Opting in.

peat

So, we were greeted by the news this morning that by 2015 we will have to declare if we want to have porn included with our internet package.

As a single chap, this doesn't cause me much bother and i relish the moment i can speak to someone in a call centre and ask them to make porn appear on my computer - and to hurry!

However, how do you attached chaps/chapesses see this going down with your other halves? Especially if there are kids on the scene (as in, in your family household. Not on the screen)

Also, for those that opt in, do they go onto some sort of 'deviant's register' that will be trotted out the next time they get a speeding conviction?

So many questions.

seanoconn

What!!!! I hope you're joking?

It's porn that stops me becoming a deviant

peat

Afraid not, sir:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

markhewitt1978

The way it was mentioned on the news this morning along the lines of "You will be required to opt into not protecting your children". Also I would imagine opting in would put you on some sort of watch list!

capt_slog

Download as much as you can now and get it saved on DVD

Doctor House

I think some of Cameron's home made movies have gone missing...

sungod

opt-in for free porn?

that's got to be a vote winner

ballysmate

sungod wrote:

opt-in for free porn?

that's got to be a vote winner

I think Pinarello is rewriting his manifesto as I type.

The Ors

Does that mean I will have to log in and opt in now if I want to read The Bottom Bracket?

ballysmate

seanoconn wrote:

What!!!! I hope you're joking?

It's porn that stops me becoming a deviant

Don't worry about being labeled. Remember 'One man's perversion is another man's fetish'
So you are not a pervert or deviant. You just have a peculiar fetish. Sounds much better.

ballysmate

Trying to imagine how it would work. Would there be a long list of genres and you could specify your requirement. The Germans for instance have produced some strange sh!t over the years. (Literally if you include Scat)
I have this picture of blokes sat around monitoring the requests that come in, having a laugh at what is being requested. 'F*ck me lads, have you seen what the bloke from 24 Acacia Ave is into?'

But in all seriousness, what a pointless exercise.

ianwilliams

The simple facts are that if people want particularly dangerous, amoral pornography then they'll find it. A huge chunk of the internet exists outside of the search engines (the so-called 'dark net'). I don't see how they'll manage to filter that effectively.

The irony is that the agenda for this has been driven by outlets such as the Daily Mail. Now, there's a fair wealth of anecdotal evidence that young people's attitudes towards sex is changing as porn becomes more available - and the unrealistic expectations of what women should/should not do in sex seems to be a good argument in favour of this legislation.

But then the best counter for this is education - discussion in the household and the classroom, the likes of which the Daily Mail would no doubt campaign against.

I honestly think that this would be best dealt with through discussion and talking. Instead its regulation from the people that supposedly want to scale back the state.

I see this as an almost entirely populist move, targeted at winning votes from people who think Google is 'the internet'.

/rant!

ballysmate

ianwilliams wrote:

The irony is that the agenda for this has been driven by outlets such as the Daily Mail. Now, there's a fair wealth of anecdotal evidence that young people's attitudes towards sex is changing as porn becomes more available - and the unrealistic expectations of what women should/should not do in sex seems to be a good argument in favour of this legislation.

Never mind what I think women should be up for. How about the missus thinking I should be hung like a donkey and be going at it for hours?

MattC59

I guess that'll signal the return of finding jazz mags in the park !

simonhead

I think it's a great idea, my local convenience store already has a 15 foot top shelf, knowing the guy that owns it he will start a lending library. this could single handedly save the high street.

ballysmate

simonhead wrote:

I think it's a great idea, my local convenience store already has a 15 foot top shelf, knowing the guy that owns it he will start a lending library. this could single handedly save the high street.

Apt choice of words.

BigTK

I reckon those who opt in may have thier internet monitored. And then shared with various authorities?
Eztv is getting knocked off soon. I pay 35 quid for fast broadband, 60 meg with virgin, what's the point of it if you cant download.
Next they going to ban takeaways and fast food like McDonald's, because it makes people fat!
The great firewall of Britain heh

TheHound

More importantly it's a blatant attack on freedom of speech. Who gets to decide what is offensive or not? It's down to parents to actually look after their kids rather than sit them in front if a computer to keep them entertained.

peat

^while generally i agree. It's a bit different now with nippers of today i would reckon.

When i was growing up, we had 1 computer in the living room which was usually inhabited by one or more family members. However - The fact is, it didn't stop me looking for 'ography. I just feverishly browsed and printed off images (videos were out of the question on a 56k modem) when i had a 'window' of peace. Also, there was quite a well established 'porn ring' at my school where we would pool our collective resources. I recall a very exciting boost of stock material after the French exchange trip......

Anyway, that's teenagers. Nowadays, young children can have several internet enabled devices of their own and are left to interact with them unattended for hours on end. It's easy to see how young minds could be influenced by things they see and accept them as normal.

So, i can see good intentions in this, but it's being done rather clumsily.

zingaiya

The big issue for me is that once we have legislation that allows for filters on the internet, especially banned search terms, how will we know what other search terms are being quietly slipped in the back door?

How long before 'slipped in the back door' is an illegal search term?

Not that it will stop anyone with the nous to read up on how to get around these things. Until they block the forums that tell you how to do this.

ianwilliams

Ballysmate wrote:

Never mind what I think women should be up for. How about the missus thinking I should be hung like a donkey and be going at it for hours?

Cyclist porn?

"Sorry love, I can't. Got an early start tomorrow."

ballysmate

BigTK wrote:

I reckon those who opt in may have thier internet monitored. And then shared with various authorities?
Eztv is getting knocked off soon. I pay 35 quid for fast broadband, 60 meg with virgin, what's the point of it if you cant download.
Next they going to ban takeaways and fast food like McDonald's, because it makes people fat!
The great firewall of Britain heh

If it comes to pass, I will probably opt in. Not because I necessarily want to download hours of vids every day, well maybe a couple, but because I don't believe in censorship. When I say censorship, I am talking of anything legal. Child porn etc should be suppressed and its purveyors punished.
As regards your internet being monitored? The security services have their hands full (?) with monitoring terrorism rather than bothering with your porn habits.
I believe that we leave a trail on the internet anyway and so are not anonymous, so being snooped on really doesn't bother me.
The whole exercise seems to be driven by people who appear to be unable/unwilling to control/monitor their children's access to the internet.

On the subject of porn, we seem to take a strange view of it. At the age of 16 it is legal to indulge in any consenting sex act, but it is unlawful to view an image of people indulging in this natural act.
At a much earlier age it is lawful for children to view images of violence being portrayed in say Hollywood films simulating unlawful acts? Why is that?
It isn't that one image is real and the other simulated. Simulated love scenes in Hollywood blockbusters carry a 18 certificate.

Omar Little

ianwilliams wrote:

The simple facts are that if people want particularly dangerous, amoral pornography then they'll find it. A huge chunk of the internet exists outside of the search engines (the so-called 'dark net'). I don't see how they'll manage to filter that effectively.

The irony is that the agenda for this has been driven by outlets such as the Daily Mail. Now, there's a fair wealth of anecdotal evidence that young people's attitudes towards sex is changing as porn becomes more available - and the unrealistic expectations of what women should/should not do in sex seems to be a good argument in favour of this legislation.

But then the best counter for this is education - discussion in the household and the classroom, the likes of which the Daily Mail would no doubt campaign against.

I honestly think that this would be best dealt with through discussion and talking. Instead its regulation from the people that supposedly want to scale back the state.

I see this as an almost entirely populist move, targeted at winning votes from people who think Google is 'the internet'.

/rant!

On top of that the Daily Mail is responsible for far worse sexualising of children than the average porn site. People do not accidentally stumble across kiddy porn by accident, but if you are an under 16 celebrity or a even just a child of a celebrity then you are fair game for the Mail and they will publish - and unlike most porn sites there is no warning or age filter on their website to go through.

peat

Ballysmate wrote:

As regards your internet being monitored? The security services have their hands full (?) with monitoring terrorism rather than bothering with your porn habits.
I believe that we leave a trail on the internet anyway and so are not anonymous, so being snooped on really doesn't bother me.

Indeed. I have had a job that required me to have DV security clearance. They had access to internet history from IP's that my name was connected with and asked me questions about my 'habits'.

Ballysmate wrote:

On the subject of porn, we seem to take a strange view of it. At the age of 16 it is legal to indulge in any consenting sex act, but it is unlawful to view an image of people indulging in this natural act.
At a much earlier age it is lawful for children to view images of violence being portrayed in say Hollywood films simulating unlawful acts? Why is that?
It isn't that one image is real and the other simulated. Simulated love scenes in Hollywood blockbusters carry a 18 certificate.

There was a discussion on R4's Moral Maze that brought up the same issue (violence) to which the Daily Mail-esque panelist would just gasp and splutter at. "Oh no, that's completely separate issue."

ballysmate

Omar Little wrote:

ianwilliams wrote:

The simple facts are that if people want particularly dangerous, amoral pornography then they'll find it. A huge chunk of the internet exists outside of the search engines (the so-called 'dark net'). I don't see how they'll manage to filter that effectively.

The irony is that the agenda for this has been driven by outlets such as the Daily Mail. Now, there's a fair wealth of anecdotal evidence that young people's attitudes towards sex is changing as porn becomes more available - and the unrealistic expectations of what women should/should not do in sex seems to be a good argument in favour of this legislation.

But then the best counter for this is education - discussion in the household and the classroom, the likes of which the Daily Mail would no doubt campaign against.

I honestly think that this would be best dealt with through discussion and talking. Instead its regulation from the people that supposedly want to scale back the state.

I see this as an almost entirely populist move, targeted at winning votes from people who think Google is 'the internet'.

/rant!

On top of that the Daily Mail is responsible for far worse sexualising of children than the average porn site. People do not accidentally stumble across kiddy porn by accident, but if you are an under 16 celebrity or a even just a child of a celebrity then you are fair game for the Mail and they will publish - and unlike most porn sites there is no warning or age filter on their website to go through.

Google 'Big Omar'.

lucan2

So here's another one to add to my ever growing list of reasons not to return to the UK.

ballysmate

Lucan2 wrote:

So here's another one to add to my ever growing list of reasons not to return to the UK.

Why? It really is a non issue. Just tick the opt in box and off you go. In reality, you will notice no difference.

buddha

I'm all for it if 'they' include anything tagged with "Royal Baby" and suchlike.

peat

Decent article: http://www.techradar.com/news/world-of- ... em-1167534

Daz555

It won't matter if you opt in because everyone will be doing exactly the same thing as you. Web filters are a nightmare and absolutely chock full of false positives and sites which are classified incorrectly. Everyone will be effectively forced to opt in.

jrduquemin1

The government are turning this country into a nanny state. 'You can't do this, you can't watch that etc'. They'll be telling us drinking tap water is bad for us next.