British Prime Minister To Announce Porn Blocking Plans 286
Overly Critical Guy writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron will announce network-filtering plans targeted at porn websites, possibly requiring users to 'opt-in' with their ISP to access such content. The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'"
First they came.. (Score:5, Insightful)
What next? The Internet and web should be free. There should never be any large-scale blocking of this sort, otherwise they'll add more categories in the future until we're left with a heavily restricted Internet/web, or worse: whitelisted categories.
Filtering doesn't work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Filtering doesn't work! (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
Maybe it's not even prohibition?
What if they are creating a separate opt-in Naughty-Net where all the porn is collected and categorized into one place by who it might offend the most? That's sounds service oriented to me.....
Re:Filtering doesn't work! (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Filtering doesn't work! (Score:4, Insightful)
I was being completely sarcastic..... a filter/censorship/oppression system like this has nothing to do with porn. That's just the left hand going "look at me! look at me!" why the right hand is delivering the knife to your balls.
Censorship, not prohibution (Score:3)
They're not breaking into your houses trying to confiscate your porn, or breaking into ISPs taking theirs away. They're just censoring it in between.
But they're being dishonest idiots about it. The reason the "hands off the Internet" people are calling this proposed "change" "censorship" is that it's rather precisely meeting the definition of censorship. She wants to block material based on its content. If BT were to move everything onto wireless and tell you not to download big files because it'd int
Re:Filtering doesn't work! (Score:5, Insightful)
Nonsense. Filtering has been proven effective in many countries, including China and Iran. I daresay it's been proven cost effective in such countries as well. In fact, you will find that all this software was originally developed, tested, improved and optimised in such regimes, by western companies, and is now being sold back to the home country.
You are assuming that this is a side effect, and not the entire purpose of the system from the start. Filtering is designed to block things which those in power dislike.
In this regard, there is no difference between porn, the pirate bay, islamist websites, or even the likes of zerohedge.com when it comes to the running of a successful filtering system. Once the system is in place, those in charge will block what they please.
There will be no oversight or appeal to the courts, as a successful censorship/filtering system requires these options to be removed. This is the single biggest problem with such filters: they are above the rule of law.
Re:Filtering doesn't work! (Score:5, Funny)
If you're like me, about 7 and a half minutes.
How do you think this quote will work in this case (Score:2)
How would imagine it working?
First they came for porn, but I do not watch porn, so I was silent, when people who watched porn were too shy to declare that.
Then they came for people who read Inspire magazine (wait, they came for them first, with drones), so I was silent, when people who read Jihadi websites opted-in without shame.
How do you expect this beaten to the death quote to work in this case?
Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c (Score:5, Funny)
I think the emphasis is on the word "came".
Comment removed (Score:5, Informative)
Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
So, I will opt-in for terrorism, hate speech, extremism, copyright infringement.
Who is coming for me?
Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c (Score:5, Funny)
You forgot to opt-in for child porn
Re: (Score:3)
No-one will come for you, but you might find that some kind of extended "sex offender" lists will crop up where everyone who had opted into something ends up on. Once there, good luck finding a job or buying or renting a house.
now no one else can (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:now no one else can (Score:5, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
I'd hazard a guess that he's trying to pass this for his base or some other group he's trying to retain the support of, this doesn't sound like something the majority of voters would approve of. Thus, I'd guess he's trying to keep this a little quiet. My proposal would blow the story up in a bad light if it's not already front-page news, and he'd probabl
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It was more a matter of making implicit understandings explicit. The government didn't start suppressing speech in earnest until seven years after the bill of rights was ratified.
Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
What will happen is there will be a list compiled of the "weirdos" who choose to opt in. That list will be used to deny employment, raise insurance rates, and all manner of discrimination.
Salem witch trials/Spanish Inquisition all over again except this time it's digital.
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the government track record on security, that Opt-In list will probably be leaked in a couple years of going into effect.
Re: (Score:3)
Yeah it's opt-in. For now. It's rather naive to think that this isn't just the first step to banning it.
Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (Score:5, Insightful)
Yeah, opt in to VIEW it.
If parents are too retarded to setup web censorship, or, you know, TALK to their kids, they shouldn't be allowed to have any damn kids.
I'm sick of lazy parents forcing their stupidity and laze on others.
Porn first, adult content in general after it.
Hell, the idiots even have age group restrictions in general!
The web filters in their entirety should be banned.
It costs the entire country money and I am pretty sure I don't give a damn about lazy parents or their already warped childrens minds.
Re: (Score:2)
You and him are reading it backwards. It's "opt in to look at porn", aka "opt out of the filter".
Um, yeah, actually ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'
Yes. And?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Ah, yes. Clearly.
A couple of days ago, I told an English friend of mine, who was claiming that the UK would never tolerate anything like America's level of right-wing crazy, that I strongly suspected their Tories would be just as bad as our Republicans given the chance. I think this is all the proof I need that it's already happened. Not just the proposal itself, but the smug, smarmy, iron-fist-in-the-velvet-glove way Perry is defending it.
The right wing here wants to leave you alone (Score:2)
The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.
On any point where they do not seem to want to do this, they are no different than Democrats (gay marriage for example).
But basically overall any political group in the EU or UK is far to the left, hence the desire to control what the populace does or sees. A true nanny state comes about as the result of a left-wing "we know what is best for you" kind of mindset that few on the right ha
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
>>>"we know what is best for you" kind of mindset that few on the right have now (and the Tea Party is getting rid of the ones that remain)
Oh really? The Tea Party Caucus in the House voted 71% in favor of CISPA. They've been co-opted by the Republican Party (which acts like Democrats). By the way I agree the left/right paradigm is pointless.
It was originally a reference to the French Assembly of the 1790s, and has little relevance to the U.S. or modern politics. You are either for government co
Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (Score:5, Insightful)
The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.
What a bald face lie. They want to reduce the power of federal government to enable corporations to rampage freely across the country, extracting profits and leaving negative externalities for everyone else to deal with.
Personal liberty doesn't enter into it with the right wing. You won't find John Boener advocating for marijuana legalization any time soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Vice-versa the corproations use Democrat politicians to write regulations that FAVOR the corporations by blocking new competitors from entering the market. Or getting bailouts for their Chevy Volts, which they then ship-off to China. IMHO we'd actually be better-off without the regulations (except basic worker and customer rights), so corporations could not block the growth of new competitors like Ubuntu, Hulu, Netflix, megaupload, Solectria, and so on.
The bottom line: Both Republicans and Democrats prett
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
That is imbecile drivel. Obama is pretty much an enlightened saint next to all the crap the Republicans had as possible candidates. Claiming there is no difference is just utter idiocy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (Score:5, Insightful)
unless you own a vagina. In which case they know whats best for you.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Unless you want an abortion. Or a gay marriage. Or freedom to practice your non-Christian religion. Moron.
Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (Score:5, Informative)
"The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone."
Haha. Get real. You are confusing "right wing" with Libertarians.
The "small government" policies that the political Right have tried to pretend they believe in have NEVER materialized in the real world.
When the Republicans have been in power they have NEVER reduced the power of the Federal government, NEVER reduced the actual size of government, NEVER reduced overall spending (except to reduce military spending after wars were over, and not even that, most of the time). Not once, at least since the year 1900, have they EVER actually made the government smaller.
And they have NEVER left us alone. For the most part, and until very recently, they have a far worse record when it comes to Constitutional rights than the Democrats.
So you can talk about what the Right pretends its platform to be all you want, but history very clearly shows it to be nothing but rhetoric. Actually that's too polite. Bullshit is the more accurate term.
If they wanted anybody to actually believe them, they should have started putting their money where their mouths were over 50 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
The "small government" policies that the political Right have tried to pretend they believe in have NEVER materialized in the real world.
It is really funny how the Republicans in the US can't shut up about small government and then in the next breath they rage on about how the "liberals" want to make defense cuts when in reality the USA should be aiming for a 1000 aircraft F-22 fleet, set up a few air mobile armored brigades go back to a 600 ship navy and invade Iran. As if the armed forces aren't a part of the big, bloated and evil government whose operations they want to carve up and outsource to private enterprise. The same goes for right
Re: (Score:2)
It's more infuriating when politicians DO get it, and do what they're going to do anyway.
Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
British porn is terrible.
Re:Excellent! (Score:5, Funny)
WTF UK? (Score:2, Interesting)
Stick a camera up everyone’s ass, outlaw solitary men walking through parks on the off chance they're pedos, confiscate almost all the guns, now you erect a government run firewall ah la china to 'save' someone from porn or something.
This desire to make your island a pink and blue romper room will not work. Stop doing it.
What about books, newspapers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Do I have to "opt in" if I want to read Huckleberry Finn or Anne Frank's uncensored diary? No. Free speech/press/expression means exactly that..... no censorship by the government of any book, paper, or website.
Dumbass PM.
Re: (Score:2)
No, but you should have to! What if someone innocent (unlike you, you murderer) accidentally reads those books and gets offended? People have a right to not be offended, you know.
Re: (Score:2)
Yeah I was highly offended by the girl-on-girl touching in Anne Frank. I'm scarred forever and think the government should ban that book from all libraries/bookstores everywhere. No it's not censorship..... it's "content filtering".
Woah.
I channeled the British PM for a second there.
Sorry.
Re: (Score:3)
The PM is basically just trying to rally the right-wingers around him after a disastrous local elections. The Daily Mail (possibly the worst example of right wing press) has been banging their think-of-the-children drum for months, at exactly the same time as they've been giving the PM a kicking. The PM has just come out about 8 points below Labour in a mostly-nationwide vote. 2 + 2 are easy to put together.
Sadly, there's a strong chance it would pass. The Tories will gather round it like crazy moths around
Please no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Please don't make it a hassle for people who want to view the content. Not for the children, and not for anyone else. This isn't necessary. We've lived without this, and somehow the world hasn't collapsed due to it yet.
This anti-sexuality nonsense has got to go. Even if a child does see the content, it will most likely not hurt them, anyway. I'd say ignorance is far more damaging.
Re: (Score:3)
Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.
Well, damn. I guess I'm just a rapist then. Or whatever that "detrimental effect" is. Probably similar to video games making people murderers.
Re:Please no... (Score:5, Insightful)
Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.
[citation needed]
"Well Documented" (Score:3)
It's well documented.
You are a lying scumbag. It's well documented.
Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life.
Only if you fail to stock the Kleenex properly.
It has zero detriment to feelings towards women or sex. Kids have been looking at porn for decades now...
Re: (Score:2)
It has zero detriment to feelings towards women or sex. Kids have been looking at porn for decades now...
Not that I disagree with your distrust of the OP but yeah, uh... That's not a great argument.
Re: (Score:2)
. It's well documented.
Where, exactly? Because all I have ever seen is people saying how well documented it is, without any actual documentation.
Re: (Score:2)
B.S.
Porn is no more detrimental than teaching kids "Everybody poops" and wiping the shit off their bottom. I've been downloading nude images ever since I got a computer with decent video (4000 color Commodore, 1985) and it hasn't had any detrimental effect. On the contrary it's probably had a GOOD effect overall, because I'm not going round raping women (or peeping through windows).
Re: (Score:2)
And Michael Phelps was diagnosed with ADHD, so everyone who was diagnosed with ADHD is a gold medal winning swimmer.
I don't know if porn is detrimental to kids or not, but your "argument" doesn't even deserve that name.
Re: (Score:3)
"It's well documented."
It is nothing of the sort. People have written that, to be sure, but their actual evidence has always been somewhere between thin and nonexistent.
If it is well-documented, perhaps you can provide us with links to some kind of unbiased double-blind study that actually tells us this? I would be interested in seeing it.
Re: (Score:2)
[citation needed]
And in any case, wouldn't it make more sense to make the *censorship* opt-in, rather than making the *porn* opt-in? After all, only 21% of the UK is under the age of 18 - even if you do buy into the argument that watching porn at 14 totally destroys your life, isn't it logical to make the default state match the significant majority, rather than a minority?
Re: (Score:3)
Nothing good came out of it. ... The day scum like you will decorate the lampposts will be one of the happiest days of my life.
That was a very convincing argument.
Re: (Score:3)
I was exposed to strong language and sexuality by my peers (they were exposed by idiot adults) since age 7. Nothing good came out of it.
You know who you are? You are human waste, a parasite in a need of a good squash. The day scum like you will decorate the lampposts will be one of the happiest days of my life.
Go to Hell, asshole.
And yet I see you overcame it to become a well rounded and reasonable human being.
Should be opt-in.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
I'm all for providing parents with the tools to filter their local internet connection for their children, but centralised blocking will never work effectively.
How do you decide what's appropriate for 5 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? Sure, you could just block everything that you think might be inappropriate for under-18s but then you're going to be blocking a massive amount of stuff that most parents would probably be happy for their teenage children to view, even if they wouldn't want their 8 year
Re: (Score:2)
STOP making sense.
thank you
Re:Should be opt-in.. (Score:5, Insightful)
You do realize that the parents ALREADY can filter out the naughtiness from the internet connection? It's called putting the computer in the living room, and using a password on it. By the time the kids are old enough to defeat those security measures, they're old enough to browse for boobies. By the time they can defeat anything more serious, as well as the threat of "I'm logging everything at the router", they're old enough to have sex.
In other words, this is a solution to a non-existent problem.
Re: (Score:2)
I always wondered why I have never seen a business/organization that offers consumers a verified whitelist and filters accordingly. They could sell routers with their filtering software loaded. If the administrator of the home network wants access to a site that is not whitelisted for the chosen categories, they type in their credentials to open up the site for their home and the system automatically sends an anonymous review request to the company. Eventually, an employee pulls the request off the queue an
Re: (Score:2)
Actually the now happily defunct ISP Supanet had just such an offering, called "Supananny" and indeed they did get quite a few takers for it. In this respect they were ahead of the game, though as a company they were horrific slave-drivers to work for, and eventually got taken over just before they went bust.
However, there is one salient point to remember about offering a 'net censorship service: if you filter content for users, you lose Common Carrier Immunity.
Common Carrier Immunity over here works thusly
Re: (Score:3)
However, there is one salient point to remember about offering a 'net censorship service: if you filter content for users, you lose Common Carrier Immunity.
I was talking about home network level filtering. The business would sell its users a router loaded with the software and subscription to the whitelist database. The ISP would still be a common carrier. It might be wise for a ISP to simply partner with a separate company for the filtering options in order to avoid losing Common Carrier Immunity.
Re: (Score:2)
What is the internet but opt in access? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
"Everything on the internet is "opt in" access!!!"
That is, until you click on a malicious link and are taken to a site full of kiddie porn or something even worse (if there is such a thing) without your prior consent.
Note, however, that I still do not believe even that is an excuse for prior censorship. Catch the people who break those laws, but leave everybody else the hell alone. I don't need the government to tell me what I can see and what I cannot.
This is stupid. (Score:5, Informative)
Porn is not illegal, so what is the base to discriminate it over other stuff? Its much less damaging to everyone than religion, and religion is not bloqued. Is less damaging than sport, and sport is not blockqued. WHY THE HELL.
I'd better hurry up... (Score:2)
Any change IS censorship... (Score:3)
Dear Prime Minister David Cameron (Score:5, Insightful)
I must have ... (Score:3)
Slippery slope (Score:2)
Malicious compliance? (Score:2)
An ISP who didn't want to comply could just add this one line to the account application:
Mark only one: :)
_X_ I am a legal adult and am okay with _ISP_ not blocking porn
___ I am not not a legal adult and agree to have porn blocked. Note: Non-adult customers must have an adult agree to pay the bill.
Terrible implementation (Score:3, Informative)
Why doesn't the british government just have an option at sign up for child protection and use a simple DNS blocking service like NortonDNS? That would not disrupte free speech nor would it require expensive procedures and upgrades for ISPs.
I am an advocate of OpenDNS, and NortonDNS for phishing and crossite protection in case my anti virus package misses something. NortonDNS has porn filtering as well if you enter the IP addresses here. Basically the last subnet .50 filters unfamily friendly sites, .40 just porn and malware, and .20 for the rest of us with just security protection.
I have my router with .20 filter at home. If I had a child I would put his/her own computer with a subnet of .40 for the DNS IP Address. Problem solved. No expensive tax dollars or expensive hardware or software.
If you run Windows you can turn on family safety too for a childs account. I imagine most users are not this savy or smart to know this or set this up and you can do custom filtering as well. However DNS filtering is the best and an easy way.
I am for free speech and this is outragous! I think an option with those who pick family safety just run a script which configures their new shiny routers to the NortonDNS that protects agaisnt porn and viola! Easy
Because it is? (Score:2)
MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'" -> Because it is?
Censor (courtesy of MW):
2censor verb
censoredcensoring
Definition of CENSOR
transitive verb
: to examine in order to suppress or delete anything considered objectionable ; also : to suppress or delete as objectionable
See censor defined for English-language learners
blocking the internet porn is just the beginning.. (Score:3, Insightful)
Government wants to control you. (Score:2)
Fight it at all costs.
Inaccurate summary (Score:2)
I hate to quote Carlin yet again but it's relevant (Score:2)
"...fuck the children; they are getting entirely too much attention"
So what are they saying...? (Score:2)
What is going to be considered porn? If I write something sexy in an email - does it get blocked? Does this happen in every language? If someone sends a sexy photo to someone who hasn't opted-in are they breaking the law?
Who is responsible for that, the ISP/government/sender?
If you "opt-in" who gets to see the list of people who have done so? How will this be audited and by whom?
Can this be the basis of a search warrant? If you bypass the filter are you breaking a law? If you help someone bypass a f
No wonder they loosing the elections (Score:2)
There is no wonder why the Tory are going to loose the next elections big time in few years time. I guess the people in the UK are not going to stand for this type of thinking in the government of the UK.
This also has nothing to do with children. That is just a cover up to get this censorship past the UK parliament.
Weird (Score:5, Insightful)
The British can show boobs on TV, but they want to actively block porn. In the US, you can't show boobs on TV, but everyone says porn in fine. And don't get me started on Japan.
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:5, Insightful)
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
It's really just another moronic step in the funeral parade of personal responsibility; this idea that people shouldn't have to think about requesting adult material be blocked on their connection, let alone actually look after their children and keep an eye on what they're doing online because, you know, that's *hard*.
Stupid lazy fuckers would happily give away all their rights and freedoms if it meant they didn't have to think about anything too hard.
Re:Hang on a second... (Score:4, Insightful)
Just use email. I suspect special feature will emerge to allow you to email a time it's on, or have it turned on for a set amount of minutes.
BTW, anyone reading this who has to hide porn from the So, should sit down and talk to there So about it, right now.
Make a decision, either get comfortable watching it, or decide not to watch it.
Re: (Score:2)
personal responsibility? this is empowering person responsibility. I have the option to have it turned off for me. How is exercising that not taking perosonal responsibility?
Shut it at the ISP,. and I don't have to worry so much about being tricked by an add, or plop up, or malware.
Re: (Score:2)
>>> I have the option to have it turned off for me.
No you don't. The porn and nudity will be turned-off by default whether you like it or not. Next up: The government will "by default" block foxnews and infowars and 2600.com from your ISP.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Blocking porn is just a pretext to implement content blocking. Once the filter is in place it's much easier to add any 'objectionable' site. Just post some porn on it and report it. And once it's on the list it will probably be just about impossible to remove.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
Once upon a time people had to buy dirty mags at the shop, possibly from a female shop keeper, the level of embarassment for publically unacceptable behaviour dropped with the internet generation. Asking your ISP to allow porn is just raising the bar again and if people haven't the fortitude then frankly they shouldn't be looking at it. I personally don't see how this is any different from filtering adult TV channels and I expect neither do the vast majority of people - "stupid lazy fuckers" are not giving
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I personally don't see how this is any different from filtering adult TV channels
The internet is not a fucking cable service. It's designed to be free and open by default. The majority of people are ignoramuses when it comes to technology, so they wouldn't understand that.
they can still see porn
Yeah, and if the government censored speech for everyone, those people could just move out of the country!
How would you react if they said they were censoring certain political opinions by default? You could still see it if you asked, after all!
Also, blocking porn is *not* easy for most people
I don't give a shit. They can figure it out by themselves.
Re: (Score:3)
Except that for this to work every web site has to be classified as porn/non-porn. And this is where you can go wild with the rules.
Is 4chan a porn site?
Re: (Score:2)
Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.
Assuming you have a prudish significant other who sees it as that and not as a fun-filter.
Re: (Score:2)
Opt out of censorship = opt in to porn.