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

David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn' 345

Posted by timothy
from the adam-sutler-knows-what's-best dept.
First time accepted submitter fustakrakich writes with news reported in The Telegraph of new anti-pornography regulations ordered by UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children. If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn'

Comments Filter:
  • Sorry kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @11:53AM (#42012567) Journal

    I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

    • Re:Sorry kids... (Score:5, Insightful)

      by PlusFiveTroll (754249) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:13PM (#42012707) Homepage

      Got to love the U.K. 'You viewed porn on your computer?! OMG You are a child molester! GAOL 4 U." Don't worry though, the religious right here in the U.S. desires Taliban like laws to the same effect.

      https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut [scientificamerican.com] is a decent summary of a few studies that pretty much say 'What internet porn problem?'

      If you google 'effects of porn on children' you'll get tons of results saying the terrible scary things that will happen, but most made on actual studies read more like this http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx [apa.org] .

      So it seems that all this hand waving by Cameron is about getting reelected and society control.

      • Re:Sorry kids... (Score:4, Insightful)

        by hairyfeet (841228) <.bassbeast1968. .at. .gmail.com.> on Saturday November 17, 2012 @05:15PM (#42014993) Journal

        Hell before the Internet there was a family member's dirty VCR tapes you sneak a peak at and before that there was the dirty mags, heel you go back to the first caves humans lived in and they find smut.

        So I just don't get the "ZOMFG little Timmy might see a titty!" bullshit, just let Timmy know that the porn is just as fake as every other film and quit having a damned fit already

        I'll never forget what Joe Bob Briggs said about America, I bet it applies to the UK too "America: Where you can't show a titty unless there is a knife in it". Personally if it came down to my teen boy watching a porno, preferably one of the educational ones like the Nina Hartley great sex, but hell any porno, even that Avengers spoof where they painted Chyna green, or watching torture porn like Hostel? I'd hand him a bag of popcorn and say "Try not to choke on the popcorn when you see the She Hulk, kinda hard to paint everything lime green ya know"

    • Just kids? (Score:5, Funny)

      by Roger W Moore (538166) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:20PM (#42012769) Journal
      I'm actually surprised that it just asks for kids. Given their established record I would have thought the question should really be "Do you have any kids or MPs in the house?".
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Anonymous Coward

      Nah, this has nothing much to do with porn. It is step one in introducing an "Internet Drivers License". Anonymity is a bitch, you see.

      Captcha: terrors

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by Stan92057 (737634)
      My first sexual experience was with a magazine called Playboy. For kids of this age it will be a misspelled word that will give them there first experience.
      • Either a misspelled word, or one of their peers. A lot of porn gets traded at schools.

      • ...For kids of this age it will be a misspelled word that will give them there first experience.

        If only you'd waited long enough, that experience could have been yours....

        cheers,

    • by Larryish (1215510) <larryish.gmail@com> on Saturday November 17, 2012 @03:40PM (#42014263)

      I called Mr. Cameron on the telephone and asked what was behind it all.

      Mr. Cameron says the new curbs are actually a safety measure to keep all that Internet traffic from running over the cyber-street-walkers.

      Safety first, I always say!

  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17, 2012 @11:54AM (#42012585)

    What if you are taking a connection solely for use with Cell phones over wifi for example?
      OR some weirdo config of Arch Linux?

    • by ifiwereasculptor (1870574) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @02:21PM (#42013675)

      Linux is a tool for child porn! Ban it!

      Barring that, it would be just loads of fun. In a world where I can't even buy an airline ticket without having to fire up IE and the so-called "support" of pretty much all companies get throughly confused when I say I don't have Windows, It'd be great to say "sure, take me through the legally required steps of securing my computer against evil, evil porn. By the way, I use OpenBSD. Go."

      • by Kjella (173770) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @04:57PM (#42014845) Homepage

        You'll laugh until the steps are:
        1. Wipe OpenBSD
        2. Install Windows
        3. Install this government-mandated software

        It was one of the nastier suggestions for use of Trusted Computing and Remote Attestation - if your computer can't provide a valid signature saying it's running a trusted, up to date OS with antivirus etc. then you wouldn't get to connect to the Internet. Then again, if ARM takes over it looks like we can kiss the idea of "alternative OS" good-bye as Apple, Microsoft and most Android handsets are locked to one OS to begin with...

    • by billstewart (78916) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @02:28PM (#42013729) Journal

      As other comments point out, the story really comes from the Daily Mail, a right-wing total rag of a tabloid. It's typically more accurate than the Weekly World News, but it's not the Times or The Register.

      So yes, if they were to literally implement the Daily Fail's description of how service will work, that means that any computer system, operating system or browser you get in the UK would have to have modifications to ask The Kids Question when you install it, and every Internet provider would have to redirect connections for Port 80 to the filter sign-up sheet (because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?) Wot's that about links in some arch?

      Assuming David Cameron isn't quite is ignorant as the Daily Fail wants him to be, that's probably not something he'll actually propose. (If this were Australia, the answer would be different, because the pro-censorship politicians there really do appear to be that dumb.) Much more likely, if they do anything like it at all, they'll make ISPs offer censorware and/or have filtering set on by default, but filtering at the ISP level is really expensive and the ISPs will push back.

      • because Teh Internet is the same thing as Teh Webz, innit?

        It pretty much is: you have to approach the Internet through the Web. As I understand it, URLs to resources other than those available through HTTP and HTTPS are typically discovered through HTTP or HTTPS.

      • by Teun (17872)
        David Cameron went, as many of his peers, from the age of seven to private schools, the epitome for an introduction to sexual and mental abuse.

        No wonder the man is still troubled by the thought of free sex.

  • by retroworks (652802) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:00PM (#42012627) Homepage Journal
    Finally, internet pornography will be thwarted, and David Cameron will go down in history.
  • by KBentley57 (2017780) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:02PM (#42012639)
    I doub't it would have much effect. You cannot stop human nature. Besides the view that sex is "bad, dirty, evil..ect", I'm going to throw a broad sweeping generalization that most men in a household take care of the tech stuff anyways, and will answer the question with a "no" and go on about their business, or answer "yes" and set the limits to off.
  • by Anonymous Coward on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:05PM (#42012653)

    Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?

    • by McDrewbs (2434030)

      Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.

      • by DeeEff (2370332)

        Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.

        Be right back. I'm going to the nearest Chapters and then I'm going to go grab a time machine. This is gonna be good.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country. The kind that understand "judge not lest ye be judged" means something. The kind that understand gossip and gluttony are on the same level as sodomy in the Bible meaning a fat guy has no business being critical of somebody who is gay.

      Christians SHOULD be people that everybody on earth is happy to see because we a

      • by Cruciform (42896) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @02:09PM (#42013597) Homepage

        Religion indoctrinates people into accepting things without proof, to forego critical thinking for statements from "authority".
        The new testament is just fine with saying women are not equal to men, and it justifies such claims with an imaginary force.

      • Because porn isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use porn as an excuse for their actions are dangerous.

        FTFY

        (I know you were being sarcastic and/or facetious, but thought this point was important too.)

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        The values that make being a Christian in your sense of the word have nothing to do with religion. Plenty of other philosophies that have nothing to do with religion share them.

        Religion is simply a way of establishing a hierarchy of control. It is not useful productive or valuable and often leads to creating conflict.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by DeeEff (2370332)

        Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country.

        Let me stop you there. We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.

        • We call this "No True Scotsman." You should read into it.

          Jesus anticipated this. "Not everyone saying to me, 'Lord, Lord,' will enter into the kingdom of the heavens, but the one doing the will of my Father who is in the heavens will." (Matthew 7:21, NWT) In other words, Jesus knew that people would call themselves Christians despite not making their best effort to uphold God's principles.

        • by don.g (6394)

          No True Scotsman is a crappy fallacy people knowing nothing of church history (hint: there's a *lot* of dissent in it) love to throw at Christians complaining that "too many of us have lost the plot" and please don't judge us all by that lot.

          It's pretty common to be part of a group and not want to be thought of as being like members of that group whose actions/beliefs/etc you disapprove of. Think of it like being a US citizen who doesn't approve of your government's actions, or indeed those of your fellow

    • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

      by kheldan (1460303)
      I'll second this -- and I'll do it openly, not as an AC.
      Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.
      • by artor3 (1344997) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @02:50PM (#42013917)

        What you mean is that all families should be forced to be atheist, because you're an atheist. That would, after all, be the effect of banning exposure of religion to children, and your goal is clearly to make more atheists. You are advocating an end to freedom of thought -- forcing your personal beliefs on everyone.

        It really is amazing how many internet-atheists (not to be confused with the majority of quite reasonable atheists) are exactly as bad in the exact same ways as the religious people they hate so much.

      • by Nyder (754090)

        I'll second this -- and I'll do it openly, not as an AC.
        Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.

        That doesn't even make sense.

        I was going to church when I was a kid, till I was 15. Had to go, everyone considered the bible the word of god and law.

        Only problem was, at 15, I decided I was sick of the bullshit, the lies, and that god doesn't exist and religions are very man made.

        I wasn't religious to begin with, and no amount of forcing it on me made me religious. I saw it for what it is. Other people? It doesn't matter, they can NOT see it for what it is, just what others want it to be. I'm not su

  • Suspicious (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

    Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

    • Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper)...

      Unless it's talking about anything to do with liberals, the EU, the ECHR, human rights, the judiciary, regulation of the media, the Internet...

      But no, this plan has been in the works for a while now - there was a consultation over the summer (run by the Department of Education of all people) on how to protect children from evil things online (including non-traditional religions and political views), and the underlying move to "do something about the Internet" has been around for a few years. I think it is a

    • by maroberts (15852)

      Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

      Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

      Correction, the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag read by a huge part of middle class England which believes what it prints (which is the real problem)

      • Assuming they use the same overkill rules that most online censors do, the Page 3 Girls will get the Daily Mail blocked for anyone who has children. And won't that be a good thing! You'll still be able to get the actual paper copies if you need to wrap fish in it, of course.

      • Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

        Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

        Correction, the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag read by a huge part of middle class England which believes what it prints (which is the real problem)

        So, it's like the Wall Street Journal - especially the Op-Ed pages - as read by rich people in the US ?

  • To get around it (Score:5, Insightful)

    by epp_b (944299) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:11PM (#42012691)

    "No, I don't have any kids."

    At least until it becomes illegal to answer untruthfully.

    • If it is illegal to answer questions untruthfully, we can expect the jails to be overflowing with politicians in very short shrift!
  • Just porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by symes (835608) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:11PM (#42012695) Journal

    I don't mind this - I think a lot of people who buy computers are not particularly, shall we say, well versed in protecting themselves. If this could also be bundled with some firm general advice it might help. One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding. It was a bit of a shock for all concerned. No harm done, as far as I can tell (I wasn't there). I am however fairly sure her grandparents would have preferred that this had not happened and were able to take steps to prevent it from happening. At the moment, a lot of people are exposed to the internet in it's raw form and this isn't necessarily something that is healthy - giving people the choice of restricting their browsing freedom might be welcomed.

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by 1u3hr (530656)

      One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies

      He did it on purpose. Google by default has "safe search" and you have to uncheck it to get porn results. Unless grandpa did it.

      • In another article on this subject the Daily Mail wanted to show how easy it was to find porn online (and why Google was to blame), so showed a screenshot of a Google search (normal search, not image) for "porn" and highlighted the massive number of results. What they failed to point out was that with safe search on (to maximum) you get 0 results.

        Which is kind of silly - you'd think you'd at least get dictionary results...

    • Re:Just porn? (Score:4, Insightful)

      by kheldan (1460303) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @01:31PM (#42013283) Journal
      See, here's the problem with that: Net-nanny software doesn't work for several reasons. Desired content gets inadvertently blocked. Undesired content manages to get through. Whitelists and blacklists, when managed by third parties (especially governments) end up reflecting someone's agenda, rather than the actual intent (i.e. it'll eventually end up being used as a tool for censorship instead of a tool for protecting children). Your best way of protecting your children from internet content you don't want them seeing? Monitor them personally; sit there with them when they're using the internet. If you don't have time or wherewithall to do that, then perhaps you should either tell them "no internet" or re-evaluate your priorities in life.
      Remember: when you vote away your right to choose, you usually don't get to vote to take it back again.
    • One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding.

      I have safe search turned off in Google and I searched on "horse riding" and I see what you mean. [themetapicture.com]

  • As a father (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Max Romantschuk (132276) <max@romantschuk.fi> on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:14PM (#42012721) Homepage

    I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.

    I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.

    The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)

  • So here we have a right-wing broadsheet reporting on a story that only appears to be covered in a right-wing tabloid. Are we going to start seeing stories on slashdot about other things the Daily Fail covers, like women apparently being impregnated by aliens (space aliens, not Polish lorry drivers, of course) and the police having the audacity to arrest people for making indecent phone calls?

  • If its like my kids, they just crack someone elaes WiFi which does have pr0n. This is usually due to the default passwords of all very popular alcatel/thompson routers being easy to calculate.
  • Stupid (Score:4, Insightful)

    by zrbyte (1666979) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:25PM (#42012791)

    You can't regulate people into having common sense.

  • .xxx domain indeas overseas. Damn foiled again. So now on top of religion being a thorn in the side to the world, we not have to include children as freedom killers?

  • by Art Challenor (2621733) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:32PM (#42012833)
    A brilliant move to improve public computer education in the UK. Now kids will have incentive to learn networking, system administration, and generally how the internet works in order to defeat the feature. A much better, practical lesson, than they'd ever get in formal classroom training - and it's free to the governemnt.

    And normally, you'd be able to ask the nerdy Linux kid to fix your computer for you, but what interest would they have in porn?
    • by kheldan (1460303)
      100% true. You can't really prevent people from seeing what they want to see on the internet, you can only slow them down.
    • Oh, they have plenty of interest. It just might not be the type of porn the normal kids want to see.

  • by folderol (1965326) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:36PM (#42012871) Homepage
    What will actually happen is that the adults will be told to fetch the kids and then be told to go away. The kids will then be asked if they want parential controls, i.e. stuff to stop the parents logging on to dodgy malware-infected sites etc.
  • by mark-t (151149) <markt@ l y n x.bc.ca> on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:38PM (#42012881) Journal
    What about grandchildren?
  • by Anonymous Coward

    They aren't worried about kids playing games where all you do is shoot or blow up people, but if they might see 1 nipple or breast we're better off just locking the whole thing down? Does nobody else see how retarded this is? Humanity as a culture is backstepping a lot faster than it's moving forward.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    Yeah, because murdering people with a screwdriver or finding out ways to meet kids on Facebook is SO MUCH BETTER.

    Ban actual dangerous sites, porn is harmless.
    Hell, Facebook alone is far more dangerous than a stupid porn site is.
    I'm pretty sure nobody has been murdered / suicided / raped / etc from whacking it to some girl on my free cams.
    Meanwhile on Facebook... racist killing bullying suiciding teens all over the place.
    So, yes, ban Facebook under this law. Fucking hypocrites.

  • David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line

    Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...

    We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.

    US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future

  • by Chris Mattern (191822) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @12:56PM (#42013047)

    ...went to the seashore at Southampton and commanded the tide to stop coming in.

  • Why cant we have a mandatory filter on political stupidity instead? To filter out David Camerons and the lot.
  • So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that adds to this to the install??

    As the full windows disk do not have this as part of there installs maybe on the OEM install loaded with bloated software they will ad that but people who build there own PC, who want to do clean install, enterprise installs may not have this.

  • by Bookwyrm (3535) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @01:19PM (#42013209)

    While this seems a bit poorly thought out, if (and only if) it makes the parents *legally* responsible for anything objectionable their children might find, not the ISPs, not other websites, etc., but leaves all the responsibility squarely on parental supervision, then I could get behind this. Shielding ISPs and web hosting companies from frivolous lawsuits from stupid, irresponsible parents is actually positive.

    If, if (and only if) it puts the 'think of the children' squarely on the responsibility of the parents while offering them the tools/filters/guidance to supervise computer use, that could be good. Less "How could you put that up where children might find it?" and more "Why are you not being responsible for your children's activities? You were warned, given the tools, shown how to watch them. Why are you not responsible?"

    If this does not provide any additional legal protections for ISPs or such from stupid parents, then, no. This is worthless.

  • by ip_freely_2000 (577249) on Saturday November 17, 2012 @04:22PM (#42014567)
    Asking a one time question seems reasonable. Given the lack of expertise or even care about internet access, this seems like something that won't hurt. As long as the settings or filters can be dropped on demand, I have no problem with it.

Every nonzero finite dimensional inner product space has an orthonormal basis. It makes sense, when you don't think about it.

Working...