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.

 

Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

page: 15
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swizzy

If it's so easy and unproblematic why not have it default off and if you want the filter you can install one yourself? Also [color=gold] most ISPs already probide filters but I bet you didn't know that.


The operative word being most,
not all.

Cameron is being castigated for suggesting it be all, not most.

Admit it.
The average Brit could give two cares about virginity,
but criticizing the Prime Minister is considered a public duty.


Mike




posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:12 PM
link   
I don't think Cameron knows much about computers and the internet does he? This will be as successful as the music industry trying to stop music piracy online.

I wonder if he thinks all TV news bulletins showing guns being fired, maimed civilians and mutilated corpses should be taken off air as well?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:13 PM
link   
reply to post by Swizzy
 


Just ignore him, he speaks like he is a good person but will try and wind up a mentally ill person without remorse thus hindering their recovery.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
Mike Groucho

I just Google 'pornography' and the first three hits are David Cameron

Try it ! Or you scared ?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:14 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


This has nothing to do virginity....take your nonsense elsewhere, this is about freedom.
EDIT: I just ignored my own advice

Ignore mode on.

edit on 22-7-2013 by boymonkey74 because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:16 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
Another thing you can bet that the ISP's will charge us all to turn it on


OMG, charge you!
Charge you!?

What about giving the double flames for something worthy
like a space program.

Here ... read this classic from earlier days on the internet.


Mike




In 1961, when # wasn't invented yet and people fought bears for vital food, President Kennedy had the balls to give NASA less than nine years to get to the moon.
In this day and age, when there's metric #loads of technology all over the place and the internet makes [color=gold] valuable porn as free as air, President Bush gives it twelve years. What a tool.

Now I am reading more, and the deadline is actually 2020. That's seventeen years.

See, Kennedy had the balls to lay a firm deadline down. "You bitches will put a man on the moon before January 1, 1970 or I will come back from the grave and kick your ass," he said. He knew he was going to get shot. That's how hardcore he was. He also got crazy laid by Marilyn Monroe.

President Bush says, "You ought to think about just possibly putting a man on the moon sometime during this five year period."

President Kennedy showed us that you have to slap NASA around a little bit to get them to do anything worthwhile with manned space exploration. You can't be all lovey-dovey and set long gradual timetables.

And Bush mentions "the goal of living and working there for increasingly extended periods." So we'll have another Skylab ISS, but on the moon. The only differences will be that it won't crash into Australia like Skylab (it will crash into the Moon instead - that might sound hard to acheive since it would already be on the surface of the moon, but they will find a way to do that), it will leak more than ISS, and since it won't even be international we won't be able to bum rides from the Russians.

If Kennedy was alive in this day and age he would have said, "#ing NASA, I am still alive in this day and age so you assholes better have a self-sufficient Mars base by the year 2013. Also make me a space elevator. And resurrect Marilyn Monroe." Then NASA would complain that it is not their job to resurrect people and Kennedy would punch NASA in the eye.

I bet the "Crew Exploration Vehicle" is going to blow the # up about twenty times too. You can probably trace the suckiness of manned space exploration to the decision to switch from cool names like "Mercury" and "Apollo" to crappy names like "Skylab" and "STS." When the Apollo blew up they #ing fixed it and came home, but when the Space Shuttle gets #ed up they make Powerpoints about it and ignore the problem.

- Tim

slashdot.com / 2004

edit on 22-7-2013 by mikegrouchy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:18 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


The ISPs have no obligation to provide filters. There are HUNDREDS of filters available as software for you or anyone to download/purchase.

I remember having them in the school libraries well over 10 years ago.

The only people advocating for this filter are totally ignorant as to how technologically difficult it is to implement such a filter and are unaware that filters have been available for decades.

www.bbc.co.uk...



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


They tried to implement something similar and that failed for the same reasons.

But I'm sure you've researched the topic extensively since you seem to show such deep knowledge on the subject.

May I call YOU a wanker now in return?

edit on 22-7-2013 by Swizzy because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
Simple. Use a proxy.

Next. --->



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:21 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Wow what the F*** has that got to do with the topic at hand really?
Go and have a nap and come back when you start talking sense.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Swizzy

May I call YOU a wanker now in return?


/salute
Reporting for duty.

So if the PM doesn't know,
then tell him "default safe search"
because, as little as I know, I bet he is willing
to represent someone in this bru-ha-ha, if they would just speak up.


Mike



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by boymonkey74
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


Wow what the F*** has that got to do with the topic at hand really?
Go and have a nap and come back when you start talking sense.


Ok,

If a larger perspective
on the metric #tons of free pr0n doesn't help,
I'll go have that nap then. Maybe after a nice walk.
It did just rain an hour ago.

/laters
Mike



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:25 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 


I'm not really sure what you were getting at....?


But, highly religious people for years have been homeschooling or sending their children to private schools. Children aren't forced to be exposed to anything that their parents don't allow them to be.

"Safe world for wankers"... I understand that contention, however I happen to see it a little differently.

In societies and religions where sexuality is repressed or made "taboo" (even outright blasphemous) -- we tend to see more violent sex crimes and more extreme pornography. Take Japan and Germany for example. *shudders* They have some of their most extreme stuff available.

The sex trade flourishes in countries with extreme laws against anything remotely sexual. It's a very secretive, dark, violent, deplorable world.

Look at the clergy. Can't be a "wanker"? Oh well, an alter boy will do nicely.

The more you shove something behind a curtain, the more people will want to see it. The harder it it is to get, will just lead people to easier targets (ie; children?). So you see, this would actually be *more* detrimental to the safety of our children.

So lets look at our options:

1. Take responsibility for raising and teaching your child why pornography is morally reprehensible, monitor their activities and maybe even put them in a private school. Home school is pretty cheap. If you can't afford to stay home or put them in private school, don't breed. The tools for the prudish are aplenty from years of world-wide religious oppression.

2. Have the government implement a block on "whatever THEY deem inappropriate" -- thus leading to more underground, more hardcore sexual activities. Sex slave trading and violent sex crimes rise, but at least no one has to really see it.

I'll take option #1.
edit on 22-7-2013 by MystikMushroom because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:27 PM
link   
reply to post by mikegrouchy
 



Originally posted by mikegrouchy
I just think
all you wankers
have forgotten what
it is like to be a virgin.

And just like loosing virginity,
the PM's plan, is a question of implementation.


Mike



So you get to call other people wanker and you think you can get away with it? Just shows your childishness.




So if the PM doesn't know, then tell him "default safe search" because, as little as I know, I bet he is willing to represent someone in this bru-ha-ha, if they would just speak up.


Can you form a coherent sentence next time please? I don't even know what to make of what you're saying anymore.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:28 PM
link   
reply to post by alysha.angel
 


Are you kidding me? You are allowing your common sense part of your brain to be over ridden. It makes good sense to help censor out porn for your children right? Of course it does. So why don't you buy a filter to do this?

Based on your experience with government so far:

A) THIS WILL NEVER BE MISUSED and it will ONLY SAVE my children from the horrors of naked people

B) It will be misused and eventually forced onto us and used to filter sites that provide free speech.

NEVER NO MATTER how good of an idea it seems agree to give UP YOUR CONTROL to the government. YOU WILL ALWAYS 100% of the time regret it.

PLEASE don't promote the government CENSORSHIP NO MATTER YOUR BELIEFS



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by mikegrouchy


As long as the "default safe mode"
can be turned off with a single click,
I don't see the problem.


But there is no single click. Calling your ISP and requesting access is not a single click to turn it back on and opens the door to even more questions.

Can your ISP deny that request and if so, on what basis?

Who decides the criteria?

What happens to those records of those who ask to have it turned back on?

Who has access to those records?

This move is not just about porn. It's about a free internet. It's about what the Government can restrict or hide from you for the sake of your safety. And again, if they can do it with porn what will be next?



And this approach goes a long way to preventing
the introduction of more draconian laws.
We won't need or want a prohibition if it's default safe.


How does this approach go to preventing an introduction of more draconian laws? I don't understand that because in my view, this is a draconian law.

Fact is, history has shown us that prohibition does not work anyway. Anyone who wants or feels a need for such prohibition is sadly misinformed.

I also have to ask, what is default safe? What is it about porn that I must be kept safe from exactly?

I would suggest that just like any other form of prohibition, this will simply open a door and create a need for an underground action that will eventually lead to some other party filling the void. Al Capone filled that void during alcohol prohibition. Drug Cartels fill that void with our drug prohibition. Eventually, someone will fill the void to allow unrestricted access to the internet.


edit on 22-7-2013 by MrWendal because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:30 PM
link   

Originally posted by beezzer
Shouldn't this be a decision best made in the home instead of a de facto decision made by government?


Unfortunately, smart-phones and mobile phones have the same web surfing capabilities as a regular home PC.
Web filters can be installed on both, but the first thing that teenagers learn to do is how to use proxy web-servers to bypass the local filters. Users can also transfer files directly from one phone to another.

There's two ways of filtering web traffic - a blacklist, where you block websites you don't trust, and a whitelist where you only allow websites you do trust. A whitelist would be the best option, but it would block all the third-party websites that provide adverts (look up the history of Phorm). It also needs a list of permitted sites to be maintained. Practically impossible to maintain worldwide. Blacklists also need to be constantly updated with the name of the website to block. In many cases, a single website name has multiple IP addresses that can be in the range of up to 65536 different possible numbers if not more. So it's really only the well-known sites that can be blocked.

They did try context sensitive porn filters - block sites based on keywords and pictures; but they ended up blocking bird-watching sites, basketball and other sports. That's the main problem. It's easy to define the extreme stuff, but then things like department store catalogs can get included as well.


JAK

posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   

edit on 23/7/13 by JAK because: (no reason given)



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:32 PM
link   
reply to post by stormcell
 


Simple. Children do not need smartphones. Have fun watching porn on a Nokia 3310.



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:39 PM
link   

Originally posted by stormcell

Originally posted by beezzer
Shouldn't this be a decision best made in the home instead of a de facto decision made by government?


Unfortunately, smart-phones and mobile phones have the same web surfing capabilities as a regular home PC.
Web filters can be installed on both, but the first thing that teenagers learn to do is how to use proxy web-servers to bypass the local filters. Users can also transfer files directly from one phone to another.

There's two ways of filtering web traffic - a blacklist, where you block websites you don't trust, and a whitelist where you only allow websites you do trust. A whitelist would be the best option, but it would block all the third-party websites that provide adverts (look up the history of Phorm). It also needs a list of permitted sites to be maintained. Practically impossible to maintain worldwide. Blacklists also need to be constantly updated with the name of the website to block. In many cases, a single website name has multiple IP addresses that can be in the range of up to 65536 different possible numbers if not more. So it's really only the well-known sites that can be blocked.

They did try context sensitive porn filters - block sites based on keywords and pictures; but they ended up blocking bird-watching sites, basketball and other sports. That's the main problem. It's easy to define the extreme stuff, but then things like department store catalogs can get included as well.



If you can not trust your child with a smart phone, then don't allow your child to have a smart phone.

It really is that simple. It is called being responsible for your children.

The whole idea that children will not find a way to access porn is silly to begin with. I am 40 years old. I saw porn when I was 10. Back then, there was no smart phones. There was no internet. I could not go into a store and buy a nudie magazine..... yet I still got my hands on one.

The idea that anyone, including Government, can restrict access to anything is flawed and absurd. History has shown us that. We can not stop drugs from going into prisons, but you really think we can successfully stop people from viewing pornography if they seek it out?



posted on Jul, 22 2013 @ 02:41 PM
link   
Yet more proof Britain is a nanny state, where the `right` to see what you want is taken away. Obviously the government views the `public` as uncontrollable perverts and uncaring parents who dont give a damn what our kids watch on the net. YES there are people who fall into these categories but they are a minority. Its the same old problem, `the minority cant be controlled, so everyone suffers` Im not saying pornography is `right ` or `wrong` - its how its dealt with by the powers be. Why not have pornographic content available on the net after midnight or even later, like the satellite and cable networks? Lets be reasonable kids are great hackers and theyre gonna see it no matter what!



new topics

top topics



 
39
<< 12  13  14    16  17  18 >>

log in

join