Slashdot Mirror
British Prime Minister To Announce Porn Blocking Plans
Overly Critical Guy writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron will announce network-filtering plans targeted at porn websites, possibly requiring users to 'opt-in' with their ISP to access such content. The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'"
What next? The Internet and web should be free. There should never be any large-scale blocking of this sort, otherwise they'll add more categories in the future until we're left with a heavily restricted Internet/web, or worse: whitelisted categories.
The Royal Firewall (HMRF)
I would not be surprised if the use of Tor, and proxies/VPNs in other countries spiked as a result of this law.
Palm trees and 8
How would that not be censorship?
The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'
Yes. And?
The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
Monty Python?
British porn is terrible.
Stick a camera up everyone’s ass, outlaw solitary men walking through parks on the off chance they're pedos, confiscate almost all the guns, now you erect a government run firewall ah la china to 'save' someone from porn or something.
This desire to make your island a pink and blue romper room will not work. Stop doing it.
Do I have to "opt in" if I want to read Huckleberry Finn or Anne Frank's uncensored diary? No. Free speech/press/expression means exactly that..... no censorship by the government of any book, paper, or website.
Dumbass PM.
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
against your regime, and includes everybody including you when int comes to your internet. But as a politician the control of everyone elses internet is your concern. Another tail that wags the dog. Please resign now. Its less painful in the long run.
Please don't make it a hassle for people who want to view the content. Not for the children, and not for anyone else. This isn't necessary. We've lived without this, and somehow the world hasn't collapsed due to it yet.
This anti-sexuality nonsense has got to go. Even if a child does see the content, it will most likely not hurt them, anyway. I'd say ignorance is far more damaging.
It was nice knowing you.
If yours becomes popular your views will be confirmed. If not then you'll know to shutup more often. but please leave our internet alone. I can filter my own porn thanks.
I see no problem with isp level filtering as long as it is opt-in. I'd image many parents would gladly pay extra to have the isp filter out some of the naughtiness from the internet connection their children uses. If some parents want to minimize the chances their children will be exposed to goatse and other even more deranged porn fetishes that is their right. It could also be much more efficient than client-side filtering at the end point which is only effective if the parent is more technically savvy than their child which is not always the case. However, it should be opt-in, not opt-out. And it doesn't need to be government mandated - the "free market" should be able to solve it by itself. Lots of concerned parents would freely purchase isp filtering if it was available as a product and everyone could be happy.
Football Odds
How about, if you WANT TO BE CENSORED, you have to OPT-IN to being censored?
Everything on the internet is "opt in" access!!!
there's a movement that says any change would be censorship. I won't comment on whether or not this proposed change is actually censorship.
"This porn is blocking my plans!"
It sounds more like a government surcharge on porn sites to get a piece of the porn profit pie. They only do this because porn sites make money. It has nothing to do about protecting kids or some god damn thing.
Porn is not illegal, so what is the base to discriminate it over other stuff? Its much less damaging to everyone than religion, and religion is not bloqued. Is less damaging than sport, and sport is not blockqued. WHY THE HELL.
-Woof woof woof!
And that would be because... if you're limiting access to content, you're *censoring* it.
Go google 'breast' or 'boobies' or 'titties' or any other euphemism you can think of. the cat is already out of the bag for any 13 year old boy who grew up after, say 2000. People who grew up in the unsexualized 50s-70s are just going to have to acknowledge to themselves that children are going to grow up knowing the birds and the bees after the age of, say, 10, and deal with it, and make sure to teach their children accordingly. Fuck, if you grew up on a farm you probably already knew that by the age of 10 anyway. It's not like it's fucking rocket science, it's tab A in slot B and look , a baby.
Society changes. You can't hold back the tide with your hands, it's futile. You're about 20 years too late. At this point you're just using it as an excuse to create the fascist government that V for Vendetta only hinted at, and you're not fooling anybody. It's only a question of whether the populace is quiescent enough to let you do it. (They Probably are, but that'll only go so far.)
Fuck.
The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.
On any point where they do not seem to want to do this, they are no different than Democrats (gay marriage for example).
But basically overall any political group in the EU or UK is far to the left, hence the desire to control what the populace does or sees. A true nanny state comes about as the result of a left-wing "we know what is best for you" kind of mindset that few on the right have now (and the Tea Party is getting rid of the ones that remain that still think like that).
Really to use the term right/left anymore is meaningless, you should be looking for "statists" - those that think the state should be your master instead of yourself. The modern left is wholly bought into this idea, the U.S. right only half way, the EU/UK nearly irredeemably lost down that road now.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
It's well documented.
You are a lying scumbag. It's well documented.
Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life.
Only if you fail to stock the Kleenex properly.
It has zero detriment to feelings towards women or sex. Kids have been looking at porn for decades now...
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
And finish reading Fahrenheit 451. All this censorship all in a row...madness.
Great warrior...hrmph! Wars not make one great.
when the government is the one that manages "how access is delivered." What does it even mean to "deliver access?" How orwellian. He makes it sound like access is something you need the government to provide for you.
Currently hooked on AMP
Fuck You.
Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
We have to start building our own Internet composed of wireless links and operated by thousands of independent individuals. Will it ever be as large as the public Internet of today? No, but anyone who remembers the Wild West Internet of yesteryear will realize that's a good thing.
https://wiki.projectmeshnet.org/Getting_started
It's been proven time and time again that filtering isn't effective, and often it's abused by people with access and the power to affect what is and is not filtered!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
It's time for people who like porn to announce British Prime Minister-blocking plans.
(-1: Post disagrees with my already-settled worldview) is not a valid mod option.
...seem to think the interwebs are theirs. It's time they realized they aren't!
Perhaps it's time for Occupy Internet!
Censoring data, is censoring data. Even if there is an avenue to avoid the censor, as there always will be. Please for the love of God leave the internet be. It is not a government entity. It's a global entity. If the majority of the global internet community finds something to block(CP) then block it. If you don't want it in your country, then don't allow the itnernet at all and let your country disappear in the global trade game(which doesn't sound that bad ATM). The deal is knowledge is power, people are gaining too much knowledge for the haves comfort level. Hence why you can't search for information on democracy from within China's firewall.
You can't just block perfectly legal things, in any manner, and not see that as censorship in some form. Things legal should be allow to flow unhindered. Things that are illegal need to be handled with the people involved with the illegal activity. Not with an entire nation, or the entire globe. But that's another topic, porn is legal in the UK.
We are seeing an all out assault on the internet freedoms under a different guise every day. Once we start down this path, there is no going back.
If I don't want my children to look at porn, I will handle that. I will not expect the world to adapt to my views, and inadequate paranting. And yes, I'm the father of two fine young boys, parenting is not easy. But my children are my responsibility alone(well along with the misses).
"We want to protect the children"
"We want to protect IP holders"
"Protect..."
What about protecting the majority of people that do not fall under these catagories?
How would imagine it working?
First they came for porn, but I do not watch porn, so I was silent, when people who watched porn were too shy to declare that.
Then they came for people who read Inspire magazine (wait, they came for them first, with drones), so I was silent, when people who read Jihadi websites opted-in without shame.
How do you expect this beaten to the death quote to work in this case?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
I think the emphasis is on the word "came".
https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
There is a seriously obvious Conflict of Interest and her motives are so stupidly obvious.
She sounds like one of those fruitloops who do more damage to children than porn ever could.
The type who practically locks their kids in their rooms until they have a stable job and arrange a marriage with another equally fruitloop of a family.
30 year old virgin offspring breeders. Those types.
Do you really want someone like that in office, Britain?
She is almost certainly this kind of person just by reading her absolutely naive little words.
She is acting like EA calling everyone homophobes and entitled because they are hating their terrible games recently.
How about you actually TALK to your kids once in a while?
Stop being lazy. If you can't take care of your own kids, DON'T HAVE THEM. Stop throwing your responsibilities as a parent on to others at the detriment of others.
TPB, now this, and you can bet your ass they will go after other stuff.
It is up to you, Britain.
Act, don't talk about it. Act.
Have gnu, will travel.
That slope got slippery because I accidentally spilled some lube. Sorry about that.
An ISP who didn't want to comply could just add this one line to the account application:
Mark only one: :)
_X_ I am a legal adult and am okay with _ISP_ not blocking porn
___ I am not not a legal adult and agree to have porn blocked. Note: Non-adult customers must have an adult agree to pay the bill.
Knowledge is how to play a game, intelligence is how to win, wisdom is knowing what game to play.
Clearly the thing to do would be to start a porn site where the talent make political speeches against David Cameron. Then he'll be repressing political speech.
Why doesn't the british government just have an option at sign up for child protection and use a simple DNS blocking service like NortonDNS? That would not disrupte free speech nor would it require expensive procedures and upgrades for ISPs.
I am an advocate of OpenDNS, and NortonDNS for phishing and crossite protection in case my anti virus package misses something. NortonDNS has porn filtering as well if you enter the IP addresses here. Basically the last subnet .50 filters unfamily friendly sites, .40 just porn and malware, and .20 for the rest of us with just security protection.
I have my router with .20 filter at home. If I had a child I would put his/her own computer with a subnet of .40 for the DNS IP Address. Problem solved. No expensive tax dollars or expensive hardware or software.
If you run Windows you can turn on family safety too for a childs account. I imagine most users are not this savy or smart to know this or set this up and you can do custom filtering as well. However DNS filtering is the best and an easy way.
I am for free speech and this is outragous! I think an option with those who pick family safety just run a script which configures their new shiny routers to the NortonDNS that protects agaisnt porn and viola! Easy
http://saveie6.com/
The link is here.
Messed up the tags
http://saveie6.com/
Where are the snarky remarks about USA?
MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'" -> Because it is?
Censor (courtesy of MW):
2censor verb
censoredcensoring
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
See censor defined for English-language learners
I am John Hurt.
Start by blocking the internet porn, for the kids of course. A few years pass. Then block anything that could be deemed hate speech or offensive. Again for the kids. Govt bonus: have FBI/CIA/NSA secretly setup proxies and track people who use them to bypass the block. A few years pass. Next block anything from countries that might be unfriendly towards us, national security, nothing to see here move along. Govt bonus: have FBI/CIA/NSA secretly setup proxies and track people who use them to bypass the block. A few years pass. Start making it harder to opt in for porn, maybe even make users pay for access or a data plan that allows porn. Govt bonus: big list of people who want porn.
"all i wanted was a pepsi..."
Prude Minister
Not a problem...
First they came for the porn but I didn't watch porn so I didn't care, next they came for those extremist websites but I wasn't an extremist so I didn't care, next they went after the hate speech, but I wasn't hateful so I didn't care, next they came for the unpopular but I wasn't unpopular so I didn't care, then when i realized I was in a jack booted fascist state I had no way to protest or organize because they turned the internet into the fucking home shopping club and when i complained they hauled my ass away.
I admit not nearly as poetic but the sentiment is there. NEVER FORGET that there are those out there that honestly believe nothing should exist that an 8 year old can't watch and scarily enough these douchebags often end up in power.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
They start by making you have to opt-in for porn, then the filter is expanded for child porn, terrorism, hate speech, extremism, copyright infringement, and whatever. It's foot in the door technique.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
With kids moving to VPNs (see http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17922214), the filters will be useless.
One could almost say that *IAA are pushing kids to bypass government filters and hence get uncensored access to porn.
..."thing" in any government position?
Claire Votes on things
She is part of what is slowly becoming wrong with the UK.
Not over a war for resources, territory but PORN
Fight it at all costs.
FFS, RTFA! "The Prime Minister is expected to announce formal plans to look into...Cameron will announce a consultation". No plans to do anything at all have been announced, which is what the summary says
Just remember to keep sacrificing your liberty for freedom.
"...fuck the children; they are getting entirely too much attention"
This post is provided without warranty as to reliability, accuracy or otherwise or fitness for any particular purpose.
Dr. Phil doesn't agree with you, but he's encouraged you've expressed your emotions.
How about the fucking parents pay for filtered internet content for their spawn, and leave me out of it.
Funny how the numbers of comments on this story about pr0n are increasing in numbers, leaving other story like the feds seizing domains in the dust.
What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?
Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?
If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?
Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a filter are you breaking the law? If you are a child and you bypass the filter are you breaking the law?
Will MP's have to own up to if they have opted-in? How will we know they are being truthful? What will happen if they are not? What happens if they visit friends houses where the friends have opted-in? Will this be true for all public figures and government employees?
If you "opt-in" and your children "see porn" does this mean you are accountable to the government in some way?
If your kids go visit their friends in a "opt-in" household does this mean their parents are responsible in defying the law some how?
If the ISP accidentally allows someone access to porn without their "opting-in" what does that mean? Can parents sue the government/ISP/auditors?
If your in a custody dispute with a spouse, will it be legitimate for them to discover if you have opted-in to internet.
What happens if the ISP blocks things that aren't porn? Who will know? What recourse will there be if they block a legitimate business site?
Who will make the list of porn sites?
If the government does it, and they start blocking "non-porn" sites - how will people know? How will it be fixed? How long will that take?
Will companies and institutions be able to opt-in en mass or will they need approval from every member of their staff?
Will libraries automatically "opt-in"? If the filter is not accurate and blocks items that are medical or sexual education - and you are a school/library/university etc will you have to opt-in just to be sure you get the information you need?
I am sure they are not thinking this through...
There is no wonder why the Tory are going to loose the next elections big time in few years time. I guess the people in the UK are not going to stand for this type of thinking in the government of the UK.
This also has nothing to do with children. That is just a cover up to get this censorship past the UK parliament.
So, I will opt-in for terrorism, hate speech, extremism, copyright infringement.
Who is coming for me?
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
...or at least keep you from watching porn in your mom's basement every day and night.
Jokes aside, I realise there is a good reason behind such a thing, but the fact is that you can't keep all sites out. You can't even keep all GOOD/TIME-WORTHY sites out. Some sites contain pornographic advertisements. Would those be affected? If so affected, how exactly would things be handled differently? Are you really going to break the functionality of the Web while also killing the ad-viewing revenue of sites that merely contain pornographic ads as opposed to the site being primarily made for porn? What qualifies as pornography? Will that definition be different from what qualifies as pornography outside of the Web due to the fact that the nature of the medium is so radically different?
There is too much to consider, and none of it sounds good. I can just imagine browsing entire sites with a bunch of broken images...just as I did in the 1990s. -_-
When any government or church for that matter, undertakes to say to its subjects, "This you may not read, this you must not know," the end result is tyranny and oppression, no matter how holy the motives
I think I'll opt-out of this society because I no longer wish to be indecently exposed to such idiocy.
you said 'boener'
You forgot to opt-in for child porn
This is probably the worst thing the Government can do, they have enough problems running the country never mind the internet as well.
I have always said all parents should never leave children to use the internet with out having their own protection in place.
I have always said that all porn should be banished to the xxx Tld therefore making it easy for parents to block.
Governments should keep out of this as everyone who reads Slashdot knows how to bypass the blocks by just using a proxy all this will do is make push more people onto using the darkweb or running VPN servers or other using freely available software like Tor and Privoxy, or if they just use filters on the DNS they would just use DNS resolvers from another country.
The ISP`s would have to implement this via expensive switches to make a difference which would slow the internet down for us in the uk more than it is now as well as adding the extra costs to our bills to cover the administration.
Sky has failed already implementing the blocks to the piratebay and anyway which person would use any other than a private tracker and protection to stop RIAA from seeing their ipaddress anyway.
Whats next the internet companies will find a way to make users pay them for access to porn and drive the whole thing underground where funnily enough the kids will still bypass it if they want to find it.
You cannot add a third of the internet to blocklists and keep them current as it is.
Srsly, why do you elect idiots over in the UK?
...exactly what plans is the porn blocking?
Perhaps a missile, perhaps a drone, perhaps a sudden EMP while you're driving causing your engine and brake computers to go nuts
"Evil will always triumph because good is dumb." -- Dark Helmet
why the web took off in the first place... i mean really took off
for isps, banning porn is like telling cca they can no longer sell normal coke, only sugar free (coke zero)
internet traffic will plummet
And only then you should have to face a detailed background check, attend a training course and pay a hefty license charge to get online, while every single keystroke of yours is tracked and stored for possible infractions. There also needs to a be strict age limit of no access if you're under 25 or ever had any run in with the law including any charge for any reason whatsoever. Even a parking ticket. Violators will be electrocuted.
England Prevails.
The British can show boobs on TV, but they want to actively block porn. In the US, you can't show boobs on TV, but everyone says porn in fine. And don't get me started on Japan.
Vote monkeys into Congress. They are cheaper and more trustworthy.
'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'"
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck...
Say it isn't so! Filtering schemes for porn, coming from Europe?! I thought the intellectually and culturally superior Europeans were so much more evolved than us ignorant, religious and pious non-Europeans. Why we are veritable backwoods retards compared to the vaunted linerated and clear thinking, free peoples of the European countries. Why the UK is filled with nothing but superior right thinking specimes who would never censor like those ugly and capricious Americans, always forcing their uptight ideas abou sex on the enlightened Europeans. Or those backwards Arabs and their oppressive but noble culture, being so down on all things sex. Why the British are so much more enlightened and would never do that!
No-one will come for you, but you might find that some kind of extended "sex offender" lists will crop up where everyone who had opted into something ends up on. Once there, good luck finding a job or buying or renting a house.
From the bigger issues. Like the EU crisis. The F35 and F22 fiascos. The nuclear fallout from Japan polluting the planet. The banksters. Offshoring and outsourcing. Unemployement. Immigration. Monsanto and GM Franken foods. Iran, Iraq. Afghanistan. Syria. Occupy Wall Street. The Tea Party. Enron. 911. The pension crisis.
Frighten you, put you on the defensive, TO TAKE YOUR EYES OFF THEM.
Block Porn? AS IF. It is a boogieman to frighten children.
Porn has always existed and always will. It only takes a few days to bang out version 1.0 of an encrypted peer to peer private network that runs on untouchable port 80.
Wanna see linux explode overnight? Wanna see crypto everywhere, all the time? Wanna see securecom(TM) for Raspberry PI materialize out of the void? Go ahead block and censor and scan. Countermeasures will be deployed in weeks.
UK Politicians lecturing on sex morality? That's a chuckle. The UK upper crust are some of the sickest perverts on the planet. Anyone else remember the pedophile roundup in the UK that got cancelled some years back because it started turning up a lot of the UK uppercrust? I do.
The UK has no money for this. As soon as the Olympics are over, the UK will collapse. Cameron and Blair will be lucky to pay their electric bill. The Queen will have to clip coupons.
They are bluffing.
Do not be afraid. Do not be divided.
Lighten up francis. It's just sex, between consenting adults and they both get paid for it. Do things that we really like, making and having sex.
Point one. Do you honestly think your someone is going to start doing porn if they discovers it exists? If you do, then either you've already failed as a parent or your kid is already a lost cause. Do you have any idea how many people have seen, and enjoyed porn, and how many people work in that industry? Most people for the former, and a little tiny itty bitty fraction of the population in the later.So clearly watching people have sex doesnt not make people become porn actors. If by that logic exposure to porn made people into porn actors, then nearly everyone on earth would work in porn.
Point two, it's sex! People see sex all the time, and it's doesn't harm them. Clearly, obviously it doesnt hurt people to see sex. How do these prudes think babies are made? This are the same idiots that claim seeing a nipple on a woman, but not man, is harmful to children. So do they breast feed their kids blindfolded? Forbid girls from looking at there nipples? Shear nonsense. Anyone that claims watching sex harms people is either stupid or lying. This is the same idiotic argument that playing video games makes people violent. This is about cultural taboos and nothing else. It's sex, it's healthy, it's normal and it won't hurt you to see it. Grow up.
And point three. It doesn't fucking matter what you or anyone else thinks is good for me. I dont need you to protect little old me, or my kids from sex. I dont want my kids to grow up fucked up because they cant form healthy sexual relationships amd enjoy sex because prudes have made them ashamed of their thoughts and desires. Its sex, its healthy to want to do it, and yes it perfectly healthy to want to see it. Its hot! By their logic, if a bunch of people think I shouldn't read the bible, then apprently it should be banned because a loud enough minority thinks its harmful to women, etc.
Marvelous world they want to live in, I'll pass on the trip back to the dark ages. Fuck off you dictators. Really, sex is bad? WTF?! If sex is bad, what's good?
Long story short: with internet i prefer opt-out over opt-in
Long story:
IIRC i have comcast and somewhere in their settings they have filters you can select to prevent porn sites to come up? why not do something like that.
Or now that a lot of ISP modems are also wireless routers they could add a little extra power and software that has an always updated database of sites in diffrent catagories (think V-Chip) where u can select by age, or even select only a few options within the age group. Like i am fine with my kid seeing gun fights but i dont like high end curse words and they are in the same age group, i can select to block the cursing but keep the fights.
or you can install blocking software on the computer it's self
there are already many options and some that would be nice if implemented.
The douchebags in power could not possibly care less about the moral content of available entertainment. They posture on these issues precisely because it wins them public support. With that support, they can then further the agendas they actually do care about, which include increasing the power and wealth of themselves and their allies.
The people who care are the teeming masses of your fellow have-nots who can't be arsed into rubbing two neurons together long enough to see the terrible harm they cause by empowering people who purport to make vanish anything that makes them feel squeamish.
.com
So you have to opt into porn, some people feel uncomfortable about making private things, like if they watch porn or not, into public things. To me it's an invasion of privacy. I guess I'd just be shame free and opt into any and everything they would otherwise block.
This is the equivalent of posting the fact you purchased a skin flick or nude magazine on your facebook page for all the world to see...
What's next is that every book, periodical, or website you consume will be "opted in" ie, you'll enter it in their logs, so we can see exactly what you're doing -- They'll do it to close the cash loophole. What?! You want to be Anonymous? Like the Evil Hackers?!
you should be able to access it by default but be able to block it if you wanted
Now, there is one for stopping the censorship of porn and there is one for blocking porn. But I liked this one even more.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/1629 --- "None of the above" on ballot papers.
Hello porn, goodbye politicians (shut up, don't ruin my dream, it's the British dream, we have ours, you have yours).
That's not continuation of the progression "first they came to me".
Why everybody is abusing the analogy?
First they called a bad word homosexuals, then they burned alive violin players.
It's a a complete lack of reason I am shocked about, not the attitude of people to censoring.
I do not believe in karma. "Funny"=-6. Do good and forbid evil. Yours, Oft-Offtopic Flamebaiting Troll.
This is the kind of stupidity and ignorance that is typical of British politicians. The regime of David Cameron, is nearly entirely composed of extremely stupid, fanatically right wing, privately educated halfwits.
This type of policy is completely unworkable in the real world. Everyone already knows how to bypass the proxying of nazi governments. The British government will only achieve the addition of itself to a select list of totalitarian censorship regimes, and absolutely nothing else.
And, what was the problem they were trying to tackle with this legislation? Who even knows? Personally, I don't see any harm in letting children access an uncensored internet. If they are too young to understand what they see, it probably won't make any impact, or at best solicit some laughter. I think censorship does more harm than good. Once you make something 'forbidden', young people will only seek it out even more. Since the fascist proxy will easily be able to be bypassed by just about any child, one has to ask, is this just an attempt to introduce a new method of spying on people by the back door. I can't see any other reason for it, other than perhaps a particularly pathetic and reactionary pandering to thick right wing sub-peasant trash.
Where is the evidence that censorship produces any benefits for children? We need only look to the disgusting filth of the catholic church, to see the dangers of those who try to impose their own 'moral agenda' on others. I'd be willing to bet the proponents of such laws are actually the sickest, most filthy, most warped, stunted, and disgusting freaks of all. Looking at the history of Tory deviant MPs, there seems to be some founding for these suspicions.
Now, I've changed m mind. Porn stashes form a totally uncensorable distributed source of whatever these dickheads are trying to censor.
Ladies and gentlemen, let loose your stashes!
What's an adult child?
If parents want to restrict access to pornography, well that's their choice and I'm not going to argue against own-choice even if I'm tempted to suggest it may be misguided.
So I'd support an opt-in model, albeit wary about the implementation - specifically control and monitoring over what is blocked - but in principle, sure. If parents are the ones wanting something, they can tick the box when signing up or accessing the account. A solution made available for anyone with the problem.
So why an opt-out model? Are they insinuating that parents who want to block pornography are too stupid or lazy to tick the box?
Nope. Parents may be on side for this but mostly the opt in vs. out isn't important to them. The reason the opt-out is being pushed is because the "Christian" Tories' problem is about other people accessing pornography.
However they will also want you to prove your identity, so I will use a VPN instead of their list.
And who do you think the early adopters of broadband were? That's right, pr0n consumers FTW.
No one has got close to the heart of this...
It is only Cameron trying to prove that he is not the wanker that we all know him to be!!!
Of course that hands-off-the-internet people are saying that changes like this are censorship. That's because they are censorship - it's specifically preventing people from accessing certain kinds of content. If British Telecom were changing the internet access to deliver everything over wireless so everything's mobile and then telling you not to transfer big files because it would interfere with VOIP latency, that wouldn't be censorship, it would just be dubious technical change. But blocking access to specific content because it's politically incorrect is pretty much the definition of censorship.
I'm sorry, but I'd prefer to see a politician who's got the honesty to say that she wants to censor content because she knows what's best for us to read than a lying loon who says that it's not censorship when she's in charge of deciding what we can read.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Besides, it's "First they came for the porn. Then they came for the porn. After that they came for the porn. Now they're back, trying to get the porn again."
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
They're not breaking into your houses trying to confiscate your porn, or breaking into ISPs taking theirs away. They're just censoring it in between.
But they're being dishonest idiots about it. The reason the "hands off the Internet" people are calling this proposed "change" "censorship" is that it's rather precisely meeting the definition of censorship. She wants to block material based on its content. If BT were to move everything onto wireless and tell you not to download big files because it'd interfere with VOIP latency, that wouldn't be censorship - it's independent of whether the content is porn, pirated movies, funny cat videos, or speeches by idiot Tory politicians.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
I'd rather not have politicians telling me what to read, thank you. It's worse when they expand their targets from the originally-announced "porn" to cover lots of politically significant content, which so far has happened in just about any of the places that have implemented systems like this. And that doesn't even count the sloppy and accidental misclassifications, like one blacklist that banned "terra.es", which was a Spanish site similar to what flickr is now.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Opting in for those things will obviously make you suspicious, which means you'll probably be put on some watchlist. Eventually, it probably won't even be an option to opt-in, since only dirty criminals make that choice. The assholes that are against porn tend to be the kind of control freaks that thinks that they should have a say in every aspect of everyone's life, and to them, the internet is a great threat. There's not a damn thing wrong with kids watching porn, so the base argument is completely invalid.
This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
You didn’t watch porn... riiiiight.
Sorry mate. This civilization will fall into chaos in mere hours, when all porn is gone!
Rape and exhibitionism will be rampant. And those who don’t dare, will be so high on horniness, that they will do everything and everyone to get back the porn. Including storming every single government building.
It will be done in less than 48 hours. And only, because "done" includes furiously fapping/shlicking for 8 hours. ^^
Raising kids is the responsibility of the parents, not the state. There a re a lot of thing out there that may damage your children and so, as a parent you look out for them, you install a filter or you keep your kids away from extreme fighting matches.
What the hell is the government thinking trying to raising the children in a common way like this? Will they instate a Junior Anti-Sex League next?