It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Government porn filter to slow down the internet

page: 2
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:24 PM
link   
I just feel kind of slimey to spend time on porn. I have suffered from depression of late and porn is the furthest thing from my mind.



apc

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:26 PM
link   
Blatant government encroachment on free business. If an ISP wishes to choose to have site-wide filtering, no problem. Then their customers can choose to opt-out. If an ISP chooses not to censor traffic, and their customers want it, they can go to an ISP that does.

Anything government installed should always be OPT-IN. Why is it whenever a government wishes to deny people their freedoms, they make it an opt-out system? So it is incumbent on the slave, er, citizen to restore their freedom after it's been initially denied.

It's just another backdoor way to screw people.

I've never understood paying for porn, dating, sex, whatever. Why pay for something when it's much more fun when it's free? But government censoring what government deems "inappropriate" is downright criminal.

Hope you aussies like having a nanny on your desktop.
And no, she won't be dancing next to the clock.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:38 PM
link   
Another case of lazy parents foisting their responsibilities off on the .gov.

If parents want to block their kids from accessing porn, good for them, there is plenty of dirt-cheap software that will do it for them.

But dumbing down the whole Internet to what's appropriate for a six-year old is idiotic.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
Well aussies are like.... 80% criminals isn't it ?
That's for the greater good


I just hope this will not give ideas to other providers...especially round here.

If i can't watch some porn w/o having this recorded to the computers of the echellon programme where are we going to...



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:40 PM
link   
This is not only the first step in censoring the internet, it is the first step in outlawing porn. If you have the block removed, this shows intent, a key element in criminal proceedings. This could be abused in many ways. It could undermine a fair trial on a variety of charges, and be used in the media to destroy someone's reptutation.

"He/she/it did not accidentally stumble across porn, they intentionally had it served to their computer. Furthermore whe know it was he/she/it and not someone else using their computer." I can hear it now.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 12:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by themaster1
Well aussies are like.... 80% criminals isn't it ?
That's for the greater good



Hey, being an aussie, I find that extremely offensive

Its more like 90% of us are criminals......sheesh



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:00 PM
link   
Actually, the healthy development of all children should be the business of us all.

But more to the point. If I had a child, I'd want a filter on his computer, but for myself, I'd want unrestricted access, because the issue is about more than porn.

Filters are not smarter than computers. They only do what they're told and nothing more.

Filters aren't going to make judgements as to what is porn and what is science or art.

For myself, I'd like to make these determinations for myself.

The kids aren't quite ready for that.

Sure, parents should be good parents, but the fact is that all of us have to live with the consequences of bad parenting and if we, collectively, through the government, have to step in and clean things up a bit, then as inconvenient as it may be for us, in the long run we all benefit.

But, you know, the genie is out of the bottle.

We've let things go too far already and the chickens always do come home to roost.

[edit on 2007/12/30 by GradyPhilpott]


apc

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:16 PM
link   
It's definitely about more than porn. It's about whatever their government deems "inappropriate."

Using the government to censor what is in one's opinion "morally wrong" or "dirty" is not the role of government and such action has no place in a free market society. You expect that crap in China or the Soviet Union. I guess these days it's no surprise to see it in Australia.

The notion that this is all about protecting children from porn is absolute rubbish. It's the same BS excuse used here in the US to demand search engines turn over private search records. We certainly do not all benefit. We all suffer at the hands of tyranny.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:32 PM
link   
I don't know about that. I think the human consiousness knows what is 'right'
When I was a testosterone freak in my 20's and 30's it was a whole 'nother ballgame. I am 44 now, a lion content to laze and sun on the beach. Porn is just gamey to me anymore.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by Burginthorn
 

in the U.S. rape and sexual crimes have went down 80% since the late 80's, early 90's according to official government crime reports. this decrease has been atttributed to online pornography. so, if they ban or restrict it, keep a closer eye on who is checking out your wife or daughter...i know i will



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by jimmyx
reply to post by Burginthorn
 

in the U.S. rape and sexual crimes have went down 80% since the late 80's, early 90's according to official government crime reports. this decrease has been atttributed to online pornography.


You need to post a link to a finding like that.

I don't think that pornography causes sex crimes, but on the other hand, I know of no studies that show a causal link between the decline in sex crimes and pornography.

So, if you have proof of such a thing, I'd like to see it.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:45 PM
link   
Thing is this....

Porn drives the net. Alot of what people use regularly online has come about because there was a demand for it in the adult industry first.

In fact other than online gaming the only consistent growth market on the net is porn.

Now whether or not that justifies its existence is another matter, but for a government to interfere with the whole population rather than addressing the issue of the fact that these days a large majority of parents really do not seem to give a toss about what their kids are doing online is - to me at least - going too far.

There is already stuff available fpr private individuals to filter this. From programmes barring sexually explicit language to ones that scan for a high percentage of flesh tones on images and prevent them from loading. Internet explorer can filter, so can most of the major browsers. The search engines have their own filters too. Quite why "national intervention" is necessary is beyond me - except for the fact that there is a dangerous element of being able to single out people who opt out of the ban. That in itself is disturbing, because the question is this - what comes next?


apc

posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:47 PM
link   
reply to post by jpm1602
 

1. This is not just about porn. "Violent" or "inappropriate" material are also cited for censorship.

2. What may be "gamey" to you may not be to your neighbor. Why is it OK for you to make them obtain permission to access legal information just because you don't like what it contains?

Protecting children from porn is an excuse used to solicit an emotional response from the people. Rationally however it's bullpoop.

First guns and now speech. I feel sorry for them. Thank God we in the US have that little Bill of Rights. For now, at least.

[edit on 30-12-2007 by apc]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
reply to post by apc
 




First guns and now speech. I feel sorry for them. Thank God we in the US have that little Bill of Rights. For now, at least


Yep, at least until people decide that they think porn is bad enough influence to be banned. It is only a matter of time I'm afraid. It seems that people are caring less and less about our rights and more and more about their own personal moralities/views which they will force on others.

This type of thinking burns our liberty.


[edit on 12/30/2007 by bigbert81]



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:53 PM
link   
To be honest with you, I bought my share of playboys and penthouses. It was a rush. I have totally lost any interest in sexual material for years now. Don't know if that's a good or a bad thing. Wouldn't judge anyone for their preferences.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 01:58 PM
link   
How different is this than Google Image search's Safesearch option.

I prefer the Safesearch option switched off.

Why? No, it's not for porn, but it's for a better range of images (I work in the media).

The only way around this is to have your option of Clean or Unclean not avaiulable to Third Party's.

But then again, Australia does have a Christian Queenslander in charge of the country now. But at least he drinks beer and likes the occasional wine.

Finally, if kids (usually boys) want to look at 'nudie' pics, they'll find a way. Sometimes science cannot defeat nature.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:01 PM
link   
It's not really about porn, protecting the young, morality; it's about control of personal freedoms. Control of information. Just another step to 1984.

Boiling the frog!

It's a brave new world; welcome to the monkey house.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 
i apologize...grady... i hearded the 80% statistic on the radio...and i assumed ( yeah i know) that it was correct. after checking the fbi government crime files at their website the #'s are... in 1992...42.8%, compared to ...2005...31.7%, only a 29.5% decrease...sorry like everything i have to be vigilent about checking up on things



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:28 PM
link   
But when does personal morality step in. Shall we just dance and fawn about our golden images, or shall we take introspective tally to set us apart from the Paris Hilton's of the world.



posted on Dec, 30 2007 @ 02:31 PM
link   
reply to post by GradyPhilpott
 

and that was for "forcible rape" cases



new topics

top topics



 
5
<< 1    3  4  5 >>

log in

join