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.

 

UK plans to block all porn in effort to 'protect children'

page: 14
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:25 PM
link   
Originally posted by aivlas

from link1 ... (don't know off-site symbols yet so) ...

"Mr Vaizey believes such a scheme would help to stop children being accidentally exposed to adult sites. ~~ and ~~ "It recently announced an independent review that will examine matters such as adult clothing and goods being marketed at children and the influence of raunchy music videos on youngsters"


Read more: www.metro.co.uk...

i re-iterate, who assumes responsibility when little Suzy is visiting and sees 'images' not meant for her eyes but Mr Jones is an 'opt in' customer and their house time coincides? What if Suzy's mum is very disturbed by the idea, where does her recourse lie ?? with the ISP, Mr Jones, herself or some other entity? I really don't find legislating ifs and maybes effective or productive in any way and legislation devoid of consequence is pointless.

these are not fantasy scenarios ... how many ppl use or provide home daycare services? -- accidents do happen -- even with the best security measures in place.

What if you are a single parent in need of ER care and the neighbor keeps your youngster while you are transported and treated. Later you find your youngin was 'exposed' (not themselves, physically) while in the neighbor's care ... who is responsible for that 'accidental' exposure? There is no legal standing against the ISP nor should one be created.

ok, you are at the stadium for a ball game, the ppl around you (4 of 'em) all have laptops and are streaming their favorite videos (racy or worse) ... what do you do? have them removed or ejected? why, it is a public place ... just like the internet. or would you confiscate their property (of which you have no right) because it is offensive to your family and in their 'viewing range'. This is not a good proposal and the ISP companies are the worst choice of all to 'administer and manage' such a fiasco.


we left off where we disagree that porn is mainstream. i asked you to provide any public or free dissemination of such material (to compare with the internet availability) and you hadn't answered yet.

I have already given my reason for why I think porn is mainstream and I don't think your suggestions are related to mainstream so I'm not going to find any examples.

only response i have for this is ... thanks for the cooperation, courtesy and 2-way communication, much appreciated.

I could expand on part 2 but let's just leave it at this ... yeppers, they sure got that one down pat ... television, billboards, bus advertisements, macabre radio programs, cartoons, animae, halloween costumes, anyone? yes, they sure do contribute to protecting us from the evil (harmful) imagery THEY created ... just take a look around.

"other content delivery in this country is regulated by government or has a successful self regulation model." ... really? what would that be cause i am not from this country. If he is referring to the 'illegal porn site' program, just because they cannot track it doesn't mean it disappeared ... or is it the latest malady ... Gulf syndrome?

how can anyone be soooooo hypocritical in one sentence? -- "I am a fervent supporter of personal responsibility and have an innate dislike of Big Brother regulation BUT" --> problem with that statement is there is no But, period.

You either support personal responsibility or you don't. You either dislike BB regulation or you don't. No BUTTTTTs belong in that statement.




posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   


"other content delivery in this country is regulated by government or has a successful self regulation model." ... really? what would that be cause i am not from this country.


Yes that would be the The British Board of Film Classification for example.



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:38 PM
link   
ATS is a porn website

prove it that it is not



posted on Dec, 20 2010 @ 11:41 PM
link   
reply to post by Faiol
 


Ok

Link to porn hosted on ats servers (not in user uploads, I say this because they will never block facebook/flickr)
edit on 20-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:19 AM
link   
reply to post by aivlas
 


well, i know nothing about that board and would have to read up on it (laters) ... if it resembles our 'rating' teams, i won't hold my breath.

care to expand on what their 'effectiveness' involves? is it guided by a proposal similar to this one? who disagrees with this Board? and does it exist or perform specifically to 'protect children'?



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 12:31 AM
link   
reply to post by Honor93
 


It's the film classification board it hands out the ratings (U/PG/18 etc), so yes it is set up to prevent the kids from purchasing them or seeing them in the cinema.

www.bbfc.co.uk...

Just ignore THIS mess up, it never happened

edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 01:56 AM
link   

Originally posted by Honor93

You either support personal responsibility or you don't. You either dislike BB regulation or you don't. No BUTTTTTs belong in that statement.


forgive my imposition on this discussion BUT.......if what your writing above is fair...then this below is equally as fair:


"You either support paedophillia and the mechanisms that support its existance in our societies, or you dont...NO BUTTS belong in that statement!"


...see what happens when you go black and white?


ISP's blocking all porn at the hub and allowing people to choose if they want to acess it is no more than what cable does now....in fact what they are proposing is less annoying then even that. If you're so afraid of ending up on some list..dont use online porn..again, also simple..just dont ask people to accept that a child any child has teh right to be abused so you can have your concept of "freedom" upheld.

This proposal is empowering personal and coporate responsibility and opening the door for real choice, not removing it. If there is no choice but to risk exposure to porn then there is NO choice. If no choice exists...then it can hardly be called a free and open internet for all.

Also, it may need pointing out, that there isnt even any legislation on the table!
As the articles clearly state - it is not legislation being proposed here at all and the next communcations white paper isnt due in the for two years!

What has simply been said to ISP's is : 'clean out your stable or we will do it for you'.

The government here speaking on behalf of every unprotected child, every parent, professional and person in the UK who has to deal with the 'affect' of unregulated porn industry every day who havent the direct power to go to their offices and demand they change their behaviour.

So this is an open air opportunity for ISP's to step up and match the efforts of parents and other citizens in BEING RESPONSIBLE for HOW what is put out there is accessed!
Thats it.
Not so scary.
No big brother impositions or bans saying you cant have porn..no censorship of WHAT is put out there..just shared responsibility and pointing ultimate accountability for HOW back to the sources.

If my car has a defect I take it back to the manufacturer, the same applys here..my internet has a defect, and I am as a parent and person with rights, taking that back to the manfacturer and the service providers and demanding they fix it. I do have that right..every citizen does..and when enough people do, things change.
Its called democracy in action rather than lip service.

I take my complaints about porn to the porn industry where they belong.
I take my complaints about ISP's to ISPs.

ISP's as corporate entities and as service providers are accountable for the services they offer, and should not be exempt from laws that prevent me and every other citizen in the world from making available - direcly or indirectly - pornographic material to children. Why should they be?

So its a case of self regulate or be regulated...a choice. A choice not given to child victims or the rest of society that has to pay to clean up the mess.

Dont come to the table and they will face the consequences and the be held to the same rules of gov legislation and social obligation as other industries are and they will come under the same laws, protections and oversights that every other human being in society has to abide by or are protected by. Its called inclusion. If you demand the right to exist in society, the being inculded means being subject to the same rights and restrictions as everyone else.

Last I checked there as no "I" in " we " the people.

Dont like the rules of a society that gives a damn....go live in Somalia or on a deserted mountain where there are none!

If you dont trust the government to make the right choices or the right level of reglation in any topic, then that is a GOOD thing..DONT! Be on their doorstep daily ensuring they DO do the right thing.

But before you shout down GOOD and productive social inititives , try getting involved to ensure they do remain accountable and the laws if any are passed are just, to the point and dont go too far.

If you do that, you then have a moral leg to stand on if they do breech those obligations.
Dont, and you dont.

Try being politically active instead of just an activist..be part of the process not whining from the sidelines playing victim of a system you as much as every personal alive, in action or inaction, have helped to create.

I am not the one's giving power to a big brother goverment. If anything, you are by exlcuding yourself from the processes that hold them accountable, .

you reap what you sow I guess.


Rosha.


edit on 21-12-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:12 AM
link   
It would appear the ISPs themselves are not too keen on the idea.

www.bbc.co.uk...

The proposals defenders quoting research from a US right wing conservative think tank doesn't give me a warm and fuzzy feeling either..



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 07:25 AM
link   
reply to post by justwokeup
 


good to see the isp know what the deal is at least


But, say experts, technical challenges mean any large scale filtering system is doomed to failure.



"Unfortunately, It's technically not possible to completely block this stuff," said Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico. Continue reading the main story “Start Quote If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see” End Quote Trefor Davies Timico He said the sheer volume of pornographic material online and the number of ways that people access it, via the web, file-sharing networks, news groups, discussion boards and the like, made the job impossible.



edit on 21-12-2010 by aivlas because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 08:00 AM
link   

Originally posted by SeventhSeal
reply to post by SpiritnSoul
 


Give

Me

A

Break.

It's called Entertainment...for Adults only. Porn should not be banned. You really want the government to dictate on what's right and what's wrong? You want the government to get so involved with our lives it bans Art?

Get a grip, sweetheart!!!


lol porn is art



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:29 AM
link   

Originally posted by SaturnFX

Originally posted by TheFallOfRa
I don't understand how they can do this after showing Rihanna and Christina Aguilera half naked in many outrageous positions on xfactor. TPTB are full of contradictions. It's okay for kids to be exposed to filth on public tv but not to something that a parent should have had control over in the first place. Sorry if someone's already mentioned this, I haven't had a chance to read through the whole thread.


Thank you for bringing this to my attention. I am not sure if this would qualify as porn.
I will have to watch it another 25-30 more times...perhaps frame by frame in super high definition, over the next few months before I decide...

but not to worry, I will figure it out. For the children I will do this..let me know if there is any other questionable material out there.



I have to say that this video should really be aimed at the over 18's as it is all about sex really.... the ladies do look hot and sexy and fit and stuff but its for adults!!

To perform like that on x-factor where the age groups are mainly like 10 upwards may not have been the best choice....

But hey, those women can come dance for me anytime



posted on Dec, 21 2010 @ 09:59 PM
link   
No need to worry about the little mishap with the quoting !

I guessed that your initial comments weren't aimed at me.



Originally posted by Honor93
-- wasteful redundancy
there are plenty of opt-out options already readily available, try using one. why do you see a need to micro-manage millions for the sake of a few rebels?


But why is the the ''opt-out'' option the norm, rather than ''opt-in'' ?

It's not about micro-managing millions, it's just about making the internet as reflective of real life laws and society as possible.


Originally posted by Honor93
-- in this, i'd imagine you are correct which takes us back to the 'list' of which the members have NO control. Forfeit liberty for safety, you deserve neither.


I don't mean to be rude, but this oft-quoted Benjamin Franklin comment is bollocks.

It constantly gets misused by people with agendas, while ignoring the fact that Franklin is ancient history, and who was someone who thought that it was acceptable to ''own'' another human being as property.

While I realise that this justified character assassination of Franklin amounts to an ad hominem attack, it is extremely relevant, considering his quote was hypocritically ignoring the ''liberty'' of the human beings that he so nauseatingly thought were acceptable to ''own''.



Originally posted by Honor93
- do tell, which of the times have i missed?
hahahahahaha, you went online in 99 ?? well, that speaks volumes.


You've missed the modern-day times where the internet is a huge, ubiquitous way of life. The naive, utopian ideals of the internet are long gone.

Why does going on line in 1999 ''speak volumes'' ?

If anything, I would say that that would put me in the middle bracket, and perfectly qualified to pass my comments on this issue.


Originally posted by Honor93
nice fantasy there but it will never happen ... enter Anon.


It will happen, and - thankfully - it already is.

Are you talking about the anon ? The spotty, delinquent teenagers, who have achieved, to this date, absolutely nothing of note on the internet ?

They will have to spend their idle time doing something a little more productive than what they are doing now: ie. attempting to boost their terribly low self-esteem by doing some ''hacking'' that most 10-year-olds with half a brain could do, or playing pathetically feeble fantasy ''role-playing games'' that gives them a few moments escapism from their inadequate, unfulfilled lives.


Originally posted by Honor93
YET, and just how long do you really think that will last?


I don't see anything to suggest that anybody will have to pay for this ''opt-in''.


Originally posted by Honor93
What you are missing, is once i or you or my neighbor "opts in", how do i or you or our kids manage Their exposure when in their presence? They are adults, they have access and they may be sitting next to you. what do you do?


This is a very good point that you raise, but I've been pointing out already in this thread.

Of course, you can't stop a young child from viewing a computer of someone who has ''opted-in''.

Hopefully, though, the ''opt-ins'' will be made to be legally responsible for their computers, so the onus will be on the owners to prevent somebody from accessing their pc, laptop or phone.


I find it hilarious that you are offering this ''how do i or you or our kids manage Their exposure when in their presence?'', while at the the same time ignoring the fact that one of the biggest arguments against this proposal on this thread is supposedly ''it's the parents job to make sure their children don't access anything inappropriate''.

In 2010, it's impossible for a parent to monitor their child's internet access, unlike 10-15 years ago, when this may have amounted to just watching the child's activities on the family pc.

This is what I mean by ''people need to move with the times''... It's not 1995 any more. The internet is a fundamental part of our lives in the foreseeable future, and the next generation will grow up with it as the norm.


The internet is not some excitable idealistic concept any more, it's real life. And the realities of real-life will permeate throughout the new way that it's evolved to be run.


Originally posted by Honor93
not sure about your surfing habits but i use a filter and have had no (that's -0-) porn links, flash sales or pitches unless i asked for it. sounds like you need to take control of YOUR access.
As someone who has many yrs experience, i am positive the internet is the least of the kiddies porn sources ... someone should do a real study before this baloney becomes effective.


I personally have no filtering on my web searches - not because I want to view pornographic material - but because I know that many non-pornographic images get filtered if you set a restriction, and because as a grown-man, I think that I can handle any image that is thrown at me upon any kind of search terms.

However, at my workplace, we have to have ''moderate filtering'' on our pcs, and I quite often see some NSFW material when I've typed in something completely innocuous !

''Strict filtering'' on google will not block out unsuitable images for children.

Just type in ''fotze'' or ''gnocca'' into google images on strict setting, and tell me that you'd be happy for some of the images that are displayed upon searching, to be viewed by young children.



Originally posted by Honor93
so, let me get this straight, you permit your minor children and guests to surf with YOUR parental settings, correct? well, surely you can see your problem, a blind person can. oh, and as for the 'hardcore' stuff, my first exposures to such was from an acquaintances' cell phone.


I don't have any children, nor do I let any guests ''surf'' on my computer.

I don't really see your point.

I can access the internet in a ridiculous amount of ways, far away from my computer.


Originally posted by Honor93
And, you can trust this, no child/teenager or young adult sees their mum or dad the same after their libido kicks into hyper-drive. Porn or no porn ... by then, the curiosity stage has already passed.


I'll have to take your word for that.



posted on Dec, 22 2010 @ 09:25 AM
link   
Well I know where not to go if I wanna watch some porn
jkjk but seriously I don't really think that banning people from watching porn will do anything. When you think about it when you watch porn and if you have no chances in getting a girlfriend you will become addicted to porn and with this new act, A LOT of people are just going to try and find some time of way to get past the censor which will cause more trouble and the cycle of stupidity will continue. I have had a friend lose himself to porn and he would do ANYTHING just to watch it...really sad story.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 07:25 PM
link   
Great idea. The only ones who will have a probelm are those that want porn for free. Much better idea to request it if you want it than allow anyone to access it as it can really get addictive and does not need to be freely available.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 08:59 PM
link   
This will never happen, much like the ID cards. The government are yet again wasting a fortune of our money on pursuing these stupid ideas.

For one the general population would never stand for any form of internet censorship (not jut that its porn, but on principal), this isn't China for f's sake.

But lets say they did put the idea through, it would be up to the ISPs to action these restrictions. What business is going to severely limit it's content and there fore loose a huge market share of it's customers, especially in such a competitive market as ISP's?

Take BT's (I think it was bt from memory anyway) recent actions. Large movie and musical legal firms insisted that BT turn over hundreds of thousands of users personal logs that they had traced as downloading and sharing copyrighted material. They then deleted all files and logs so that they couldn't hand anything over, and these companies are going to freely limit what people can look at? No chance.

It would be a complete waste of time, especially as there are so many fee VPN services out there it simply wouldn't work.

Once again the government are wasting time and money on more stupid ideas that you think they would have realised wouldn't work within about 5 minutes of the idea being suggested.



posted on Dec, 23 2010 @ 09:36 PM
link   

Originally posted by crezo
this isn't China for f's sake.


but that is the issue right there, for years the media fed us on how bad the Chinese were, the Chinese do this, they do that, censor the web bla bla

it's safe to say we all are sort of living in China now.

it's all being introduced to us westerners in baby spoons, and the people swallow it.
edit on 23/12/10 by AnotherYOU because: (no reason given)



posted on Dec, 24 2010 @ 04:54 AM
link   
Can't take it anymore.

THE INTERNET IS CENSORED IT'S BEEN CENSORED FOR AGES

Just because it's now going to effect you, you start whining, is sad.



posted on Dec, 29 2010 @ 11:42 AM
link   
And the mad house roller-coaster of Statism descends ever faster into inevitable totalitarian dictatorship. After all, won't somebody please think of the children?!!?! We have to let daddy government save ourselves from ourselves. We have to make sure our children's pure little fragile minds don't find out what sex looks like or they'll be scared and horribly messed up for life. *rolls eyes*



posted on Jan, 1 2011 @ 09:52 AM
link   

Originally posted by DimensionalDetective
My personal feeling is that this has VERY little to do with pornography, or 'protecting children' per se, and much more to do with Big brother finding another way to creep in and institute internet policing and control of ANY content.

Start with one subject that many will likely not oppose. Get full control of it. Then onto the next subject, on and on.

This is all about CONTROL.


I have to agree with DD on this, to protect the children - hearts and minds. Nobody would particularly argue with it, as in the use of the threat of "homegrown terror" that is also used to erode our rights.

At the end of the day, when I was 13-14, not many people had the net. I didn't and the school had only just had it installed. People used to bring in Porno Mags, Cards, the Daily Sport (a UK tabloid meets soft porn mag) or whatever. You would go round your mates house, where he would pull out a box of his dads old videos from the 80s. Teenagers are curious, this won't protect anyone at all and it is about control.

I don't want to watch porn on my computer, it's easy... you don't look for it. You don't need to have Cameron and his ilk snooping on it.

I don't think it's anything to do with the porn - it's about censorship and over time it will be like the MSM online - only government approved material, you start off with something morally justifiable like porn and it's just a few steps away to censoring more...



posted on Jan, 2 2011 @ 12:39 PM
link   
Impossible. The number of TGP porn sites or sites that link to third parties must be in the trillions. How do you block them? What would they do, block Playboy?

Remember our UK government answers to Murdoch, who runs a wee porn empire. Not going to happen. Besides kids are smart with computers and would bypass whatever lame 3rd party software the government would pour money into anyway.




top topics



 
34
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join