Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship Your Rights Online

ISPs To Censor Porn By Default In the UK By 2014 310

Posted by timothy
from the registered-medical-exceptions-only dept.
An anonymous reader writes "Parental filters for pornographic content will come as a default setting for all homes in the UK by the end of 2013, says David Cameron's special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, Claire Perry MP. Internet service providers will be expected to provide filtering technology to new and existing customers with an emphasis on opting out, rather than opting in."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ISPs To Censor Porn By Default In the UK By 2014

Comments Filter:
  • so what is porn? (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:21PM (#44024229)

    Paintings and sculptures? Photography of nude people? Literature that has sections with with erotic or sexual topics (e.g. the Bible?)

    But violent media is just fine.....

    • by fustakrakich (1673220) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:23PM (#44024239) Journal

      Who cares 'what is porn'? Question is, 'How do you work around the blockage'?

      • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:25PM (#44024267)

        Question is, 'How do you work around the blockage'?

        You can opt out (according to summary)
        And I am sure that the helpful "suspected pervert/pedophile" investigative team will be very polite. You have nothing to worry about.

        • Other than your family. Because some day Mother is going to come round to visit, and just to test if you are being a good little boy quickly check if she can see sex.com. Then you have to endure an hour-long lecture about how the 'didn't raise you this way.'

          I'd say the same applies to girlfriends, but... slashdot.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:32AM (#44026659)

          Indeed. Good luck trying to get a teaching job after your decision to opt out of the censorship goes on record.

      • by rubycodez (864176) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:32PM (#44024345)

        that was my point, the blockage is between politicians ears.

      • Re:so what is porn? (Score:5, Informative)

        by tompaulco (629533) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:54PM (#44024805) Homepage Journal

        Who cares 'what is porn'? Question is, 'How do you work around the blockage'?

        I imagine in much the same way that water "works it's way around the blockage" when you drop a pebble in the Colorado river.

    • by 0123456 (636235) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:27PM (#44024279)

      Duh, you actually think this is something to do with porn.

      This is being used to get the censorship infrastructure in place, so it can then be expanded to cover any kind of 'bad data' in the future.

      Oh, sorry, the Slippery Slope Mafia will be along in a minute to tell me that's a logical fallacy and, yes, it really is all just about stopping kids seeing naked people.

      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by Anonymous Coward

        ..This is being used to get the censorship infrastructure in place, so it can then be expanded to cover any kind of 'bad data' in the future.

        I hate to break it to you, but the infrastructure is already in place, and has been so for a number of years.

      • by jonfr (888673)

        It is lot worse. People believe this reason and accept it as the truth. Censoring of porn is just the start, next it is going to be something else. Like criticism of corrupt politicians that is active in congress. U.K is sounding more like a dictatorship every year that passes.

        • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Monday June 17, 2013 @01:34AM (#44026663)

          It isn't the start.
          The start was the de-facto compulsory imposition of child porn filtering. No-one dared object to that - it was filtering child porn, after all - but it still results in every ISP operating a filter system fed by a secret blacklist produced by an organisation with no transparency, accountability or oversight.

          The second step was to then broaden the definition of child porn - something politicians at the time described as 'closing a loophole' - to include not just actual child porn but also artistic depictions of children, or things that look like children in some way (a condition put in to make sure fantasy creatures were covered), in sexual situations. Again, no-one dared oppose, for the public were told that this was needed to lock up some filthy nonce scum.

          The third step was the 'extreme porn' law, creating a new legal class of pornography which is illegal to possess. The 'extreme' wide enough that an exception was required for material classified by our film board, to avoid inadvertantly banning a James Bond film which meets the definition for one scene.

          This is step four.

          I can only speculate on step five, but if I were a moral crusader in government I would look into setting very high penalties for showing pornography to a minor, and make sure ignorance of age or best-effort age checking is no defense - that way the internet porn industry would be driven entirely offshore, because no site operator would want to run the risk of a ten year sentence and life on the sex offender register after a child sneaks onto the family computer with a browser window still open.

    • by gmuslera (3436)
      Is easy, any page with the keyword "prism" surely is porn and must be blocked. They are keyphrases too, but i still can't understand how porno culture switched to say just fuck to add names to it, specially if those names are from the top people in the government. Must be related to the rule 34 [xkcd.com] of internet.
      • by Macgrrl (762836)

        Is easy, any page with the keyword "prism" surely is porn and must be blocked.

        Or a physics/optics site or a Pink Floyd fan site.

    • by decora (1710862) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:01PM (#44024529) Journal

      also sometimes a guys penis goes in a guys mouth, or a guys anus, or sometimes a womans anus has a penis going in it and another penis going in her vagina at the same time, thats called double penetration

      also there is uhm, bukkake, where a bunch of guys jerk off onto a woman and/or man.

      then there is fetish porn, like, you know, some people are really into casts. like casts like you get for a broken bone. they think its sexy.

      also there is like uhm, bestiality. where like people are fucking dogs and horses

      then there is tentacle porn. it helps if you speak japanese.

      ok then there is 'porn for women' which is a lot like other porn but with a soft lighting scheme

      then there is lesbian porn. alot of them are not really lesbians.

      but mostly i guess id say that porn is uhm, film production where nobody gets payed union scale.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:05PM (#44024551)

      Am confused. Doesn't this mean that youtube/dailymotion/tumblr and many other top sites would have to be put on the porn filter by default?

      And what defines porn exactly? Sure, there's the obvious stuff, but people get off on anything. Would smoking fetish sites be classed as porn even tho the partipants are fully clothed? What about Gilbert Gottfried's epic 50 Shades of Gray reading (go on, look it up, is brilliant)?

      Surely the UK government then has to porn-block the Sun/Star for the topless girls and put a ban on the jailbait-obsessed Daily Mail and its 'side panel of shame'? But as those papers are run by assorted right-wing business interest pals of said government I have a feeling they'd be immune.

    • It's not porn if sexual contact is not depicted.

      Literature that has sections with with erotic or sexual topics (e.g. the Bible?)

      I'd be inclined to agree with the interpretation given in the article "Porn with Plot" from TV Tropes [tvtropes.org]. It's literature if the sexual content serves a characterization purpose. It's porn if the plot is predominantly an excuse to get the characters together for sexual contact. The Bible, for example, uses sex (and in some cases, denial of sex) to show particular characters as not caring about following Jehovah's express wishes. It also has "The Song of Solomon",

    • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

      by interkin3tic (1469267)
      An excellent question about a very nuanced and complex issue. I'm guessing the answer they will come up with be "Experts will define it" and the experts will be whoever set the default settings for censoring software that successfully schmoozes the right ISP executives and or politicians.

      On the violent media thing, the logic there is that kids are more likely to have sex than go on violent rampages, which is not totally crazy. The crazy part is that kids are going to be brainwashed by media out there,
  • This is an interesting job title:

    Special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood

    Will she also be proposing that UK homes have AdBlock on by default by 2014, to ensure that kids don't get too many ads targeted at them?

  • how about (Score:2, Insightful)

    by Anonymous Coward

    how about the ISPs focus on merely PROVIDING THE INTERNET SERVICE rather than POLICING IT.

    seriously.

    fucking brits

  • How can you censor the element that helped the most [pcworld.com] to make the internet what it is today?
  • by coId fjord (2949869) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:26PM (#44024271)

    You can request to get around the filters, after all, so why not block other things as well? Religious websites would be a decent start. What's wrong...? Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?

    • Suddenly blocking things by default is bad because you don't like what's being blocked this time around?

      In theory, through elections to Parliament, the people decide who decides what to block by default.

      • Because people are apparently too stupid to invest five minutes in deciding whether or not they want to censor information for themselves.

        How about this, all who want to wear blinders may do so, they get no say over whether their neighbor should wear them.

        • I wouldn't say stupid as much as uninformed. People subscribing to Internet access for the first time might not know that really dirty porn exists on the Internet, and they might not know that censorware exists to keep kids away from well-known sources of porn.
      • by fafaforza (248976)

        Has that ever worked? You'll get to elections 3 years after the fact, and people will either have forgotten, or the opponent will have even fewer things in common with you, that you end up voting for the lesser of two evils, though it might be the one that instituted censorship. Multiply this process by everyone that votes, district shenanigans, etc, and that theory is so diluted, that it might as well be a fallacy.

    • by iYk6 (1425255)

      Block the whole internet by default. Customers have to submit a list of checkmarks letting the ISP know what they would like to have unblocked.

      • Companies that provide both internet and television service in the same package would fight that one for sure; slippery slope to a la carte cable!

        • Indeed. It'll be wonderful when they start charging extra for this service because *ding * ding* ding* censorship is, surprisingly, not free, so the costs will need to be offloaded somewhere, either in the form of a rate hike for customers, or money from the taxpayers. But I'm sure the UK has loads of money to spare, won't miss a few pouinds here and there, right? Doing well this global recession, right?

    • by PPH (736903)

      Religious websites would be a decent start.

      Will we have to blanket block them all? Or can we design a filter to select only certain theologies? Can this be extended to individual prophecies of a particular religion with which I disagree and do not wish my children exposed?

      • Then you as a parent have the obligation to control what your children see. OpenDNS is a good start and you can block anything...just point your router's DNS to them and configure away. Leave us alone and get off our lawn!
      • Can I get anything from the PRISM IP address block censored? I just don't want my kids getting involved in government spy business.

  • by tmosley (996283) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:42PM (#44024417)
    Knowledge is inherently dangerous, and we need the government to decide what is dangerous. Ignorance must be maintained at all costs. Praise CoE Jesus!
  • From the article:

    "That said, restrictions on the content available to young people via mobile networks have been in place for a number of years."

    That shit blocked ICQ and the facebook chat for me. Gonna be fun times when they apply this to the whole internet.

  • by davidwr (791652) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:54PM (#44024487) Homepage Journal

    Censoring porn is easy.

    Not censoring non-porn is easy.

    Doing both at the same time is virtually impossible.

  • by bogaboga (793279) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @05:55PM (#44024489)

    I guess there will be plenty of folks who will say something to the effect, "I know what porn is when I see it."

    Question is: Whose eyes will decide this question?

  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:01PM (#44024527)
    Actually, Claire Perry is pretty much a laughing stock even inside her own party. This is extremely unlikely to happen - too many people in government and the civil service in the UK are now savvy to how stupid this is.

    All that said now is still a great time to join the Open Rights Group [openrightsgroup.org] - just to make sure.

    • by Epeeist (2682)

      Actually, Claire Perry is pretty much a laughing stock even inside her own party.

      As are several others including the minister for Health (who believes in homoeopathy) and the minister for work and pensions (who faked his own CV) and the minister for local government (who looks as though he has eaten his way through the output of a pie factory). But all of the ministers in this government simply ignore any evidence which runs counter to their ideology.

  • Wait till the porn industry sues the government/ISP's for blocking their perfectly legal content and losing them business.
    and those who are incorrectly blocked.

  • by Anonymous Coward
    At least we ensure that those same ISPs don't waste their time investing on IPv6 deployment
  • Nearly every day we read a story of the government wiping their ass with the constitution. Every day there is a story telling us how the government is tapping each landline, mobile, internet connected computer, satellite uplink,... All this happens daily and I have not seen mass protests. We here at slashdot (tech savy people) know whats going on. We know that this is just the tip of the iceberg and there is lots more going on. Still no reaction from the general public. Its like the population of the United
  • by GrahamCox (741991) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:24PM (#44024641) Homepage
    I think it will be interesting, assuming that the whole thing is even feasible in any way, to see what the percentage of opt-out ends up being. I suspect it will be 2-3% at most.
    • by GrahamCox (741991)
      I should clarify, since I think I misread the opt-out part. What they're saying is that you have to opt out of the filtering. In that case, I suspect 97-98% of people will do so.
  • by svvampy (576225) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:42PM (#44024737)
    Or is that different because the carrier gets their slice of the pie?
  • by Anonymous Coward on Sunday June 16, 2013 @06:43PM (#44024751)

    Anybody with children. Please, the moment they start the censorship, sue them whenever you discover that your child has found any porn at all. If they start censoring, make them liable for their failure to censor well. With some luck they will have to quit trying.

  • i will definitely be opting out david cameron at the next election

  • by Anonymous Coward

    You cannot censor Internet porn- and this is the whole point. Tony Blair (these actions are actually his, just like the declaration of war against Syria by the USA and EU) knows this, so what is the real game?

    1) filters are activated at the ISP level, actually representing the widest and most repressive Internet censorship regime on the planet
    2) every other third-world hell hole immediately justifies its acts of censorship by quoting the UK
    3) the porn censor 'fails' and the UK tabloid press goes into over-d

    • by Maritz (1829006)
      Is that you, David? Still getting good attendances at your talks? See you on abovetopsecret.com mate. Keep the tin foil handy.
  • by pscottdv (676889) on Sunday June 16, 2013 @07:15PM (#44024913)

    We're British.

  • #1: "How do I enable porn?"

    And, because I don't see that anyone else has posted it yet, my favorite quote: "I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd only be one website left, and it'd be called ``Bring back the porn!'' "

    http://www.coxisms.com/229/ [coxisms.com]

This file will self-destruct in five minutes.

Working...