bit-tech.net

Cameron pushes on porn-filtering programme

Cameron pushes on porn-filtering programme

David Cameron is alleged to be championing an 'education' programme that will see parents pressured into using content filtering software in the name of child protection.

Prime Minister David Cameron has plans to push content filtering systems on parents, enforcing their use via 'education' at point-of-sale in a similar way to the current TV Licensing system.

Under the terms of the TV Licensing agreement, retailers who sell a device which requires a licence for its primary purpose - a TV, set-top box or video recorder with in-built tuner, for example - are supposed to ask the buyer for his or her address to be checked against the TV Licensing Authority database. Those who have purchased a licensable device but who do not have a valid licence can expect a visit from the Authority's appointed minions, inspectors - with no legal power, mark you - largely employed by Capita to check for infringing use.

According to details from The Daily Mail - granted, not the most reliable of sources - Cameron thinks that's a wizard wheeze that could be extended further in the name of child protection.

Under guidelines proposed by Cameron and his staff, those purchasing a new computer or signing up for an internet connection will be asked at the point of sale whether or not they have children. Answer in the affirmative, and they will be treated to a masterclass in installing, configuring and using filtering software to protect the little Timmys and Tammys of the world from the evil spectre of on-line pornography. Existing customers of ISPs will all be provided with the same advice.

The onus of policing this is on the shoulders of the ISPs themselves: according to reports, ministers are to ask service providers to implement measures - what measures, it is not suggested - to ensure that those fiddling with the settings of content filtering software are aged 18 or above.

According to the Mail - again, a paper not unfamiliar with sensationalism - the proposals are being championed by Cameron himself, with an official announcement expected to come from Downing Street later this month.

Although it is not made clear by the Mail's coverage, it is likely that Cameron's focus is on connection-based filtering systems run by the ISPs themselves rather than client software installed by computer owners with children. Talk from the tabloid's sources is of '[asking users] if they want to switch on parental controls' rather than if they want to install software. As a result, it's not too hard to imagine a future in which a filtered internet feed is the norm, with those who wish to view unapproved material being required to prostrate themselves before the Great Internet Gods and beg for exemption from the filtering system - a state of affairs which is already the case for the majority of mobile broadband connections and smartphone data contracts.

66 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
Maki role 19th November 2012, 12:48 Quote
This is just a slippery slope that we really should avoid. It's bad enough with search engines tailoring results, this would just make everything worse. How long until the filters start getting a abused by various parties?
theshadow2001 19th November 2012, 12:58 Quote
I wonder if they can produce evidence that the problem this is supposed to combat even exists. Nice picture by the way Gareth!
Gareth Halfacree 19th November 2012, 13:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by theshadow2001
Nice picture by the way Gareth!
You have *no* idea how happy I was when I found that on the Number 10 Press Office site. Talk about the perfect image for the story!
law99 19th November 2012, 13:07 Quote
To be fair, when I was a kid, if it was as easy as it is now I'd have been all bored with sex by the time I was 12. Either that or I'd be some sort of addict above and beyond my current understanding.

In the meantime, it doesn't sound that bad to me... unless of course they use it as a template to do other things. I don't see how it should be the ISPs responsibility though. A crash course in some user software = fine.
Cerberus90 19th November 2012, 13:14 Quote
I thought most ISPs already had filtering like this which could be turned on if requested.

It's not exactly hard to setup local filtering anyway, I bet there's something in a Which guide about it, :D
ShinyAli 19th November 2012, 13:19 Quote
Domain names ending in .xxx, designed for pornographic websites have been on sale for a while now but have they done any good?
Porn sites that don't care who views their content wont use .xxx as they don't want their content filtered.

Prime Minister David Cameron has plans to push content filtering systems on parents, enforcing their use via 'education' at point-of-sale in a similar way to the current TV Licensing system.

Yeah, that will work well considering the majority of children know more about using computers than their parents ever will and given that many parents buy their children 18 rated games and allow them to watch DVD's and TV programmes that are meant for adults

At point of sale, "Do you have any children" replies "No"...Big Brother fails again
VipersGratitude 19th November 2012, 13:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinyAli
At point of sale, "Do you have any children" replies "No"...Big Brother fails again

Rather - "Do you have any children", replies "Yes...Oh crap! I left them at the pub!"
ShinyAli 19th November 2012, 13:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
Rather - "Do you have any children", replies "Yes...Oh crap! I left them at the pub!"


:D Yeah, but she was eight and probably finishing her pint off
Nexxo 19th November 2012, 14:07 Quote
Takes a long time when you keep popping out for fag breaks.
Shirty 19th November 2012, 14:30 Quote
... and having casual sex and breaking my windows and defacing my flower beds.

/proper old man rant
Lance 19th November 2012, 14:50 Quote
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.

The lines between oppression and protection are fine and dangerous to walk, but sometimes the opt in is better than the opt out, as long as there is an option.
steveo_mcg 19th November 2012, 14:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinyAli

Yeah, that will work well considering the majority of children know more about using computers than their parents ever will and given that many parents buy their children 18 rated games and allow them to watch DVD's and TV programmes that are meant for adults

Thing is though this is changing. The guys who were young when the internet was Hampster Dance and Geocities are growing up and having kids, in a few years this problem will become less and less of an issue as the "adult" population becomes more internet savvy... They, after all, did build it.
Shirty 19th November 2012, 15:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.

The lines between oppression and protection are fine and dangerous to walk, but sometimes the opt in is better than the opt out, as long as there is an option.

I understand the sentiment behind this and I too find it truly shocking. BUT it is up to the parents to attempt to filter out not just pornography, but gambling, gore, adult themes etc.

I would do this as a matter of course regardless of the age of my daughter when she starts using the internet, because you just never know what they might innocently stumble across.

I'll just add that I think forcing people to opt in at point of sale seems a non-problematic approach, those who are allowed to view this sort of material will hardly be inconvenienced by a single check box in the ordering process, or the need to provide a credit card for authorisation. The point is not to restrict access to pornography as they do with illegal themes, but simply only to allow access to those who feel they need it.
Corky42 19th November 2012, 15:21 Quote
The internet will go the way of all media, censored and/or banned/blocked, it already happens with all other Media, Films, Books, Magazines, etc, etc.

So its only a matter of time before government tells us what is acceptable for us to read/watch on the internet as well.
Shirty 19th November 2012, 15:31 Quote
To be fair, unless I'm reading this really wrong, the government aren't actually going to block anything. They are just going to make you ask your ISP to allow you to watch adult material when you sign up.

For a huge proportion of households this will make no difference (yes I realise that the demographic on this particular forum*might* just feel differently). It will also be a filter that could be lifted retrospectively.
GeorgeStorm 19th November 2012, 15:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.

The lines between oppression and protection are fine and dangerous to walk, but sometimes the opt in is better than the opt out, as long as there is an option.

To me the fact a 9 year old has his own laptop is pretty bad.
What happened to playing with lego etc?


My parents found out the hard way (as did I) that they had to try and limit what I viewed online.

I'm not a massive fan of it in general. However since a lot of sites don't have age limits, and even then they don't work, it may be ok, no different to limiting who can buy pornographic magazines etc.
ShinyAli 19th November 2012, 15:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Thing is though this is changing. The guys who were young when the internet was Hampster Dance and Geocities are growing up and having kids, in a few years this problem will become less and less of an issue as the "adult" population becomes more internet savvy... They, after all, did build it.

True, but there will always be some parents/step parents/ legal guardians that are irresponsible and just can't be bothered or just don't care enough, I come from a background where if the internet had been available when I was a kid I could have done what I wanted on it.

I think there are just too many variables in parenting and home life for children to be able to cover every possible scenario of them accessing unsuitable material, you might be able to lock down the home PC but what about net access on phones, pads, tablets, consoles, I don't think many parents will be able to keep up with it all, you could deny your children these devices but there will always be a friend of theirs that has something to access the net on.
[PUNK] crompers 19th November 2012, 16:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The internet will go the way of all media, censored and/or banned/blocked, it already happens with all other Media, Films, Books, Magazines, etc, etc.

So its only a matter of time before government tells us what is acceptable for us to read/watch on the internet as well.

Tin foil hats ahoy. Seriously mate, its not that bad. When was the last time a film was actually properly banned?

Seems like a reasonable idea to me, plenty of kids have laptops/tablets nowadays and even the advertising in certain corners of the internet can be a bit rich.
blacko 19th November 2012, 16:27 Quote
i wonder if Dave has ran this past his wife?

because we all know she must do a few googles to look at other men because he's a boring f*rt.
theshadow2001 19th November 2012, 16:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest ...

His parents are to blame, frankly. They should be monitoring his laptop, whitelisting websites and so on (the poster questioning the need for a 9 year old to have a laptop also has a fair point). Of course, the way things are going it looks like it will be your government who are to blame soon.

The parents of people currently aged 18 to 30 could possibly be the last generation where the kids have the upper hand on technology for the most part. Measures like this may become unnecessary.
steveo_mcg 19th November 2012, 16:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinyAli
True, but there will always be some parents/step parents/ legal guardians that are irresponsible and just can't be bothered or just don't care enough, I come from a background where if the internet had been available when I was a kid I could have done what I wanted on it.

In that situation; do you not think this is pissing into the wind? If "carers" can't be bothered monitoring web use there are probably bigger problems coming the kids way, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShinyAli

I think there are just too many variables in parenting and home life for children to be able to cover every possible scenario of them accessing unsuitable material, you might be able to lock down the home PC but what about net access on phones, pads, tablets, consoles, I don't think many parents will be able to keep up with it all, you could deny your children these devices but there will always be a friend of theirs that has something to access the net on.

Its not about covering every base, that is impossible, its about setting boundaries. With some hypothetical ideal kids filtering wouldn't be necessary they'd have been taught not to use certain sites but obviously this is unrealistic.

Securing the home network is the least any one should do, content filtering is simple enough at point of access and if one isn't tech savvy enough to set up a proxy then the ISP can be asked to activate the filter.

I've no problem with opt-in filters, they're a reasonably effective and responsible tool. Opt-out on the basis of "won't some one think of the children" is ineffective knee jerk nonsense which just passes parental responsibility to the government or ISP.
fdbh96 19th November 2012, 17:08 Quote
I don't think this it is a viable plan at all. In order to teach my parents how to do such stuff would take a long time to do and something they probably wouldn't waste so much time doing anyway.
lysaer 19th November 2012, 17:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.

The lines between oppression and protection are fine and dangerous to walk, but sometimes the opt in is better than the opt out, as long as there is an option.

Maybe the husband used it so as not to get caught by the wife.

But should you really if been going through someone else's history?

Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
Corky42 19th November 2012, 17:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK
crompers]Tin foil hats ahoy. Seriously mate, its not that bad. When was the last time a film was actually properly banned?

If you really believe the media you consume isn't censored you have a bad case of denial, The only reason things are not banned now days is because people know what will get banned so don't waste there money making things that will never see the light of day.
Lance 19th November 2012, 17:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by lysaer
Maybe the husband used it so as not to get caught by the wife.

But should you really if been going through someone else's history?

Sent from my GMC Vandura

I went to go to "hotmail" and found "hot cheerleaders" in the drop menu, so investigated.

5 years ago this problem was still under the surface so parents we're quite as aware of the dangers becoming more common and I did think that for a long time but the more I think about it, the less I think it was the parents.
Nexxo 19th November 2012, 17:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lance
I actually think this is a very good idea.

I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.

His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.
That's a bit naive. Ever hear nine-year old boys talk on the playground? Just because they don't understand it, does not mean they are not fascinated by it, in a gross-out sort of way.

And who says it was the nine-year old that done it? Might have been daddy borrowing his laptop. Either way, nine-year-olds shouldn't have their own laptop yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
The guys who were young when the internet was Hampster Dance...
Ah, the memories. :)
Quote:
Originally Posted by blacko
i wonder if Dave has ran this past his wife?

because we all know she must do a few googles to look at other men because he's a boring f*rt.

Agreed. His wife is too hot for him.
[PUNK] crompers 19th November 2012, 17:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If you really believe the media you consume isn't censored you have a bad case of denial, The only reason things are not banned now days is because people know what will get banned so don't waste there money making things that will never see the light of day.

Haha, been watching a few 9/11 documentaries have we?

I believe that news corporations tell us things based on their own political agenda and also what fits into their story arch at that particular time (part of the reason I often watch Russia Today for a second opinion).

But I don't believe "they" control all the media we consume. In fact I find that when people start talking about "they" they are usually spouting reactionary BS regurgitated from a few online writers or documentaries made by teenagers.

You may think I'm in denial, I think you are naive and slightly childish
Corky42 19th November 2012, 18:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK
crompers]I believe that news corporations tell us things based on their own political agenda and also what fits into their story arch at that particular time (part of the reason I often watch Russia Today for a second opinion).

Who did you say had the tin foil hat ? even the news has to censor what they air they cant air nudity or explicit scenes, well not where i live.
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK
crompers]But I don't believe "they" control all the media we consume. In fact I find that when people start talking about "they" they are usually spouting reactionary BS regurgitated from a few online writers or documentaries made by teenagers.

You may think I'm in denial, I think you are naive and slightly childish

I never mentioned "they"!
Censorship has a history going back to before Christ was born, Calling someone naive and slightly childish isn't a very clever thing to do when you show those traits your self by how little you know on the subject your talking about.
[PUNK] crompers 19th November 2012, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Who did you say had the tin foil hat ? even the news has to censor what they air they cant air nudity or explicit scenes, well not where i live.



I never mentioned "they"!
Censorship has a history going back to before Christ was born, Calling someone naive and slightly childish isn't a very clever thing to do when you show those traits your self by how little you know on the subject your talking about.

Back to before christ was born eh? Where did you read that one? I think most people were probably more worried about eating than censorship to be honest mate. In fact I don't think the concept existed.

You seem very sure christ was born though. Surely the new testament is the best example around of how to control people through text in history. Right up to Henry VIII re-writing it because he wanted a divorce; controlling the media so to speak.

And yes they can't show explicit scenes on the news, GOOD POINT.

Also you will make more sense when you learn some punctuation.
Corky42 19th November 2012, 18:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by [PUNK] crompers
Back to before christ was born eh? Where did you read that one? I think most people were probably more worried about eating than censorship to be honest mate. In fact I don't think the concept existed.

You seem very sure christ was born though. Surely the new testament is the best example around of how to control people through text in history. Right up to Henry VIII re-writing it because he wanted a divorce; controlling the media so to speak.

And yes they can't show explicit scenes on the news, GOOD POINT.

Also you will make more sense when you learn some punctuation.

Before Christ is a well know time frame (in case they don't teach this in school now days),
399 BC (Before Christ) perhaps the most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities

And rolling out the old punctuation argument just goes to show your grasping at straws, very sad indeed.
RichCreedy 19th November 2012, 22:05 Quote
when I was 9-10 home computers were something only ever seen in films. mum and dad had a book similar to the karma sutra, which I read, and thought meh, I didn't start having sex until I was 18, so is early access to sex material as bad as people make out? I think if its a taboo it's more likely to cause intrigue, and experimentation, if it's talked about openly, it's less likely to be experimented with.
Anfield 20th November 2012, 11:09 Quote
filtering the web will work just as well as the safety caps on bottles, old people will be the only ones stopped from anything.
tuk 20th November 2012, 11:47 Quote
silly, unworkable idea ...like kids don't already know how to proxy surf.

real life family:
Mum is the BB account holder.
22yr old son living at home: "Mum, can you call Sky & ask them to turn on the porn"
Lance 20th November 2012, 11:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Anfield
filtering the web will work just as well as the safety caps on bottles, old people will be the only ones stopped from anything.

At least there will be less old man related wrist injuries in the home then.
Shirty 20th November 2012, 12:01 Quote
If I didn't already know how to prevent my child from using a proxy, I'd damn well learn.

There's nothing I can do about what she sees at school or at a friend's house, but I'll do my damnedest to make sure that she can't access inappropriate material at home. She won't have an unrestricted web enabled mobile device until she's in her teens, and there will be one internet-connected PC she can access in a public part of the house until I deem it appropriate for her to have her own.

I was in my early teens in the early days of the web, and I saw things at a formative age that my parents couldn't even imagine today. The internet in the early 90s was a lot less policed than it is nowadays, and even a simple Lycos/Excite search often seemed to uncover sites that were clearly filled with illegal content. Things are a lot better now as most of that sort of stuff is buried deep within the dark side of the net, but it pays to take responsibility as a parent.

Many people either don't have kids or deliberately bury their heads in the sand blaming technical incompetence, but that's no excuse in my opinion.
fdbh96 20th November 2012, 18:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
If I didn't already know how to prevent my child from using a proxy, I'd damn well learn.

There's nothing I can do about what she sees at school or at a friend's house, but I'll do my damnedest to make sure that she can't access inappropriate material at home. She won't have an unrestricted web enabled mobile device until she's in her teens, and there will be one internet-connected PC she can access in a public part of the house until I deem it appropriate for her to have her own.

I was in my early teens in the early days of the web, and I saw things at a formative age that my parents couldn't even imagine today. The internet in the early 90s was a lot less policed than it is nowadays, and even a simple Lycos/Excite search often seemed to uncover sites that were clearly filled with illegal content. Things are a lot better now as most of that sort of stuff is buried deep within the dark side of the net, but it pays to take responsibility as a parent.

Many people either don't have kids or deliberately bury their heads in the sand blaming technical incompetence, but that's no excuse in my opinion.

I think the thing is personal choice, it should be the parents decision to decide what the child can and cannot see, not david cameron or any other mp.
[PUNK] crompers 20th November 2012, 18:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Before Christ is a well know time frame (in case they don't teach this in school now days),
399 BC (Before Christ) perhaps the most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities

And rolling out the old punctuation argument just goes to show your grasping at straws, very sad indeed.

Haha okie dokie Stephen Fry, couldnt wait to roll that one out eh. I'd argue thats a very tenuous link to censorship to be honest, at least in the context of the conversation. Interesting factoid though, well done.

Its not sad though friend, the ability to express yourself in written form does require punctuation. You seem to be a reasonably intelligent if slightly misguided chap so why make yourself look silly with childish mistakes? ;)
Nexxo 20th November 2012, 18:52 Quote
Let's keep it civil, guys. No name calling, no picking on people's grammar.
tuk 20th November 2012, 22:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by fdbh96
I think the thing is personal choice, it should be the parents decision to decide what the child can and cannot see, not david cameron or any other mp.
^this^
Shirty 20th November 2012, 23:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
^this^

Agreed, but wouldn't it just be easier as the parent of a twelve year old if the ISP did it all for you? No need to worry about technicalities then, as many folks seem not to anyway.
Nexxo 20th November 2012, 23:41 Quote
Since when was parenting supposed to be easy? Aren't parents supposed to have the kind of relationhip with their children where children want to share with them what they get up to? Aren't parents supposed to take an interest?
Shirty 20th November 2012, 23:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Since when was parenting supposed to be easy? Aren't parents supposed to have the kind of relationhip with their children where children want to share with them what they get up to? Aren't parents supposed to take an interest?

Yup. But from what I see and hear, it seems that tragically few actually do.

I'm still struggling to grasp the issue here. Those who want porn will be in no different a position than they are now. Those who don't will by default be excluded from the club until they ask permission to join in again.

If asking one's ISP to switch a filter off is considered a hardship then I'd invite the complainant to spend a day in my shoes.
Nexxo 21st November 2012, 00:17 Quote
It's the principle: ISP's and non-parent users are suddenly responsible for something that the parents should be responsible for. They should be responsible for opting into a filter; the rest of the users should not be responsible for opting out. It reinforces the message that when your child is exposed to inappropriate material in their own home, that somebody else somewhere out there is to blame, and that it is not the responsibility of the parents living in the same house.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 00:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty

If asking one's ISP to switch a filter off is considered a hardship then I'd invite the complainant to spend a day in my shoes.


If asking ones ISP to switch on a filter is a hardship to far...
tuk 21st November 2012, 11:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
Agreed, but wouldn't it just be easier as the parent of a twelve year old if the ISP did it all for you? No need to worry about technicalities then, as many folks seem not to anyway.
There is also a bigger picture here, one of controlling the net & basic rights, freedoms &, censorship, recently piratebay was added to the isp blacklist, now they have porn turned off as default; where is all this leading? ..I can see in less than 10yrs we will have a government sanctioned ISP whitelist; slowly slowly catchy monkey.

This porn switch is a supposed solution to a non-existent problem, the argument is that some parents don't care, so why will they care to turn off the porn or go without porn for the sake of their kids? A blanket wide solution that effects every net user for the sake of people that cant be bothered bringing their kids up properly ..no thanks. If a parent cannot secure the tech in their house from their kids, they should not have tech in their house. Do parents not supervise their kids any longer?

If kids/porn are a real problem ..then make it a criminal offense to let your kids watch porn & leave the net out of it.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 11:33 Quote
You seriously ascribe too much intelligence to the government, given their track record on large IT projects do you honestly believe they could organise some great firewall of Britain? And even if they could, to what end? They don't need to control the people they're generally too ingrained in there mind set to look out side their current media suppliers, be that the mail or the guardian. Those who want to see past the GFoB easily can and will, just look at currently controlled countries.
tuk 21st November 2012, 11:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
You seriously ascribe too much intelligence to the government, given their track record on large IT projects do you honestly believe they could organise some great firewall of Britain? .
Britain already has a firewall.
Quote:
And even if they could, to what end? They don't need to control the people they're generally too ingrained in there mind set to look out side their current media suppliers, be that the mail or the guardian.
The internet is the new media that is quickly replacing the mail, guardian etc ...controlling the media means largely controlling what people think. a better question is why wouldn't they want to control the internet?
Quote:
Those who want to see past the GFoB easily can and will, just look at currently controlled countries
yes, but it will be a tech savy, risk taking, fringe minority ..most people are law fearing.
Shirty 21st November 2012, 11:52 Quote
It is a relatively modern issue. When I was a young boy then the only exposure we ever got to porn was finding a few sodden pages of Mayfair flapping in a hedgerow. Nowadays you're never more than a few seconds from extreme pornography or violence the likes of which most of us would have struggled to imagine 20 years ago.

To all the naysayers, have you ever thought about why adult TV channels are encrypted and only shown in the dead of night? Why there is still a watershed on television? Why jazz mags are on the top shelf? Why the BBFC exists? It's to help prevent small children from seeing things that they are not supposed to, things that could be damaging to an impressionable child.

If we are not going to police the internet ourselves, then what other option have we got? Or does everyone advocate having ad-funded softcore porn channels broadcasting throughout the day, never more than a few clicks of the remote away from being displayed?

I totally agree with the censorship sentiment - I would have been a very unhappy 15 year old if someone had taken my precious porn away from me - but I was 15, not 8.

The problem is that whilst all parties commenting on this thread are astute, intelligent and strong-minded individuals, the vast majority of the population are far less so. This translates into their little kids growing up too quickly, and losing their innocence extremely young. The less intelligent of them will have skewed ideas about the opposite sex, sexual violence etc.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize (sic) half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin. Oft quoted but oh so true.

I ought to just say that I would never have felt so strongly before becoming a parent, but seeing how carelessly some of my peers raise their children sickens me, and quite frankly I want the very best for mine.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 11:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Britain already has a firewall.


The internet is the new media that is quickly replacing the mail, guardian etc ...controlling the media means largely controlling what people think. a better question is why wouldn't they want to control the internet?


yes, but it will be a tech savy, risk taking, fringe minority ..most people are law fearing.

And how effective is it?

What do they gain?

What does one risk?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
Snip

Don't you think this would be better handled by paying ISP to send a flyer round to all their customers saying we have this filtering software you can use for free if you want? This gives parents/consumers the information to make an informed decision. If they can't be bothered to make an informed decision the kids probably have bigger problems...
tuk 21st November 2012, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
And how effective is it?

What do they gain?

What does one risk?

I would say its fairly effective at stopping users inadvertently clicking on hardcore child porn and beheading videos ..of course you can still find these things but it takes some conscious effort.

Power.

Prosecution.
ShinyAli 21st November 2012, 13:27 Quote
I doubt many ISP's will do anything unless forced to as many are run on a very tight budget, filtering .XXX domains may not be as labour intensive and costly as being the nets "Pirate Police" but censoring all online porn at source is impossible and it must be the parents responsibility to restrict access using net nanny type software, etc.

Just as many people think that teachers should police their children a lot of people seem to think that ISP's should police the internet to keep their children safe, they are your children and it's your responsibility to do as much as you can to protect your children from unsuitable material.
tuk 21st November 2012, 13:36 Quote
I agree with you that young children should be shielded from hard core pornography ..but imposing controls on the internet at ISP level is not how to do it. btw cameron doesn't really care about kids watching porn, that's just the excuse to get the knee jerking sheeple behind his plan ..see 'bigger picture' previously mentioned.

If Camerons suggestion was handed in as 2nd year computer science project it would receive a D- as a solution not-fit-for-purpose & failing to identify the parameters of the initial problem.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty

To all the naysayers, have you ever thought about why adult TV channels are encrypted and only shown in the dead of night? Why there is still a watershed on television? Why jazz mags are on the top shelf? Why the BBFC exists? It's to help prevent small children from seeing things that they are not supposed to, things that could be damaging to an impressionable child.
not quite, these controls are simply the residue of a bygone age, which is why you can watch porn on the net 24/7, if its only about young children why cant you watch porn late at night on normal channels after the watershed, why is the news still heavily censored at 2am especially in regard to war reporting. 'Think of the children' is the panacea excuse of government control and crackdown. Don't let them push your parental buttons ..for the sake of your children take a step back.


e2a: @shirty ...its good to see parents like yourself taking the time to thrash out the issues instead of leaving everything for the electronic babysitter to decide.
Shirty 21st November 2012, 13:52 Quote
Thanks for the addendum tuk :)

To be honest I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm well aware that as far as Cameron is concerned this really isn't all about the kids, it'a about appeasing some of the noisier members of the electorate.

Parents like myself and the majority on forums such as these won't be affected in the least by the proposed legislation, it's geared towards those who are unable (read refuse) to help themselves. Which is a terrifying proportion of the population.

In an ideal world education would be the best policy, and the best place to put public money. But if that could ever work then it certainly isn't at the moment - hence these sorts of knee-jerk suggestions. There has to be a better way, but no practical measures have been attempted as yet.
LennyRhys 21st November 2012, 13:58 Quote
I'm with shirty on this one - it's the parents' responsibility, and unfortunately there are many parents who are irresponsible.

We never had any filtering software when I looked at porn as a teenager, but then again the internet was in its infancy and Net Nanny didn't exist, and I'm sure the attitude to porn was one of naivety; most parents probably weren't aware how easily it could be accessed back in the late 90s (mine most certainly were blissfully unaware... blissfully for me, that is).

Things have changed since then however and I think that today's parents are without excuse; it's patently obvious that children can easily access porn on a PC that is not protected by filtering software.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty
There has to be a better way, but no practical measures have been attempted as yet.

I agree. I'd go so far as to say the problem (in part) comes back to our nation's attitude to sex, and the business of not saying anything to the kids just spikes their curiosity and makes matters worse.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 14:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
I would say its fairly effective at stopping users inadvertently clicking on hardcore child porn and beheading videos ..of course you can still find these things but it takes some conscious effort.

Power.

Prosecution.

So its not actually effective at all at controlling the population, if any one can make a concious effort to get round it.

What power? You've been reading too much 1984 mate. Whilst I seriously worry for the intelligence of most of the population, what power can be made by controlling their access to the internet?

What prosecution? Has any one been prosecuted for accessing piratebay going round the the isp filters?
tuk 21st November 2012, 14:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
So its not actually effective at all at controlling the population, if any one can make a concious effort to get round it.
I think your confused, the current national firewall is there to prevent specific media(already mentioned) nothing to do with controlling the population.
Quote:
Whilst I seriously worry for the intelligence of most of the population, what power can be made by controlling their access to the internet?
It's self-evident that media/propaganda can be used as a form of control to shape and mold what people think; controlling the media is undemocratic for starters ..what power can be gained from media/information control? ..is that really a serious question?
Quote:
What prosecution?
you were alluding to internet censorship in other countries, I imagine there are relative stiff penalties for breaching Chinese law in regard to censorship.
Quote:
What power? You've been reading too much 1984 mate.
btw that book is really about 1948 but he flipped the last two numbers and made it seem like the story was set in the future; otherwise it would not have been published..why? ..you guessed it: government censorship, control & power.

Extrapolating from World War II, the novel's pastiche parallels the politics and rhetoric at war's end—the changed alliances at the "Cold War's" (1945–91) beginning; the Ministry of Truth derives from the BBC's overseas service, controlled by the Ministry of Information; Room 101 derives from a conference room at BBC Broadcasting House; the Senate House of the University of London, containing the Ministry of Information is the architectural inspiration for the Minitrue; the post-war decrepitude derives from the socio-political life of the UK and the USA, i.e. the impoverished Britain of 1948 losing its Empire despite newspaper-reported imperial triumph; and war ally but peace-time foe, Soviet Russia became Eurasia.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 14:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
I think your confused, the current national firewall is there to prevent specific media(already mentioned) nothing to do with controlling the population.

So you think that the government will be able to implement a better one?
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk

It's self-evident that media/propaganda can be used as a form of control to shape and mold what people think; controlling the media is undemocratic for starters ..what power can be gained from media/information control? ..is that really a serious question?

It is evident that if a large media organisation chooses to back a party that support can be an enormous boost, NI (The Sun) swapping to the Tories (In England). However I'm not seeing how that translates to power for any one but Murdoch. In your world the government is at worst a puppet for the media corps, but since these big corps are disappearing thanks to the web I can't see it being an issue long.

In reality people consume the news which fits their world view. Alf Garnett isn't a bigot because he reads the Daily Mail he reads the Mail because it panders to his world view.

The paradigm shift required to end up with a one party system so powerful that it can do as it pleases just because it controls the media is at best unproven, realistically more than a little unlikely. History shows us that a single group can seize power one way or another and then once in power restrict access to "unhelpful" information and blanket the country with propaganda but even that doesn't leave them with the kind of absolute power you seem to think would result. See Egypt, Syria and Libya for recent examples and the USSR for a little more history.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk

you were alluding to internet censorship in other countries, I imagine there are relative stiff penalties for breaching Chinese law in regard to censorship.

No I wasn't I was questioning how many people have been prosecuted in the UK for circumventing the UK's filter. To call it a firewall is to aggrandise it more than a little.
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk

btw that book is really about 1948 but he flipped the numbers and made the story seem like it was set in the future; otherwise it would never have been published..why? ..you guessed it: government censorship, control & power.
[citation needed]
ShinyAli 21st November 2012, 16:53 Quote
Quote:
government censorship, control & power.

"Maybe, please follow me to room 101 and we will discuss it"
theshadow2001 21st November 2012, 18:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shirty


In an ideal world education would be the best policy, and the best place to put public money. But if that could ever work then it certainly isn't at the moment - hence these sorts of knee-jerk suggestions. There has to be a better way, but no practical measures have been attempted as yet.

In principle yes. But to be educated you need to be willing to learn. There in lies the problem and as you say, hence these knee jerk reactions.
Nexxo 21st November 2012, 22:50 Quote
Can't force people to be adults and parents by treating them like children...
tuk 21st November 2012, 22:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
So you think that the government will be able to implement a better one?
Yeh, it's called a white list.
Quote:
It is evident that if a large media organisation chooses to back a party that support can be an enormous boost,
yes
Quote:
In your world the government is at worst a puppet for the media corps,
quote me or it didn't happen
Quote:
but since these big corps are disappearing thanks to the web
no, the front end is being realigned is all, the back office remains unchanged
Quote:
No I wasn't
ahem
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
...just look at currently controlled countries.

Quote:
[citation needed]
Try reading the book & doing some research on censorship around that time ..and then judge for yourself ...wiki citations != fact. But the idea makes more sense than Orwell having magically powers allowing him to see the future.
steveo_mcg 21st November 2012, 23:41 Quote
Ok we're at the partial quote, miss quote stage. Good evening...
tuk 22nd November 2012, 00:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
miss quote
Every quote of yours in my post is accurate. Some of your replies in this thread show you are not bothering to properly read the posts you are replying to & at times even forgetting/denying what you yourself have posted over just one page.
steveo_mcg 22nd November 2012, 00:39 Quote
Ignoring the fact that you've not actually replied to my whole post and merely taken parts out of context. What do you think continuing this conversation will achieve? I think your deluded and you think I'm naive nothing either of us say will likely change that.
tuk 22nd November 2012, 11:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
Ignoring the fact that you've not actually replied to my whole post and merely taken parts out of context.
That is completely different from misquoting & I tried quoting you in context here & you responded by saying you never said anything about other countries when clearly you did, so that's why you got snippets instead of paragraphs. If you cant cut up your own food then daddy will have to do it for you.
Quote:
What do you think continuing this conversation will achieve?
...and you replied because?
Quote:
I think your deluded
try avoiding emotive language like:
'the world you live in'
'reading too much 1984'

And instead go for a fact based, de-personalised, content driven discussion & maybe we will get along much better, if you scroll back to the beginning of our conversation, I took the time to answer all of your questions without any personal jibes ..it went of the rails when you started arguing when you clearly don't even have a basic grasp of the facts...like national firewalls etc; which have been in existence for years; & denying you said anything about firewalls in other countries on a time stamped thread was just silly. Nothing to do with being naive just being sloppy.
Shirty 22nd November 2012, 12:08 Quote
This is getting a bit untidy now :(
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums