David Cameron wants to ban porn

greg66_tri_v2.0

dhope wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't want to speak out for fear of being accused of being a pervert - porn is a taboo subject after all.

Really? Seriously? In 2013? You are saying that porn is still a taboo subject? You can be so quaint!

It can't be taboo, even David Cameron is talking about it so it could hardly be more mundane.

I think DDD's point is a different one, and I think he's right.

Porn is not a taboo subject - it gets talked about a lot by all and sundry.

But defending a right to view porn, in all of its myriad forms, is, if not a taboo subject, certainly a difficult stance to take without attracting the "you're only saying that because you're a pervert who wants to sit indoors staring at porn and playing with yourself" line of attack.

It's what makes porn such an easy target - who's going to rush to defend the right to view it? Yet for the most part the material that falls under the blanket of "porn" is neither illegal to view or possess. Yet there are many other subjects on the internet which raise questions of legality - eg, and off the top of my head, bomb making, racism, hacking/virus coding - which HMG has not stated any intention to attempt to block access to.

It does strike me as a peculiar step to take.

rhext

Greg66 Tri v2.0 wrote:

But defending a right to view porn, in all of its myriad forms, is, if not a taboo subject, certainly a difficult stance to take without attracting the "you're only saying that because you're a pervert who wants to sit indoors staring at porn and playing with yourself" line of attack.

It's what makes porn such an easy target - who's going to rush to defend the right to view it? Yet for the most part the material that falls under the blanket of "porn" is neither illegal to view or possess. Yet there are many other subjects on the internet which raise questions of legality - eg, and off the top of my head, bomb making, racism, hacking/virus coding - which HMG has not stated any intention to attempt to block access to.

It does strike me as a peculiar step to take.

But is anyone suggesting that the right to view it will be withdrawn? I thought that all they were doing is saying that, in future instead of having to opt out, you will have to opt in. I think it's misguided in the sense that it won't make a scrap of difference for criminals (the idea that people become sex criminals because they accidentally stumble onto porn on the internet seems ridiculous to me). But in terms of making the internet a more predictable and friendly place (particuarly for kids) it doesn't seem like a stupid thing to do.

sketchley

DonDaddyD wrote:

Who are you to tell anyone else where to put a PC in their house. Who are you to tell another parent that they cannot trust their child to use the PC, tablet, smartphone, TV, laptop etc and not completely abuse that freedom. You want to use that rule get your missus preggers and enforce it. I will raise my child as I see fit.

Calm down buddy and go back read my first post. It says "if I was a parent", I have only ever said what I would do, I'm not and never have told you what to do.

DonDaddyD wrote:

Are you so naive as to believe that by restricting internet access from their bedroom that you've completely removed their potential exposure to porn?

No I'm not. I'm mearly suggesting the having to access to internet in share location lowers the risk.

DonDaddyD wrote:

If they think that it is normal how about being a proper parent and teaching them that it isn't normal. Attempting the impossible task of trying to completely restrict access to porn is not the answer.

I never said to completely restrict them. At the same time you, I hope, would not place a PC with an unrestricted internet connect in a childs bedroom. I'd go a step further and not have the PC in bedroom at all. I'm not arguing the extreme and neither are you we are just on different sides of the middle of the argument.

DonDaddyD wrote:

So instead of trying to educate and engage with teens - challenge their perceptions by offering new ones, we simply deny that the content exists, refuse to talk and remove all access to it. Brilliant parenting that, certainly won't have a generation of kids growing up with complexes. :roll:

Were on earth did I say that? You are reading between the lines and drawing incorrent conculsions about my opinions on this. :roll:

All I said was that I'm concerned about teenages seeing extreme porn, stuff with ATM or extreme an@l etc, and thinking that's normal. The C4 program showed that to be the case hence why I brought it up. That program also had lots of positive thing to say and should be shown to all teenager as it did a lot to address these issue. The right thing to do is show them what is normal. A solution to this is to produce material that isn't abusive, extreme or expoiltative and make it available to curious teenagers as part of thier sex education. Unfortunatly attempts to do this are often shot down by the hysterical or dumbed down to point of being boring so it fails to engage.

greg66_tri_v2.0

rhext wrote:

But is anyone suggesting that the right to view it will be withdrawn? I thought that all they were doing is saying that, in future instead of having to opt out, you will have to opt in.

^
Thin end of the wedge?

I don't know, but time will tell. Proposed Governmental powers often tend to be presented narrowly at the outset, then exploited widely when in place. Who's to say that (for example) the CPS won't start relying on the fact that someone has opted in as evidence to support a charge for a sexually related offence? Didn't Millie Dowler's father come under intense Police scrutiny due to the contents of his internet browser's cache?

ETA: for what it's worth, I don't really see a difference between defending a right to view porn and defending a right to have to opt in to view porn. They are both susceptible to the same sort of "you must be a pervert to want that" attack.

rolf_f

DonDaddyD wrote:

Rolf F wrote:

DonDaddyD wrote:

People don't want to speak out for fear of being accused of being a pervert - porn is a taboo subject after all.

Really? Seriously? In 2013? You are saying that porn is still a taboo subject? You can be so quaint!

Matter of opinion you are entitled to yours, you do not need to ridicule mine.

DDD - why do you take the world so seriously? Just enjoy it - in 80 years you'll be dead, me in rather less so calm down. I'm not ridiculing you - just surprised that you think porn a taboo subject. It's not a case of matters of opinion - just a fact. As Dhope said, Cameron is talking about it - it is on the 6 o'clock news, it is a principal topic of many stand up comedians. It is discussed just about wherever you go and without need for covert sniggering. Ten years ago it was a taboo subject and back then, maybe Cameron's ideas might have worked. Now I can't see that many people feeling so ashamed as to not opt in if they want to. And why should any adult feel ashamed about anything they do on the proviso that it doesn't hurt anyone else?

Random link - http://seattleorganicseo.com/sosblog/to ... version-3/

Scroll down and you find the most popular search topics - adult content comes in fourth place after Social Media, video and email. Good luck Mr Cameron at stopping that.......

sketchley

I'm not sure how I feel about the real subject here. PCs, Routers, Firewalls, Browers etc often have parental control settings. These are always off by default. Some people may not know how to switch them on (or off) so it gets left off. It might be better that the default setting is on, so every new PC, firewall etc has parental control switch on by default, and you have to turn it off if you don't want it on. Likewise the access control available on Sky or Virgin is always off be default so you don't require a pin for restricted content. Maybe this should be on by default too. Where this is little bit more sinister is if the on / off is controlled on some kind of central database which can then be used for other purposes or you have to phone or write to ISP to get it switched on as that could be an invasion of privacy.

davmaggs

Sketchley wrote:

I'm not sure how I feel about the real subject here. PCs, Routers, Firewalls, Browers etc often have parental control settings. These are always off by default. Some people may not know how to switch them on (or off) so it gets left off. It might be better that the default setting is on, so every new PC, firewall etc has parental control switch on by default, and you have to turn it off if you don't want it on. Likewise the access control available on Sky or Virgin is always off be default so you don't require a pin for restricted content. Maybe this should be on by default too. Where this is little bit more sinister is if the on / off is controlled on some kind of central database which can then be used for other purposes or you have to phone or write to ISP to get it switched on as that could be an invasion of privacy.

Industry is resisting this rather technically stupid proposal because the government is loading 100% of the cost on to them (and us the customers). The reason all those defaults are generally turned off is the burden of support, and all the staff a firm would have to employ every time a customer gets stuck so they leave them as an option for the savvy to play with. Doing it the other way around is a costly nightmare for them.

Industry knows that the filters will be crude, and they will get millions of phone calls a year to unblock sites that don't contain porn at all. What DC is proposing is to block entirely legal content, and to shunt the cost off on to the public so he can get some headlines.

rhext

Sketchley wrote:

.... Maybe this should be on by default too. Where this is little bit more sinister is if the on / off is controlled on some kind of central database which can then be used for other purposes or you have to phone or write to ISP to get it switched on as that could be an invasion of privacy.

I think this is what's actually being proposed: the default is currently 'filters off'; under the new legislation,the default will be will be 'filters on'. If you want them switched off, you have to ask.

I don't really see this as a thin end of a wedge either: we already censor a lot of material by age (people perhaps forget what the initials 'BBFC' stand for); and some of it by content. We need to be careful not to take the 'freedom of speech' line from the ISPs too much at face value. They have a huge vested interest in not allowing this sort of legislation through because it starts to place responsibility (and accountability) on to them for the content that they deliver. To me it sounds a little bit like a pub landlord potesting 'I just sell the stuff, it's the parent's responsibility to make sure that kids don't buy it' when faced with prosecution for supplying minors with alcohol.

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

Industry is resisting this rather technically stupid proposal because the government is loading 100% of the cost on to them (and us the customers). The reason all those defaults are generally turned off is the burden of support, and all the staff a firm would have to employ every time a customer gets stuck so they leave them as an option for the savvy to play with. Doing it the other way around is a costly nightmare for them.

Industry knows that the filters will be crude, and they will get millions of phone calls a year to unblock sites that don't contain porn at all. What DC is proposing is to block entirely legal content, and to shunt the cost off on to the public so he can get some headlines.

I disagree, I think that the industry is blocking this because it sets a much more challenging precedent for them than the maintenance of content filters: which is actually a pretty straightforward thing for them to do. Even if the filters were crude (they're not) then all they have to do is turn them off when people ask them to. I think that the real reason for their objection is that they start to take on some responsibility for the content of what they deliver and they've been fighting tooth and nail to avoid that since they started....

davmaggs

Filters take constant maintenance, you statement is bilge of the highest order and I don't write this lightly.

Anyone at a large company who is in the IT department can tell you how much effort it takes, and what drama it causes. It is a constant stream of work and tech support therefore cost.

If only 1% of users ring their ISP in a year, that is a massive cost. And all to block content that is entirely legal.

Agent57

The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.” – John Gilmore

http://www.chemie.fu-berlin.de/outerspa ... ticle.html

Been having the same discussion for at least 20 years.

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

Filters take constant maintenance, you statement is bilge of the highest order and I don't write this lightly.

Anyone at a large company who is in the IT department can tell you how much effort it takes, and what drama it causes. It is a constant stream of work and tech support therefore cost.

If only 1% of users ring their ISP in a year, that is a massive cost. And all to block content that is entirely legal.

If you believe the ISPs they all maintain content filters anyway. Nobody says it's free, but is it better to let 20m parents wrestle with it on their own or to force a few large and well funded organisations to take some responsibility? Every other channel has to take reasonable measures to stop this sort of content falling into the hands of minors. Why not ISPs? Remember, its not being blocked, you just have to ask for it.....

rhext

davmaggs wrote:

Filters take constant maintenance, you statement is bilge of the highest order and I don't write this lightly.

Anyone at a large company who is in the IT department can tell you how much effort it takes, and what drama it causes. It is a constant stream of work and tech support therefore cost.

If only 1% of users ring their ISP in a year, that is a massive cost. And all to block content that is entirely legal.

If you believe the ISPs they all maintain content filters anyway. Nobody says it's free, but is it better to let 20m parents wrestle with it on their own or to force a few large and well funded organisations to take some responsibility? Every other channel has to take reasonable measures to stop this sort of content falling into the hands of minors. Why not ISPs? Remember, its not being blocked, you just have to ask for it.....

Big_Paul

I think this is probably one of the daftest ideas DC has ever had.

Firstly, as regards porn, the genie is well out of the bottle, there's enough filth running about in the SD cards of teenagers all over the country to keep the average sex shop going for the next 20 years, they won't have to go online they just bluetooth it to their mates, and since every bloody smartphone has a camera, we have god knows how many wannabe Ben Dovers running about.

Secondly, the filters will most likely make a complete horlicks of the whole thing, our local paper has one that blocks out words as mundane as "assist" and "banality" Cue half the people in the country getting it switched off anyway. Imagine the local vicar having to get his switched off if he needs to research "Sodom and Gomorrah"

Thirdly, I won't take seriously a proposal meant to protect children that's being championed by a man who left his child behind in a bloody pub when he went home.

SteppenHerring

I take issue with the subject here. Should actually be "David Cameron wants to be seen to be doing someone about porn by Daily Mail users.

He clearly hasn't a clue. Google indexes a small percentage of the Web, the Web is a small percentage of the internet.

Useful statement https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/cameron-demands-action-on-child-abuse-images

EKE_38BPM

Big_Paul wrote:

...Secondly, the filters will most likely make a complete horlicks of the whole thing, our local paper has one that blocks out words as mundane as "assist" and "banality" Cue half the people in the country getting it switched off anyway. Imagine the local vicar having to get his switched off if he needs to research "Sodom and Gomorrah"...

I heard a story about a decade ago about Scunthorpe City Council who implimented a profanity filter on their email system and wondered why they didn't receive any emails after it went live.

I guess things haven't moved on much.

rick_chasey

Surprised no-one asked the PM what his favourite porn niche was in PMQs.

Maybe they will tomorrow eh?

rolf_f

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Big_Paul wrote:

...Secondly, the filters will most likely make a complete horlicks of the whole thing, our local paper has one that blocks out words as mundane as "assist" and "banality" Cue half the people in the country getting it switched off anyway. Imagine the local vicar having to get his switched off if he needs to research "Sodom and Gomorrah"...

I heard a story about a decade ago about Scunthorpe City Council who implimented a profanity filter on their email system and wondered why they didn't receive any emails after it went live.

I guess things haven't moved on much.

Are you sure the story wasn't about Penistone?

We used to have problems with 'dyke' which is awkward if you work in the water industry :roll:

On the other hand, to make up for it Microsoft likes to auto-correct borehole into brothel so I suppose it all evens out in the end...........

EKE_38BPM

Rolf F wrote:

EKE_38BPM wrote:

Big_Paul wrote:

...Secondly, the filters will most likely make a complete horlicks of the whole thing, our local paper has one that blocks out words as mundane as "assist" and "banality" Cue half the people in the country getting it switched off anyway. Imagine the local vicar having to get his switched off if he needs to research "Sodom and Gomorrah"...

I heard a story about a decade ago about Scunthorpe City Council who implimented a profanity filter on their email system and wondered why they didn't receive any emails after it went live.

I guess things haven't moved on much.

Are you sure the story wasn't about Penistone?

We used to have problems with 'dyke' which is awkward if you work in the water industry :roll:

On the other hand, to make up for it Microsoft likes to auto-correct borehole into brothel so I suppose it all evens out in the end...........

I used to work for Ferrari and a colleague sent an email to all of the dealers worldwide saying the delivery of a product would be delayed due to a problem with our warehouse. Spellcheck decided to change "warehouse" to "whorehouse" and my colleague didn't spot it until a nano-second after clicking 'Send'.
I guess these errors work both ways.

mudcow007

This is why i thought they were bringing in the .sex or .xxx domains, so all "pornsites" could be grouped an more easily blocked if needed to be

i have to change internet filters constantly on our routers because people cant connect to Essex library or Sussex councils site or other sites where domain names contain "naughty words"

if you wanna look at smut, people will always find a way.

talking about blocking things on the web, anyone ever heard of "the silk road" ?

basically a site within the tor network where you can buy literally anything, cocaine, mdma, heroin, guns & explosives. if the internet police cant close that site down i think they will struggle with slap n tickle sites

rhext

mudcow007 wrote:

.....if you wanna look at smut, people will always find a way......

...... internet police cant close that site down i think they will struggle with slap n tickle sites

Of course people will find a way. Under the new legislation, they'll contact their ISP, say 'I'm OK to allow access to Adult material through my account' and it's back to business as usual. This is about whether the filters default to 'On' or 'Off', not about banning access to porn (despite the thread title).

Dear me, no-one is more in favour of a robust political debate than me, but is there any chance we could at least have a debate about what they're actually proposing....? I mean, I don't think they could/should ban it either, but that doesn't mean that putting at least a small hurdle in the way of accessing it is a bad thing to do. It's perfectly legal to buy hardcopy of this sort of material too, but not to interleave the magazines with the kiddies comics in Sainsburys!

rubertoe

Mudcow?

are you a gun smuggling, drug dealing, internet pimp?

Daz555

The problem with any net filter is that it will be so full of false positives that everyone will have to opt IN to receive unrestricted content.

So we'll all pay higher broadband fees for no good reason whatsoever.

mudcow007

rhext wrote:

but is there any chance we could at least have a debate about what they're actually proposing....?

aye sorry i went off a bit of a tangent there...

what i meant was, they are trying to restrict access to porn now, but the "silk road" has been running for ages with all sorts of "things" being available, wouldnt it make more sense if the government was to try an block that site than trying to restrict access to porn?

i have a feeling heroine is more damaging to a kid than seeing two plastic fantastic women going at each other with a rubber penis

rubertoe wrote:

Mudcow?

are you a gun smuggling, drug dealing, internet pimp?

you name it, i can hook you up...



this is how i look most days, makes the commute a nightmare

rhext

mudcow007 wrote:

this is how i look most days, makes the commute a nightmare

I can imagine. You should ditch the furry hat and sceptre!

Paul E

Can't be bothered to read all the pages to see if it's been said but isn't this thread and this all about "won't somebody think of the children!"

hegyestomi

mudcow007 wrote:

......
talking about blocking things on the web, anyone ever heard of "the silk road" ?

basically a site within the tor network where you can buy literally anything, cocaine, mdma, heroin, guns & explosives. if the internet police cant close that site down i think they will struggle with slap n tickle sites

The main difference I think is that the porn industry is a legal entity therefore they are bound to legalisation and prosecutable while the other aren't.

greg66_tri_v2.0

SteppenHerring wrote:

He clearly hasn't a clue. Google indexes a small percentage of the Web, the Web is a small percentage of the internet.

TBH, I'm not sure many do, and I'm one who doesn't. I've heard references to the "deep internet" and such like, but in a simplistic way have regarded "the internet" and "the world wide web" are largely synonymous.

Can someone explain in (I hope) simple terms what the differences are between the internet, the www, and what google searches?

TIA

greg66_tri_v2.0

Paul E wrote:

Can't be bothered to read all the pages to see if it's been said but isn't this thread and this all about "won't somebody think of the children!"

On one view, these measures are directed at those who think of the children just a little bit too much for their own good, and for the children's.

hegyestomi

rhext wrote:

mudcow007 wrote:

this is how i look most days, makes the commute a nightmare

I can imagine. You should ditch the furry hat and sceptre!

You definately needs to ditch the furry guy....:)