Gov: Smart TV bods must protect users from smut-riddled badness Labelling within electronic programme guides on connected TVs could help viewers to distinguish between regulated and unregulated content, the Government has said in setting out a new communications strategy. The government has called on industry (52-page/472KB PDF) to develop tools that enable the distinction to be made …
If politicians could do their job then they wouldn't be proposing things like this, which they do to grab Press exposure to make it look like they are effective. As it stands, they are a wholly, useless, ineffectual lot that think responding to the vagaries of whatever twitter trend is trending means they are more likely to get a vote. Or maybe a lucrative media career launched on HIGNFY. I swear, I thought Boris was an entertainer for years.....not just of women.
> . . .
Whats the real reasons behind this bollocks?
<
The real reason behind this bollocks, in my understanding, is getting votes, which m0rt earlier on already stated. Look at it like this:
You are the current conservative MP for Frimpleton. Your Labour competitor criticises your lack of action about the security of the local primary school where a child was followed by some real pervert with a compact camera. To be seen as more vigilant than you he proposes a law that forbids cameras in the area around this school.
Now, from your position it would be political suicide to speak against that: You would be siding with the perverts. You also can't just say that it is a good idea, because he was first and you would be 'riding the bandwagon'. So, to get ahead you have to step it up so that he appears to not be stringent enough: You suggest to ban all cameras in the constituency.
The ball is now back in his field. He faces the same dilemma and needs to raise the level of action. As a result the school and approaching roads are now to be covered with blackout tunnels, so that parents can pick up their kids as they are, one by one, but through a kind of airlock. You counter this idea by stating that this opens up the possibility of getting the wrong child handed out and advocate a 'chip and pin' system with a code that the parents have to provide to obtain the correct child.
Your opponent brings up the argument that this might be error prone and to complicated to enforce and has the better idea of an automated system with several failsafes: face recognition of both parents and children, together with DNA testing and skin-embedded NFC tags on a cloud-based, nationwide platform*.
And so on . . .
Not to raise means you lose. To lower measures means to lose. The only way is up.
*At which moment the original pervert gets all his kiddie pix from the badly secured (because it was created by some ICT advisory panel that has members qualified by having A-level knowledge in PowerPoint) cloud storage without having to take them himself. But that's not the point.
It's terrible, people can watch "stuff we don't like" on their TVs and they don't even have to sign up to our I'm a pervert list!
Maria Miller: But how is this possible? We have our new 100% effective "stuff we don't like" filter don't we?
The TV apps drill right through the filter, we can't even tell what they are watching! We could block the app but it would be unpopular, we have to do something!
Maria Miller: Ok, you go stir up the rabble, I'll start talking about needed regulation and we will get this sorted out just like the ISPs.
" RFC 3514"
All the virtue of a "simple" solution politicians so love to see combined with all stupidity that they display.
Priceless.
Whatever your thoughts on Mr Wales I think it's still clear he knows a damm sight more about how the internet really works than Clare Perry
It says so in her job title.
You do wonder is that something you really want to be proud of ?
Should we look forward to her writing a wiki page perhaps?
Relax folks, I'm just f**king with you.
About the Wiki entry. The title is quite real.
What would be really nice, would be a machine-readable indication of whether what is being broadcast was editorial content or advertising
Now that would be actually be the government doing something useful for us for a change. It might actually win votes!
People tend to consider connected TVs to be a TV-like experience and expect to be more protected than they are from content accessed through PCs and laptops.
No they don't. If they have bought a connected TV they have bought it to access the Internet. People understand the difference and don't need the nanny state to warn them.
So, given that the above mentioned late-night, all-night-for-a-fiver booty-fest is apparently regulated content - it's transmitted, on purpose, over the Govt. sanctioned network, right? - does that indicate the (current) boundary, smut strength-wise, between bad porn and wholesome adult entertainment? Or what?
I'm ^H^H^H My mate is quite fond of the booby-baring, booty-shaking, adjust-the-crotch-of-yer-panties-quick-before-OFCOM-gets-a-woody bait 'n switch, tie 'n tease antics of those pneumatic ladies (especially Lori, he tells me) and I'd^H^H he'd be gutted if it somehow got, umm, watered down to fit some new puritan's idea of where the red pen goes. Or can we expect full-on FTA hardcore, unencrypted grip content in 2017? Some people worry about this stuff, you know.
Personally I think this whole porn thing can be fixed with a simple sign you could hang on your front door. Mine is a tasteful golden oak sign, weathered and suitably decked with flashing red lights. It reads "Porn is readily available on multiple connected devices within this building. Fuck off and take those delinquent little shits you call kids with you if that's a problem."
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
