Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Government Changes Tack and Demands Default Porn Block

Posted by timothy on Thursday December 20, 2012 @01:44AM from the but-predictably-so dept.

judgecorp writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to reverse a policy announced last week, and demand that ISPs filter adult content by default. This system would require users to actively opt out of a filter designed to block adult content and material about self-harm. Last week, after consultation with parents, the Department for Education had said that an opt-in system would be sufficient and no default porn block would be required, but the Daily Mail has announced triumphantly that Cameron will be presenting the policy in the paper. MP Claire Perry, who has argued for the block, will be in charge — and freedom of speech campaigners have branded the sudden change of mind as 'chaotic.'"

163 comments

Min score:

Reason:

Sort:

And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 01:47 · Score: 0

Nothing of value was lost
1. Re:And by TWX · 2012-12-20 01:56 · Score: 4, Interesting
  
  Okay, define pornography then.
  
  Bearing in mind that there are particularly lurid and erotic oil paintings hanging in Britain's museums, voluptuous topless women in many British mass-distribution daily newspapers, and fine art photography of nudes, not to mention album cover art, statues, anatomy and medical journals, encyclopedias, etc...
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
2. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:04 · Score: 5, Funny
  
  Okay, define pornography then.
  Pornography: Noun; That which becomes uninteresting after mastrubation.
3. Re:And by bigtomrodney · 2012-12-20 02:10 · Score: 2
  
  Staying awake?
  
  --
  I never get used to these constant resurrections
4. Re:And by Jetra · 2012-12-20 02:15 · Score: 1
  
  Porn is for jerking off. Nudity in art like Michelangeo's David or The Thinker came from times where the human body was the sculpture of God incarnate. These days, religion takes a backseat while parents who are more prudish than even the Amish try and stop every little thing from harming their children's delicate psyches.
5. Re:And by Bazman · 2012-12-20 02:26 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  The Supreme Court says "any act that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought". So that's the Daily Mail blocked...
  [Source: Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcefX9TPlkY]
6. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:27 · Score: 0
  
  Pornography: Noun; That which becomes uninteresting after mastrubation.
  Pictures of your kids?
7. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:33 · Score: 0
  
  Rupert Murdoch is going to be PISSED!
8. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  And there in lies the problem... by having to "opt out"; the majority of people will (by default) be accepting a filtered view of the Internet, *not* a "porn-free" view of the internet (because there is no singularly accepted definition of the term), as they wouldn't want to identify themselves as wanting to include "porn" for fear of being added to a list; even if they really just want to have an unfiltered view of the internet (and perhaps genuinely aren't interested in *their* definition of porn.)
  Having to "opt in" to filtering is much better, because by default you have no filter and can determine what you do and do not want to be exposed to without having to categorize yourself and asking to have the filter applied doesn't brand you a "perv", etc..
9. Re:And by Canazza · 2012-12-20 02:43 · Score: 5, Interesting
  
  This has been a standard for Mobile internet for a long time.
  I remember getting a Pay-as-you-go 3G dongle that was opt-out filtering, but it filtered a hell of a lot more than just pornography.
  It filtered Reddit, it filtered 4chan, it filtered b3ta, it filtered a fair few web comics too. And they wouldn't unlock it over the phone unless you had a credit card (I only had a debit card and they wouldn't accept it, go figure), so you had to take the dongle into the store and ask them to unlock it, and take proof of age with you.
  If the proposed filter is in any way similer to the current mobile one - and it's opt out - expect there to be a right shitstorm regardless of the ethics of the filter in the first place.
  
  --
  It pays to be obvious, especially if you have a reputation for being subtle.
10. Re:And by Zemran · 2012-12-20 02:51 · Score: 2
  
  Anything that the government does not like. If it is anti government, it is obviously offensive and therefore pornography. Look at the things the US gov has done under the anti terrorist legislation to get an idea of how this will go. You accessed a web site that had once been used by someone that is now in the army, you are a terrorist... You looked accessed a photo of someone with a naked shoulder, you downloaded pornography!
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
11. Re:And by Zemran · 2012-12-20 02:53 · Score: 2
  
  The Sun will have to shut down its web site, that will be a great loss to society...
  
  --
  I love stacking my barbecues in the shed at the end of summer - you can't beat a bit of grill on grill action.
12. Re:And by slashmydots · 2012-12-20 02:56 · Score: 1
  
  Darn right. He apparently just realized British porn sucks, lol.
13. Re:And by poetmatt · 2012-12-20 02:58 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  therefore, nothing?
14. Re:And by Simon+Brooke · 2012-12-20 03:00 · Score: 2
  
  Okay, define pornography then.
  'Pornography' means 'anything the government does not wish you to see'. Surely you knew that?
  
  --
  I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
15. Re:And by hazah · 2012-12-20 03:04 · Score: 1
  
  Why are you bringing religion into this?
16. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 03:11 · Score: 0
  
  Rupert Murdoch will have the necessary funds to challenge and overturn this law, or at least grant his websites an exception.
17. Re:And by king+neckbeard · 2012-12-20 03:12 · Score: 1
  
  Actually, there's a good argument that porn responsible for basically all of human progress. You know it's true, everything we do, we do it for porn.
  
  --
  This is my signature. There are many like it, but this one is mine.
18. Re:And by TWX · 2012-12-20 03:39 · Score: 1
  
  Generally credit cards generally are not issued to minors, while debit cards come with the checking account. That would explain why a debit card was unacceptable as a method to verify age.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
19. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 03:42 · Score: 0
  
  Pictures of my sister?
20. Re:And by chthon · 2012-12-20 03:46 · Score: 1
  
  Indeed, one painter that needs to be blocked entirely is probably Rubens. All that naked flesh!
21. Re:And by TWX · 2012-12-20 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Okay, then we need a definition of artistic merit. Leaving out sexuality entirely for the example, my wife was rather unimpressed when she visited the Tate Modern Museum in London several years back, so we didn't go see it when we visited a couple years ago. She did not feel that the works in the Tate Modern held artistic merit. After the fact, I saw something on the Internet that was at the Tate Modern that I probably wouldn't have minded seeing, but she still did not care for.
  
  My point is that it's difficult to define pornography because it always comes down to one's own perspective. Someone might find some fetish work to be art because of some characteristic of the fetish that requires skill to wear or display or carry out, while others will simply see it as pornography without any consideration for the craftsmanship. Even basic nude photography without any hypersexualized intent can fall into this, where some see an image of a naked person as pornography, while others look at the composition of the photograph for focus, lighting, lens selection, background content or props, the work put into the model in hair and makeup, posing, even the particular selection of the model as being able to have artistic merit. It's also possible for those same characteristics to apply to an image or a work that is of something sexual.
  
  Do I believe that parents should have both the right and the responsibility to control their children's exposure to content? Absolutely. Do I believe that it's the State's job to do that? No, I don't.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
22. Re:And by rockout · 2012-12-20 03:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  Maybe because there's a strong correlation, when speaking in terms of population, between how religious one is and how likely one is to be offended by the sight of a nipple. Or in some cultures, an ankle.
  Now remember, correlation causation! But in this case, I'd put my money on "sure it does", if I were a betting man.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
23. Re:And by rockout · 2012-12-20 03:50 · Score: 1
  
  oops, slashdot removed my != between "correlation" and "causation". Silly me, thinking I could get away with Unicode 2260.
  
  --
  I've learned that they're worthless, so I don't read AC comments anymore.
24. Re:And by nurb432 · 2012-12-20 03:56 · Score: 1
  
  Except your privacy. Unless you feel that is of no value.
  
  --
  ---- Booth was a patriot ----
25. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:27 · Score: 0
  
  That is bullshit. Debit cards accounts are linked to your age and identity, so it could still be used to verify that you are an adult.
  And what if you dont want to own a credit card??
26. Re:And by boristdog · 2012-12-20 04:36 · Score: 2, Insightful
  
  Man, I WISH I could default block all religious content.
  THAT stuff is offensive.
27. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:49 · Score: 0
  
  BUT what is the effect of opt-in vs opt-out.
  Is the state not saying - it is your job to raise your children - we will help by reminding you of the available controls.
28. Re:And by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-20 04:49 · Score: 4, Insightful
  
  from times where the human body was the sculpture of God incarnate.
  Hahahahhahahahhahaha!
  You are in good fooling today, sir.
  Either that or you are _amazingly_ and I mean AMAZINGLY ignorant of history. Or, indeed, the human condition. I'll let you in on a little secret about people:
  nothing is new.
  Lest you leave this thread believing that people in ye olde days were somehow less interested in sex, porn and all else, let me hand you a few links.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Hill
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula
  And do you really think those nude paintings are for some pure, religious perspective about how the human body is god incarnate? My god that's naive.
  I'll bet you believe people when they read Playboy for the the articles, too. Or read the Sun for the sports.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
29. Re:And by TheSpoom · 2012-12-20 05:45 · Score: 2, Funny
  
  Silly me, thinking I could get away with Unicode 2260.
  Get that 21st century technology off of Slashdot, we run ancient Perl here and we like it! *mumbles something about uphill in the snow*
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
30. Re:And by TheSpoom · 2012-12-20 05:48 · Score: 1
  
  It's probably a technical thing. They may not have an API that lets them query your bank for your date of birth, while I believe running such a check against a credit card may be included in the usual antifraud capabilities (i.e. they make a preauth that doesn't charge you anything but lets them validate your DOB).
  
  --
  It's better to vote for what you want and not get it than to vote for what you don't want and get it.
  - E. Debs
31. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 05:53 · Score: 1
  
  mastrubation
  I was going to correct you, but then I remembered how the British put their 'r's in weird places.
32. Re:And by chrismcb · 2012-12-20 06:48 · Score: 1
  
  Nope, just freedom
33. Re:And by chrismcb · 2012-12-20 06:51 · Score: 1
  
  What does the Supreme Court of the United States definition of pornography, have to do with the UK?
34. Re:And by davester666 · 2012-12-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  Everything!
  
  --
  Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
35. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 07:28 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, define pornography then.
  
  Wikileaks porn would be one example
36. Re:And by Jetra · 2012-12-20 07:34 · Score: 1
  
  ...I never implied any of that. I'm not ignorant of history in any way and learned it as religion was more powerful then than it is now. Thank you for the links.
37. Re:And by serviscope_minor · 2012-12-20 08:15 · Score: 1
  
  OK, maybe this was a bit harsh, but the religion was nothing but an excuse and a handy background setting. Note that many also had classical themes, not Christian ones.
  There's a reason they didn't draw ugly, naked ladies.
  
  --
  SJW n. One who posts facts.
38. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 08:20 · Score: 0
  
  Okay, define pornography then.
  
  Someone asked for definitions of pornography. They didn't say the definitions had to be somehow UK specific.
39. Re:And by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:28 · Score: 2
  
  Teachin #1: This is about Technical Barriers to Trade (TBT) to protect the British porn industries from continental internet competition from players like Belgium based Youporn, Pornhub etc. The European competitors should call upon the WTO to give Britons unlimited market access to free internet porn.
40. Re:And by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:29 · Score: 1
  
  Teaching #2 Violent muslim believers are known for excessive porn consumption.
41. Re:And by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:31 · Score: 1
  
  Can't wait for Rupert Murdoch to become a British citizen.
42. Re:And by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:33 · Score: 1
  
  Look, did you ever read a Groklaw article about stupidity in British Courts?
43. Re:And by Jetra · 2012-12-20 10:18 · Score: 1
  
  Yeahhhh, I probably should have realized that one.
44. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:23 · Score: 0
  
  Playboy was worth reading for the cartoons alone. They had some of the best far out cartoonists like Gahan Wilson.
45. Re:And by TWX · 2012-12-20 10:38 · Score: 2
  
  No, the state is enabling the controls by default, and forcing you to tell the state that you want the controls turned off. The term Google uses for such is "chilling effects". There are a lot of people that won't opt-out because they are concerned about the perception or longer term ramifications if they do opt-out.
  
  Opt-in would be that the state would make it generally known that the controls exist, and would encourage those with children who do not know how to monitor their own connections to subscribe to the block. Making that option known would be as simple as a statement in the initial signup contract for the Internet service or a line added to each monthly bill offering it.
  
  --
  Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
46. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 10:43 · Score: 0
  
  Your post is fine otherwise, but I have read playboy - for the articles. Playboy is really-soft-porn (or super-soft-sex) magazine. I guess even lesbians might read it (high taste nudity). If want to see real porn, I go to pornhub.com.
47. Re:And by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:11 · Score: 0
  
  Sorry to hear yo mumma's going to be banned :-(
48. Re:And by Grumbleduke · 2012-12-21 08:03 · Score: 1
  This is a system whereby every time someone connects a new computer to the Internet, it will ask a series of probing questions and if you don't answer them all correctly (or at any point imply you have a child in the house), a massive (and wildly-inaccurate) web-filter will be put in place, in theory blocking anything about:
  sexual messages;
  violence;
  gambling;
  bullying;
  alcohol/drugs;
  abuse on social networks;
  self-harm;
  anorexia;
  grooming;
  radicalisation (religious and political); and
  suicide.*
  Because these are all things that children need protecting from and shouldn't be able to find out about (on the Internet; offline everything is fine). Oh, and because user-generated content tends to contain a lot of this, many of the existing filters just block all blog sites. And anything that flags certain keywords.
  Oh, and this is to protect children from "sexualisation and commercialisation." But it won't block adverts. Or the Daily Mail (who are, of course, behind this block - presumably to drive desperate children to their website?).
  And this will require putting "government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country" as part of what will be one of the largest state-sponsored mass-censorship programmes in a democracy.
  So you think nothing of value will be lost here? You might want to have another think.
  *List taken from the Government's response to the consultation on this.
49. Re:And by Nostromo21 · 2012-12-23 13:26 · Score: 1
  
  No no that word is the present participal of 'masticate' I believe.
Jolly good by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 01:48 · Score: 0

Did you hear the Americans were discussing the Duchess' Downtown Abbey over the weekend on the telly?
FP Block by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 01:49 · Score: 0

Your favorite anal stretcher link has been blocked by your government.
"Will announce later today..." by Vanders · 2012-12-20 01:53 · Score: 5, Informative

Perhaps we could, I don't know, wait until David Cameron actually announces this policy, rather than just believing everything you read in the Daily Mail, particularly as the Daily Mail are so hilariously biased on this subject in the place. Not to mention it's the Daily Mail.

This is like this news stories you see where they tell you what someone is going to "announce" later. If we already know what they're going to say, why are you telling me before they've said it?

--
Syllable : It's an Operating System
1. Re:"Will announce later today..." by h4rr4r · 2012-12-20 01:58 · Score: 2
  
  Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
  You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
2. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Because most Americans are too dumb to realize it's a tabloid.
3. Re:"Will announce later today..." by robthebloke · 2012-12-20 02:12 · Score: 3, Funny
  
  It's a tabloid? There was me thinking it was some sort of hilarous paradoy of 'to death do us part'.
4. Re:"Will announce later today..." by shilly · 2012-12-20 02:16 · Score: 2
  
  This is a truly dipshitted comment. Cameron wrote the fucking article in the fucking Mail announcing the policy change. He's a twat.
  http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250809/Victory-Mail-Children-WILL-protected-online-porn-Cameron-orders-sites-blocked-automatically.html
5. Re:"Will announce later today..." by benjfowler · 2012-12-20 02:19 · Score: 1
  
  Because the Daily Mail are clueless, but fluked a format that works with the unwashed (intellectually very mediocre) masses of the Internet.
  Their web design is absolutely terrible, but works very well when you're finding content through Google and sharing it over social media.
6. Re:"Will announce later today..." by dintech · 2012-12-20 02:31 · Score: 2
  
  Interestingly, the Daily Mail is a paper aimed predominantly at women and is the only newspaper in the UK with a majority female readership. Just look at the right hand row of images for proof. Women in general are more 'think of the children' than 'think of your rights' (or porn).
7. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Vanders · 2012-12-20 02:34 · Score: 1
  
  An article for the Daily Mail is not the same thing as a public declaration of Government policy.
  
  --
  Syllable : It's an Operating System
8. Re:"Will announce later today..." by FBeans · 2012-12-20 02:48 · Score: 2
  
  Further to this, the article hints at Cameron making a mandatory, default filter, however in the original article this is never stated. So arguing about the source is kind of a moot point as the original source never mentions any mandatory filtering. Waiting is a great idea here, this should not have made it to submission.
9. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:50 · Score: 1
  
  " Daily Mail is a paper aimed predominantly at women"
  Maybe that is why Paul Dacre is so fond of calling people who work under him, cunts.
10. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Jiro · 2012-12-20 03:18 · Score: 2
  
  The fact that the Weekly World News ceased publication in 2007 could also have something to do with it.
11. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 03:25 · Score: 0
  
  I don't know why but that really made me laugh. Thanks, I needed one
12. Re:"Will announce later today..." by h4rr4r · 2012-12-20 03:35 · Score: 1
  
  You will be glad to know their website is still in operation. It appears to be update regularly.
13. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Rogerborg · 2012-12-20 04:04 · Score: 1
  
  Apropos, as government policy now appears to be driven entirely by Mumsnet.
  A more shallow, spineless, hypocritical self serving bunch it would be hard to imagine... apart from every other politician, everywhere.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
14. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Spottywot · 2012-12-20 04:09 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
  You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
  Not quite sure, probably because they're batshit crazy right wing hypocrites who love to make up sensational headlines. They also like to pretend they're 'for the people', they are in fact are made up of the same set of Tory toffs that would take away every-ones rights and freedoms as long as it didn't affect them too much, as long as they get to make a little profit along the way.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
15. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 06:07 · Score: 0
  
  It's because this government is holding onto power my the female vote. So they listen only to every insane, irrational, wailing outcry from that demographic.
16. Re:"Will announce later today..." by bjorniac · 2012-12-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  Sadly, it's actually the most visited online news site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785
  It's not surprising it gets a lot of press - a lot of people "read" it.
17. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Xtifr · 2012-12-20 07:58 · Score: 1
  
  The fact that the Weekly World News ceased publication in 2007 could also have something to do with it.
  Was that an answer to his first question or his second, or both? I think it works as an answer to both. :)
18. Re:"Will announce later today..." by cluedweasel · 2012-12-20 08:30 · Score: 1
  
  Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
  You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
  Maybe because it's the most visited newspaper website there is? Not that that legitimizes their reporting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online
19. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 08:31 · Score: 0
  
  I still wouldn't be surprised. Claire is an anal cunt about this thing. She will fight it to the death, metaphorically of course.
  I think it is hilarious they only want to ban porn.
  Meanwhile, Social Networking sites probably involves the literal death of thousands of people every quarter from depression, general fighting, bitching, trolls, hate crime, "wall-theft" related crimes where the person was actually still in the house because they were running late or fell ill or never went, etc.
  Why aren't you wanting to ban those evil, cruel websites?
  Oh, did I also tell you sexual predators use these sites to perv on your little innocent kids?! IT IS EVIL BAN IT WE CAN'T SHOW THIS ON A CHRISTIAN INTERNET!
  It is just moronic. Religious nutjobs I tell you.
20. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Patch86 · 2012-12-20 08:48 · Score: 1
  
  Although if the same man is in charge of writing both, it's probably a fair bet that they'll say the same thing.
21. Re:"Will announce later today..." by rts008 · 2012-12-20 10:49 · Score: 1
  
  So, it's similar to Fox News in the USA.....
  What is truly scary, is the number of people that are susceptible to this flavor of shit.
  
  --
  Down With Slashdot BETA!!! I've been around the corner and seen the oliphant; you can only abuse me from your perspecti
22. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:36 · Score: 0
  
  It's not that kind of newspaper, they'd respond to this not being true by loudly inventing a u-turn. 'Cameron supports web perverts' or the like. Professional liars.
23. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Spottywot · 2012-12-21 00:22 · Score: 1
  
  Pretty much like Fox yes, the only blessing is that they don't have a T.V. channel, thank god.
  
  --
  In a cybernetic fit of rage she pissed off to another age...
24. Re:"Will announce later today..." by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 21:25 · Score: 0
  
  I "read" the DM for laughs.
Chaotic by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 01:54 · Score: 1

Since freedom of speech is the center piece of a functioning democratic society (which we consider good) anything that opposes that has to be evil.
We have thus logically concluded that MP Claire Perry's alignment is Chaotic Evil.
Me, I'm voting for the paladin candidate.
1. Re:Chaotic by h4rr4r · 2012-12-20 02:00 · Score: 1
  
  Lawful Evil, else he would not be trying to get it instituted in a legal manner.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Evtim · 2012-12-20 01:54 · Score: 2

Orwell was a brit. Stands to reason....
Another U-Turn by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 01:54 · Score: 0

Would this be U-Turn 38 or 39? I've lost count.
How about we just admit their stuck on a round-a-bout with no clue where the exit is.
The Pretend Democracy Continues... by tomxor · 2012-12-20 01:58 · Score: 2

As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen... Of course then they will do whatever the hell they want anyway.
I'd rather not be asked in the fucking first place, it's like teasing a child with a cookie it can never have, all they do is piss people off AND ignore the majority view.
1. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by Jawnn · 2012-12-20 02:18 · Score: 1
  
  As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen...
  Uhm..., don't the Brits elect their "government"? So, just like here in the U.S., they keep electing the same lousy people to represent them. Imagine that.
2. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:35 · Score: 0
  
  ConDem is an unelected mess. The first thing they did when they formed the coalition was bring in a law to stop us kicking them out early -.-
3. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:42 · Score: 0
  
  Uhm..., don't the Brits elect their "government"? So, just like here in the U.S., they keep electing the same lousy people to represent them. Imagine that.
  Britons voted 'none of the above' at the last election, but they got a government anyway. No party won a majority of seats in Parliament, I believe only a minority of eligible voters even voted, and I believe the last time a party even managed to get a majority of the votes cast was in the 60s.
  Typically a British government is elected by about 20-25% of the electorate, on around 40% of the votes cast.
  So, no, they don't keep 'electing the same lousy people'. They just don't have any alternative.
4. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by somersault · 2012-12-20 02:49 · Score: 1
  
  It's almost exactly like the US yes, ie basically nothing important really changes no matter who's in power. Even when you vote for the "other side" (or in our case a coalition of 2 parties), "democratic" government is "democratic".
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
5. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:51 · Score: 0
  
  I disagree, we do keep "electing the same lousy people", simply because whoever we elect is a politician...
6. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by mrbester · 2012-12-20 03:08 · Score: 1
  
  Not very much is democratic about a party or coalition being voted into power with less than 30% of the total electorate wanting it...
  
  --
  "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
7. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by somersault · 2012-12-20 03:16 · Score: 1
  
  Hence the quotation marks.
  
  --
  which is totally what she said
8. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by UnknownSoldier · 2012-12-20 06:39 · Score: 1
  
  The problem is with the voting system - it reduces the "political parties" into 2 camps while not serving the majority who did NOT want them.
  These videos highlight the problem and one of the _many_ solutions:
  * First Past the Post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo
  * Alt. Vote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE
9. Re:The Pretend Democracy Continues... by Patch86 · 2012-12-20 08:52 · Score: 2
  
  There are three major parties (discounting UKIP, who may or may not come to something in the next General Election), and two of them coalesced to form this government. The other party has not voiced strong opposition to this policy. So of a choice of 3 parties, two are implementing it and one doesn't seem to care overly. So not much of a choice there.
  For what it's worth, the government launched a public consultation, which came back overwhelmingly against this policy. So you can't vote against it, and can't register your disapproval of it in any way that matters. Democracy sucks.
We shouldn't be surprised by GrunthosThePoet · 2012-12-20 01:58 · Score: 1

We have had one minor dose of common sense this week with the revised social media legal guidelines. It was far to much to hope that it would continue
Re:Wow! The UK is... by arth1 · 2012-12-20 01:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

Orwell was a brit. Stands to reason....
Orwell was a bloody optimist.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by somersault · 2012-12-20 02:00 · Score: 3, Insightful

things have become untenable.
Oh gods, I have to tell that that I want to be able to view adult content! This position is untenable!

Despite the US being far from perfect, at least I have the freedom to do pretty much whatever I want as long as life and property are respected.
I live in the UK, and I also have that freedom. I also had a few freedoms a lot earlier than I would have had them in the US:
UK public drinking age: 18
US: 21
UK public smoking age: 16
US: 18
UK age of consent/adulthood: 16
US: 18
Tell me, which is closer to being a "totalitarian state".. the country with an opt-out porn filter, or the one where the government can do whatever the fuck it wants, whenever it wants - without telling anyone - via the PATRIOT act? How can you be so hypocritical?

--
which is totally what she said
RTFA by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:01 · Score: 5, Insightful

none of this is true....
1. Re:RTFA by digitig · 2012-12-20 02:17 · Score: 2
  
  The only RAs in the story were to the previous announcement that has allegedly been overturned. The Daily Mail article that the story is about is here, though as it's the Daily Mail I take it with an emetic-scale pinch of salt.
  
  --
  Quidnam Latine loqui modo coepi?
Re:Wow! The UK is... by robthebloke · 2012-12-20 02:09 · Score: 1

The UK smoking age has been 18 for some time....
Give option by default by gmuslera · 2012-12-20 02:13 · Score: 1

If parents want to protect their children for things that they consider objectionable they could use a government proxy to block what the government think that is objectionable or ask their isp for filtering (to avoid messing with i.e. browser configuration), but must be the parents option.
1. Re:Give option by default by ProbablyJoe · 2012-12-20 02:23 · Score: 1
  
  Or they could just use one of the many commercial products available that do this sort of filtering for you. But no, of course we need the government to do it for everyone.
2. Re:Give option by default by anotherzeb · 2012-12-20 18:09 · Score: 1
  
  Given that parents didn't have an equivalent to an ISP filter for books that I read and television that I watched when I was growing up, why would they need their kids to have a professional babysitter now? If the kids must have a computer in their room and not the family room, surely there's a simple way to configure a router / firewall PC to show all web pages going into the house in real time. Also, if it's basically a censorship blacklist, I wonder:
  1) What else might end up on it "by accident" and therefore unavailable to everyone who doesn't tell their ISP "gimme porn"
  2) How they expect to get every porn site in the world on it when new sites of (all types) get registered all the time
  3) How long before the general public hears about proxies (for parents, probably about a year or so after their kids have been using them if they the government to do their parenting, I expect)
  
  --
  Good luck sometimes arrives disguised as bad
3. Re:Give option by default by gmuslera · 2012-12-21 01:55 · Score: 1
  
  First, technology enables to do so, its not fireproof, but at least is a try. Doing it at ISP level, at explicit request of the ones that pay for that service, is a way to avoid children to sidestep whatever measure you put in a place where they could potentially control. Some routers enable you to define the DNS they push in, and put i.e. OpenDNS, but is easier to just ask your isp if have that functionality.
  Anyway, is up to the parents to choose how to educate their childrens, and to decide what is good or bad for them.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by shilly · 2012-12-20 02:13 · Score: 0

How this kind of crap gets marked insightful, I do not know.
Age of consent is not the same as age of adulthood. Legally, you become an adult at 18 in the UK but the age of consent is 16. In the US, you become an adult at 18 as well, but the age of consent varies from state to state.
None of this has anything to do with totalitarianism.
how about by rufty_tufty · 2012-12-20 02:13 · Score: 4, Interesting

Can I get a default block on things I find offensive to children please?
* Violence
* Religion
* Telephone Scams
* Adverts to tacky products
* politicians
* The Daily Mail
Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people? If you have a problem with receiving something, you fix it, the tools are out there and free! Don't make your problem my problem because of your ignorance and laziness.

--
"The weirdest thing about a mind, is that every answer that you find, is the basis of a brand new cliche" -
1. Re:how about by BanHammor · 2012-12-20 02:22 · Score: 1
  
  Most of all, it goes this way: 1. I don't want to be marked as "the guy who requested switching the adult filter on" by the government or ISP. 2. It's better to have it this way by default, and not have to resort to proxies. 3. YMMV highly about what is or isn't offensive.
2. Re:how about by VortexCortex · 2012-12-20 02:27 · Score: 3, Interesting
  
  Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people?
  Agreed, but didn't they already do this once? Think about it. If you ask everyone then eventually you'll find that everything on the Internet is offensive in some way to someone. They group all of this "offensive" content under one umbrella and opt you out of the Internet by default. If you want access to the Internet you have to opt in, and even pay for it!
  The whole cycle is starting again. IMHO, it's just another way to increase the price of Internet access. Once everyone's paying the additional "opt it to everything" fee the process will start again.
3. Re:how about by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-22 05:02 · Score: 0
  
  Yes, it always seems about "we're doing this for the CHILDREN!" Meanwhile, your rights as an ADULT are eroded to the point that your FREEDOM is significantly impacted, because YOU are **Encouraging** a Nanny State. Read Orwell's "1984" again and get educated about what they're trying to pull! UK is turning into East Germany, and the US isn't that far behind. And people like you are part of the problem, because you submit like sheeple.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:15 · Score: 0

So you can get drunk, smoke, and be held accountable for contracts 2 years sooner in the UK. How does these "freedoms" or lack of be used to judge a society as totalitarian? And the Patriot act is the big bad boogie monster that supposedly strips everyone of their constitutional rights even when nobody can actually give an example of what constitutional rights have supposedly been nullified. Has there been even one case of a US citizen being convicted of a crime because of evidence collected using any Patriot Act provision?
I despair by benjfowler · 2012-12-20 02:17 · Score: 3

This country is being run by moron Daily Mail readers.
The only reason why these clueless wrecking cockheads are running the show, is because New Labour screwed up so badly.
1. Re:I despair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:16 · Score: 0
  
  This country is being run by moron Daily Mail readers.
  The only reason why these clueless wrecking cockheads are running the show, is because New Labour screwed up so badly.
  Were you asleep in the run-up to the 2010 election ? If Labour were still in power they'd be as bad as the Tories in this respect. Not that this makes any of it better, but while the term "nanny state" if often used as a right-wing strawman to smear the left, Labour *were* quite clearly contemptious of personal liberties and privacy to the point that in some areas it wasn't misplaced- quite the opposite. Ironically, the one thing I hoped that the Tories *might* do was to reverse the trend away from personal freedom- online and otherwise- especially given some things said by the likes of David Davies (an odious right-winger in other respects). I'm not naive enough to be disappointed that they haven't done this now they're in power, though.
2. Re:I despair by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:44 · Score: 0
  
  I'd have said this country and its people are being fucked-over by the sociopathic cunts that own everything. The moron Daily Mail readers just keep voting for them because they're clueless cockheads.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by shilly · 2012-12-20 02:17 · Score: 3, Informative

No, he's right. Age of purchase moved to 18, age of possession is still 16.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:18 · Score: 0

The smoking age was raised to 18 a few years ago.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by somersault · 2012-12-20 02:21 · Score: 1

Well, you can live away from your parents/guardians and get married at 16 in the UK. I always considered that the point adulthood, but obviously there will be a lot of differing opinions on the term.
After looking it up just now I see you still need permission from your parents though, so I guess you're right about 18.
Yep, it doesn't have anything to do with totalitarianism, but it does have to do with freedom. An optional web filter doesn't have much to do with either.

--
which is totally what she said
Morons by Archibald+Buttle · 2012-12-20 02:24 · Score: 5, Insightful

Speaking as a British citizen, one with two small children (aged 7 and 8), my take is that my government is acting like a bunch of morons. They're allowing themselves to be led by the Daily Mail - a newspaper that has a long track record of spouting an ultra-conservative line that includes rabid xenophobia and plain and simple hatred of a significant proportion of the UK population. This move is not about making a rational choice, it's simply all about securing votes - the Daily Mail's readership are exclusively Conservative party voters, David Cameron's party.
I'm strongly against net filtering. Implementing mandatory filtering is the thin end of the wedge. It will not be long before there's complaints and campaigns by the likes of the Daily Mail complaining about inappropriate material that is not being filtered. How long will it be before Wikipedia gets banned? That site is packed full of very adult material that some will find objectionable. And what about the BBC News covering stories about pedophilia? And all the swearing in YouTube videos? Google searches can link through to objectionable material, complete with previews, so shouldn't that be banned too? Even without such encroachment into areas that rational people can see as being innocuous, filtering still ends up being a blunt weapon, filtering out sites that deal with issues such as contraception and abortion since they fall under the label of "sex". If kids can't do research into such things then the problems we have in this country of teenage pregnancy can only get worse.
As an example of such blunt filtering, I recently used a wifi network at a local church that had filtering enabled on their connection. They wanted to prevent childrens groups that met there from accessing things they deemed as being objectionable material. The end result was that almost every single link off of the church's own website was blocked. They saw the light after a few weeks and disabled the filtering.
If this move happens I will be opting out of the filtering. That in itself makes me nervous - some people will assume that because I've done that I must be a bad parent. That sadly is exactly the kind of false conclusion that an average Daily Mail reader will reach.
1. Re:Morons by Walterk · 2012-12-20 03:25 · Score: 2
  
  If only we could use this against the Daily Mail website.
  It's filled with things that could be deemed porn.
  
  --
  
  "If anyone needs me, I'm in the angry dome."
2. Re:Morons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 03:45 · Score: 0
  
  THIS. The Daily Mail website clearly has pornographic content and should be blocked by default.
3. Re:Morons by gutnor · 2012-12-20 04:03 · Score: 1
  
  And what about the BBC News covering stories about pedophilia? And all the swearing in YouTube videos? Google searches can link through to objectionable material, complete with previews, so shouldn't that be banned too?
  It does not work that way. It is much worse - big player are not filtered because of the outcry they produce. Instead random small website that have pissed either connected people or an obsessed joe calling customer service 10 times an hour, get filtered. Most of them would never even realise that they are filtered because, if this filter is implemented as all the others, the list of blocked website is considered confidential.
  That is the danger. And yes, even Google could get along and filtering its search results. Google do loads of customization already to comply with various requirements in different countries, so it is possible (but not guaranteed, hopefully) they would get along with it.
4. Re:Morons by Rogerborg · 2012-12-20 04:13 · Score: 2
  
  Well, quite. This "policy" is being driven by the most shrill of Mail Mums. But Daily Dad does like to drink of the beer and look at teh boobies, so - like all pulpit pounders, ever - the rag and its site is rank with hypocrisy.
  Similarly, I recall the Sun running its usual "Find the paedos, spill their blood" stuff in the same issue where they ran a "Phwoar, Charlotte Church wins rear of the rear" wankpiece, using a photo taken when she was 15.
  
  --
  If you were blocking sigs, you wouldn't have to read this.
5. Re:Morons by wildstoo · 2012-12-20 04:37 · Score: 3, Insightful
  
  Nail. Head.
  The very MINUTE a celebrity turns 18 (sometimes even earlier), they're hung on the Daily Mail's wall of shame, often with a headline in the vein of: "Ooh! Look! Celebrity X is all grown up! Here's some hawt pix!!!".
  You can practically hear the heavy breathing in articles like this where the young age of the actress is the focus of the article. Seems odd for a newspaper that claims to campaign against the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, right?
  Then there's the straight up porn stories. I mean.. wtf?
  Just have a scroll down the "FEMAIL" column on the right of any page. The "articles" listed there really say it all.
  They're hypocritical bastards of the worst kind.
6. Re:Morons by ChristianCooper · 2012-12-20 05:01 · Score: 2
  
  "Similarly, I recall the Sun running its usual "Find the paedos, spill their blood" stuff in the same issue where they ran a "Phwoar, Charlotte Church wins rear of the rear" wankpiece, using a photo taken when she was 15."
  
  It was the Daily Star - there was a piece decrying the depravity of Chris Morris's Brass Eye paedophile special, and in the next column had the pic of Miss Church (15) with the heading of "She's a big girl now ... chest swell!"
  
  http://screenagers.me/2010/07/21/tabloid-hypocrisy-charlotte-church-looking-chest-swell/
  
  Of course, the Daily Mail themselves had a piece on the Brass Eye special... next to pictures of Princesses Beatrice and Euginie in bikinis (they were both under 14 at the time).
7. Re:Morons by AmiMoJo · 2012-12-20 06:15 · Score: 1
  
  If they did introduce such filtering it would generate endless complaints from parents finding sites that somehow got through. If the government wants to be every child's nanny they will have to be effective, which is impossible.
  
  --
  const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
  SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
8. Re:Morons by mjwalshe · 2012-12-20 07:22 · Score: 1
  
  i think a substantial group of of DM readers are are probably Ukip or in extreme cases BNP
9. Re:Morons by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-21 01:19 · Score: 0
  
  Personally, I'll probably be vpn'ing to avoid the block, rather than put myself on the "he reads porn" list. However, much of a muchness.
  I'd like to think I'll also push this as far as possible. That is, if the block is enforced by every ISP (doubtful - not every mobile ISP does the mobile blocking), then I'll be out there campaigning for *more* things to get blocked. Keep going, keep going until the only thing we're allowed to see is some government approved cartoon of two people saying hello to each other in a dozen different languages.
  Either we'll have it the way we want it, or else we'll incite a revolution ;-)
Re:Wow! The UK is... by mountaineer76 · 2012-12-20 02:28 · Score: 1

Actually, I believe that you only need parental permission in England and Wales - in Scotland you can get married at 16 without any parental consent whatsoever!
Title is WRONG by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:29 · Score: 2, Informative

So there are two issues here:
1) As others have mentioned, using the Daily Mail as the definitive source for anything ridiculous
2) No matter the source, it would be nice if the submitter/editor actually read the content of the article and not just link blindly to it.
The article quite clearly states:

The Prime Minister says the Mothers’ Union, which has advised the Government on how to shield children from adult and violent internet content, is backing alternative proposals to allow parents to tailor exactly what they can and cannot see.
Ministers are understood to have imposed a timetable on internet providers, who will be required to raise their game and produce detailed plans by February on ensuring that all parents are giving the option of imposing filters.
Mr Cameron says that when people switch on a new computer, they will be asked if there are children in the house – and if they answer yes, they will be automatically prompted to tailor internet filters.
.
To say that the government is changing tack and demanding a default porn block is a downright lie.
That's the whole point by denis-The-menace · 2012-12-20 02:33 · Score: 1

Once you define one filter and have a functioning censorship system,
adding another filter is trivial and *NOBODY WILL NOTICE* until it's too late.
Religion is a form of control of the people.
Now that it's going away, they need something new and quick!

--
Obama's legacy: (N)othing (S)ecure (A)nywhere and (T)error (S)imulation (A)dministration
Re:Wow! The UK is... by somersault · 2012-12-20 02:34 · Score: 1

Ah, well I'm Scottish so that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up :)

--
which is totally what she said
Either overbearing or ineffectual by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 02:43 · Score: 0

I understand the sentiment of trying to block addictive material that might harm a child's future relationships, but anti-porn legislation faces the difficulty of deciding what is or isn't considered porn. As others have posted, questionable material exists in many of Britain's tabloids and the difference between what is inspiring and artful and what is titillating is based more on the viewer than the content. If legislators wanted to block anything that might be used as a sexual stimulant, then they would have to block everything down to retail clothing vendors, an Orwellian move. On the other hand, anything less would not accomplish the desired goals because porn producers would find a way to get their content passed off as an acceptable pseudo-category. Legislators are faced with the choice of invasive overbearing laws that limit personal freedoms, ineffectual gestures in the sentiment that something is better than nothing, or letting the masses figure it out for themselves.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by DrgnDancer · 2012-12-20 02:51 · Score: 3, Informative

This is somewhat misleading. States actually determine the age at which all of these things are legal. While it's true that all states fall into line with federal policy on drinking and tobacco ages, this hasn't always been the case. The legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18 well into the 1990's. It didn't change until 1996 or 1997 (I remember becasue I'd just graduated college, and my girlfriend at the time was only 20. She was "grandfathered" in and could drink, as could anyone who at least 18 the day the new law went into effect). Age of consent varies wildly state by state and can be as low as 14. In theory any state can change any of these ages independently (though in practice funding rules from the feds make it unlikely that they will for drinking or tobacco)

--
I don't need a million points of light, just two points of multi-mode fiber and a 10 Gig-E router.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-12-20 02:52 · Score: 2

And the Patriot act is the big bad boogie monster that supposedly strips everyone of their constitutional rights even when nobody can actually give an example of what constitutional rights have supposedly been nullified.
Privacy. And examples or not, such legislation must be eliminated.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Simon+Brooke · 2012-12-20 03:02 · Score: 1

Legally, you become an adult at 18 in the UK but the age of consent is 16.
The UK is not England. The age of majority is not 18 in Scotland and never has been. Do keep up at the back.

--
I'm old enough to remember when discussions on Slashdot were well informed.
Ha-Ha! by Greyfox · 2012-12-20 03:05 · Score: 1

If you guys were a bit more sensible about free speech and stuff, you might still own India and North America! Oh! Ok, that was a little mean... I'm sure it was just because running the ENTIRE PLANET was just too much of a bother...
Aah seriously though, setting up Tor isn't that hard and might be an option for those countries in which "Freedom" comes with dickish air quotes. At least until such time as your government decides to ban it. It should be good for another decade or so, though, until someone realizes that the entire internet-using population of the country is browsing through an encrypted network.

--
I'm trying to teach myself to set people on fire with my mind... Is it hot in here?
1. Re:Ha-Ha! by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:54 · Score: 0
  
  What guys?
2. Re:Ha-Ha! by Desler · 2012-12-20 05:08 · Score: 1
  
  If you guys were a bit more sensible about free speech and stuff, you might still own India
  Yes because India is a well-known bastion of free speech and press rights. *rolls eyes*
You have more freedom. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 03:12 · Score: 0

Having more freedom means you're freeer. It means if you have less freedom you're less free.
The USA has less freedom because it stops you doing things you want to do for longer than the UK.
That means that under these criteria, the USA is less free than the UK.
Are you unable to do maths or something?
Now you could claim "We are free to have guns, the UK you're not", but that is being hypocritical unless you accord the GPP accuracy which you deny in your post. Because how could that freedome be used to judge a society as totalitarian?
Say one thing, do the opposite... by 3seas · 2012-12-20 03:12 · Score: 1

... what can we learn from this political flip flop?
1. Re:Say one thing, do the opposite... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 21:42 · Score: 0
  
  That no flip flop has taken place and the Daily Mail is still making up shit to sell newspapers.
Can I Have an Automatic by Big+Hairy+Ian · 2012-12-20 03:13 · Score: 1

Opt Out David Cameron Filter?

--
Build a Man a Fire, and He'll Be Warm for a Day. Set a Man on Fire, and He'll Be Warm for the Rest of His Life.
Daily Fail strikes again by NGRhodes · 2012-12-20 03:49 · Score: 2

If you read the Daily Mail article http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250809/Victory-Mail-Children-WILL-protected-online-porn-Cameron-orders-sites-blocked-automatically.html you will find that the truth is that David Cameron "is backing alternative proposals to allow parents to tailor exactly what they can and cannot see". Sadly due to the continuing illiterate editing by the Daily Mail this was somehow equated to "Victory for the Mail! Children WILL be protected from online porn after Cameron orders automatic block on sites"
Re:Wow! The UK is... by oneandoneis2 · 2012-12-20 03:51 · Score: 1

Really?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/
You might want to rethink that "I have freedom" opinion a bit..

--
So.. it has come to this
Ban the Daily Mail by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:09 · Score: 0

but the Daily Mail has announced triumphantly...
The time has come to silence the bilious tabloids that decide practically all government policy, or we will each end up being silenced ourselves.
After consultation with parents? by Ifthir · 2012-12-20 04:09 · Score: 2

"Last week after consultation with parents" Which parents? How many? What was their political makeup? This whole story screams censorship.
So, who will do this in RL? by YoungManKlaus · 2012-12-20 04:13 · Score: 1

I mean, I walk past an adult shop on my way to work every day (nice bondage display in the show windows btw). Is there also a plan to put up black walls around that so the poor children don't see it when they walk by?
1. Re:So, who will do this in RL? by CodeheadUK · 2012-12-20 04:48 · Score: 2
  
  This already happens in the UK. 'Adult' shops have plain frontage with nothing on display.
  Anne Summers stores seem to get away with putting undercrackers in the windows though.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 04:54 · Score: 0

Guantanamo bay anyone?
What next, the Sun by whitroth · 2012-12-20 05:45 · Score: 1

Will the Sun (UK paper) have to put a "warning filter" on its front page (ok, slashkiddies, google Page 3 girl")?
mark
Let me guess... by plaukas+pyragely · 2012-12-20 06:43 · Score: 2

After this is introduced other so called "questionable content" websites will slowly start appearing in the blacklist. Want to know more about drugs / safety / etc? Too bad, you're too young to know anything and have an opinion.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by ColdWetDog · 2012-12-20 07:15 · Score: 3, Funny

So was Murphy.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Maybe I just know too much about the UK government by Minwee · 2012-12-20 07:23 · Score: 1

but I read that as "UK Government Changes Tack and Demands Porn".
Re:Wow! The UK is... by shilly · 2012-12-20 07:46 · Score: 1

Erm, the first opportunity for Scottish people aged 16 or 17 to vote in elections is coming up but hasn't happened yet....and Scottish 16 year olds who commit a crime are not imprisoned in adult jails.
Okay, let me reiterate it one more time. by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 08:09 · Score: 0

Dear UK government, let me reiterate it one more time:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YRgNOyCnbqg
With love,
A Slashdot reader.
Welcome to Politics by Crypto+Gnome · 2012-12-20 08:13 · Score: 2

Irrespective of what is good for whom, PoliticianA agrees to support some policy of PoliticianB in return for vice-versa and suddenly legislation is passed.

A sudden reversal of announced policy within a week is absolutely someone whoring out their principles to get what they want elsewhere.

Most (but not all) Politicians have the morals, ethics, and integrity of pondscum.

--
Visit CryptoGnome in his home.
This Guy by zakeria · 2012-12-20 08:16 · Score: 1

is fast becoming a Muppet.
not 18yo, 16 yo by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 08:29 · Score: 0

Though it's dogwhistled.
"Teeny Bopper becomes a woman!" sort of thing.
Technically not paedophilia, but then again, the "definition" daily fail uses for paedophilia would still class itself as a paedi site.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:34 · Score: 1

I guess "consent" relates to porn production... Sorry, I am confused.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by Seeteufel · 2012-12-20 08:36 · Score: 1

The Patriot act does not apply in the UK, not in Britain, not in England.
How about NO? by fufufang · 2012-12-20 11:52 · Score: 1

I demand the Internet to have a default David Cameron block. I think that might be more useful.
Re:Wow! The UK is... by cheekyjohnson · 2012-12-20 12:00 · Score: 1

I know.

--
Filthy, filthy copyrapists!
His wife did it by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 12:42 · Score: 0

No afternoon tea and sex for David, until he changes his mind on the issue.
Self Harm Material? by Anonymous Coward · 2012-12-20 14:21 · Score: 0

I can see, from some strange hyper-morality, banning pornography. However, restricting "material about self-harm" protects anyone. In fact, those who are in rough situations should be able to access information about things like support groups for self harm, and preventing them from doing so may actually exacerbate their issues.
obligatory John Gilmore quote by WhiteDragon · 2012-12-23 12:00 · Score: 1

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.

--
Did you mount a military-grade, variable-focus MASER on an unlicensed artificial intelligence?