ConDem's plan to block all Internet pornography

"The British government plans to meet with Internet service providers in the country next month to discuss the idea of censoring all Internet connections and requiring users to specifically request access to pornographic materials from their ISPs".

Is this a good idea or too much 'nanny state' mind control ?

Is it the responsibility of parents to put the controls in place on their PCs, or does the state have to intervene ?

Is it possible for any state to control the Internet in this way, without being seen as authoritarian ?

Is this an attack on free speech and freedom of expression ?

Discuss !!!

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mashable/20101219/tc_mashable/uk_conservatives_want_to_block_all_internet_porn

And one for Dune http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1339926/Internet-pornography-Parents-allowed-block-sexual-imagery.html

This would ruin my life

Finally, I can get some work done.

Will never ever happen. If you want to stop kids etc accessing this type of meterial there is software to do it. Really makes you wonder what has happened to the liberal principles of the lib dems.

Agreed, Nick Clegg was all about the porn before the election. What happened to all that talk of "addressing the porn gap for the poor" and "the digital imperative to bring faster porn speeds to those suffering porn poverty"? That's why I voted for him.

*downloads 50TB's of porn*

£5 a film people. PM me.

Finally, I can get some work done.

Porn salesman?

There was a very sensible article in the Sunday Times yesterday about the impact of porn on teenagers

Gives them unrealistic expectations as to what love and sex are supposed to be like

There was a very sensible article in the Sunday Times yesterday about the impact of porn on teenagers

 

Gives them unrealistic expectations as to what love and sex are supposed to be like

Yeah cos thats the effect those magazines had on me in my teens wasnt it....

Most of us were'nt naive enough to think that we would end up with someone as hot as the chicks in those things...

There certainly needs to be more control on the internet - illegal music/film downloading, dodgy counterfeit goods on sale, security of banking details etc. It's basically like the wild west.

Porn drives technology. Porn drives life. Doesn't make it right, but there's an enormous amount of people out there who want to pay to watch things being put in other people. Consider a greek urn (What's a greek urn? Dunno, not much) All that priapia! The male historiacracy want the future to know their knobs were big!

My big worry is that it's the thin end of the wedge. No one can argue that parents should have the ability to monitor what their children view, but to allow the government the power to block content from the web is a very, very dangerous game.

As much as there are things that i don't approve of out there, websites like stormfront; redwatch etc. it is not the duty of the government to block those and then have us opt in to what we want to see.

As far as i'm concerned the internet is one of the last few bastions of freedom in many ways and to take this route is a step closer to the route of China, Iran or North Korea, and i'm sure non of us here want to be behind the great firewall.

The conspiracy theorists out there i'm sure are questioning the timing of this too. Wikileaks hits international news and soon after a bill is proposed that allows for control of content online.

Now i know it's a leap to say that the intention is to block "unhelpful" websites, but surely it doesn't take a genius to see how attractive it would be for a government to do that, even if it was just "by mistake" until the pr machine was in full swing.

There certainly needs to be more control on the internet - illegal music/film downloading, dodgy counterfeit goods on sale, security of banking details etc. It's basically like the wild west.

That's a totally separate issue for me, one which i think can be quite easily solved (and it is truly in need of solving in terms of IP and Copyright since many people are ripped off as a result) with a central server where users are charged a flat monthly rate to download what they want.

These downloads are then monitored and the value is spread across the content owners in much the same was as PRS is.

As for dodgy counterfeit goods and phising scams, something like this is unlikely to ever touch that. Most scams are run through email or ebay, both of which would be far outside the remit of this proposed plan.

I'm also confused how a die hard thatcherite can oppose an organism [the internet] that is by it's very nature the epitome of free markets and Freidmanite economics. Surely state control of it is an absolute anathema to your beliefs?

I'm also confused how a die hard thatcherite can oppose an organism [the internet] that is by it's very nature the epitome of free markets and Freidmanite economics. Surely state control of it is an absolute anathema to your beliefs?

How is wanting to see dangerous electrical items no longer sold, and banking details no longer stolen, anti Capitalist?

How is wanting to see dangerous electrical items no longer sold, and banking details no longer stolen, anti Capitalist?

Because if you believed fully in the markets then the poor quality and dangerous products would be weeded out in the market place since consumers would no longer want them. Whereas your argument - if i'm not misunderstood - is that you want protective government legislation (and in the quoted case it's sounds like health and safety legislation at that).

Of course i may well have just misread your desires and supports for this, and you may have very good reason for questioning you own philosophical belief in the markets power to decide what has value - and by reaction what remains available for purchase.

How is wanting to see dangerous electrical items no longer sold, and banking details no longer stolen, anti Capitalist?

There is a difference between consumer protection and Big Brother thought control. What you want is the former, what this proposal suggests is the latter. The problem with trying to legislate against or take control of the Internet is that it is an amorphous agglomeration of computer systems; if you purchase something from a website without exercising due care you will have no guarantee of where the site is hosted, no guarantee as to where the goods are produced or shipped from, and no guarantee as to where the payment is processed. That is unless you want complete control of all traffic via some agency at Westminster.

Because if you believed fully in the markets then the poor quality and dangerous products would be weeded out in the market place since consumers would no longer want them. Whereas your argument - if i'm not misunderstood - is that you want protective government legislation (and in the quoted case it's sounds like health and safety legislation at that).

 

Of course i may well have just misread your desires and supports for this, and you may have very good reason for questioning you own philosophical belief in the markets power to decide what has value - and by reaction what remains available for purchase.

I have no issue with competition, but counterfeited products benefit no-body aside from criminal gangs, and they are to the detriment of the public purse and consumers (they can also be very dangerous).

dune advocating Government intervention again. Bloody commie.

dune advocating Government intervention again. Bloody commie.

Only when it comes to counterfeitiing, safety and security.

It's interesting to see that even the ISP's are against this move, saying that it's not only technically impossible but also morally questionable,

"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," he said.

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063

 

Only when it comes to counterfeitiing, safety and security.

But that's nothing to do with the Internet, per se, it's the dodgy importers and black marketeers you want closing down. That means physical interventions by HMRC and Trading Standards - oh wait, public sector spending cuts. Damn !

But that's nothing to do with the Internet, per se, it's the dodgy importers and black marketeers you want closing down. That means physical interventions by HMRC and Trading Standards - oh wait, public sector spending cuts. Damn !

Beat me to it, though I was going to add something about EU consumer protection legislation ensuring higher levels of quality and safety in what we buy, though in hindsight perhaps I won't.

As for the government coming out and saying they want to take all that nasty stuff off the internet, or stop it destroying the lives of millions of teens and pre-teens whose parents can't be arsed to learn how to use a computer. Would it be cynical to suggest that this might be a cause to make them look like they care and are making our lives better while said spending cuts are being implemented? I would also assume they aren't going to subsidise the extra costs to the ISPs, meaning another monthly bill increase for everyone for a yet further reduced service...

I don't believe counterfeit goods exist. I looked out my window and didnt see any.

It's interesting to see that even the ISP's are against this move, saying that it's not only technically impossible but also morally questionable,

 

 

 

source: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063

Why it is technically impossible? Technically expensive more like. If large organisations like ibm can block it then it should be possible - its just a question of scale. Ok so it won't stop a determined horny teenager uncovering the stuff if they put their mind to it, but it will stop the easy access to porn that younger children have - that can't be a bad thing can it? They are also suggesting that you could opt into porn if you were the bill payer so your freedom of information rights is protected.

Have to say though,the thought of there being a record somewhere of me opting to download porn is somewhat disturbing.

I remember the days when looking at a bit of gash in Escort or Razzle did the trick.

Now people want to see all sorts of things inserted into people on t'internet. F*cking weirdos.

Poor old dune. He's really trying to make sense of this confusing world the best he can, and then it just throws more confusion back in his face.

Mental. If this is implemented then it will be the first major thing I strongly disagree with the government on. It isn't about watching pornography, it's about having the freedom to make a choice legally without something being imposed upon you. It seems odd that they would back this given their previous common sense approach to things like ID cards. Will not be happy if this comes in.

There's no way it will get through Parliament, too many nonces on both sides.

This sounds all rather commie to me, shocking intervention by the government blah blah etc etc.

Back to picking up filth mags in woodland and bushes it is then.... oh the good old days!!

Next it will be banning football forums!!

Making free porn sites (that anyone can access as long as they say they're 18) into ones that have to be paid for with a credit card would be a step that I'd agree with.

Once you're 18 you should be able to do what you like, but there's some fairly hardcore stuff on Youporn and similar sites (just people ****ging seems to cut less and less ice) and I don't like the idea of kids and adolescents just being able to access it, at a time when their sexuality's still developing and all.

Sorry to come over all Daily Mail hypocrite, and I've no idea how enforceable such a law would be, but there you are.

At work they block any google search for 'images'. It is very disruptive to my work as I need them for cards etc.

luckily I have access to 'images' using my backdoor entry skills. Thing is, (some) IT experts are not necesarily ahead of the game.

Just checked. Porn is still easily accessible from my laptop. Phew.

Why it is technically impossible? Technically expensive more like. If large organisations like ibm can block it then it should be possible - its just a question of scale.

There is a difference between a commercial business blocking access to 'non work related' materials, and to censorship of every Internet session in the country. In IBM's case they can use something like a skin tone detection system, and set it on low tolerance just to be on the safe side. However, if you try this with 'joe public' how do you set the parameters ? Too lax, and too many unsavoury images will slip through, too high and perfectly legitimate holiday snaps trigger false positives.

If you work on IPs or domain names, it takes about 10 minutes to create a new website,- the filtering services are always playing catchup as blocked sites move hosting services. I am responsible for 3 such systems, each set to a different level of enforcement, depending on the users. The one we use for schools is set on 'strict', but even then we always inform schools that there is a caveat that we cannot guarantee 100% success, and children must always be supervised.

There certainly needs to be more control on the internet - illegal music/film downloading, dodgy counterfeit goods on sale, security of banking details etc. It's basically like the wild west.

no different to "outside life" then really is it?

I mean, illegal music / film downloading is stealing so no different to people pinching from HMV.

Dodgy counterfeit goods, no different to what some of these market stalls / carboot sales serve up.

Security of banking details, cash point fraud.

Just checked. Porn is still easily accessible from my laptop. Phew.

now that would have been a "slash the wrist" moment. Good work!

using my backdoor entry skills

I didn't see that on the Hamster bedroom webcam......

Making free porn sites (that anyone can access as long as they say they're 18) into ones that have to be paid for with a credit card would be a step that I'd agree with.

 

Once you're 18 you should be able to do what you like, but there's some fairly hardcore stuff on Youporn and similar sites (just people ****ging seems to cut less and less ice) and I don't like the idea of kids and adolescents just being able to access it, at a time when their sexuality's still developing and all.

 

Sorry to come over all Daily Mail hypocrite, and I've no idea how enforceable such a law would be, but there you are.

Really? What similar sites? So I can add them to my block filter....

I was just walking up the shop and I noticed something in a hedge. When I delved deeper I discovered it was a laptop browsing YouPorn.

Was it a good laptop and did it have a good battery life? Ity could be a way forward and much better than freecycle!!

I was just walking up the shop and I noticed something in a hedge. When I delved deeper I discovered it was a laptop browsing YouPorn.

I feel sorry for the youth of today, they're de-sensitised to the effects of porn because of t'internet.

They'll never know the excitement of finding a grot mag in a bush or a pillbox littered with the stuff.