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

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

I can see the UK saying lots and doing little... having had to implement EU laws when they have been transposed into the UK laws, a simple 8 Page thingy turns into a 90 page monster that is impossible to implement and has more loop holes than a sieve *shakes head*

If I have learnt anything my Gov can only work in half arsed mode.

It actually would'nt surprise me if they implement it and some bug in the filter causes everyone to be bombarded with pornographic websites

reply to post by DreamerOracle


Why would you think it's a good idea to block porn though? Statistically there seems to be a correlation that where porn is widely available, sexual violence goes down.


How The Web Prevents Rape

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

This i think is a more powerful argument for keeping porn online than "oh some kids might see it". Might see it? When i was at school the kids were searching for it! Give a 14 year old boy an internet connection and some alone time, i promise he won't be looking at BBC news.

I've got mixed feelings about this one.

On the one hand it is patronising, on the other it will help protect kids from extreme porn exposure.

There is always the option to 'turn it on' (pun intended) and have access to the porn, so it's not a move to try and ban internet porn (which would be impossible and costly).

50/50.

reply to post by spikey


While we're at it lets ban bikinis in public because seeing that much exposed flesh is obviously bad for children, oh and violent games they have to go, oh and that rap music because it's so anti women and all materialistic, and there are some horror books that seem pretty graphic. While we're at it there are some rather unpleasant pieces of art in galleries. I want to know what these people think seeing porn will do to children, especially when you consider that 12 year olds are included in sex education classes in some areas.

Government censorship - Protecting you because you're an idiot and you can't look after your kids either.

Originally posted by XXXN3O

Originally posted by thoughtsfull
reply to post by DreamerOracle

 

I can see the UK saying lots and doing little... having had to implement EU laws when they have been transposed into the UK laws, a simple 8 Page thingy turns into a 90 page monster that is impossible to implement and has more loop holes than a sieve *shakes head*

If I have learnt anything my Gov can only work in half arsed mode.

It actually would'nt surprise me if they implement it and some bug in the filter causes everyone to be bombarded with pornographic websites

Or that people can only access the blacklisted websites..
I am sure of one thing, and that is they'll find a way of messing it up

I just did a really quick bit of googling and i found something interesting, for all of you who want to protect children it seems you should be advocating the availability of porn not looking to censor it.



Study: Making Pornography More Accessible May Curb Child Abuse




This idea of blocking it is a joke anyway, kids are more tech savvy than their parents, many kids already know about proxy servers because they use them to get around school filters. A quick web search will provide all the information you need, for anyone who is curious consider the great firewall of China. Here is an article giving simple instructions on how to get around it.

hackaday.com...

You can opt-in so I see no problem with it. It's the equivalent of me punching in a code to unblock channels on my digital cable. Am I censoring what my children watch on TV? Damn straight I am! I also filter their internet usage. They don't complain when they are greeted with a no-no message. In fact, my children thank me for taking the time to filter what they view online.

Unfortunately, many parents don't care enough to guard their children. If these parents feel viewing porn online is okay, then give the kids the opt-in information. It's not being banned outright. I don't see it as blatant censorship but a control mechanism for parents that do care...just like TV.

Originally posted by Cablespider
You can opt-in so I see no problem with it. It's the equivalent of me punching in a code to unblock channels on my digital cable. Am I censoring what my children watch on TV? Damn straight I am! I also filter their internet usage. They don't complain when they are greeted with a no-no message. In fact, my children thank me for taking the time to filter what they view online.

Unfortunately, many parents don't care enough to guard their children. If these parents feel viewing porn online is okay, then give the kids the opt-in information. It's not being banned outright.

Two things about this, opting in is something many people won't want to do, being on a list of people who opted in could be troublesome, for example if seeking political office. While porn use is very common it could still be used to damage an opponent. And what about people working with children or vulnerable people, will them being on the list affect their jobs in future? It's easy to say opting in is fine now but what if the law changes and employers are able to check the list for names? Some people are prudes remember.

And anyway it's a slippery slope, ban this and you can ban something else. Remember censorship starts with the edges and works it's way in to the mainstream.

reply to post by spikey


well ok, playing on your mixed feelings and the 'option' to turn it on (as you put it) ... since, the ISP connection we already pay for Includes access to such sites, why should anyone have to pay extra for what is currently free?

For any ISP to respond to such requests will consequently co$t the consumer in one form or another.

And what about those who have no children? Should they have to 'request' permission or pay extra to view what is openly and freely available to the world? If they succeed with any 'substance' (porn, racy, scantily clad, Xsports, conspiracy sites, even social sites), it opens the door for the next. Do not fall prey to the hype.

Do you really think that this proposal will in any way, halt or hinder the production of pedophilia porn (illegal stuff)? That answer alone should stand for the entire effort. It does NOTHING to protect the children any better than we do, today. The predators always find prey, it is their function in life.

reply to post by Honor93


Yeah thats the funny part to think this will move more pedophilia off the net is ridiculous. There was a good article written by a pedo, if you can find it, about the state of it all. and seeing as that was written a few years ago, now days it's going to be worse.


Answer this.

How will they stop people accessing the websites they decide to block? provide an example of somewhere these blocks are in place and can't be bypassed. Anyone who needs to get/wants to get around these talked about blocks will know how the rest of the masses wont give a crap.

The greatest gift of human life is the freedom to choose. This is always worth defending, this is always a noble cause and this is why this American says NO to censorship. Enjoy it in the UK, the pedophiles will be at your doors shortly ... no net access, flesh and blood does seem more appealing now doesn't it?

To me says that you think this will stop pedophilia online and push them all in to the real world. Just the normal hyper fear that you guys like to push.




This has nothing to do with pedophilia by the way, you just brought that up. Somehow blocking bangbus is going to have the effect of more pedophiles running around are you trying to say something about people in general?






Can't get much more mainstream than porn I'm afraid.

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


Thank you ... both of those were new info for me and i do appreciate both, thanx
2nd line

Originally posted by Rosha

Originally posted by David_Reale
Afte reading some of the replies, I'm going to have to comment beyond, "Don't take away my pr0n". This is after all one of the more retarded things I've ever heard of.

Great post !
Except this issue ISNT about CENSORING anything!

It is changing ***the means of access*** to that material....everything will still be there FREELY ACCESSABLE and UNCENSORED in all its gory glory for you to OPT IN and ENJOY at your leisure!


What is the problem with THAT?

How is THAT censorship?


You and your partner dont have sex in front of children do you? No? You close the door right?
Thats sensible and probably a good thing to do right?

Well THAT IS ALL this proposal is doing. Closing the door.

YOU can open the damn door anytime YOU want to! No one is stopping you!
But its YOU CHOOSING to do that..non one else need suffer or bear the consequence of YOUR freely made choice!

Where is the problem?

Honestly..I dont get it or see it.
If they were censoring porn or whatever Id be fighting back too...I just dont get it..they're not..they're just closing the door.



R

edit on 19-12-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)

edit on 19-12-2010 by Rosha because: (no reason given)

Thank you, and sorry for the late reply. Well, it's not that late, only that all it takes forATS members to wash away your post with another two pages, is a workday.

What you need to realize, though, dude, is this. Sure, this isn't complete censorship, but it IS censorship - aimed at children, in this case. So the system they're going to implement, is one of censorship. And we don't want that kind of system in place in our countries, because once it's in place, it can be used to censor other things as well, and be aimed at other "audiences". "Since we have the tech, guys, why don't we start censoring nazi pages from being accessed here in the UK, too?" And, then it'll go downhill from there on. Don't you think it's much safer for the rule of law, to just let those lazy puritan parents get off their asses, and install NetNanny?

There's another aspect of it, too. That's one that ticks me off even more, if you can believe that. Taking into account that the parents are too damn lazy to install NetNanny, and instead want the government to censor the Internet for them, they still expect the rest of us to have to go through the trouble of unlocking porn for our internet - Just because they're too lazy to install a friggin' filter program!

Let me, therefor, repeat it; They have absolutely NO RIGHT to inconvenience everyone else with their puritan overprotective nanny state mindset, simply because they're too lazy to install NetNanny or similar programs. And, of course, it's much easier to just let them "lock" their Internet from accessing porn when they buy it, than everyone else having to "unlock" porn for their internet. But these people and/or parents seem to want the world to bend backwards to protect the sanctity of their children, when they can't do it themselves.

And of course, the politicians are only too happy to oblige them. I wonder why...

reply to post by loner007


Free? You honestly believe that they'll allow you access to this stuff for free? I'll wager that it'll cost you a pretty decent monthly fee to prove that you want to view such content. I also imagine that the "Opt in" will be in big bold letters on your monthly bill to ensure that anyone who picks it up will know what you've been up to. I say we let the parents actually parent, I know that's kind of an outdated concept and that we need the government and major companies to do it for us.

reply to post by aivlas

sorry to have misled with that statement ... in the previous discussion, more clarification wasn't necessary. Thanks for your input and i agree that this will do nothing to improve an already horrible situation.

I don't agree that the masses won't care cause as a prev poster stated ... until their listing is used against them. Whether it be for a job, a political position, an education, a mortgage or for whatever purpose that it could be used or sold. Not my idea of freedom ... not at all.

geez, in the US, i can find almost anyone's very personal medical info tossed alongside a dumpster or a ditch somewhere. almost as easily as my 5yr old grand can find porn, if she wants to. Heck, when i get stumped, i ask her for guidance (shamed to admit it but ... what can i say, i'm 'old' )

reply to post by Honor93


Maybe but I don't think it will happen due to the fact they will need to block every single p2p program/file hosting and torrent site. Which is more about piracy, now this could be a step towards that but then why not just do that instead of messing around with this.

Originally posted by loner007
why is everyone going on about this being a bad thing? The story clearly states that anyone who wishes to vew porn can so by opting in to have those sites unblocked. I dont have a problem with this. I like to watch porn and I can view pretty much anything that porn has to offer for free.
*snip*
Another thing how is this any different than a cable company blocking tv porn channels unless you pay for them? Isps will only be dooing the same type of thing only instead pf paying to view the porn you just ask the isp to unblock your computer.

Agreed, it isn't that big of a deal because it is an option. But would it not make more sense to opt out of viewing porn? I'd imagine the majority of people would choose to have their computer unblocked if they are aware of the option, either because they look at it or don't care because they aren't looking for it.. Contacting the ISP to have this sorted out brings up another thing, what if you have multiple computers and you want the ability to look at porn while keeping your kids off it? Does the filter then discriminate based on local IP? What about dynamic IPs? Why is there not already optional blocking software that comes bundled with your computer's operating system? To me, it would be perfectly reasonable to have a pre-installed variation of Peerblock (as an example) that you as a responsible parent can configure to block basically whatever you deem inappropriate for your children in the form of categorized updatable HTTP block lists. Hell, even throw in a profanity filter for good measure. That way, the government doesn't have to get involved and the kiddies are still safe. All it takes is a minimal effort from parents who give a crap. The whole "non-tech savvy" parent excuse stopped being relevant 10 years ago. If you can't click a few buttons and make a decision based on what you see on screen, how do you plan to cast your vote in the next election, and furthermore why do you have a computer? The action here doesn't fit the need.

I question just about anything that can be questioned, I hate to cry conspiracy almost as much as I hate to cry "the authorities are correct," but I really don't see the point in going the extra step of government interference except as a means to help usher a massive blacklist project in under everyone's noses. We all know several other countries do this, why does everyone remain silent when the "free" countries are following the Fascist playbook to the letter?

You mean no more Marmite covered Swedish midgets getting rodgered over 1000 rpm Hotpoint washing machines by a big black German shepherd to the Benny hill soundtrack?? Weren't parental controls invented for these things?

reply to post by woogleuk


Yes the amount of money needed to filter everything would be quite a lot, instead the government could simply spend far less by educating parents about how to buy and use software designed to keep their children from viewing things they would rather they didn't. Of course when the kids get old enough and want to view the blocked stuff they will find a way around it so everyone wins.

Said it before, and I'll say it again, just as a parent has a right and responsibility to know who their child is hanging around with, they also have the same right and responsibility to find out who they are chatting with online.

That means, filtering programs on their computer, the computer accessed in a fairly visible location (up to a certain age)...and knowing their passwords to accounts like Facebook, etc. I'm not saying to read each post, but the fact that you CAN read it should be enough to give the kids pause.

Being tech-unsaavy is no excuse. Parents need to either get saavy, or deny their children the access if they want them to be safe.

This part of the article was troubling also...

Internet activists point out that these block lists have already been abused in some countries. In Australia, for instance, a government block list -- which officials said would be used only to block illegal content -- was found to have targeted religious and political websites. The list was even used to block parts of WikiLeaks.

Bottom line though, this is the PARENTS' responsibility....not the GOVERNMENT'S.....

reply to post by ImaginaryReality1984


p2p (kazza, limewire etc), torrents, file hosting sites (Rapidshare, hotfile etc), FTPs, IRC, Social networking sites (ty post above)

The more I think about it the more stupid the idea becomes.