Slashdot Mirror
UK Internet Porn Blocking Rejected
Gordonjcp writes "The BBC are reporting that the proposed automatic blocking of porn websites by UK ISPs has been rejected by the government. Only 35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block. The report (PDF), drawn from over 3500 responses, found that 80% of all those who responded were in favour of no filtering of any kind."
How about not trying to be an automatic parent and actually doing some parenting.
Sorry, could not help myself... :)
35% wanted an automatic block.
But 80% wanted no filtering of any kind.
What am I missing here?
35% and 80% must have an overlap, so at least 15% want an automatic block *and* no filtering of any kind.
Comprehension fail.
Consider that the set of people who are parents and the set of people who responded in total are not be the same set...
Must have to do with the fact, that not all of them responding were parents.
So parents made up less than 20% of the total respondents, and some parents were in favor of no filtering of any kind. Even in the UK, people understand that government shouldn't be in the business of filtering lawful material, and that automatic opt-out filtering has a chilling effect.
I do not deploy Linux. Ever.
Yeah, I missed that small detail, looks like I wasn't the only one, should have RTFA before commenting.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Or to put it into numbers: 3500 people responded, and 80% of them didn't want porn filtering, which means that 700 of them were in favour of porn filters. This could mean that 2000 of the 3500 people have to have been parents, because 35% of them would add up exactly to 700 persons, if none of the non-parents wanted any porn filtering at all. (If we assume 10% of the non-parents to be in favour of porn filters, we would have 350 non parenting people for filters, remaining 350 parents for filters, which in turn would put the number of parents responding to 1000.)
"3,500 responses to the 10-week consultation - which included those from members of the public, academics, charities and communication firms as well as 757 from parents."
Indeed.
Waterfox - a Firefox fork with legacy extension support, security updates and better privacy by default.
Maybe some of them were Russians.
So, in other words, 2/3 of parents actually don't want government to think of their children all the time and instead want it to stay the hell out? Who would have thought...
Who would have thought that the majority of parents do NOT want government to take over raising their kids and instead want to hand down their own values instead of letting government dictate what values they should have?
I'm surprised. For a change, it's a positive surprise.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The UK government doesn't care what ordinary people think. You can be sure this or something like it will be back in the near future. It is a small comfort that the general public isn't as much brainwashed sheeple as I might have expected, but it will make no difference in the long run.
its more likely that the parents themselves are watching porn rather than the kids.
I think you mean
tits
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
So for porn they have a survey and the results was no blocking, so what happened to the survey on blocking the pirate bay? would we have had the same turn out? would the government have lost that one, that's why there was no survey. hmmmmm!
http://luckyredfish.com
Censorship is *ALWAYS* wrong under *ALL* circumstances. There are *NO* reasons that justify it under any circumstance. Every human being should have access to the sum total of human knowledge.
The real correlation to draw from all this is that 65% of parents want to be able to view porn when they choose to. Given that parents are less inclined to want access to internet porn than the general population, we can possibly assume that having kids reduces one's desire to watch chicks/men/animals getting banged. These are important demographics for porn marketing!
Fix the problem, not the symptom.
As someone who responded, my 14 families are all grateful that the MP's have listened to reason.
Now, back to redtube.
Dude, child porn is illegal in pretty much any country and even simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.
It already is blocked. That's one of the arguments that proponents of the blocking are using: ISPs have blocked child porn, which proves that they do have the ability to block things, thus they should have no reason to refuse.
because blocking:
a: doesn't actually prevent access
b: costs money
c: allows the government to ignore the fact that the material exists rather than trying to put the creator/distributor in jail
d: fucks with my internet
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
...no survey, just an order to the ISPs to block it. No real threat to people, just big money heading towards politicians pockets...
I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
Only 35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block.
In other news, at least 35% of parents admit to occasionally visiting porn websites together in an effort to spice up their love making.
"...80% of all those who responded Enjoyed watching porn on their computer..."
"A 'person' is smart. 'People' are dumb, panicky animals and you know that."
The internet and the government is not your damn babysitter, do your own damn work for once.
Fair-dos if you have a kid and take time off, but don't expect permanent vacation from your parenting.
If you are in a bad situation in life, DON'T HAVE A DAMN CHILD.
Hell, get your eggs and/or sperm frozen if you are so worried about damage.
Freezing has gotten to be a considerably better process now.
Now if only more was done about those parents abusing benefits for child monies.
So many kids are in horrible situations because of these horrible people.
Worse when you see some poor kid who is a wreck, sitting next to a lard-ass of a parent. Sure see where all that money is going.
It is an absolute joke.
Worse is when legitimate people who are ill are being attacked and accused of lying about illnesses, even DYING, and these people sometimes get more money than them!
Me with Crohns, I felt that even I was getting too much money and asked to be put on a lower bracket because I simply don't spend much money at all. Then get accused of being suspicious!
Maybe I should just headbutt a damn wall to the point of being half-conscious the next time I go in to see someone, I might actually get a better reception.
Say what you want about this government, they have gotten far more done than the past two combined despite being 2 separate groups working together.
Maybe we should have more coalitions, it seems to actually get more done.
And I say that after being taken off disability, despite still technically being disabled from being able to do anything that requires any sort of effort because it absolutely wrecks my body over time. I have to triphasic sleep just to keep my body from wrecking itself because surgery wouldn't work and so far all medications haven't worked with me besides steroid treatment, which isn't the best long-term.
Bring on the 8th next month to see what other wonderful nonsense medicine that won't work! Woo!
Sincerely, A UK citizen.
Get rid of children?
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Dude, child porn is illegal in pretty much any country and even simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.
So why allow people to possess it at all? Block the bits.
It already is blocked. That's one of the arguments that proponents of the blocking are using: ISPs have blocked child porn, which proves that they do have the ability to block things, thus they should have no reason to refuse.
If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.
because blocking:
a: doesn't actually prevent access
b: costs money
c: allows the government to ignore the fact that the material exists rather than trying to put the creator/distributor in jail
d: fucks with my internet
A. It does make access hard enough that no one who isn't actively looking for it can stumble upon it by accident.
B. It costs even more money to arrest people on possession charges.
C. The material isn't the issue, the harm to children during the production is the issue.
D. I think our internet is fucked with more when we have to worry about tinyurl and other random links infecting us with child porn.
where are you going that you're stumbling on child porn all the time? and c: that was my point, if you go after the creator/distributor you're actually *doing* something to protect children rather than ignoring the problem.
This is a joke. I am joking. Joke joke joke.
If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution?
Unfortunately sometimes people forget to set the Evil Bit (RFC 3514) when they transmit child port. Therefore the filters sometimes fail to block.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
Because blocking the bits is simply not possible and not worth the collateral effects. The laws in place are already sufficient to deal with the problem if they are correctly applied. We don't need to break the internet to help you to fool yourself and make you feel a bit safer.
C. So why are we blocking it? Why is there a problem with people stumbling upon it by accident (A)? Why should possession be illegal (B)?
If the problem isn't the material but the harm but the damage caused by production, surely the trick is to make production illegal. Or even better, make actual child abuse illegal, and then try to stop it from happening? The resources put into filtering, blocking and pursuing people for possession could be better spent on prevention and helping victims, perhaps.
For the record, under the current UK law (the aptly-named "Protection of Children Act" among others) it can be (by my reading) a crime for someone to let their husband or wife take "indecent" pictures of them. Because child porn. That should give you an indication of just how crazy this area of law is.
D. I think our internet is fucked with more when we have to worry about tinyurl and other random links infecting us with child porn.
The existence of the child porn filter in the UK proved to UK courts that ISP's are capable of cheaply filtering Pirate Bay, and as a consequence various non-child porn sites are now blocked. Hopefully the mission creep to regular porn will be avoided this time, but it seems likely that our luck will run out sooner or later.
Once we get another terrorist attack (it is bound to happen sooner or later), "glorifying terrorism" is likely to go in the filter too, and that could end access to Roj TV and Al Jazeera.
Finally! A year of moderation! Ready for 2019?
If you believe in any of the basic tenets of democracy, the case to answer is always for the "why" side not the "why not" when it comes to censorship. Simply asking "hey, why not just introduce a repressive censorship regime?" is not valid by itself if you want to call your country a democracy.
There are many countries with Internet Blacklists "to block child porn". Every damn one of them has put opposing political party websites on the list within a year. Slashdot has had several articles about this over the years.
Create a tool for tyranny and you always create a tyrant.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
For all those brainless sheep suggesting that Blocking Child Pornography is a good thing, please take a few seconds to think through the actual real world implications of what you're suggesting.
- In practice when they talk about filtering "the internet" they mean filtering HTTP (and HTTPS) access ONLY.
- That means that OTHER distribution means (HTTP over VPN, TOR, encrypted files over P2P, URLS to FTP servers, private email servers, etc) will not be filtered.
Functionally it's just sweeping the problem under the carpet - if nobody can SEE child pornography (accidentally, I mean cause those who are REALLY into that will find ways to bypass the filter) then it must not exist, magically we believe we've solved the problem and children are not being sexually abused, right?
WRONG!
Imagine you and your famiy (wife-n-kids) are walking down a street and in passing an alley you see a homeless person being viciously stabbed to death. Rather than REPORTING this event to the police (or perhaps intervening in the situation yourself) you put your hands over your childrens eyes and ears, turn and walk away. Sure this is CONVENIENT FOR YOU, and you can pretend that the world is a safe place because your children neither saw nor heard violence - but SOMEBODY WAS MURDERED AND YOU IGNORED IT.
Filtering Child Pornography on the internet is EXACTLY the same behaviour.
Also keep in mind that just about EVERY piece of legislation proposing filtering of child pornography NEVER actually goes so far as to REQUIRE that attempted access of child pornography be reported to the police.
Seriously folks: they KNOW that someone just attempted breaking the law, they literally caught someone in the act, but they have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of reporting that to the police - but they somehow think they're doing something useful.
Filtering Child Pornography on the internet is all about GENERATING A WARM AND FUZZY FEELING and NOT about stamping out evil in the world (and, in doing so, instituting an infrastructure and policy of censorship). An INFINITELY better plan would be to NOT BLOCK anything, but merely reporting every access to child pornography to the proper authorities so that they can NAIL THE SICK BASTARDS!
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
that's what the internet is for.
If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.
Doesn't work. How would you flag something as child porn - or not choild porn? There is no way of doing this automatically.
If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.
Doesn't work. How would you flag something as child porn - or not choild porn? There is no way of doing this automatically.
The users can flag it.
For "community [ ] organisations" they don't seem very much in tune with "the community", do they?
Nothing new there then, the NSPCC et al have to keep the pressure on or their State Funding might dry up.
Policymaking with the aid of government funded pressure groups - more incest than you'll ever find online!
> UK Internet Porn Blocking Rejected
This development is not so suprising. After all the anglican "religion" was created by a King who could not control his desire for pulsating lust and wanted to swap women like bedsheets. Like monarch, like sucjects...
The solution took almost 500 years to develop, but nowadays more and more wholesome britons, laymen and anglican "clergy" alike, return to the Bishop of Rome and receive true ordinations with the validity of apostolic continuity.
As Britain returns to catholicism, the demand for obscene imagery will decrease and more parents will desire method of blocking online indecency for the sake of their children and the greater glory of Jesus Christ.
simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.
Not in my country. Here we argued and decided it was harmless...
No sig today...
There are many countries with Internet Blacklists "to block child porn". Every damn one of them has put opposing political party websites on the list within a year.
The UK has such a blacklist (known as 'cleanfeed'). Do you have any evidence at all that any "opposing political party websites" are on this list?
Automatic porn blocking is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, it should be opt-in so "concerned parents" are probably the only ones using it. Secondly, it's very likely to block non-porn sites as false positives and yet there will never be a porn list you can check publicly check against (because a) it'll be a good source for your porn bookmarks and b) it's done in "secret" to avoid a rival org taking the list and putting it in their porn filter list for free). Thirdly, it *will* be use as stepping stone to block other types of non-porn material in the future.
To most of the general public, the obvious steps are:
1. Provide an easy way to opt-in (presumably there's a block password supplied) and, equally importantly (e.g. kids leave or reach adult age), opt back out again.
2. Once opted-in, you should be able to report blocked URLs as being false positives (i.e. the block page should simply have a button to report it, perhaps with your block password needed to stop kids trying to unblock it). Each reported false positive should be put on a checklist sorted in most reports per URL order and then manually checked in sorted order by whoever maintains the list and appropriately whitelisted if necessary (anything in a grey area should be put aside for discussion in regular meetings of an independent panel, so that guidelines on what consistutes porn - and those guidelines should absolutely be public - can be refined).
3. If they want to expand blocking categories in the future, those new categories (which I reckon will include gambling) should also be opt-in only.
Even if you turn off the internet, it's not going to stop those sick people. It will just make it harder for them to get anything, but also much harder to track.
In other words, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it invisible ( like so much child abuse that just happens at home ).
Google image search already made that decision for them.
hey kiddos, click this link for porn, just make sure your parents aren't around ;)
The G
Nononono.
Never block anything. Get a court order, watch the bits and arrest the miscreant that has them. Track the bits back to the originator and haul their asses away. Do this often and in a public manner.
YES !!
-no sig today-
Nononono.
Never block anything. Get a court order, watch the bits and arrest the miscreant that has them. Track the bits back to the originator and haul their asses away. Do this often and in a public manner.
Your idea isn't actually bad. I think there should be a way for people to report the bits if they discover it without getting arrested though.