Re: Surely ISPs are all for this really.
Lovedrive at a guess?
Prime Minister David Cameron will today gaily announce that Brit adults will be forced to ask their ISP for permission to view web grumble flicks. The system will also ensure people typing in "abhorrent search terms" for stuff online will receive a "warning" along with some helpline numbers - although a former child protection …
Like every device in your house has a separate bloody internet connection from your ISP.
Further evidence that that utter twunt and dangerous jackass Cameron has fuck all clue what he's talking about.
Or is intentionally spouting lies and bullshit.
Or most likely BOTH
No, it's referring to the nastiness being blocked at network level (by the ISP) rather than, in previous incarnations, an installed application at device level.
Norton Family, PGSurfer et all are all reliant on the application ON the device doing the filtering. Which means it's there to be fiddled with, bypassed and removed by kids than almost always know parents passwords for things.
I'm not saying this will be any more effective (as anyone trying to stop school kids getting on facebook).
Anywho, you're reading too much into it. ISPs won't be ready for the jump over to IPV6 just yet, definitely not all of them.
He simply means no "filth" will be allowed by the ISP (and therefore "on every device in your house") rather than a piece of software having to be put on every laptop, tablet, PC and smartphone, console etc in the building.
According to http://www.google.com/ipv6/statistics.html#tab=per-country-ipv6-adoption, UK usage of IPv6 is running at around 0.13%.
In the real world, practically all UK home ISP connections are NAT'd IPv4, and hence all share a single IP address (most ISP's will only DHCP you a single address anyway), so network filters will still, as they always have, automatically "cover any device connected to your home internet account".
Nothing has been "rewired", there has been no "step forward", and Cameron is telling a bare-faced lie.
"That is called IPv6 -- every device has it's own unique address."
Separate address yes, but it still goes through the same router, so no, they don't have a separate connection to the internet, unless they happen to be sat on different wifi stations, or running off mobile data.
.... that some recent child murderers looked at porn before committing heinous crimes is good enough reason to bring the block in. So basically they are happy to use legislation to tar millions of people with the evil child molester brush by association (a percentage of probably 0.000001 of the population), but are disgruntled when we class all politicians as money grubbing thieving useless incompetents because the majority of them abused expenses.
How about this for a FOI request? Before this is made live they publish the browsing history of every serving MP and Member of the Lords for us all to see they are as squeaky clean and wholesome as they expect us to be.
"How about this for a FOI request? Before this is made live they publish the browsing history of every serving MP and Member of the Lords for us all to see they are as squeaky clean and wholesome as they expect us to be."
Don't forget the same for every single person working for the responsible ministries, every single person who will have access to the list of banned stuff, every single person who will have access to any record of who browsed what, and every single law enforcement, security service or other employee / contractor who will have access to any data whatsoever generated by the filtering.
Oh, and make MPs who vote for it pay for the whole stupid thing out of their own pockets.
Clair Perry MP argued '...filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.'
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
That is a sinister and weird thing to say.
Yes, they don't have a clue about the difference between correlation and causation. In the 1950s correlation famously "proved" (not!) that watching TV caused lung cancer. TV sets of that epoch gave out quite a lot of X-rays, percentage of households with a TV was rising fast, lung cancer was rising fast, so not a silly suggestion. But the real culprit was increasing affluence causing increasing cigarette consumption as well as increased TV sales.
With porn there is not even any correlation. The availability of porn has surely risen at least tenfold in the last decade. The incidence of ghastly assaults on children has not. Probably it has not increased at all, once one allows for increased reporting. The same is likely true of rape. So this appears to be evidence that perverts are NOT created by watching porn, and that the money which is about to be wasted by ISPs would be much better used to increase funding for child protection and victim support agencies.
and in the first instance, the convicted person had a recording of a segment from "The Last House on the Left", presumably recorded via Sky (judging by the reference to "when it was repeated on the +1 channel" made during the case).
"As the 47-year-old was found guilty of April’s abduction and murder, it can be disclosed that when police first searched his cottage last year they discovered he had recorded the rape scene from the 2009 remake of The Last House On The Left.
Bridger, from Ceinws, who hoarded hundreds of images of child pornography, recorded the scene where a young teenage girl is raped by a leader of a gang in front of his gang-mates, who hold the victim down while she is attacked.
He recorded the same scene a second time when it was repeated on the +1 channel an hour later.
Bridger’s own barrister Brendan Kelly QC described the scene as ‘distressing’, while prosecutor Elwen Evans QC dubbed it ‘significant’ for the case.
She said Bridger had watched the rape scene ‘not long before’ whatever happened to April.
April’s body has never been found, despite the largest search operation in the history of British policing.
‘This is not just the playing of a rape scene on television,’ she said during the five-week trial. ’That particular rape scene had been recorded twice. A deliberate action to capture the most distressing aspect.’
(http://metro.co.uk/2013/05/30/revealed-mark-bridger-watched-brutal-rape-scene-twice-before-murdering-april-jones-3820865/)
A major corporation allowing subscribers to choose to view violent sexual content in their homes? Perhaps Mr Cameron should
"...lay down the law after taking charge of a drive to end the stream of vile and extremist material...". His intervention is in response to a campaign by The Sun to halt the flow of filth.'
http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/politics/4961201/Web-war-by-sickened-PM.html
Now, if only Number 10 knew someone who had some influence at BSkyB...
Already been done;
www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2276344/Adultery-website-Out-Town-Affairs-received-52-000-hits-seven-months-Parliament-computers.html
It would appears MP's communications are being filtered and monitored by an unnamed 'third party', thought to be Bluecoat in California, with URLs being categorised, analysed, and censored (even if legal).
See also;-
https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/surveillance_of_internet_use
Sadly. the pres (including the Register) won't report it.
Thanks for posting the link to whatdotheyknow.com - well worth anyone's time to read that, the submitter ("P.John") should be up for some kind of award if he does much more of this kind of thing !
He makes the interesting point about the sovereignty of Parliament - no-one, not even Parliament, should be interfering - in any way - with Members' communications.
i guess searching for the term is no kind of proof of a desire to actually view it and "get off" on it. somebody could simply be looking for more information on the phenomena, or looking for a definition, or trying to find a previous article about it, or any number of things. this is the problem - that everybody is terrified of being labelled a paedophile and will likely alter their (completely normal and legal) browsing habits, just in case something they unwittingly do lands them in serious trouble - and it is extremely serious - life ruining stuff, potentially for doing absolutely nothing wrong. it's totally designed to cater to the worst kind of daily mail/sun reading hypocrite, who labels everyone a "pedo" and orates loudly down the local on the subject, using terms like "evil scum" frequently, all whilst secretly fancying the 14 year old girl next door.
This post has been deleted by its author
So the nice new screen pops up and as an ordinary single adult who occasionally likes to look at the odd bit of lesbian porn or maybe a few MILF videos you select let me see it. What is wrong with that all nice and easy and your access is allowed.
A couple of months later a child goes missing in your area. You get a knock on the door. Can you tell me where you were at whatever time o'clock sir/madam? Do you have an alibi, can we take a DNA sample, can we take your car down to forensics? And other such questions like that. The single adult is of course a bit bemused as to why this is happening and does not realise that by admitting that they like a bit of porn has put them on to the nice list that the police maintain about sex offenders in their area. When they find out the registered perverts who was arrested and presecuted for peering through a little hole in to the women's changing room could not be responsible, they have moved on to all the porn watchers.
Meanwhile the b*****d who has actually taken the child has committed their dastardly deed, filmed it and posted it to the nice file storage system hosted by a friend in Russia/Cambodia/any other country where this is minimal technical controls using an encrypted peer to peer network routed via one or more anonymous proxy sites and then let his other friends know where they can get it.
Of course this ignores the fact that most kids don't look at porn very often and that most abuse takes place by people close to the child.
PS based on the experience of someone I know, I now expect the Police to come and find me to charge me with telling pornographers and child abusers how to get around the law!
Searching "typical Tory" on Google images still returns material that I can only describe as abhorrent and obscene. My 9 year old caught a glimpse and I had to explain that the image was of the education minister; he now lives behind the sofa and refuses to go to school in case he's caught out by a snap departmental photo op, and my wife is threatening to leave me, claiming I'm a Tory sympathiser and closet canvasser.
Help!!
"I had to explain that the image was of the education minister; he now lives behind the sofa and refuses to go to school in case he's caught out by a snap departmental photo op"
Hiding behind the sofa - check!
Refusing to go to school in case of being spotted - check!
Yep - that sounds like Michael Gove alright!