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."
Ban the Bible it is full of porn.
Undetectable Steganography? Yep, there's an app fo
...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!
How about parents become engaged in their children's lives and be more aware of what websites their children visit? Simple! Problem solved!
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
The point isn't to be hard to circumvent(in a technical sense), the point is to appease the moralists by bringing back some of the good, old-fashioned, inconvenience of getting your hands on the good stuff.
Sure, kids these days will reflexively click through anything that stands between them and their porn/warez/facebook/etc; but a reactionary's cold, bitter, circulatory core warms just a little bit at the thought that you will have to click the "Yes, I, an internet subscriber who knows that my ISP knows my name and where I live, do affirm that I wish to be recorded in the Database as desiring access to the vilest smut on the internet." button...
Let's block censorship!
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Active choice-plus is double-plus good. My god, it has really happened...
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
No problem, they'll just block the proxy sites as 'adult content' too then. And the download sites. And torrents and other P2P protocols. And direct browsing by IP address. And chat rooms, email, IM software, and photo sharing sites (including Facebook). And any page with the words "circumvent" and "filter" appearing anywhere on them. And search engines. See, it's easy!
And all that ignores the kid who goes to Google to search for "I think my friend might hurt themselves, what should I do?" or "breast cancer" or "how to use a condom" or "anorexia support group". The whole thing is ridiculous.
Of course those of us who call our ISPs and say "Give me unfiltered internet," will be placed on a separate list, which the government will be able to view on demand & then label us "potential child molesters, rapists, sex offenders". Not immediately of course... some bright politician will pass this "anticrime" measure 2-3 years down the road. (In the U.S. it's already in the works; it's called CISPA.)
My AC stalker: " I personally agree with your posts most of the time, but that won't keep me from modding you troll"
a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress.
Thus began his downfall...
Proof that pornography turns well-adjusted individuals into sex offenders!
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
It's worse than that, though.
Even after you switch off the blocking mode, the filter switches to "subtle innuendo and thinly-veiled disapproval" mode. And did they have to use Stephen Fry's voice?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
But ISP's aren't the equivalent of the Brick and Mortar store. That's the Porn sites themselves.
This is more like asking the road construction crews to prevent people under 18 from going to the Porn Shops.
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
You are aware, of course, that knowingly disabling the filter in a household that contains under-18's is almost certainly neglect of a minor. Maybe even 'grooming' them for paedophile activities, if you have the correct mustache...
The *sites* are the ones that should be held to the same standards as brick-and-mortar stores. Having the ISP enforce those rules would be like putting regulations on roads that prevent minors from visiting those brick-and-mortar stores.
And guess what? The porn sites *already* follow laws designed to keep minors out. Granted, they usually follow US laws instead of UK laws, simply because of statistics (the US has more porn sites per capita than ANY other country, and a rather large population to boot). But they're effectively the same.
You are aware, of course, that knowingly disabling the filter in a household that contains under-18's is almost certainly neglect of a minor.
This.
But to be honest, they don't even need to enact this legislation. Just allow the rumour to spread that Social Services will take into account whether you've disabled the child safety features provided by your ISP should they ever consider your children's care situation. Risk of having kids taken into care vs internet porn. Easy decision.
And from here to the next step, websites containing 'terrorist' material, such as that promoting student protests or non-violent demonstrations.
And from there to the next step, denialist blogs, anti-EU blogs, sites talking about true regional independence...
Can we go back and have the Child Pornography discussion again, please? If we'd known it would have ended up here we might not have been so quick to agree to blocking that.
Business/App ideas are like arseholes: everyone's got one, they're mostly shit, but very rarely they contain a diamond
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.