his PC or iPod Touch from using the same connection?
Finally, a good reason for ipv6 NAT :)
America has dibs on taking away liberties in the name of child safety, sorry UK, find your own thing.
This would be a better world if we just shot all politicians who used the instinct to protect children to push agendas.
I thought the Internet already had an opt-in. It's called getting on the Internet. There's already plenty of solutions for parents to limit what children can see on the Internet (including technological solutions and good parenting). Why fuck it up for the rest of us by adding yet another layer of complexity that can go wrong and block everything?
"Teacher, I couldn't do my homework because the government required an opt-in for Wikipedia because there could be a link to a link to an article with citations that might contain a penis."
"Opt-in by default" makes no sense. I believe they mean "Opt-out"
... hasn't been paying attention.
They won't quit until all 'net speech is controlled, censored and regulated.
Check your premises.
The Internet proposes censoring British MPs by default
How will the system distinguish between children and adults? At a guess, I'm thinking you would need some sort of login system, where known adults would have a login they could use to access "uncensored" Internet (oh and yeah I'm guessing torrents would be censored by default too, since of course you can use that for porn also), which means they will be able to track anyone accessing "undesirable" content. Oh but of course the government would never do such a thing... right? Only people who access illegal things need to worry about the government watching you! Just think of the children!
And anyways it'll never work, new sites spring up way to fast for a censor to keep track of them all, unless you use a white-list for approved content, so again, if you browse "unapproved" content, you will need to log-in to the system, which allows for tracking. Paranoid? Maybe. You can bet many governments would absolutely love such a system, though.
And of course, if you decry the system as restrictive, you must be a pedophile who hates children and wants them to see porn. Obviously.
"None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license." --John Milton
"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." They can't censor the internet. Or cable TV. Or books. Or newspapers. Doesn't the UK have a similar Bill of Rights to forbid the Parliament from censoring the right of speech?
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
Awesome! Lead the way into a free and unshackled future of- oh, wait... what?!
What to protect the children from the internet? Disconnect from it.
Bam! No porn, no children being hurt, no annoying/expensive laws needed.
What do I know, I'm just an idiot, right?
Your about to look at boobies. Are you sure you want to see boobies? y/N: y Are you really sure? y/N: Y Absolutely, positively sure? y/N: YES GIVE ME TEH BOOBS ALREADY Please answer Yes or No. y/N: DIE IN A FIRE COCK
There are already protections in place - very similar to the most basic ones for alcohol that existed before the government had to regulate them. It's called "don't go to places where stuff is that you don't want to be around". Don't want to be around booze, stay out of bars and liquor stores. Don't want to be around porn, keep the default safe search on when you use Google and don't put naughtyasiantrannieswithanappetiteforexcrement.org in your address bar.
Should they not first prove that porn is harmful to children?
And I thought that Europe was supposed to be less prudish then North America.
Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
If we protect them properly, the only thing the world will have to offer when they turn 18 is some kind of corporate sponsored police state.
Join the Slashcott! Feb 10 thru Feb 17!
Fine by me too, but here's an idea: Why don't they opt-in?
People who don't want to see 'objectionable material' or who don't want their children to see the same can opt-in to a filtering system, that ISPs are required to provide at no charge and notify all their customers of, and anyone who doesn't gets the same internet they always have, warts and all.
Because you see, the internet is what it is. It has pornography, hate speech, and even illegal materials. Those are facts of life. But when I ask to get 'the internet', I want the internet, not some filtered subset of it. So the default should be an unfiltered connection, and those who want filtering should have to ask for it. I'm perfectly willing to make it easier for those who want filtering to have access to it, that is their choice. But it should be their responsibility to ask for such things, not my responsibility to ask for them to be removed.
Also, should this 'opt-in' filtering come into effect on my ISP (Sky Broadband, I believe they haven't started yet, please inform me now if I'm mistaken because they haven't told me anything) then I am taking my 'opt-in' rights, and if someone should say "So you're opting-in to pornography then?" I tell them "No, I'm opting-out of your stupid, unnecessary filter that I did not ask for and do not need".
How about the opposite? Filter everything that isn't porn.
"And I believe that if they removed all the porn from the internet, there would only be one web page, and it would be "Bring back the porn!"
I don't see the point in filtering that web page.
it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff.
I don't want to read your ideas ever again.
What do you think it's the correct behaviour:
A - I stop reading you.
B - I ask slashdot to block all your posts for everyone unless they opt-in.
If they're going to filter any pornography, I demand that they also filter words with the letter 'e' in them. They offend me greatly when written by other people, so to be safe it's best to just get rid of all of them.
[Filtered]
If going to any pornography, I that also words with in. by, so to it's to just rid of all of.
This is not something the Slashdot crowd wants to hear, but i like this idea. Really, it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff. Objectionable material should not be seen by minors and there are many others who prefer not to be subjected to this stuff. Like cigarettes or alcohol, basic protections need to be put in place. Like it or not, this is the way the internet will go.
You are missing the point because you are taking the politicals at their word.
This isn't about blocking porn to protect children, it's about the government having a system to block anything they don't like the look of. Such things might include evidence of their own misdeeds or alternative political views. The UK government has been blocking newspapers from printing things they consider inconvenient for many years and they want the same power over the web.
Disclaimer: Maybe I was trolled into this.
Completely agree, we should protect the children from porn, tobacco, alcohol, violence, horrible pictures, tragic events, homicides, pictures of naked people, people kissing, everything you think is not good, everything I think is not good, and last, but possibly most important we need to protect them from stupid posts that think that the best way to grow children into responsible, thinking adults is to protect them from everything that tells them that life is not all pink colored, sugar coated happy endings.
Reading the report, all parties consulted were either child protection special interest groups or the ISPs (whose arguments could be dismissed as just them trying to save money). No-one from any civil liberties groups were asked to testify. This is the archetype of the Nanny State infantilising its electorate. And would (as pointed out upthread) require people to sign into their ISP and enable personalised tracking of web browsing.
Fuck that.
One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors - Plato
Just take those British children offline, along with their funny spelling.
now we need to go OSS in diesel cars
Thanks, but I've got this.
There are, at my disposal, many technological tools for censoring this or that content on my Internet connection. If I feel the need, I can make easily make it reasonably certain that nobody using that connection can see naked human naughty bits. Please butt out.
Well there goes the instruction book.
And the historians say: Look another version of fabricated guilt over things in nature.
And the religious leaders say: Wonderful... more business
And the underage geeks say: Dammit we're busted.
And law enforcement say: Wonderful... more business.
And the Catholic church sex abusers say: Thanks you god, we need sex ignorant children.
And you say: ...
Now I can relax and leave my children to surf totally unsupervised, completely safe in the knowledge that there is no way that the curious inventiveness of technically literate young people can bypass the... eh, no son, that octopus-thing us just giving the nice lady a hug, in all her private places.
If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
I think the fact that you posting on slashdot is clear evidence that your mind was tainted at a young age.
You know they are not going to draw the line at a sensible point, right?
UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
I'm offended by your post because it attempts to infringe on my rights of free speech.
I think that your ISP should track you down and shut down your service. And that you should be watch listed so that no other ISP can provide you service.
That's the internet you want?
Check your premises.
Knowing what the brits are capable of inventing to legally steal money (congestion charge anyone?), I give it 2 years before the activation for adult content is a privilege you must pay for.
JigJag
"The hallmark of humanity is the ability to move beyond sensory inputs" - Mary Helen Immordino-Yang
Politicians conflate the printing press with what it prints when it comes to the internet.
And perhaps intentionally.
Check your premises.
Clearly these British MP's can all be trusted and have no ulterior motive for such censorship. Why, if they'd had their way, we'd never know about the great corruption exposure of the summer of 2009 where MP's from every party were variously fiddling their duck houses, moats and yes, even the noble Home Secretary was at it fiddling her (yes, her!) porn.
That's the thing about censorship and control freakery. You have to trust the people doing it 100% or you are screwed.
to silence all politicians!
What will fall under the "basic protections" in 10 years?
So? Kids have had access to all manner of internet smut for ages now. So what effects has this had? I don't see any myself.
Maybe we don't need to go to extraordinary lengths to shelter our children from reality. It need not be any different than them seeing people using drugs, drinking alcohol, or being unspeakably violent toward each other on the television. Just sit them down and explain to them that such things are very fun for adults, but they are not for children.
But that is just me, speaking from experience. Treat a person of any age like a child, they will behave like a child, treat someone like an adult, they will behave like an adult. Of course, there must be boundaries set when dealing with children, especially younger children, but overall, 11-12 is old enough to treat someone in this way, and you SHOULD be treating them that way by 13-14 under any circumstances, as the child will do what he wants in any event at that age, but if you still treat them like a little kid, they will just resent you and hide things from you.
Here's an idea for the politicians out there: if parents are unable or unwilling to monitor and regulate the behavior of their children, IT IS NOT THE JOB OF GOVERNMENT TO DO IT FOR THEM. When an army of porn-addled youngsters starts rioting in the streets, then maybe we should consider drastic measures. In the meantime, please stop couching every idiotic bit of nanny state nonsense in terms of protecting the poor defenseless children.
Why do I get the feeling that MPs are a bunch of morons who have no idea how the Internet works even when it is explained to them?
Here's a few examples:
Little Jimmys parents object to porn, but little Jimmy wishes to view some, so he gets his mobile phone and wanders round till he finds an open wireless connection, which won't block downloads to his mobile even though he hasn't done the proof of age thing with the mobile operator. He then downloads porn and starts to masturbate happily. Or he goes round to his friends house, where porn is not blocked, and does the same thing. Or.....
the list of bypasses is endless.
On a different subject, in order for it to work, the ISPs will presumably be operating a site blacklist which can be easily extended to cover other sites the government doesn't approve of. Lo and behold you now have the Great Firewall of the United Kingdom.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
http://www.speedcam.co.uk/gatso2.htm
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2003/sep/07/transport.ukcrime
Remember "News for Nerds, Stuff that Matters"? Help make it a reality again! http://soylentnews.org
"Would the Prime Minister admit that he opted in for adult content on the internet connection at Number 10? And would the Prime Minister further agree that he's as much a hoary old stoat as any of those involved in the Profumo Affair?"
The UK government has been blocking newspapers from printing things they consider inconvenient for many years and they want the same power over the web.
I assume you mean DA-Notices?
These don't actually block a newspaper from publishing anything - they basically say "Dear editor, be an awfully good chap and don't publish that."
Of course, you could be talking about the super-mega-injunctions which anyone can get (provided they can afford the right law firm) to stifle inconvenient facts from being published. And as Ryan Giggs knows, those are really effective.
Piss off. When I create "content," I don't want to even think about having to make it "safe for children," or what not. It is what it is, and I'm not going to submit every piece of my drivel to some "board of nannies" so that they can determine that what I've written is too graphic, too ribald, or somehow "unsafe."
In Fact, Kindly Fuck off.
There. Is it inappropriate for Children yet, or do I need a few more?
Objectionable material should not be seen by minors
I am able to object to censorship. Therefore, censorship is obejectionable. By your reasoning, censorship should not be seen by minors.
Like cigarettes or alcohol, basic protections need to be put in place.
I agree, we need basic protections against censorship.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
"Sugar coated happy endings" will also be filtered, of course.
I'm at work, so I can't actually check the domain, but I'm guessing there's a Rule 35 opportunity lurking here (if it doesn't exist, it must be created).
I am officially gone from
Kids aren't stupid. If they want to view porn they'll find a way. VPN/Proxies/Tor can be used to circumvent the filter. When will the morons in gov't see, that trying to control the Internet is futile? The masses do not want to be controlled. And when riots bad things happen. Remember the riots in the UK? More shit like this, will cause the people's anger to be showcased on the streets.
What is "objectionable"? I have kids and I don't really have a problem with them seeing pictures of naked people or even people having sex as long as it's not degrading or exploitative. On the other hand, I find much of the content on public TV (violent shows, for example) quite objectionable.
I think parents should decide for themselves what is "objectionable" and what isn't.
FTFY. This is really the issue at hand. It's not that the people proposing the law don't want to see porn, it's that they don't want anyone else seeing it. Err, I mean, they don't want the children to see it. Adults should have the right to, of course. Just opt-in by putting your name on this list titled "Probable Sex Offenders" and you can look at your porn again. You perv.
Chelloveck
I give up on debugging. From now on, SIGSEGV is a feature.
Awesome. Let's outlaw webcams while we're at it. And since this is the UK, let's require a paid licence for every computer.
I've typically thought of Great Britain as being, relative to the US, very progressive in the spirit of other typical European social democracies. However their government often surprises me with some of the policies put in place, invasions of privacy which in the US citizens would not stand and be up in arms over. The 24/7 camera monitoring on the streets is one thing that comes to mind. And if you listen to Pat Condell on Youtube you'd think the place was almost becoming a police state.
When are these idiot politicians going to get it through their thick skulls that filtering software doesn't work!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
And nothing else, ever. Especially the unbreakable, distopian police state they will inherit.
Read the first letter of each sentence in the parent post
I want to know, who of "the people" are asking for these censorship laws? There must be droves of citizens from somewhere demanding internet censorship and curbing of their own civil liberties.. pppfpffffff.. talk about government for sale!
How the hell do people "stumble" into information/pictures that they don't want to see? I go all day every day at work and manage not to bring up a single porn site or questionable image with zero filtering.
Age to vote in the UK is 18.
Age of consent in the UK is 16.
So surely this means voting should be considered even more of an adult activity, and therefore all political sites blocked until the user is of suitable age.
Setting a country wide proxy (or something like OpenDNS's filtering) and giving instructions to how to use to it, and give ISPs ways to set it up for customers that ask for it. Then.massively promote it, give it for free, but must be user choice to use it.
Pushing a censor everywhere, in the other hand, won't solve the problem (will be easy ways to evade it), will create new problems, and opens the door to censor a lot more than specifically porn (at least, the one that meant to be, not like i.e. art, or health topics that are usually blocked as it) for children.
"Objectionable material," eh? Then I propose that we make all religious websites opt-in! They can be very damaging to a young person's mind...
Its not about porn or copyright.
It's all about controlling the media to "transform" public opinion.
In engineering a "controller" needs an output sensor and a transforming procedure. So a float valve in a water trough turns the tap on when the float sinks or turns it off when it rises.
In this instance, The output sensor (public opinion surveys) is used to calculate a transforming feedback (censorship) which will move public opinion in a desired direction.
Any reasonably proficient computer engineer who wanted could produce a fairly simple home modem attachment that would censor porn sites. Our politicians would much prefer to have a mechanism in place that could be easily modified to censor negative information about themselves.
Just started reading the story. It wasn't idiot Gore or burners lee who invented the Internet, it was Murray Leinster in 1946.
That's the point. They're ineffective at the moment because the Internet is uncontrolled. So the Internet must be controlled.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
I didn't think anyone could out-stupid American politicians, but by god you guys are trying.
This is just a report from a parliamentary inquiry and is not being proposed as a new law. Personally, I can't see it making it through the system even if it does get proposed at some point. There are many more important things that are actually in the process of being made law that we should concentrate on.
I assume you mean DA-Notices?
These don't actually block a newspaper from publishing anything - they basically say "Dear editor, be an awfully good chap and don't publish that."
So why don't any newspapers publish things covered by DA-Notices? Because although they are not a legal injunction they are a threat of some kind of retaliation should the newspaper disobey. To use your analogy it's like a mugger holding a knife to your throat, pointing a machine gun at your testicles, and politely asking "Please be an awfully good chap and drop your wallet on the floor".
These notices are issued by the same people who want total control over what the public can read on the internet and may or may not be the same people involved in the shadowy IWF.
I can agree to censorship with abusive words (swearing) & porn. The web is needed for information but this doesn't seem to be working correctly. Porn, my goodness the world is already over-populated sending the Earth into a tail-spin & porn does only one thing, create trouble. It's a bodily function, so why porn to expand into difficulties which in both cases, is trouble.
FTFY. This is really the issue at hand. It's not that the people proposing the law don't want to see porn, it's that they don't want anyone else seeing it
Actually, they don't want anyone seeing websites that are on a list (which is often kept secret), many of which are porn sites, but some of which are political sites, anti-abortion sites, sites which might accept user content and so are part-porn, part not, etc.
As someone who successfully obtained porn when I was restricted to dialing up to my local BBS, ISP, and even AOL as a teen I know there were many ways to share porn.
Even if there is no way for it to show up on a search engine and you can't dedicate a website to it the kids on this network will still find a way to distribute porn to each other.