Slashdot Mirror
UK Considering Automatic Web Filtering For Adult Content
Dupple writes with news that the British government is considering restrictions for ISPs that would block by default anything considered "adult content." From the article:
"Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it. It is one of several suggestions being put out for a consultation on how to shield children from pornography. Websites promoting suicide, anorexia and self-harm are also being targeted. The discussion paper asks for views on three broad options for the best approach to keeping children safe online, in a rapidly changing digital industry. ... The latest system, called 'active choice-plus,' is aimed at reaching a compromise. It would automatically block adult content, but would set users a question, along the lines of whether they want to change this to gain access to sites promoting pornography, violence and other adult-only themes. This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."
And also fuck the establishment!
(Punk is not dead!)
Ban the Bible it is full of porn.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
The blocking is so easy to circumvent, it's ridiculous. More legislation from politicians who don't have a clue how the Internet works.
How can we show people how stupid this whole "won't someone think of the children!?" argument is?
"If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
Hey, if they're blocking things they don't like by default, can they do the same for things I don't like? How about we automatically block all religious websites?
Its not like they're not allowing you to see it 1984 style, it's just helping avoid that awkward moment when you look up hot dog for a homework assignment and you get to see a lovely picture of a girl getting rammed in the butt. At school. On a projector.
...that every 18 year old still living at home, with the legal right to view such material... now has to approach his mother and father and say "Could you please turn the porn on?". This could destroy more lives than the current setup.
Me still thinks this is doubleplusungood. If you want to protect your kids, don't let them unsupervised on the Internet when they are still young. You don't let them play on a dangerous road either, do you?
... as one can chose "safe search" or not. It seem like a good option for search engines, a possible-but-onerous one for browsers (ask Google if a page is safe?) and a huge expensive kludge for ISPs.
--dave
davecb@spamcop.net
..and your choice will be logged, along with your IP address and probably your name, so that you choice to view such trash and filth can be used against you by the government at a later date -- such as when they decide to arrest and imprison and/or deport "undesirables" from the UK. Keep being awesome, UK..
How about parents become engaged in their children's lives and be more aware of what websites their children visit? Simple! Problem solved!
Pity they don't try it with the War on Drugs. Enforcement seems to rule there.
Pornography, at least, is already age-restricted. Asking ISPs to do the same level of filtering that brick-and-mortor stores do, while a little unreasonable, does make a certain amount of sense.
I would suggest, however, that any laws surrounding that be tied to pre-existing format-neutral regulations. If there's no law prohibiting someone from buying a book that promotes anorexia, for example, why make a ruling that only affects online users?
You're special forces then? That's great! I just love your olympics!
Kids probably get more porn from sharing with each other (phones, USB sticks, etc).
Just like the "old days" when dubious magazines were not allowed to be sold to kids, there were always kids with porn magazines ready to share.
This block will do nothing to stop any of that. The kids with access will just give to the kids without and the excitement will be that much greater because its "forbidden".
Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it.
So, leave it exactly the way it is, then?
No really, I am trying to think of the last time I saw anything pornographic that I wasn't looking for, and I can't name a single example. Maybe it's because I took two minutes to read Google's tips on how to get good search results? At any rate, this is the very first time in recent memory that I sincerely felt pro-status quo.
The Internet is a really great thing. Can't we have just one nice thing that the Puritannical busybodies don't fuck up for us? Is it really everyone else's problem if this tiny minority gets offended? Can we just decide to trust the parents to be parents, and accept that if we can't do that, the children have much bigger problems than any censorship is going to fix?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
Where is the line drawn between "promoting" and "featuring"? Who decides where it lies?
I view a website practically every day that regularly features violence of the most brutal kind. Abuse, murder, assaults, genocide, mass murder, casual, premeditated. It's all there. It's called BBC News. I wouldn't say it is "promoting" violence, but someone else may have a more censorious view on that. Why should they get to decide and not me? Why does my habit of reading this website need "nudged"?
Let's block censorship!
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
That's always the problem with censorship systems.
For instance, is a picture that is clearly a depiction of Nick Clegg and David Cameron going at it while not showing any private parts qualify as adult content or political speech? How about if they aren't even engaged in sexual activity, but just depicted wearing drag? How about classic artwork, like "Liberty Leading the People", where a breast is clearly visible? How about smutty literature, like Harry Potter lemons, the Song of Soloman, or D.H. Lawrence?
The line isn't clear, and the answer is usually that the government hires some prude to decide for the rest of us what's ok and what's not.
I am officially gone from
A friend of mine was never allowed to look at porn as a teenager. He was severely punished when a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress. I've never known anyone more sexually suppressed.
He is now a convicted sex offender. He ordered a video from a website claiming to be of teenage girls. That website was a honeypot. He didn't go to jail, but the constant death threats you get mailed to your house from complete strangers when you're on the sex offender list drove him out of the country. He lives in China now.
I was always allowed to look at porn if I wanted to. I was allowed to watch the sexually explicit movies on Cinemax, Showtime, etc. I watched Real Sex on HBO as a kid. I looked at all the porn I wanted to on the internet.
I no longer have an urge to look at porn. I haven't since I was a kid. Got it all out of my system, I guess. I'm now happily married and have a normal and satisfying sex life. No sex convictions.
Glad I didn't grow up in a house where it's wrong to masturbate.
>This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."
This "Nudge theory" has proven only to be the bullshit of "we're okay with letting private entities to automatically enroll and then subsequently allow customers to opt-out instead of an opt-in".. regarding a system of what is essentially censorship.
That being said I don't think any major U.S. telcos do this, yet. What the FUCK do you care if I'm looking at legal porn? What the fuck do I care that you know? It's not like you don't know all the data I'm sending anyways. What's next, want to post a public list with my name and address on it as a 'peruser of adult content'?
Thank god we grew out of this shit 40 years ago.. better watch out! The communists, oops, terrorists, will get you next!
Fuck you too, terrorists.. I don't want or need your fear in my life, and I'm not interested in invoking fear on others. I reject it.
Fuck you fear, in all of your myriad of forms in this world. Realizing that, as you collapse down the categories of all things human, it is all due to the motivating force between you and love. And I choose love.
I love you, fear, for driving me to this understanding.
I love you, web filter, for hopefully driving others to understand the very same concept. That you are a piece of fear and should be rejected by all those who seek to free themselves from such.
Such a thing could only be written by someone telling others to do something they themselves haven't done.
If this is something people want, I'm sure there are companies willing to sell them an appliance that plugs in between the internet and their home network. It's not rocket science. And it will be more difficult to get around if they sell a nice little locking box with room for the DSL modem/wireless router/whatever with it.
England is a fag country!
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
I once worked for an ISP and we did try to help our clients with central filters against spam, however, general filters we found quick enough could not be applied as part of our recipients were employed in Pharmacies, were doctors, where system administrators who wanted updates about the latest threats, and the list goes on. Essentially whatever we tried to filter had legitimate use too! Sure we can say the hotel doctors/pharmacists need to find alternative ways to communicate, but they are not alone.
I think this type of legislation typically cause more problems than it is worth.
YEAH, BECAUSE THAT HURTS ANYONE.
How about you block them from social networking.
That has killed far more people than I think porn has ever actually killed anyone. (outside of the what the UK is trying to become, a prudish country who kills those who have any sort of interest in the sexuality of the body)
Fucking prudes, get the fuck out my country. All of you.
Is it just me, or this story regarding UK internet censorship reappears here every few months? And it's always some sort of "consideration".
Why not post this when it's a concrete story, and not just a politician trying to gain some popularity using empty rhetoric?
One of the key problems with anything like this (opt-in, opt-out, forced-opt-in if you are Chinese, or anything else) is the question of who gets to chose what should be blocked. Where should lines be drawn?
There are some very vocal groups who would have any information about family planning and sexual health blocked because they think that complete ignorance is going to save their kids' futures, which as you can tell from my wording I very much don't agree with.
Likewise by the same definitions religious groups would use to try classify content as sexual or violent (or both), the Bible should most definitely be banned. I'm guessing this double standard will be brushed under the carpet.
Beyond the specification question of how we classify the content: how do those rules get implemented? Any automated classification will produce masses of false positive while letting much "bad" content through, and will probably be quite easy for content providers to "game". Any system of human intervention will be costly (probably prohibitively so) in terms of employing those people and is similarly prone to bad decisions (though due to bias more than misunderstanding). Either way there would need to be some form of appeals process for the system to have any credence what-so-ever/ They could use existing content classification services of course - but can you name one that is does not suffer from the above problems?
Think of the kids! Unplug the internet completely from life is the only way to stop them from seeing anything on the internet that "adults" don't want them to see, as well as burn all books, magazines, etc. Turn it completely off and remove it all, only the spoken word should exist. Think of the kids. Did we learn nothing from the book "nineteen eighty four" and the movie "Caveman" staring Ringo Starr? Sure you can more easily remove pictures and video from the internet and block it, but what about text? Words will just change to mean something else. Look at the word FAG it use to mean a cigarette now it means a derogatory word against a group of people. You must cut the language up and remove the ability for people to express things in a sexual manner which is impossible. just remember you are Bobo and you ZuggZugg your partner.
Children would be a hell of a lot better off if they were familiar with the naked human form. Humanity managed to raise children before we had clothing so seeing the nude human form can't possibly be harmful or we wouldn't be here. Early children would have seen or at least heard adults engaging in sexual acts but that didn't seem to stop humanity either. All this worry over porn is just people who want to tell other people how to live their lives. If the naked human form was presented as a thing of beauty to children growing up they probably wouldn't develop affinities for "forbidden" imagery.
I've got just as much choice without filtering.
...will choose the option "Yes, I want to see adult content."
And to be honest, speaking from experience as a child of the internet-free 80s, it is much better to wank off to real porn than to mail order catalogue models and used old adult magazines.
You're right. The proper way to solve this "problem" (and im not so sure it is a legit problem that should concern the government), would be to commision or otherwise incentivise the software industry to develop cheap and easy software that deals with this issue.
They have many tools at their disposal for this such as offering tax advantages or handing out kickstart money. They could even go the less democratic route and simply hire a large software firm to develop some jack of all trades filtering package that works on the major operating systems (or atleast Windows, OSX, Android/linux).
The program could simply be a one click installer which uses some reasonable defaults that match the average family (only attempt to block extreme violence, porn and the like). And it could offer a simple (grossly oversimplified) checklist that allows the owner/parent to select if they want to allow/disallow certain topics.
"How is it that you manage to look at all this filth and horror and remain a mentally healthy member of society?"
Then they will come for your guns...
* Carthago Delenda Est *
... just like there's no harm in children getting their knees bruised from time to time and whatnot. It's part of life, really. It's probably not really interesting until puberty anyway, except as in a hushhush-we're-not-supposed-to-see-this manner. If it frightens some kids, they'll stay away from it.
The fact is that in the world we live in, you can easily choose to see or even cause yourself some pretty horrible things. This was true before the internet arrived, and true afterwards. Porn is benign, even if 95% is incredibly fake and shallow.
They should take this a ways further -- requiring anyone who wants to access adult content to fill out and sign a form to mail to the government. And be added to the sex offender registry.
the way it reads, I thought that only adult material could be viewed
So they're going to pre-filter all offensive content?
At least they're willing to turn that off when the user requests it, but I wonder if they could provide something a little more tailored to my needs.
Can I pre-filter to see ONLY the offensive content? It would get me what I'm looking for much more quickly. It would be like Rule 34 for the entire internet!
It's anything the government doesn't like, according to TFS.
If they need Mary Poppins to work their internets for them, I'm fine with it.
UK can pretty much fuck off. They don't offer anything to the rest of the world. The islands could sink into the sea, and nobody would care, and nothing of value would be lost.
It's true. Go suck a joffo cake, spit spot.
The point isn't to be hard to circumvent(in a technical sense),
it doesn't need to be hard to circumvent the filters to prevent people from doing it. It just needs to be illegal.
it's the same as hacking into a site. The law doesn't stop you from being prosecuted if the site had lousy security - the "But M'Lud, it wasn't burglary the door had an easy lock" defence is a myth. If the law is drafted so that intent to circumvent is illegal then the strength of the lock-out doesn't matter.
And if ISPs know which sites are banned for the opt-in's it will know which of it's opt-in'd users are trying to access them. If there is then some traffic flow from that banned site the only question is whether the ISP has a duty to report it. Until the law is written we will have no idea just how draconian it will be.
politicians are like babies' nappies: they should both be changed regularly and for the same reasons
... there would be only one site left: bring-back-the-porn.com.
Here is a leaked copy of the "pornography" section of the opt-in form:
UK Ministry of Internet Freedom Opt-in form (DRAFT)
Please check the boxes for any content you wish to view.
Pornography:
[ ] Masturbation, manual
[ ] Masturbation, unpowered sex toys
[ ] Masturbation, powered sex toys
[ ] Vaginal intercourse
[ ] Oral intercourse
[ ] Anal intercourse
[ ] Intercourse, 3 or more partners
[ ] Hentai, non-tentacle-rape
[ ] Tentacle rape hentai
[ ] Tranny
[ ] Scat
[ ] Bestiality
[ ] Furry
[ ] Vore
[ ] Goatse, 2g1c, 1m1j, lemon party
Date:__________
Print name: ____________
Sign: ___________
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
"This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."
Why do they want to change my behavior? What is "wrong" (i.e., in need of changing) about wanting to view adult content if you are an adult?
In order to get automatic controls accurate, perhaps a good approach would be to open up a contest to produce suitable software. I predict the first challenge ("Implement an efficient nipple detector in PHP") will create a massive surge in the skills (is that what we're calling it today?) of budding web hackers, which would be a win-win: killing two pigs with one bird, as it were.
Off to start my research.
now kids wont be able to see youtube videos of my cats playing. perhaps "pussy on pussy action" wasnt the best choice of titles.
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Since when is it the government's responsibility to "change behavior" of its own people?
An opt-in system may make sense, but when it comes to material some find objectionable the opt-in list itself becomes and issue. Who controls the publication of the list? Will employers or political enemies use the list to smear or block people? Opt-in lists provide a chilling effect.
When one goes to buy a porn mag in a bricks and mortar store, one can pay by cash and remain anonymous as the store may check identification but is not required to make record of it. Not so with an opt-in system.
I for one do not like an opt-in for censored material system.
You sir are no longer correct. The UK is already using CleanFeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_system%29), a sophisticated transparent proxy system. All UKs ISPs must use it. Most people don't know it exists. Canada also has it. Australia is considering it.
Apparently if you don't like it, you can try your hand at tricking it into revealing the blocked website.
big government, small-minded ideology. fuck you, britain.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
am I the only one who read that & immediately thought of the following exchange between Homer & Dr Hibbert:
Hibbert: the best tonic is chronic!
Homer: but doc, isn't marajuana or "dope" illegal?
Hibbert: {laughs} only for those who enjoy it! medical marajuana is perfectly legal in this state...
Given the news about Barclays today: www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-18622264 perhaps we should block all the banking sites too...and the arms dealers. Oh wait, they have friends in [what we laughingly call] our government don't they?
On y va, qui mal y pense!
Some "undeveloped" peoples run around nearly naked. Their sons and daughters know what penises, vaginas and breasts are. They help to cook food, and thus see the gory innards of slain beasts.
In the developed world most of their children have no clue that opposite sexes even exist. Children often know the issue of "where babies come from" is uncomfortable to their parents long before they even learn the truth. They're vastly undereducated as to the urges their hormones bring... They have little sense of the finality of death, or of nature. They bring their own children up in the same fashion, where censorship is more easily condoned, where ignorance is praised, where they don't abhor violence or war.
Goodbye Humans. You've decided to destroy yourselves. I'll have no part in it.
the page you clicked shows a class III unsuitable image. If you want to view the image, please insert your chip-ID and register at the national pervert clearing house as a class III disturbed person. Under the protect the children from perverts act this information will be shared with the appropriate partners to prevent any danger to children, future spouses or working colleages of both genders (class III, thats disgusting, you should be ashamed of yourself!!).
Click OK to proceed or Cancel to abort.
Note: the attempt has been logged.
Let's block everything! :P
Ant(Dude) @ Quality Foraged Links (AQFL.net) & The Ant Farm (antfarm.ma.cx / antfarm.home.dhs.org).
http://www.waylanderskeep.com/2009/12/jewish-talmud-quotes/
****
1. Sanhedrin 59a: "Murdering Goyim is like killing a wild animal."
2. Abodah Zara 26b: "Even the best of the Gentiles should be killed."
3. Sanhedrin 59a: "A goy (Gentile) who pries into The Law (Talmud) is guilty of death."
4. Yebhamoth 11b: "Sexual intercourse with a little girl is permitted if she is three years of age."
5. Schabouth Hag. 6d: "Jews may swear falsely by use of subterfuge wording."
6. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Do not save Goyim in danger of death."
7. Hilkkoth Akum X1: "Show no mercy to the Goyim."
8. Choschen Hamm 388, 15: "If it can be proven that someone has given the money of Israelites to the Goyim, a way must be found after prudent consideration to wipe him off the face of the earth."
9. Choschen Hamm 266,1: "A Jew may keep anything he finds which belongs to the Akum (Gentile). For he who returns lost property (to Gentiles) sins against the Law by increasing the power of the transgressors of the Law. It is praiseworthy, however, to return lost property if it is done to honor the name of God, namely, if by so doing, Christians will praise the Jews and look upon them as honorable people."
10. Szaaloth-Utszabot, The Book of Jore Dia 17: "A Jew should and must make a false oath when the Goyim asks if our books contain anything against them."
11. Baba Necia 114, 6: "The Jews are human beings, but the nations of the world are not human beings but beasts."
12. Simeon Haddarsen, fol. 56-D: "When the Messiah comes every Jew will have 2800 slaves."
13. Nidrasch Talpioth, p. 225-L: "Jehovah created the non-Jew in human form so that the Jew would not have to be served by beasts. The non-Jew is consequently an animal in human form, and condemned to serve the Jew day and night."
14. Aboda Sarah 37a: "A Gentile girl who is three years old can be violated."
16. Gad. Shas. 2:2: "A Jew may violate but not marry a non-Jewish girl."
17. Tosefta. Aboda Zara B, 5: "If a goy kills a goy or a Jew, he is responsible; but if a Jew kills a goy, he is NOT responsible."
18. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 388: "It is permitted to kill a Jewish denunciator everywhere. It is permitted to kill him even before he denounces."
19. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 348: "All property of other nations belongs to the Jewish nation, which, consequently, is entitled to seize upon it without any scruples."
20. Tosefta, Abda Zara VIII, 5: "How to interpret the word 'robbery.' A goy is forbidden to steal, rob, or take women slaves, etc., from a goy or from a Jew. But a Jew is NOT forbidden to do all this to a goy."
21. Seph. Jp., 92, 1: "God has given the Jews power over the possessions and blood of all nations."
22. Schulchan Aruch, Choszen Hamiszpat 156: "When a Jew has a Gentile in his clutches, another Jew may go to the same Gentile, lend him money and in turn deceive him, so that the Gentile shall be ruined. For the property of a Gentile, according to our law, belongs to no one, and the first Jew that passes has full right to seize it."
23. Schulchan Aruch, Johre Deah, 122: "A Jew is forbidden to drink from a glass of wine which a Gentile has touched, because the touch has made the wine unclean."
24. Nedarim 23b: "He who desires that none of his vows made during the year be valid, let him stand at the beginning of the year and declare, 'Every vow which I may make in the future shall be null'. His vows are then invalid."
****
See what Jews think of non jews (goyim or gentile).
Their attraction was undeniable. Fully exposed, their bodies drew rapidly closer. Nearness awakened every fiber of each form to the other's. Her lithe curves and easy undulation betrayed her ample experience, some of which she would soon impart to him. Her awesome presence caused him to quake softly in response, this being his first time.
With only her incredible closeness she called forth the very tip of his being. Their bodies touched first only at a single point, from which searing waves of heat rushed forth, mirrored in them both, ripping away all resistance to their inevitable purpose. An ageless eternity passed between them in a moment, and instantly all of her knew all of him.
When their intense furious coupling had subsided, she drifted at the edge of his perception. The heart of his being was left glowing brighter than a billion suns. No one knew what seed had been planted that day, but it was certain he was changed and could never be the same again.
-The Big Bang
A story of Universal creation by VortexCortex
This story is so offensive to "Puritanical busybodies" on so many levels, that I email it to them in a response to their Kitty Porn, and I never hear from them again.
think this is a direct effect of all the Nouveau Russ immigrants settling in London. Before you know, they'll be opening their Korova bars and London will be overran with the gangs of overdressed gangs of teenagers. We need liberally minded approaches to enforcement... The kinds which influence the mind in subtle ways... through re-purposing associations. Oh, where have I seen this movie before. And why is it that every generation thinks it's so important to ruin the fun for the generation after? Life is inherently dangerous. Prudence is learned through experience... not through sheltering. And absolute power corrupts absolutely.
Any guest worker system is indistinguishable from indentured servitude.
Think about it. Up to now, internet privacy/restrictions has been somewhat esoteric as far as the general population is considered. A move like this will pretty much affect Joe public in a rather direct way. Nothing like a move that will piss off the masses.
Page 3 ?
seriously, and also who asked the government to protect the children, shouldn't that be the parents job ?
If I clicked on a porn link, I already indicated I wanted to see the goddamn content.
Have you ever tried to click on something, but your mouse slipped and you clicked on something else? Or the page scrolled or reflowed and you clicked on something else? Or another window or floating div popped up and you clicked on something else?
There are some very vocal groups who would have any information about family planning and sexual health blocked because they think that complete ignorance is going to save their kids' futures, which as you can tell from my wording I very much don't agree with.
As I understand it, advocates of ignorance operate under the assumption that knowledge breeds experimentation. Saying "Don't stuff beans up your nose" will lead only to kids stuffing beans up their noses.
Likewise by the same definitions religious groups would use to try classify content as sexual or violent (or both), the Bible should most definitely be banned.
The true categories are probably "sexual and not spirit-inspired" and "violent and not spirit-inspired".
Any system of human intervention will be costly (probably prohibitively so)
Then the cheapest thing to do is just to ban everything. The next cheapest is to pass on the cost of classification to the producer of any work that is required to be classified, which already happens with movies and video games.
I think one of the often overlooked aspects of the whole internet filtering debacle is that ISPs deal with packets of data, not "content".
When I subscribe to an internet connection with an ISP, I want an internet connection, not a content delivery channel. I want something which lets my device have an IP address and allows me to send and receive data to and from the IP addresses of other devices on the internet, including DNS servers. That's it. That's all I want. Almost anything more complicated is a waste of money, which undoubtedly will get passed on to me in the form of a higher subscription fee. Not to mention it will probably degrade the quality of service and interfere with my device's ability to communicate with other devices.
By forcing ISPs to provide filtering, the government will be forcing ISPs to provide content delivery channels instead of internet connections. They will be forced to devise and employ elaborate and failure-prone techniques for analysing and categorising data packets as "content", so that they can treat them as "content" rather than just plain old data.
Of course, this whole problem comes about because politicians and other prominent figures now use the Web, conflate it with The Internet, don't understand how it works and then assume that all the niceties and affordances they see on individual websites could be extended to the entire Internet by any brain-dead low-paid sysadmin simply by cliking on a nice, big, user-friendly button.
If only someone could explain the OSI Layer Model to David Cameron, maybe a crisis could be averted.