back to article MPs urge UK.gov to use 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

MPs want Britain's network-level filters to do a better job of censoring access to pornography sites to keep the content away from the prying eyes of children. But, to do that, perfectly legal online smut peddlers need to cooperate. That was the conclusion in a report (PDF) published today by Parliament's Culture, Media and …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Don Jefe

    Wife & Servants

    I don't care if my wife watches that stuff. Each to their own. But I think it's wholly unfair for me to bitch at my servants for watching the videos they appear in. I stopped putting them in snuff films, after their union complained, but they can't stop me from putting them in other movies.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    In other news,

    Teen pregnancy is at a 40 year low.

    Just thought I'd mention that detail.

    1. P. Lee

      Re: In other news,

      Are you suggesting that the wide-spread availability of the pill from the mid-1970's increased teen pregnancy and we're only now getting it back under control? ;)

      I guess the social isolation induced by wearing headphones and using facebook is finally paying off!

      In other news, only 185,122 abortions in 2012. That still seems like quite a lot to me.

      https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/211790/2012_Abortion_Statistics.pdf

      1. Steve Knox
        Boffin

        Re: In other news,

        Context is key.

        For example, from the very file you linked:

        "The age-standardised abortion rate was 16.5 per 1,000 resident women aged 15-44, 5.4% lower than in 2011, and 2.7% lower than in 2002 (17.0); the lowest rate for 16 years."

        There are several more statistics, each pointing to a trend of decreasing abortion. I won't bother to list them here, as anyone can simply follow your link.

        The point being, anyone can throw out a number and call it big. It takes effort to analyse the number in context and determine what it actually means.

        In actuality, the abortion rate has been decreasing for 16 years. Wouldn't you consider that heading in the "right" direction? What would you prefer, a big ON/OFF switch?

        1. caffeine addict

          Re: In other news,

          "What would you prefer, a big ON/OFF switch?"

          Oo, Oo, Oo, I think I know this one!

      2. Euripides Pants
        Boffin

        Re: In other news,

        "Are you suggesting that the wide-spread availability of the pill from the mid-1970's increased teen pregnancy..."

        No, the increase in teen pregnancy was due to the increase in teen f#%king...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: In other news,

      Teen pregnancy is at a 40 year low.

      Among servants as well?

  3. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So...

    .. If Mr Smith gives little Johnnie a computer with no parental controls on it and allows him to use it unsupervised is he guilty of distributing pornography to a minor or at least aiding and abetting said distribution?

    1. Mad Mike

      Re: So...

      @AC.

      Indeed. If the police obtain evidence that parents are doing nothing to control their offsprings internet habits and unsuitable material (for the age group) is being accessed, is that a case for the courts for neglect? Should social services be involved? Now, I'm maybe more tech savvy than the average user, but I simply implemented a hardware firewall with content filtering on it. Not perfect, but it certainly stops the majority and as it keeps a list (long) of every URL they access, I think it was a reasonable response to the issue.

      Perhaps they would be better off creating and selling such a hardware firewall (perhaps even subsidising it), so parents can have a plug and play option?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: So...

        "(perhaps even subsidising it)"

        Married persons allowance, family credit, £2K child care.

        Any more of my money you want to give away?

        If you have a kid, it's YOUR responsibility to pay for it and care for it and raise it properly.

        Stop throwing public money at those who chose to have kids. (Reality: those bastard mistakes of too many drunken nights).

        1. browntomatoes

          Re: So...

          I agree (despite being a parent - albeit one who won't benefit from any of the above schemes). But you forgot the two biggest subsidies (as a whole) from non-parents to parents - which are publicly funded schools and the NHS (children and older people are rather disproportionate users of health and social care compared to non-geriatric adults). There's also housing benefit (ie cost of providing larger homes for those who qualify) as well as a few other smaller costs.

          I'm not sure the married persons allowance is really relevant though (after all plenty of people get married and don't have children, and still more have children but never marry).

        2. Richard Taylor 2
          Facepalm

          Re: So...

          "If you have a kid, it's YOUR responsibility to pay for it and care for it and raise it properly."

          But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?

          1. Mad Mike

            Re: So...

            @Richard Taylor 2.

            "But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?"

            Not sure why you got downvoted for this. Until very recently, the current generation paid the pensions of the generation before. This is not now true for money purchase schemes, but is true for the state pension etc. You need people paying tax today to fund the state pensions of today. The money paid in NI (or tax) yesterday was not invested to allow you to get a state pension today. So, no workers today, no state pensions today.

            In order to get workers for when you retire, people need to have kids today to become said workers. Alternatively, I guess we could import all the workers and have no kids, but that isn't economically viable. So, the comment is absolutely valid.

            1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

              Re: So...

              "Alternatively, I guess we could import all the workers and have no kids, but that isn't economically viable."

              Isn't it? Last I looked, there was no shortage of people willing to be economic migrants to the UK. The main objection appears to come from those "kids" who were born here. Remove all them and you could presumably open the floodgates to mass immigration.

              Of course, this may be a "cheap but not cheerful" solution. For one thing, it appears to require a sex ban on the entire adult population, which is unlikely to go down well. Still, maybe there's some sort of drug...

          2. Peter Simpson 1
            Childcatcher

            Re: So...

            "If you have a kid, it's YOUR responsibility to pay for it and care for it and raise it properly."

            But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?

            My children used to advise me to treat them with respect, as "they were the ones who get to chose the 'home' "

            // what has happened to all the workhouses?

          3. fruitoftheloon
            Thumb Up

            Re: So...

            Or presumably those that deride others for having sprogs will have suitable cash saved up to fund their robotic nursing requirements in the year 2040ish, by which point they may well be dribbling and/or unintentionally going to the toilet whilst fully clothed....

            I.e. other peoples sprogs will be nursing, feeding and looking after you when you are past it...

            Ironically one is an unintentional father (I can't have kids apparently), isn't nature a wonderful thing?

            J.

          4. Qwelak

            Re: So...

            That would be the pension you have paid into all your working life to EARN would it or paid through taxes/national insurance to the government for your state pension. Not quite the same thing really.

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: So...@Qwelak

              I don't think you understand this money thing.

              Where do you think the money you pay the Government goes to? If it was just piled up in a very big room, it would be useless. Money has no intrinsic value; it only has value because there are things it can buy. Unless there is a functioning economy and things are being produced - by the working age groups - money is utterly useless.

              If people don't have children, eventually no workers, no economy, no assets.

              In civilised societies it has turned out that educating children and giving them medical treatment at the expense of taxpayers, results in an active workforce later on to pay the taxes. Economies with high infant death rates and poor education are crap economies.

            2. Mad Mike

              Re: So...

              @Qwelak.

              Not sure you understand how the state pension works.

              When it was setup, the government of the day took contributions and said they'd give the people something back. Interestingly, the contract keeps changing as the 'get something back' keeps changing.

              Did they invest the money wisely to grow and become a pot to pay your pension later on? No, they did not. They spent the money immediately. They surmised that the contributions of workers when you're retired would be used to pay your pension. Similarly, when those workers retired, the workers at that time would pay their pensions. On and on to infinity.

              So, the government got an effective income which gradually declined as people started claiming the pension. Then, it was self-sufficient. Current workers pay for retired workers pensions. Job done. Big pile of cash up front to fund things. Now, this was partly to pay for reconstruction work (and other things) after WWII.

              However, as people live longer, the terms of the original pensions are looking rather generous. Workers can no longer fund the pensions of currently retired people due to the age they're living to etc.etc. Also, ratio of workers to pensioners etc. Hence, the pensions crisis we're (in a very poor way) trying to deal with at the moment. However, it did give them a big pool of money to start rebuilding after the war!!

              So, no future workers, at least your state pension will be gone. Money purchase pots may be OK. Defined benefits schemes could also have problems if the number of workers declines a lot.

              So, significant proportions of your pension are quite heavily (or totally) dependent on future workers and hence children being born and growing up. This will be true for many, many decades yet.

          5. This post has been deleted by its author

          6. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

            Re: So...

            "But at some stage you would like some one to pay your pension?"

            You got a surprising number of down votes from people who don't understand how the state pension works :-)

            For the edumacaushun of the downvoters, todays state pension is paid from the contributions of todays workers. You are not paying into a "pension pot" for your own benefit tomorrow. That would be your own private pension, not the state pension

        3. Mad Mike

          Re: So...

          @AC

          "Married persons allowance, family credit, £2K child care.

          Any more of my money you want to give away?"

          I never said it should be subsidised, I merely said it could be. Depends on what they think the benefits or not of subsidising would be and the social worth of doing so. Also, married persons allowance???? How old are you? That hasn't been around for years unless you're seriously old (born before 1945 I believe).

        4. FraK
          Unhappy

          Re: So...

          Wow, lots of anger right here.

          I would say something about it taking a village to raise a child, but that might encourage someone to make a missing idiot joke.

        5. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

          Re: So...

          "Married persons allowance,"

          What? That went years ago. Todays budget will allow prople to "pass on" £1000 worth of tax free allowance from next year. So I can add 1000 to my tax free allowance from my wifes unused tax free allowance giving us a whole £200 per year extra.

        6. Paul 195

          Re: So...

          So when you retire, can my children hypothecate their economic output so that none of it goes towards making your pension pot pay for actual goods and services? Or are you one of the selfish childless who expect parents to subsidize civilization carrying on for another generation? More generously, perhaps you're not very clever and have never really thought about why it might be worth helping people with some of the very high costs in bringing up children.

      2. Shaha Alam

        Re: So...

        of course, the universal law of unintended consequence states that junior will now search for ways to acquire the banned material from sources you haven't managed to block. some of which will contain material far worse than that on the sites you have.

        much like everyday antibacterial products eliminate the easy to kill bacteria only to give more breathing room (and thus promote) the nasty super-bacteria.

      3. A J Stiles
        Holmes

        Re: So...

        Perhaps they would be better off creating and selling such a hardware firewall (perhaps even subsidising it), so parents can have a plug and play option?
        You can construct a hardware firewall appliance entirely from scrap parts (you just need a motherboard, some RAM and possibly another network card if the mobo has only one RJ45; it's actually possible to run without a HDD at all, or with one of only a few GB capacity) and Open Source software, so it would not need any subsidy.

        Get a bunch of unemployed people onto the case; and have them sort through scrap computers diverted from landfill and turn them into home firewall appliances. Pay them out of the fines levied on people attempting to dispose of the aforementioned computers in landfill. Job's a good 'un!

        1. rh587

          Re: So...

          Such a hardware firewall is also trivial to bypass by yanking the main network uplink and plugging it direct into the router, unless your system is playing the role of broadband modem as well.

          Of course most people rolling their own today are technical enough that they'll notice the log goes dead about 90 seconds after they popped out to the shops and starts showing traffic again around the time they were expected back.

          Average Joe won't know that if it's supposed to be a plug, play and forget solution.

          I recall a guy on Dragon's Den touting a slot machine that killed an HDMI connection when it ran out - you gave your kids a weekly "gaming allowance", and the system cut the feed after x-minutes. You could set what a token was worth, etc.

          From a technical standpoint I couldn't see how that wouldn't prevent a kid just plugging the cable direct into the TV when their parents were out, or obtaining their own cable from Tesco if you had a retention device on the timer (because the console and TV wouldn't have retention at their ends), or you could just use a component/composite connection or whatever was offered on the back of the console rather than HDMI!

          Noticing that the system was being circumvented would require "parenting" to take place, and if you're going to take an interest in your kids like that then you can just tell them to turn it off and go play outside, which is far cheaper and easier as Duncan Bannatyne put in rather more curt terms!

          1. A J Stiles

            Re: So...

            Such a hardware firewall is also trivial to bypass by yanking the main network uplink and plugging it direct into the router, unless your system is playing the role of broadband modem as well.
            Well, that depends how secure you want it to be ..... and for many people, unplugging and replugging an RJ45 cable is hardly "trivial". But try:

            ADSL modem connects to eth0 of firewall machine. eth1 of firewall machine connects to switch, wireless access point and rest of network. The ADSL modem is configured in SUA mode, so it simply won't work at all if plugged straight into the switch; there needs to be a router in between. Its configuration page is password-protected; and restoring the factory defaults in order to get around the password protection will wipe out the ISP login and password.

            If someone can hack their way around that, fair play to them. They probably aren't going to be too badly affected by seeing a bit of naked flesh anyway.

        2. This post has been deleted by its author

        3. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: So...

          They're already on benefits...make 'em work for them!

        4. Salts

          Re: So...

          @ A J Stiles

          Just a few problems with that.

          1. F$%&ing great box

          2. Big increase in electricity cost for user and multiply by millions for extra pressure on the grid.

          3. reliability, old kit & forced labour

        5. Fluffy Bunny
          Coat

          Re: So...

          Can do it even cheaper than that. I just needed a pair of scissors.

        6. Blitheringeejit
          Thumb Up

          Re: So...

          At last, a useful plan for all the XP machines which will shortly be toast. Upvote!

      4. Salts

        Re: So...

        The ISP's could offer routers with better firewalls easier config for the less technically able and subsidise them rather than a having to implement useless filtering, the government could also have spent the 25 million(ish) on subsidising routers instead of a worthless campaign on raising awareness.

        When you order internet the ISP asks 'will you have children using the internet?' (covers grandma & granddad etc.) answer yes and you get the said family friendly router unless you opt out.

        Not perfect but better than the stupid, useless and worthless filtering IMHO.

        1. Fluffy Bunny
          Coat

          Re: So...

          "When you order internet the ISP asks 'will you have children using the internet?' (covers grandma & granddad etc.) answer yes and you get the said family friendly router unless you opt out"

          This is still defective because the adults in the house are treated just like babies.

        2. A J Stiles

          Re: So...

          Another thing the Government could do, would be to make sure that not being connected to the Internet is no barrier to full participation in society.

          Nobody should ever be dependent upon proprietary technology; and any technology upon which people have become dependent, should be forced into the Public Domain.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: So...

            "Another thing the Government could do, would be to make sure that not being connected to the Internet is no barrier to full participation in society."

            In denmark, as I understand it, the following statements are true.

            All taxpaying citizens are required to have a bank account, and the state has access to that account for deposits and withdrawals. Banks charge for this as I understand it.

            Companies are required to have a secure email address for communication with the government and receipt of an email to this email address has legal obligations and implications. There is no longer an expectation of receiving real mail from the government.

            Interactions with the government require the use of a national secure identity, a system which is requires Java to operate.

            The list goes on ... welcome to the modern welfare state.

      5. David 45

        Re: So...

        Oh no - they couldn't possibly implement a simple plan that requires more than a couple of brain cells. Besides, then they couldn't exert any control or censorship over the net itself, which is what it's REALLY all about! Nothing to do with kiddie protection in the long run, methinks.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So...

      I don't know, but would be be guilty of the same offence if he let his son into a news agent with porn on the lower shelves? (I suspect, the Newsagent would be guilty, not the farther.)

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: So...

        but if said newsagent was inconveniently located outside the jurisdiction of said god botherer (we all know it's them really) then dad would be pursued to the fullest extent of the law.

        1. Naughtyhorse

          Re: So...

          F*ck me! that was quick

          I guess he works in mysterious ways

      2. Mad Mike

        Re: So...

        @AC

        "I don't know, but would be be guilty of the same offence if he let his son into a news agent with porn on the lower shelves? (I suspect, the Newsagent would be guilty, not the farther.)"

        I agree the newsagent would have liability. However, wouldn't the father also have liability if he didn't immediately seek to remove the child from such an environment? If the child started looking through the titles, would you not expect the father to stop him?

        1. Sander van der Wal

          Re: So...

          These magazines are produced, printed and distributed. A magazine that is not distributed cannot be seen by a minor. A magazine that is printed, well, you get the gist.

          I propose arresting all parties involved. Including the owners, and the people financing them.

  4. Mad Mike

    Another belch from the clueless

    Whilst I totally agree that we need to ensure some level of protection for children, this is just another load of hot air from the clueless. Potentially anything on the internet could contain porn. Not just actual porn sites, but forums and all sorts, sometimes as a main theme and sometimes just single pieces. After all, people publish their own amateur home made porn now. So, just thinking about websites that do porn and nothing else is somewhat missing the point.

    There may be some technical things that can be done both inside and outside the house to give some degree of protection, but ultimately, it is the responsibility of the parents. However, governments seem determined to take the role of parents and in some cases, parents simply don't care. You spend hundreds of pounds on technology, but won't spend tens of pounds on products to reduce this risk. Alternatively, you could always have the computer etc. in public places, rather than in their bedrooms etc. You know, actually take an interest in your kids.

    But no, this committee seems to think they can legislate or technically get round the problem and seek to ignore the role of parents and good parenting in all this. They also don't seem to have realised that times have moved on since the 1950s, even though their own habits and that of others working in the Houses of Parliament suggest this (given the latest information on porn site access from said location). Of course, I'm sure this is all 'research' and has no gratification value at all!!

    Not sure when they'll realise all these committees actually need members who actually have some clue of the subject matter they're trying to deal with.

    1. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Re: Another belch from the clueless

      > Not sure when they'll realise all these committees actually need members who actually have some clue of the subject matter they're trying to deal with.

      You seem to operate in the belief that the aim of such committees is to solve an existing problem. It's not. They exist to fabricate a problem -or blow a minor one out of proportions- then sell it to the red-tops and ultimately be seen as solving or mitigating it, aided by the fact that there is little or no problem to begin with, so they can't really fail except if they manage to somehow make the problem much worse themselves.

    2. Captain Hogwash

      Re: governments seem determined to take the role of parents

      Or at least the big brothers.

      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Coat

        Re: governments seem determined to take the role of parents

        Freedom is not worth having if it does not include the freedom to make mistakes. - Mahatma Gandhi (1869-1948)

  5. Platelet

    The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

    Yeah let's encourage people to hand over their credit card details to pornographers, what could possibly go wrong?

    1. P. Lee

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      Are you seriously suggesting that the smut industry may be less than reputable?

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

        Who remembers when there were websites giving credit card numbers / SSNs / basic details which allowed you to get past basic checks and access sites that had implemented age gates,

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

          Who needs a website - just write the code. Google "Luhn algorithm"

          I know someone (cough) who made a few bob in the 90s, knocking up fake cc numbers for people to setup accounts with chatlines, so they could dial using a local number (which was free, if you recall the One2One offer of free local calls).

      2. Mad Mike
        Joke

        Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

        "Are you seriously suggesting that the smut industry may be less than reputable?"

        I think it would be a close run thing between MPs and the smut industry on how reputable they are. I'd probably rather trust the smut industry with my finances than MPs. History shows the smut industry has been somewhat more successful in running their own businesses, than MPs are at running the economy.

        In either event, both of them are engaged in f**king people, so not much difference really.

    2. Suricou Raven

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      As an added bonus, it'd kill off the enthusiast/hobbyist sites that can't afford the cost of handling credit cards and the associated certifications.

      Or they could just re-host overseas. That works too.

    3. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      Don't they allow wives and servants to have credit cards these days?

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      > Yeah let's encourage people to hand over their credit card details to pornographers, what could possibly go wrong?

      I thought the same, this will just lead to a boom in credit card fraud, identity theft and probably blackmail.

      My second thought was to wonder which large and established pornographer(s) will get the most benefit from shutting down all the free porn sites.

      1. Rich 11

        Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

        My second thought was to wonder which large and established pornographer(s) will get the most benefit from shutting down all the free porn sites.

        Did you have a certain newspaper publisher in mind? I suppose we'll find out when we see the headlines of his tabloid tomorrow.

    5. Mark .

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      It's also odd that typical anti-pr0n arguments usually refer to commercial material, and apply less to say, sites with user-generated material. But here we have MPs telling us that if you want to show other people, it must be done commercially!

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

        >But here we have MPs telling us that if you want to show other people, it must be done commercially!

        It is a conservative government dedicated to privatisation, wealth creation and the free market.

    6. veti Silver badge

      Re: The politicos said that grumble flick websites should require a credit card

      Obviously, that's the point.

      Porn web hosts have been lobbying for years to introduce laws to outlaw free porn. This is just the latest idiot to have listened to them. Unless he's taken a backhander, in which case not so much an idiot, but I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

  6. CAPS LOCK

    Speaking as an M.P. I think the plebs should have to have a doctors note to look at smut.

    I will be checking the smut to see what the plebs should be protected from of course.

  7. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The News

    What is hard for a parent is trying to censor what news your kid picks up, I dread news reports on the radio when we are on a family outing. In the ever more "Drop The Dead Donkey" and "Brass Eye" style of news reporting stories get whipped up, sensationalised and all the gory details laid bare. I've had some very awkward questions posed to me by my daughter of the "Jimmy you know who" stories. Sometimes I wonder if news organisations deliberately want us to constantly live in fear and paranoia of the world at large.

    1. BoldMan

      Re: The News

      Welcome to the world of sensationalist infotainment that is modern day "news" reporting...

      1. Naughtyhorse

        Re: The News

        fact me 'til I fart

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The News

      "I've had some very awkward questions posed to me by my daughter of the "Jimmy you know who" stories"

      Have you not had the bird/bees/nonce's talk yet? You should have, not doing so puts your kiddilies at risk and therefore you in a serious situation with social services.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Thumb Down

        Re: The News @AC

        You are obviously not a parent but have exposed yourself a mere child with such a stupid and facile comment. What the hell do you think your fears are being the father of a ten year old girl and the lengths you go to protect and educate your child from those fears ?

    3. A J Stiles

      Re: The News

      Sometimes I wonder if news organisations deliberately want us to constantly live in fear and paranoia of the world at large.
      You can stop wondering now. That is exactly what they want.

  8. Anonymous John

    1950s obscenity law

    It's a good job that all these websites are in the UK. Oh...

    1. JimmyPage Silver badge
      Stop

      Re: 1950s obscenity law

      The problem is we'll get more pressure on ISPs. Imagine a law which makes the ISP liable if any smut gets to the Jones PC. ISPs would just block any site not verified as being in the UK.

      1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

        Re: 1950s obscenity law

        > ISPs would just block any site not verified as being in the UK.

        EWW - we could have the "Empire Wide Web"

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: 1950s obscenity law

          Does "the Empire" still stretch beyond the virtual reality of the Tory mindset?

    2. Intractable Potsherd

      Re: 1950s obscenity law

      That the damned silly Obscenity Act is still on the statute books shows that Britain is not a civilised country. The think should have been taken out and shot, along with any of its supporters, at least 40 years ago.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Porn filters?

    Hear hear, I say!

    It's so hard to find all the good porn these days.

    I can never find the good "spank-me-nanny" sites when I need them.

    Let's filter it, eliminate all the bad sites.

    An MP

  10. James Boag

    MP's Members Interests Phnaaar Phnaaar

    I take it this has been dug up (let em use a credit card to verify age)

    due to some member or their family/old skool friend/ etc.

    Buying a large amount of shares in "smut peddlers and Grumble flics Ltd." Other Porn merchants are available.

  11. jonfr

    Accross the ocean in Denmark

    Here in Denmark, were porn is legal this is not an issue. It also doesn't appear to do any harm to any children far as I know.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Accross the ocean in Denmark

      Would you please take your facts and experience elsewhere? This is ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN YOU MONSTER!!!!

      Mumsnet and the Daily Mail say that porn is BAD and children are GOOD and if we put the good near the bad it becomes bad and that's bad. Bad bad bad. Boo hoo. So please, clever masters, make the bad go away and then the good will always be good and lovely and good forever. The end.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Accross the ocean in Denmark

      As a danish resident, I can add that my daughter seems to have grown up in to a very fine, well balanced and thoughtful example of humanity and as far as I can ascertain, her access to the internet has been uncensored for her entire life.

      Then, the fact that sex education is part of the scholl curriculum from about year 1 might have something to do with her attitude to sex and porn, rather than whatever the net might offer. When sex is not hidden and mysterious and just a natural part of life it all works rather better.

      I should add that denmark is one of the countries in the world that in fact censors the internet. There is a list of banned sites which is top secret and it is a criminal offence to reveal the contents of the said list. You might think that it is a list of bomb making sites and kiddy fiddler sites, but I couldn't possibly comment.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Accross the ocean in Denmark

        It certainly is a wee bit more liberal than the UK; I recall a booze cruise to Esjberg 20 years ago in which we gainfully spent our brief time ashore buying hardcore porn magazines from a vending machine outside a newsagent for 20 Krone or so each - not a black star, smudge or dot in sight. My (very happy shopper) girlfriend found somewhere suitably feminine to stash them for the walk through UK customs.

        That and the fact I lost the last one after loaning it to a Barrister I shared a house with speaks volumes about both countries.

  12. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Mark #255

      I'm afraid this has set off my Poe's Law alarm...

      1. JimmyPage Silver badge
        Thumb Up

        Poes' law

        Thanks for that, I particularly liked:

        "Any sufficiently advanced troll is indistinguishable from a genuine kook."

        (credit to Alan Morgan).

  13. Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse

    As far as I am aware...

    It's not in the best interests of the government to allow the parents to do the parenting in this case. What better solution for them is there than by pandering to the bored Netmums minority than to introduce a technological filtering solution, and that once all of those annoying civil liberties campaigners have got bored, and once the media hoo-haa has died down, can then be expanded to block other so called "problem" areas of the internet.

    You might think that this is all a mish mash of unplanned and ill considered initiatives by Govmt. - but I assure you it is nothing of the kind. It is direct and planned censorship, and we are all complicit. 10 years down the line we will have the same restrictions as China. Although in our case I bet everything will be blocked except that which brings in some form of revenue via a Google, Twitter or FB tax.

    1. Mike Smith
      Big Brother

      Re: As far as I am aware...

      " I assure you it is nothing of the kind. It is direct and planned censorship, and we are all complicit"

      Hmmm... I'll buy the idea of censorship by default arising from a combination of spineless politicians and ignorant fulmination from the Daily Heil, but direct and planned... well, where's your evidence for that?

      That's a serious question, by the way - if you have evidence of that, I'd like to see it. I don't trust the government either.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: As far as I am aware...

        I can certainly buy 'planned' insofar as those who spend their time fulminating over how to make others lives as drab and pious as theirs would utilise any tool, movement or bandwagon available to forward that agenda. Witness the glee with which the Foaming Wing of the CofE has taken to teaming up with 'conservative' Muslim organisations and the Catholic church to push their anti-fun agenda, banging out dubious polls claiming rising attendances point to a rejection of liberal society, as opposed to being down to selective poll sampling or choice of location.

        The issue discussed here is exactly one of those they use to fly under the radar and chip away, one bit at a time, playing the long game. Use the well-established 'think of the children' as a front to get porn meta tagged for parental control software without too much controversy, then fund a couple of one-sided research reports on porn sites as a malware vector via a respected research name (suppressing anything you don't like till you strike gold), then suggest, via a suitably named think tank, that the state-mandated ISP filters be made compulsory and extended to protect us from insidious tides of malware using among other things - by jove - tagging for identification of miscreant sites (think of the old people targeted by scammers - here's one the BBC interviewed earlier who lost their life savings!), and before you know it you have a compulsorily filth free internet* - without ever mentioning your actual disgust at forty somethings bashing the bishop to grumble flicks.

        "By the backdoor" has been done unto us for so long we really ought to recognise the symptoms - and those really pulling the puppets strings - by now.

        * no warranty implied

        1. chris121254

          Re: As far as I am aware...

          Now your being paranoid you will never be able to block porn

    2. Salts

      Re: As far as I am aware...

      Never attribute to malice that which can be adequately explained by stupidity, but don't rule out malice.

      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon%27s_razor see Heinlein's Razor

      These are politicians we are talking about!

  14. Dr Wadd
    FAIL

    I may be wrong (I'm not going to Google for confirmation since I'm at work), but I thought it there was already a US law that mandates the use of a credit card payment as an age check for adult sites. I appreciate that strictly speaking this legislation doesn't apply to the UK, but UK users would still need to sign-up with a valid credit card.

    The proposals of the UK government don't seem to offer any additional protections as far as sites that operate within the law are concerned, and those that operate outside the law aren't going to be bothered by this announcement. Of course, given that the vast majority of site operators are going to be based outside the UK not only is this announcement apparently redundant, it is also entirely pointless as it can't be broadly applied.

    1. Old Handle

      That would be the Child Online Protection Act, passed in 1998. It was ruled unconstitutional the following year. This was based on the court's belief that it imposed an unnecessary burden on protected speech compared to other methods of keeping kids away from porn.

  15. Roger Stenning

    Add metadata to the headers?

    Um... they are aware that the entities running these sites are under no obligation to follow UK law if they aren't (1) British Subjects, and (2) in the UK, and that the internet does NOT stop at the 12-mile territorial limit, right?

  16. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I-Spy

    I have just opened my "I-Spy book of porn lobbying" so let's see if we can spot any of the following people or groups.

    * People who own subscription based porn sites.

    * MPs no-one has heard of looking for publicity.

    * Thinly disguised Christian organisations.

    * The mumsnet lunatics.

    * Porno Perry.

    * Jim Gamble.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: I-Spy

      * An upcoming election

  17. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    MPs

    I wouldn't care much about what they say or do, if it wasn't for the odd coincidence, that they're also the very same people who make the laws. Worse still, they even have the cheek to claim this is

    - what I want ("our constituents strongly demand..."

    - what I need ("our citizens have the right to feel something's done to protect their children")

  18. Keith Langmead

    Headline grabbing

    To my mind this definitely smacks of headline grabbing rather than an attempt to protect children.

    Having told us that the network level filters are necessary and will solve everything, now they're saying that they need additional protections.

    If they really want to protect children then I'd have thought the obvious place for them to look first is at helping to make the network level filters and home based filters more accurate. Rather than dumping costly requirements on anyone hosting a site featuring adult content, surely the simpler method would be to come up with a universal way to identify those sites. For instance agree on a collection of tags, for instance Adult, Porn, NSFW etc, which could simply be added to the meta data of any adult oriented websites. The filters can then easily look for those tags and immediately restrict access to those people who don't want that material visible.

    You'd obviously make it clear that should sites fail to implement those simple fixes then more stringent legal action may follow, but start with the carrot and move to the stick only when required.

    1. Rich 11

      Re: Headline grabbing

      What legal action do you have in mind for sites not based in the UK? And what proportion of global porn do you think is served from the UK?

    2. Robert Baker
      Joke

      Re: Headline grabbing

      "restrict access to those people who don't want that material visible"

      Surely those are the ones who don't want access? Why make them the only ones who have access?

      Oh, the ambiguity of English...

  19. A J Stiles

    Better Idea

    Instead of various misguided attempts to try to make the Internet "family friendly", why not just accept the fact that (1) it isn't, (2) it never has been and (3) it never will be?

    There are plenty of places in The Real World where you can't take a child, and people generally seem OK with that. Why does anyone expect it to be different on the Internet?

  20. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    "MPs want Britain's network-level filters to do a better job of censoring access to pornography sites to keep the content away from the prying eyes of children. But, to do that, perfectly legal online smut peddlers need to cooperate."

    Lets start at the beginning. The parents!

    Lets start locking them up/fining them if their 'net access to weak and unfiltered.

    After all, it starts at home.

    The parents are responsible. Of course the 'glish are great at passing the blame. If the time wasted passing the blame was used to learn how to filter 'net traffic, most kiddilies wouldn't be eyeing p0rn.

    Who else is to blame? David Cameron, Barbara Striesand, yo momma?

    Grow up parents and do your job properly.

  21. Lamont Cranston
    Unhappy

    As one of the few people on this forum

    who was broadly in favour of the "default filtering" proposal (which still hasn't been enabled on my BT broadband - I really must find the password and find out how to turn it on for myself), even I think our MPs are getting a bit carried away, now.

    Whilst I appreciate the availability of universal filtering (even if it is a bit crap/easily bypassed/not actually switched on), that's enough - I've no desire to devolve all responsibility for my children's wellbeing to the state. Boys will be boys, so they're going to get to the porn eventually, but I'd rather they weren't encouraged to half-inch my credit card at the same time.

    1. 45RPM Silver badge

      Re: As one of the few people on this forum

      Yes, thats kind of what I thought too (well, maybe a bit more forcefully than I thought it since what I really thought is 'Meh - who cares?') Now though, I'm swinging in favour of thinking that this is a damned stupid law brought about by politicians who haven't thought the problem through and who may well have lost the plot.

      Whilst I really don't care if chickswithbigdicks or sweatyhairymilfs is knocked off line for the majority of the UK population (especially since it'll be relatively trivial to regain access), I do very much care if sex education sites like Violet Blue's (google tinynibbles, but be warned - nsfw) are no longer conveniently accessible.

      So, I'm broadly supportive of the legislation provided that it is implemented intelligently and with due concern for legitimate and educational filth. I doubt that it will be though, and I hope that I'm proved wrong.

      1. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
        Big Brother

        Re: As one of the few people on this forum

        Its not a damn stupid law/idea at all

        Its a HEADLINE grabbing idea that makes the MPs in question look like they are doing something rather what they actually do,that being sat on their arses collecting 'campaign' funds from various lobby groups.

        It suitably fills out the daily wail headlines for a couple of days, when in fact the MPs in question know that how ever much they try to shutdown internet content, little johnny will always find a way to see and get what he should'nt.

        But once the ISPs have to put filters on the connections, how much longer before we get other internet content filtered for not being suitable(say how much some MPs are claiming in expenses) and then the 3am knocks at the door saying "come with us, you've asked for your filter to be removed" start up and you are taken into 'protective custody'

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As one of the few people on this forum

          Perhaps we need a lobby group for "people with no real agenda who don't ordinarily give a shit, but are sick of being ignored in favour of more shout types", because we probably form the majority, yet are horribly outgunned on the lobbying front shoutathon by Mumsnet, the Church of [add deity], the Paul Dacre worshipping cult, and just about anyone with an outrage driven agenda.

          In our supposed democracy, voting appears to be irrelevant, but lobbying gets results.

        2. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward

          Re: As one of the few people on this forum

          I agree with you mostly about headline grabbing but not with the last part 1. filters are opt in not opt out 2. filters are already on for tho who went it 3. filters don't work so no one is using them and 4. there no men in black coming to the door at 3am stop being paranoid and fearmongring

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: As one of the few people on this forum

            @ AC 3-hours-ago (when did they change that?)

            Swap 3am for 6.30am and "men in black" for "social workers in a Ford Mondeo" bearing a child protection order because Little Johnny mentioned what he'd seen to a friend who told the teacher who made a phone call; doesn't sound quite so paranoid now, does it? And they have already upped the ante on what is filtered and how it's implemented.

            1. This post has been deleted by its author

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    A solution

    The Govt funds a filter application that anyone can, if they desire, download and install on their device. The contracted developers keep an updated list that said software uses to update. This shouldn't cost very much, a proxy is not rocket science.

    I carry on as I do now, which incidently, is to filter adverts. Other people can do want they think appropriate. The Govt should filter their own Internet connection if dangly bits offend them and stop telling me what to do.

  23. Ethariel

    Errr........

    Either the MP's concerned have had a brain fart or they are thinking outside the box......

    Deny people access to pr0n and watch a new generation of hackers born, certainly one way to make sure kids grow up computer savvy?

  24. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

    1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

    An obvious solution is to turn back the tide of 60s permissiveness and reintroduce the Lord Chancellor Office. Then you just need to get approval of the publication of each new website.

    1. CAPS LOCK

      Re: 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

      This is exactly what is planned. The 'internet' WILL stop at the twelve mile limit. To get on the British web you'll need to apply for permission, fill in the forms, and, crucially, pay the fee. The fee will be trivial on introduction, so you won't be able to say 'It's too much', then, when the principle is established it will go up every year. In other words a back door tax.

      There are many existing examples. We all know about cars and alcohol, but there are many more hidden from the public because they are industry specific.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

        You got proof?

      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

        It will never happen

      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

        cap lock what are you going on about because what i see is someone who is paranoid and making thing up stop fearmongring and lieing there no plan to do that if there is were your proof also if they did that it would kill the internet so stop lieing

    2. JaitcH
      WTF?

      Re: 1950s obscenity law to stifle online stiffies

      Is there still an Office of the Lord Chancellor? He was the guy who insisted all doors be opened at the end of all public artistic performances.

      I thought bLIAR killed it?

  25. JaitcH
    WTF?

    Memories of Health and Efficiency and Lady Chatterly's Lover

    When I was at Dauntseys School, West Lavington, Wiltshire, many, many, decades ago, copies of Health & Efficiency <http://www.henaturist.net/> used to circulate. The guys (unisex now) used to rent copies out for a Mars bar, or similar, for a day or two.

    Copies of Lady Chatterly were acquired, the bindings ripped apart and chapters were rented out individually!

    I really can't understand the BANNED IN BRITAIN mentality. It doesn't and won't work.

    My sister-in-law invited me to view her daughter's school play and I discretely took pictures, sans flash, with my high-end camera. As we were leaving some sanctimonious male said he would have to 'seize' my film as taking pictures of children was equated with paedophilia. I remarked I always travel thousands of miles to take pictures small children acting. Besides, there was no film - only memory chips.

    What are the most popular pictures for Tourists to take in foreign climbs? Children with cherubic faces! Seems that UK people have a very strange attitude when it comes to children other than their own.

    Of course, MPs are the very people who shouldn't be determining this, what with the Deputy Speaker on trial for grabbing at male youth. At least they were Tory male youth. Then there was the Tory who was found dead - dressed in women's clothing.

    I would far rather have a socially challenged adult satisfying their cravings on-line than roaming the streets looking for the real thing.

    Way back Channel 79, in Toronto, used to play Baby Blue featuring soft porn movies. The Cops were happy, they knew where the paedos were - hanging around TV retailers looking at Baby Blue! NOT ONLY THAT, sexual assaults actually DECREASED on Friday nights.

    It's time that parents took on the responsibility for their children - THEY are the ones best positioned for determining what their children watch, not some MP who drags up this old chestnut every time there is an election pending.

  26. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Is there evidence porn harms kids?

    The same prudes who want to restrict porn also want to limit sex education. Like many of my generation the only formal sex education we received was so couched in indirectness that the teacher never uttered the word "Sex".

    Going back to this standard will increase, not decrease teen pregnancy, even among "faith-based abstainers".

    This is a bit like forbidding your kids to use the Internet or watch TV after 9PM, while admitting in private you "borrowed" your dad's copy of Playboy, and that you had sex by the time you were 16! Mostly political hypocrisy!

  27. Billy 8

    I imagine this would be fairly easily implemented by getting the card processors like ccBill to require some kind of "R18" style meta tags on your pages or refuse to process for you. That'd get 99% of the legit pr0n sites and just leave 1% of lazy/non-plussed/confused folk and 100% of the dodgy ones. Solved!

    :-/

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    They just don't get it do they...

  29. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    GCHQ Porn, any buyers?

    Maybe the gov just wants in on the deal.

    Make pr0n hard to get, then start serving up that 'inapropriate nudity' thay've been collecting the last few years.

    That'll help the budget deficit.

  30. Dave Bell

    I suppose the existence of the Obscene Publications Act is a sign that we don't need new laws, but I am reminded of what happened in 1996, and of the confusion over just what is "extreme pornograpgy".

    "During 1996 the Metropolitan Police told the Internet Service Providers Association (ISPA) that the content carried by some of the newsgroups made available by them was illegal, that they considered the ISPs involved to be publishers of that material, and that they were therefore breaking the law. In August 1996, Chief Inspector Stephen French, of the Metropolitan Police Clubs & Vice Unit, sent an open letter to the ISPA, requesting that they ban access to a list of 132 newsgroups, many of which were deemed to contain pornographic images or explicit text."

    That affair did lead to the creation of the Internet Watch Foundation.

    The sticking point for me is that the French letter had a very wide-ranging list of newsgroups, some of them rather blatantly titled to invite illegal content, and many not. It raises the question of who we trust to make the choices. Often, cases that reached juries have ended with acquittal, but the Police and CPS have been known to choose criminal charges which are not heard by juries, or to have hidden part of the evidence.

    The whole business of "making" child porn images is an ingenious interpretation of the legal detail which was aimed at photographic darkrooms and printing presses.

    As a safeguard, a jury trial is a good thing, but the cost to the accused, emotional and financial, is high even for an acquittal. There's something ugly about the idea of going back to this old law, which is a struggle to fit with the era of the internet. Looking at how the laws have been used, and at the reputation of the Police, having these people say we can trust them just isn't enough.

  31. unimaginative

    It also means GCHQ gets to know not just which internet connection was used to view porn (lots of good blackmail material there - no doubt only used in the national interest) but also who paid for it (even more material).

  32. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    The Real Question

    Is whether porn should be kept away from children in the first place.

    When I was a lad, I used to obtain my own porn by scavenging the dumps and other places likely to have discarded Playboy back issues. I also had to keep them well hidden outside my parents' property.

    On the other hand, I had a friend who could peruse his dad's smut collection whenever he wanted (as long as mum wasn't in the house--least she find out that dad was into smut). He seemed a lot more casual than most of us about the whole sexuality thing.

    One day, during a medical check-up at the local swimming pool (you had to have one to be allowed in, in those days) the doc noticed that I had some sort of penis infection--not sexuality transmitted since I was a virgin at the time, probably from public toilets or the like.

    Because of the way I perceived my parents appeared to treat (or rather, avoid) the subject of sexuality, I couldn't really go and tell them "could I please get an appointment with the GP to look at some scabs in my dick, mum?" So guess what, I went and spoke to my friend's dad, the one with the smut collection, who made me feel very comfortable about the whole thing, set me up with a physician friend of his, and taught me how to tackle the subject with my own parents in a way that I feel made me grow up ten years in one day.

    If you're uncomfortable with the idea of your kids watching porn with your knowledge, please keep the above story in mind.

  33. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Up with this sort of thing

    Let the young rascals find their porn in the woods like we used to!

  34. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge
    Paris Hilton

    I foresee a tinsy snaggette....

    ...The committee recommended that a "robust age verification process should be in place" to prevent kids from easily stumbling across porn images and vids...

    Ah! That will mean specifically identifying individuals who ARE watching the grumble flicks. So every porn distributor will end up having a database of their 'clients' real names. Probably together with a list of what they viewed.

    CAN YOU IMAGINE the security requirements around such a database, and the threats to it? CAN YOU IMAGINE the lengths to which journalists will go to obtain access to it? CAN YOU IMAGINE the fun politicians (and their detractors) are going to have...?

  35. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Gie My Bank Details to Some Foreign Crim. Not Lightly!!

    Would I really want to give some unknown foreign website all my bank details??? More than lightly they would turn up on a list of banking details being sold of cheap to criminals. If GCHQ also got hold of them en route, there records would be put out in their dustbins, unencrypted and not shredded, ready for the dustmen to use!

    Whatever happened to parents overseeing their childrens activities on the net?

  36. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Safety?

    The Obscene Publications Act 1959 makes no mention of "safety", probably because every kids growing up seeks out porn, and is not harmed by it. On the other hand, 18-rated horror films gives countless kids nightmares, and no-one (I have NEVER seen any criticisms of horror films), complaints.

    This has nothing to do with safety, but the embarrassment of adults to teach kids about porn in context.

  37. This post has been deleted by its author

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like