back to article Cameron: Get those saucy websites off Blighty's public Wi-Fi

Prime Minister David Cameron is once again crusading against online pornography after he admitted late last year that network-level smut filtering was a "crude system". This time his antenna is twitching about Brits accessing the internet over public Wi-Fi services. The PM wants to get skin flicks banned from wireless networks …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Silver badge
WTF?

I must live a sheltered life

"The PM wants to get skin flicks banned from wireless networks in spaces such as coffee shops, libraries and railway stations."

Is there really a problem with people cracking one off in Starbucks, or on Platform 11 at Euston Station?

21
0
Happy

Re: I must live a sheltered life

Indeed.

I occasionally watch a movie on a tablet during my commute, and I find it a bit embarrassing when a sex scene appears on the screen - knowing someone might be looking over my shoulder tends to remove all the erotic interest, and I'm quite pleased when the scene switches to something else.

I can't imagine wanting to watch porn in public.

7
0
Alert

Re: I must live a sheltered life

I defnitely have a problem if it turns my espresso into a macchiato..................

0
0

Re: I must live a sheltered life

Harry Potter 8 should be interesting....

"As Harry made his way to platform 9 3/4 he noticed Hagrid was huddled in a corner......"

0
0

So, all the pervs watching grumble flicks in public will have unlimited data packages.

Wonder if the House of Commons bars also have filters on any wi-fi they provide?

6
0
Stop

Yes they do...

See

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/surveillance_of_internet_use

"Websites are blocked by category. The Houses of Parliament, which share an IT department, are responsible for determining which categories of website should be blocked as posing a technical or legal risk to our network. As is standard practice, if websites are brought to an organisation’s attention which merit consideration under its policies and criteria, there is the facility to bring these to the attention of the filtering service provider for review and categorisation as appropriate. "

Yes. Your MP's communications are being monitored/censored too.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Yes they do...

Wasn't there a cock-up recently when MP's emails about a sexual offences bill were blocked by the House's own system ?

0
0
Mushroom

An excuse to gain some power over what we view and don’t on the web. I reckon if stuff like this starts going through much worse things are to come. Like @FartingHippo says I haven’t seen anyone beating one out in the streets because they have free wifi!

Anyway where did put my hat....ah its wrapped around the sandwich...

7
0
Silver badge

Once the filtering technology is in place and accepted for public wifi, it becomes much easier to justify imposing it on home internet connections too.

'Slippery slops' isn't just a textbook logical fallacy: It's also a recognised and effective political strategy.

17
0

Slippery Slops?

Of course, you weren't watching that in public, were you?

9
0

If it's filtered...

If it's filtered then it simply isn;t an internet connection.

It's a proxied web browsing connection. An internet connection relays packets. Nothing more, nothing less.

They can still sell it as a useful service but they shouldn't be allowed to call it an internet connection because it's not.

21
0
h3
Bronze badge

Re: If it's filtered...

Makes nearly all of them not (Block 25)

0
0
FAIL

Don't they have more important things to do?

Y'know. Jobs, the economy, that kind of thing?

15
0
Silver badge

Re: Don't they have more important things to do?

I thought mico-managing people's lives WAS their job?

That's what they've more than demonstrated to me over the years.

5
0
Bronze badge
FAIL

Re: Don't they have more important things to do?

They're trying to draw attention away from all that difficult stuff and make it look like they're doing something important.

All together now: "IT'S THE ECONOMY, STUPID". Even Bill Clinton knew that.

4
0
Silver badge

I am sure existing legislation applies

I am told that porn was once available in printed form. There must have been legislation that could have been used if, for example, the congregation spotted an open copy of Razzle on the vicar's lectern.

So, do we need new laws for this? No. Will we get them anyway? Yes

Assuming some idiotic new legislation is brought in, will there be a process through which wrongly blacklisted websites can be removed from the block (no, of course there won't, why do I even bother asking ...) and can we start a campaign to have the Daily Mail blacklisted for habitually running stories on bikini-clad celebrity underage teens?

They say what you don't know can't hurt you. I don't know David Cameron, but he's still a colossal pain in the neck.

12
0
Silver badge

It's about time!

sarcasm/It's about time the government took action and did something about these gangs of immoral toddlers roaming the streets with their porn-pads, ganging up around wifi hotspots, viewing porn and having orgies in the streets, outrageing decent moral adults! Have they no shame? Have they no parents?

I say round the ankle biting perverts up and put them in workhouses where they belong, and get British industry back on its feet!

GAWD SAVE THE QUEEN! /sarcasm

10
0
Silver badge
Megaphone

Re: It's about time!

I blame the immigrants. Porn has also reduced the value of my home.

(c) Daily Mail

13
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: It's about time!

Now that's hilarious! Even as an American, I get this.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: It's about time!

>Porn has also reduced the value of my home.

Well, if you did let that adult film crew use your house as a location you have only yourself to blame!

2
0
Silver badge

Re: It's about time!

and killed Diana

(c) Daily Express

1
0

This post has been deleted by its author

Existing legislation

I would have expected that the existing legislation around obscenity would be used if someone were to be found watching porn in a public place.

0
0
Bronze badge
Thumb Down

Re: Existing legislation

Actions liable to lead to a breach of the peace. Nice all purpose legislation for when the copper can't find you instantly guilty of some terrorism-based charge.

5
0
Paris Hilton

How would it work?

I still have tremendous problems in understanding how these filters are supposed to work. Will there be a whitelist (updated in real time?) of all website content that is not porn?

Otherwise how will anyone know that the packet transmitted does not contain porn?

If there's a website called knittingclub.co.uk hosting a file called scarf.mov, who knows that this file doesn't show two people doing a horizontal Mambo?

Can someone tell me how all this is meant to work? Really, I'd like to know.

2
0
Silver badge

Re: How would it work?

Obviously there would have to be a new bureau created and staffed with people paid to sit around and view every page on every website looking for porn.

It's actually a job-creation strategy

3
0
Silver badge

Re: How would it work?

I'm picturing row upon row of civil servants each seated at a monitor wearing a strategically placed blood pressure cuff. If the "lever" goes up a bell rings and the site is banned.

1
0
Devil

Re: How would it work?

Civil servants, 'lever goes up"?

?

No.

0
0
Silver badge

Missing the point.

He isn't saying that there's a problem with people looking at pornography in public. His argument, and that of the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety who are the real force behind this announcement, is that blocking pornography is required to protect children from accidentially stumbling across images that might scar their innocent little minds. This is the internet - risque advertising, frank discussion of sexuality, and lots of trolls who like plastering porn all over public forums just as a joke.

It won't end here, of course. Block porn now, and next year there will be calls to block sites containing racism or religious hatered, then libelous content, sites promoting copyright infringement, sites explaining how to get around the censorship, pro-suicide sites, unregulated forums... anything not suitable for ages three and up.

6
0
Bronze badge

Re: Missing the point.

It's a long time since I was a child, but I seem to recall that we didn't "accidentally stumble across pornography". We actively sought it out and exchanged it as a major leisure-time activity.

Keeping children innocent of sexual matters is directly playing into the hands of the paedophiles.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: Missing the point.

Yes, of course. If you were old enough to understand it (and potentially be offended), you sought it out. If you weren't old enough, you wouldn't understand what you were seeing, so it did no harm. Either way, completely unnecessary.

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Missing the point.

But how can you possibly argue with the "Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety" ?

It's got children, charity AND safety in it's name!

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Missing the point.

He isn't saying that there's a problem with people looking at por--graphy in public. His argument, and that of the Children's Charities Coalition on Internet Safety who are the real force behind this announcement, is that blocking por--graphy is required to protect children from accidentially stumbling across images that might scar their innocent little minds. This is the internet - risque advertising, frank discussion of sexuality, and lots of trolls who like plastering porn all over public forums just as a joke.

It won't end here, of course. Block por--graphy now, and next year there will be calls to block sites containing racism or religious hatered, then libelous content, sites promoting copyright infringement, sites explaining how to get around the censorship, pro-suicide sites, unregulated forums... anything not suitable for ages three and up.

I can't type the word with the --s, because I'm posting this from work (naughty me!) and our filter blocks it.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

Annoyed

I can't type the P-word, because I'm posting this from work (naughty me!) and our filter blocks it.

0
0

Yawn.

Once again it's:

People having sex - BAD.

People being blown up - GOOD.

10
0
Silver badge

Re: Yawn.

Typical government... but I have a different view, I'd rather my kids watch people having sex than people being blown up....

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Yawn.

But then , when they grow up, won't they be more likely to want to have sex than blow other people up?

Won't somebody think of the children ( of the shareholders in BAe/Thales/Vickers )

1
0
Anonymous Coward

The Cloud content filtering ..

is useless - and worse, still, it's not uniform. Worse than that, it's really really stupid.

Two local Cloud hotspots: one, no filtering whatsoever (not even blocking 25 so yes you can use it to telnet to someone's mail server and start playing around) - the other, filtered to such an extent that anything hosted by Vimeo is marked as adult content, no matter what the video might be - and it takes them three complaints and over a week to unfilter stuff that is clearly "clean". Pathetic.

4
0
Silver badge

How things have changed.....

1980's "TEAR DOWN THIS WALL"

2010's "TURN OFF THAT PORN".

5
0
h3
Bronze badge

From about age 10 - 16 men want to see naked women (Probably afterwards but not to the same extent at least for me anyway).

At least in France every now and again you see just walking about posters that have naked women on them in plain view. I think if you were exposed to that sort of thing all your life you would be less likely to seek out porn. (If that is what he wants I dunno).

I still think seeing people naked (Or having sex) shouldn't have a higher age limit than seeing someone blown to bits.

That is what annoys me about Western politicians they never state what they want to achieve. (If they want less exposure of young people to unnatural / degrading treatment of women then what they should do is find something that they think is ok and make that legal.

Japan has the right idea. Problem with women being groped on trains. So they start offering a grope train where you can pay and grope to your hearts content (By women who are ok and paid to do allow you to). Got rid of the problem overnight.

Germany is probably in between. Whoring is ok there in a controlled manor.

(I have never been to either. I have been to I think 2 strip clubs and I hated it both times but it was a stag night and I was pressured into doing it.)

3
0
FAIL

The Cloud

Hmmm...,they need to sort out their filters - I was trying to search for a local hostelry at my local Hungry Horse (owned by Greene King) and clicking on the links Google provided wouldn't be let through their system.

0
0
Bronze badge
Coat

Someone has to look at those porn sites to determine which to blacklist. If you get caught in Starbux, just tell 'em you're working through your break. Won't hurt either to say you're Pete Townshend and only doing research in the pubic interest.

The one with the pickle in the pocket.

1
0
Silver badge

Where's the book Pete? Still no sign of it.

0
0
Silver badge
Happy

No sex please, we're British?

So watching Hustler on your phone will become an offense while reading it in print will still be fine?

I guess this will improve the literacy rate.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: No sex please, we're British?

At least reading playboy on your phone is safe http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/04/02/playboy_app_ios_apple_censorship/

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

So it doesn't work? So what?

We know it's ineffective. We know it doesn't work. We know there's easy ways round it. We know it will wrongly block innocent sites. We know that there will be creature feep - it will be extended to cover more and more and more, every time there's a scandal.

But we're still going to do it, because the Daily Mail told us to.

3
0
Silver badge
FAIL

So the government

will stop me watching movies of girls wearing very little apart from say bra and undies from appearing on the wi-fi cloud thing.

But will allow me to walk pasting a ****ing great poster by M&S of a girl wearing nothing but an even skimpier bra and undies......

Smells of buying off the daily wail's readership... you know the ones that believed the MMR scare stories by the daily fail and now their little darling are getting measles....

4
0
Anonymous Coward

You know what, why not just go the whole fucking hog and ban everything remotely pornographic, erotic or nude?

0
0
Silver badge

I will agree to Cameron's proposal...

...provided that he maintains the naughty list and fields all queries about it by himself. No staff. That should keep him out of our hair and -who knows- he may even learn how the internet works in the process.

2
0
Anonymous Coward

And we all know it won't just stop at WiFi...

Just watch.

2
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.

Forums