Got my VPN - check
Got my Andrex tissues - check
I'll be fine.
Twitter campaigners have launched an impassioned campaign to save grumble flicks from being snuffed out by Blighty's creeping internet censorship. Using the hashtag #CensoredUK, a rag-tag army of right-on carnal campaigners, feminists, pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs launched a protest against Prime Minister …
Got my VPN - check
Got my Andrex tissues - check
I'll be fine.
And then they came for the VPNs. :)
Far too many business users utilise VPN for it to ever be targeted.
After all, the government will bend over backwards to please businesses, and they won't want their corporate data being slurped because it's no longer secure.
VPNs are then only available to registered business users on business tariffs.
The 'Free Family Friendly WiFi' available at ASDA is filtered by NetMums.
And guess what...Your super secret VPN pron source is already blocked.
Yes, yes, only right that Free WiFi available to general public and kiddies should block porn. But blocking a VPN isn't blocking porn.
And as its NetMums that are driving the filtering, you can bet that the scope will creep to include VPN and proxies in your own home.
So no-one will be able to work from home.
No-one will be able to work 'out in the field'
You'll need a dedicated line to communicate with work???
Think it through, that will never work.
set up by the Daily Mail so that they can rage against it.
indeed, and the reg runs willingly along behind:
"Using the hashtag #CensoredUK, a rag-tag army of right-on carnal campaigners, feminists, pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs "
The reg these days is getting like an irritating bunch of schoolkids at the back of the class snickering over sex or anything that parallels it. Consensual sex is fine, consensual porn is fine, just fucking grow up.
Porn reduces sex to a commercial transaction and people to a commodity. It is also psychologically addictive. Consumption usually starts at an age when proper sex isn't available/appropriate, creating a hazardous mental habit for later in those who by definition we don't believe are capable of making good decisions.
It is not fine. However, it should also not be banned since we definitely shouldn't be handing such technical capabilities to any commercial or governmental organisation.
Ok, let's assume we're talking about consenting parties, then
> Porn reduces sex to a commercial transaction
Okay, let's tentatively accept that. If the participants in the transaction are willing, the problem is...?
> and people to a commodity
Pretty much like any employer-employee relationship I suppose
> It is also psychologically addictive.
To some people I suppose it might be, but so is alcohol, ciggies, etc and I don't think it does as much damage as them, or do you disagree?
> Consumption usually starts at an age when proper sex isn't available/appropriate
I'd like a ref to support that, however let's go with it.
I don't know what age sex should be "appropriate" for, some people start very young (I knew a girl who started having partners at 12 and there was nothing disfunctional or unwell about her). If you decide for someone else, say your kids, are you doing the right thing or think you're doing the right thing? It can be hard to distinguish social conventions from "what should be". Most people can't. They define "what's right" to be "what I've been brought up to believe". Is there any possibility you've done the same?
And if 'proper sex' isn't available why is that? Should we be more tolerant of sex at a younger age? (ignoring for the moment the real possibility of explotation of that by a few adults for their own selfish ends)
> creating a hazardous mental habit for later in those who by definition we don't believe are capable of making good decisions.
Bloody hell, that broadbrushing claim completely needs some justification. I'm not saying you're wrong but you have to back it up.
> It is not fine
And I think it is (modulo consent of all parties). We disagree.
> ... it should also not be banned since ...
Deriding people who oppose blanket filtering, and creating lists of those who dare to opt out of censorship as "pornographers, perverts and men in dirty macs". Not everyone who wants free access to the internet and the information contained within is a pervert! Some of us simply want to go about our lives without interference from faceless filtering organisations with no oversight, or from being marked as 'perverts'...
You must be new here.
He must be any long time comentard would use the phrase
And so it begins.
unless yours is a double irony (unlikely, as we, the commentards, are not that sophisticated), you indeed seem to have missed the point. Never mind, have a beer, since it's another warm and sunny Monday morning outside (my house's safely anchored to concrete bollards buried 100 ft deep, should it want to take off in this gentle breeze).
So they've got access to more porn than they can ..... <<insert metaphor here>>
My experience of adult filters (via mobile phone) is of lots of innocent sites get blocked.
I setup Cyberpatrol, eerrrrr or was it NetNanny (can't remember) for my kids PC years ago and it blocked the cbeebies website, tut tut tut, can't go near the BBC, they might do naughty things on the BBC.
Well to be fair the BBC has a recent reputation for doing/allowing naughty things to be done to kids so maybe it was just a bit of foresight.
....is to switch to a lesser known ISP (presuming you're able to get decent speed over a BT ADSL/fibre line and not an unlucky Virgin Media only type).
My feeling is that rather than being an attempt to seriously control all public access to the Internet and adult content, it's really Cameron and Co's move to mollify the "won't somebody think of the children" types who think this sort of thing will actually help.
I'd be fairly surprised to see the government trying to force this onto all ISPs, I don't think that they're really that interested in it. They're just interested in shutting up the people who are bothering them.
I intend to opt in and write to my MP telling him why I have opted in - that I have no confidence at all that his government won't start telling ISPs to block other things that they don't want us to know, and that resistance has to start with "respectable" people like me. I might write to the local paper about it too.
Here's one, AAISP, who are refusing to censor: http://www.aa.net.uk/legal-terms-services.html
Think I'll just vote with my wallet, bye-bye Virgin Media. You were... average.
And yet you post Anon? :)
Loath as I am to laud the oaf clarkson in any way, this could lead to a fun game.... dear Mr cameron, today i went on the internet and i saw THIS!!!!
a few hundred thousand of them in his post bag every day might lead him to moderate his views
> My feeling is that rather than being an attempt to seriously control all public access to the Internet and adult content, it's really Cameron and Co's move to mollify the "won't somebody think of the children" types who think this sort of thing will actually help.
This is it exactly; it's to shut up Porno Perry and the mumsnet nut-jobs.
It also fits in the with moves he's been making to ingratiate himself more with the conservative rump that he's worried about losing to UKIP.
> Think I'll just vote with my wallet
Voted with my wallet so many years ago I can't even remember life at Demon via ISDN any more.
Adrian's stance is they can shut me up, but they can't make me lie, so at the moment I'll tell you there is no monitoring box on out network. When I stop saying this you can interpret it any way that makes sense to you.
Porn, then "extremist" websites/speech... etc & so on. It WILL happen folks.
Cameron's already on record that they intend to block 'extremist' sites, won't take long until we're only allowed access to a whitelist of approved sites...
I believe the wish to block extremist websites will be done at a 'clean feed' type level - ie. you won't have any control over it, won't be able to turn it off etc...
Which is funny, as when Cleanfeed (and other similar systems) was introduced, the government stated quite clearly it would only be used for child pornography. Since then, they've used it to block copyright infringing sites, and who knows what else.
Put simply, the government can't be trusted.
Mission creep has been shown already and there is no doubt it will get worse. The question is what do we do about it?
Unfortunately most people can't be bothered to make a fuss about it and the ones that do, won't go any further than their armchair and twitter account.
Talking of twitter, apparently CP is getting tweeted there more since the google crackdown on such images. So where you could avoid it by simply not searching for it, now it is possible to stumble upon it.
As someone who used to follow someone who had some form of 'breakdown' and started to tweet some rather odd pictures involving horses and ladies, I agree. Twitter is not a safe place at the moment.
I totally agree. All this does is divide and make a wider problem. The real clever ones will just go deeper underground and the more stupid will put it in more public places. Both are worrying as it becomes easier to accidently stumble upon which will become more difficult to block and the underground stuff more difficult to trace.
So I can only conclude this policy serves two purposes a) to be seen to be doing the right thing and shut up the campaigners and b) serve the real agenda of wider censorship. (Tin foil hat now in place)
"horses and ladies" - are you referring to our revered Prime Minister and his friend with the police horse habit who cannot be mentioned for legal reasons?
They blocked copyright infringing sites!!!11!!!!!
oh noes, errr when did this happen, and why didnt i notice.
What is the name of that software that Chinese people use to get round their country's censorship? I think we'll all need it soon.
interesting word that.
of course you are still guilty. if you D/L it. couple that with the twitterfication of CP paints a scary as fuck picture.
thank <insert deity of your choice, or 'dawkins' here> i am only marginally less interested in cp than i am in twitter. so file under 'someone elses problem' which is, i believe, where we came in.
interesting word that."
So, if you accidentally find porn, is that a grumble-stumble?
And if it's only soft, is it just a fumble-stumble?
and if you get reported for watching the accidentally uncovered porn...
is that a rumble-grumble-stumble?
You slightly missed the point. What exactly they block is somewhat irrelevant. The fact that it is being blocked is the issue. What's to stop a future government introducing a new policy that blocks foreign retail sites in order to protect British business? Or blocks some news sites it determines to be extremist? Or, changes the definition of extremist to be as loosely defined as the new government definition of "Terrorism". I couldn't care less if copyright infringing sites get shut down or not.
The point is that once the systems are in place for mass censorship, it will be near enough impossible to get rid of them. Arguing over individual sites being blocked or not will be pointless, as the system will still happily and silently carry on blocking whatever it wants on the whim of whatever idiot is in power at that time.
this missing the point is catching methinks
praps i should have added a <sarcasm> tag
vpn - vm can block all they like i still gets my KAT.ph
my point is somewhat the same as yours, but tempered with the knowledge that the govt dont know shit 'bout IT (hold the presses!) and will _always_ be, at least, 1 step behind.
let em say whatever they need to to assuage the purple haired harridan that keeps bending their ears down at the con club about the end of civilisation as we know it. if they had one scintilla of competence about them they get a real job.
In this particular situation, that's the issue - the government aren't actually doing the blocking. It is being done by ISPs, who do kind of know what they're doing. So, there is potential for corporate led censorship as well as government led.
It doesn't take a lot for the government to jump on a bandwagon either - so if someone starts making a fuss about VPNs or whatever, they could well get huffy about them too - mission creep designed in from the start.
Violence is considered OK, but we're concentrating heavily on sex, which is something that not only is obviously required for our existence, is something that those very children will go on to do later in life.
Sex is fine. I'd be more worried about videos of random acts of violence on animals and other people as being far more disturbing.
If they could leave all the porn alone and get rid of every last video that involves someone killing cats or rabbits or "happy slapping" someone, who beheading or whatever, I'd be fine with that.
Violence is considered OK
Not necessarily ... both my sons (17 and 13) have said that they have problems doing history research on school computers as attempts to find info on WWII or Korean War (and especially on weapons used) are often blocked due to "violent" content.
"Sex is fine"
Depends. If it wasn't for the right wing loonies (and the left wing Stalinists) I could imagine positive health benefits from plenty of freely available stuff on the Internet of people engaging in foreplay, sex and general affectionate behaviour, but in a context of responsible behaviour (contraception and reasonably hygiene) and equality. If you don't like the incidence of single parents, rape, prostitution and STDs, rather than just bang on at kids about don't do X,Y,Z, show them what they can do and how to do it properly so everybody enjoys themselves and doesn't get hurt.
But there is stuff out there that you read about (and wouldn't, I'm guessing, want to see) that really does need blocking. The problem is how to do it, and the proposed system is not going to achieve that. The content will still be there, but the nasty people who peddle it will just get more inventive.
As an example, I remember being told about an organisation in the US that had an ingenious approach to selling porn after WW2. They had a respectable business in selling photographic film and paper, along with development kits. They also had a non-respectable sideline in selling very expensive photographic paper that had been pre-exposed with pornographic pictures, and carefully rewrapped. The buyer then simply processed the paper. If anybody opened the pack, there was nothing at all to see.
Technology just creates more fun ways to do this.
Won't somebody think of the grownups?
Grown ups can make decisions for themselves, children can't, that's the point. (It may be a misguided point, but that is the point.) We have to look after those in society who can't look after themselves - and that's children, mainly - even if that means a little bit of inconvenience to the rest of us.
And yes, someone will chip in soon with "but that's the job of their parents, not me" however the really vulnerable kids and the ones who don't have parents or worse, whose parents don't care what they do. And we have a duty to look after these children.
So what you're saying is that the needs of the few outweigh the needs of the many.
In practice that leads to failed civilisations or totalitarian regimes as they need to put harsher and harsher constraints on the many to ensure that the few retain their privileges
In all practicality all this is going to do is make the kids work a little harder to get their porn fix and they'll do it the same way that the did at school... One kid will work it out and tell everyone else e.g. install this program (TOR) and away you go or change your DNS settings to this and it will work.
In general, kids are far more inventive than adults as they're not burdened with the knowledge of what they can't do.
So as the original poster said.
Won't someone think of the adults.
No, what I'm saying is that one of the jobs of our society is to look out for those more vulnerable than the majority of us. We have reached a point where (most of us) no longer consider letting the weak fall at the wayside is acceptable. We protect those who are vulnerable, not at any cost, but at reasonable costs. What I'm saying is that we should think about the black and white nature of this "debate" which seems to be characterised by two entrenched positions shouting at each other and not moving at all.
Personally I think that in the same way I had to exert a tiny amount of effort to find hedgeporn in the local woods, it would probably do most kids good to have to learn about how to circumvent Internet censorship rather than just have everything handed to them on a plate.
No I bloody dont!
If I did then they would never have been born, like my kids.
This world sucks, if you cant care properly for your kids for the entirety of their childhood/adolesence then you should be sterilised at puberty. thats MY end of the deal, I'll then happily care for the mistakes that slip through. Encouraging morons to breed and leaving it to everyone else to foot the bill, is really not the way forwards.
compassion for the kids... why? they are just the next generation of morons......
I agree we have a duty to look after the vulnerable in society, but I'm not sure that closing all the food shops is the best way to tackle the problem of neglected kids who don't have enough to eat . Same with censorship
@Naughtyhorse - Forced sterilisation for those you judge not able to be parents and those who fail to care for children, also children who for whatever reason don't have parents or parents who don't/cant' care for them should be dumped on the street. For, what? So you can have very slightly more easy access to porn.
This attitude disgusts me.
The narcotics were laced with something that would sterilise the users.
Can someone engineer an audio tone that does the same thing and play it during Jeremy Kyle? (both to the audience and viewers)
We are ononymoos
We dont ferget
We dont ferget...er....yer...wut?
We r legun