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.

 

Pornography online: David Cameron to consider 'opt in' plan

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:34 AM
link   

The government is to consider introducing new filters for online pornography, in a move likely to be fiercely resisted by internet service providers.

Prime minister David Cameron is expected to consult in the next few weeks on whether ISPs, such as BT and Virgin media, should block adult material as a default for customers.


I thought Cameron was against the Nanny State. But now it seems we have to tell Nanny that we would like to opt in to the porn option with our ISP's.

I'm not saying kids should be not be protected from adult material, but surely thats the parents responsibility. I don't like the way the government feels it can tinker so much with the internet.

www.guardian.co.uk...
edit on 5-5-2012 by woodwardjnr because: (no reason given)




posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:37 AM
link   
reply to post by woodwardjnr
 


Agree, it is an infringement on freedom of speech.

We recently had a big story here in SA, about a porn channel on tv that wanted to open. There was fierce opposition from goverment, and eventually it was not allowed to operate.

Soon the goverment will control all we hear and see, the horizontal and the vertical. To control us, from the deepest inner mind, to the outer limits.

vvv



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:38 AM
link   
Nooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo!


Indeed it's the parent's responsibility to add their own locks on websites etc. But the Government just does this kinda crap to show who's boss! Instead of sorting out proper things, they keep attacking the internet! Weirdos!



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:43 AM
link   
A similar option was proposed in Australia (and still seems to be the desired outcome if they could get away with it) and the dangers of such a move appear to be that once the filtering technology is installed, fully operational 100 percent and working properly, it merely requires
ONE
small change of legislation to remove the "opt in" option.


Now of course there are people who say "well thats no problem, I wouldnt want anyone to look at porn on the internet". But of course the same thing would be said about child porn, and thats why such a filter will of course be set up such that child porn will be filtered out as a matter of course for everyone.
And once the filtering technology is installed, fully operational 100 percent and working properly, it merely requires
ONE
small change of legislation to widen it to something more.


The only hope for a free internet is to stop the technology being installed *at all*, because once it's in and running, the slippery slope is wide open for any government in the future to just screw it down tighter and tighter.


edit on 5-5-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:45 AM
link   
The question here is, if a lot of the MPs etc. oppose it ... Does it mean they are dirty little freaks?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 05:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by faryjay
The question here is, if a lot of the MPs etc. oppose it ... Does it mean they are dirty little freaks?


I'm sure the Daily Mail can make it look that way



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:10 AM
link   

Originally posted by alfa1

The only hope for a free internet is to stop the technology being installed *at all*, because once it's in and running, the slippery slope is wide open for any government in the future to just screw it down tighter and tighter.


edit on 5-5-2012 by alfa1 because: (no reason given)


Indeed it is a very slippery slope. This is what I can see happening:

1: The ISP's implement one or even all of the blocking techniques (PDF explaining techniques linked below).

2: For the vast majority of users that will be the end of it, there is a block and being good little lambs they won't have the will to go against what the government says is good for them.

3: However, for a minority (yet still significant number of individuals) you may as well be waving a red rag at a bull. They will hit Google and within minutes in most cases, find easy to implement methods circumventing the block.

4: The news of the circumvents will spread like wildfire via social networking, texting etc. Now that majority I mentioned earlier, they start jumping on the bandwagon as well and the government now finds itself in a position where the block is completely ineffective. THIS point is where the slippery slope gets very steep.

5: Government wanting to protect its idiotic populace who obviously don't know what's good for them orders blocks on social networking, delays on text messages, blocks to search terms, blanket monitoring of ALL traffic.

Welcome to China 2.0 but remember people, "It's for the kids" so don't you dare question it!

Ofcom PDF on site blocking.
edit on 5-5-2012 by PW229 because: Forgot to add link



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:12 AM
link   

Originally posted by faryjay
The question here is, if a lot of the MPs etc. oppose it ... Does it mean they are dirty little freaks?



Its the way it goes here in Australia.
Anyone who opposed any internet censorship is basically called a paedophile by the telecommunications minister.

Citizen: I dont approve of the government censoring the internet.
Conroy: You ought to be ashamed of yourself for allowing child porn.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 06:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by PW229
They will hit Google and within minutes in most cases, find easy to implement methods circumventing the block.



Agreed.
Anyone who really wants to get around these blocking technologies (ie: hypothetical child porn types) will find multiple ways, as they do now in China. It will really only stop the "average citizen" from enjoying an unfiltered net.
So it wont even accomplish the goal it is supposed to do anyway.

See the recent blocking of the Pirate Bay as an example. The day after it was "blocked", was its busiest day ever, as everyone visited using proxy sites.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 07:25 AM
link   
I'm pretty sure that ECJ (European Court of Justice) already ruled that such a block would be illegal.

The Belgian SABM case in 2011 said that requiring ISPs to implement a content filter was
a) an unfair expense on ISP's and
b) a breach of our fundamental human rights as european citizens.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:36 AM
link   
NOOOOooooooooo....not my pr0n


but given it'll take about 30 seconds to bypass the filter and probably it'll be bypassed by most families as sites containing a picture of some rude bits as part of a site for gcse biology will fall foul of the censor



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:54 AM
link   
Well, a few years ago I would have thought that this was not appropriate. Now I have kids I think that it is a very good idea.

The sexualisation of children is a serious issue and should be a concern of anyone who values the innocence and fragility of childhood.

I would welcome such a move.

If you want porno, then that's your choice and "opt in". Good for you.

Regards



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:55 AM
link   
Prime Minister Cameron did not propose banning pornography over the internet. Anyone who has internet access can still view their “entertainment” if they so desire. The only difference is that you must contact your internet provider and request the block be lifted. No fees, charges, or any obstructions. Are you really so interested in complaining as to protest this? What better way to prevent children from viewing the smut online and keep it so adults do not have their “freedom of speech” infringed upon.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 08:57 AM
link   
the mafia makes too much money on this, forget the ISP's

it would be nice tho, I would gladly see it go



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:39 AM
link   

Originally posted by Misoir
Prime Minister Cameron did not propose banning pornography over the internet. Anyone who has internet access can still view their “entertainment” if they so desire.


That's not the problem. The problem is that the government is blocking information and in order to block information they need some sort of system implemented to do this. The very same system "protecting" you from porno's can be used to "protect" you against ideas that threaten the government's power or "protect" you from ideas explaining the fraud of our central banks, and "protect" you from anything the government deems "bad." You really want the government to have that power? Once they get it, the people never get it back and they will always keep slowly gaining more power and more power until the internet is completely censored and you see what the government wants you to see. Porn never killed a soul, nor did it ruin someone's life, especially kids. If you can't handle images and videos of sex, then don't walk out your front door. Who gave you or the government the right to say what other people can or cannot be exposed to.



The only difference is that you must contact your internet provider and request the block be lifted. No fees, charges, or any obstructions. Are you really so interested in complaining as to protest this? What better way to prevent children from viewing the smut online and keep it so adults do not have their “freedom of speech” infringed upon.


From now on, whenever someone uses, "It's for the children!!!!," their argument should be ignored. It is too divisive and creates a situation where people are considered either in favor of protecting children or in favor of killing children. It's a very poor argument tactic even though it often works so well. Ok not really and that is a bit hyperbolic, but it does turn the argument into a for or against and throws logic and rationality out the window. Seriously though, do you think kids are more important than an adult's rights to not be censored and more importantly their privacy? I believe they should be equal. There are great reasons to protest this even if you are ignorant to them since you have to extrapolate this article into the real-world.

I think one thing you might be missing is the fact that now anyone who wants to look at porn will have to go through a special procedure. What does that mean? It means there is now a LIST of everyone in Britain who is a sexual deviant, a pervert. Would you want your name on a list like that? Think about the phone hacking scandal. Now, The Sun can get this information from the police and perform character assassination. You may say that normal people are on the list, but remember that in public most people don't want to admit they watch porn. That allows people to become self-righteous when presented with an article performing character assassination through disclosing the person, who's the focus of the article, is on the porn watchers list. They will say, "Oh god, can you believe that creep. I'm not on the list because I'm not like that pervert!" So, I firmly believe the list will be detrimental to people's lives. Think about an employer. What if they want to see the list? They go on Facebook and use that against people, so what would stop them from finding out you are on the list? If you think the British government will keep the list private, I got a bridge to sell you in San Francisco.

There is much more to this than just "protecting the children." The government would have a list of "sexual deviants" and would be able to use such sensitive information in character assassination and discrimination in social life and by employers. The government would now easily be able to expand such power to completely censor a type of content. They WILL eventually start blocking other types of content and ideas. You might not even hear about it, so you won't miss it and protest. Think about the adults and not just children. They both have rights and one group is not above another no matter how cute they are. There are serious ramifications if this is allowed through and I suggest you try to understand my point of view. I know what you are saying, but this is too serious a power to let government get away with. Don't be fooled by the hysterical, "It's for the children!"



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:43 AM
link   
reply to post by KillThePoor
 


You are missing the point. This is not about the government blocking websites, it is about ISPs being asked to block porn content. The government won't "have a list of sexual devients", that's just a bit alarmist. It is not the government, it is the ISPs.

Regards



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:51 AM
link   
If parents want filters, they can download and install them. It isn't that hard. Adults don't need filters. However the government may want to install filter technology to view, monitor and block anything they want to. Freedom of speech or communication among adults the government may wish to block. There is a reason Freedom of Speech was put into the constitution. There are large powerful groups that like to seize control and stay in power and it's easier to do that without the people being aware of what is going on.



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 11:53 AM
link   

Originally posted by syrinx high priest
the mafia makes too much money on this, forget the ISP's

it would be nice tho, I would gladly see it go


The mafia? You mean porn companies? Maybe it is different in the UK, but in America I have never heard of the mafia being involved in porn. I could be wrong, but I really don't see why a legal enterprise would breed organized crime. Also, porn never killed anybody unlike warfare which is so often glorified in literally thousands of first person shooter games like Call of Duty and the Battlefield series, which I love, and would you want to censor that as well? Do games like that cause kids to go to war? Where exactly do you draw the line between acceptable content and harmful content? Applying your logic, all first person shooters should be removed from the market because it is damaging to children and causes them to be violent and grow up into criminals and murders. Who gave you the power in the first place? (Well, going to war is glorified in the West so bad example but you get my point, I think.)

I wouldn't allow the government to just block the majority of the internet so willy-nilly. There are serious complications if this goes into effect, as I wrote in my previous post. I don't understand how you are seeing so much porn that it bothers you so bad. What websites are you going to? How exactly are you so exposed to porn that it bothers you that bad? If you go to questionable websites, you can get adblock for Firefox, along with NoScript and DoNotTrack Plus, and you will never ever see a porn advertisement again and if you visit porn sites the video won't load. lol I know it may be hard to control yourself, but with those programs installed even if you go to a sexually explicit website the videos and ads won't show up! lol jk man

You really have to think ahead though and extrapolate the power of this bill from the past and even recent history to fully understand the ramifications of the bill. I hope you understand my point of view now.
edit on 5-5-2012 by KillThePoor because: (no reason given)



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:01 PM
link   
reply to post by paraphi
 


And the government ultimately controls what the ISP's can and cannot do. The government is obviously controlling them through regulations, so why wouldn't the government be able to control them and force them to censor porn and any other content they want? There will obviously be a list of names at each ISP of the ones who want porn to show up. The government could easily obtain this information just like they obtain information from ISP's for suspects ALL THE TIME. So, I would say it isn't alarmist since the government already obtains information about people from ISP's on a regular basis and the government already controls the British ISP's through laws. It doesn't matter if the ISP has a list or the government or both; The problem is that a list exists with people's names on it who want to receive porn. Also, the government has shown time and time again that when you give them a little power through time they move the line further and further away until they have total control. The incrementalization of expanding power is how the government would eventually have the power to censor whatever they want. I know Britain is the Police State of Earth and because of that it's citizens should be used to having no privacy and allowing the government complete control, but I feel this is a very, very bad idea with serious consequences that may not be immediate but give the seed of censorship time to grow. Our rights and our privacy have been surrendered, "for the children." Those kids are safe these days right?



posted on May, 5 2012 @ 12:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by paraphi
Well, a few years ago I would have thought that this was not appropriate. Now I have kids I think that it is a very good idea.

The sexualisation of children is a serious issue and should be a concern of anyone who values the innocence and fragility of childhood.

I would welcome such a move.

If you want porno, then that's your choice and "opt in". Good for you.

Regards



First I will state categorically that I respect your point of view. I myself have children and frankly I don't want them watching pornography, in any form. However there are two important points to make here. One, our kids will grow up. Do we want them growing up in a world where ideas and opinions can be expressed freely and openly or do we want them growing up in the world Cameron and his cronies find appropriate? Where ideas and opinions passed by government censors are the only ones allowed, the rest are "censored," you know, to protect the kids! Second, every computer that my children can use is in full view of us parents (the ones who should be doing the job of censor, not the damned government) and they are well aware they are being watched, not like hawks, I encourage my children to push the boundaries, it's what will make them good adults. But the job, the hard work? That is the parent's job, not the government's.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join