WAR ON PORN: UK flicks switch on 'I am a pervert' web filters 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 …
This is what worries me too. In this case we can point and laugh at how technically illiterate the government are, but what about all the decisions that require expertise in areas other than IT? I have a bad feeling that the powers that be are equally ignorant in anything that an Oxford PPE degree didn't cover.
This is nothing but steps to censorship in the UK. This types of filters are not going to stop hormone driven teenagers to view what they want on the internet. Since kids are curious in there own peer group, and they are going to have sex too among there peers.
For illegal childrens images and such matters. This is just going to remove it from view, it is not going to do anything to stop the source of this material, the people who makes it and needs to be thrown into jail and stopped.
What this is about is censorship and nothing else. They are just taking this in small steps, before people in the UK know, everything is going to be censored and the internet is going to be useless.
Censorship plain and simple...
I don't mind the filters being available, BUT the filters must be off by default, OR at the very least, an active choice.. I.E. 'Do you want our family filters enabled?'
My BIG issue with this, is that the parent can't turn filters off for himself and on for the kids...
so in reality they are pointless...
cursory reading of the letter of the law suggests it doesn't provide ignorance as a defence: if it wasn't yours, and someone for whom you are responsible used it without permission, tough, they committed the offence. Obviously you are responsible for their conduct, but you would never knowingly let a minor for whom you are responsible hack into someone else;s network, so you'll be fine. No-one on your side would do such a thing,
or something like that.
Surely the obvious solution to this is to start a campaign to have the phrase "David Cameron" become slang for something utterly depraved much in the same way "Santorum" has taken on an entirely new meaning in recent years? Once Dave realises that he can't search online for his own name perhaps he'll have a bit of a think about this issue (I'm deliberately not using the word "re-think" as I see no evidence of cogent thought flowing from 10 Downing Street).
I live in a house share with a live-out landlord, do I have to call him up to ask him to get the porn switched back on? That should be an interesting conversation. He'll be changing the mattresses when I leave after that one ... although judging by the state of it when I moved in, perhaps not.
Anonymous Coward for obvious reasons ;)
We have a PM who refuses to follow what the majority of the public want and implement the Leveson report as it sets a bad precident over "Press Freedom".
Now he feels he can impose a web filter on everyone (opt out be damned: if it's filtering content not specifically designated as illegal it's censorship by the back door) wanting to access the internet at home whilst still condoning the right of newspapers and other sundry rags to sexualise children and stuff photos of semi-naked women between the newssheets where any kid can see.
I know it will never work: the attempts to block PirateBay just illustrates how the web routes around such blockages, but knowing it'll never work doesn't lessen the anger I feel.
Fix the economy. Fix the gutter press. Fix our army's kit shortages. Fix youth unemployment. Fix your own lobbyists.
Don't just pander to the Daily Mail readership as if it makes up the entire electorate.
Porn does not equate with Abuse/Rape any more than Muslim equates with Terrorism (though his beloved Daily Mail may argue the latter).
</rant>
I'm amazed that the public are now receptive of this idea to the extent that it will certainly go through without large demonstrations.
Of course in itself it's almost defensible - I mean who can argue against the idea of protecting children from harm? Note though that the government frequently confuse the situation by inter-mixing the terms kiddie-porn and porn when presenting their case. Kiddie-porn is bad - BUT this block will have ZERO effect on it, so the term should not even be used.
But let's assume that Cameron's threats are real - what happens next?
Well of course some porn will continue to get through the filters - there are so many sites where porn makes a percentage of the available material, but the site as a whole is not a porn site - Tumblr springs to mind. Is Cameron then going to live up to his threat to introduce legislation, presumably making it an offence to allow porn material through to a filtered account? If so then the ISP's are going to have to blockade far far more sites that are mostly non-porn in order to ensure that NO porn ever gets through - they are also going to have to err on the side of caution, meaning that they are likely to block sites first and ask questions later.
The next stage of course, is when the government decides to use the same mechanism to include other material - first up will be "terrorist" sites and banned organisations.. who will be able to argue with that? Then this list will inevitably grow - groups such as EDL are on the edge of being banned.
Then of course any sites that are deemed offensive will follow: the law is kind of vague here already on what material is illegal and what isn't, but from what I've observed recently, if a sufficient number of people are offended, that's enough for the judge..... goodbye to jokes about disasters, anti-religious views, ANYTHING on sex.....
ALL of this will be sold to the public on the basis of preventing them from breaking ALREADY existing laws. Of course the blocks are going to have to be oh so much wider than that in scope.
Then someone is going to suggest that instead of using a white-list, we use a black-list.
Of course while all of the above is occurring, other events will occur.
It will slowly become socially unacceptable and legally awkward to opt out. People's status will be revealed in court proceedings, and in the absence of other evidence prosecutions will still push the case that this man opted out of the porn block, therefore he is more likely to be a rapist.
Eventually only a small minority will dare to opt-out, at which point the government will probably decide to remove the option completely.
George Orwell picks up from this point onwards....
"Actually, how long before all porn gets banned?"
Not going to happen. Whether mums(who need to live in the real world)net like it or not!
Over half the world’s bandwidth is being consumed by porn. Porn, like it or not, IS a natural thing. Sex is a natural thing, voyeurism is a natural thing. If it was not, why do 99.9% of human beings do such things?
Let us not turn into a muslim state and demonise acts which are perfectly healthy and god given naturally.
(and to clarify, because most people do not read (or cannot), there is no mention of children in that statement) If you want to "think of the children", then explain why you have not put filters in place yourself?
Why do all the retarded "think of the children" always get away with it?
Why do parents always pass on their responsibilities to EVERYONE else?
Oi, scum! Look after your children and stop leaving the internet to babysit!
Where are social services? They should be heavily investigating these scummy mummys.
Scummy Brit parents, kids having kids!
The country is just such a MASSIVE let down!
This is ineffective and expensive, we may as well go the whole hog and assign one or two adults to each set of brothers/sisters and make them legally responsible for the safety and well being of those said children up until they come of age. These nominated adults could live in the same house and oversee the development of the children across a wide spectrum of areas.
The adults taking on this responsibility would be People Acting Responsibly, Educating, Nourishing, Teaching and Stimulating their charges or PARENTS for short.
Although Labour isn't much better, they aren't messing with your porn
Actually, they were the ones who enacted the particular piece of legislation that makes some cartoon porn illegal, the making of which would have involved no abuse of any real, living organism in any way.
Just because most of us will find such images at best puzzling, and morally objectionable, it doesn't justify our political overlords classifying it as what is essentially thought-crime.
In other words, it doesn't matter what colour tie your elected member wears, (s)he is still most likely an utter arsehole with at best a tenuous grasp on reality.
Presumably it's only English-speaking perverts that will be affected. Or will the blacklists be translated into the appropriate terms in other languages[1]. I mean will "Chercher pour les enfants nue" be blocked ?
[1]Although I suspect, most UK politicians aren't aware there's a world that doesn't speak English ....
I shall certainly be doing this. My local MP is actually likely to be opposed to this bill. Being a Liberal, and also the first openly gay member of parliament, I expect him to be reasonably open-minded.
My recommendation is to try to present a well argued, polite and concise missive to your MP, explaining exactly which points and assumptions in this bill you find objectionable. At the very least, your MP's office has to acknowledge receipt.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
