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?
...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
I wouldn't say that's fine. They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked, yet if it was proposed, I believe there would be far more outrage.
If the schools don't want that happening, they can implement a meaningless block themselves.
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
..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.
Thats why schools and workplaces have internet filters as dictated by the company, not the government.
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.
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?
...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.
"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 *
They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked
It's difficult to fathom being so grotesquely insecure as to be that deeply threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you. These are the people least worthy of getting what they want.
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
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!
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
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
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.
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.
You are missing the point: it is certain that the blocking will completel hopeless, blocking important sites (education, health, etc) while failing to block new porn sites that have not yet been identified as such. That is, assuming anyone has a way to define what actually IS porn (which has never been achieved in a UK court - the failure to define porn in UK courts has disgraced several UK government).
Sent from my ASR33 using ASCII
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).
It's kinda funny how the people that want government displays of religion (like prayers before meetings and nativity scenes on government property) are never tolerant of anyone but the faith they want making those displays. For example, the destruction of the Wiccan wreath display or the fact that they NEVER let a satanist or non Christian give the prayer.
Personally I don't mind government allowing private individuals to make displays of religious icons or prayers at government events or on government property as long as those displays are non-discriminatory. That means when the city council opens their meetings with a prayer and the satanist wants to give the prayer one week you have to let him.
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.
I worry that you refer to people who propose mandatory country-wide censorship as "worthy"
You could not have more thoroughly failed to comprehend what you read.
I said they and their ilk are unworthy. They do not deserve to get what they want. Neither them, nor those who think like them (such as a politically-active person who would like to shut down the other party's sites).
I said I cannot imagine being so insecure that it would actually occur to me to *censor* those who disagree with me.
That many would be outraged does not cause the remaining small-minded people to cease their desire for censorship.
Is English a second or third language for you?
It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education. - Einstein
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.
It's difficult to fathom being so grotesquely insecure as to be that deeply threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you. These are the people least worthy of getting what they want.
Difficult to fathom but incredibly common. Humans are at least subconsciously aware that for the most part, getting someone on your side is all about getting to their ear early, i.e. bible belt Americans might claim that they'd still be christians if they were born in Kandahar, but we all know that isn't so.
So yeah, block everyone else's point of view if and when you get the chance. This is why I imagine the world will probably slip back to despotism at some point. Sadly we seem to be programmed that way. Education can help but it looks like a losing battle at the moment.
I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
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.