PHWOAR! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, Prime Minister The government wants to stop children getting easy access to hard-core pornography: but the interwebs have exploded in righteous indignation at the apparent emergence of a police state. The Prime Minister wants ISPs to filter pornography, just as mobile operators have been doing for half a decade or so. Users wanting to access …
You say "We should focus our energy on making sure it works well - e.g. it doesn't outlaw LGBT", but *how* exactly are you going to achieve that except on an individual, case-by-case basis?
How do you create a filter which outlaws "porn" without blocking access to sexual health sites or breast cancer sites or LGBT advice sites all of which "children" (defined as "anyone under 18") might have a legitimate reason for accessing?
The answer is, of course, you can't. All this proposal does is justify Nanny State censorship (which is an act of stunning hypocrisy from the Tories who criticised Labour for wanting to introduce Nanny State legislation!) and trying to justify it as "the lesser of two evils" is nonsense.
If you want to be protected from "evil" that's your business, don't treat everyone else like children because you can't trust yourself to act responsibly.
(PS and dragging in Gun Control is just a massive red herring, there should be a Godwin equivalent...)
"A lot of the arguments against porn blocking sound like the arguments made against gun control - basically "I'm responsible and everybody else should be too". Noticing that forced me to consider my own position and made me change my mind. Network level porn control is, on balance, the lesser of two evils and we should focus our energy on making sure it works well - e.g. it doesn't outlaw LGBT."
Simple mind!
Network level porn control is, on balance, the lesser of two evils and
Is it really? It isn't at all clear to me that the ease of access to pornography in the modern world is causing catastrophic social damage and an epidemic of sexual assault, and a little research suggests that there's no strong evidence in favour of that theory.
On the otherhand we risk ham-handed censorship and giving our governments yet another tool of spying and oppression. I'm wondering what you weighed your balance with, at this point.
we should focus our energy on making sure it works well - e.g. it doesn't outlaw LGBT.
Given the sheer amount of cultural nuance and context that might distinguish porn from not-porn, I propose that the classification problem is AI-hard. Categorising the entirety of the internet would be a sisphyean task for humans, after all, and any simple automated system is merely enumerating badness and we should all know how well that works.
Technology is not an appropriate solution for all problems.
Anybody who thinks this is censorship is wrong: you can opt out the filter. I will disable it myself. If you can argue against the filter in principle, then you can use the same argument when "exposed" as having disabled it. (I also like the idea of disabling it after 9pm.) There won't be a slippery slope if we are vigilant.
I agree classifying porn is hard and that legitimate sites will be captured. That was the thrust of my point: lets ensure we know which sites are blocked; lets ensure there is an appeals process that is fair and transparent; lets ensure legitimate sites aren't captured. Also, you can't argue there is good client filtering software and then argue that network filtering will be shit. Network filtering will be as good or as bad as desktop filtering.
The evidence for harm is mucky. But any damage will be long term and subtle, hence my decision, on balance, to be cautious.
I won't rerun the gun control arguments; I have looked at the numbers and formed an opinion. I agree responsibly produced porn are categorically different from guns, but I was struck by the similarity of the arguments: they are both about balancing the freedoms of individuals who can behave responsibly with those who don't and the net harm that will result from the irresponsible people.
I will make one other point that I've not seen made: while I can install filters and supervise my kids, I can't be there when they are round a friend's house.
'I will make one other point that I've not seen made: while I can install filters and supervise my kids, I can't be there when they are round a friend's house.'
Agreed. However, how does this help there either? After all, they could have turned the filter off!! As a responsible parent, you should maybe ask them where the computer is etc.etc. and act accordingly. Maybe find out what their policy is?
'The evidence for harm is mucky. But any damage will be long term and subtle, hence my decision, on balance, to be cautious.'
Agreed, but if seeing something causes you to do it, what about violent films? Presumably, these should all be banned as well? After all, the exact same argument would apply. The killers of tomorrow are bred watching the violent films of today......
'I will make one other point that I've not seen made: while I can install filters and supervise my kids, I can't be there when they are round a friend's house.'
Presumably your 'parenting' has not resulted in your being able to trust your kids; which wouldn't mean expecting them to do everything as you wish but, rather, developing an independence as they mature which is broadly in keeping with your principles and their their transition into adults.
So let's say, arguendo, this is successful and *all* porn is blocked and your kiddies are safe from it. Do we all live happily ever after?
Well, no, because you've not blocked any of those clips of terrorists beheading victims or Saddam Hussein being hanged or the Taliban executing women with a bullet to the head in the middle of a football field or...
Where does it stop? When do we say "ok, now we've blocked children from all the nasty stuff, the world is a better place for it"?
The point is, we are adults, and it is up to us what we watch online. Personally, I think once you've seen one naked body, you've seen them all. But if someone else wants to look at pictures, and as long as looking at pictures is as far as they take it (emphasis added for the benefit of the hard-of-thinking), that is nobody's business but theirs.
Instead of trying to make The Internet "family friendly", the Government should simply recognise that it is inherently unsuitable for unsupervised minors, and tell parents to keep an eye on what their offspring are up to.
Also, maybe introducing a dose of proper sex and relationship education in schools might help a little bit. Just saying.
Because this isn't really about pornography. It's about the free and open exchange of information, and whether or not the government of the day can try and keep you from knowing certain things.
As a child (around 7 years old) I knew the mechanics of sex and already understood that not all relationships were male & female, this was taught to me along the lines of "not all people are the same, if what they choose to do is not harming you or anyone else is there any reason to have a problem with it?)
with it being taught as a question rather than the more common "this is wrong" approach it left me to make up my own mind about what was acceptable or not.
Porn came up a few years later with the usual hedge find of a magazine, my parents approach was "If you enjoy looking at it then look at it"
a couple more years pass and a copy of a copy of a betamax video fell into my hands (showing my age here) and my parents approach was "watch it if you enjoy watching it... But be aware that what you are seeing is all done for the camera and you are never likely to experience sex similar to what is on the tape"
on the whole I think my parents approach was very balanced, allowing me to make my own decisions (and mistakes) while always being there to answer any questions I had (or discuss possible answers if there was no right answer"
> Right now an O2 customer on a 3G network, at 2.1GHz, can't access pornography
Wrong. Right now an O2 customer on a 3G network can't access SOME pornography and lots of other sites/services that are in no way pronographic. Getting access to boobs will take all of about 30 seconds of google time. The current mobile implementation of blocking is actually a perfect illustration of why it is a stupid idea.
Governments can't be trusted. Once something is in place they gradually nudge it to where they really want to be.
So in the case of student fees, they wanted it to be expensive, but they started low and kept raising it gradually.
Same with rail fares, they keep going up as subsidies go down.
So the Internet is next, firstly an "opt-in" will be implemented. Then gradually certain classifications of content will be deemed illegal and permanently blocked.
Before long you won't be able to access anything the government hasn't approved of.
"but just as we feel confident sitting them in front of the TV before nine..."
The TV is not a babysitter. Do things with your children, sure watch TV with them, but don't dump them infront of it. As for the "confident" bit I assume that you have never accidentally strayed up into the channels 900+ on Sky, and no child has ever watched their parents putting in a four digit PIN on 12 rated films before the watershed?
"so we should be able to log them onto the internet without having to look over their shoulder the whole time"
I would suggest having the PC in a public room into which you randomly wander, noticing a panicked ALT-TAB or whatever should be pretty obvious. Or if you like having a router log and every Sunday morning you and the children go through every website accessed by them so you feel a part of their world?
"(which limits their freedom in other ways)" care to list three? Why is everyone else's freedom to be curtailed just to make you think your kids are not looking at smut? Note the word "think". We have all grown up, and while this makes life a little more difficult for them somehow every generation has found a way to look at pictures of naked people. THIS WON'T HELP FOR MORE THAN AN HOUR. Once the first kid at school learns how to circumvent it, every kid in school will know. In my day we had jazz mags at school from the kid whose dad owned a newsagent, there will just be the electronic equivalent.
"becomes impractical as the number of children increases)." Your choice to have more kids than you can deal with, not mine. Why should that inconvenience me to get back some websites that will inadvertantly get blocked (and some will, witness notes on Flickr and Tumblr above).
"As for the idea that ISPs, and by extension the UK government, will get a list of those who like porn that makes no sense. " Citation needed. It makes perfect sense, imagine Percy Dribblemouth is accused of child molestation. Added in will be the prejudicial "AND he wanted porn on his laptop." It makes as much sense as the Government wanting to record each and every internet dealing each of us have. Luckily that makes no sense either, oh wait...
Responsibility for what your children do online, or offline vests with parenting. They are your children, and your responsibility. Just because you can't be bothered to parent them, or you don't trust them (now, who is to blame for a lack of trust), does not mean that every other soul in the country has to be inconvenienced.
I appreciate the good intentions of the politico's, however poorly formed their plan. And I appreciate the good intentions of the techies who wish to educate said politico's about its futility. I'd add my voice too, except that it wouldn't work any better than their plan.
I'm afraid all we can do is let them implement that plan until its futility is demonstrated. It'll cost a bundle alright, and they'll never admit it was a silly idea, but within ten years or so they might find some sly way to shift the attention closer to where it belongs and still claim victory. That's all they really want after all, to claim they've protected the children, not to actually do it.
'What you wrote is commonly believed, but the evidence is sketchy to say the least.'
Not only that, but the logical conclusion if it is correct. If watching porn makes you commit sex crimes, then presumably watching violence makes you violent? Oh dear, there goes a large chunk of Hollywood. Presumably anything with a certificate over 15 should be banned as it clearly does people harm?
How long before tobacco, alcohol, guns, knives (including innocuous things like cheese graters), glue, aerosols, pharmaceuticals, etc. etc. disappear courtesy of this filter? Together, presumably with the rest of any site that happens to include these things, or pictures thereof, amongst its other stuff? To this, add other political footballs like junk food.
And that's just following the current idea to its logical conclusion, even before we get on to abuse of the system for suppressing political ideas.
The internet is a sharp tool. It's never going to be both useful and unconditionally safe for children.
Re: "The internet is a sharp tool."
That is an excellent way to put it.
I am relieved that most comments oppose this stuff, but worried that the wrong arguments are being put forth. As a matter of principle, we cannot agree that it is OK for some people to decide what the rest of us can see and say. Allowing that thin edge to gain entry is akin to being a little bit pregnant. There is no such thing as 'a little bit of benign State censorship'. It is precisely that thin edge that is the most dangerous. It breaches our defenses. We have to draw a vary hard line there and I, for one, would like to see some sort of legislation that makes it much more difficult for these morons (apologies to actual morons) to mount this kind of assault on the commons. These idiots who think they know better than everybody else when they can't even tell that both ends of a Cat-5 have the same RJ-45 plug should not be given any say whatsoever in what *I* can access. By their line of reasoning, we should basically be shutting down *their* access to the Internet. Their speech is actively doing a lot more harm than a picture of somebody in their underwear.
Be clear, it starts with underwear, but it ends up at heretical speech and the most heretical speech of all is to challenge the State. If you allow them to inhibit any communication at all it will end up with a loss of your rights to that and much more.
It is clearly a difficult concept for people who have trouble with simple things like cables to grasp, but we need to try to hammer it into their heads: The *law* that allows them to restrict our access to things will restrict our access to things. They will *claim* that they are only restricting 'bad' things, but who defines what is 'bad'? Clearly they are the last people who should be rendering a decision on this kind of thing. This is a slightly difficult concept and they can't even deal with simple things like whether or not something is symmetrical.
I am not being sarcastic with the above. The person who can't get his short article straight is presuming to lecture network people on network access? That is his argument to get us to allow him much, much greater scope to amplify the effect of his mistakes. I support his right to publish something stupid. I do not support his desire to restrict everything I read to only things that stupid.
We already have, in Britain especially, a highly invasive creepy State waging a very active war on its own citizens. Instead of arguing about the *extent* to which they can have even more power, we should be discussing how to roll that power way, way, way back.
Scale. I think most people still see a phone system as something you shouldn't really regard as being general internet access. The allowances are lower and filtering is therefore possible.
The issue isn't really porn. The issue is building infrastructure capable of taking such a keen interest in your traffic. The cries of "police state" are not for filtering particular things but for building application proxies which pull apart everything you do online, examine it and then reassemble the request, injecting or removing arbitrary data and then making the request on your behalf. This is less like policing the top shelf at wh smiths and more like opening all your mail to check for and possibly modify mail orders.
For the tiny IWF KP list, people can see the reasoning and there is an assumption that the technical burden is low. Filtering the massive amount of pron online is assumed to be a massive undertaking involving huge costs. At that point, people begin to ask if the money isn't better used elsewhere; failures in the system become more apparent and motives for such a system are increasingly called into question.
I see no reason to legitimise PRISM by dressing it up a child protection.
Originally posted by Rocker2013
It's not my job to give up my rights and freedoms and risk massive government intrusion into the freedom of the net just because you can't be bothered to learn how to restrict your internet access or you have the complete inability to tell your kids NO.
I am not a parent, I am not a nanny, I am not your child minder, I am not responsible for your kids and your inability to learn how to keep them safe.
Nuff said!
your assessment as in the title is cobblers:
1) if somebody is literate enough to click on a link and tick a box, then they WOULD "know to select it"
2) are you implying, that those selecting to "opt out" (of filtering) are more literate?
...
Nah, which is exactly the plot, they won't bother, and wean off "pron" this way. Shock therapy, unless, in their desperation, they step on a learning curve. Fast.
I wonder if your internet bills will get cheaper. If you're paying £10 per month now, and the government filters seventy percent of the internet, will your bill be reduced to £3 ?
Personally I'm against any kind of cens [THE REMAINDER OF THIS MESSAGE REMOVED BY A GOVERNMENT WHO WANTS THE "WONT SOMEBODY THINK OF THE CHILDREN" VOTE... ERR... FOR YOUR SAFETY]
The author argues that porn is bad for children as it skews a child's self-image; and that the proposed filters will allow kids to wander the internet safely, protected from those parts of the network 'which are really quite unpleasant'.
He seems to have overlooked that advertising has a larger role than pr0n in influencing children's body image, perceptions and values. Youngsters online are subjected to constant bombardment of images of 'beauty' and 'perfection'. Commercialisation of the internet inevitably leads to content that encourages child consumerism.
The obvious solution is to limit kid's exposure advertising on the internet - perhaps through opt-out ad blockers?
It's difficult to assess the relative harm caused by 'guilt aisles' selling sugar on the way to the supermarket checkout or premature sexualisation by teen magazines and fashion.
Contemporary interest in trashy porn may well decline over time in favour of more subtle and erotic versions, as in Roman, Greek and Indian depictions. The impact of advertising is likely only to get worse.
I'm getting the impression that the government knows full well that these measures won't work or will cause more problems* than they solve, but getting people to opt-in to unfiltered internet access (or actively bypassing the filter) means that responsiblity for what someone accesses is laid firmly at their own feet; they won't be able to turn around and say 'I came across it accidently while clicking on a link.' - they've made a decision to have unfiltered web access. Plus it has the advantage of placting the mumsnet types. The privacy issues are mostly academic as the ISPs log everything you do anyway so making you opt in before visiting those dodgy sites is mostly immaterial.
*for first world values of "problems" ...
"Western society increasingly covers real bodies while exposing the plastic perfection at every turn, leading to an explosion in genital plastic surgery, for those who can afford it, and a plethora of issues around self-image for those who can't."
Think of it as evolution in action.
Besides, there is no such thing as society. Or hadn't you heard?
The old bag Thatcher said "there is no such thing a society". Apologists have tried to put a positive spin on it ever since, but in the context she said it, it is clear she meant exactly what the words say. Selfish bitch never changed, and dementia was too good for her.
@Intractable Potsherd:
"The old bag Thatcher said "there is no such thing a society". Apologists have tried to put a positive spin on it ever since, but in the context she said it, it is clear she meant exactly what the words say. Selfish bitch never changed, and dementia was too good for her."
From what I have seen and heard it is the critics of thatcher who has spun the words to make her out as a selfish bitch. Telling people that the lazy will not be endlessly carried by the workers is not a bad idea. Promoting responsibility and the virtue/curse of personal choice/responsibility should be taught and promoted. I guess she did seem harsh to those enjoying the free ride at everyone (and the countries) expense. However I dont see those people supporting the banks when they did the same
When you choose to become a parent you are taking on the responsibility for bringing up that child and protecting it from whatever you think it needs to be protected from.
That's *YOU*. Not me, not the Government, not your ISP, not anyone else but *YOU*!
This "Won't Someone Think of the Children" nonsense that Cameron is coming out with is just a desperate and hypocritical attempt to claw back some of the voters he's lost to UKIP by creating a phony moral panic which will sit well with the Daily Mail reading public of Middle England.
I'd also point out that he's already rowing back from what he's already said (see http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/family-filters-wont-block-soft-porn-david-cameron-retreats-in-war-on-internet-porn-admitting-there-will-be-problems-down-the-line-8726991.html) as it becomes clear that he's totally clueless about the actual effects of what he's proposed.
Do you support the Great Firewall of China? Do you want to see the Great Firewall of Britain? No? Because that's what you're supporting!
"That's *YOU*. Not me, not the Government, not your ISP, not anyone else but *YOU*!"
Exactly so. And, may I add for those who refuse to get the point, not "society" either. Abstraction is a powerful tool for those who understand it and know its limitations. But far too many half-educated people nowadays are flinging abstractions around thoughtlessly and acting as if they were real things. Society will not do anything unless specific human beings take the appropriate action.
And in 90% of that 90% of cases, it is choice by stupidity. Terminations are available: if the woman chooses not to, she made a choice to become a parent. These women, who tend* to be more technologically clueless, resent having become mothers and overcompensate for it by being over-protective and joining mumsnet et al. Thus we get stupid ideas like the internet filter ...
I dont think anyone has an issue with an ISP level porn filter, its a good idea. Its the default on option that has people up in arms. Surely just a compulsory question when you get the new broadband, "do you want the adult filter switched on?" is enough? ISP taking the lead to educate their customers on the filtering options if they have kids etc.
Take me for example, I live with my GF, have no kids and no kids ever likely to access wifi. Why is this censoring being added to my line by default? I have O2 and find some perfectly legit sites are blocked. Switching the filter on by default creates a feeling of your doing something bad by getting the filter turned off.
Blanket censoring is too far, its nanny state. The Gov is itching to take control of the internet and it will only get worse.
This "Think of the children" hysteria is exactly that.
The internet was built by adults for adults. In adult societies such protection is opt in IE "Please filter me" and assumes adult behavior otherwise.
"But children need protecting"
True, but that's what parents are for and if you can't protect your children either a)Don't have them in the first place or b) Hire someone who can.
This is not really about this TOTC bo**ocks people are being fed it's about starting a list and getting people used to being monitored. I smell the fishy fingerprints of Number 10s "nudge unit."
You won't like how fat the fat end is or where it's going to end up.
John - The "think of the children hysteria" is just the same as the "fuck the children, I want free access to porn hysteria" It's just that, hysteria. It doesn't change the fact though that, by definition, children don't know what's good for them, that's why they aren't allowed to vote, drive, drink, smoke, marry, etc. Society has to look out for children.
What seems particularly disturbing with this debate is that lots of people want the Internet to have different laws to the real world. In the real world porn isn't available to children, it's kept away from them and is censored, albeit minimally.
'What seems particularly disturbing with this debate is that lots of people want the Internet to have different laws to the real world. In the real world porn isn't available to children, it's kept away from them and is censored, albeit minimally.'
Absolutely not. In the real world, porn is available to children. The control around porn in the printed sense are laughable. Indeed. there has been quite a lot of talk around the current crop of 'lads mags' and similar womens publications (Cosmopolitan etc.etc.) that are arguably as pornographic as true porno mags were a couple of decades ago!! So, let's not try to pretend that porn other than on the internet is not freely available most children, certainly teenagers.
Your statement is also based on the assumption and notion that porn (of any type) is wrong and bad for children. Now, whilst I wouldn't want young children seeing porn, teenagers are maybe a bit different. The attitude in this country is a lot more conservative with many countries in Europe which are much more open about it and actually don't have any worse (of in some cases better) sex crime rates!! So, is the assumption that porn is bad and wrong etc. actually a valid assumption. I'm not really aware of any study that has found a causal link between porn and sex crime. Plenty of correlation, but we all known that correlation doesn't equal causation. Anyway, if it does, hasn't we better ban violent films as they are clearly making our children violent by the same mechanism?
"What seems particularly disturbing with this debate is that lots of people want the Internet to have different laws to the real world. In the real world porn isn't available to children, it's kept away from them and is censored, albeit minimally."
The answer to their problem is remarkably simply.
Ban children from the Internet in the same way they are banned from doing anything else where you need to be 18+.
"In the real world porn isn't available to children, it's kept away from them and is censored, albeit minimally."
Is that so?
Funny, I thought I remembered night after night of politicians and news programmes showing real life "video games" being played out over Iraq... cold or smug smiles accompanying talk of "daisy cutter" bombs... hundreds of million-dollar missiles being fired every day... citiies and culture and infrastructure being flattened... talk of "collateral damage" and "extraordinary rendition"... death-tolls estimated as 100,000... 200,000... mostly civilian, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers, sons, daughters, you know, just like in all countries.
Perhaps I imagined it. Perhaps I confuse pornography with obscenity, lust for sex with lust for killing.
Still, whatever it's called, it's reassuring that such 'content' (and the underlying acts), which are unsuitable for children to encounter - or the next generation, or anyone, really - will be unavailable to children under the new proposals.
That is what DC's rules are trying to accomplish, isn't it?
"Western society increasingly covers real bodies while exposing the plastic perfection at every turn, leading to an explosion in genital plastic surgery, for those who can afford it, and a plethora of issues around self-image for those who can't"
Have you watched pre-9pm trash TV lately? Gok Wan, Embarrassing Bodies, Botched Up Bodies.. Dave and his Chums need to address that first!
Good point.
I personally find those pagaent programs in the states a bit disturbing. They seem to be making their children dress up in sexy outfits, and performing sexy moves etc. and then they complain that their children are being sexualised - these kids are being trained to be pole dancers from the age of 2 !!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
