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

UK Government Changes Tack and Demands Default Porn Block 163

Posted by timothy
from the but-predictably-so dept.
judgecorp writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to reverse a policy announced last week, and demand that ISPs filter adult content by default. This system would require users to actively opt out of a filter designed to block adult content and material about self-harm. Last week, after consultation with parents, the Department for Education had said that an opt-in system would be sufficient and no default porn block would be required, but the Daily Mail has announced triumphantly that Cameron will be presenting the policy in the paper. MP Claire Perry, who has argued for the block, will be in charge — and freedom of speech campaigners have branded the sudden change of mind as 'chaotic.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

UK Government Changes Tack and Demands Default Porn Block

Comments Filter:
  • Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)

    by TWX (665546) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @09:56AM (#42346909)
    Okay, define pornography then.

    Bearing in mind that there are particularly lurid and erotic oil paintings hanging in Britain's museums, voluptuous topless women in many British mass-distribution daily newspapers, and fine art photography of nudes, not to mention album cover art, statues, anatomy and medical journals, encyclopedias, etc...
  • how about (Score:5, Interesting)

    by rufty_tufty (888596) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @10:13AM (#42347055) Homepage

    Can I get a default block on things I find offensive to children please?
    * Violence
    * Religion
    * Telephone Scams
    * Adverts to tacky products
    * politicians
    * The Daily Mail

    Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people? If you have a problem with receiving something, you fix it, the tools are out there and free! Don't make your problem my problem because of your ignorance and laziness.

  • Re:how about (Score:4, Interesting)

    by VortexCortex (1117377) <.VortexCortex. . ... -retrograde.com.> on Thursday December 20, 2012 @10:27AM (#42347209)

    Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people?

    Agreed, but didn't they already do this once? Think about it. If you ask everyone then eventually you'll find that everything on the Internet is offensive in some way to someone. They group all of this "offensive" content under one umbrella and opt you out of the Internet by default. If you want access to the Internet you have to opt in, and even pay for it!

    The whole cycle is starting again. IMHO, it's just another way to increase the price of Internet access. Once everyone's paying the additional "opt it to everything" fee the process will start again.

  • Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Canazza (1428553) on Thursday December 20, 2012 @10:43AM (#42347417)

    This has been a standard for Mobile internet for a long time.
    I remember getting a Pay-as-you-go 3G dongle that was opt-out filtering, but it filtered a hell of a lot more than just pornography.

    It filtered Reddit, it filtered 4chan, it filtered b3ta, it filtered a fair few web comics too. And they wouldn't unlock it over the phone unless you had a credit card (I only had a debit card and they wouldn't accept it, go figure), so you had to take the dongle into the store and ask them to unlock it, and take proof of age with you.

    If the proposed filter is in any way similer to the current mobile one - and it's opt out - expect there to be a right shitstorm regardless of the ethics of the filter in the first place.

If a 6600 used paper tape instead of core memory, it would use up tape at about 30 miles/second. -- Grishman, Assembly Language Programming

Working...