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.'"

29 of 286 comments (clear)

  1. First they came.. by Bongoots · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  2. Suddenly, Tor usage spikes by betterunixthanunix · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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
    1. Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes by mhajicek · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Next you'll have to opt in for any site associated with political dissent, thereby labeling yourself as a dissenter.

    2. Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Yeah, opt in to VIEW it.
      If parents are too retarded to setup web censorship, or, you know, TALK to their kids, they shouldn't be allowed to have any damn kids.
      I'm sick of lazy parents forcing their stupidity and laze on others.

      Porn first, adult content in general after it.
      Hell, the idiots even have age group restrictions in general!

      The web filters in their entirety should be banned.
      It costs the entire country money and I am pretty sure I don't give a damn about lazy parents or their already warped childrens minds.

  3. Um, yeah, actually ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Um, yeah, actually ... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ah, yes. Clearly.

      A couple of days ago, I told an English friend of mine, who was claiming that the UK would never tolerate anything like America's level of right-wing crazy, that I strongly suspected their Tories would be just as bad as our Republicans given the chance. I think this is all the proof I need that it's already happened. Not just the proposal itself, but the smug, smarmy, iron-fist-in-the-velvet-glove way Perry is defending it.

      --
      The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  4. Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    British porn is terrible.

    1. Re:Excellent! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Almost. Almost. Almost. There we are.

  5. What about books, newspapers? by cpu6502 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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"
  6. Re:Hang on a second... by Spad · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.

    It's really just another moronic step in the funeral parade of personal responsibility; this idea that people shouldn't have to think about requesting adult material be blocked on their connection, let alone actually look after their children and keep an eye on what they're doing online because, you know, that's *hard*.

    Stupid lazy fuckers would happily give away all their rights and freedoms if it meant they didn't have to think about anything too hard.

  7. Please no... by BootysnapChristAlive · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Please no... by ZeroSumHappiness · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.

      [citation needed]

  8. What is the internet but opt in access? by dittbub · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Everything on the internet is "opt in" access!!!

  9. This is stupid. by Tei · · Score: 4, Informative

    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!

  10. Dear Prime Minister David Cameron by Ralph+Spoilsport · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Fuck You.

    --
    Shoes for Industry. Shoes for the Dead.
  11. Filtering doesn't work! by kheldan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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!
    1. Re:Filtering doesn't work! by avajcovec · · Score: 5, Funny

      When you put it that way, it sure sounds an awful lot like prohibition.

    2. Re:Filtering doesn't work! by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It's been proven time and time again that filtering isn't effective,

      Nonsense. Filtering has been proven effective in many countries, including China and Iran. I daresay it's been proven cost effective in such countries as well. In fact, you will find that all this software was originally developed, tested, improved and optimised in such regimes, by western companies, and is now being sold back to the home country.

      and often it's abused by people with access and the power to affect what is and is not filtered!

      You are assuming that this is a side effect, and not the entire purpose of the system from the start. Filtering is designed to block things which those in power dislike.

      In this regard, there is no difference between porn, the pirate bay, islamist websites, or even the likes of zerohedge.com when it comes to the running of a successful filtering system. Once the system is in place, those in charge will block what they please.

      There will be no oversight or appeal to the courts, as a successful censorship/filtering system requires these options to be removed. This is the single biggest problem with such filters: they are above the rule of law.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    3. Re:Filtering doesn't work! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      If you're like me, about 7 and a half minutes.

  12. Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone by Hatta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.

    What a bald face lie. They want to reduce the power of federal government to enable corporations to rampage freely across the country, extracting profits and leaving negative externalities for everyone else to deal with.

    Personal liberty doesn't enter into it with the right wing. You won't find John Boener advocating for marijuana legalization any time soon.

    --
    Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
  13. Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    unless you own a vagina. In which case they know whats best for you.

  14. Re:Should be opt-in.. by NeutronCowboy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    You do realize that the parents ALREADY can filter out the naughtiness from the internet connection? It's called putting the computer in the living room, and using a password on it. By the time the kids are old enough to defeat those security measures, they're old enough to browse for boobies. By the time they can defeat anything more serious, as well as the threat of "I'm logging everything at the router", they're old enough to have sex.

    In other words, this is a solution to a non-existent problem.

    --
    Those who can, do. Those who can't, sue.
  15. Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c by Sebastopol · · Score: 4, Funny

    I think the emphasis is on the word "came".

    --
    https://www.accountkiller.com/removal-requested
  16. now no one else can by interkin3tic · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:now no one else can by jeremymiles · · Score: 5, Informative

      This is the UK we're talking about, there's no constitutional amendment that says you can't repress political speech and people can be sent to prison for what they write on twitter: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-17515992

      --
      GENERATION 26: The first time you see this, copy it into your sig on any forum and add 1 to the generation.
  17. Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 4, Informative

    "The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone."

    Haha. Get real. You are confusing "right wing" with Libertarians.

    The "small government" policies that the political Right have tried to pretend they believe in have NEVER materialized in the real world.

    When the Republicans have been in power they have NEVER reduced the power of the Federal government, NEVER reduced the actual size of government, NEVER reduced overall spending (except to reduce military spending after wars were over, and not even that, most of the time). Not once, at least since the year 1900, have they EVER actually made the government smaller.

    And they have NEVER left us alone. For the most part, and until very recently, they have a far worse record when it comes to Constitutional rights than the Democrats.

    So you can talk about what the Right pretends its platform to be all you want, but history very clearly shows it to be nothing but rhetoric. Actually that's too polite. Bullshit is the more accurate term.

    If they wanted anybody to actually believe them, they should have started putting their money where their mouths were over 50 years ago.

  18. Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  19. Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    You forgot to opt-in for child porn

  20. Weird by bryan1945 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.