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...
What if you are taking a connection solely for use with Cell phones over wifi for example?
OR some weirdo config of Arch Linux?
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.
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.
I don't see anything to thank you for. It's just a website with incoherent ramblings about how bad porn supposedly is.
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
Well, Well, porn is bad because it has to be, my leaders told me so.
In the meantime, can anyone link any actual scientific studies showing this is the case. Almost everything that I've read so far is 'not enough data for conclusion' or 'other inputs from your environment have a much stronger effect'.
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.
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?
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/05/04/cameron_default_isp_filtering/
Wake up man, or at least do a little google-fu, Cameron is all about isp filtering of all sorts.
The trouble is, if you opt out for an unfiltered connection, you will be labeled as a pedophile, and if you do have children in the house, the government (whatever their version of the department of child welfare is called) will remove them. </sarcasm>
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.
What about grandchildren?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
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.
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.
Why cant we have a mandatory filter on political stupidity instead? To filter out David Camerons and the lot.
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.
I doubt very much that anyone can offer you such a link. All the evidence is anecdotal, or scriptural. Except in those cases where a modern day prophet converses directly with God.
Empirical evidence shows that almost all boys are interested in girls, and are titillated by viewing girls in varying states of dress and undress. That's about as far as "science" goes in this matter.
"Windows is like the faint smell of piss in a subway: it's there, and there's nothing you can do about it." - Charlie Br
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.
Sarcasm not needed. It's not going to happen right away, but you can be confident that sooner or later it's going to come up in a particually messy divorce battle: "My former spouse permitted our daughter on a computer even though I was able to determine he had disabled the child safety measures offered by the service provider. This is further evidence of their negligence as a parent."
Because of all those rating systems in all those media, none has provided more than a token barrier in the way of under-aged viewers.
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.
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
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.
"Being a retard on the Internet since 1997..." (actually probably plenty before this too)