Slashdot Mirror
David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn'
First time accepted submitter fustakrakich writes with news reported in The Telegraph of new anti-pornography regulations ordered by UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children. If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper."
I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...
...who pays? That's a lot of knowledge to pass on for free. Like, reams of it...
What if you are taking a connection solely for use with Cell phones over wifi for example?
OR some weirdo config of Arch Linux?
How do they define "have"?
This is the vast majority of the internet :)
Finally, internet pornography will be thwarted, and David Cameron will go down in history.
Gently reply
I doub't it would have much effect. You cannot stop human nature. Besides the view that sex is "bad, dirty, evil..ect", I'm going to throw a broad sweeping generalization that most men in a household take care of the tech stuff anyways, and will answer the question with a "no" and go on about their business, or answer "yes" and set the limits to off.
Yourbrainonporn.com ... you can thank me later!
Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?
Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.
Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.
"No, I don't have any kids."
At least until it becomes illegal to answer untruthfully.
I don't mind this - I think a lot of people who buy computers are not particularly, shall we say, well versed in protecting themselves. If this could also be bundled with some firm general advice it might help. One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding. It was a bit of a shock for all concerned. No harm done, as far as I can tell (I wasn't there). I am however fairly sure her grandparents would have preferred that this had not happened and were able to take steps to prevent it from happening. At the moment, a lot of people are exposed to the internet in it's raw form and this isn't necessarily something that is healthy - giving people the choice of restricting their browsing freedom might be welcomed.
Eh, Cameron is in Great Britain?! Sorry but your post doesn't make any sense (at least from my point of view)...
I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.
I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.
The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)
.: Max Romantschuk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=67MRiMT9cnE
As long as there are no costs, and it's trivial to opt out and get an unfiltered connection, and this doesn't turn out to be the thin end of some wedge... I guess it's not an awful idea
So here we have a right-wing broadsheet reporting on a story that only appears to be covered in a right-wing tabloid. Are we going to start seeing stories on slashdot about other things the Daily Fail covers, like women apparently being impregnated by aliens (space aliens, not Polish lorry drivers, of course) and the police having the audacity to arrest people for making indecent phone calls?
If its like my kids, they just crack someone elaes WiFi which does have pr0n. This is usually due to the default passwords of all very popular alcatel/thompson routers being easy to calculate.
I'm actually surprised that it just asks for kids. Given their established record I would have thought the question should really be "Do you have any kids or MPs in the house?".
You can't regulate people into having common sense.
.xxx domain indeas overseas. Damn foiled again. So now on top of religion being a thorn in the side to the world, we not have to include children as freedom killers?
by TheSpoom (715771) Uncaring Linux user here. I have nothing to add to this but please continue. *munches popcorn*
Honestly, what the fuck are you blathering about? In the sentence : "This is different to..." - what is "this". Who are "Those people". Who are the "they" and "us" in the last sentence. Did you construct this post by running it through some kind of Markov-chain idiocy algorithm?
A brilliant move to improve public computer education in the UK. Now kids will have incentive to learn networking, system administration, and generally how the internet works in order to defeat the feature. A much better, practical lesson, than they'd ever get in formal classroom training - and it's free to the governemnt.
And normally, you'd be able to ask the nerdy Linux kid to fix your computer for you, but what interest would they have in porn?
What will actually happen is that the adults will be told to fetch the kids and then be told to go away. The kids will then be asked if they want parential controls, i.e. stuff to stop the parents logging on to dodgy malware-infected sites etc.
Everyone here knows that monkeys come from France!
If God forks the Universe every time you roll a die, he'd better have a damned good memory.
What about grandchildren?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Ministers will also tell ISPs to impose "appropriate measures" to make sure that those setting the controls are over 18, according to the Daily Mail.
And what about teenage parents? Do they have to ask their parents to configure the filters?
It's good that there are tools for parents to shield their children from unwanted parts of the internet and people probably do need to be made aware of them. I nevertheless suspect that those who would need these tools the most, namely the inattentive parents of young children who let their kids do whatever they want, will also be the ones who don't bother turning it on due to apathy or technical inability to manage it properly.
inb4 a mysterious leak where camerons pc gets "hacked" and lots of porn was coppied to it "without him knowing"
They aren't worried about kids playing games where all you do is shoot or blow up people, but if they might see 1 nipple or breast we're better off just locking the whole thing down? Does nobody else see how retarded this is? Humanity as a culture is backstepping a lot faster than it's moving forward.
Yeah, because murdering people with a screwdriver or finding out ways to meet kids on Facebook is SO MUCH BETTER.
Ban actual dangerous sites, porn is harmless.
Hell, Facebook alone is far more dangerous than a stupid porn site is.
I'm pretty sure nobody has been murdered / suicided / raped / etc from whacking it to some girl on my free cams.
Meanwhile on Facebook... racist killing bullying suiciding teens all over the place.
So, yes, ban Facebook under this law. Fucking hypocrites.
There's no evidence (and some contrary to the idea) that exposure to porn at a young age doesn't damage children (the only thing we know for sure is that pornography use by couples is correlated with slightly lower relationship satisfaction). It's just a case of some adults being very outspoken against the association of children with anything sexual at all. Haggard's law, anyone?
David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line
Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...
We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.
US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future
Thank you Dave Raggett
...went to the seashore at Southampton and commanded the tide to stop coming in.
That's actually not a terrible idea.
TOR
Why cant we have a mandatory filter on political stupidity instead? To filter out David Camerons and the lot.
So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that adds to this to the install??
As the full windows disk do not have this as part of there installs maybe on the OEM install loaded with bloated software they will ad that but people who build there own PC, who want to do clean install, enterprise installs may not have this.
While this seems a bit poorly thought out, if (and only if) it makes the parents *legally* responsible for anything objectionable their children might find, not the ISPs, not other websites, etc., but leaves all the responsibility squarely on parental supervision, then I could get behind this. Shielding ISPs and web hosting companies from frivolous lawsuits from stupid, irresponsible parents is actually positive.
If, if (and only if) it puts the 'think of the children' squarely on the responsibility of the parents while offering them the tools/filters/guidance to supervise computer use, that could be good. Less "How could you put that up where children might find it?" and more "Why are you not being responsible for your children's activities? You were warned, given the tools, shown how to watch them. Why are you not responsible?"
If this does not provide any additional legal protections for ISPs or such from stupid parents, then, no. This is worthless.
And keep it on the inside. David, you're nearly a treat but you're really a cry.
I'd give an honest evaluation of this idea, but: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/15/1644241/in-uk-twitter-facebook-rants-land-some-in-jail
He's just trying to boost the income of the domestic sex-shop sector.
doesnt he know the internet is for porn? /ducks
-Noc
Ihunath, your comment is rude. English is clearly not Max's first language. If your textual criticism skills are so poor you can't spot this obvious fact, you have no business posting about grammar.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
Assuming they use the same overkill rules that most online censors do, the Page 3 Girls will get the Daily Mail blocked for anyone who has children. And won't that be a good thing! You'll still be able to get the actual paper copies if you need to wrap fish in it, of course.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Even with Safesearch turned on, they could just turn to page 3 on their own site. Sure, it's just topless women, bu they're there for men to ogle, so that makes it porn, so they're being hypocrites about the whole thing.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
But still, without your second comment to add humor and insight, it was previously rude. I totally agree with you about response to criticism. I've been called "grammar Nazi" many times. As my professional life has involved more and more ESL speakers over time, I've had to learn to push the desire to correct grammar aside, or risk derailing productive dialogue.
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
TV has a rating system/age restrictions,Written media has a rating system/Age restrictions,games have a rating system/age restrictions,music has a rating system/age restrictions.Pornographic magazines are age rated under 18 or 21 not allowed to buy,or view. You cant buy a playboy magazine unless your 18 and over ya cant even flip through the pages. So why should Internet pornography or anything else be excluded? The best thing is allowing choice this gives parents a choice how can that be a bad thing? I don't want anyone here to make decisions for me. They made a XXX domain make them use it and if its a lot of money for a domain. Oh well that's a business expense and i would guess paying the domain fee is alot better then getting fined or worse jail time.
Jack of all trades,master of none
As other comments point out, the story really comes from the Daily Mail, a right-wing total rag of a tabloid. It's typically more accurate than the Weekly World News, but it's not the Times or The Register.
So yes, if they were to literally implement the Daily Fail's description of how service will work, that means that any computer system, operating system or browser you get in the UK would have to have modifications to ask The Kids Question when you install it, and every Internet provider would have to redirect connections for Port 80 to the filter sign-up sheet (because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?) Wot's that about links in some arch?
Assuming David Cameron isn't quite is ignorant as the Daily Fail wants him to be, that's probably not something he'll actually propose. (If this were Australia, the answer would be different, because the pro-censorship politicians there really do appear to be that dumb.) Much more likely, if they do anything like it at all, they'll make ISPs offer censorware and/or have filtering set on by default, but filtering at the ISP level is really expensive and the ISPs will push back.
Bill Stewart
New Fast-Compression-only CPR http://preview.tinyurl.com/dy575ks
Either a well-crafted troll, or genuine stupid. It's hard to tell sometimes.
(Three different ones)
And do you feel abused?
When you're dead, you don't know you're dead. It only affects the people around you. Same thing when you're stupid.
because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?
It pretty much is: you have to approach the Internet through the Web. As I understand it, URLs to resources other than those available through HTTP and HTTPS are typically discovered through HTTP or HTTPS.
References to sodomy in the Bible are not talking about gay sex, at least not the main ones that are always quoted.
Even this? "And you must not lie down with a male the same as you lie down with a woman. It is a detestable thing. [...] And when a man lies down with a male the same as one lies down with a woman, both of them have done a detestable thing. They should be put to death without fail. Their own blood is upon them." (Leviticus 18:22, 20:13, NWT) Notice that the prohibition on sexual contact between men is stated separately from the prohibition on sexual contact with animals.--Leviticus 20:15.
We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.
Jesus anticipated this. "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." (Matthew 7:21, NWT) In other words, Jesus knew that people would call themselves Christians despite not making their best effort to uphold God's principles.
The most painfully obvious problem with Christianity in particular is that their god supposedly has a plan for every last one of us
God's purpose doesn't change, and his plans change to whatever best meets his purpose in any given day or millennium. Plan A at creation was that we'd fill the earth and do God's will. After Satan exercised his free will to rebel and lead Adam and Eve to sin, God put into place plan B. After the Nephilim (products of Satan's angels raping human women) grew in number, God sent the flood and put into place plan C, leading over the next millennium to the kingdom of Israel to represent the kingdom of the heavens. And after the leadership of Israel turned away from God's will, God decided it was time to transform his only child into a zygote without imperfection and implant it in Mary, wife of Joseph. When the Pharisees rejected Jesus's teachings, the death of a perfect man (Jesus) paid for the sin of a perfect man (Adam), beginning plan D. And over the past century, this plan has come to its conclusion. Sometime in the first half of the twentieth century CE (possibly 1934, though Jehovah's Witnesses seem to think 1914), Satan got kicked out of heaven, and he went and started a World War or two. The plan for each of us is to have a chance to hear the news of God's kingdom and either accept or reject citizenship in the kingdom of the heavens.
yet when we do things that upset religious bodies our actions are shunned as corrupt.
Jesus anticipated that religious bodies themselves would be corrupt.
Curbs stop RC cars, the human sex drive is a quarry dump truck.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
With a UID as low as 137 I would not rule out old age.
"I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
Then when they're done setting up the filters, the parents can have their kids show how to disable/circumvent them.
Asking a one time question seems reasonable. Given the lack of expertise or even care about internet access, this seems like something that won't hurt. As long as the settings or filters can be dropped on demand, I have no problem with it.
Welcome to the United Kingdom... making the United States seem sexually progressive since 1789...
It's the Stay-Puft Marshmallow Man.
Your bigotry is showing!
You have lumped all people in a certain class together and unjustly labeled them--in this case Christians. This is wrong (on several different levels).
I am a conservative Christian (as opposed to a liberal Christian). Politically, I am a conservative with some libertarian leanings. I disagree with the good Prime Minister of England (sited in the article) as well as those in the USA who want to censor the Internet "for the children"'s sake (or, really, for anybody's sake). This censorship policy is both an ignorant and stupid--regardless of who proposes it. Not only is it doomed to fail but it will only give opportunity to control people. The restriction of information is, in and of itself, immoral IMHO. I also support the legalization of marijuana for recreational use--the police in the USA are thoroughly trained to detect people who are "under the influence" and can credible drunks and stoners off the road. Desiring to live in a truly free society, I accept the fact that some people will do things that I wouldn't and/or don't approve of doing--that is I think that a person should be responsible for one's own actions and attitudes.
When you stereotype a group, you end up making enemies with the entire group. When you recognize that maybe, just maybe, not everyone in that group thinks and acts the way you want them to, you will gain a much more accurate picture of that group.
So, stop your bigotry or bugger off!
maybe if you click no you'll have the chance to opt-in for such delectable categories as school girl, she-male, bdsm, ebony or scat...
13y.o boy opens his brand new laptop that dad just got him:
"Do you have any kids? Yes / No"
"Um, no..."
This is strange. What does "do you have children" have to do with it? It isn't like my kids know my password and can logon to my computer. And, yes, it has full disk encryption - so they can't just reset the password with some silly boot disk. Now, if it was my kids computers, why would it ask them if THEY had children? They are the children. This rule is so stuck in the 1990s when people were a lot more likely to have just one computer in the house and they were unlikely to have an operating system password. Now? There are computers all over the house. I sure don't let my kids use my computers. They get their own. My wife gets her own. The question is just stupid.
http://craphound.com/?p=4146
Cloudiot: A person who does not see offsite storage as a way to lose control over access to his or her own data.
An old employer of mine that was quite conservative and grew up in the south used to always say "You can't legislate morality"
This is different than how it's done in Britain, where they have a queen, and the Prime Minister must serve at her pleasure.
What those two do in the privacy of their bedrooms is no concern of ours.
Provided your ISP makes a Usenet server available to its subscribers. Fewer and fewer do nowadays, thanks to the stigma and bandwidth costs associated with alt.binaries.* and the popularity of web-based boards to replace all the other froups.
Is that they think the world would be genuinely better paved over in their morality. Until these clowns get that this is pornography, and this is simply adult entertainment, I can't imagine we will have a sane conversation about the subject. Plain and simple, if you don't like it, don't watch it. If others don't want their children seeing it, then they are perfectly capable of making sure their children are insulated from it. How any of this issue is improved by the inclusion of David Cameron's big fat nose is a complete and total mystery.
Erm...yeah...don't quite get your meaning there old chap.
Bits of it are certainly right - we've got Liz as the ultimate head of state with plenty of "in theory" powers, and ultimate control over the armed forces. Then we elect a government, the majority party or group put forward their PM and he or she runs the place for four years under Her Majesty's consent.
I'm a bit of a republican on principle, but I can't deny a monarchy has its good side, such as a voice independent of party bickering, if only the powers were used a little more to stop the childish bickering that is as much a part of UK politics as it is the US.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Come on, stop trying to hide sexuality to children. The 1900's christian era is finished. They are as sexually capable, curious and can gain benefits from it as much as adults.
I am a [...] Christian
Taking a stance on a god that you don't even know exists, let alone know his personality, is foolish. Joining a specific religion is just idiotic and I cannot fathom why such people would be on Slashdot.
Duh.
The UK is an antiquated theocratic state slowly crumbling into oblivion. Sad really. But it's their own fault.
I think it should be illegal for depictions of sodomy to be sold, as well as sites that do not require age verification through some type of identification that's hard to fake like through your we can because of the health risks involved with sodomy, which include std's, internal bleeding when the intestinal wall is ruptured, etc. I also think cartoons depicting it should be illegal also because of the risk of exposure to children, and their desensitization causes a further health risk, as well as its obviously abuse for a child to end up with this material by the permission of the child's parents, duh.
When the GP was collapsed, I saw your "137" and thought I recognized it, and I was right. That comment is just how he (t)rolls. Fun guy, really.
Kids these days don't even know the elders...
Climate Progress - Hell and High Water
... the childish bickering that is as much a part of UK politics as it is the US
I'm pretty sure that's not possible.
The US government have made it clear that we have no inalienable rights; any we do not defend vigorously will be taken.
As long as I'm free to answer:
Yes, I do have kids.
No, I do not want any internet filtering.
I'm happy with this move. They're not trying to ban porn and it seems they are not trying to apply non-optional or hidden filters (well, obviously there's the fucking IWF list but let's ignore these wretched scum for now), they're simply raising awareness and suggesting/supplying optional filters while taking note of your choices.
True. Everything he knows about God, he heard from other men... but the full implications of that evidently haven't sunk in yet.
They probably will, eventually. He doesn't sound like an idiot.
Hopefully they will mandate the use of some specific MS filter. That will be ultimate solution to get rid off Linux users.
Some may think this is about kids but how do the ISP handle the question "do you have kids and if yes which computer should we block?".
Just a thought. They probably have to block at least one computer.
And now if the kids DO find porn (as they are harmed by it), the police will both raid your home and the ISP to find out and "security" deficiencies.
Better solution would be to filter every pic/video for porn. The best solution would be to have the check made by UEFI with and the content checked by MS. Better yet, why not have just a white list of the files you can view.
This is very amusing. I only wish you could add this reply to most of the posts on /.
"Being a retard on the Internet since 1997..." (actually probably plenty before this too)
You bring up an interesting point. One reading does imply that only bisexuality is banned. I'll have to ask an elder about that.
Oh trust me, we're working on it. Over the last few years I've formed the opinion that party politics are one of the most harmful elements of the modern world. When the good of the nation takes a back seat to keeping the party sponsors happy there's something seriously wrong.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
For those who are generally ok with the government knowing best for them, how can you justify your position with something like this? It clearly is something so egregious, so ridiculous, so out-of-bounds! Honestly, how is this about protecting people at all and not about special interests, money and more power? I find people who trust their government officials to do the "right thing" for the "greater good" to be really naive. The best kind of government is the one that does the minimal. Protects justice by providing a judicial system to resolve conflicts after the fact, a defense force that protects the borders and does not get involved in offensive wars or peace missions (unless invited by allies), and highly federal (meaning localized, not nationalized) police forces. This is the only way to keep things like this ridiculous new power grab from happening. But even then, I'm pessimistic that such a government wouldn't still grow into the tyrannical behemoths that we have today in the "free" world. How can anyone defend such power grabs?
-> Sometimes, you just gotta break free from the shackles of proprietary code.
reading the title just reminded me that i need to swap to incognito begin research. will report my findings in about 20 minutes.
When you stereotype a group, you end up making enemies with the entire group.
Last time a guy did that to a group of jews, they tossed him over to the authorities to be nailed to a cross.
I have children. That was a personal choice I made. I take care of them. I don't expect you to tolerate being inconvenienced by them. I don't expect you to "protect" them with idiotic limitations on your personal freedoms. I don't expect you to watch what you say, or how you dress, etc. I don't expect you to pay more for a TV so that all TV's will have v-chips and I can abdicate my responsibility to a machine.
Unfortunately, I have come to expect that the government will push this kind of shit on you and blame it on me.
In Reason We Trust
Blocking 443 wouldn't help either, you'd have to block ports 1..65535
How many web URLs that include an explicit port number do you see in your daily web surfing? How many such URLs does an average home user see? I'm a geek, and only one web site that I visit routinely includes an explicit port number. Otherwise, the browser will assume 80 for HTTP or 443 for HTTPS.
It came with a game I bought. Installed the disc, and it demanded to install Steam.
So I'll assume you learned about the game through word of mouth and took the bus to a retail store to buy the boxed game. Are you sure Steam doesn't communicate on port 80 or 443 when activating or patching a game?
I was in four [online communities] before Marc Andreeson decided to have a bash at this thing called Mosaic.
As an online user prior to the Internet's opening to the public, you are an edge case. Mosaic started in the fourth quarter of 1992. NSFNET wasn't open to users outside universities and the military until 1992, when the U.S. Congress passed the Scientific and Advanced-Technology Act that turned NSFNET into the Internet. Before then, the only online communities open to the public were local BBSes and the big national BBSes such as Prodigy, GEnie, AOL, and CompuServe. Please prepend the following to each of my previous replies to you: "For the vast majority of home users..."
It almost makes me want to buy a new PC just to get to answer 'yes' to this question 'cos I bet it doesn't ask how old they are. My son is 21 now which means he's big enough and bad enough to cope for himself in most parts of the civilised world.... and America (sorry old Goons joke there). But yes I do have children and it is up to me if they get access to internet porn or internet violence not the government.
I'm more worried by the amount of violence that kids get exposed to in the media than a bit of sex, which is why we're all here anyway. Sex is the only point of existence in the long run - gotta propagate those genes.
Alright so let's make damn sure none of the children can view nude women or sexual acts using their computers, but permit violent video games, movies, and yes even cartoons. I'm sure that will foster a loving and peaceful society.
Sadly, a Libertarian cannot force his views on another, and freedom cannot spread as does the cancer known as religion.
Wait, so if I don't let chicks give me head, it's okay if i let dudes do it?
I asked an elder of my congregation about this, and he pointed me to a passage where Paul refers plainly to "men who lie with men" as an example of people who will not "inherit God's kingdom." (1 Corinthians 6:9-11) This passage does not mention bisexuality, only homosexual acts. But Paul goes on to write: "And yet that is what some of you were, but you have been washed clean" through Christ. Apparently, Paul believed that one could pray away the gay.
Sorry, your point?
Allow me to repeat part of the paragraph that you ended up not quoting: Are you sure Steam doesn't communicate on port 80 or 443 when activating or patching a retail game discovered through word of mouth?
Cut off access to porn on port 80 and watch the use of alternate protocols rise.
Watch HTTP on ports other than 80 rise and watch ISPs cut off HTTP using deep packet inspection. Watch well-known protocols other than HTTP rise and watch ISPs cut off Gopher as well.
In an Internet protocol, peer discovery occurs through discovery nodes. The discovery nodes of the well-known Internet protocols are the DNS servers and the search engines. ISPs have shown themselves able and willing to block access to publicly known discovery nodes in an attempt to stop erotic entertainment and copyright infringement at the border. Napster and BitTorrent, for example, rely on trackers at well-known hostnames; those can be blocked. Even trackerless BitTorrent relies on the well-known hostname router.bittorrent.com to bring a new user into the DHT network; eMule similarly relies on the ed2k servers before a user can join the Kad Network. Fully friend-to-friend systems such as Freenet move peer discovery out of band, but I haven't seen those systems take off among the majority.
If God is all-powerful and capable of defining the rules of the universe, then if he could define the rules so that Jesus's death was an adequate balance for everyone's sin, why couldn't he have defined the rules such that Jesus's death was also unnecessary (he could have just forgiven the debt unilaterally, or extended an offer to forgive the debt to anyone who claimed it, which would be functionally identical except no-one had to be tortured).
So I asked an elder of my congregation to explain why a ransom has to be necessary.
First, Jehovah is a god of justice. (Psalm 37:28) Man is created in God's image (Genesis 1:27) and it is God's job to decide what's appropriate. There need to be consequences for people's actions or people won't have any incentive to do things that please God. The rule that "the wages sin pays is death" (Romans 6:23) is there to give people a chance to show that they can handle their free will.
And these rules need to be consistent to be fair. If God were to change that rule, there would be no way to answer the challenge that Satan brought in Eden, namely an allegation God does not want what is best for mankind and is withholding things from mankind. (Genesis 3:1-5) In effect, Adam and Eve stole from God: they took something belonging to God despite God's order not to. They saw right and wrong and chose wrong. Later, Satan taunted Jehovah about Job, claiming that Job would give up on God if God were to allow certain alleged unfair advantages to be taken away. (Job 1:7-10) And even Paul, like Adam and Eve, "was ignorant and acted with a lack of faith." --1 Timothy 1:13.
God's purpose with mankind is that people "should be saved and come to an accurate knowledge of truth," and Jesus is how this is accomplished. (1 Timothy 2:3-6) Just forgiving sin without payment wouldn't help give accurate knowledge, nor would it free our senses from the snare of the Devil. (2 Timothy 2:25-26) And without this accurate knowledge, there would be no way to answer Satan's challenge, and more people would agree with the sentiment behind this challenge and turn away from God.
Imagine a contest about keeping a hand on a car to win the car. If a competitor didn't lose when pulling his hand off, the others wouldn't think that fair. But if he came to the next contest and won legitimately, it'd still be fair to award him the car. In this analogy, Jesus started a new contest.
Man ruling over man hurts man, (Ecclesiastes 8:9) and this grieves God's holy spirit. (Ephesians 4:30) Why should Jehovah have to take it on the chin and spare the rod? --Proverbs 13:24.