Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Censorship United Kingdom Your Rights Online

UK Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban 230

nk497 writes "A new bill presented to the House of Lords demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content. The Online Safety Bill, raised in the Lords by Baroness Howe of Ildicote, asks for ISPs and mobile operators to 'provide a service that excludes pornographic images' and for device makers to include ways to filter content at the point of purchase. The Bill follows efforts by one MP to make users "opt in" to access pornography, and comes despite ISPs already agreeing to offer all customers parental control software. However, as a Private Members Bill, it doesn't have the backing of the Government, so is less likely to actually be passed."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban

Comments Filter:
  • by Krishnoid ( 984597 ) * on Friday April 06, 2012 @03:26AM (#39595243) Journal
    Anyone trying to put a bill through like this should be able to answer this question [dilbert.com] first. Preferably in essay form, and then present something comparable to a thesis defense.
  • by Bert64 ( 520050 ) <bert AT slashdot DOT firenzee DOT com> on Friday April 06, 2012 @04:51AM (#39595499) Homepage

    Parental control software is utterly useless, the vast majority of kids know a lot more about computers than their parents and have no trouble bypassing a parental control system that is purely software based... It's a classic case of client side security.

    If you want something like that to be even remotely effective, it has to run at a layer further up the network that the kids have no access to.

    That said, porn and sex are a fact of life.
    Your kids will encounter them at some point wether you like it or not... When they're really young they wont be interested in it, and when they get older they will actively seek it out.

    To a kid, if a subject is forbidden then its automatically more interesting... The more you try to prevent them seeing porn, they more they will look for it, and this is nothing new.
    When i was a kid, internet access was very rare and porn on computers was pixelated and dithered.. So we acquired porn from magazines and on vhs tapes.

    And something else important to consider, if you try to prevent your kids from learning about such things as porn, then they will just get introduced to it by other kids at school instead... Surely better for you to educate them in a controlled environment, so they are prepared for what they will encounter when they venture out into an environment that you don't control.
    If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from any thoughts or violence, sex, bad language etc, then they will be completely unprepared when they encounter such things form other kids at school, and will have far more interest in them because its new to them and forbidden at home.

  • by FrootLoops ( 1817694 ) on Friday April 06, 2012 @05:03AM (#39595539)

    You do know this is OPTIONAL right?

    Actually, no. The summary should have been clearer, but from the bill itself,

    ... they must ensure this service excludes pornographic images unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

    (3) The conditions are—
            (a) the subscriber opts-in to subscribe to a service that includes pornographic images;
            (b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and
            (c) the provider of the service has an age verification policy which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over.

    From (3a), the filtering is on by default and requires an opt-in to disable it, along with age verification.

  • by Kjella ( 173770 ) on Friday April 06, 2012 @06:17AM (#39595765) Homepage

    Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

    Yes and no, the market for porn is getting completely saturated. If you just want amateur porn there's tons on xHamster and RedTube and PornHub. If you want professional porn then HD only made the porn skanks go away, there's plenty girls that look stunning in 1080p. For $10/month you can get 100-200 GB of new "mainstream" porn in 30 categories each month at Brazzers (not affiliated, just to take an example). If you just want to download there's enormous siterips with more porn than you could ever get around to watching. If you're not adding anything unique to the pool, then your standard porn flick adds about 0.02$ of value.

    Because of that, sites specialize. If you want just erotic pictures go to Met-Art. If you want porn but still stylish go to X-Art. If you want movie with a story get movies like Pirates,. Pirates II, The 8th Day and many more. If you have a fetish, there's probably a site dedicated to you, whether it's redheads or girls with glasses or interracial or midgets or bukkake, hell there's probably one for redhead midgets with glasses doing interracial bukkake too. Obviously somebody is going to try out just how far you can take pain/violence/BDSM too, but it's not going mainstream. They just have to make it more extreme to provide something new, like giving an addict an even stronger drug to get a new kick.

    I suspect that in not that long these niches will start to saturate too, that yes we've now done pretty much everything imaginable while having sex and there's tons of videos out there already. Here in Norway some production companies did Norwegian porn for a few years when they lifted the ban like 2004-2008, today they're all shut down. Not because of legal or political reasons but simply because there's so much free porn the niche "Norwegian porn" no longer is a viable business. Not that I'm doing anything silly like predicting the death of the porn industry, but I think it'll be in decline for some time.

  • by Kr3m3Puff ( 413047 ) * <me@@@kitsonkelly...com> on Friday April 06, 2012 @07:22AM (#39595905) Homepage Journal

    ... especially in the House of Lords mean nothing. They are individual bills introduced by members to usually provoke conversation versus any real intention of becoming law. They get debated and discussed and almost always get struck down. It is a customary process that allows the UK to consider and discuss things that would not be discussed by normal routes. So even mentioning (and mis-characterising it) is just to just sensationalise something that shouldn't be. The fact that the UK Government is actually considering unwarranted surveillance of the Internet in the UK is far more "dangerous" because of the way they are introducing it, via the Queen's Speech, which means it is setting out what the Government supports and actually plans to do over the next 12 months. Usually what is in the Queen's Speech gets banged into Law one way or another.

Intel CPUs are not defective, they just act that way. -- Henry Spencer

Working...