UK ISPs To Begin Censorship of Porn Websites 186
An anonymous reader writes "In a plan sponsored by the UK government, four major UK ISP's, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk and Sky, are set to implement blocking of porn websites, requiring subscribers to 'opt-in' if they want to visit blocked websites (or to put it another way, 'opt-out' of internet censorship)."
Blocking porn websites? (Score:5, Insightful)
Good luck with that.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, I'd say that blocking porn websites is the last thing any authoritarian government should do.
People want porn, so let it through the censorship filters. Let the censorship filters block all the "bringing down the state" stuff, but let porn through.
People get their fix, and they'd be too busy with porn to care about rights and freedoms. At least, that's how I'd run my state.
Personally I think it's a brilliant idea. (Score:2)
Personally I think it's a brilliant idea.
My only regret is that I don't live in the UK so I can opt in to the filtering and then go looking for something they failed to block so I can sue them for damaging my delicate psyche by failing to block it.
People really need to give of on this idea of a G-rated Internet, not that I think that having all Internet traffic running through a governments filtering/monitoring/blocking center is actually going to end up being about filtering to make the Internet G-rated.
--
Re: (Score:2)
What do you mean? Typical ideological moderation...
It will work for some people, it will work for others as a result there will be a drop of visits to pron sites significant or not. There won't be an increase of porn usage (beyond extrapolated growth based on growth of number of users in each demographics).
Moral panic panic. (Score:2, Interesting)
The Bible, Qur'an and Torah are full of sex, weapons and violence. I hope the new net filters will remove all trace of them off the net.
Actually this is misreported. Most the ISP's are making it opt-in. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography
BT is providing filtering software as part of their install package. Mcafee no less. Botnet admins are probably rubbing their hands with glee.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think written porn is illegal in the UK...just explicit images of erections, penetrations and ejaculations.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh, of course! I mean a kid seeing an erection or an ejaculation would immediately suffer such a massive brain damage as to go blind on the spot! No?
Well, at least it would be such a traumatic shock that he or she would be a PSTD victim for the rest of his/her life! Surely?
Or maybe, just maybe, the "parents" and the whole Western society are under an influence of some Judeo-Christian-Moslem frothing-at-the-snout mental disease that rots the parents' brains and turns them downright psychotic when it comes
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, in this case I was referring to the sexual drive of adolescents, not to the ISP's silly filtering scheme.
The GP insinuated that his "opt-in" can result in him being able to somehow control his kids' sexuality, which is what prompted me to make this comparison.
Re: (Score:2)
You're forgetting something: if a child views porn, their innocent little mind will be obliterated in less than a second. They'll never be the same again. Therefore, ISPs should make viewing porn opt-in (even though that means that people who want to go an extra mile to 'protect' their children are inconveniencing others)!
Re: (Score:2)
Not to mention that the resulting explosion will be at least 60 kilotons of TNT, 3 times the power of the Hiroshima bomb ....
Re: (Score:3)
I mean its not like the "innocent little angels" are equipped with their own penises (erection capable - oh the horror!) and vaginas or something...
I'm inclined to believe that's typically an "or" rather than an "and". Although Internet porn spam might make you believe otherwise...
Re:Moral panic panic. (Score:4, Interesting)
Well, that is a matter of grammatical debate. Imagine you have a mixed set S of items A and B. In the set A has a property PA and B has a property PB. So when you refer to the set, you can say "Items in S have properties PA and PB" (without distinction of which member has which, just simple enumeration of properties) or "Items in S have property PA or property PB" (which specifically offers additional information on mutual exclusivity of PA and PB). Both are correct.
Re: (Score:2)
... or ...
pick one!
It amuses me to no end how all of you "moralists" can't make a single post without at least one massive, glaring self-contradiction.
You see, with the exception of the blind, kids are "forced" to view their own genitalia. Unless, of course, embedded in a full-body burka from birth by their insane parents to "protect" the kids from t
Re: (Score:2)
Thats OK by you so it seams
It's okay to me. If the parents don't want that, they can go through the effort of blocking it.
And don't say its the parents fault if you were a parent you would know quite well there no way in hell you can keep an eye on them all the time.
Too bad for them, then. I certainly don't care enough about a child accidentally viewing porn (don't care at all, actually) that I'd want ISPs to make access to porn opt-in.
Re: (Score:2)
Dude, get a real keyboard. I can't figure out what you are trying to say here....
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
The only thing people do universally agree on is child pornography.
No, they don't. Must it be a sexual situation, or does any nudity qualify? What age -- 18? 16? 14? 12? Does being male or female make a difference?
I've probably seen what could be considered child pornography
- "Page 3" in British tabloid newspapers before the age limit for topless modelling was raised from 16 to 18
- Baby/child photos (mostly me or my siblings, but occasionally friends)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
First of all, "anyone under the age of 18" what? You didn't even reply to the questions he asked. Does it matter if they're nude? What level of nudity? Does it need to be sexual?
Second, you said "universally agreed on" and then tried to state an (incomplete) US-only definition. Even in the USA there are plenty of arguments and controversy over what constitutes child pornography, and then if you look outside the US (ie, universally), there are even more ideas.
Re: (Score:2)
How about you just use some common sense if you have access to any. If you need someone to explain pornography to you it would just be a waste of time to continue the discussion.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
OK, you've defined the "child" part. Now about the "pornography" part ?
WTF??? (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:WTF??? (Score:5, Funny)
My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father's Internet. Prepare to die.
Re: (Score:3)
ASCII porn from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem needed to die.
Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.
That's less sensationalist and doesn't generate as many flaming posts and page hits!
Re:Wrong. (Score:5, Insightful)
Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.
Of course its wrong to have to opt in to pornography, because it makes pornography seem as if it is somehow bad. And the fact that these initiatives are instigated by religious groups is also noteworthy.
Notice also the hypocrisy here. They want to prevent children from watching pornography (according to these people, sex is an exclusive right to people 18 years of age and older), and yet there are no, ABSOLUTELY NONE, restrictions on religious content. Children can be exposed to the bigotry, hatred and irrationality of religious content but something as normal and natural as sexual pleasure is "harmful". Clearly we live in a sick society.
Re: (Score:2)
On the plus side you can't get filtered without your consent (yet) but on the downside you have to show a positive decision to allow porn, which some people may be uncomfortable with. It also gives the ISP's a nice list of who "chose" to watch porn.
Or those that need their net pre-filtered or those who feel they can do their own filtering by not going to websites they don't want.... unless you're scared you will forever be mentally crippled if someone links you to a porn site. Actually,if they have a category for shock sites that's one category I might check myself, the goatse.cx guy is one thing I could gladly do without...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, this will be a problem (Score:1)
For the legions of probably around 14-to-[something] year olds that live at home leeching "free" internet from their parent's wallets.
Re: (Score:2)
For the legions of probably around 14-to-[something] year olds that live at home
You make it sound like this filter is somehow going to work?
The Howard government in Australia offered free "parental control" software to Australians in 2006, it was hacked in 30 minutes flat.
There is no force on earth that can keep a 14 yr old away from a bucket of Pr0n.
Re: (Score:2)
How does that matter? They're still entitled to nothing. Their parents could even not allow internet in their room. Being over 18 doesn't mean you get to flaunt the rules of the people that you are leeching off of, unless you're prepared to stop leeching off them.
Nothing new (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Had this with o2 3g internet for my phone however it applied to a broader range including online forums etc so it was more of an over 18 flag than a 'does want porn' one.
Re:Nothing new (Score:5, Funny)
Indian guy: "So you wish to turn off Orange Security?"
Me: "Yes"
Indian Guy: "You don't like security?"
Me: "No...I don't..."
Re: (Score:2)
Ditto this for Orange mobile internet (on my Desire). The guy I phoned up to turn the block off was cheeky as well, convo went as follows:
Indian guy: "So you wish to turn off Orange Security?"
Me: "Yes"
Indian Guy: "You don't like security?"
Me: "No...I don't..."
The correct answer is to say
"I want to get some hot girl-on-girl anal action with a 12" dildo, followed by a some nice anime of many-tentacled beasts using and abusing young virgins"
Re: (Score:2)
"I want to get some hot girl-on-girl anal action with a 12" dildo, followed by a some nice anime of many-tentacled beasts using and abusing young virgins"
That might be actually illegal, the way current UK law is worded.
It's illegal to want it?
Re: (Score:2)
With o2 you are supposed to be able to disable it by spending £1 on a card which is refunded as £5 discount on your phone bill, this functionality wasn't working when i was using my phone out of town and wanted to get on certain forums. I went into the local o2 store stated that the online system was down and asked them to confirm me 18, the guy in the store hadn't got a clue, asked his manager played with the pc for a couple of minutes then said that their system was down as well.
When i returne
Re: (Score:2)
It's not just the adult filter - they put little messages in front of other sites too. Apparently if you go to one of the UK dating sites, you get an O2 website warning you to be careful when meeting people. You can then click through to the real site.
Re: (Score:2)
The filter they use is the same for most government run Web Access e.g. Library Internet access ...
It is massively flawed as expected, i.e. it lets many sites through that should be blocked, and blocks sites that are totally clean ...
Wrong (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
In cases like this (+5 moderated comment) submitter, in this case, timothy, should update their submission as a rule.
Strangely okay with this... (Score:1)
I usually hate the idea of censorship, and arguably still do... but if this is designed to be an easy (or at least easier) tool for parents to use, then yes I think it's a good thing.
Once the rugrats are of age and on their own, then they can choose their own connection's ability.
Re:Strangely okay with this... (Score:4, Insightful)
however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.
Re: (Score:2)
however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.
But that would require the parents to have some element of responsibility and actually take time out from party's, getting drunk, holidays, et al. to actually take care of their crotchspawns.
No, no, much easier to have the TV do it and whinge to the government when that fails.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?
dictoinary.com used to. I accidentally typed that at work once. Awkward!!!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I did that as well once about ten years ago, except that I believe I left off the "t" in dictionary. I worried for a couple of minutes because I thought dictionary.com had been hijacked until I looked at what I typed in.
Never again!
Re: (Score:2)
I managed to accidentally hit lovethecock.com instead of slashdot.org, the keys are right next to each other...
Re: (Score:2)
And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?
Because in this case it delegates the responsibility of what is and what is not porn to the filter providers, instead of being a conversation between parents & children.
I know, I know.. I'm old-fashioned. Now get off my lawn etc.
Re: (Score:2)
If my parents were more like the way I am now as a parent and tre
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Conservative Sharia law (Score:1)
All bow to our Puritan overlords! And my captcha was "unclean" haha.
now everybody knows... (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
What next? (Score:1)
Opt-In to visit websites which don't agree with the government?
So... (Score:1)
... that's it for 4chan in UK, then?,
If you can opt-in... (Score:1)
...how is that "censorship"?
Misusing words eventually makes them meaningless.
Slippery slope. (Score:1)
So in other words, the ISP's are giving parents the easiest form of parental control they can muster, and any censorship they wish to impose using this system on their children is on their hands?
That wouldn't bother me so much, but children and teenagers
Implementation (Score:2)
Let me guess, they are going to block it the same way pirate sites get blocked [slashdot.org]? Good luck with that.
This is likely just going to be a false sense of security.
Virgin?! (Score:1)
Oh my! How they've turned full circle. Appropriate name, mind you.
Fine. Be like that. (Score:2)
I'm fairly sure there's an over-quoted soundbite from John Gilmore to be repeated here.
Seriously? (Score:2)
Mother's Union. Christian charity review. Hey, and a whole new website for parents to complain about pretty damn well everything they find objectionable. The website will have no fewer than 8 oversight committees (WTF!).
And how many of these parents are not going to 'opt-in' to being able to view a little bit of porn now and then? And teens are smarter than you think, and will figure out how to 'opt-in' anyway.
I don't get it- parents' did this porn to get a kid, but what, are they still using the stork
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And how many of these parents are not going to 'opt-in' to being able to view a little bit of porn now and then? And teens are smarter than you think, and will figure out how to 'opt-in' anyway.
The article got it wrong,
The filter is opt-in, not opt-out. But your question stands, how many parents are so prudish and technologically competent enough to opt-in. Methinks that catagory already has some parental controls installed, all 4 of them.
This seems more like arse covering for ISP's. When Whiny McPrude rings up to complain about seeing a nipple, the ISP can tell her to naff off because she didn't opt in to the filter.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, thanks for clearing that up. That makes more sense.
Won't work but what about liability? (Score:2)
If it's as effective as O2's 3G filtering, it won't be any use.
O2 block access to some really tame and completely non-adult sites unless you opt out, but conveniently forget to block google image search...
If you can't find what you need on google image search, you most likely need a therapist, not an internet filter.
It will therefore just be an inconvenience, while lulling parents in to a a false sense of security. How long before an ISP gets sued because they promised filtering and poor little Johnny could
In a related story... (Score:2)
I know you were joking, but... (Score:2)
I realise you were joking, but funnily enough my first thought about this wasn't about yet another pseudo-censorship policy that will fail, it was that ISPs have been struggling to provide the bandwidth and they've advertised now that people actually want to use it so they can watch streamling videos a la Netflix/BBC iPlayer, video calling via Skype, etc. Getting rid of most porn downloading probably removes a convenient amount of load on those ISPs' systems and lets them provide other services to customers
Re: (Score:2)
As boring as... (Score:2)
Is it just me, but the continuous, crushing global regulation of the Internet both in what content is legal, what our allowed "bandwidths and data caps are", what behaviors or opinions can be freely expressed, and a constant barrage of advertisements are making it as boring as television?
I don't pay for television. I won't pay for the public Internet if this trend doesn't stop.
There's plenty of private alternatives. Grandma can enjoy her walled gardens of Facebook and have her viewing habits sold off ten
Re: (Score:2)
In the UK we pay for Television ....
List of sites (Score:2)
That's not censorship. (Score:2)
open market? (Score:2)
Where is the wonderful open market when it comes to this thing?
I would love for my ISP to offer virus\porn blocking services to certain members of my family.
If the ISP goes to an end user and says do you want the safe package? And they block certain sites with possible a way around it this would be acceptable.
Why does the government have to get involved if customers are clamming to block porn? Sounds more like a small group of anti-porn people who just can't stand me seeing it so they go to the government i
Re: (Score:2)
Spot on. There are actually a few such groups, the chief of which is Mothers' Union... unsurprisingly, a Christian organisation. Them, and there seem to be a few people in government of similar view too.
And porn sites celebrate. (Score:2)
I mean the dodgy sites. The ones that operate out of Elbonia. Here today, gone tomorrow, shif
Opt in / out, look at the bigger picture (Score:2)
Options only apply to *new* contracts (Score:2)
The Guardian reports that the scheme is only applicable to *new* contracts, and is neither opt-in or opt-out: you choose the service you want when you sign up: http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2011/oct/11/david-cameron-porn-filter-isps [guardian.co.uk]
Expose every UK child to pornography to end this (Score:2)
The sooner we expose everyone to it, the better. "No child left behind"; it will invalidate the use of censoring if there's nobody to shield. Everyone should realize that pornography isn't an evil thing that creates evil people.
Re: (Score:1)
More importantly, how many people will they hire to "find" all of it?
Related: Can I work from the privacy of my own home?
we won't see David Cameron or Nick Cleg any more (Score:2)
They are a pair of tits.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I think it's funny that you've gone off on this totally inappropriate rant instead of reading either the article or the rest of the comments which have preceded yours.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)