Automatic Porn Blocking

[TopGun]

Have to stand up against this kind of thing. It isn't about porn it is about a government deciding what you can and can't see. It starts with this and then before you know it it will spread to other things. These people need to remember they are there to represent us not control us. Cameron and co talk about protecting freedom but yet are determined to bring in things which limit your freedom.

People need to stand up to them.

 

By that reckoning any young kid should be allowed to go to a cinema to watch an 18 film. Or is that different?

[The9]

Let me get this straight. They're planning on completely blanket-banning something which is already legally only available to over 18s as it is, but only if it's a digital version? Paper-based porn is still going to be exactly the same as it is ?

 

Is Paul Raymond a significant contributor to the Conservative Party ? Talk about an under-the-radar vote loser that no-one is going to admit to any kind of pollster on election day, anyone who wants to win an election can just put undoing this in their manifesto.

[The9]

Have to stand up against this kind of thing. It isn't about porn it is about a government deciding what you can and can't see. It starts with this and then before you know it it will spread to other things. These people need to remember they are there to represent us not control us. Cameron and co talk about protecting freedom but yet are determined to bring in things which limit your freedom.

People need to stand up to them.

 

It hasn't started with this, it started long before this, though the torrent site stuff was the first time it had any impact on me. And FWIW I've got no kids and the rubbish filth advert channels are locked on my Virgin Media at home purely because they're inconvenient to have on the planner 99% of the time.

 

I haven't been keeping track, when's the next election ? Is this one of those "clearly not going to be implemented before the election" things ? Given the "liberal" origins of the Lib Dems I can't see them being in favour of OTT state regulation and why would they vote for it as part of the coalition ?

Edited 22 July, 2013 by The9

[St Marco]

By that reckoning any young kid should be allowed to go to a cinema to watch an 18 film. Or is that different?

 

Totally different.

Young kids should not be able to watch those things. There is a way to prevent them doing so. It is called parenting?

Your definition would be like saying alcohol is bad therefore you should ban alcohol. Smoking is bad so therefore you should ban smoking. Driving is dangerous therefore we should ban cars.

As I said before it starts as one thing and will spread to something else. How long before it turns into which music you can listen to? Which other websites you can view? Sounds like the making of a regime to me.

[Batman]

Totally different.

Young kids should not be able to watch those things. There is a way to prevent them doing so. It is called parenting?

Your definition would be like saying alcohol is bad therefore you should ban alcohol. Smoking is banned so therefore you should ban smoking. Driving is dangerous therefore we should ban cars.

As I said before it starts as one thing and will spread to something else. How long before it turns into which music you can listen to? Which other websites you can view? Sounds like the making of a regime to me.

why cant people have a choice though. you can opt in or out. you chose? why is that such a bad thing?

[St Marco]

why cant people have a choice though. you can opt in or out. you chose? why is that such a bad thing?

 

Or why not just leave it as it is and let people decide themselves?

So what happens to the art websites? What happens if a film has a rape scene will that then get banned? etc etc

It opens a whole can of worms that do not need opening. There are far more important things to be focusing on then this.

[Batman]

Or why not just leave it as it is and let people decide themselves?

So what happens to the art websites? What happens if a film has a rape scene will that then get banned? etc etc

It opens a whole can of worms that do not need opening. There are far more important things to be focusing on then this.

why not let people have a choice?

some parents may work different hours and dont want their kids watching porn when they get home from school

why is 'choice' such a bad thing?

[The9]

By that reckoning any young kid should be allowed to go to a cinema to watch an 18 film. Or is that different?

 

Your argument has no logic and makes no sense. There's already a law to say porn (of certain types) can be bought and viewed legally by anyone of a certain age, and that age range doesn't include children. There's also already a law to say children can't view 18 films.

 

This new law extends the restrictions of the existing law to include all adults as well as all children, which is a completely different type of argument.

 

In fact, it's saying that fully-formed adult human beings who obey the law are no longer granted the choice to make their own decisions on a subject which the same legal system says is acceptable. And that new law is the equivalent of saying that no adults should be allowed to watch 18 films, not that children can do so.

[bridge too far]

All the resources should be directed towards finding and convicting child abusers and those who abuse children by watching child abuse and creating the demand for it. But I think the resources to the Child Online Protection Agency have been cut so it'll be hard for the agency to track down the scum that make and watch child abuse.

 

Then he can have a pop at the hypocritical gutter press who praise Cameron for this move whilst, at the same time, publishing soft porn pics that any child can see

[St Marco]

why not let people have a choice?

some parents may work different hours and dont want their kids watching porn when they get home from school

why is 'choice' such a bad thing?

 

But they already have a choice now. You have pin on your tv. You have filter on your computer. If you think kids will not find a way around it then you under estimate them. If they want to look at porn they will find a way regardless of what Cameron says.

There is a reason why films/music/everything considerd bad has a warning on it.

This is censorship, nothing more.

[The9]

why cant people have a choice though. you can opt in or out. you chose? why is that such a bad thing?

 

You can do the same thing at the moment by choosing to use parental filters on any browser or by requesting it from your ISP. If it's not illegal to view certain images on a piece of paper, why should it be to look at the same thing on a computer screen ?

[Batman]

But they already have a choice now. You have pin on your tv. You have filter on your computer. If you think kids will not find a way around it then you under estimate them. If they want to look at porn they will find a way regardless of what Cameron says.

There is a reason why films/music/everything considerd bad has a warning on it.

This is censorship, nothing more.

what about those who want more control?

if you want to watch porn all day, you can. some want control. it wont effect you at all. cant see why people are bothered

[Batman]

You can do the same thing at the moment by choosing to use parental filters on any browser or by requesting it from your ISP. If it's not illegal to view certain images on a piece of paper, why should it be to look at the same thing on a computer screen ?

 

so, you can block it at source. if you want to watch porn, you can. so whats your bother?

[The9]

what about those who want more control?

if you want to watch porn all day, you can. some want control. it wont effect you at all. cant see why people are bothered

 

"Affect". And how won't it affect people ? It's a restriction on doing something many people already do perfectly legally and with no problems whatsoever which the law currently states is legal. If they're not changing the laws on non-digital porn as well it's a massive, unjustifiable waste of time and effort, and they're also doing nothing to address the problems they seem to be claiming are caused by porn, because it's still going to be readily available to anyone who wants it in paper form.

[St Marco]

what about those who want more control?

if you want to watch porn all day, you can. some want control. it wont effect you at all. cant see why people are bothered

 

But like I said how will that control stop kids looking at porn?

After all your argument is that by doing this will stop them from looking at it.

As The9 mentioned they did the same with p2p and torrents. But yet they can still get it if they want to.

It does nothing to control what kids can or can't watch.

[Batman]

"Affect". And how won't it affect people ? It's a restriction on doing something many people already do perfectly legally and with no problems whatsoever which the law currently states is legal. If they're not changing the laws on non-digital porn as well it's a massive, unjustifiable waste of time and effort, and they're also doing nothing to address the problems they seem to be claiming are caused by porn, because it's still going to be readily available to anyone who wants it in paper form.

its not a restriction. if you want to **** yourself dry to watching porn, nothing is stopping you.

[Batman]

But like I said how will that control stop kids looking at porn?

After all your argument is that by doing this will stop them from looking at it.

As The9 mentioned they did the same with p2p and torrents. But yet they can still get it if they want to.

It does nothing to control what kids can or can't watch.

 

if people want this, what is your problem. not as if it stops you watching it. just gives though who dont want it, an option

[Saint Billy]

What a bummer............. oops.

 

Cant see it being popular with all those dirty mp's. Not many vices for that lot left after a clamp down on expense fraud.

[percy windham]

Brilliant, lets all put our names on a government watch list, then lets bend over backwards as more and more of the Internet is restricted. Only an utter duckhead would support this.

[Batman]

Brilliant, lets all put our names on a government watch list, then lets bend over backwards as more and more of the Internet is restricted. Only an utter duckhead would support this.

 

the moment you log on, you are on the US government watch list. yet, that does not seem to be a problem?

[The9]

so, you can block it at source. if you want to watch porn, you can. so whats your bother?

 

You don't even know what you're arguing about do you ?

 

I'm saying that people can block it at source now if they wish and that's sufficient for anyone who wants to stop children seeing it. If they really worry about it there are plenty of things they can do.

 

As people actively have to have a computer, log in, have access and knowledge of how to use a PC and a search engine and be actually looking for porn to find it in the first place that's already a significant preventative measure to begin with for some of the most vulnerable, and I'm afraid "my 12 year old is better at computers than me" is not sufficient grounds for blocking porn (or anything else on the internet which is legal off the internet in the UK) as a de facto position.

 

I'm astonished that Cameron actually thinks it's a vote-winner.

[percy windham]

the moment you log on, you are on the US government watch list. yet, that does not seem to be a problem?

 

A list that has no parameters. This will be a specific "opt-in" list that the government will use to point the finger.

If you genuinely can't see why this is wrong then you are much thicker than you come across as.

[Batman]

A list that has no parameters. This will be a specific "opt-in" list that the government will use to point the finger.

If you genuinely can't see why this is wrong then you are much thicker than you come across as.

 

the minute you login to facebook, skype, anything by microsoft, amazon, twitter, apple. you are being monitored.

so, an in/out for a bit of porn is hardly anything ground breaking is it. I suspect it is recorded when you watch youporn anyway.

[St Marco]

if people want this, what is your problem. not as if it stops you watching it. just gives though who dont want it, an option

 

But who wants this exactly? Looking at the fallout from it I think it is pretty clear that the vast majority see it for what it really is and are against it.

Like I said above it starts as one thing then changes into another. They are talking about changing law to force companies/search engines to blacklist certain words. What happens if they don't?

Say they ban looking at say rape videos (fake ones) what happens if a film has a scene in it that see's someone get raped? For this example let's choose The Evil Dead movie. Will this film then become 'blacklisted' because it has a scene in it like that?

It will spread to other normal media's and is censorship.

[Mystic Force]

There is the first amendment they can't really do anything about it. But by contrast there is no nudity on tv unless you get the premium cable channels (HBO etc) and no page 3 I ilke to shock fox news watchers witjh the whole sun page 3 thing. And they don't have any magazines anywhere except in specialist shops. They can only restrict where stuff is sold, they can zone it out but a city which does so has to leave somewhere in can be.

 

Porn is not ilegal and they can't ban it but it is illegal to move it about.

 

I know to much now to not be labeled a dirty old man. Not something most people will own upto but enough people must like it for their to be so much!

 

I clearly

[The9]

its not a restriction. if you want to **** yourself dry to watching porn, nothing is stopping you.

 

How is removing access for everyone by default "not a restriction". It's a complete restriction.

 

If it's ok with you, I don't want to have to declare my personal preferences about anything (this includes being a football fan, Toffifee addict, My Little Pony fetishist or gimp mask collector) to an organisation before I am permitted to be allowed to see something that is completely legal outside the computer anyway.

 

I once had to go into O2 to remove their block on adult sites on my mobile (which I also didn't ask for) in person to prevent them from charging my account and then recrediting it as some kind of weird "adult authentication process" - the URL looked dodgy and there was no way I was sending my account details across what seemed to be an insecure site and too cheap looking to be O2's so I went in store. Turned out that was legitimately how they did it, but all I wanted to do in this case was browse a sports blog that for some reason had an over-18s block on it, and even without it being "yes I would like to view porn, look at me, I'm a porn-fan", that's not something I want to repeat.

[TopGun]

It's just vapid politics as I said before. There is little that such a change can affect but if it satisfies a few, then fine. It's just posturing and I think it can be left at that.

[The9]

A list that has no parameters. This will be a specific "opt-in" list that the government will use to point the finger.

If you genuinely can't see why this is wrong then you are much thicker than you come across as.

 

I don't think he is.

[aintforever]

Any sensible parent will have restrictions put on the internet for their kids anyway, don't see this making much difference.

 

Would be a shame to go back to the dark old days where the only place teenagers could find porn is in a bush by the side of the road.

[Batman]

basically, if you dont think this is such a big deal, considering we are all but monitored anyway. you are 'thick'?

 

if you are that worried, get off the internet full stop

[TopGun]

Any sensible parent will have restrictions put on the internet for their kids anyway, don't see this making much difference.

 

Would be a shame to go back to the dark old days where the only place teenagers could find porn is in a bush by the side of the road.

 

I quite agree. The Common has not been the same for the last 15 years.

[badgerx16]

One small ISP's response :

 

Active choice is not a choice The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

 

• Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
  
• Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.
  

If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.

Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

 

( Edit : this 'choice' is actually now on their order page ).

 

http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html

Edited 22 July, 2013 by badgerx16

[The9]

It's just vapid politics as I said before. There is little that such a change can affect but if it satisfies a few, then fine. It's just posturing and I think it can be left at that.

 

What it is, is more nanny state politics, which I personally hate. As a responsible private human being, with some experience of living in a world where things weren't micro-managed and where learning how to avoid problems for yourself, rather than wanting someone else to do that for me, was an admirable skill. It's also the basis of evolution. If we protect all the weak and stupid we're just diluting the gene pool, and frankly, I quite like having the strong and intelligent around to improve things.

 

As Batman/delldays has, on numerous occasions, argued against nanny state policies, I'm now going to ignore his pointless and endless contrarianism.

Edited 22 July, 2013 by The9

[badgerx16]

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/porn-blocks-edging-away-from-active-choice

 

"....Cameron's advice is just plain bad and misleading".

[The9]

basically, if you dont think this is such a big deal, considering we are all but monitored anyway. you are 'thick'?

 

if you are that worried, get off the internet full stop

 

There's a difference between knowing someone might be keeping a record of what you've been doing in the event that you do something not law-abiding that warrants someone actually looking at that information (and having worked in the public sector I seriously doubt there's much benefit in keeping 99% of that data and that there are enough people to even monitor it for everyone anyway), and everyone permanently having to declare themselves of a certain type in order to be able to act in a legal manner anyway.

 

The argument that you are only worried if you're doing something wrong is often misplaced, and here it is again. Except that looking at porn is legal, so why would I have to declare that I want to do that to anyone ?

 

It's like a non-sex offenders' register. Shall we have one and make everyone sign up to it ? Why not ? If you don't sign up you must be up to something ?

[Batman]

What it is, is more nanny state politics, which I personally hate. As a responsible private human being, with some experience of living in a world where things weren't micro-managed and where learning how to avoid problems for yourself, rather than wanting someone else to do that for me was an admirable skill. It's also the basis of evolution. If we protect all the weak and stupid we're just diluting the gene pool, and frankly, I quite like having the strong and intelligent around to improve things.

 

As Batman/delldays has, on numerous occasions, argued against nanny state policies, I'm now going to ignore his pointless and endless contrarianism.

if you dont agree, then fine.

if you have such an issue with internet control/monitoring. I suggest you log off and never return as pretty much everything you do is logged, or at best, tracable

[The9]

the minute you login to facebook, skype, anything by microsoft, amazon, twitter, apple. you are being monitored.

so, an in/out for a bit of porn is hardly anything ground breaking is it. I suspect it is recorded when you watch youporn anyway.

 

The improved controls around the internet regulation which says, for instance, "we must tell you when cookies are being recorded" is the side of the argument that the government should be coming down on, as it protects the private user against the kind of organisations that can exploit them. I have no problem at all using sites which want to capture some of my personal data and use it for ad targeting, I just want to know they're doing it and that that's all it's for.

 

Saying "you are being monitored when you consciously choose to use sites where you may be monitored, and therefore you should have to tell everyone exactly what you are doing any time you use the internet" is the argument of an imbecile.

[The9]

if you dont agree, then fine.

if you have such an issue with internet control/monitoring. I suggest you log off and never return as pretty much everything you do is logged, or at best, tracable

 

See my previous post.

[Batman]

Saying "you are being monitored when you consciously choose to use sites where you may be monitored, and therefore you should have to tell everyone exactly what you are doing any time you use the internet" is the argument of an imbecile.

 

its true though. every time you use content of US website, web providers/services, send email. you are being tracked or able to be traced. Which is pretty much every time you use the web.

 

for that reason, I could not care less if I am monitored on what porn or do (or dont) want to look at. its all monitored anyway.

[The9]

so, you can block it at source. if you want to watch porn, you can. so whats your bother?

 

It's got nothing to do with the practicalities, it's all about the level of state interference.

 

Why is it necessary at all when what they're blocking isn't illegal ? It is merely an excuse to get another layer of goverment interference and control in an area of public life that doesn't require it, and it's entirely caused by a level of panic-driven flapping over nothing from the bored and easily offended parents of middle England. Regulating the kind of porn with links to child abuse and other crimes is understandable and acceptable. This does nothing to address the problem areas, and there's little evidence that access to "normal" porn in "normal" amounts causes any kind of issues. It's the extreme stuff to the extremes of society that are the problem, and those should be managed by exception, not as the norm.

 

Apart from anything, for a Conservative (basic principles being free market economics, smaller public sector and minimal state spending and interference) it's a hell of a road to be going down. For the leader of a Liberal coalition, (basic principles limited government and similar low regulation) needing the support of Lib Dems for legislation, it's utterly bewildering.

[pap]

its true though. every time you use content of US website, web providers/services, send email. you are being tracked or able to be traced. Which is pretty much every time you use the web.

 

for that reason, I could not care less if I am monitored on what porn or do (or dont) want to look at. its all monitored anyway.

 

So if someone said "we've logged you watching horse porn for 32s, and we're going to tell your mum", you'd be okay with that?

[Batman]

So if someone said "we've logged you watching horse porn for 32s, and we're going to tell your mum", you'd be okay with that?

 

Good luck to them. I accept that everything I post online or use on the web remains forever in some form

[The9]

its true though. every time you use content of US website, web providers/services, send email. you are being tracked or able to be traced. Which is pretty much every time you use the web.

 

for that reason, I could not care less if I am monitored on what porn or do (or dont) want to look at. its all monitored anyway.

 

But "it's all monitored" is not the same as "someone is checking it" or "I am therefore agreeing to state my preferences before being able to use it". As I've said above, the only issues around porn are in extreme cases, the sharing of illegal images and stopping access to kids. This only addresses one of those, and it's a sledgehammer to crack a nut.

 

I already mentioned the non-sex offenders' register. Why don't we have one ? Because there's no benefit to making 99.99% of people have to adhere to something in order to manage the tiny minority.

[The9]

To quote another line from the OpenRights doc (which also contradicts many of my opinions by saying "kids will just get around the filtering anyway if they want to" but also says that equally applies to the new settings as well, thus rendering them useless)...

 

It "is symptomatic of the policy conundrum he has placed himself into, by pandering to a demand from the Daily Mail that 'porn must be blocked' and only accessible through an 'opt in'."

 

Do we REALLY want the Daily Mail readers to be responsible for driving public policy in the UK ?

[badgerx16]

How to avoid filters, lesson #1;

http://hidemyass.com/proxy-list/

[Viking Warrior]

It's not only the uk that are looking at blocking porn sites . It's happening in Palestine as well

RAMALLAH, Palestine — A nationwide movement to block porn websites is underway by university students in Palestine.

The campaign is being launched in the city of Nablus in an effort to stem what a recent study claims is having a dramatic effect on the stability of families and the key reason for mounting divorce rates and “negative consequences on domestic lives.”

Students at Al Najah National University are reportedly demanding the ban on porn sites that they say violates the West Bank's customs and traditions.

Campaign organizer Nader Abu Farhah told GulfNews.com that the Palestinian territories are the sixth largest browsers of porn in the world, causing alarm to the Palestinian government and the Palestinian National Authority (PNA).

“The campaign is based on serious and unstoppable attempts to convince the Palestinian Ministry of Telecommunications and Information Technology to block porn websites in Palestine,” Farhah said.

“The campaign also aims at raising public awareness about the fatal psychological and mental dangers of such sites. Despite those negative consequences, huge numbers of Palestinians browse such sites with no control at all.”

Sources at the Palestinian Higher Sharia Judicial Council said that numeorus Palestinian couples have divorced because of one partner browsing porn sites. The activists are calling for an immediate block on porn sites and warned officials that they would take to the streets if their demands are not met. The students said that sources within the PNA confirmed that they could unilaterally and without consultation with Israel shutter all porn sites in the region.

“This needs a ministerial decision only and then it will be implemented instantly. Even companies that provide the Internet in Palestine can block the porn sites without referring to the ministry. The only hindrance is that companies which block the porn sties lose market share,” the PNA sources said.

[ant]

Beyond the inherent flaws of the policies, this commences censorship by deception; they are using an emotional issue to wrestle governmental control over the Internet.

 

As responsible adults we can all decide where legal pornography sits on our moral compass. Parents already have a multitude of tools available to protect children - if they choose not to use those, that's on them. Enforced restrictions will breed complacency and may ignorantly be assumed a catch-all, which is dangerous in itself.

 

As a government, educate and inform such that your people are capable of making their own measured decisions. Oh, and consider properly regulating the media's output while you're at it. The Daily Mail heralds Cameron's policies a success - all the while continuing to sexualise teenage girls across its entire website. Do some proper research into what you are proposing. With regard to the exploitation of children, tackle the source of a problem by pursuing the criminals, not imposing ridiculous restrictions upon the public. All of this nonsense comes from the leader of the party that cut the budget of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre!

 

Or as I've seen spectacularly mentioned elsewhere, this nothing but Tory-blue waffle.

Edited 23 July, 2013 by ant

[SNSUN]

Does this mean the "vagina" page on Wikipedia is going to become popular with teenage boys?

 

In all seriousness do things like Anonymouse work to avoid filters? Not that I'm looking for ways round the filters... :-)

[Sheaf Saint]

[badgerx16]

In all seriousness do things like Anonymouse work to avoid filters? Not that I'm looking for ways round the filters... :-)

 

Unless the network you are on also bans proxies.