bit-tech.net

Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

David Cameron, seen here shaking hands with Chinese Premier Wen, is to make a speech pledging to decrease the barrier for pornography to be considered illegal while mandating opt-out filters on all UK ISPs.

The Prime Minister David Cameron is due to make a speech to a child protection charity today which pledges government support for mandatory pornography filtering on UK internet connections - a move which has privacy and anti-censorship activists concerned.

Due to be made public as part of a speech to the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children (NSPCC) later today, Cameron's plans would make it a legal requirement for internet service providers to activate content filtering systems set to a level of protection suitable for an unsupervised child as standard on all new broadband connections. These filters would be opt-out, rather than the current opt-in system offered by some ISPs, requiring the subscriber to actively choose to disable the filters during the registration process.

The system echoes that of many mobile networks, who enable an adult content filter as standard and require a customer to ring up - usually with credit-card in hand - to turn on access to gambling and pornographic content. Those who have existing broadband connections will not, it is thought, be opted in to the system until and unless they change provider.

Cameron's aim is to have the system up and running as soon as possible. 'By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected,' an early release of his speech explains. 'If you just click Next or Enter, then the filters are automatically on.'

Cameron also plans to single out search providers for, in his view, not doing enough to filter out unsuitable search terms - despite many subscribing to blacklists of outright illegal content, providing means for content to be delisted upon complaint and turning content filtering systems like Google's Safe Search on by default. 'I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this — and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting, don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.'

The final aspect of Cameron's speech will concentrate on so-called 'extreme pornography,' content which is just shy of the border given in the Obscene Publications Act but which nevertheless is considered distasteful at best by the moral majority. The possession of 'extreme pornography,' which includes simulated rape in which consent is given prior to commencement, will thus be made illegal. As with previous moves in this direction, however, the line will be blurry at best: a rape scene in a Hollywood blockbuster will be considered A-OK, whereas the same scene taken out of context and used - in the eyes of the law - for sexual gratification will be illegal.

Although the move has won support from child protection and anti-pornography campaigners, others are not convinced the government is heading in the right direction. 'It's highly irresponsible to conflate child abuse images, extreme pornography and and home filtering of legal content into one debate,' Jim Killock of the Open Rights group told us of Cameron's plans. 'The solutions to the problems in each case are extremely different, and need careful consideration.

'For instance, home filtering must not risk disengagement with parents. They must be fully aware of what they are doing, or children may not be protected. I suspect that Cameron is claiming home filtering will block porn by default because that allows him to claim victory to the Daily Mail,
' added Killock. 'I doubt they will work like this however.'

Killock certainly isn't alone in his concerns. 'There is still confusion about exactly what Cameron is announcing, but it is clear that his government is set on controlling what we see, parent or not,' Loz Kaye, leader of the UK Pirate Party, told us. 'With search engine blocks and web filters, there is no foolproof 100% block solution. It will always be too much or not enough. This is utterly technologically illiterate. It can not possibly work in the way that Cameron and the Labour Party press office wants.

'But that does not mean opt-in and search filters are not dangerous. If we go down this route, each week we risk a new knee jerk reaction will add to the list of what politicians decide we can not see. This will be government by Daily Mail headline. We have to make sure that both children and adults are making active moral choices. After all, the only effective filter is the off button.

'This is not just about technology. It is about the hypocrisy of David Cameron's government,
' added Kaye. 'Let's separate out the most pressing problem from the confusion. The reality is that they are slashing actual child protection. CEOP [the Child Exploitation & Online Protection Centre, the police's internet safety arm] has had its budget cut. Over half of local authorities have reduced spending on children's services thanks to the coalition's austerity politics.'

More details regarding the governments plans, including deadlines for ISPs to implement the system, are expected to be released following Cameron's speech later today.

UPDATE: The full text of David Cameron's speech is now available.

360 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
MrJay 22nd July 2013, 10:30 Quote
Legislated morality...
ev1lm1nd666 22nd July 2013, 10:39 Quote
Yet another case of the government treating the symptoms instead of the cause. Biggest bunch of crooks in this country. The governments not even doing anything in reality for as usual they are leaning on the ISP's to do all the legwork. And all this coming from a government who (a), have been stealing money they are not entitled to (expenses row) and (b) have no clue what to do with the internet as when they commission a report by people who DO know what is going on they blatantly ignore said advice as it doesn't fit their political agenda. Shoot/sack em all and get someone with a working brain in power
steveo_mcg 22nd July 2013, 10:42 Quote
******* Torries...
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 10:46 Quote
The argument for block-by-default web filters is near nigh non existent, where as the argument on why block-by-default web filters is a bad idea would be endless.
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 11:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The argument for block-by-default web filters is near nigh non existent, where as the argument on why block-by-default web filters is a bad idea would be endless.

In this instance - that of default pornography blocks - and without resorting to the time old favourite "slippery slop" and "someone will always find a way round search keyword standards" arguments, I'd be interested to know what the endless arguments are. Particularly as the block can manually be removed. So do please fire away.
coyote 22nd July 2013, 11:10 Quote
This government is not fit for purpose. They have already been advised that the cretins are using peer to peer not searching the net. Wrong end again!
I wonder what the next restrictions on the net will be? I also wonder if the users that don't click yes to the filter will be put on a list of potential wrong doers? Who knows these days.
rollo 22nd July 2013, 11:24 Quote
Could be worse, could have china in charge of the Internet there restrictions are nothing compared to what the uk may get.
GeorgeStorm 22nd July 2013, 11:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
In this instance - that of default pornography blocks - and without resorting to the time old favourite "slippery slop" and "someone will always find a way round search keyword standards" arguments, I'd be interested to know what the endless arguments are. Particularly as the block can manually be removed. So do please fire away.

One issue in my opinion is that by taking away the onus of stopping their children from seeing inappropriate material away from the parents and dumping it on the ISPs etc, there will be some parents who will now think their child is 'safe' and so won't bother checking, and then when the child does find something they shouldn't, whether by accident or deliberately, the parent will blame the ISP or whatever, which is wrong and it encourages lazy parenting in my opinion.

It's better that they actively do something about it, a friend gave the example of magazines in a shop, a parent wouldn't let them pick whatever magazine they want, in case they choose something which isn't suitable, does that mean you stop people being able to buy/sell those magazines unless they sign up to something? (doesn't have to be pornographic, magazines such as cosmopolitan often contain content not suitable for children)
mighty_pirate 22nd July 2013, 11:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by steveo_mcg
******* Torries...
... Is the name of a website that will be blocked.
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 11:35 Quote
I was also thinking this morning that anyone who takes the block off may be looked at more closely. And yes, once again taking away responsibility from the parents who for the most part are clueless about computers anyway so are probably happy to have the responsibility taken. After all, why blame yourself or the kids when you can blame the ISP?
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 11:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
So do please fire away.

Ok :D
Any person with a little knowledge can by pass it using proxies, VPN's
The internet isn't about a family/child friendly environment, Its about freedom of expression/speech.
Higher BB charges for everyone, because some parents cant exercise parental controls.
Governments dictating what is and isn't morally acceptable.
People who opt out having their name on some list that could be used for who knows what.
Knee jerk reactions from politicians to block the next thing to offend the daily news papers.

And even though you said about the obvious slippery slope it would only be a matter of time before the list of government approved web sites gets added to.

Now im going to take cover, and wait for the normal Bit-Tech belligerent reply's
miller 22nd July 2013, 11:45 Quote
It wouldn't matter what political party was in power they have to do something and more importantly to be seen to be doing something, for years the party line was that if you smoke a joint your on the road to ruin and will end up a smackhead.

Now it's a case of viewing legal porn will lead to illegal images and will turn you into a child abuser and child killer, while that may be true for an extremely small number of people it's obviously not the case for the majority or there would be literally millions of child murders.

I think it is near impossible to stop illegal content online as it's a global problem and not confined to just this country but if any measure succeeds in preventing even one child getting abused then it has to be tried but as internet savvy people know there will always be people that find a way around whatever restrictions are in place.

A recent PC mag article on privacy explained a program that was originally developed by the US Navy and is now freely available to anyone, this program uses many layers of encryption and it's near impossible to identify who's using it, how the hell do you stop that?
Phil Rhodes 22nd July 2013, 11:45 Quote
You want counterarguments? Fine.

Beyond GeorgeStorm's very valid point there is the issue of implementation. It is impossible to reliably implement filtering of the sort that Cameron seems to want. To the extent that it can reasonably be done, it is already being done by things like Google's safesearch feature.

I really wish news articles like this wouldn't quote people like the Pirates as it gives the bad guys carte blanche to tar everyone with a counterargument with the same brush, but they got it right when they said it would either be not enough or too much. Cameron reveals his own complete ignorance of the technical reality - and piss-poor management technique - when he expects that people simply figure out a way to make what he wants happen. To quote a feeble movie, merely demanding results will not guarantee them, but what I think we can quite confidently guarantee is that no matter how poorly the filter technology actually works, no politician will ever, under absolutely any circumstances, say "Well, you know what, you were right. Perhaps it wasn't such a good idea after all."

P
mi1ez 22nd July 2013, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Now it's a case of viewing legal porn will lead to illegal images and will turn you into a child abuser and child killer, while that may be true for an extremely small number of people it's obviously not the case for the majority or there would be literally millions of child murders.

The problem is people blaming the porn. These people, in most cases, are going to abuse and kill and the porn they view doesn't make them more likely to do anything.

It's exactly the same as blaming computer games for gun crime in the US.
miller 22nd July 2013, 12:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
The internet isn't about a family/child friendly environment, Its about freedom of expression/speech.
Now im going to take cover, and wait for the normal Bit-Tech belligerent reply's

Most people are for free speech and expression but that does not extend to child abuse, "Expressing yourself" by abusing a child, recording it and posting it online is totally unacceptable, I wonder what the abused child who also has the right to " free speech and expression" would have to say about it.
Maki role 22nd July 2013, 12:14 Quote
So who's going to pay for all this? Oh yeah, us! Cameron's simply a massive tool, he tries to please everyone and as a result pleases nobody and gets nothing of value done. Now the democratic way of handling this would normally be vote for somebody else, but therein lies another issue, they're all idiots.

I simply don't want the government to extend any more eyes in the interest of security, it's ridiculous. It's easy to call somebody paranoid for thinking as such, but all it takes is one determined individual and that system can be used for such ill. Illegal is one thing, but what's judged as distasteful simply by the government is several steps too far. We're already monitored to a ludicrous level, I honestly don't feel comfortable with even more applied.
liratheal 22nd July 2013, 12:37 Quote
I'm all for filtering child porn, but don't we already have that in place?

I mean, have we all forgotten the Scorpions album cover that was blocked on Wakipedia in the UK a while back?

If that's still functional, and sick people are still getting their hands on child porn, surely that should be evidence that this style of system cannot work, and marking this latest "drop it on the ISP" ploy as a massive waste of time and money?

I'm not happy about this, as despite the whole "It's only for illegal things and porn" attitude, how long before someone petitions the government to take another website out of the UK because it's "Morally reprehensible"? How long before they start dictating what's morally right?

Governments like to pat themselves on the back, and blocking websites that a petition brings up is a fairly easy way for them to do that - Regardless of actual content discussion. Never mind the fact that the people making these decisions wouldn't know what an ISP was if it came and bit them, without their aide telling them of course.
koola 22nd July 2013, 12:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
A recent PC mag article on privacy explained a program that was originally developed by the US Navy and is now freely available to anyone, this program uses many layers of encryption and it's near impossible to identify who's using it, how the hell do you stop that?

Tor and that web is deep and disturbing. Nothing can stop it yet.
mi1ez 22nd July 2013, 12:50 Quote
I think CPC's own Tracy summed it up perfectly:
Quote:
In adults, the evidence so far doesn't seem to confirm the fears that are leading to legislation. A University of British Columbia study (Williams et al) shows that for most people, watching porn doesn't correlate with sexually deviant behaviour. However, having sexually deviant desires to begin is very likely to result in seeking porn that fulfils them. Exactly the same misunderstood correlation that gets violent games and films a bad rep, then.

http://www.tkingdoll.com/2013/06/a-gentle-reminder-porn-and-internet.html?m=1
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 12:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Ok :D
  1. Any person with a little knowledge can by pass it using proxies, VPN's
  2. The internet isn't about a family/child friendly environment, Its about freedom of expression/speech.
  3. Higher BB charges for everyone, because some parents cant exercise parental controls.
  4. Governments dictating what is and isn't morally acceptable.
  5. People who opt out having their name on some list that could be used for who knows what.
  6. Knee jerk reactions from politicians to block the next thing to offend the daily news papers.

And even though you said about the obvious slippery slope it would only be a matter of time before the list of government approved web sites gets added to.

Now im going to take cover, and wait for the normal Bit-Tech belligerent reply's

That's your endless list?

I took the liberty - my freedom of expression :D - of numbering your points for ease of reply ;)

1) Well let's do nothing then, don't even try, yeah? Thankfully that approach isn't adopted in medical advancement, criminal activity investigation, ...

2) & 4) well you're not exactly right there ;) Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the treaty that gives you those freedoms of thought, expression etc. - actually states:

Right to private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.


3) In the same way we pay green energy development subsidies you mean?

5) You honestly think the investigating authorities, in this day and age, have the time/man power/money to check on everyone's sexual proclivities in the UK, or at least the probable millions who access porn at least once? If you're accessing certain sites with content that is deemed illegal - including, as of today I understand, rape videos - then they'll be doing that anyway or should be.

6) Now you didn't follow the rules did you, even when you rephrased this in your closing statement ;) Noone can prove beyond a shadow of doubt slippery slope will happen. And if it does you can take them to court under Article 10, the flip side :) Now this is knee jerk http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3388074&postcount=24

As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. Ask anyone with a couple of kids say between 4 and 14, if they could do it? The door bell rings, the telephone rings, dinner is being prepared, the call of nature, one of them scrawls on the wall, one of them finds the matches ...
Shirty 22nd July 2013, 12:52 Quote
I'm not sure I care enough about the "moral" argument to comment (there are far worse things than porn on the internet), but can they not see that this is just an utter waste of resources? The blocks will be circumvented on day one and there will be countless web pages detailing how to do so across the web.

So for adults wishing to view pornography there will be an additional check box when signing up to a new ISP (just like mobile providers currently have). For children/adults living with their parents or in a property where they do not have control over the connection there will be an additional 5 minutes work to do the first time they want to view this material, and then the status quo will be restored.

All in all, nothing will be achieved apart from preventing a very small number of people (mainly little kids) from accidentally stumbling across porn.
erratum1 22nd July 2013, 13:00 Quote
I have no problem ringing up my isp and saying I want to look at porn, but I guess it might be difficult for some.

I don't think this is about blocking CP cause the filters don't block Tor or p2p, it's more about a child just coming across hardcore porn.

Google images>search>porn

Now I wouldn't want my child seeing that !! Would you?

In the days of dial up before the cp block the search 'lolita' would bring it up.
Woodspoon 22nd July 2013, 13:03 Quote
Welcome to china
miller 22nd July 2013, 13:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. Ask anyone with a couple of kids say between 6 and 14, if they could do it? The door bell rings, the telephone rings, dinner is being prepared, the call of nature ...

Friends of mine discovered their two children (early teens) had five phones between them and a load of sim cards, they have no idea where they got them, we all know kids don't need to use a home PC to access the net.
Niftyrat 22nd July 2013, 13:23 Quote
And when it comes to custody battles I can just see the line "well he turns off the filter on his Internet therefore he should have only supervised access to his own kids... Ya know just in case"

And this is the danger of such sweeping gestures. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with any of the various agencies, reasonable arguements are not something they accept as they take a guilty first approach
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Friends of mine discovered their two children (early teens) had five phones between them and a load of sim cards, they have no idea where they got them, we all know kids don't need to use a home PC to access the net.

Well that actually supports the argument for default blocking on all devices.
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 13:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Most people are for free speech and expression but that does not extend to child abuse, "Expressing yourself" by abusing a child, recording it and posting it online is totally unacceptable, I wonder what the abused child who also has the right to " free speech and expression" would have to say about it.

But what Cameron is proposing is nothing to do with child abuse, trying to merge illegal pornographic material that we already have laws against with legal pornographic material is something that pro block campaigners will be all to happy to do in an effort to support their argument.
We already have laws in place to prevent indecent material, and from what i gather search company's already report and remove illegal pornographic material.
stuartwood89 22nd July 2013, 13:46 Quote
<3 VPN
Xir 22nd July 2013, 13:49 Quote
Quote:
turning content filtering systems like Google's Safe Search on by default
Isn't that already the case?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
5)
...You honestly think the investigating authorities, in this day and age, have the time/man power/money to check on everyone's sexual proclivities in the UK, or at least the probable millions who access porn at least once?
...If you're accessing certain sites with content that is deemed illegal - including, as of today I understand, rape videos - then they'll be doing that anyway or should be.

As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. ... one of them finds the matches ...
Three points:
  • Correct, no, they don't do it manually, they'll use an algorythm for it, have you been living under a stone these last few weeks or does GCHQ mean anything to you?
  • Nono, it's not Rape-Video's, it Video's of adults consensually playing rape.
    About the difference between a snuff movie and any given action flick
  • So...you propose to ban matches, unless listed as a "Match-user"
kingred 22nd July 2013, 13:53 Quote
Awesome the ~think of the children~ approach to voiding net neutrality and imposing a filter.
kingred 22nd July 2013, 13:53 Quote
Immediately disagree and you *have to be a criminal*
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 13:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But what Cameron is proposing is nothing to do with child abuse, trying to merge illegal pornographic material that we already have laws against with legal pornographic material is something that pro block campaigners will be all to happy to do in an effort to support their argument.
We already have laws in place to prevent indecent material, and from what i gather search company's already report and remove illegal pornographic material.

But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were. But obviously you'd rather an unwitting kid came across something it may well find disturbing at that age than make you admit, by having to opt in, that you might want to access porn at all. Hmmm ...

Quote:
Originally Posted by kingred
Awesome the ~think of the children~ approach to voiding net neutrality and imposing a filter.

There is no true net neutrality otherwise websites would never be taken down at all.
Siwini 22nd July 2013, 14:04 Quote
They should apply same filters for adult porn also
Gareth Halfacree 22nd July 2013, 14:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were.
One small correction: the government is making things that are currently legal illegal. In other words, Cameron is precisely saying that you can't access the stuff that is currently legal: do so after the new rules are in place, and you can enjoy a few years pleasuring Her Majesty (I paraphrase) and have to sign one of those pesky "every time something bad happens to a kid within a three-mile radius, we'll be visiting you" registers.

For reasons why an ill-defined loosening of the definition of 'obscene' - which is already pretty damn loose, thank you very much the Obscene Publications Act - might be bad see the article: if you're banning things the moral majority hate, like simulated rape and gore, where does Hollywood stand? Hell, a big chunk of the sort of porn Cameron is talking about making illegal is a damn sight milder than something like Antichrist. 18 certificate, by the way. You can pick up a copy at Blockbuster, if you want. Providing you've still got one open near you...

Remember: you don't have to be pro-porn to be anti-stupid-law. The only reason Cameron is starting with The Big Bad Internet and not The Film Industry is because the latter won't get him gushing column inches from the Daily Mail et al.
liratheal 22nd July 2013, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were. But obviously you'd rather an unwitting kid came across something it may well find disturbing at that age than make you admit, by having to opt in, that you might want to access porn at all. Hmmm ...

If a kid is searching for that then they most likely know what to expect.

I sure as **** did when I first started trying to get around parental controls, and in dealing with a fair few home installations of customers, I don't think I've once seen a kids laptop come back with porn in the history until around the teens anyway, bearing in mind we have customers who buy their seven year olds laptops.

I've, personally, repaired a pair of laptops from a former customer six times for two kids 4 and 7 in the first encounter, and their browsing histories (The father asked us to check whenever we were there, he wasn't convinced the router blocks were working) were clean as a whistle when it came to porn. Not so for game cheat codes, mind you..

I think there's a degree of over sheltering kids on the assumption that they must all immediately want to look at dicks and tits because they have one or the other. Absurdity in my opinion, and far beyond what's necessary.

And what about homes where there's one internet connection and dad's turned on the porn for him? What about those kids?

Should we start filtering porn except until midnight? Because that's when adult TV channels become live on freeview, so that must be porn hour after all.

Maybe we should all have profiles at our ISP end so we can't possibly look at age inappropriate stuff until the ISP record shows we're old enough?

Absolutely ridiculous waste of everyone's time and resources as far as I'm concerned.
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 14:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
That's your endless list?
Well i couldn't be bother to carry on as i guessed most people would know what Cameron proposes is so full of holes and problems it wouldn't need much explaining. But i guess some people cant see the woods for the trees.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
I took the liberty - my freedom of expression :D - of numbering your points for ease of reply ;)

1) Well let's do nothing then, don't even try, yeah? Thankfully that approach isn't adopted in medical advancement, criminal activity investigation, ...
OOoo numbers,cool
Parents can do all they like about it, like not letting there children use the internet without parental control. Trying to draw a comparison between the lack of parental control, and "medical advancement, criminal activity investigation" is just laughable
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
2) & 4) well you're not exactly right there ;) Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the treaty that gives you those freedoms of thought, expression etc. - actually states:

Right to private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

So who is going to decide what my morals are, you ? the government ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
3) In the same way we pay green energy development subsidies you mean?
But we don't pay green energy development subsidies because some people cant be bothered to implement restrictions on what their children can and cant do. the benefits or drawbacks of green energy its self is a much debated topic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
5) You honestly think the investigating authorities, in this day and age, have the time/man power/money to check on everyone's sexual proclivities in the UK, or at least the probable millions who access porn at least once? If you're accessing certain sites with content that is deemed illegal - including, as of today I understand, rape videos - then they'll be doing that anyway or should be.
"sexual proclivities" has nothing to do with it, you only have to look at a List of UK government data losses to know your personal information isn't safe in third party hands.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
6) Now you didn't follow the rules did you, even when you rephrased this in your closing statement ;) Noone can prove beyond a shadow of doubt slippery slope will happen. And if it does you can take them to court under Article 10, the flip side :) Now this is knee jerk http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3388074&postcount=24
Yes indeed it is , But taking them to court would be a no-no as they have cut legal aid so unless you are rich you have no chance.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. Ask anyone with a couple of kids say between 4 and 14, if they could do it? The door bell rings, the telephone rings, dinner is being prepared, the call of nature, one of them scrawls on the wall, one of them finds the matches ...
That is why there is a plethora of software solutions, Windows even comes with parental controls built in. If parents cant be bothered to setup software so little johnny doesn't view what they deem inappropriate why should the onus be put on ISP's and the rest of society ?
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 14:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
One small correction: the government is making things that are currently legal illegal. In other words, Cameron is precisely saying that you can't access the stuff that is currently legal: do so after the new rules are in place, and you can enjoy a few years pleasuring Her Majesty (I paraphrase) and have to sign one of those pesky "every time something bad happens to a kid within a three-mile radius, we'll be visiting you" registers.

For reasons why an ill-defined loosening of the definition of 'obscene' - which is already pretty damn loose, thank you very much the Obscene Publications Act - might be bad see the article: if you're banning things the moral majority hate, like simulated rape and gore, where does Hollywood stand? Hell, a big chunk of the sort of porn Cameron is talking about making illegal is a damn sight milder than something like Antichrist. 18 certificate, by the way. You can pick up a copy at Blockbuster, if you want. Providing you've still got one open near you...

Remember: you don't have to be pro-porn to be anti-stupid-law. The only reason Cameron is starting with The Big Bad Internet and not The Film Industry is because the latter won't get him gushing column inches from the Daily Mail et al.

For the record I'm not anti porn (yes I've watched it more than once) but I am pro blocking because I see it merely as a minor inconvenience and neither as an "oh sh1t someone might know" nor a "my freedom rights are being eroded!" and frankly I'm not so lazy that I can't tick a box or whatever it'd take to clear the filters if I wanted to.

That said, I do agree consistency should be applied wherever possible. For example, if simulated rape scenes are banned from legal porn then they should also be from the "Hollywood" film industry. Cos let's face it, if you get your kicks viewing that you'll still get a degree of stimulation from whichever medium it's in since it's all about being in control at someone else's cost, just less graphic. If they're not, then the same rule should apply to both.
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 14:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were. But obviously you'd rather an unwitting kid came across something it may well find disturbing at that age than make you admit, by having to opt in, that you might want to access porn at all. Hmmm ...

No i would prefer the "unwitting kid" to have responsible parents that care about protecting their child from what they deem inappropriate, and not to put that responsibility on the rest of the world.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd July 2013, 14:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
For the record I'm not anti porn (yes I've watched it more than once) but I am pro blocking because I see it merely as a minor inconvenience and not"my freedom rights are being eroded!"
I saw you mention that you didn't want the "slippery slope" argument, but to dismiss that is to dismiss one of the biggest problems with such filtering. We've already seen it with this government: a system of filtering put in place to block access to known genuine child pornography - something nobody could possibly object to - has been expanded to the point where it blocks other content. The Pirate Bay, for example, is now on the same list - meaning you can't access it directly from any UK ISP, even if the thing you're trying to download is perfectly legal like a Linux ISO or the AFK documentary about The Pirate Bay.

So, we get more mandatory filtering. Again, it starts in a way that nobody could object to: who doesn't want to protect children, eh? Then it spreads. Suddenly, the 'offensive search terms' Cameron is against start to contain more and more words that the government finds offensive. Let's start with "bomb making." Can't let the terrorists win, hey? We can't object to that - unless we're terrorists ourselves! Then it spreads still further. An embarrassing leak shows a government official accepting a bribe, or pocketing thousands in expenses in a time of supposed austerity? Add his name to the list, the problem goes away. At this point the list is big enough that nobody will notice a few naughty additions: let's add Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party et al to that list. Voila: suddenly, the Tories control all the information you can find about the political landscape. Nice!

It always starts with something the moral majority can get behind. We're near the beginning of the process here. It's up to the proletariat whether this goes by unnoticed, in which case I guarantee things will turn bad very quickly, or gets challenged. And that's even before we consider the filters themselves: easily bypassed, often blocking non-infringing content. Just today, it was noticed that people attempting to use library computers to access the Open Rights Group's statement on the matter were blocked due to "Category: Pornography." The chilling effects have started. Even if you attribute no malice to the government - in which case, I think you may not be aware how modern 'democracy' operates - there's the Scunthorpe effect to worry about. A 'minor inconvenience' to a single-end user is a potentially fatal drop in traffic to a commercial site incorrectly categorised as pornographic by the government's mandatory filtering system.

You just wait until you need a Digital Munitions Certificate - available on application from your local police office, following fee payment, background check, statements from people who have known you in a professional capacity for five or more years, interview and installation of mandatory monitoring software on your PC - in order to use a VPN. It'll happen, you mark my words. Just look to China for proof of that.

EDIT: Oh, and one last thing: Cameron has named only one filtering system as being a beacon of light in the Big Dark Internet: that provided by Talk Talk. Despite proof the system doesn't work - it can be bypassed as easily as using Google Image Search, or Google Translate - he's using it in interviews and in official materials regarding his pet project as being the model by which all others should be measured? Now, a more cynical man than I might point out that the founder of Talk Talk is an old school chum of Cameron's - they were in the same class - and that Talk Talk's chief executive has been a prolific donor into Tory party coffers.

No, wait. A man exactly as cynical as I. Yeah, that's it.
bawjaws 22nd July 2013, 14:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
No i would prefer the "unwitting kid" to have responsible parents that care about protecting their child from what they deem inappropriate, and not to put that responsibility on the rest of the world.

But it isn't an either/or scenario: you can have responsible parenting and an opt-in safeguard.

I don't buy this theory that responsible parents (who are likely to monitor their kid's internet habits) will become any less vigilant because of an opt-in, as that would make them somewhat irresponsible by definition :) On the other hand, those that don't monitor their kids online will at least have an opt-in to make it more difficult for said kids to access dodgy stuff.
bawjaws 22nd July 2013, 14:46 Quote
Gareth, you seem like quite a normal bloke, but the tone of your post above is full-on bonkers tin-foil hat stuff :D
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 14:47 Quote
If anyone is interested there is already an e-petition setup on the direct.gov.uk web site
https://submissions.epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Number of signatures: 1,072 and counting
Carrie 22nd July 2013, 14:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
I saw you mention that you didn't want the "slippery slope" argument, but to dismiss that is to dismiss one of the biggest problems with such filtering. We've already seen it with this government: a system of filtering put in place to block access to known genuine child pornography - something nobody could possibly object to - has been expanded to the point where it blocks other content. The Pirate Bay, for example, is now on the same list - meaning you can't access it directly from any UK ISP, even if the thing you're trying to download is perfectly legal like a Linux ISO or the AFK documentary about The Pirate Bay.

So, we get more mandatory filtering. Again, it starts in a way that nobody could object to: who doesn't want to protect children, eh? Then it spreads. Suddenly, the 'offensive search terms' Cameron is against start to contain more and more words that the government finds offensive. Let's start with "bomb making." Can't let the terrorists win, hey? We can't object to that - unless we're terrorists ourselves! Then it spreads still further. An embarrassing leak shows a government official accepting a bribe, or pocketing thousands in expenses in a time of supposed austerity? Add his name to the list, the problem goes away. At this point the list is big enough that nobody will notice a few naughty additions: let's add Labour, Liberal Democrats, Green Party et al to that list. Voila: suddenly, the Tories control all the information you can find about the political landscape. Nice!

It always starts with something the moral majority can get behind. We're near the beginning of the process here. It's up to the proletariat whether this goes by unnoticed, in which case I guarantee things will turn bad very quickly, or gets challenged. And that's even before we consider the filters themselves: easily bypassed, often blocking non-infringing content. Just today, it was noticed that people attempting to use library computers to access the Open Rights Group's statement on the matter were blocked due to "Category: Pornography." The chilling effects have started. Even if you attribute no malice to the government - in which case, I think you may not be aware how modern 'democracy' operates - there's the Scunthorpe effect to worry about. A 'minor inconvenience' to a single-end user is a potentially fatal drop in traffic to a commercial site incorrectly categorised as pornographic by the government's mandatory filtering system.

You just wait until you need a Digital Munitions Certificate - available on application from your local police office, following fee payment, background check, statements from people who have known you in a professional capacity for five or more years, interview and installation of mandatory monitoring software on your PC - in order to use a VPN. It'll happen, you mark my words. Just look to China for proof of that.

I said exclude the "slippery slope" argument, as you should well know, because it's far too easy to use in any instance without proving beyond all doubt, and usually the next argument along from "freedom ..."

Did I miss something? These filters can be removed if you want can't they? So filtering doesn't mean block in the sense of "prevent all access under all circumstances". Cue the slippery slope ... there, I saved you the trouble of replying to that one ;)

Recategorising things, such as simulated rape porn, is an entirely separate matter, as you know, and could happen regardless of default content filtering.
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 14:49 Quote
@bawjaws, but the thing is its not a opt-in for parents, its a opt-out for the rest of the country.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd July 2013, 14:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by bawjaws
Gareth, you seem like quite a normal bloke, but the tone of your post above is full-on bonkers tin-foil hat stuff :D
If only it were. No conspiracy theories here: just a knowledge of history. It's happened before, it'll happen again - unless something is done to stop it. Go ahead, try to visit The Pirate Bay. Remember when the government told us that mandatory - and not-opt-outable - filter was going to be used purely to block access to child pornography? Didn't last long, did it?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
Recategorising things, such as simulated rape porn, is an entirely separate matter, as you know, and could happen regardless of default content filtering.
Ah, but it isn't an entirely separate matter - Cameron has made sure that all the various issues are being conflated into a single, giant, confused issue, with content filtering provided by Tory party donors and former schoolmates at the heart as the final solution. Not a great start, really.
djzic 22nd July 2013, 15:01 Quote
What's to stop a big Oil company from paying a bribe and you never hear of oil spills ever again? No I agree with Gareth here, you might think it's tin-foil-hat but as he says, it's already begun. What about legitimate files on the pirate bay? No, the only reason they did it is to get brownie points from newspapers and music/film/software industries etc. Kat.ph has also gone the way of TPB. But if I want to access TPB, it takes me the grand total of 1 minute to google 'TPB Proxy'. What's the point? Hell, I don't even have to add the word 'proxy'.
Phil Rhodes 22nd July 2013, 15:06 Quote
I agree entirely that this is a matter that's highly likely to suffer slippery-slope problems, but I also agree that it's a troublesome argument to apply, regardless of the subject matter. There's also the unpopular but valid point that the government already, and inevitably, restricts freedoms and makes taste decisions on all kinds of matters in law. That's not really an argument either. They can certainly do that, they can certainly make taste decisions for us, if they can get enough of a parliamentary mandate. And, using weaselly tactics like these, they can.

What alarms me more than that is the cavalier way Cameron expects the enormous technical problems to simply be surmounted. I'm generally suspicious of the Pirate Party and some of their policies, as I am of any single-issue tinfoil hat outfit, but they're absolutely right when they say it'll either be too little or too much.

In fact, I suspect that the government may be setting themselves up for a fall, every single time this system lets something nasty through, as it inevitably will.

What particularly worries me, as an occasional producer of online video content, is the proposal that material posted online will need to follow the same rules as stuff shown in shops. What, every Vimeo upload?
Maki role 22nd July 2013, 15:07 Quote
Let's be honest, it isn't the inconvenience any of us really care about. That's a couple of minutes on the phone, no big deal. The big deal is definitely the point about "where does it lead from here?". It's just too easy to twist this sort of system into something much much worse than is suggested.

It's a bit like introducing a new tax really. First they say it'll only affect the top x%, people get behind that naturally because it's somebody else paying the bills. Next thing you know the brackets increase, more people are paying, and then another increase until eventually it's everybody. By this point another tax is introduced that once more targets the top x%, yet somehow people have forgotten that the last one trickled down to them too. Where does it end?
MrJay 22nd July 2013, 15:11 Quote
Gareth has it nailed IMO. On a smaller scale our filtered connection at work (school) is less than perfect, we get 10+ requests a day to unblock perfectly respectable websites that have been labeled as pornographic or gambling orientated.

Pages can drift in and out of favour with the filter system, for example if this article (that appears on the front page) where to be called 'Cameron blocks porn' the page would be filtered until said article got bumped off the front page.

I should imagine it would be very tempting to add to the blacklist if there was enough incentive.
Gareth Halfacree 22nd July 2013, 15:20 Quote
For those who haven't seen the update in the article, the government has now published the full text of Cameron's speech as drafted.
RedFlames 22nd July 2013, 15:23 Quote
The following site were regarded [and therefore blocked] as 'porn' by the proxy at various points when I was at uni

deviantART [kinda understandable given some of the stuff on there]
Gamastura
bit-tech
Hexus
eBay
Cracked.com
NASA [dafuq]

and no amount of argument would get any site unblocked as 'the filter is/was never wrong'
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 15:28 Quote
So if they're blocking pornographic content, shouldn't they be blocking Tumblr etc? We all know teens like to post their tits on there.

And while we're at it, shouldn't some of the content on Facebook and Twitter et al get blocked too? :p
RedFlames 22nd July 2013, 15:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidMod-Southpaw
So if they're blocking pornographic content, shouldn't they be blocking Tumblr etc? We all know teens like to post their tits on there.

and don't forget the Daily Fail's sidebar of shame/hypocrisy

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BPxtXUFCIAElfpm.jpg:large
djzic 22nd July 2013, 15:40 Quote
Cameron's speech is full of hypocrisy and arrogance. He says it as if it is as easy to flick a switch. Instead of focusing on pornography on the internet, why don't you pay attention to mental health a little more? The suicide rate in boys/men has quadrupled over the last 6 years or so. Also, if the internet is to blame then why are more kids taking drugs? Subliminal ganja marketing?:)
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by djzic
Also, if the internet is to blame then why are more kids taking drugs? Subliminal ganja marketing?:)

Yes, considering that the amount of people in my school alone love to post on Facebook about their drugs etc with all of their younger siblings using the site also.

And dear God, the irony of that sidebar. At least it isn't the Sun...
djzic 22nd July 2013, 16:03 Quote
Either way, it's a way more important issue then pornography yet Cameron doesn't seem to care... if you're going to be a 'child-loving good parent' kind of person then be consistent...
miller 22nd July 2013, 16:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But what Cameron is proposing is nothing to do with child abuse, trying to merge illegal pornographic material that we already have laws against with legal pornographic material is something that pro block campaigners will be all to happy to do in an effort to support their argument.
We already have laws in place to prevent indecent material, and from what i gather search company's already report and remove illegal pornographic material.

I know what your saying and I agree with the above, but I can't agree with the view that some people have that the internet should be totally uncensored and child abuse should be regarded as "self expression" just because some like it and it's online.
Xir 22nd July 2013, 16:15 Quote
I was going to write something similar, but Gareth really said it all. ;)

Who's checking the list checkers, that's what it comses down to.
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 16:49 Quote
To be honest, when I've seen parents buying their 5 and 6 year old Ipads and the latest smartphones, none of this really surprises me.
Bluephoenix 22nd July 2013, 16:52 Quote
Something to think about:

All this pro-filtering argument is "think of the children!"; if that is the case, why don't we think about the world and government we are leaving behind for them? would you want to have grown up in a world where your parents are gradually trading away your future rights and protections for the sake of a little more reassurance that they are 'safe'?

for all that people malign the Star Wars prequels, the one thing Lucas got fantastically right was demonstrating how the need to fulfill our short term goals can lead us down a path where the long result is the very thing we fear most.

the onus when it comes to the internet is on the client side. the internet is such a vast web of information that asking an intermediary to filter it is both asinine and technically wasteful, effective client-side blocking tools should be opt-in and available to parents, but the burden is on them as responsible parents to make sure that their child is safe.
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 16:55 Quote
@miller, That is why we have the Obscene Publications Law, and the Protection of Children Act 1978
I am not arguing for a totally unrestricted internet, just one that adheres to current laws.
Ivoryspike 22nd July 2013, 17:25 Quote
I have to agree with Gareth and others here, none of what he says is tin-hat; as he says, you only have to look to history to see what large organizations and governments do with such powers. Usually we get to find out much later as the scope of the misuse is buried. The perpetrators then get off scott free after some whimsical 'investigation' that costs us millions.

There are numerous ways to filter porn & adult themes, DNS filtering setup on your router, Windows 7+ integrated family safety, third party software. All it takes is for parents to spend half an hour at most to set up some protection or get someone in to do it for them. As for mobile devices, perhaps don't buy your young kids an internet enabled device, or better still legislate for better family safety controls to be implemented into said devices.

There is no need for this invasion of privacy, something that will end up being used for other means.

Edit:

As this means for new contracts, you will have the 12 million+ contracts that have not been changed in the last year and the 5 million contracts that have never been changed not being enforced. IPS's hate to remind their customers to update their contract as they are most likely still paying for a 10MB line @ 100MB line price.
LightningPete 22nd July 2013, 17:26 Quote
Heres my piece. I dont care. Comment of the day.
thom804 22nd July 2013, 17:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by rollo
Could be worse, could have china in charge of the Internet there restrictions are nothing compared to what the uk may get.

Oh christ, don't talk to me about those arses. I go over there on occasion for work. No hotmail, facebook, twitter etc. Pretty much any site strongly associated with the west is blocked up harder than me after a night of all you can eat meat buffet!
Ivoryspike 22nd July 2013, 17:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightningPete
Heres my piece. I dont care. Comment of the day.

Woo, immodest ironic apathy, that'll win out ;)
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 19:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LightningPete
Heres my piece. I dont care. Comment of the day.

Good man! That comment also applies to the Royal baby. ;)
MachineUK 22nd July 2013, 19:50 Quote
I can see the banners now!
Don't be a t022er....vote conservative......
Spuzzell 22nd July 2013, 20:03 Quote
I don't really have an issue with this, and I don't see why anyone else does :/

I imagine I'd currently opt out of any filtering on my home broadband connection, but I've never bothered to enable adult content on my phone.

But that's sort of irrelevant. All this is doing is attempting to give some measure of choice as to whether or not you want adult content freely available on your home computers, the same way Sky restricts adult channels. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't give them the code to watch porn on TV and I won't give them the code to watch porn on the internet.

This doesn't restrict choice, it offers it.
sp4nky 22nd July 2013, 20:10 Quote
I just wonder how this will apply to sites that aren't exclusively pornographic but do have some content, e.g. reddit and their r/gonewild (and others).
Corky42 22nd July 2013, 20:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
I don't really have an issue with this, and I don't see why anyone else does :/

Read what others have said about why this is a bad idea, in other words

I find it difficult to believe much has changed from six months ago, when...
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-20738746
Quote:
Ministers have rejected plans to automatically block internet access to pornography on all computers, saying the move is not widely supported.

A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.
CrazyJoe 22nd July 2013, 20:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell
I don't really have an issue with this, and I don't see why anyone else does :/

I imagine I'd currently opt out of any filtering on my home broadband connection, but I've never bothered to enable adult content on my phone.

But that's sort of irrelevant. All this is doing is attempting to give some measure of choice as to whether or not you want adult content freely available on your home computers, the same way Sky restricts adult channels. I don't have kids yet, but when I do I won't give them the code to watch porn on TV and I won't give them the code to watch porn on the internet.

This doesn't restrict choice, it offers it.

If you're going to become a parent I would like to think you would use one of the many bits of kits out there just now that allow you to filter content instead of letting the government decide what your child can and can't see online.

Not that any of these filters will do any good of course.
Votick 22nd July 2013, 20:40 Quote
As posted in another thread.


Do Not Force ISP Filtering of Pornography and Other Content

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
VipersGratitude 22nd July 2013, 20:44 Quote
I have to admit, this announcement shows a level of sophistication I had not expected from the government. Without a hint of irony, I can say that this is a very smart move.
Burnout21 22nd July 2013, 21:41 Quote
Thing is the more something is blocked, the harder people work to find ways around. Then you end up with things like Tor, or other private VPN's that can't be monitored.

Personally I've got no worries about pronz being blocked, I'm not interested in that side of the internet, but where would these internet policing acts stop?
stonedsurd 22nd July 2013, 21:51 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spuzzell

This doesn't restrict choice, it offers it.

Except the default choice should be open access.

I don't live in the UK and this law doesn't (shouldn't?) affect me, but as a citizen of a country with its own warped cyber-laws, I urge all you UK residents to oppose this nonsense. Gareth is bang on with his slippery slope arguments - it took almost no time at all for ruling political parties here in India to start abusing the IT Act of 2000, which began life innocently enough as a framework within which to pursue cybercrime.

After a set of amendments in 2008, the Act was invoked by MPs, political parties and the generally well-connected to suppress freedom of speech, control the flow of information, and block websites at will.

In eight years I cannot recall a single time the IT Act was invoked to prevent or prosecute a cybercrime, but I've lost count of the amount of times it's been misused and abused by those in power. Again, I hate to sound melodramatic, but please consider writing to your representatives or signing petitions or doing whatever works to turn the clock back on this dickery.
Shirty 22nd July 2013, 21:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Burnout21
Thing is the more something is blocked, the harder people work to find ways around. Then you end up with things like Tor, or other private VPN's that can't be monitored.

And then when they have mastered untraceability (because they were forced to), some of the less wholesome members of society will use this new found ability to view illegal material. Illegal material which they hadn't really thought about beforehand, but now nobody can see what they're doing.
miller 22nd July 2013, 22:58 Quote
I can see internet, government and ISP chaos in the future because tragically we know that despite all these safe guards being put in place there will be another Mark Bridger who will commit a child murder after viewing illegal content.

Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?
The government would love that as they could monitor everyone legally for a change and just keep quoting the old "If your innocent you've nothing to worry about" mantra.
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 23:11 Quote
Why do I have a feeling some ISPs will manage to trick people in to paying extra for "bonus safety features"?
CrazyJoe 22nd July 2013, 23:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by KidMod-Southpaw
Why do I have a feeling some ISPs will manage to trick people in to paying extra for "bonus safety features"?

http://i.imgur.com/XBqjHZZ.png
Guinevere 22nd July 2013, 23:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaveTheGit
I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scare-monger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come

No, you're making the speech as it's what politicians do.

Wanting to moralise and scare-monger is why you're implementing this half baked internet filter pile of crap but nice of you to remind us about what it is you want to do.
RedFlames 22nd July 2013, 23:23 Quote
Image removed, due to containing offensive language.

And yes, I do get the irony

yodasarmpit
KidMod-Southpaw 22nd July 2013, 23:36 Quote
Why do I see so many parents buying their ridiculously young kids ridiculously priced electronics if they won't teach them to use them responsibly and properly!?

"Are you sure we should be jumping on the sofa with your Ipad flying about filming it?" "Yeah, it'll be fine Chloe, if one of us jumps on it my parents can just get me another tomorrow. It was my birthday after all."

*True story. :(
theshadow2001 22nd July 2013, 23:41 Quote
miller 22nd July 2013, 23:51 Quote
http://www.fazerfetish.eclipse.co.uk/gchq.jpg

Few years time and it will be the only ISP. (ISPy)

Great loyalty deals available, get a friend to sign up and we'll delete your search history for the last 12 months!
Conditions apply, we won't really delete your search history.
Woodspoon 23rd July 2013, 01:14 Quote
Ok, so it's bad, we all pretty much agree that it's a bad thing.
Now what?
Sign a petition and bitch in forums?
That's not going to do much and it's very easily ignored.
I've no idea what to do but something needs to be done to stop this that can't be ignored.
FreQ 23rd July 2013, 02:18 Quote
It's very late and I cannot put together a detailed reply right now, but I can lend my voice to the opposition of this proposed "filter".
It's easy to attack anyone opposed to this filter, or brand them something unpleasant in the name of a clean, safe Internet. But a government deciding what legal content is OK or not is something that could be potentially terrifying. I do not care about the opt in - it's 10 minutes of my life. I care about what it could lead to in the not to distant future.
David_Fitzy 23rd July 2013, 03:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Carrie
... "slippery slop"...

Best typo ever while talking about porn
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 06:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Woodspoon
Ok, so it's bad, we all pretty much agree that it's a bad thing.
Now what?
Sign a petition and bitch in forums?
That's not going to do much and it's very easily ignored.
I've no idea what to do but something needs to be done to stop this that can't be ignored.

Sadly as Cameron wants to push this through parliament before the end of 2013 it may not be possible to do anything, the e-petition on the matter (signatures:11,101) will close on the 18/06/2014 after Cameron has pushed it through.

I couldn't find any information on what happens if it gets the needed 100,000 signatures so it can be considered for debate in the House of Commons before the closing date, or if it would be considered for debate in the House of Commons after Cameron has rushed through the new legislation.
VipersGratitude 23rd July 2013, 06:27 Quote
The story here is not a porn filter; The story is, in fact, the story itself...

Allow me to qualify that statement.

The Snowden revelations have divided the country in to two camps. The first are those who believe the government will use the system as intended, or don't really care. The second are those of us who recognize the threat government access to the population's personal correspondence poses to the democratic process...and we are in the middle of public discourse on the topic.

This announcement is designed to pervert that process of public discourse. It is misdirection.

Let's put was announced in to perspective - That preexisting filtering systems would be used proactively instead of retroactively. That is all...

However, those of us in the second camp currently perceive any government interference with the internet with absolute suspicion, thanks to the Snowden revelations. It is this suspicion that compels us to invent fantastical theories of how an opt-out porn filter could be abused - The so-called 'slippery slope'.

Gareth, for example, claimed that these systems may be used to control access to political information a la China. That idea doesn't hold weight with me, as all the countries pointed to as an example already had oppressive state controls prior to internet proliferation. For the UK to follow the exact same template our press protection laws, and other real world checks and balances, would need to be dismantled. While I'll politely say the the theory doesn't hold weight with me, I can see how it would seem outright ridiculous and paranoid to someone in the first camp I outlined.

The true threat to the democratic process are the Snowden revelations. This well-timed announcement is to distract us from that with something related, but far, far more galvanizing and sensational - Child pornography and rape(!!!)

Next time you're at the pub, a dinner party, or just a get-together of friends bring the topic of government spying up. Watch how quickly those critical of spying find themselves being painted as defending violence against women and children. Then watch them undermine the legitimacy of their position to those in the other camp by inventing outlandish theories of how it could be abused.

This story is the government using our own (government-induced) paranoia against us. It is intelligent and sophisticated, because our cultural, political, and legal environment simply does not permit them to be as crude with information manipulation as their Chinese counterparts.
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 07:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
One small correction: the government is making things that are currently legal illegal. In other words, Cameron is precisely saying that you can't access the stuff that is currently legal

I don't know where you got this from, but Cameron on Radio 2 yesterday afternoon said specifically that this is not the case: things that are currently illegal (child abuse, child porn, etc.) will remain illegal, and all currently legal forms of pornography will remain legal. It is not censorship.

There is so much misrepresentation and misunderstanding surrounding this proposed legislation, it doesn't surprise me at all that there is so much resultant hype.

Granted, it's a bit stupid and somewhat pointless, but I agree with Carrie that it's being blown hugely out of proportion. What's so bad about having to opt in to look at porn on the internet? Have you guys never bought porn from a newsagent? Kinda like that, but you only have to do it once, and most likely over the phone rather than in person.
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 07:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
Let's put was announced in to perspective - That preexisting filtering systems would be used proactively instead of retroactively. That is all...
Sorry what preexisting filtering systems are we talking about hear ? the one all the main search engines use to report and remove illegal content, or the one we call parents ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
However, those of us in the second camp currently perceive any government interference with the internet with absolute suspicion, thanks to the Snowden revelations. It is this suspicion that compels us to invent fantastical theories of how an opt-out porn filter could be abused - The so-called 'slippery slope'.
These are not fantastical theories....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
We've already seen it with this government: a system of filtering put in place to block access to known genuine child pornography - something nobody could possibly object to - has been expanded to the point where it blocks other content. The Pirate Bay, for example, is now on the same list - meaning you can't access it directly from any UK ISP, even if the thing you're trying to download is perfectly legal like a Linux ISO or the AFK documentary about The Pirate Bay.
<Snip>
Just today, it was noticed that people attempting to use library computers to access the Open Rights Group's statement on the matter were blocked due to "Category: Pornography." The chilling effects have started.
And it has happened in other countries already...
Quote:
Originally Posted by stonedsurd
Except the default choice should be open access.

I don't live in the UK and this law doesn't (shouldn't?) affect me, but as a citizen of a country with its own warped cyber-laws, I urge all you UK residents to oppose this nonsense. Gareth is bang on with his slippery slope arguments - it took almost no time at all for ruling political parties here in India to start abusing the IT Act of 2000, which began life innocently enough as a framework within which to pursue cybercrime.

After a set of amendments in 2008, the Act was invoked by MPs, political parties and the generally well-connected to suppress freedom of speech, control the flow of information, and block websites at will.

In eight years I cannot recall a single time the IT Act was invoked to prevent or prosecute a cybercrime, but I've lost count of the amount of times it's been misused and abused by those in power. Again, I hate to sound melodramatic, but please consider writing to your representatives or signing petitions or doing whatever works to turn the clock back on this dickery.
So as you can see Internet censorship already happens across the word, you only need to read this Wiki article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship to get a idea of how any kind of filtering system can be abused.
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
Gareth, for example, claimed that these systems may be used to control access to political information a la China. That idea doesn't hold weight with me, as all the countries pointed to as an example already had oppressive state controls prior to internet proliferation. For the UK to follow the exact same template our press protection laws, and other real world checks and balances, would need to be dismantled. While I'll politely say the the theory doesn't hold weight with me, I can see how it would seem outright ridiculous and paranoid to someone in the first camp I outlined.
While it is true some of the countries that enforce Internet censorship already had oppressive state controls i wouldn't class Australia, , India and France among them, And what does it say about our society if we are willing to sit idly by as peoples freedoms are slowly being eroded ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
Next time you're at the pub, a dinner party, or just a get-together of friends bring the topic of government spying up. Watch how quickly those critical of spying find themselves being painted as defending violence against women and children. Then watch them undermine the legitimacy of their position to those in the other camp by inventing outlandish theories of how it could be abused.
The problem is they are not invented outlandish theories
Quote:
Originally Posted by VipersGratitude
This story is the government using our own (government-induced) paranoia against us. It is intelligent and sophisticated, because our cultural, political, and legal environment simply does not permit them to be as crude with information manipulation as their Chinese counterparts.
Indeed it is :|, sadly i fear that the vast majority of people are to busy with their lives to take the time and see it for what it really is :(
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 08:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
I don't know where you got this from, but Cameron on Radio 2 yesterday afternoon said specifically that this is not the case: things that are currently illegal (child abuse, child porn, etc.) will remain illegal, and all currently legal forms of pornography will remain legal. It is not censorship.

Perhaps from the speech Cameron gave, right at the end when he talks about Extreme pornography law change.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 08:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
I don't know where you got this from, but Cameron on Radio 2 yesterday afternoon said specifically that this is not the case: things that are currently illegal (child abuse, child porn, etc.) will remain illegal, and all currently legal forms of pornography will remain legal. It is not censorship..
That, sadly, is an example of Cameron outright lying. I refer you to the Prime Minister's speech, as written:
Quote:
Originally Posted by David Cameron's Speechwriter
There are certain types of pornography that can only be described as ‘extreme’. I am talking particularly about pornography that is violent, and that depicts simulated rape. These images normalise sexual violence against women – and they are quite simply poisonous to the young people who see them.

The legal situation is that although it’s been a crime to publish pornographic portrayals of rape for decades, existing legislation does not cover possession of this material – at least in England and Wales. Possession of such material is already an offence in Scotland but because of a loophole in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is not an offence South of the border.

Well I can tell you today we are changing that.

We are closing the loopholemaking it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape. And we are doing something else to make sure that the same rules apply online as they do offline. There are some examples of extreme pornography that are so bad that you can’t even buy this material in a licensed sex shop. And today I can announce we will be legislating so that videos streamed online in the UK are subject to the same rules as those sold in shops. Put simply – what you can’t get in a shop, you will no longer be able to get online.
Like I said: he's talking about making things that are currently legal - due, he claims, to a 'loophole' in the law - illegal. What he may or may not have said on a radio show is by-the-by - incidentally, on Radio 5, he also added "self-harming websites" to the list of 'extreme pornography.' Hey, look at that: the definition is slipping already, and the speech hasn't even been public for 24 hours!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I couldn't find any information on what happens if it gets the needed 100,000 signatures so it can be considered for debate in the House of Commons before the closing date, or if it would be considered for debate in the House of Commons after Cameron has rushed through the new legislation.
The deadline is for closure of the petition if it fails to reach its target - should it reach the target number of signatures before the date, it is considered a success and will be considered for debate.

EDIT: There's a nice little follow-up piece on The Independent today.
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Independent
But in interviews after his speech, Mr Cameron seemed unclear of exactly which legal sites should be banned by the new filters - and accepted that the technology still had weaknesses. Speaking on the BBC’s Jeremy Vine programme, Mr Cameron said what would be included in the filters would evolve over time. “The companies themselves are going to design what is automatically blocked, but the assumption is they will start with blocking pornographic sites and also perhaps self-harming sites,” he said. “It will depend on how the companies choose how to do it. It doesn’t mean, for instance, it will block access to a newspaper like The Sun, it wouldn’t block that - but it would block pornography.”

Mr Cameron said he did not “believe” written pornography, such as erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey, would be blocked under the plans. But he added: “It will depend on how the filters work.” He also admitted it could lead to some interesting conversations in families. Asked if the “opt in” system meant a husband would have to “fess up” to his partner if he wanted to look at porn, he finally said: “Yes, it does.” He then added: “I’m not saying we’ve thought of everything and there will be many problems down the line as we deal with this, but we’re trying to crunch through these problems and work out what you can do and can’t do.”
"The assumption is?" He doesn't "believe" it'll block written pornography - including 50 Shades, which features sadomasochistic themes and simulated rape? It won't block The Sun, which includes the infamous soft-core pornographic Page 3 pin-up tradition - which has, I will remind you, in the past published naked pictures of under-age children - but it will block 'pornography?' Yup, sounds like he's really on the ball here, doesn't it?
VipersGratitude 23rd July 2013, 08:20 Quote
Don't have much time to reply, but...

When I say preexisting, I mean the same system used to block The Pirate Bay in the UK, or the Wikipedia entry for the Scorpion's Virgin Killer album (the filter was reversed incidentally, so if you fancy looking at a government-sanctioned picture of a naked child you can look it up. I'm not posting the link incase I get censored modded).

Point is, these systems are already in place. An opt-in porn policy makes no difference in their potential for abuse.

As for it happening in other countries I meant that those opposed to internet censorship tend to conjure the worst-case scenario. i.e. Counties listed as "Pervasive censorship". There is no foreseeable pathway to that level of state control in western democracies, so painting that picture undermines the painter's legitimacy.

Certainly, we might have a few isolated incidents, but not to the level of blocking access to political opinion.

As for the countries you singled out, they are on separate lists. (copy pasta)

Australia & France - Countries in this category are on the RWB "Under Surveillance" list, but are not already included in the pervasive, substantial, or selective censorship classifications. Included are countries in which changes are underway or are being considered that give cause for concern about the possibility of increased Internet censorship.

India - Countries included in this classification were found to practice selective Internet filtering in at least one of the four areas (political, social, conflict/security, and Internet tools) for which ONI tests, but which were not already included in the pervasive or substantial censorship classifications. This classification includes countries where a small number of specific sites are blocked or filtering targets a small number of categories or issues.
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 08:21 Quote
@Gareth, I didn't realise that, but I really don't see this as a big change and I have absolutely no objection to it. People want to watch porn for titillation - fine. People want to watch rape for titillation - wtf? Lock them up.

If you haven't listened to the Radio 2 interview I suggest that you do - Jeremy Vine's questioning is excellent and really puts Cameron on the spot, and like you say he really struggles to give a succinct precis of what exactly is being filtered out; it's obvious that he doesn't really have a clue what he's talking about when it comes to the finer points. He keeps playing his "we're working closely with the service providers" trump card even when it is impertinent to the question being asked. In saying that, I think he did OK considering Vine is an interrogative monster.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 08:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, I didn't realise that, but I really don't see this as a big change and I have absolutely no objection to it. People want to watch porn for titillation - fine. People want to watch rape for titillation - wtf? Lock them up.
Ignoring the biggest problem with that - the fact that the government should have no say over what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom, providing it isn't going to result in permanent and irrevocable harm to either party - you then circle back around to the issue of "why is internet porn special?" I forget the newspaper, but it was pointed out yesterday that an interview which took place in the PM's living room included a shot of his DVD shelves - with the first two box-sets for anti-terrorism pro-torture-if-you're-a-good-guy series 24 easily visible.

Interesting fact about 24: the first series includes a scene of simulated rape.

Sure, Cameron has partially covered himself with the "if you can't buy it in a shop" defence - you can, easily, buy 24 in a shop - but it still doesn't exactly sit well with me. Do as I say, not as I do?

(Yes, yes, the old Obscene Publications Act rule of "for the purposes of sexual gratification" - but how do we know that ol' Dave doesn't have the scene bookmarked on his DVD player and set on A-B repeat?)
Xir 23rd July 2013, 08:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?
We allready have that, please look up what's been happening in the last few weeks.
Prism, Tempura, GCHQ, Snowden...
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Have you guys never bought porn from a newsagent? Kinda like that, but you only have to do it once, and most likely over the phone rather than in person.
Does your Newsagent have your name, adress, account, telephone and internet access data? No?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys

People want to watch porn for titillation - fine. People want to watch rape for titillation - wtf? Lock them up.
The point is, who decides what "extreme pornography" is?
What is allowed? only straight, white, middleaged married couples doing it with the lights out? Who decides?
adrock 23rd July 2013, 08:56 Quote
i noticed reading the first part of the speech about the criminal problem, there is no mention of the creators or initial distributors of said material:

"Obviously we need to tackle this at every step of the way – whether it’s where this material is hosted, transmitted, viewed or downloaded."

Not where it's being created? surely that's a smaller number of people and would do more to combat the problem. How is that the ISPs responsibility?

"It goes that the search engines shouldn’t be involved in finding out where these images are that they are just the ‘pipe’ that delivers the images and that holding them responsible would be a bit like holding the Post Office responsible for sending on illegal objects in anonymous packages."
"So to return to that analogy, it would be like the Post Office helping someone to identify and order the illegal material in the first place – and then sending it onto them in which case they absolutely would be held responsible for their actions."

How is the issue in that analogy the post office, and not the company creating and selling the illegal material? You have to go for the source or you're just treating the symptoms. Is the government ramping up to an anti-drug campaign where teenage peddlars are arrested in droves but growers/importers will be punished only by the breakup of their distribution network? Do you think that'd stop them? Does anyone think this will stop the people who abuse children from doing so? Would it even be a deterrent?

I'm all for preventing child abuse, but i'd like to see it done by preventing child abuse, not deterring perverts from watching child abuse.
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 08:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
(Yes, yes, the old Obscene Publications Act rule of "for the purposes of sexual gratification" - but how do we know that ol' Dave doesn't have the scene bookmarked on his DVD player and set on A-B repeat?)

EEeeewww :) now im going to have to walk around with that image in my head all day :'(
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 09:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
EEeeewww :) now im going to have to walk around with that image in my head all day :'(
I can beat that: some wag suggested this as the "so you're trying to watch porn, eh?" pop-up.

http://i.huffpost.com/gen/1256810/thumbs/o-DAVID-CAMERON-PORN-570.jpg?6
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 09:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
EEeeewww :) now im going to have to walk around with that image in my head all day :'(

Just use your mental visualisation filter. :p

EDIT: gee, thanks, Gareth. Now I have to switch on mine as well... Fifty Shades of Dave...
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 09:02 Quote
@Gareth, the government absolutely should be allowed to determine what is available to two (or more) consenting adults in their own private space, based on common decency and consistency with state law. If rape is a horrific thing in reality, why should people be permitted to use accurate depictions of rape for sexual gratification? To me it's a glaring inconsistency with the law: we oppose rape, campaign against it, offer counselling for rape victims... and also offer an immersive "virtual rape" experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again. :(

Furthermore, 24 wasn't produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, nor does sexual intercourse take place in the rape scene (it's not even depicted). It may be violent and offensive to some, but it's not Baise Moi, so it's not a valid comparison.

@ Xir, I couldn't give two sh*ts if my Newsagent had that info. Your point?

And who should decide what "extreme" is? Well, it seems that the legal system already has working definitions, seeing that rape, child abuse, bestiality etc. are all illegal, and they are all extreme forms of pornography.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 09:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, the government absolutely should be allowed to determine what is available to two (or more) consenting adults in their own private space, based on common decency and consistency with state law. If rape is a horrific thing in reality, why should people be permitted to use accurate depictions of rape for sexual gratification? To me it's a glaring inconsistency with the law: we oppose rape, campaign against it, offer counselling for rape victims... and also offer an immersive "virtual rape" experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again. :(
I think we have a pretty dim view on shooting people as well. But we have FPS games. We have physical violence in movies and TV. All done in the best possible taste, of course.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Furthermore, 24 wasn't produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, nor does sexual intercourse take place in the rape scene (it's not even depicted). It may be violent and offensive to some, but it's not Baise Moi, so it's not a valid comparison.
No, but it was produces with the express purpose of violence gratification (yes, really).
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@ Xir, I couldn't give two sh*ts if my Newsagent had that info. Your point?
You would if you were buying porn from him.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
And who should decide what "extreme" is? Well, it seems that the legal system already has working definitions, seeing that rape, child abuse, bestiality etc. are all illegal, and they are all extreme forms of pornography.
Yup, but now it is going to be the government who decides. Note how the CPS is not involved in this political debate.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 09:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, the government absolutely should be allowed to determine what is available to two (or more) consenting adults in their own private space, based on common decency and consistency with state law. If rape is a horrific thing in reality, why should people be permitted to use accurate depictions of rape for sexual gratification? To me it's a glaring inconsistency with the law: we oppose rape, campaign against it, offer counselling for rape victims... and also offer an immersive "virtual rape" experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again. :(
And yet we have absolutely no issue with Hollywood films depicting gruesome murders - and, yes, torture - for audiences' titillation. Despite it being "a horrific thing in reality" and society "opposing murder and torture, campaign against it, offer counselling for attempted murder victims and those left behind and also offer an immersive 'virtual murder/torture' experience for people who want to enjoy it legally, time and time again."

Now, if you'll excuse me, I'm off to shoot prostitutes in the face in Grand Theft Auto IV then watch a Saw marathon on Blu-ray in glorious high-definition. Sorry, what were we talking about again?
Shirty 23rd July 2013, 09:22 Quote
Make sure you only shoot the prostitute in the face after you've given her your money and had your fun. You can pick the money up again then. BJ cost = 1 bullet.
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 09:34 Quote
I never once said that there are no double standards, but let's keep this thread on topic.

The proposed ban concerns violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) which is produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, and I wholly agree with the ban on the basis that it is consistent with the law and (hopefully) the general attitude to rape in our country: it is detestable.

Defend simulated violent rape for sexual gratification on its own merits, if you can. Stop with the red herrings.

So far, Gareth has said "because people should be free to watch what they want." OK - why?
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 09:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Defend simulated violent rape for sexual gratification on its own merits, if you can. Stop with the red herrings.
I already did: the government has no business telling two (or, as you pointed out, more - or, hell, fewer) consenting adults what they can and can't pretend to do with or to each other. Note that I'm not talking about the people downloading the porn, here, I'm talking about the people in the porn. Sure, you can talk about the 'moral majority' - but what if the moral majority finds the thought of a man sticking his winkie up another man's uh-oh 'detestable?' Whoops, we just banned gay porn. Sorry, gays, the curious, and women with a certain kink. Better luck next time.

The double-standard, by the way, is far from a red herring: like I said, a big chunk of the porn due to be made illegal under the revised law is significantly milder than the 2009 film Antichrist. Where is the line drawn? What if Antichrist had been released on the internet instead of in cinemas? What if the actors in porn were household names? Would we be banning things the other way around?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
So far, Gareth has said "because people should be free to watch what they want." OK - why?
Show me where I said that. If you want to debate, then you need to debate - not make up quotes that support your own suppositions. Otherwise, we end up with this: LennyRhys said "all porn is bad, and I love sticking my pee-pee stick in watermelons."
Xir 23rd July 2013, 09:49 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Whoops, we just banned gay porn. Sorry, gays, the curious, and women with a certain kink. Better luck next time.
Just happened in Russia.
And it wasn't the "moral Majority" that decided it either...
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 10:04 Quote
I'm becoming rapidly more disenfranchised with this country.

I can see how people become radicalised on a topic close to them - Especially when it's something that's being rushed, won't work, and will undoubtedly be used to filter legitimate things for their* own agenda.

*Whoever happens to be in power.
impar 23rd July 2013, 10:07 Quote
Greetings!

Politicians want to control what people do\see\think\feel, nothing new here.
Its a test on UK society to see if it can oppose a policy that wants to take the filter one more notch up.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 10:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
I never once said that there are no double standards, but let's keep this thread on topic.
Coming from the guy who de facto argues for absolute standards. :p
GeorgeStorm 23rd July 2013, 10:20 Quote
Something a friend just posted on a thread containing a couple of posts about this:
Quote:
So why aren't you all up in arms that this is already standard for most mobile networks?
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 10:29 Quote
@Gareth, OK I apologise for misquoting you. Your first objection was that the government "should have no say over what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom...", which implies that people therefore should be free to choose what they watch for thrills, no matter how objectionable it is to the "moral majority." Again - why? And why does the government have no business telling people what kind of porn they are permitted to film or disseminate? Is that not part of the government's role - to protect as well as to serve?

@Nexxo, very funny. B)
CrazyJoe 23rd July 2013, 10:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Something a friend just posted on a thread containing a couple of posts about this:

So why aren't you all up in arms that this is already standard for most mobile networks?

Just checked my phone, no blocks and I've never opted in, or I don't remember doing so .
GeorgeStorm 23rd July 2013, 10:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
Just checked my phone, no blocks and I've never opted in.

It definitely depends, I know Virgin have some kind of system in place, not sure about other providers, as I said, it wasn't me who asked it but it was an interesting question.

I'm presuming the answer is because it's the company's choice rather than the government's.
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 10:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, OK I apologise for misquoting you. Your first objection was that the government "should have no say over what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom...", which implies that people therefore should be free to choose what they watch for thrills, no matter how objectionable it is to the "moral majority." Again - why? And why does the government have no business telling people what kind of porn they are permitted to film or disseminate? Is that not part of the government's role - to protect as well as to serve?

@Nexxo, very funny. B)

I think Gareth's point about what happens in the bedroom stays between the two parties involved isn't so much about "It's okay to rape someone, if it's in private!" more that it's not okay for someone to dictate based on their moral objections what you can do in the bedroom if both you and your partner are willing.

For example. I have an exit only policy on bums. It's not for me to say that you, or anyone else, can't put your wang in someone elses bum if they're willing to let you.
CrazyJoe 23rd July 2013, 10:35 Quote
Of course, all this aside, this won't actually change anything. People wanting consensual violent porn will still watch it, they'll just have to use the darker side of the net where they will also stumble across real rape videos and other really nasty stuff.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 10:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, OK I apologise for misquoting you. Your first objection was that the government "should have no say over what two consenting adults get up to in the bedroom...", which implies that people therefore should be free to choose what they watch for thrills, no matter how objectionable it is to the "moral majority."
No, as I clarified: I was speaking about the people in the porn, not the people watching the porn.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
And why does the government have no business telling people what kind of porn they are permitted to film or disseminate? Is that not part of the government's role - to protect as well as to serve?
Again, you've misunderstood me. However, that's an easy question to answer: our legal framework in the UK is well established, and has plenty of rules about what kind of porn can be filmed or disseminated in this country. Nothing with children in, for example. Nothing with animals. No snuff. Nothing that shows anybody being genuinely hurt. These are all examples of what a true anarchist may call 'censorship,' yet I am in complete favour of these laws.

What I am not in favour of is the criminalisation of play. Let's say a man and a woman enjoy so-called 'rape-play.' They're married, if it makes any difference, and love each other very much. However, it's their kink that, every now and again, one takes on the role of a submissive 'victim' while the other adopts the opposite role of a dominant 'attacker.' Not my taste, for sure, but they both enjoy it, they both get off on it, and they take all the usual precautions with explicit consent and safewords.

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be remiss of the government to arrest them and cart them off to jail, right? Even if you, personally, like myself, find the thought of such bedroom activities distasteful.

Now, what if they decide to set up a camera in the corner of the room? Same activity, same people, same consent - but now they're guilty of possession of what has suddenly become 'extreme pornography.' If that gets out, however it may, they can expect a jail sentence and to be forced to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for the rest of their lives. They don't even have to film themselves after the new law comes into effect: if they've got a long-forgotten VHS under their bed, and it should come to the attention of the police, they're in trouble.

Unlikely? Sure. Unheard-of? Absolutely not. Remember how Gary Glitter's proclivities for children - which is, rightly, illegal - were found out? It happens.
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 10:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
The proposed ban concerns violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) which is produced with the express purpose of sexual gratification, and I wholly agree with the ban on the basis that it is consistent with the law and (hopefully) the general attitude to rape in our country: it is detestable.

But you are leaving out the proposed default filtering issue completely, Why are we making a whole county child-proofed by default just because some parents don't want to take responsibility.

We already have laws to cover obscene publications, and if this needs updating to cover violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) then im all for updating existing laws. But for Cameron to incorporate a change to existing laws with a default child-proofed filter for the whole country is asinine.

Six months ago ministers rejected the automatic block and said internet providers should encourage parents to switch on parental controls. So why is a whole country being forced down this route instead of making parents aware of ways to keep their children safe.
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But you are leaving out the proposed default filtering issue completely, Why are we making a whole county child-proofed by default just because some parents don't want to take responsibility.

We already have laws to cover obscene publications, and if this needs updating to cover violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) then im all for updating existing laws. But for Cameron to incorporate a change to existing laws with a default child-proofed filter for the whole country is asinine.

Six months ago ministers rejected the automatic block and said internet providers should encourage parents to switch on parental controls. So why is a whole country being forced down this route instead of making parents aware of ways to keep their children safe.

Because Governments like to pat themselves on the back, and believe me, this will give them a massive back patting session.

Possibly a circle jerk too, but not on video anymore!
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 11:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
What I am not in favour of is the criminalisation of play. Let's say a man and a woman enjoy so-called 'rape-play.' They're married, if it makes any difference, and love each other very much. However, it's their kink that, every now and again, one takes on the role of a submissive 'victim' while the other adopts the opposite role of a dominant 'attacker.' Not my taste, for sure, but they both enjoy it, they both get off on it, and they take all the usual precautions with explicit consent and safewords.

I'm sure you'd agree that it would be remiss of the government to arrest them and cart them off to jail, right? Even if you, personally, like myself, find the thought of such bedroom activities distasteful.

Now, what if they decide to set up a camera in the corner of the room? Same activity, same people, same consent - but now they're guilty of possession of what has suddenly become 'extreme pornography.' If that gets out, however it may, they can expect a jail sentence and to be forced to sign the Sex Offenders' Register for the rest of their lives. They don't even have to film themselves after the new law comes into effect: if they've got a long-forgotten VHS under their bed, and it should come to the attention of the police, they're in trouble.

Unlikely? Sure. Unheard-of? Absolutely not. Remember how Gary Glitter's proclivities for children - which is, rightly, illegal - were found out? It happens.

Indeed, when a minor takes a picture or films a video of themselves engaged in even a solitary sex act (say, masturbation), even if it is for their own private enjoyment and not shown to anyone else, they can be prosecuted under child pornography laws. Tricky.

The problem is twofold: first, possession of the media is being prosecuted rather than the dissemination of it, which I think everybody agrees is a bit more pertinent. Second, production is made illegal based purely on content rather than how it was produced.

The latter is already effectively covered under existing laws: it is illegal to have sex with minors, it is illegal to rape or kill; so creating photos or videos of those acts are illegal as well (and conveniently supply evidence for the prosecution). But it is not illegal to masturbate whatever your age, or to have consensual sex with another adult, no matter how kinky. Therefore producing images or videos of such acts for personal use should not be illegal either. But Cameron proposes that it will be.
Gareth Halfacree 23rd July 2013, 11:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
The latter is already effectively covered under existing laws: it is illegal to have sex with minors, it is illegal to rape or kill; so creating photos or videos of those acts are illegal as well (and conveniently supply evidence for the prosecution). But it is not illegal to masturbate whatever your age, or to have consensual sex with another adult, no matter how kinky. Therefore producing images or videos of such acts for personal use should not be illegal either.
A more pertinent 'exception proving the rule' is that it's legal to have sex at 16, but not to be filmed having sex until you're 18. Strange, but there it is. The law is clear: if you're in a porn video, you need to be 18 or older. No exceptions.

There will always be aspects of "for the greater good" in any given law. In this case, the aspect is "if the video were to be distributed, it could do harm to the child" - therefore you make the possession and creation of the video illegal, even if it was for personal use only. Doing anything else makes it too difficult to police: under your scenario the tape (or, these days, smartphone) is legal if the kid holds it, but what if an adult holds it? Even if the adult doesn't know what's on there?

Do I think it's ridiculous that a child can be arrested for the creation and distribution of child pornography just by taking a picture of themselves in a state of undress with a smartphone? Absolutely. Can I think of any other way of making that law work without making it easier for ne'er-do-wells to take advantage? Not immediately, no.

Laws need to be very carefully thought out, and my biggest issue with all of this is that what Cameron is proposing has not been thought out at all. He's even admitted as much.
miller 23rd July 2013, 11:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
We allready have that, please look up what's been happening in the last few weeks.
Prism, Tempura, GCHQ, Snowden...

Please look up the facts about what's been happening with GCHQ accessing Prism data, it's been done illegally.

In short it's alleged that GCHQ has circumvented UK laws by accessing information on UK citizens directly from Prism, GCHQ is bound by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to seek approval for intercepting material from telecoms and UK-based internet companies.

UK law requires that any directed surveillance is focused on a specific individual or premises. There is a clear concern that the collection of the relevant information was not collected as part of a directed operation, and if that has happened the legality of obtaining the information is far from clear.

When I said, "Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?"

I meant that 24/7 in-depth monitoring will become the "legal norm" that is not being done covertly in a back handed probably illegal manner by accessing Prism or GCHQ exceeding their powers of monitoring and surveillance on UK citizens as appears to have been happening, in other words, GCHQ has been doing what it wants to and will continue doing the same but with our knowledge of them doing it and it won't be something that you can opt out of if you want to access the internet.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 12:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
There will always be aspects of "for the greater good" in any given law. In this case, the aspect is "if the video were to be distributed, it could do harm to the child" - therefore you make the possession and creation of the video illegal, even if it was for personal use only. Doing anything else makes it too difficult to police: under your scenario the tape (or, these days, smartphone) is legal if the kid holds it, but what if an adult holds it? Even if the adult doesn't know what's on there?

Do I think it's ridiculous that a child can be arrested for the creation and distribution of child pornography just by taking a picture of themselves in a state of undress with a smartphone? Absolutely. Can I think of any other way of making that law work without making it easier for ne'er-do-wells to take advantage? Not immediately, no.

Laws need to be very carefully thought out, and my biggest issue with all of this is that what Cameron is proposing has not been thought out at all. He's even admitted as much.

Indeed, which is why we have courts of law where every case can be judged on its individual circumstances. What Cameron proposes however is blanket enforcement, and as you say, such measures need to be very carefully thought through, because there is no opportunity to do so after the fact in a court of law.
Ending Credits 23rd July 2013, 12:34 Quote
Personally, I don't mind content blocks for public wifi and phones etc. If the majority parents want to restrict browsing for their children they need at least something put in place for the places they don't have control over. Yes it is restrictive to the general population, but it's not really that intrusive. Think of it like putting all the porn mags on the top shelf.

But:

An opt-out content block? Why not opt-in? Are current commercial blocks too expensive or ineffective? Are parents not to be trusted in looking after their children? Is the government saying watching porn is bad? For the health benefits of a regular wank and the enjoyment it brings many people, surely that makes it a positive? Yes, there are people who get the wrong impression from porn, but isn't that because they don't know the alternative?

Plus such a block is laughable and sets dangerous precedence for further blocks of ever more questionability. Frankly, the government doesn't seem to have any idea how the internet works and the impression I get is that they'd be quite happy to block it altogether rather than have to face the reality and embracing the huge benefits.

Also, all this talk about 'protecting' children from porn or disturbing images - why do we use the word 'protecting' and why do we need to protect them? Yes, I agree, it's hardly suitable for children, but then lots of things aren't (Should we be 'protecting' them from political broadcasts?). Yes, there is definitely reason to restrict access of pornography to children but the overly hysterical method parents (or that the media depicts parents) as going about it coupled with the hypersexualisation of so many aspects of our culture seems like it does more harm than good. Perhaps our victorian legacy prevents us from talking openly about sex leading to overcompensation in how we deal with and express it.

Also, 'extreme' pornography. The major argument I see for banning it seems to be that it encourages engaging in the act itself but that's similar to saying violent video games encourage violence, which is already looking highly in-credible. Plus there's the reverse argument that access to such meaterial could provide an outlet for such desires - possibly as incorect as the previous argument but goes to show that the coin balances out. The other argument would be that it engourages people to go and engage in these activities to create the material but lets not forget that most porn is all acted anyway, simulated rape is just an extension of that acting, plus lets not forget that porn can be drawn and written as well. Laws that prohibit the viewing of media generated by illegal activities are sensible, laws that prohibit the viewing of media depicting illegal activities are not. The only other argument I can think of is that it's all simpy distasteful which frankly is one of the stupidest non-arguments I've ever heard. Frankly, the only concernign thing about extreme porn is the potential ability to shift attitudes and create false impressions, and that really isn't going to be helped by driving it to the black market.

Also, on the subject of hysteria, why do we seem to get that much more (read: several hundred times) uptight about child porn than rape? Yes it causes phsycological damage and yes, the viewing of it encourages the exploitation of children, but lets not forget that you encourage the exploitation of children every time you eat a chocolate bar. No, I'm not sayng it's in any way eithically justified or that it should be legalised, but lets just get some perspective here, is child abuse that much worse than rape? I agree that it is more serious and that child porn is worse than non-simulated rape porn, but to the degree that so many people seem to think?

I think in general we shouldn't be so concerned with what people use for sexual gratification, it's really no different from the sort of films we like to watch or the sort of music we like to listen to. Plus, lets not forget the last time we used to persecute particular sexual inclinations - to the degree we drove one of our national heroes to suicide.

Also, the government needs to start educating itself on the internet, fast.
Ivoryspike 23rd July 2013, 13:02 Quote
I'd love to know what the pro-filter camp think about adult babies and what they get up to? Dressing up as young as you could possibly be and sometimes incorporating sexual acts. Do they deserve to be locked up? Are they pedophiles? Lets filter anything to do with that.

It's not my cup of tea but after seeing the documentary on channel 4 I can at least emphasize that there are people out there, consenting adults, that want to play dress up with their partner or others. Should the C4 program be censored? What about the people who made the program, lock them up too?

What about S&M, simulated domination with small doses of real pain, lets lock them up too! After all violence, 'torture' and abuse is 'detestable'.

There are lots of things I may think 'wtf' to but I hardly think it's fair for me to impose my views on others and call for them to be persecuted. We might as well go back to a religious state and let them tell us what we can and can not do.
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 13:09 Quote
I think the only thing I can even partly agree with Cameron on is that Porn is damaging youths.

In that, maybe, just maybe, some kids are watching enough porn that they think that's how a healthy relationship works.

It can't be that uncommon. People believe you can walk into a store in America and buy a light machine gun and enough bullets to massacre a small country thanks to movies..
LennyRhys 23rd July 2013, 13:17 Quote
@Gareth, yep I totally misunderstood you (apologies again) and you’ve made your position very clear.

The proposal will certainly prove intrusive for some people, however the stark reality is that a lot of so-called “rape myth” porn is in fact borderline abuse anyway, and that’s why the proposal has my seal of approval - prohibiting that sort of material is a good thing. Like you say, it’s very difficult to implement a control measure that treats individual cases as their respective circumstances warrant, so the baby will inevitably go out with the bathwater on this one.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 13:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
I think the only thing I can even partly agree with Cameron on is that Porn is damaging youths.

In that, maybe, just maybe, some kids are watching enough porn that they think that's how a healthy relationship works.

It can't be that uncommon. People believe you can walk into a store in America and buy a light machine gun and enough bullets to massacre a small country thanks to movies..

You'd expect that parents would disabuse them of any such crazy notions, wouldn't you?

The same people that vehemently object to children being exposed to pornography often also object to sex education in schools. Seems to me that the latter would be the best defence against the former, and that what would be best of all is if parents teach children about healthy intimacy.

But often they don't. Instead they force their children to give relatives a hug or a kiss even if they don't want to. First rule taught: you have no personal space or boundaries. Your body is not yours to withhold from unwanted physical touch. And that is just the first lesson... The next is that sex is dirty or at least embarrassing and masturbation is sinful. Your relatives get to touch your body, but you can't. And then there is the pretty overt, in-your-face sexualisation of women everywhere. Check out the commercials, the tabloids (currently rejoicing in the fact that Chloe Moretz has just turned sixteen and it is now legal to lust over her. Well, Emma Watson is getting on a bit by now...), the glossy mags.

It's not just about the porn.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 13:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
@Gareth, yep I totally misunderstood you (apologies again) and you’ve made your position very clear.

The proposal will certainly prove intrusive for some people, however the stark reality is that a lot of so-called “rape myth” porn is in fact borderline abuse anyway, and that’s why the proposal has my seal of approval - prohibiting that sort of material is a good thing.
Er, who is the government to decide that? I could argue that all porn is a form of abuse (of the participants). I could similarly argue that many mutually consenting relationships between adults are so dysfunctional as to be abusive. Shall we ban those? Or shall we ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco as acts that are abusive, or at least colluding with abuse? Where do you draw the line?
Quote:
Originally Posted by LennyRhys
Like you say, it’s very difficult to implement a control measure that treats individual cases as their respective circumstances warrant, so the baby will inevitably go out with the bathwater on this one.

Tricky if you happen to be the baby.
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 14:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You'd expect that parents would disabuse them of any such crazy notions, wouldn't you?

The same people that vehemently object to children being exposed to pornography often also object to sex education in schools. Seems to me that the latter would be the best defence against the former, and that what would be best of all is if parents teach children about healthy intimacy.

But often they don't. Instead they force their children to give relatives a hug or a kiss even if they don't want to. First rule taught: you have no personal space or boundaries. Your body is not yours to withhold from unwanted physical touch. And that is just the first lesson... The next is that sex is dirty or at least embarrassing and masturbation is sinful. Your relatives get to touch your body, but you can't. And then there is the pretty overt, in-your-face sexualisation of women everywhere. Check out the commercials, the tabloids (currently rejoicing in the fact that Chloe Moretz has just turned sixteen and it is now legal to lust over her. Well, Emma Watson is getting on a bit by now...), the glossy mags.

It's not just about the porn.

These days, I don't hope anything about parents. Most of the parents I see are barely qualified to pick their own nose, let alone explain the difference between porn and a healthy sexual relationship..

Really, though, even with all that the parents should be (Although most aren't/dont care/want someone else to do it) able to gauge their childs mental age and inform accordingly. Obviously no sprogs on my part, but surely as a parent you get to know what your kid is capable of understanding?

Personally, I'm looking forward to having a kid, and imparting some knowledge about women on TV & the internet and women in real life.
Ending Credits 23rd July 2013, 14:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Or shall we ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco as acts that are abusive, or at least colluding with abuse?

At least banning alcohol and tobacco would restrict access to those somewhat. It's interesting to think what would happen if you did. 1.) Alcohol becomes homebrewed in secret, becomes agnostic to age and large batches of 10-40l a time require consuming, the alcohol content of which would be entirely unpredictable. 2.) Tobacco becomes something akin the cannabis fuelling crime and ruining the lives of countless people, even responsible consmers, through criminal persecution.

So seems like banning things doesn't always solve the problem anyway.
miller 23rd July 2013, 14:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You'd expect that parents would disabuse them of any such crazy notions, wouldn't you?

The same people that vehemently object to children being exposed to pornography often also object to sex education in schools. Seems to me that the latter would be the best defence against the former, and that what would be best of all is if parents teach children about healthy intimacy.

But often they don't. Instead they force their children to give relatives a hug or a kiss even if they don't want to. First rule taught: you have no personal space or boundaries. Your body is not yours to withhold from unwanted physical touch. And that is just the first lesson... The next is that sex is dirty or at least embarrassing and masturbation is sinful. Your relatives get to touch your body, but you can't. And then there is the pretty overt, in-your-face sexualisation of women everywhere. Check out the commercials, the tabloids (currently rejoicing in the fact that Chloe Moretz has just turned sixteen and it is now legal to lust over her. Well, Emma Watson is getting on a bit by now...), the glossy mags.

It's not just about the porn.

Forget about teaching your children all that embarrassing ( for the parents) stuff, besides, many parents are too busy teaching their children far more important things.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/kid-shooting-gun.jpg
KidMod-Southpaw 23rd July 2013, 14:44 Quote
'Murica.
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 15:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Er, who is the government to decide that?

Unless i have misunderstood, yes it is the government that decides on new laws and changes to existing ones.
liratheal 23rd July 2013, 15:32 Quote
I love that she's wearing elbow, knee and head protection, but no safety glasses..
Shirty 23rd July 2013, 15:35 Quote
It's a shame that the photo crops out the rollerblades...
LightningPete 23rd July 2013, 16:58 Quote
I think you all need to re-evaluate your day jobs because your all political economical experts :)
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 17:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Unless i have misunderstood, yes it is the government that decides on new laws and changes to existing ones.

And unfortunately it ignores the opinions of the experts that it consults on those.
Corky42 23rd July 2013, 18:00 Quote
Either that or it sexes up the reports to suite their agenda.
Fordy 23rd July 2013, 18:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Why aren't you all already up in arms that this standard on most mobile networks?
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
Just checked my phone, no blocks and I've never opted in, or I don't remember doing so .

I hate to insult your intelligence.. but you definitely had WiFi off?

Most of them do I think.

EE, someone else said Virgin, GiffGaff do which probably indicates that O2 do.
CrazyJoe 23rd July 2013, 18:24 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fordy
I hate to insult your intelligence.. but you definitely had WiFi off?

Most of them do I think.

EE, someone else said Virgin, GiffGaff do which probably indicates that O2 do.

Wifi is off, I'm on 3.

I thought the mobile thing was because they can't tell if you're under 18 or not. Maybe because they have my details since I'm on contract or since I've paid with my credit card before they know I'm over 18.
Fordy 23rd July 2013, 18:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
Wifi is off, I'm on 3.

I thought the mobile thing was because they can't tell if you're under 18 or not. Maybe because they have my details since I'm on contract or since I've paid with my credit card before they know I'm over 18.

Ah yeah maybe. Might've just filled in 'profile' or whatever saying your 18. I know GiffGaff explicitly ask you to opt in to 'Adult Content'. I had to do it because their detection was blocking some several non adult sites.. Reddit understandably, but I think they were using that adult content HTML marker, because some perfectly kid friendly sites were blocked.
Nexxo 23rd July 2013, 19:52 Quote
" A moral system valid for all is basically immoral" --Nietzsche
mdshann 24th July 2013, 01:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Forget about teaching your children all that embarrassing ( for the parents) stuff, besides, many parents are too busy teaching their children far more important things.

http://www.cyclelicio.us/wp-content/uploads/2012/06/kid-shooting-gun.jpg

The gun in that photo is for competitions. Surely you do that sort of thing on your little island, I mean after all you send a shooting team to the Olympics every year. Are you telling me your Olympic athletes in the shooting sports picked up their first gun after they were adults? I call bull...

This is just another example of people giving up their rights in the name of safety. In the end, your children will not be any safer and you will no longer have any semblance of a free internet. It's the same thing that happened when you allowed them to take your guns away. Now you face life in prison for defending yourselves, or just roll over and let the crooks do whatever they want. Seems we are right behind you guys...
RedFlames 24th July 2013, 02:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mdshann
Surely you do that sort of thing on your little island, I mean after all you send a shooting team to the Olympics every year. Are you telling me your Olympic athletes in the shooting sports picked up their first gun after they were adults? I call bull...

Our shooting teams have to train overseas for the most part. We also send athletes to winter sports competitions like the winter Olympics, yet those athletes have to go to Switzerland or Canada to train.

Just because a country fields entrants for a competition does not necessarily mean they are capable of practising the activity/sport in said country [for whatever reason]...

See also: Jamaican Bob-sleigh team.
eddie543 24th July 2013, 03:06 Quote
I'm curious as to the workability of this system.

Questions:

1) How much will this cost the consumer?

Just to start this system is being placed upon ISPs to block legal pornographic content with an opt out system. If this costs ISPs more then a large portion of this is going to be on the consumer as a result of high market price inelasticity of demand for having an internet connection.

Which with the internet being an essential tool for the economy pricing more people out would not be brilliant either.


2) How likely is implementation of this going to affect non pornographic content?

The degree of this could have huge costs for businesses and the wider economy as a whole.

3) How effective is it going to be blocking content, how easy to get around it?

I.E proxies etc

4) Tie in with 3, How effective is the block on illegal material going to be considering large portions of this occurs through the dark underbelly of the internet to evade detection anyway?

5) Is there a basis for reclassifying extreme material into illegal material in the evidence of related sciences?
By what I mean is does the rape porn fortify desires or satisfy an urge? Will it work or be counter intuitive?

6) How much harm does legal porn actually do to society, from the evidence?

7) To surmise the costs in just the internet market and to business as well how much is this going to hinder long term growth if the system is inefficient and high cost?

8) Are there better ways of controlling child viewing of material?

A lot of arguments against this state it's up to the parents. However parents aren't going to learn how to police the internet or stop giving kids connected devices that can be used in private just because who ever is shouting at them that they should. Likewise would a block make parents complacent about issues of inappropriate content that are not pornographic, like anorexia networks.

9) Is mental health support more important in combating possible related issues than restricting the viewing of legal content?

I likely have more questions than that, which I haven't thought of yet. It's a topic that throws up more questions than would be expected. Like just now: How effective will a block be if it blocked say ann summers? It's a very popular sex related outlet so if many remove a block just to use that site or those like it, it could render the scheme much more ineffective.
Xir 24th July 2013, 08:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
Please look up the facts about what's been happening with GCHQ accessing Prism data, it's been done illegally.
I sure hope so, doesn't mean they're not doing it, does it?
You don't want them to officially use this data, but you condone them doing it illigally?
Quote:
Originally Posted by liratheal
I love that she's wearing elbow, knee and head protection, but no safety glasses..
No safety glasses needed.
It looks like a Biathlon, well without the snow, a summer Biathlon.

In this case it would be sport. No problem finding similar pictures with semi-auto attack weapons though.

That said, I only know the rules in Germany.
Sport shooting (the olympic discipline) in sport clubs is allowed from 12 upwards with certain air-weapons, and 14 upwards with small-calibre weapons (usually .22)
On private property, it is alowed ONLY from 18 upwards.

Funny enough, shooting at a fair, is allowed regardless of age. :D
Corky42 24th July 2013, 08:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
I'm curious as to the workability of this system.

Questions:

1) How much will this cost the consumer?

Just to start this system is being placed upon ISPs to block legal pornographic content with an opt out system. If this costs ISPs more then a large portion of this is going to be on the consumer as a result of high market price inelasticity of demand for having an internet connection.

Which with the internet being an essential tool for the economy pricing more people out would not be brilliant either.
Probably nothing initially but give it a few years for the prices to start climbing.
On the plus side we have all saved money as the Government has cut the child exploitation and online protection (CEOP) budget by %10 this year. While at the same time the firms that Cameron wants to implement these controls have pledged £1m
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
2) How likely is implementation of this going to affect non pornographic content?
It will defiantly affect non pornographic content as Cameron has said he also wants it to cover suicide, self harm, and industry insiders have already come out and said how it will affect non pornographic web sites such as underwear or swimsuit websites with bikini images, for example. Then you have children looking for sexual health advise possibly being blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
3) How effective is it going to be blocking content, how easy to get around it?
It will only be affective at blocking accidental viewing, as any person with half a brain can use proxies, VPN's, etc, etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
4) Tie in with 3, How effective is the block on illegal material going to be considering large portions of this occurs through the dark underbelly of the internet to evade detection anyway?
The scum trading in illegal material will be laughing at Cameron as CEOP's budget has been cut so if anything they are less likely to get caught. CEOP identify 50,000 cases of accessing child abuse online but can only pursue 2,000 a yr.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
5) Is there a basis for reclassifying extreme material into illegal material in the evidence of related sciences?
By what I mean is does the rape porn fortify desires or satisfy an urge? Will it work or be counter intuitive?
There is evidence to support both sides, some claim it makes people more likely to act out what they have seen, some claim its the opposite and that it actually satisfy an urge. My own personal opinion is like most things in life its the person that commits the crime, just because you play a violent video game or watch a movie it doesn't mean you will the act out what you have seen.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
6) How much harm does legal porn actually do to society, from the evidence?
AFAIK there is no empirical evidence to suggest it is doing harm to society.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
7) To surmise the costs in just the internet market and to business as well how much is this going to hinder long term growth if the system is inefficient and high cost?
IDK, sorry :|
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
8) Are there better ways of controlling child viewing of material?
Yes its called parental responsibility as they should know when there child is mentally mature enough to deal with subjects of a sexual nature and are best positioned to teach what is a healthy attitude towards sex and what is normal/acceptable.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
A lot of arguments against this state it's up to the parents. However parents aren't going to learn how to police the internet or stop giving kids connected devices that can be used in private just because who ever is shouting at them that they should. Likewise would a block make parents complacent about issues of inappropriate content that are not pornographic, like anorexia networks.
Well you only have to look at the parents of little Danny who run up £1,700 iPad bill in ten minutes to see why the need for educating parents on the dangers of the internet is there. There is no doubt it will make some parents complacent as why do they need to address these issues if they have put a block in place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by eddie543
9) Is mental health support more important in combating possible related issues than restricting the viewing of legal content?
You mean treating the causes and not the symptoms ? i would say yes, but judging on other problems like drug abuse and alcohol abuse i would say society feels better about treating the symptoms than the causes.
liratheal 24th July 2013, 09:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
I sure hope so, doesn't mean they're not doing it, does it?
You don't want them to officially use this data, but you condone them doing it illigally?


No safety glasses needed.
It looks like a Biathlon, well without the snow, a summer Biathlon.

In this case it would be sport. No problem finding similar pictures with semi-auto attack weapons though.

That said, I only know the rules in Germany.
Sport shooting (the olympic discipline) in sport clubs is allowed from 12 upwards with certain air-weapons, and 14 upwards with small-calibre weapons (usually .22)
On private property, it is alowed ONLY from 18 upwards.

Funny enough, shooting at a fair, is allowed regardless of age. :D

Regardless of what sport it is (Tbh, I like shooting, if I had the money and time I'd have a firearms license and I'd go shooting), I'd never let my child (If I had one) shoot any gun without some safety glasses. It might only be a .22, or even a .177 air rifle, but whatever it is, eyesight is important.
Korvus 24th July 2013, 09:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
" A moral system valid for all is basically immoral" --Nietzsche
While you can argue that there are "universal morals" this assumes everyone has basic common sense :) Further on this, said "universal" morals quickly spiral out of control the more you define them in detail, and soon everyone has a different view again.

A quote I feel particularly relevant myself to this debate:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mark Twain
Censorship is telling a man he can't have a steak just because a baby can't chew it.
Corky42 24th July 2013, 10:29 Quote
If we are on a quote roll :) some more about censorship that made me say 'damn right'
Quote:
Originally Posted by Clare Boothe Luce
Censorship, like charity, should begin at home, but, unlike charity, it should end there.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Potter Stewart
Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeremy Bentham
As to the evil which results from a censorship, it is impossible to measure it, for it is impossible to tell where it ends.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cannon
These censorship people think something is going to promote behavior in people.
Quote:
Originally Posted by John Gilmour
The internet interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milos Forman
People must not think that all bad in man which is unleashed, the moment you impose censorship disappears from man.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jay-Z
We change people through conversation, not through censorship.
Valinor 24th July 2013, 11:13 Quote
Circling back to the issue of the filters, I was trying to think of which families these filters would actually help.

First of all, you have the families with technologically-literate parents, and (assuming they're somewhat responsible) they should be able to monitor/control their children's net access anyway. So not helping that set.

There are the families where neither the parents nor children are particularly good with the internet, and in this case I could see a filter being somewhat effective, as the kids wouldn't know how to get past it. Therefore, it would help this demographic.

However, there is the (probably much larger) demographic of families where the children are far better with "the internet" than their parents - reasonably likely in this day and age. The problem here is that the parents may well not opt-out from these filters and assume that it means their children can't access porn at all. This would be reinforced by the government, which would obviously try and convince people that their filters were perfectly effective (they couldn't really say anything else tbh). A false sense of security for the parents could ensue, resulting in them being more lax about actual parental intervention than they may otherwise have been.

There's probably a great quote somewhere summing this up in a sentence, but unfortunately I haven't seen it.
miller 24th July 2013, 11:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
I sure hope so, doesn't mean they're not doing it, does it?
You don't want them to officially use this data, but you condone them doing it illigally?

Frankly none of that paragraph makes any sense to me?
Where did I say that "I condone them for doing it illegally" actually, just forget it, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all, end of, unsubscribe.
Andy Mc 24th July 2013, 12:16 Quote
The wife fails to see why this is a bad idea, even after me explaining it as simply as i can. Sadly I think she will be in the majority here.
Mighty Yoshimi 24th July 2013, 12:19 Quote
Get onto the Number 10 website and sign the e-petition against this if you feel strongly against it. Not sure how much good it'll do but it's better than doing nothing!

My concern is where does this censoring stop.
RedFlames 24th July 2013, 13:02 Quote
Cameron ‘Porn’ Advisor’s website ‘hacked’

Not only is her website hacked... she shows a worrying [and depressing] lack of knowledge of how the internet works...
Xir 24th July 2013, 13:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mc
The wife fails to see why this is a bad idea, even after me explaining it as simply as i can. Sadly I think she will be in the majority here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mighty Yoshimi
My concern is where does this censoring stop.

Yes, it IS difficult to explain, it sounds so good at first, doesn't it?

You already have laws agains "illegal" content. All based on non-consensual sex.
Child-porn / underage sex is non-consensual.
Bestiality is non-consensual.
Rape is non-consensual per definition.
I can think of a few more really.

Now however, in this statement, there is a change in quality. It's not about blocking non-consensual sex anymore, it about blocking "simulated" non-consensual sex.

Again, this sounds great, block "simulated" rape. Who could be against it?

For me, the next step would be to ban "simulated" child-porn. Doesn't that sound just as good?

What is simulated child porn?
The law says under 18 hmmmmm.
  • No more japanese in school uniforms.
  • No more old american girls with a plaid skirts and pigtails and a lollipop.
  • No more shaved pubes.
  • Heck all asian girls look underaged to me, ban them too!

Talk about a slippery slope.
Corky42 24th July 2013, 13:28 Quote
I cant believe Claire Perry said what she did on twitter

EDIT:
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mc
The wife fails to see why this is a bad idea, even after me explaining it as simply as i can. Sadly I think she will be in the majority here.

From reading the link RedFlames kindly provided on Claire Perry's site being hacked and her defamatory, threatening comments to Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes) on twitter, i followed his link to the Sun's article on the subject.

So if anyone you know has problems with understanding why this is a bad idea, just point them to the Sun article. Something that should interest the majority is the following from the article...
Quote:
Again, he’s right in calling them horrific. But long before there was an internet, a host of movies used forced sex as a plotline.

Off the top of the head, Ingmar Bergman’s 1960 film The Virgin Spring and the 1970 Clint Eastwood spaghetti western Two Mules For Sister Sara are classic examples.

Coronation Street, EastEnders, Emmerdale, Hollyoaks and Brookside have all churned out soap storylines based around rape. So too Casualty, Holby City, Mad Men, Beverley Hills 90210 and many more telly dramas.
Ivoryspike 24th July 2013, 14:48 Quote
Hmmm

Explained to my GF about this, was not looking forward to it but was pleasantly surprised that she is dead against it and saw the danger in censorship and the pointlessness of the filter. Great stuff.

On the other hand I was completely disappointed in my friend (who's the most deviant person out of anyone I know), he not only agreed but wanted it to go further. He could not recognize that he wanted to censor someone (consenting) and yet wouldn't like it himself... frustrating.

Think we should setup a petition with Avaaz pointing to the UK petition? 24 million members, might create more sign ups from British members and awareness in general. They helped out with ACTA and other such evils - http://www.avaaz.org/en/highlights.php

I could do it as a member, but perhaps someone more articulate might want to do it?
Nexxo 24th July 2013, 17:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
I cant believe Claire Perry said what she did on twitter

I don't know about porn censorship, but they certainly should block politicians' access to Twitter. :p
Corky42 24th July 2013, 20:38 Quote
Something i don't understand (maybe someone can enlighten me), In the past Sally Bercow made headlines over a libellous tweet about Lord McAlpine. Maybe foolishly i was expecting a similar thing when RedFlames posted details of David Cameron’s technologically illiterate self-appointed wannabe Net Nanny, Claire Perry being defamatory, and threatening to Paul Staines (aka Guido Fawkes)

Even though it only happened yesterday and a letter is being sent to Claire Perry asking her to retract her statements there has been nothing in the headlines. Am i showing my lack of understanding on the difference of what is libellous, defamatory, or threatening, by that i mean is being libellous worse than being defamatory, or threatening ?

Or are the headlines just being biased ?
RedFlames 24th July 2013, 21:01 Quote
Lord McAlpine has lots of money, that probably has something to do with it...
Tynecider 24th July 2013, 21:57 Quote
Say, Does Dennis publishing own any top shelf grumble mags?

If so, I would like to buy 2000 shares ;-)

Numbered are the days of ALT-TAB and "Hidden folders", bring back the good old "porn stash" under the mattress.

Frankie Boyle says (or words to extent).......
Quote:
The coming of age will be defined by a young lad ringing up Virgin Broadband with his dads best voice, Asking for the Internet filter to be removed allowing him to have a wank!

LOL.
.//TuNdRa 25th July 2013, 02:54 Quote
The issue I take with laws like this isn't in the way that they can be abused or how badly written they are; it's in the complete and utter lack of knowledge that most of the people enacting them have regarding the systems they're attempting to limit or thwart, Claire Perry's website and reactions, for example.

My concern is that these people will eventually win their way and ISPs will have no choice but to acquiesce, which will lead to successively deeper cycles of idiocy as random things get blocked, and it all still proves to be ineffectual simply because it's impossible to completely block things in the manner they're attempting (See: TPB ban. There's over 100 proxies to that now.)

Plus if it does just turn into a list of websites and domains that get blocked; who monitors the list, will it be up in the public domain for people to see? Or will it be hidden away, with no sanity filter to stop the odd politician from banning whatever website they take a disliking to on the day?

I mean, unless they go the completely extreme method of blocking any URL and searches for "Proxy" or "TOR"; there'll always be a way around such a system, most of the children I know of are intelligent enough that, were they to put their minds to the task; could easily thwart any blocking system in their path, even if it was just by going through one of the numerous proxies that are designed to allow access to Facebook and similar.

Sadly; we're stuck in a time where those of us who are knowledgeable enough about such a system aren't in a high enough position of power to ensure that such frankly insane actions aren't pushed forwards like this.
Corky42 25th July 2013, 07:21 Quote
Well at least Claire Perry is starting to make headlines, maybe it will open peoples eyes a little.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/media/2013/jul/24/guido-fawkes-threatens-sue-mp-hacking
Nexxo 25th July 2013, 07:45 Quote
I imagine that David and Claire took some advice from their IT department in the matter, and the conversation went a bit like this:

iDbyYGrswtg
Xir 25th July 2013, 08:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tynecider
Numbered are the days of ALT-TAB and "Hidden folders", bring back the good old "porn stash" under the mattress.

Which reminds me that I've got a box of study documents I haven't opened in over a decade that probably holds a white paper bag on the bottom that needs to be discarded before my kids start burrying through it.
Tynecider 26th July 2013, 17:21 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xir
Which reminds me that I've got a box of study documents I haven't opened in over a decade that probably holds a white paper bag on the bottom that needs to be discarded before my kids start burrying through it.

That would be an episode, Glad to be of assistance ;)

I just had a giggle thinking about my awkward episode with porn many many years ago.

Back in my school days, my mother found my grumble stash and I got a dose of the old "you effing dare bring that filth into my home again", She slammed my bedroom door afterwards while I was sitting about with my mates, Embarrassing no, Funny yes, Let me explain..
She never ever looked on the back of my door, And being a rebel teenager I chose this place to enshrine with all the choice centerfold's from Hustler and the like.
My mates thought the whole episode was funny as f*ck, The irony made me giggle too.
This brought on a fresh wave of piss taking "I hear your mum likes to bang centerfolds" etc etc from my mates, You had to be there.
Anyways, The following week I come across my prized mags stashed between some records but can't figure out why the hell they are back in my room, or how the bloody hell they got there.

My Dad (bless his memory) pulls me to one side and tells me with a wink to not let mother find them again!
Seems the dirty sod found them lying in the recycler and decided he would miss them too.

Good times, Cheers Dad! :D
LennyRhys 26th July 2013, 20:49 Quote
^ Now that is just ridiculous. If you leave all the boxes ticked, what's the point in surfing the net at all?

Re. the whole "censorship" thing, people need to be careful with the words they use - the only censorship taking place is the new legislation regarding rape porn; the filter itself is not censorship.
Nexxo 26th July 2013, 21:32 Quote
Oh, cool. The British government is going to get the Chinese government to monitor and censor our Internet access for it. Now that's what I call outsourcing.
Corky42 26th July 2013, 21:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Oh, cool. The British government is going to get the Chinese government to monitor and censor our Internet access for it. Now that's what I call outsourcing.

Well we all know how well the UK government has handled other large IT projects in the past.
RichCreedy 26th July 2013, 22:14 Quote
can the isp's just block all the mp's internet connections, and leave the rest of us to get on with it. make it look like the web is censored to the mp's
RedFlames 26th July 2013, 23:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Well we all know how well the UK government has handled other large IT projects in the past.
most MPs/civil servant's couldn't organise a shag in a brothel... it's not matter of *if* they'll mess 'it' [whatever 'it' happens to be at the time] up, it's when, and how badly...
Tynecider 27th July 2013, 07:42 Quote
Quote:
Paul Joseph Watson
Prison Planet.com
July 26, 2013

Fears that the UK is moving towards the kind of web censorship system imposed by Communist China have increased after it was revealed that the website filtering blacklist set to be imposed by the end of next year will be controlled by a company with close ties to the People’s Liberation Army (PLA).
UK Web Censorship Filter Controlled by Communist Chinese Front Company

“The pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei,” reports the BBC, noting that Huawei’s founder is Ren Zhengfei, a former officer in China’s People’s Liberation Army and a Communist Party member.

As we reported last week, every Internet user in the UK will have their traffic run through a filtering system that will blacklist pornographic websites. The system set to be used is called Homesafe, which is run by Huawei-subsidiary Talktalk.

Even if the user opts out of the filter, they will “still have their traffic routed through the system.” In other countries that have attempted to impose similar systems, political and activist websites have also ended up on the blacklist.

China’s Internet censorship system, known as ‘the great firewall of China’, blocks porn as well as any political content that is critical of the ruling Communist Party. Activists in China who attempt to use the web to express dissent against the state are routinely arrested.

“The alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State are concerning, as they generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or are more political,” a recent Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report concluded.

Dr Martyn Thomas, chair of the IT policy panel at the Institution of Engineering and Technology, told the BBC that the process of building the blacklist could ensnare websites that have nothing to do with pornography.

“You could easily imagine a commercial organisation finding itself on that blacklist wrongly, and where they actually lost a lot of web traffic completely silently and suffered commercial damage. The issue is who gets to choose who’s on that blocking list, and what accountability do they have?”, said Thomas.

Given Huawei’s ties to the Chinese government, the process of having Internet traffic routed through their system also raises privacy concerns and the risk that huge databases of private web history could be kept.

According to former head of the CIA and the National Security Agency Michael Hayden, Huawei Technologies has “shared with the Chinese state intimate and extensive knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with.”

The company was also the subject of a US congressional investigation on national security grounds in 2008 over allegations that Huawei-made telecommunications equipment is designed to allow unauthorized access by the Chinese government and the Chinese People’s Liberation Army.

A 2008 DoD report found that Huawei and other related Chinese technology firms “maintain close ties to the PLA and collaborate on research and development.”

Technical problems may also arise in terms of Internet bandwidth speed given that the process of running every website through a filtering system can cause lags, as it does in China.

Numerous lawmakers in America have called for a Chinese-style web censorship system to be imposed in the US, prime amongst them Joe Lieberman, who in 2010 told CNN, “Right now China, the government, can disconnect parts of its Internet in case of war and we need to have that here too.”

SOURCE
Corky42 27th July 2013, 08:32 Quote
IET Warns UK The Great Firewall of Cameron will be Ineffective and Harmful.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Martyn Thomas from the IET

“Every illegal image is a crime scene but law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to identify, locate and protect every victim, nor to identify, and charge every abuser. More resources must be provided. That is the top priority and legislation to block access will do nothing to help, whilst making it harder for troubled adolescents to search for on sexual health and sexual identity issues.

Protecting children from seeing legal adult pornography, online exploitation and sexting are different issues that are best addressed by parents following the excellent advice provided by GetSafeOnline and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency (CEOP), and teaching their children to do the same.

Universal blocking of websites, search terms and content is a blunt and ineffective tool. Such blocks can easily be circumvented, and children will continue to share ways to access sites that their friends tell them about, whether the content is pornography or music files. The serious criminals are already using encryption, onion routers and other technical means to hide their activities, which blocking by ISPs will not affect.

The internet was designed to withstand serious damage and it treats censorship as damage and provides routes around it. There is no quick technical fix that will protect children – it needs education, responsible parenting and more resources for enforcing the laws that already exist.”
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/07/iet-warns-uk-isp-internet-porn-filter-will-be-ineffective-and-harmful.html
Corky42 27th July 2013, 10:54 Quote
When a survivor of sexual abuse speaks out about Cameron's proposals, it makes you sit up and take notice.
http://zine.openrightsgroup.org/features/2013/porn-blocking

Even youth advice charities are warning of the harm this filtering will cause.
Quote:
Originally Posted by www.youthnet.org
How these filters will work in practice is as yet unclear. However, the filters used by Talk Talk to block websites include ‘Suicide and self harm, ‘Drugs, alcohol and tobacco’, areas where we provide vital support and information to young people online, when they don’t feel they can approach anyone else for help. Where will they go for anonymous support, whenever and wherever they need it?
http://www.youthnet.org/2013/07/vital-support-to-young-people-at-risk/
miller 27th July 2013, 11:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Martyn Thomas from the IET
“Every illegal image is a crime scene but law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to identify, locate and protect every victim, nor to identify, and charge every abuser. More resources must be provided. That is the top priority and legislation to block access will do nothing to help

But for some reason the UK doesn't have the available resources. :?

"UK doles out more aid than any other G8 country despite the savage cutbacks at home"
British bill for foreign aid will be £8.7bn in 2011-2012, rising to more than £12bn in 2014.

David Cameron agreed to pump millions more into foreign aid while making cuts at home. His decision led to Britain being branded the ‘soft touch’ of the international community by one of his own MPs, and a damning report released at the G8 summit reveals that Britain spends more on aid as a percentage of national income than any other G8 country – while British taxpayers suffer through an age of austerity.

The UK is spending exactly twice as much on foreign handouts as a share of Gross Domestic Product as the G8 average of the world’s leading economies.

Interestingly, At the G8 Summit held there Mr Cameron said the aid payments would protect Britain's national security interests.

SOURCE.
Nexxo 27th July 2013, 11:47 Quote
Foreign aid is a complicated issue. If you don't help Third World countries solve their poverty problems, their poverty problems will come to us. Ask any illegal immigrant or Somali pirate.
Corky42 27th July 2013, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by miller
But for some reason the UK doesn't have the available resources. :?

Actually instead of putting more effort/funding into child protection services like CEOP, the government has cut CEOP's funding by %10 this year. Ex-Staff have also disputed claims made by the prime minister that the number of police investigating child abuse has increased by 50%.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
Edwards says that the companies Cameron attacked yesterday for not doing enough to tackle online child-abuse images are among those plugging the funding gap. "Theresa May reduced the funding to CEOP, she specifically took money away from them, and now CEOP is partly funded by the NSPCC, by Google and by Microsoft, which put a huge amount of money already into the policing of our children," she said.
And...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Article
"This government has stood still for two years with regards to CEOP - CEOP's budget has, in real terms, decreased," he said. "There are 50,000 predators, we're told by CEOP, downloading images on peer-to-peer, not Google, peer-to-peer. Yet from CEOP intelligence, only 192 were arrested last year."
ripmax 27th July 2013, 13:04 Quote
It gets worse

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/sleepwalking-into-censorship
Quote:
You'll encounter something like this:

EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs

(1) Screen one

"Parental controls"
Do you want to install / enable parental controls
☑ yes
☐ no

[next]

(2) Screen two [if you have left the box ticked]

“Parental controls”

Do you want to block

☑ pornography
☑ violent material
☑ extremist and terrorist related content
☑ anorexia and eating disorder websites
☑ suicide related websites
☑ alcohol
☑ smoking
☑ web forums
☑ esoteric material
☑ web blocking circumvention tools

You can opt back in at any time

[continue]
RedFlames 27th July 2013, 13:11 Quote
99.9% of the internet could theoretically come under 'web forums' [essentially any site that allows user comments] and/or 'esoteric material'

also 'web blocking circumvention tools'... [based on experince with the the Proxy at college and uni] Google/Bing Translate et al. and archive.org are both a no-no then [both were blocked as 'proxy avoiding tools']

most of the those terms are so ridiculously vague and/or poorly defined that anyone enabling them may as well not bother having the internet...

and if this is the kinda crap they're pushing to be 'on by default' then you might as well move to china... you'll probably be able to access more stuff...
miller 27th July 2013, 13:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Foreign aid is a complicated issue. If you don't help Third World countries solve their poverty problems, their poverty problems will come to us. Ask any illegal immigrant or Somali pirate.

Somali pirates, illegal immigrants? We are talking about funding for law enforcement agencies who do not have the resources to identify, locate and protect child victims, when a government can find billions for overseas aid there is no excuse for law enforcement agencies to be underfunded especially when the UK already gives more aid than any other G8 country, I really don't see this has anything to do with Somali pirates.
Nexxo 27th July 2013, 13:33 Quote
I know, that's where you kind of go wrong. Think of foreign aid as much less of a charity and much more a part of foreign policy within a complex and ****ed up geo-politics. It isn't going to go away.

Of course the government could spend more money on law enforcement and less on vanity projects like the Olympics. But that is not its philosophy. It wants to outsource every government expenditure possible to private enterprise. So rather than paying more for law enforcement, it rather sells licences to private companies to provide some token version of it.
Corky42 27th July 2013, 14:05 Quote
At least when they privatise everything we cant blame the government for things :)
Well we can, but the Government will just blame the private firm running what ever project has gone wrong ;)
Nexxo 27th July 2013, 14:18 Quote
That's the whole idea. If you look at the changes in the NHS over the last two decades, you see that ministers are re-organising it to put an increasing number of levels of accountability between themselves and the health service at the coal face. The idea is that they can do to it what they want, but never be the ones who are actually held to account for when things go wrong.
miller 27th July 2013, 15:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I know, that's where you kind of go wrong. Think of foreign aid as much less of a charity and much more a part of foreign policy within a complex and ****ed up geo-politics. It isn't going to go away.

Of course the government could spend more money on law enforcement and less on vanity projects like the Olympics. But that is not its philosophy. It wants to outsource every government expenditure possible to private enterprise. So rather than paying more for law enforcement, it rather sells licences to private companies to provide some token version of it.

Your cynicism of politicians and governments exceeds even mine, even if there is truth in it.
(Note to self, buy some more tinfoil)
Nexxo 27th July 2013, 16:14 Quote
"The man who laughs has not yet been told the terrible news" --Bertold Brecht
Corky42 27th July 2013, 17:38 Quote
At least he is laughing :) The rest of us will be crying :'( when we realise what has been given away under the guise of protecting the children.

Allowing the government direct access to ALL internet traffic in the UK is probably one of the worst infringements of civil liberties since the anti-terrorism laws.
miller 27th July 2013, 20:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
"The man who laughs has not yet been told the terrible news" --Bertold Brecht


"What monstrous absurdities and paradoxes have resisted whole batteries of serious arguments, and then crumbled swiftly into dust before the ringing death-knell of a laugh!" ~Agnes Repplier
Nexxo 28th July 2013, 09:34 Quote
Trust me, I don't do conspiracy theories. I'm of the philosophy that common things commonly happen, and besides people are too dumb to really keep a secret and carry out some complicated nefarious scheme.

Then again, we learn about PRISM, the Metropolitan police spying on Steven Lawrence's family with the aim to discredit them, the Humberside police spying on the family of Christopher Alder after he inexplicably died in custody. Andrew Wakefield turns out to have had financial interests in patenting a vaccine that competed with the MMR jab, and a key government scientist whose research was used by ministers to argue against a ban on pesticides thought to harm bees is to join Syngenta, the chemical giant which manufactures one of the insecticides...

And yeah, Cameron's cynical publicity move does happen to involve the plan to hand a fat contract to his former school chum who runs TalkTalk, the company which is a generous party donor, and their filtering system happens to be run by Huwaei, a Chinese company set up by a former Chinese military officer, and which the NSA has stated is spying for the Chinese government. These are not huge complicated conspiracies, but organisations definitely knowingly breaking the law, and people acting duplicitously in obvious self-interest, leading to all kinds of wrong happening on a huge scale.

Wikileaks revealed a whole bunch of shenanigans, as you know. And why are the Bilderberg meetings, of the most powerful industrialists and politicians, held in strict secrecy, when the attending politicians are supposed to be acting in our interests?

Power corrupts. Every time. So although there may not be X-Files type stuff going down, and 9/11 really was just a bunch of terrorists getting lucky, there is a lot of outrageous stuff happening all the time that we don't know about. Because people are stupid and power corrupts, and nobody seems to have a ****ing sense of boundaries and ethics.
tuk 28th July 2013, 09:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
....9/11 really was just a bunch of terrorists getting lucky,

http://www.oilempire.us/oil-jpg/bushladen_network.gif

http://thenewbubusianorder.files.wordpress.com/2011/09/oilprice19471.gif
Nexxo 28th July 2013, 09:47 Quote
Well, yeah, there's all these connections. But my point is that it isn't a conspiracy. This network wasn't the embodiment of some kind of plan. It just kind of organically grew out of powerful people and organisations doing stupid and unethical things for short-term gain. It was bound to end in tears sometime.
tuk 28th July 2013, 10:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Well, yeah, there's all these connections. But my point is that it isn't a conspiracy. This network wasn't the embodiment of some kind of plan. It just kind of organically grew out of powerful people and organisations doing stupid and unethical things for short-term gain. It was bound to end in tears sometime.

There are several possibilities what might have happened, we will never know the truth now.

But one of those possibilities has to be that 9/11 was staged to manufacturer the consent of the American people & the rest of the world to invade the middle east and seize one of the largest untapped oil fields on the planet, an act which would conveniently sky rocket the price of oil, making the prize 10 times it's worth + the advantage of knowing how the markets would respond before anyone else, not to mention the trillions given to private companies to supply the hardware of said invasion.

Another possibility is the official version which goes something like: a bunch of irate shepherds from Afghanistan led by a slightly retarded dude managed to bring down the twin towers with a couple of jet planes, why? cos they are "terrorists".
Corky42 28th July 2013, 10:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by tuk
Another possibility is the official version which goes something like: a bunch of irate shepherds from Afghanistan led by a slightly retarded dude managed to bring down the twin towers with a couple of jet planes, why? cos they are "terrorists".

It goes a little deeper than just calling them "terrorists" you have to look at the reasons people feel compelled to carry out these horrific acts.
Nexxo 28th July 2013, 16:24 Quote
Moreover, a government does not need to stage a 9/11 to get people to agree to an invasion of Iraq. People are stupid and will agree to anything if you spin it right (and if anything, 9/11 was a bloody inconvenience. Records show that a plan to invade Iraq was already on the table as soon as Bush got elected. Then 9/11 happened and they had to be seen to do something about Afghanistan --a diversion of precious military resources that were meant to go to Iraq).
Corky42 28th July 2013, 18:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Moreover, a government does not need to stage a 9/11 to get people to agree to an invasion of Iraq. People are stupid and will agree to anything if you spin it right <snip>

As is evidently clear from the ISP's bending over and accepting Cameron's proposals without him even having to try getting new law's through the house of commons. something that i think would be opposed/rejected.

The four major ISP's have agreed to be 'nudged' into enforcing this filtering, and have now said how the ISPs will filter content

So now every web site any person in the UK visits will have their traffic routed through these system, but matches to the database will be dismissed rather than acted upon (if you opt-out). Who needs PRISM or GCHQ when the ISP's are going to be logging every web sites people visit.

On a more positive note the e-petition is over a quarter of the way to the magic 100,000
Although im not sure how much good it will do, as this filtering is just an agreement between Cameron and the ISP. No law has been proposed so how can it be debated in the house of commons ?
Corky42 29th July 2013, 14:11 Quote
Already John Gilmore's quote of "The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it." has come true, its less than a week after the announcement :) The filtering isn't even close to implementation, yet ways to circumvent it for free and in less than 30sec are readily available.

EDIT: I'm hoping that now this has been reported on another site other than the provider i wont get slapped for posting a link to the news article So if i shouldn't have posted the link to the news article mods feel free to remove the link, and sorry.

Hackers Have Already Cracked The UK Porn Filter
http://www.businessinsider.com/hackers-have-already-cracked-the-uk-porn-filter-2013-7
IanW 30th July 2013, 06:45 Quote
Funny how this was announced IMMEDIATELY after PRISM was outed. :|
tuk 30th July 2013, 21:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Moreover, a government does not need to stage a 9/11 to get people to agree to an invasion of Iraq. People are stupid and will agree to anything if you spin it right (and if anything, 9/11 was a bloody inconvenience. Records show that a plan to invade Iraq was already on the table as soon as Bush got elected. Then 9/11 happened and they had to be seen to do something about Afghanistan --a diversion of precious military resources that were meant to go to Iraq).
I don't agree with this analysis, yes people are stupid & can be easily duped but even Americans are not so dumb as to accept spending trillions on a war kicking on now 2.5x longer than ww2, trillions of tax dollars spent on military contracts almost bankrupting the country, at one point and maybe still 25c of every tax dollar was going on the 'war on terror'.

9/11 was the starting gun, & the justification for the next decade of invasion & control of the Mesopotamian oil fields, a war responsible for the death of 1-2 million people, a high percentage of which were innocent civilians, apart from the American people the rest of world would also need convincing, what better way than video images from multiple angles of those jet liners slamming into the world trades and then both collapsing, replaying over and over and over and over.

btw it doesn't take a massive conspiracy, all you would need is one well connected man with beard on a leash, a couple of suitcases full of money & a cia handler or two, maybe the man with beard used to work for the cia in the 70's fighting communism when GB senior was head of the cia, ....then when the time is right, you can publicly catch and kill the man with beard, thus tying up the only loose end & seeming to justify the war on terror.
Nexxo 30th July 2013, 22:25 Quote
Then why link 9/11 to Afghanistan rather than Iraq, which was the target of the exercise?

Moreover nobody, not even the Bush administration, expected that war to last that long or cost that much. A couple of years at $60 billion was the estimate. Ten years later the cost comes in at $3000 billion (which is incidentally what it would cost to fix the credit crunch). It was certainly not presented that way. Another way in which you can get something past the population: you start with a thin end of a big wedge. By the time the real cost becomes apparent, people are already overcommitted.
law99 31st July 2013, 12:57 Quote
My ISP has to give me 1 years notice that they will start filtering my internet. On top of that, they also staunchly refuse to censor my connection anyway... so I'm wondering how this will play out.
Nexxo 31st July 2013, 14:04 Quote
I suspect that not filtering content will become a selling point for ISPs, like not capping or throttling service. In the end, the free market economy will decide.

Hey, the Tories believe in a free market economy, right? :p
law99 31st July 2013, 16:34 Quote
Ha ha... yes. That is an amusing point.

be careful what you wish for
Corky42 1st August 2013, 12:41 Quote
Not sure why the open rights group feel the need to start their own petition, but it seems they have ;)
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleepwalking
Quote:
David Cameron wants to push you into switching on adult web filters. These proposals are incredibly dangerous. Cameron should drop them immediately.

Dear David Cameron,

Everyone agrees that we should try to protect children from harmful content. But asking everyone to sleepwalk into censorship does more harm than good.

Filters won't stop children seeing adult content and risks giving parents a false sense of security. It will stop people finding advice on sexual health, sexuality and relationships. This isn't just about pornography. Filters will block any site deemed unsuitable for under 18s.

Please drop these plans immediately.


What are the problems with switching on adult filtering by default?

1. "Set it and forget it" is the wrong message to send to parents. Filters will not stop children seeing adult content.

2. Adult filters will not just block pornography. They also restrict access to sites deemed unsuitable for under 18s including information on alcohol and other drugs, forums, YouTube and controversial political views.

3. When adults filters are in place, mistakes are made. Adult filtering can stop people accessing crucial advice on sexual health, sexuality and relationships.

4. Adult filtering amounts to censoring legal content. The UK would be the only modern democratic society to do this. This sets a terrible example to other countries with interests in suppressing information.

In other news ( I have always wanted to say that :D )
Quote:
Britain's Great Firewall of Cameron has just made the jump from "voluntary" to "mandatory."
Source
Quote:
The UK government's neverending quest to turn the internet into a Disney-esque wonderland where no one sees anything they don't want to and are never even mildly insulted is pathetic. And disturbing. Cameron's plans infantilize the nation's children and adults, treating them both as precious bundles of stupidity too incompetent to make their own decisions on appropriate content.
Source

An if you need yet more examples of why Cameron's plans are bad news you just need to look at the Australian model on WikiLeaks
Quote:
History shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behavior.
forum_user 3rd August 2013, 19:31 Quote
As someone who will be expanding our family very soon, I am pleased that porn will be opt-in. I won't be, therefore my kids won't stumble over stuff that conditions their brain to think that a woman being spit-roasted, or gang-banged, is normal life.

Also, some of what I'm doing at the moment involves kids that are subjected to everything they should not be. The evidence proves that children replay what they see and hear from TV, films, music videos and the internet, as well as copying their own parents tragic behaviors. Those parents out there who fail to protect children in their learning years need ... I dunno. Something.
Corky42 4th August 2013, 10:48 Quote
It isn't a opt-in porn filter, its a default-on filter that will not only be blocking legal pornographic material but also yet to be announced non pornographic material.

Software is already provide for free by all the major ISP's to block access to materiel YOU deem inappropriate for YOUR children, why should a whole country have to their internet use monitored just because some parents want to defer responsibility's to the government ? are you saying the government or some private firm knows better than you what is suitable for your children ?

While i agree that children play out what they see, this default-on filter will do nothing to stop children viewing inappropriate materiel. Ways to circumvent it are already widely available and its still six or more months away from being introduced. The default-on filter will in fact do more harm than good to the very people it is meant to protect, what with giving parents a false sense of security and making them think they don't need to discuss what is a healthy attitude towards sex.
Then there is the problem of blocking access to sexual health information, or access to information for children being sexually abused, or vital support and information for young people online.

The announcement made by Cameron is nothing more than spin, meant to make the country and parents think he is serious about protecting children when in fact he has cut CEOPS funding by %10 this year. We are told, "There are 50,000 predators, downloading images on peer-to-peer, not Google, peer-to-peer. Yet from CEOP intelligence, only 192 were arrested last year." Does that sound like Cameron is serious about child exploitation ?

Education of both parents and children is whats needed, not a default-on filter for an entire country. Incidentally this is something the government proposed six months ago, but how much have you been made aware of ways to install and setup free filtering software ? have you seen any information about the possible dangers of the internet for children ?

But putting the "wont somebody think of the children" argument aside for a moment, you also have to look at the potential of over and under-blocking, filtering political oppositions, filtering Wikileaks as happened in Australia, misidentifying websites as adult content, the potential misuse of a list on who do and don't filter content, potential for a bad government having dirt on its citizens (PRISM and Tempora).

I could go on forever, but this post has already become longer than i intended :o If anyone thinks default-on filter is a good idea you really need to look past the spin and do some more research into the harm this will cause.
Porkins' Wingman 4th August 2013, 15:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
As someone who will be expanding our family very soon, I am pleased that porn will be opt-in. I won't be, therefore my kids won't stumble over stuff that conditions their brain to think that a woman being spit-roasted, or gang-banged, is normal life.

a) There's no such thing as 'normal life'. Let that be one of the things you teach your children.

b) Your lack of faith in your children's ability to be able to discern whether or not they should routinely adopt practicing something they've seen in electronic media is disappoint. You don't even have to show them any porn to be able to explain the porn industry and enhance their understanding of human behaviour. But instead you'd prefer the State to help you pretend it doesn't exist. Healthy not.
forum_user 4th August 2013, 20:01 Quote
Interesting replies. Not convincing. Just interesting.

Responsible adults have managed for plenty of time to protect their kids as best they can. Times have changed, and with the internet the kids now have the ability to suck in anything and everything that was once restricted to them.

Either you want the tools to stop them seeing it, or you don't. Be clear about that.

I hate PRISM more than average ignorant Joe Bloggs, but when it comes to protecting children - get real. Seeing 2 year olds making their dolls **** each other aint funny. Seeing what the older kids do is much worse. Parenting is getting worse. Kids are being removed from their birth parents much sooner, thankfully.

A kids childhood is a one-off experience and needs to be the best it can be. I want tools. I applaud tools. If it is opt-out of porn and beheading videos ... I'm opting out - I don't need that crap anyway.
CrazyJoe 4th August 2013, 20:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user

Either you want the tools to stop them seeing it, or you don't. Be clear about that.

I want tools. I applaud tools. If it is opt-out of porn and beheading videos ... I'm opting out - I don't need that crap anyway.

The tools exist right now, are you using them?
Nexxo 4th August 2013, 21:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Interesting replies. Not convincing. Just interesting.

Responsible adults have managed for plenty of time to protect their kids as best they can. Times have changed, and with the internet the kids now have the ability to suck in anything and everything that was once restricted to them.

Either you want the tools to stop them seeing it, or you don't. Be clear about that.

I hate PRISM more than average ignorant Joe Bloggs, but when it comes to protecting children - get real. Seeing 2 year olds making their dolls **** each other aint funny. Seeing what the older kids do is much worse. Parenting is getting worse. Kids are being removed from their birth parents much sooner, thankfully.

A kids childhood is a one-off experience and needs to be the best it can be. I want tools. I applaud tools. If it is opt-out of porn and beheading videos ... I'm opting out - I don't need that crap anyway.

I think that you know that the children who you speak of are not the product of accidentally stumbling across some graphic websites, but of long-term ineffectual, neglectful or even abusive parenting. If they had access to graphic materials that was just one more symptom of their upbringing, not the defining quality.

You don't want your kids to see bad things on the web? Don't give them unsupervised access. Simples. Don't give them their own computer before 12, don't give them unfiltered access before 16. Use the many tools that already exist. And most of all, have sensible, age-appropriate discussions with them about sex before they hit puberty. If you fill their heads with good information, there will be no room for the bad information to go.

If parents are too feckless or disinterested to do that, slapping the plaster of a web filter on is not going to compensate in any way for bad parenting. The children you see are not there because they had unfettered Internet access.

But most of all, forum_user, do NOT let the government decide what your children should or should not see. Why should you let politicians influence what your children know and how they think? You wouldn't let politicians do that to you, would you?
Teelzebub 4th August 2013, 23:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Interesting replies. Not convincing. Just interesting.

Responsible adults have managed for plenty of time to protect their kids as best they can. Times have changed, and with the internet the kids now have the ability to suck in anything and everything that was once restricted to them.

Either you want the tools to stop them seeing it, or you don't. Be clear about that.

I hate PRISM more than average ignorant Joe Bloggs, but when it comes to protecting children - get real. Seeing 2 year olds making their dolls **** each other aint funny. Seeing what the older kids do is much worse. Parenting is getting worse. Kids are being removed from their birth parents much sooner, thankfully.

A kids childhood is a one-off experience and needs to be the best it can be. I want tools. I applaud tools. If it is opt-out of porn and beheading videos ... I'm opting out - I don't need that crap anyway.

Seriously how many 2 year olds have computers? They may walk in on their parents having sex but I doubt that's going to do any harm
forum_user 5th August 2013, 00:11 Quote
Am I right in thinking you guys are just crapping your pants that the government are taking away your civil liberties, etc? Is that what fills these 11 pages?

Guys, get your asses down to the next protest at a government building and don your anon masks. But don't try and argue against something like this unless you do that. This 11 pages is a complete waste otherwise.

In the meantime mumsnet and me will be phoning our ISPs and adding filters.

Better still - if you guys reckon you know best - get mumsnet to join you on your anti-government marches.

Is that really going to happen? Nope. conversation over. Filters - win. Kids safe. You guys get to bang on for another 11 pages while it is all going on. Meanwhile rest of UK gets on with life.

Of course ... you are right ... at some point we WILL all be taking coloured pills to numb our emotions, books WILL be burnt to prevent proking hope and dreaming of a better future. History WILL be deleted and rewritten to promote a safer world under the control of MumsNet ... I mean SkyNet.

(added) I was trying to recall what they call people who type it out then do nothing - just came to me - keyboard warriors!! The lot of ya. Go on! I dare ya. Go do a proper protest in the streets then I might support you in a common mission statement. But while you talk and do nothing else - we're all heading the same way ...............
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 00:14 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Filters - win. Kids safe.

Haha, that's one thing these filters won't guarantee.

Also what's wrong with discussing something? Maybe you should actually read the thread.
Teelzebub 5th August 2013, 00:19 Quote
Actually you're the one that thinks he knows best, how many kids do you have again?
forum_user 5th August 2013, 00:22 Quote
Thing is I do know what is best. My kids just need to learn and enjoy life to start with.
Teelzebub 5th August 2013, 00:29 Quote
Well I'm not so arrogant to start telling people how to bring their kids up, I have a son daughter and 4 grandchildren all of which turned out just fine so excuse me laughing at your opinion
CrazyJoe 5th August 2013, 00:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Thing is I do know what is best. My kids just need to learn and enjoy life to start with.

So you already have filters and you don't give your kids unrestricted access to the internet? Then these government filters will do nothing for you.
Nexxo 5th August 2013, 08:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Am I right in thinking you guys are just crapping your pants that the government are taking away your civil liberties, etc? Is that what fills these 11 pages?

Guys, get your asses down to the next protest at a government building and don your anon masks. But don't try and argue against something like this unless you do that. This 11 pages is a complete waste otherwise.

In the meantime mumsnet and me will be phoning our ISPs and adding filters.

Better still - if you guys reckon you know best - get mumsnet to join you on your anti-government marches.

Is that really going to happen? Nope. conversation over. Filters - win. Kids safe. You guys get to bang on for another 11 pages while it is all going on. Meanwhile rest of UK gets on with life.

Of course ... you are right ... at some point we WILL all be taking coloured pills to numb our emotions, books WILL be burnt to prevent proking hope and dreaming of a better future. History WILL be deleted and rewritten to promote a safer world under the control of MumsNet ... I mean SkyNet.

(added) I was trying to recall what they call people who type it out then do nothing - just came to me - keyboard warriors!! The lot of ya. Go on! I dare ya. Go do a proper protest in the streets then I might support you in a common mission statement. But while you talk and do nothing else - we're all heading the same way ...............

Let's stand back a bit. The way I understand it, we are having a debate about the pros and cons of state imposed filtering of internet access. Some people think it is a bad thing, for various reasons outlined. You challenge those reasons and think it is a good thing, for different reasons. Those get challenged in turn.

Now you are turning around and say that we're all keyboard warriors anyway. That is just a veiled way of making an argument ad hominem, which is not compelling. Moreover it is also invalid. You and I know that protests have very little impact on government policy (I give you: protests against the Iraq war and the protests against economic policies to name a few). Whereas you can use internet filtering tools valuable to you today to make the internet safer for your kids. Basically, you propose that we go out and pursue an ineffective action on the streets of London because you can't be asked to pursue a simple, effective action from the comfort of your keyboard. That makes no sense, no?
forum_user 5th August 2013, 08:48 Quote
You guys are debating the pros and cons?

Or bitching about what the government and mumsnet see as the pros?

Convince me you have any opinions that are not attached to civil liberty conspiracies nor government spying programs.
CrazyJoe 5th August 2013, 09:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
You guys are debating the pros and cons?

Or bitching about what the government and mumsnet see as the pros?

Convince me you have any opinions that are not attached to civil liberty conspiracies nor government spying programs.

I don't think you get it.

Do you believe the government knows better than you what websites should be blocked for the benefit of your children?

The way I see it, the only parents that are happy with this are the ones that are too lazy to set up their own filters.

I'm assuming that since you love filters you already have them set up on the computers that your children use? (If they are old enough of course.)
forum_user 5th August 2013, 09:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
I don't think you get it.

Do you believe the government knows better than you what websites should be blocked for the benefit of your children?

The way I see it, the only parents that are happy with this are the ones that are too lazy to set up their own filters.

I'm assuming that since you love filters you already have them set up on the computers that your children use? (If they are old enough of course.)

Do I support a free internet, that is uncensored, with immediate access to everything including past, present & future data? Yes of course.

Do I know that people need to be helped rather than left to sort their own lives out? Yes.

As a comparison, the Steam forums had a few people contantly trying to hijack every new thread that had been created, which requested Valve implement a much more secure account system to prevent account phishing. These few would constantly bitch about how it was the PC users own fault for losing their account. How these PC users should wise-up. How the users should take more care. And how Valve should not lift a finger to help these victims. It was their own fault for being naive, stupid, thoughtless, less experienced, lacking knowledge, blah blah blah.

At one point the exact same method Valve now calls SteamGuard was suggested on the forums and yet again these nerds turned up for no good reason other to rubbish the suggestions - it was an opportunity for them to belittle the thread starters, and belittle the victims of phishing. "Look at us, we know all this PC stuff, we aint no victims, we're clever, we are.".

How many accounts get phished after SteamGuard? Then again, if you do not know how prevalent the account phishing was before SteamGuard was started then this wont mean much to you.

Again, I do know that people need to be helped to help themselves. Do I care that you feel like your toes are being stepped on at the same time? No. lol

Initially when I heard about Google failing to stop us being tracked, and about the stuff Wikileaks released, and about this snooping BS by the NSA and GCHQ I was real angry - but seeing as none of us are going to do anything about it ... move on, enjoy life - rather than get all upset about it and have it rot your brainz.

Would I rather the kids be forgotten about because some guys on the BT forums like bitching about tories (don't include Labour though hey, because clearly they would never be involved in stealing your freedoms ..........), about governments, about PRISM, about the NSA, about losing our free and uncensored internet ... well, all the stuff I actually agree with you on - but no, kids are more imprtant to me right now than worrying about the NSA reading about a rash I Googled about.

Give me a way to enjoy the free internet, uncensored and un-snooped - and at the same time that can stop kids from being programmed by seeing stuff on the internet that is sometimes too harsh even for delicate adult brains - and stand up for your rights rather than just argue down anyone who shows support to a proposed new system in a forum ..... you got my support.

I can't be much clearer. Now convince me otherwise rather than pick faults with my posts. Tedious.

(added) how many trigger words have I just used??? Ooooooh, HI GCHQ!!! \o/
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 09:41 Quote
You still haven't answered as to whether you currently use filters, in which case this new legislation wouldn't really make any difference to you (apart from of course the government choosing what's 'right' for your kids to see rather than you, which you seem to be fine with).

Also no need to start calling people nerds in a negative way.

Also the Steam issue isn't quite the same, since it's their own product they are 'filtering' so to speak, whereas the government doesn't (shouldn't) control/own the internet.

I also personally don't think you give kids enough credit, instantly assuming they will be 'programmed' by things they see on the internet (as well as other places of course), not thinking they may be able to work some stuff out on their own.
CrazyJoe 5th August 2013, 09:46 Quote
All that text and you didn't get anywhere near my questions. Also, you seem to be dodging other basic questions too.

I'll just leave this here as it's slightly relevant (and funny) and go to bed.

kx4ixXQFUQY
forum_user 5th August 2013, 09:49 Quote
Both your responses are as irrelevant as mine then because you said nothing to convince me. Which is what you need to do in a debate. Where is it?! lol

Night night then.

(added) all that effort I went to to show you my views, and you give nothing back in return. Well done chaps. That was well worth the effort. See you on the protest lines hey? Not.
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 09:54 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Both your responses are as irrelevant as mine then because you said nothing to convince me. Which is what you need to do in a debate. Where is it?! lol

Night night then.

(added) all that effort I went to to show you my views, and you give nothing back in return. Well done chaps. That was well worth the effort. See you on the protest lines hey? Not.

I tend to think of an online debate like this normally involving someone giving their views, then someone giving a counter argument of some sort, then the first person giving their views against that counter argument.

If you just ignore everything that's being said saying it hasn't convinced you then you're not really taking part, you should give reasons why the comments people make are invalid in your opinion.
forum_user 5th August 2013, 09:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
I tend to think of an online debate like this normally involving someone giving their views, then someone giving a counter argument of some sort, then the first person giving their views against that counter argument.

If you just ignore everything that's being said saying it hasn't convinced you then you're not really taking part, you should give reasons why the comments people make are invalid in your opinion.

Right, where is the counter then?

Because apparently I am wrong in supporting the filter system, but no one has offered me anything other than I shouldn't allow the .gov to dictate what my kids should see.

Except I've given my reasons why I think the filter should be there.

Although I think if hte gov are making it an opt-in to the filter then I think they are breaking it before it even takes off. It should be an opt-out of the filter.
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 10:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Right, where is the counter then?

Because apparently I am wrong in supporting the filter system, but no one has offered me anything other than I shouldn't allow the .gov to dictate what my kids should see.

Except I've given my reasons why I think the filter should be there.

Although I think if hte gov are making it an opt-in to the filter then I think they are breaking it before it even takes off. It should be an opt-out of the filter.

Well that's one of the issues (opt-in).

So if the filters block things like sexual health websites, and other support sites for things such as suicide, eating disorders etc, would you support that?
Surely the very type of parent you think this filter will be good for (those who wouldn't do anything to protect their child on their own), would also be the kind of parents who wouldn't talk to their kids about these things, and without a chance to find out stuff online they're running out of options.

Then also of course the issue of all this does is encourage people to use proxies/vpns/TOR to access the blocked material, not really stopping it but encouraging people to find ways around it, which could of course lead to them finding more 'damaging' material than they were originally looking for.
forum_user 5th August 2013, 10:11 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by GeorgeStorm
Well that's one of the issues (opt-in).

So if the filters block things like sexual health websites, and other support sites for things such as suicide, eating disorders etc, would you support that?
Surely the very type of parent you think this filter will be good for (those who wouldn't do anything to protect their child on their own), would also be the kind of parents who wouldn't talk to their kids about these things, and without a chance to find out stuff online they're running out of options.

Then also of course the issue of all this does is encourage people to use proxies/vpns/TOR to access the blocked material, not really stopping it but encouraging people to find ways around it, which could of course lead to them finding more 'damaging' material than they were originally looking for.

I hear what you are saying but what makes you think the filter will be so ineffectual as to block sexual health websites? Clearly that would mean the filter is broken. So that is something that hasn't happened yet, and may never happen. Why would the Samaritans be blocked? I'm not sure where this is coming from - has someone already vetted the filter and produced a report to show these things will get blocked?

I was trying to think of the filter in another way and I came up with the rating system for films and games. We prevent kids from playing the more adult games, and we prevent them from renting or buying stronger content films - the gov plays a big role in that, so why not allow them to assist in preventing kids from accessing the harder material online?

The filter still needs to be opt-out though. Although having thought about it I reckon the filter may well be opt-in for a few years, but if the result is that many thousands opt-in and it is popular, then they may well turn it around to opt-out.

Kinda like organ donating in some places.
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 10:26 Quote
Mainly based on the fact it's very difficult to just block pornography for instance, and reading things like this:
http://hexus.net/business/news/telcos/58313-open-rights-group-says-uk-pornwall-will-block-web-forums/
Then seeing the things Claire Perry says showing she doesn't really understand the technology, and yet she's one of the people supposedly in charge of it?

Obviously it could be totally wrong, but it's a real possibility, since I think I remember reading Cameron saying it would be used to block more than pornography.
The company in charge of it/working on it also does work for the Chinese government I think I remember reading, and obviously their filtering system is very well known, so it's natural that people worry it could swiftly escalate.

They seem to be trying to tackle the symptoms, rather than the cause. The education of parents/children should be more important, rather than just trying to stop the end result.
Also when it comes to this trying to help stop child pornography etc, surely the money would be better spent on funding things like the CEOP?
Gareth Halfacree 5th August 2013, 10:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I hear what you are saying but what makes you think the filter will be so ineffectual as to block sexual health websites? Clearly that would mean the filter is broken. So that is something that hasn't happened yet, and may never happen. Why would the Samaritans be blocked? I'm not sure where this is coming from - has someone already vetted the filter and produced a report to show these things will get blocked?
Actually, there's plenty of evidence out there. First, let's take the didn't-block-porn direction: Cameron's recommended model for the filter is TalkTalk's existing (opt-in) filtering system - a company, remember, founded and run by former classmates and Tory donors, but whatever - which has been shown repeatedly to be pretty much useless. Not a great start.

Now for the other direction: the most perfect example here is how the Open Rights Group, a campaigning organisation which would in no way host any pornographic content on its official website, saw its statement on the problems with Cameron's plans blocked due to a different over-zealous filtering system installed in government-run public libraries. In the trade, this is known as the Scunthorpe problem: a filter designed to block one thing blocks something tangentially related but completely innocuous.

There are, of course, wider studies of this. For a clearly biased viewpoint from the ORG, try this report from last year (PDF warning,) or for something a little more objective how about this paper by the University of Michigan which found that the content filtering systems tested only allow access to selected sexual health information when set to their least-restrictive mode - which, incidentally, also had a major impact on their ability to block pornography.

If you can find any documentation that shows the opposite - that filtering system successfully block pornography with little or no risk of false-positives - I would, naturally, be extraordinarily interested in seeing it.
Corky42 5th August 2013, 11:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I can't be much clearer. Now convince me otherwise rather than pick faults with my posts. Tedious.

As i have said before you need to do your research before claiming these filters will be a good idea, but as it seems you don't want to read the thread allow me to consolidate some information for you.

For starters please explain what has changed from six months ago when a (Warning PDF) independent-parliamentary-inquiry-into-online-child-protection (Warning PDF) as reported by the BBC came to the following conclusions.
Quote:
Originally Posted by inquiry
But the report said an automatic ban - or "opt-in" - approach could lead parents into a "false sense of security" because it could not filter "all potentially harmful content".

It added: "There is also a risk from 'over-blocking' - preventing access to websites which provide helpful information on sexual health or sexual identity, issues which young people may want information on but find difficult to talk to their parents about."

"The policy recognises it is parents, not government, who are responsible for controlling what their children see online and rightly avoids any kind of state-mandated blocking of legal content."

Then we can move on to Britain's main ISPs – Virgin Media, BSkyB, BT and TalkTalk – have agreed to provide £1m to help the IWF in its work with Ceop, which has been incorporated into the National Crime Agency.
But at the same time the government has cut Ceop's funding by %10

And then there are the industry insiders that have spoke out on how retailers will lose trade and web users will lose trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Webroot's George Anderson
However, he admitted that even though this technology has been running online for some time now, there are "some grey areas" with regard to underwear or swimsuit websites with bikini images, for example.

However, as is common knowledge, Anderson also noted that these filtering systems aren't by any means faultless, and there are always going to be misclassifications somewhere down the web filtering line.

"Apart from the fact you're going to lose trade, how quickly and how you're going to get compensated for that lost trade and who's going to pay that compensation. Is it going to be the government? I very much doubt it."

"In effect, what it does mean that every single web request made by anyone in the UK is going to be filtered, full stop?" he asked. "If you have government filtering every request, there's a lot of opening to abuse as well. At that level, its concerning. We've had enough concern with governments and privacy with PRISM."

And yet more people explain why the Internet Porn Filter will be Ineffective and Harmful
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr Martyn Thomas
“Every illegal image is a crime scene but law enforcement agencies do not have the resources to identify, locate and protect every victim, nor to identify, and charge every abuser. More resources must be provided. That is the top priority and legislation to block access will do nothing to help, whilst making it harder for troubled adolescents to search for on sexual health and sexual identity issues.

Protecting children from seeing legal adult pornography, online exploitation and sexting are different issues that are best addressed by parents following the excellent advice provided by GetSafeOnline and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection agency (CEOP), and teaching their children to do the same.

Universal blocking of websites, search terms and content is a blunt and ineffective tool. Such blocks can easily be circumvented, and children will continue to share ways to access sites that their friends tell them about, whether the content is pornography or music files. The serious criminals are already using encryption, onion routers and other technical means to hide their activities, which blocking by ISPs will not affect.

The internet was designed to withstand serious damage and it treats censorship as damage and provides routes around it. There is no quick technical fix that will protect children – it needs education, responsible parenting and more resources for enforcing the laws that already exist.”

How about when someone who was the victim of child abuse speak out about filtering, would this make you rethink ? Porn blocking - a survivor's perspective. Or how about a support group for young people, Vital support to young people at risk.
How about when Tracy Edwards MBE, the former round-the-world yachtswoman who worked as a project manager for CEOP in 2007, says...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tracy Edwards
However, Edwards insists that the reduced funding is letting known paedophiles escape punishment. "CEOP has incredible intelligence on people who are abusing children," she said. "They have the intelligence on who these people are, where they are, but they don't have the resources to go and arrest them, and they certainly don't have the resources to go through their computer drives."

Her comments were backed up by Jim Gamble in an interview with Radio 4's Today programme. "This government has stood still for two years with regards to CEOP - CEOP's budget has, in real terms, decreased," he said. "There are 50,000 predators, we're told by CEOP, downloading images on peer-to-peer, not Google, peer-to-peer. Yet from CEOP intelligence, only 192 were arrested last year."

We can also talk about how the filtering system just wont work as Hackers Have Already Cracked The UK Porn Filter.

How about how history shows that secret censorship systems, whatever their original intent, are invariably corrupted into anti-democratic behavior. And how research shows that while such blacklists are dangerous to "above ground" activities such as political discourse, they have little effect on the production of child pornography, and by diverting resources and attention from traditional policing actions, may even be counter-productive.

Now this is just a very small cross section of information that i have found on Cameron's proposals, there is so much more out there but unfortunately if you just limit your self to mumsnet and the daily mail you are only getting one side of the argument.
Porkins' Wingman 5th August 2013, 11:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Do I support a free internet, that is uncensored, with immediate access to everything including past, present & future data? Yes of course.

Do I know that people need to be helped rather than left to sort their own lives out? Yes.

...

Again, I do know that people need to be helped to help themselves. Do I care that you feel like your toes are being stepped on at the same time? No.

...

Would I rather the kids be forgotten about because some guys on the BT forums like bitching about tories (don't include Labour though hey, because clearly they would never be involved in stealing your freedoms ..........), about governments, about PRISM, about the NSA, about losing our free and uncensored internet ... well, all the stuff I actually agree with you on - but no, kids are more imprtant to me right now than worrying about the NSA reading about a rash I Googled about.

Give me a way to enjoy the free internet, uncensored and un-snooped - and at the same time that can stop kids from being programmed by seeing stuff on the internet that is sometimes too harsh even for delicate adult brains

I know I don't have to ask you whether you know what 'uncensored' means. So why contradict yourself?

You make it quite apparent you want a nanny State. I don't. People don't need 'help' sorting out their own lives, unless you support the arrogant and rather fascist idea that one person can ever be in a position to know what's better for an individual than the individual themselves. If someone seeks help, fine, provide it, but don't assume to know what help someone else needs from the get-go.

And this isn't party political (other than the fact that it's the Tories pushing it currently, for no apparent reason other than to distract) - whichever party governs, it is an inevitability that the STATE will try to convince us we need it to run our lives. A State can't survive unless it can 'justify' it's existence, it needs to make continuous interventions otherwise what is the tax money doing?

Forget about all the stereotypical people you're imagining need State intervention... are you seriously asking the State to step in because YOU don't feel YOUR parenting will be adequate enough to stop YOUR children getting 'programmed'?

How do you define what is safe for your children and what the rest of their lives should entail?
forum_user 5th August 2013, 13:04 Quote
@GeorgeStorm

The Hexus article is a blog post, not a news item. The content is taken from the writers personal experience of having "a large percentage of [his] favourite links blocked" during only his last two days of holiday. The reason he was given was bandwidth. Sounds plausible considering one of his favourite links blocked was YouTube. The Hexus article also contains unconfirmed information from a blog post by Jim Killock of the ORG, titled 'Sleepwalking into censorship'. Only people are not sleepwalking, the title betrays his stance at the very beginning of his blog post. He is biased towards the freedoms being taken away argument. Clearly. Claire Perry is an MP - god, how many MPs know everything about anything they talk about? lol Claire Perry has been fighting for protecting children from pornography for a very long time. Years before this snooping stuff came to light. Her heart is definitely in the right place. As for blocking more than porn? So? I see no reason why sub-10 year olds needs to be subjected to anything on that list. The list which is unconfirmed so far? One thing to unrestrict may be the web forums to some degree. I expect if the filters become useful and workable then the feature to unblock official forums aimed at kids (CBBC or official learning forums) will come. The owrry the Chinese would manage it, could be weighed by the fact they should be the best people to make it work. ie. to block stuff. Their is no evidence that a wall in place would block the things children need to survive in life, to learn, to live and to thrive. Because the filter is NOT running yet. So all arguments that it will fail, and it will block important stuff, and it will steal our freedoms ... hasn't happened yet ...

@Gareth Halfacree

Hold on, so the Chinese will be managing a filter created and provided by Talk Talk?! And this current filter is the exact one that will be used? There will be no attempt to make it better? To stop it failing? To prevent an embarrasing failure for the government and make them look like idiots? That makes no sense to me. Interesting you mention "founded and run by former classmates and Tory donors, but whatever" ... and? So, if someone unconnected to Tories had built Talk Talk then you wouldn't have an issue with Talk Talk? The perfect example you mention only remains perfect for the example you present ... You cannot equate your example to the filter that may be in place because you and I, nor anyone else knows at the moment exactly how good or bad it will be. That is a fact. So when I asked if the evidence was there that this new filter was broken and would block stuff wrongly (because that was the suggestion) - you provided an example of a different filter not working and think that if one does nto work, then nor will another. I see your attempt at logic but it is flawed as you well know. We can only base FACT on THE actual filter that will be in place - not your example of a different content blocker failure.

I think we all already know of the examples of failed blockers. You only need to look at long words that contain letters that form a naughty word within a forum that contains swear word blocking ..... I am confident that if someone says they will provide a functional-non-failing filter, then HOPEFULLY that is what we get. But until the actual system is presented we will not know. As for sexual health, I see no reason unless I learn otherwise in the future that under 10's need access to sexual health material. In the classroom - yes.

@everyone in general

Are you all saying that this filter is a crap idea for all kids of all ages?

I see mentions of filtering failures. But to most kids under 10 all of the stuff you guys use as examples they don't need to see anyway. Therefore what you think is a failure will not even be noticed because they will not be looking for your examples of failures.

The various mentions of CEOP - throwing money at people behind desks is your solution? CEOP will stop children finding porn? And CEOP will stop children seeing unsuitable photos and videos? CEOP will stop children being bullied and prevent them finding generally unsuitable information and conversations on the internet?

CEOP helps prevent child abuse, chase paedophiles etc. Are these not two different subjects? I think people need to stop mentioning the side of CEOP that deals with what I just mentioned because that side of CEOP does not equate to a porn/etc filter stopping my kids looking at unsuitable content. Does CEOP deal with preventing kids from seeing unsuitable material? If so then mention that, but quoting from inquiries that say CEOP needs more funding to chase paedophiles and stop child abuse and exploitation, will not stop my, or your kids from looking at porn online. Seems to me to be two entirely different areas of online experiences. Am I wrong?

I think a filter will be much more effective than CEOP providing my kids with a leaflet explaining what not to look at ...

@Corky42

A filter is better than no filter for certain ages.

I appreciate the time you spent collating the quotes. But the porn blocking survivor perspective ... I am not sure how relevant that is. It's a blog piece that contains random rambling that the writer equates to a government proposal to filter porn from kids eyes. I am sorry, I get the sadness of the story but it is unrelated to a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking. So parents should not have an option to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet because her uncle ... weird! Things just felt surreal for a moment.

Then you drifted into government control etc etc, got bored, gave up.

@Porkins' Wingman

You will make yourself ill if you cannot get your mojo back.

(added) Apologies to anything I didn't mention, it was quite draining to read so much content from you guys and try to read all the links, and then give you all a suitable reply that hopefully you will debate rather than pick over.
Porkins' Wingman 5th August 2013, 13:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user


@Porkins' Wingman

You will make yourself ill if you cannot get your mojo back.

... hopefully you will debate

How is that medicine you're dishing out? You've not addressed any of my points and I don't get the mojo reference at all I'm afraid.
GeorgeStorm 5th August 2013, 13:27 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I am sorry, I get the sadness of the story but it is unrelated to a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking. So parents should not have an option to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet because her uncle ... weird! Things just felt surreal for a moment.

This bit is weird, since there are already ways for parents to block porn. :|
All your references to under 10s, why would you give and under 10 year old unrestricted access to the internet in any case?

The reasons people are mentioning the CEOP is, as far as I'm aware, because this block was to do with helping stopping child pornography apparently.

Also
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I think a filter will be much more effective than CEOP providing my kids with a leaflet explaining what not to look at ...

Well it shouldn't just be them, it should be you.
Blocking something just encourages people to find ways around the block to access the stuff they want. Educating people about why it isn't suitable etc should be far more important. Putting a blanket over it doesn't stop it happening, nor does it stop people knowing what it is.
Gareth Halfacree 5th August 2013, 14:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Hold on, so the Chinese will be managing a filter created and provided by Talk Talk?! And this current filter is the exact one that will be used? There will be no attempt to make it better? To stop it failing? To prevent an embarrasing failure for the government and make them look like idiots? That makes no sense to me.
That makes no sense to you because you made it up out of wholecloth. Try reading what I posted, following the links, and then actually making comment thereon.
Corky42 5th August 2013, 14:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
@Corky42

A filter is better than no filter for certain ages.

I appreciate the time you spent collating the quotes. But the porn blocking survivor perspective ... I am not sure how relevant that is. It's a blog piece that contains random rambling that the writer equates to a government proposal to filter porn from kids eyes. I am sorry, I get the sadness of the story but it is unrelated to a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking. So parents should not have an option to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet because her uncle ... weird! Things just felt surreal for a moment.

Then you drifted into government control etc etc, got bored, gave up.

Yes A filter is better than no filter, that is why it should be down to parents to decide what is filtered and what is not, and at what age for their children. Instead what is being proposed is to have the government or some private firm filtering every request for a website made by every person in the UK, or do you think people who opt not to have the filters will be on a different network to everyone else ?

And tbh i find that you calling a survivor of child sex abuse irrelevant and saying she is rambling very offensive, especially when it has been shown that these filters will block children's access to relevant support that may help them should they find them self in a similar situation.
Just because its a blog does that mean when she says "What I actually learned from the whole experience was that my parents were not willing to discuss issues of sex and sexuality with me. So when the abuse happened, when I would have needed to discuss those things with them and get help, I didn't feel able to do so."
That we should just ignore the fact the parents want to click a button to hide sex from their children instead of talking to them in a appropriate manner about relationships and sex.

When you also say "a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking." these methods already exist, they have been around for over a decade. what is needed is education not denial, something the government promised six months ago yet there has been no public awareness campaigns to make parents aware of the dangers of the internet and how to protect their children.

Its a shame you didn't bother to read the rest and got bored as then you would have some understanding of the double standards and spin being pedaled by Cameron. But then again i wouldn't expect you to take the time to educate your self, after all its easier to just tick a box and be happy that the government is taking care of everything for you i guess.
Nexxo 5th August 2013, 15:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Claire Perry is an MP - god, how many MPs know everything about anything they talk about? lol Claire Perry has been fighting for protecting children from pornography for a very long time. Years before this snooping stuff came to light. Her heart is definitely in the right place.
I would argue that as an MP it is her job to know what she is talking about. It is not enough to just mean well-- because an MP actually has quite a bit of power. And that needs to be wielded wisely.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
As for blocking more than porn? So? I see no reason why sub-10 year olds needs to be subjected to anything on that list. The list which is unconfirmed so far? One thing to unrestrict may be the web forums to some degree. I expect if the filters become useful and workable then the feature to unblock official forums aimed at kids (CBBC or official learning forums) will come. The owrry the Chinese would manage it, could be weighed by the fact they should be the best people to make it work. ie. to block stuff. Their is no evidence that a wall in place would block the things children need to survive in life, to learn, to live and to thrive. Because the filter is NOT running yet. So all arguments that it will fail, and it will block important stuff, and it will steal our freedoms ... hasn't happened yet ...
It has already happened in Australia and Finland. Once legally in place, internet filtering has been abused for political reasons. The best predictor of future behaviour is past behaviour.

There is also concern amongst IT experts that from a technological viewpoint an effective, no-false-positives filtering system cannot be designed --even though the government plans to make it mandatory for ISPs to achieve the impossible. But demanding something does not make it so.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Hold on, so the Chinese will be managing a filter created and provided by Talk Talk?! And this current filter is the exact one that will be used? There will be no attempt to make it better? To stop it failing? To prevent an embarrasing failure for the government and make them look like idiots? That makes no sense to me. Interesting you mention "founded and run by former classmates and Tory donors, but whatever" ... and? So, if someone unconnected to Tories had built Talk Talk then you wouldn't have an issue with Talk Talk?
What Gareth points at is conflict of interests. Huawei has been scrutinised by the US House of Representatives Intelligence Committee for having back doors in its hardware and firmware that can be exploited for espionage, and for sharing with the Chinese state industrial secret knowledge of the foreign telecommunications systems it is involved with. TalkTalk's filtering system is run by Huawei.

So David Cameron is effectively suggesting that all public internet traffic should be monitored by a Chinese company that has been flagged up as a security risk for the UK. Nice. Now you can say that the browsing habits of the British public are hardly of interest to China, but it is not as simple as that. Every time a government official accesses his home internet for instance, the Chinese government potentially has a look in. Apart from the blackmail material that this offers, or the security risk (where and when is Mrs. Cameron booking the family holiday this year?), it also means that if said government official emails a work document to or from his home ISP, it basically passes under the eyes of the Chinese State. I know, I know, people should not use the internet to transmit sensitive documents without using encrypted VPNs. But as you yourself say: even MPs don't know that much about how the internet works. Everybody needs protecting these days...

That Cameron has personal and financial connections with TalkTalk should be a cause of concern in itself, just because it constitutes a potential conflict of interest, and that is always a no-no.

Now you reasonably argue that all this may never happen: Huwaei may never get the contract (in fact, I'm fairly sure that the secret service will make certain that it won't). But the point is: it never occurred to David Cameron that there could be a problem. He is just making it up as he goes along. And he keeps changing the goal posts: first it is an opt-in filter, then it is an opt-out filter, then it is mandatory that ISPs comply, and the content filters start expanding... Sorry, but Dave is the most powerful man in the UK. When he makes a decision to do something government, I expect it to be really well thought out. I expect it to be informed, impartial and for the public good, not political expediency.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
The perfect example you mention only remains perfect for the example you present ... You cannot equate your example to the filter that may be in place because you and I, nor anyone else knows at the moment exactly how good or bad it will be. That is a fact.
And that, indeed, is cause for concern based on the evidence so far.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I am confident that if someone says they will provide a functional-non-failing filter, then HOPEFULLY that is what we get.
In short: although our concerns are based in facts, your dismissal of those concerns is based in hope?

I think that is the basic difference between our standpoints. We argue that you cannot give the government power over access to information, because basically (as experience teaches us time and again) politicians cannot be trusted. It is why, for instance, despite fierce criticism of press practices in the Levenson enquiry, the new Independent Press Standards Organisation will remain independent from government. It is considered that important to have a separation between State and the free press; between government and the free flow of public information.

You argue that basically, we can trust the government to do the right thing (more so than parents, in fact); to wield its power to block access to information on the internet in an informed, impartial manner for the public good; that internet filtering will happen in a considered and intelligent way, using effective software applied by trustworthy companies.

I'm sorry, but I can think of many recent examples in which the government, and for that matter companies, did not act in an informed, impartial manner for the public good. And thus far nothing that Cameron has proposed shows any signs of being informed, impartial and for the public good rather than for political point scoring. There is nothing that you have brought to the debate that suggests that we should view this endeavour with anything but the greatest concern and skepticism.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
A filter is better than no filter for certain ages.

I appreciate the time you spent collating the quotes. But the porn blocking survivor perspective ... I am not sure how relevant that is. It's a blog piece that contains random rambling that the writer equates to a government proposal to filter porn from kids eyes. I am sorry, I get the sadness of the story but it is unrelated to a government proposal to provide parents with a method of porn blocking. So parents should not have an option to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet because her uncle ... weird! Things just felt surreal for a moment.

Nobody is saying that there should not be a form of filtering of inappropriate internet content for children. We are arguing that this filter should be managed by the parents, not the government.

Parents already have options to prevent porn coming into the home through the internet. It does not need the government to implement another one. It's the difference between you deciding what books your children can read, and the government deciding what books the public can read (you want access to those books? You'll have to request a special library subscription through the local authorities please... Yes, even if you just want to read Uncle Tom's Cabin, the Canterbury Tales or Flowers for Algernon, sorry).

And before you say that some parents just need the help: if parents are capable of arranging internet access privately, they are capable of arranging filtering and supervision of its use privately. All they have to do is talk to the ISP that they order their subscription from, who can helpfully set them up with the right parental controls. All they have to do is supervise their kids' internet access and have sensible conversations with them about what can be found out there and why they want to avoid it.

The point that the blog made is that it is not about the internet porn, or the access to it. It is about the parental attitude to discussing sex and intimacy with their children and giving them the knowledge and skills to make sense of it and resist its harmful influences. Like the messed-up children that you see at work are not the product of visiting a few nasty websites, but of a long-term failure in parenting.
forum_user 5th August 2013, 18:26 Quote
Thanks for all your replies! I have skim read alot of it and will go back later when chilled from todays activities. Some of it I agree with - either totally, morally, as possibilities or conspiracy, and some of it I disagree with - I think mainly because of the replies containing the what-ifs. Also in some of your previous replies you guys mentioned certain as pects or points that I tried to address and probably didn't do a great job at it.

I guess I am approaching this from an optimistic angle. That seems reasonable to me because as long as they manage to make it do what it says on the tin then that works for me. And it is not allowing a government to dictate what my kids can read and watch - the government are providing the tool and I am agreeing that if the tool works as suggested then the tool is the right one for me to assist me in parenting as I see fit. Clearly I am not wrapping them up in cotton-wool for the rest of their lives. I want them to focus on what matters rather than the adult stuff, or the nasty stuff. This might help. Notice I've gone from I want this filter!! To - it might help. You guys are not convincing me away from it, but I agree there are many hurdles to jump over before a filter might work as needed.

It is odd we can grow meat at £200k per burger from a dead cows stem cells, but we cannot filter out the crap kids do not need. (currently, that is!)

Side note - Speaking of Huawei, I noticed one day when I scanned for wifi clients in my local vicinity (which is usually very quiet due to a village location - a load of Huawei clients with MACs assigned - it was utterly bizarre and unexpected. Anyone any idea what that might have been?

(added) Nexxo I do agree parents should be responsible for their kids. And a filter should not be needed. But I take you back to my mention of Steam. The few guys who oddly hated any notion of increasing Steam's security, fought with any poster daring to suggest helping the naive, ignorant, daft, whatever you want to call the victims of phishing. But Valve recognised it was needed. Probably due to the amount of man hours and expense it was costing them to assist and investigate account thefts and trawling through account histories. But I like to think that someone at Valve HQ was thinking of the victims too. Yes people should be able to protect themselves - but a lot cant do that.
Nexxo 5th August 2013, 18:37 Quote
As I said: there are points where we do all agree, and we need to not let that obfuscate the points where we don't.

Where we do agree:
- The internet is a brain dump of the human psyche: both its brilliance and its monstrosity.
- Children need regulated exposure to the internet, so that they can access the brilliance but be protected from the monstrosity (until they are old enough to make sense of it).

Where we disagree:
- Whether parents are best placed and trusted to regulate their children's internet exposure, or the government.
- Whether the parents should have ultimate responsibility for their children's internet exposure, or whether this can be partially abdicated to government.

EDIT: As for Steam, that's a very different story because it is about protecting financial transactions, not the free flow of public information. Of course some many parents will need help to set up internet filters on their computers. But ISPs can help them set up and use the already existing software. The crucial difference is twofold: 1. It squarely makes it the parents' responsibility to deal with this issue. No abdication to government: these are your kids, your responsibility (legally and otherwise). 2. Filtering happens at the point of access: only the computer (and parents) know which sites were accessed and blocked. By having filtering happen at the ISP level, the ISP knows what sites were accessed and blocked. Even when the filter is turned off, sites are still routed through its system (it just does not act on any of it) and a record is still being generated. Such a record can be abused, whether by government, the NSA (as we are finding), a criminal hacker or a disgruntled employee at an ISP company looking for someone to blackmail.

Then there are the golden opportunities for the Prenda lawyers crowd. How many equally helpless and naive parents will get letters in their mailbox suggesting that their internet browsing history (as supplied by their ISP internet filter) suggests that they downloaded this copyrighted fetish porn film illegally, and if they wish to avoid the embarrassment of a very public lawsuit, they might want to pay this fine...
Corky42 5th August 2013, 19:17 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I guess I am approaching this from an optimistic angle. That seems reasonable to me because as long as they manage to make it do what it says on the tin then that works for me. And it is not allowing a government to dictate what my kids can read and watch - the government are providing the tool and I am agreeing that if the tool works as suggested then the tool is the right one for me to assist me in parenting as I see fit.

While its nice to be optimistic, IMHO its best to hope for the best but plan for the worst.
And while it would be great if this filter done what it said on the tin, that just isn't going to be the case.

Two years ago even Mumsnet abandoned support for anti-pornography web filters after the following discussion took place on the flaws with such a system...http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/site_stuff/1141192-recent-decision-by-MNHQ/AllOnOnePage
Quote:
Originally Posted by NetworkGuy
For numerous technical reasons the idea is never likely to achieve filtering without blocking access to legitimate sites or not blocking access to better than say 95% reliable, thus making it a costly exercise in futility, while parental vigilance and filtering software at the home would still be essential for peace of mind.

The problem with this filter is that it will give parents a false sense that they are protecting their children from unsuitable material, while little johnny sits in his bedroom with a laptop bypassing the much vaunted TalkTalk's type porn filter (A year on, TalkTalk's porn filter flaws remain)

Forcing a whole country into having their web usage monitored isn't addressing the problem, at best its putting a sticking plaster on it and hoping it goes away. The only way to address the problem IMHO is to educate parents on ways to monitor and filter their children's net usage, the dangers of what they do online, like posting images of them selves, who they talk to, what information they give out.
Elton 5th August 2013, 19:30 Quote
Out of all the talk about the ethical responsibilites, anyone here notice the sheer logistics problem a filter like this presents?

Opting out (or in?) would place you on a list that is less than savory. Not speaking a word would make it rather irritating if you were to stumble upon something the government deemed *unsafe* even if its not. And the worse part of all is that the use of this would cause quite a bit of ire to certain groups.

The weirdest thing about internet filters is that the ones who do want to access content will find a way. As evidenced by the persistence of a certain bay with corsairs, the idea of an internet filter not only costs a large amount of money, but nominally only reduces access to content for the average person.

In other words. It's illogical unless it's for other uses aside from content restriction. The argument of "for the protection of the kids!" or "for moral austerity!" is a rather absurd notion as the end result of content viewing is still at the discretion of the parents. There is no reason the government needs to involve themselves. Especially since its the taxpayer's money that is funding this filter which can still be bypassed by VPNs or proxies.

To me, it's a logistical nightmare to do so. Plus, the porn industry would go mad.
Corky42 6th August 2013, 09:15 Quote
Personalty i would prefer the money that is going to be spent on network level filtering to be spent on making parents more aware of the potential dangers of the internet for children, and what they can do to protect and educate them on safe internet behavior.
As well as more money going to CEOP so they can catch the scum destroying children's lives.
Elton 6th August 2013, 09:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Personalty i would prefer the money that is going to be spent on network level filtering to be spent on making parents more aware of the potential dangers of the internet for children, and what they can do to protect and educate them on safe internet behavior.
As well as more money going to CEOP so they can catch the scum destroying children's lives.

But that's too hard! Everyone knows the government knows best. ;) /sarcasm

Sarcasm aside though, an informational campaign would at best be taken lightly. Scare tactics only go so far and the willingness to be educated is something that has to be taken more seriously. Network level filtering is a very weak panacea for a problem that the most avid of users would circumvent anyways.

Look at Australia.
Nexxo 6th August 2013, 09:50 Quote
It's a behaviour change problem. Call in the psychologists.

Effective campaigns can be designed to teach the naïve. The parents who simply don't care, never will.
Elton 6th August 2013, 10:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It's a behaviour change problem. Call in the psychologists.

Effective campaigns can be designed to teach the naïve. The parents who simply don't care, never will.

Doesn't it go back to the question of who should be taking care of the children then? It takes a village, but if the village doesn't care what can we do?

Block by default is still admittedly a very...suspicious prospect as it really doesn't "save the kids!" as much as it blocks certain information sources. Which in of itself is a dubious goal at best.
forum_user 6th August 2013, 12:57 Quote
Guys I have to concede that I am beaten. Not in content (I still believe) but in sheer quantity of text! If I was not so busy right now I know for a fact I could lose most of today writing out a huge response to everyones points ... and then probably hit the submit button ... have that "You are not logged in" page appear ... lose my reply in a Safari quirk ... scream ... and then go lie down and breath into a bag.

I would like to reply one point though. Nexxo, I agree in an ideal world parents should be the ones bringing up their kids in a great way, teaching them morals, boundaries, routines, kindness, helping them become who they want to be. Add to that a great education and a happy and satisfying adult life and we have the ideal world.

But it is not like that is it?

You have the parents who neglect and abuse in all manner of ways, and in the worst case end up beating to death, or starving to death their child as seen with the polish couple (I say polish only to identify the example quickly). In a best case the parents are just not that good at parenting, but maybe doing their best. You know, the parents who cant stop themselves shouting all the time rather than finding the inner strength and patience to listen, analyse and understand how to help their kids develop properly. My point there is there is a very wide spectrum of parents between murder and shouting and there are thousands of levels between. It is not as simple as "parents, parent your children". It is much more complicated. Just like my point regarding the extra security haters on the steam forums - their argument made no sense. They made no argument except that victims should be victims. Don't help the victims. Made no sense then, and it makes no sense now.

As an example of one type this filter may help (out of thousands of different levels. parenting is not black & white for everyone) - I'm aware of nice families, where their hearts are in the right place, they do their best, but they have no knowledge of much, no experience of much, no education as such. To call them simple or slow is offensive but I do not know how to say it politely tbh. They provide for their kids best they can. Firewalls, software blockers, anti-virus, malware - it's all voodoo to them. Computers clogged with crap thanks to the kids exploring the internet. The computer crawls under the weight of the junk it contains. I'm fairly certain you guys have seen these computers as well. The kids of able to do whatever they like because the parents have no idea about computers.

A default filter for these types is perfect. A default filter means that the kids are in some small way being shielded while toddlers and youngsters - ok so when they get a bit more clued-up they may well bypass the filter, but as youngsters, they wont. I see the filter as worth having even just to cover this scenario.

The way I see it, the filter is provided as a tool. The parents will be deciding whether to use that tool. The tool will be as simple as saying yes or no to what appears to be a list of internet activities like porn, forums, sensitive subjects like suicide. The government is NOT dictating what the kids see - the parents are. I don't get why you guys are arguing "DONT let the government dictate what your kids are doing" - because they are not. They are providing a tool. So far. I do expect if it successful at blocking the right material, and not accidentally blocking the wrong material, that the filter will go default on.

You guys arguing about losing your rights, or having people dictated to, I don't see your point. You will still have an unfiltered internet. Even if it does go default on, you will still be able to request it turned off. So you guys get what you want ... and people who want to use the filter should be able to use it without being mocked or rubbished. I dont get why you guys are behaving like that. You get what you want, and parents who do want it get what they want ... everyone should be satisfied.

You guys keep saying parents should install the software filters/blockers, that parents should know what they are doing, that parents should be responsible and prevent their kids from accessing the content they don't want their kids accessing.

I do not think it is as simple as that. Parents are not as clever with computers, and do not have as much time as you guys to learn new tricks, and be able to detect a bypass that little Johnny might be using. You guys are techies. Most other parents are not. So I understand you guys may install the software blockers, set up your own filters, and see that as the solution. But you guys know all this stuff, and if you don't you have the ability to learn it all in minutes. But computers are voodoo to the majority of people out there and always will be.

SteamGuard made a massive difference in Steam account being phished and I think a filter like this WILL help those out there who cannot help themselves.

But I do agree we will see headlines like "Tory HQ website blocked by Tories own filter system due to the word paedophile being mentioned in an inquiry article". And we can all laugh about it ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Forcing a whole country into having their web usage monitored isn't addressing the problem, at best its putting a sticking plaster on it and hoping it goes away. The only way to address the problem IMHO is to educate parents on ways to monitor and filter their children's net usage, the dangers of what they do online, like posting images of them selves, who they talk to, what information they give out.

No time, no money. And a lot of parents do not have the capacity to learn these things.

You can only educate those who agree to it and even then there is no guarantee any of it will stick. Safety online covers more than kids seeing pics of boobies.

Also, the word 'forcing' is nice and emotive, but actually you still have the choice to opt-out or opt-in, whichever it becomes. So as an adult male who loves porn - no problems. As a clueless parent who knows nothing and does not have the get-up-and-go to learn about online safety - no problems. (added) and again, ANYTHING is better than NOTHING - even if it does have to be provided by our government.

As long as you guys still get the unfiltered internet you want, I do not see this proposal as an issue.

Oh, and when the kids are old enough, I'll have my unfiltered internet back as well.
Corky42 6th August 2013, 14:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
No time, no money. And a lot of parents do not have the capacity to learn these things.

You can only educate those who agree to it and even then there is no guarantee any of it will stick. Safety online covers more than kids seeing pics of boobies.

Also, the word 'forcing' is nice and emotive, but actually you still have the choice to opt-out or opt-in, whichever it becomes. So as an adult male who loves porn - no problems. As a clueless parent who knows nothing and does not have the get-up-and-go to learn about online safety - no problems. (added) and again, ANYTHING is better than NOTHING - even if it does have to be provided by our government.

Parents don't need time to watch public service adverts akin to the ones run in 1998

(Warning some people may find this disturbing)
jjJCdBohRPk

We have had similar things on the danger of playing with matches, smoke alarms, not getting into unlicensed cabs, there has been loads in the past, check out http://gadgets.boingboing.net/2009/08/21/mind-the-gap-a-compe.html

Why since the internet boom has the government not taken the dangers of the internet seriously and warned parents and children, some people may find the infomercials annoying but they have been proven to work.

I use the word forcing on purpose because that is what is happening, its not as you think a simple opt-out or opt-in, there wont be two separate networks one for those who opt-in and a different one for those who opt-out.
All web traffic in the UK is going to be monitored, when any person in the UK goes to any web site it will be routed through the web filtering machines, and if you have opted-out it simply wont check the blacklist to see if the site you are visiting is on the list.

But make no mistake, the government or a private firm will know how many times and what web sites every household in the UK has visited, and just as happened in Australia this blacklist will be expanded and by introducing a opt-in or opt-out filter in the UK it leaves the door open for a mandatory filter later down the line, just as happened in Australia.
Nexxo 6th August 2013, 20:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Guys I have to concede that I am beaten. Not in content (I still believe) but in sheer quantity of text! If I was not so busy right now I know for a fact I could lose most of today writing out a huge response to everyones points ... and then probably hit the submit button ... have that "You are not logged in" page appear ... lose my reply in a Safari quirk ... scream ... and then go lie down and breath into a bag.

Let's try and keep it succinct (a challenge for me, I know!).

You appear to be making three points:

1. Some parents are either just inadequate or uncaring, and that's a fact of life, whether we like it or not. If they don't look after their kids, the state unfortunately has to.

2. Other parents try hard, but they just don't understand computers, so may not be able to protect their kids from harmful internet content without assistance from the state.

3. Look, it's just a filter. You can opt out. What's the biggie?

Our argument is:

1. When parents are inadequate or uncaring, we possibly have a lot more substantial worries than what websites these kids access. Baby P., Victoria Clombier and Daniel Polka did not die of exposure to inappropriate websites. Such parents need a lot more specific parenting support or supervision, or possibly their kids should just be taken into care.

2. If parents are caring but no good with computers, all they have to do is restrict internet access to when they are in the room to see what the kid is accessing. Don't give them their own tablet or laptop at age eight. Don't let them access the browser without an adult in the room. There is no electronic substitute for parental presence and attention.

There could also be a government website that explains to parents the risks of children having unfettered access to the internet (even with tilted in place). Every ISP could have a link on their homepage and in their welcome pack. The government could have some ads on TV. Teach people, don't treat them like idiots.

3. As for the filter: there is no reason that this should be a blanket tool at ISP level imposed by the State, rather than a local solution installed on the PC offered by commercial companies. When you order an internet connection, your friendly ISP provider simply goes: do you want is to install some kiddie safety filters on your PC? It could be a simple software package where parents click on a download link on the ISP homepage, or shove a CD from the welcome pack into the PC and the thing downloads and installs itself (a bit like any browser plugin or extension). Job done, no esoteric computer skills needed.

A State-imposed filter will inevitably comply with the 'moral majority', because governments are run by politicians, and politicians like to curry favour with public opinion (which is why Cameron is proposing this in the first place). Moral majority means: the self-righteous conservative barely-literate Daily Mail reader (arguably the same people whose parenting we worry about). That could mean: no sites discussing homosexuality. No sites discussing sex, in an educational sense or otherwise. No sites discussing politically incorrect views. No sites discussing Winnie the Pooh. No sites discussing The Diary of Anne Frank. Wait, don't believe me? Look at the list of books banned by government in various Western countries. That is what state censorship looks like in practice.

At a more fundamental level, State-imposed internet filtering suggests that certain ideas are dangerous, that some people just cannot handle such ideas responsibly (and by extension manage their children's exposure to those ideas responsibly) and that the government knows better what ideas people can handle than the people themselves. Next stop: thought crime.

A State-imposed filter at ISP level can be abused, and history shows us that it will be abused. Let's not give an at best incompetent, at worse somewhat corrupt government more tools to control and monitor the flow of free public information when there are plenty of good alternatives to keep control in the hands of the parents.
forum_user 7th August 2013, 08:20 Quote
Don't you mean to say - a state provided filter that bill payers decide whether to use or not to??
Nexxo 7th August 2013, 08:55 Quote
Good point, and now we get to the issue of informed consent.

Suppose I am a caring parent, and I am offered the choice to filter out sex sites pre default. Of course I leave that ticked --don't want my children to see kinky porn, child porn, rape fantasies and such. All good, no?

However a few months later my child has to do a project on WWII and the Nazi occupation of Europe. The Diary of Anne Frank comes up as required reading. My child googles it up --and cannot access the site. It is blocked. Wait, what?

Unlikely scenario? The book was banned by a Virginia school because of its “sexual content and homosexual themes.” Additionally, the book was previously banned by several schools in the United States because it was “too depressing.” Most recently, in May of 2013, a Michigan mom tried to get the book banned due to its “pornographic tendencies.” (I've read it --it's required reading in Dutch schools, and rightly so-- and indeed it has some brief musings by an adolescent girl on her burgeoning sexuality, but nothing that no young adolescent has thought about before).

The problem is that when a concerned parent ticks a box (or in this case, leaves it ticked), they do not really know what they are consenting to being filtered out. They do not really know what slips past the filter. They are trusting the supervision of their precious vulnerable little things to a piece of software somewhere. And that is stupid and wrong.

And then there is the issue of what gets filtered that you weren't asked about. After all, the filter is now in place --nothing to stop the government putting a few filtering criteria in place pre-emptively. You don't need to ask people whether they want to be able to access terrorist websites, because obviously no right-thinking person would. Then that little pre-emotive list gets longer... It's already happening in other countries.

ISPs can jump on the bandwagon. I'm on Virgin Media. Sky has a cracking offer on their internet access --only I can't see it, because Virgin per default filters out special offers by competitors...

It has been argued in this thread that this is not about the porn. This is about the government having a legal framework and technology in place to filter our access to information on the internet if it wants to do so.

Like many acts invoked since 9/11 were meant to be used only on case of terrorist emergency are now used fairly routinely (e.g. stop and search without warrant; UK customs officers being able to confiscate your computer, mobile phone, memory sticks and other media, download the data thereon and keep that forever without needing a warrant or your permission. And yes, they can also demand your passwords without warrant), this technology will be abused. And most people won't even realise when it happens.
erratum1 7th August 2013, 09:07 Quote
Unemployment cuts people being made homeless people comitting suicide nobody gives a fig.

"I'm alright jack doesn't effect me"

But wait.. Cameron could take away our porn?....13 pages of out rage.

This ****ing country!
Gareth Halfacree 7th August 2013, 09:18 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
Unemployment cuts people being made homeless people comitting suicide nobody gives a fig.
"I'm alright jack doesn't effect me"
But wait.. Cameron could take away our porn?....13 pages of out rage.
This ****ing country!
You are aware you're on a technology website, right? In the Article Discussion subforum? Where people discuss articles that have appeared on the site? Articles that are, by the nature of the site, about technology?

If you want to discuss other government policies, try the General or Serious sub-fora - or, alternatively, find a website that exists to write articles about such matters. You won't find 'em here - but that doesn't mean that anyone, least of all the people who write said articles, doesn't have an opinion on same.

CrazyJoe 7th August 2013, 09:21 Quote
Fix your settings to 100 posts per page and then it's only 3 pages of "out rage". Better?
Corky42 7th August 2013, 09:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
There could also be a government website that explains to parents the risks of children having unfettered access to the internet (even with tilted in place). Every ISP could have a link on their homepage and in their welcome pack. The government could have some ads on TV. Teach people, don't treat them like idiots.

You know the crazy thing is all this is already in place, its just not widely publicised >:(

We have, Get Safe Online is a jointly funded initiative between several Government departments and private sector businesses. In fact, we are the Government’s preferred online security advice channel.
We have, CEOP's thinkuknow website, Giving advise on how parents, teachers, and children of varying ages can stay safe online.
We have, UK Safer Internet Centre, where you can find e-safety tips, advice and resources to help children and young people stay safe on the internet.

We have, software already supplied by the majority of ISPs including Virgin Media (Virgin Media Security), BT (NetProtect Plus), Sky (McAfee Parental Controls), TalkTalk (HomeSafe) and many more. There are also family filters built into Windows and Mac OS X
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Don't you mean to say - a state provided filter that bill payers decide whether to use or not to??
There will be no deciding whether to use it or not, every household in the country will be forced into using it. Its just some households wont be checked against a list of censored web sites, we wont have two separate networks, one for those who opt-in, and another for those that opt-out.
And latter down the line, as is happening in Australia there will be pressure for mandatory filtering.
forum_user 7th August 2013, 12:49 Quote
So little Mary is doing a piece of homework on WWII but finds access to a site blocked.

The filter, I imagine can be turned on and off with a phonecall ...

No biggie.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It has been argued in this thread that this is not about the porn. This is about the government having a legal framework and technology in place to filter our access to information on the internet if it wants to do so.

I agree it is more than just the porn. I don't feel sick in my stomach watching a hairy BBW mature redhead being spitroasted by a couple of well hung Jamaicans - beheading videos and the photos of genocide the news stations do not show - that does. This is something else that needs to be kept from delicate eyes until they are ready, and able to analyse, identify, reason and psychologically cope with.

But the government is not proposing they control the filter. They are providing you with the filter to opt-in or opt-out. You also mention examples from other countries than our own as examples of what WILL happen worst case scenario. You don't know that. You are scaremongering the weak minded to believe that the government will ultimately try to censor everything.

Next you will fast forward 50 years and acuse a future government of committing genocide on us, and filtering the future internet so that no one knows about it. Really? You fear our country banning childrens books? You fear our country introducing state controlled censorship?

I don't think you do. You just enjoy the scary thought of it and debating it as a possibility even though it won't happen.

I tell you what might get state censored though. The next time a bunch of people try to recreate the riots - I expect the egging-on, the provocation, the Twittering about it - that will get censored. And so it should. I don't have a problem with that kind of censorship. The riots were a joke in the eyes of normal people leading normal lives, picking up the pieces and paying for it through their taxes and increased insurance premiums for the rectifying and rebuilding.

I sign on the dotted line to that kind of crime prevention.
Nexxo 7th August 2013, 13:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
Unemployment cuts people being made homeless people comitting suicide nobody gives a fig.

"I'm alright jack doesn't effect me"

But wait.. Cameron could take away our porn?....13 pages of out rage.

This ****ing country!

How do you know that people are committing suicide over benefit cuts and long-term unemployment? Oh, hang on, because of a free press. Because of this access to uncensored public information, you know how government policies are not the success that the government claims, how the NHS makes mistakes, how our communications are not private, how politicians break laws, how ex-servicemen, the young homeless discharged from an overburdened care system and the mentally ill are committing suicide because of a failure by government to provide for them. Uncensored press: it matters. Uncensored access to public information: it matters.

As has been said many times: this is not about the porn. Not for us, not for the government.
Nexxo 7th August 2013, 13:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
So little Mary is doing a piece of homework on WWII but finds access to a site blocked.

The filter, I imagine can be turned on and off with a phonecall ...

No biggie.
And we're back to square one: unfiltered Internet. That was effective, wasn't it? :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I agree it is more than just the porn. I don't feel sick in my stomach watching a hairy BBW mature redhead being spitroasted by a couple of well hung Jamaicans - beheading videos and the photos of genocide the news stations do not show - that does. This is something else that needs to be kept from delicate eyes until they are ready, and able to analyse, identify, reason and psychologically cope with.

But the government is not proposing they control the filter. They are providing you with the filter to opt-in or opt-out. You also mention examples from other countries than our own as examples of what WILL happen worst case scenario. You don't know that. You are scaremongering the weak minded to believe that the government will ultimately try to censor everything.
I think that we are talking across purposes here. You are able to make a compelling argument as to why internet filtering would in principle be a good thing. We are not disputing your arguments on that.

What you are not able to make a compelling argument for is:
- whether such filtering would be effective in filtering out the bad sites, and not accidentally filtering out the good, useful ones;
- whether such filtering, once in place would not be abused by the government or by companies that manage it.

Now please tell me:
- what evidence do you have that such filtering could work reasonably effectively;
- what evidence do you have that the government or the commercial computer industry earns our unconditional trust.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Next you will fast forward 50 years and acuse a future government of committing genocide on us, and filtering the future internet so that no one knows about it. Really? You fear our country banning childrens books? You fear our country introducing state controlled censorship?
Argument ad extremis is not a valid argument. (although it has been done in other countries).

We're back to the original position: I base my concerns on past evidence, you base your trust on hope and optimistic assumption.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I tell you what might get state censored though. The next time a bunch of people try to recreate the riots - I expect the egging-on, the provocation, the Twittering about it - that will get censored. And so it should. I don't have a problem with that kind of censorship. The riots were a joke in the eyes of normal people leading normal lives, picking up the pieces and paying for it through their taxes and increased insurance premiums for the rectifying and rebuilding.

I sign on the dotted line to that kind of crime prevention.

You're not thinking this through. During the riots there were 2.6 million tweets. How would we filter the provokative tweets from the ones by parents asking their children to come home? How would we filter the egging-on from warnings by concerned people warning their friends and family to avoid the riot areas? Do we just take down Twitter, Egypt and Syria-style? And what about news reporting: the images, the videos? Do we have a news black-out?

And was Twitter a factor at all?
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Guardian
An in-depth analysis of a database of more than 2.6m riot-related tweets has revealed the ways in which the network was used during the disturbances. "Politicians and commentators were quick to claim that social media played an important role in inciting and organising riots, calling for sites such as Twitter to be closed should events of this nature happen again. But our study has found no evidence of significance in the available data that would justify such a course of action in respect to Twitter," said Prof Rob Procter of the University of Manchester, who led a team of academics conducting the analysis. "In contrast, we do find strong evidence that Twitter was a valuable tool for mobilising support for the post-riot clean-up and for organising specific clean-up activities."


But hey, once we do it once, how easy it will be to do the same when people protest against, say, another invasion in the Middle East, or another austerity measure like NHS cuts! We did it once, and the system is in place, so... But it is all for riot prevention and the public good, of course.
Corky42 7th August 2013, 14:02 Quote
You only have to look to the past for examples of governments introducing small or short term policy's and how they have expanded on them.

Take income tax, initially meant to be a short term tax to finance the Napoleonic wars. But two hundred years later and its still with us. Or the laws passed to address terrorism and how function creep means that they are now deployed in much less threatening contexts, against fly-tippers and those suspected of lying in school applications.

Function, scope, feature creep happens all the time, governments are awash with examples of how seemingly innocent projects have been expanded upon and not used as they where originally intended.

We are sleep walking into state monitoring of our internet usage and giving up rights to privacy. These are freedoms that previous generations paid mightily to protect, but which governments are now casually destroying.
RedFlames 7th August 2013, 15:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
As has been said many times: this is not about the porn. Not for us, not for the government.

It's also about the ISPs being pressured into 'Volunteering' to do it for the 'greater good'. If it was being done through legislation, then that would have to discussed, debated and has the potential to be slapped down by MPs, the Lords, public opinion or all of the above... They're doing it on the sly, so it isn't being discussed or questioned, nothing official for people to say 'No' to... But once the main ISPs have 'volunteered' to filter content, the law becomes easier to pass under the banner of 'regulation' with the argument of 'they're already doing it, we're here to make sure they do it properly'...


TL-DR It's not just what they're doing... it's *how* they're doing it...

EDIT: Corky kind of beat me to it...
Corky42 7th August 2013, 17:35 Quote
Its not like people need more reasons to oppose this harmful and dangerous 'Volunteering' of default on filtering. But a case in point, here is a full list of web sites reported to Blocked.org.uk as being incorrectly blocked between 1st January and 31st March 2012.
(Warning XLS Document) https://www.openrightsgroup.org/assets/files/files/BlockedReports.xls

The following are some highlights from the full list, as taken from https://www.openrightsgroup.org/ourwork/reports/mobile-internet-censorship:-whats-happening-and-what-we-can-do-about-it
Quote:
1. ‘Tor’ (ww.torproject.org). We established that the primary website of this privacy tool (meaning the HTTP version of the Tor Project website, rather than connections to the Tor network) was blocked on at least Vodafone, O2 and Three in January.

2. La Quadrature du Net (ww.laquadrature.net/en). The website of this French ‘digital rights’ advocacy group was reported blocked on Orange’s ‘Safeguard’ system on 2nd February. La Quadrature du Net has become one of the focal points for European civil society’s political engagement with an important international treaty called the Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement. The block was removed shortly after we publicised the blocking.

3. Shelfappeal.com was reported blocked on 15th February 2012 on Orange. This is a blog that features items that can be placed on a shelf.

4. Septicisle.info was reported on 7th February, and was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile. This is a personal blog featuring political opinion pieces. It does not contain any adult content.

5. The Vault Bar (ww.thevaultbar.co.uk) in London. We established that the home page of this bar was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile on 6th February.

6. St Margarets Community Website (ww.stmgrts.org.uk), is a community information site ‘created by a group of local residents of St Margarets, Middlesex.’ Their ‘mission is simple - help foster a stronger community identity.’ We established it was blocked on Orange and T-Mobile on 8th March.

7. eHow.com is an advice and educational site. It provides tutorials on a wide range of everyday issues, from ‘navigating after- school care’ to ‘small space garden tips’. We established it was blocked on Orange on 9th March.

8. Biased-BBC (ww.biased-bbc.blogspot.co.uk) is a site that challenges the BBC’s impartiality. We established it was blocked on O2 and T-Mobile on 5th March. It is classified as a ‘hate site’ by O2’s URL checker

9. Yomaraugusto.com is the home page of a graphic designer, offering a portfolio of his art and design work. This was found to be blocked on Three and Orange on 6th February.

10. Exquisitetweets.com allows users to create one-page threads to save or share from conversations on Twitter. This site was blocked on Vodafone, Orange, and T-Mobile on 15th February.

This all has very worrying implications for Net neutrality, Will this upcoming blacklist of sites be made public ?
Will it be quicker for a site like facebook to throw lawyers at a problem of over-blocking than a small start up company ?
forum_user 7th August 2013, 17:51 Quote
In general guys, a lot of these examples of censorship cock-ups were corrected when the right people were made aware. Sooooooooooooo? Temp blips that I don't believe constitutes a major concern. You already acknowledge that filters are only as good as they are made to be - and will have 'blips'.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Take income tax, initially meant to be a short term tax to finance the Napoleonic wars. But two hundred years later and its still with us.

But ... tax pays for stuff that we scream and shout when anyone tries to tamper with it. Surely tax is a great example of good government control?
Corky42 7th August 2013, 18:27 Quote
These censorship cock-ups may have been corrected eventually, but these blips have caused people to lose money. If you where running a business you wouldn't call them blips or cock-ups.

There has been examples of a Dentists web site being blocked, she was never contacted to say she had been placed on a list of filtered web site, so its impossible to know how long her site had been blocked.

And yes Tax pays for stuff, but i was using that as an example of how once the frame work for something is in place it's easy to expanded on it to included things it wasn't intended for.
forum_user 7th August 2013, 19:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
These censorship cock-ups may have been corrected eventually, but these blips have caused people to lose money. If you where running a business you wouldn't call them blips or cock-ups.

And yes Tax pays for stuff, but i was using that as an example of how once the frame work for something is in place it's easy to expanded on it to included things it wasn't intended for.

1. Eventually? I see examples of 1 day issues, possibly even a few hours?

2. Tax was then used in a positive way? I think. I'd rather we were paying tax and have the public sector, than not.

This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".
CrazyJoe 7th August 2013, 19:32 Quote
But the ability to filter content already exists already and has done for several years. Why do you feel the government is better placed than you to decide what your children see online?

Since you are pro-filter do you already have filters set up, or are you waiting for the government to do it for you?
RedFlames 7th August 2013, 19:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1. Eventually? I see examples of 1 day issues, possibly even a few hours?

2. Tax was then used in a positive way? I think. I'd rather we were paying tax and have the public sector, than not.

This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".

We probably won't be able to... they'll have everything blocked ;)


... but we did tell you so
Corky42 7th August 2013, 19:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1. Eventually? I see examples of 1 day issues, possibly even a few hours?

2. Tax was then used in a positive way? I think. I'd rather we were paying tax and have the public sector, than not.

This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".

That list is just a one time check to verify the report of a incorrect block, But even if it was only a day and i was running one of those sites i would be very concerned that a whole country has block my web site as a default option no matter how short a time it was for. at least with parental controls installed on a users device its just one user that cant get to your site.

So you are saying the Napoleonic wars was a good thing, personally i don't think any war can be a good thing, but you seem to be trying to debate if tax is a good thing or not, and i was using that as an example of how once the frame work for something is in place it's easy to expanded on it to included things it wasn't intended for.
Not if tax is a good thing or not.
Nexxo 7th August 2013, 21:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1. Eventually? I see examples of 1 day issues, possibly even a few hours?

You mean like TalkTalk immediately patched the holes in their filter?
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".

Funny you should say that. Remember the death of Ian Tomlinson? It was someone's mobile phone video that revealed how he really died. Whenever the police cracks down on protests, and indeed opportunist criminals abuse protests as a means to steal and vandalise, there are thousands of 'Little Brothers' videoing what happens and tweeting about it. But if during protests there is a black-out of social networking websites as you are a proponent of, such transgressions may never come to light.

Why do you think governments in Egypt, Syria and Turkey took out Twitter? To discourage "egging on and provocation of riots"?
Elton 7th August 2013, 21:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1. Eventually? I see examples of 1 day issues, possibly even a few hours?

2. Tax was then used in a positive way? I think. I'd rather we were paying tax and have the public sector, than not.

This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".

On the larger picture, it's very hard to justify the upkeep and costs of making such infrastructure. It could cost people money. It could erroneously block important sites. Sure, we have the conveneince of no longer needing to filter it ourselves. But we are not informed on what is an is not blocked.

That in of itself is dubious. The fact that your own tax dollars are paying to potentially inconvenience people to patchily censor material that may be explicit in hopes that children and teenagers won't circumvent it is at best, unrealistic. If the rollout were to be perfectly rolled out (which in the IT is literally a statistical impossibility) then perhaps you could justify it. But to me, paying for a filter that limits potentially explicit information which you have no control of the filter is foolhardy.
Corky42 7th August 2013, 21:44 Quote
But its all good :(
Because when we have given up the hard fought for rights that our ancestors gave there lives to protect, the right to privacy, to a free press, free speech, freedom of association.

We can find comfort in knowing we saved a few parents the bother of having to talking to their children about the internet, or having to install some free software.
Nexxo 8th August 2013, 09:43 Quote
"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety" --Benjamin Franklin
Corky42 8th August 2013, 16:34 Quote
Porn filters: 12 reasons why they won't work (and 3 reasons why they might)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/reality-check/2013/aug/08/porn-filters-evidence-for-against Link goes into more detail.
Quote:
12 reasons why porn filters won't work
1. It's impossible to filter just what you want to
2. Filters can't cope with context and nuance
3. You can't be clear about what you filter
4. It's not as simple as blocking a website
5. Many children are more tech savvy than their parents
6. There will always be ways round
7. For parents it may provide a dangerous illusion of safety
8. Filtering at router-level is inflexible
9. It sets a precedent for restricting legal content
10. It's not cost effective
11. It hasn't happened yet
12. And finally it's a gimmick rather than a solution

And three reasons why it could work
1. It's already happening
2. Other countries have systems to restrict child abuse content
3. And some research suggests filters can be made to work
Corky42 15th August 2013, 19:21 Quote
Can you guess which government said which? You can chose from the following: China, the U.S., and the U.K.

First: “Democratic governments must resist the calls to censor a wide range of content just because they or others find it offensive or objectionable.”

Second: “Put simply, there needs to be a list of terms—a blacklist—which offer up no direct search returns.”

It is a trick question. The U.K. government said both. The first was by Foreign Secretary William Hague, speaking at the Budapest Conference on Cyberspace in October 2012. The second was by Prime Minister David Cameron in July 2013

Premier League orders censorship of BBC and other legit sites, blasts ISPs for correcting their error
Quote:
The Premier League -- the multibillion-dollar football organization -- carelessly added the IP address of a major web-host to its censorship list, and as a result blocked The Radio Times (the BBC's listing service), Galaxy Zoo (an important astronomical research project), and many other legitimate sites.

British Library's wi-fi service blocks 'violent' Hamlet
Quote:
A man using the British Library's wi-fi network was denied access to an online version of Shakespeare's Hamlet because the text contained "violent content".
Nexxo 15th August 2013, 19:29 Quote
Yeah, the US and UK were all for internet freedom --until the WikiLeaks scandal. :D
Nexxo 19th August 2013, 08:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
This proposal is definitely an agree to disagree one. I really don't see the drama. However when we start getting beaten in the streets by the .gov army, and the filters stop us tweeting to let the world know about it - you can say "told ya so!".

Told ya so.
impar 19th August 2013, 09:47 Quote
Greetings!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Told ya so.
Thats worrying...
Corky42 19th August 2013, 11:03 Quote
But its OK because we would prefer to detain someone for 7 hours, then we feel protected :(
Just as we would prefer to have the choice *cough* of internet filters to protect the children.

Not that we are protected, and not that internet filters will protect children. in fact who cares as long as we feel better :)
CrazyJoe 20th August 2013, 02:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
But its OK because we would prefer to detain someone for 7 hours, then we feel protected :(
Just as we would prefer to have the choice *cough* of internet filters to protect the children.

Not that we are protected, and not that internet filters will protect children. in fact who cares as long as we feel better :)

The government is protecting us by going into newspaper offices and destroying hard drives.

I wonder if they destroyed the cloud too?
Corky42 30th August 2013, 08:20 Quote
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/david-camerons-plan-for-internetporn-filters-risks-hurting-lgbt-community-8778956.html
Quote:
Prominent figures including the Belle de Jour writer Brooke Magnanti and feminist blogger and author Zoe Margolis, warned that the Government was taking “a dangerous and misguided approach” to internet safety
Quote:
“We urge you instead to invest in a programme of sex and relationship education that empowers young people and to revisit the need for this topic to be mandatory in schools,” they write. “Please drop shallow headline grabbing proposals and pursue serious and demonstrably effective policies to tackle abuse of young people.”

http://www.shoutoutuk.org/2013/08/21/theblock-protecting-childrens-innocence-or-is-the-government-invading-our-right-to-privacy/
Quote:
If this government censorship continues the internet in this country will soon become like it is in China or North Korea and I believe this block is a disguise by the government to impose on our privacy. It is hard for us to trust the government because even if people to opt out of the block, they will be put on a list and the chances of this list being leaked are very high as this has happened countless times with government files.
Quote:
In terms of protecting the innocent minds of children it is up to the parents and not the state. Why should all of us be affected by this ban? Our freedom should not be imposed on and what we need to protect children is education.

http://churchm.ag/maybe-uk-shouldnt-censor-pornography/
Quote:
“We’ve had “child pornography” censuring for quite some years now. Ironically, one of the first sites to go under censorship was lapsiporno.info (lapsiporno is Finnish for child pornography), which is NOT a site that contains pornography, rather it’s a site which criticizes the whole censure system.

Also, the site is still under censure even after years of complaints to the police which maintains the block list. The case also went to court, and the site maintainer won the plea – one should be able to complain about decisions made by authorities. Still, nothing has happened.”

When Feminist and Church bloggers start speaking out against this so called optional filter, you know something must be wrong.
Nexxo 31st August 2013, 19:02 Quote
Effin' A.

Meanwhile Cameron tried to do his own Tony Blair with Syria: go in under the assumption that Syria's government used WMD rather than conclusive proof by weapons inspectors, without UN approval, and without any plan whatsoever of what that intervention consists of and what the long-term consequences might be or how to manage them. Luckily this time parliament put a stop to it.
andreinuk 31st August 2013, 20:14 Quote
Sorry to disagree Nexxo. As far as I am aware the vote was about military action if the UN inspectors found that it was the Syrian government was responsible for using chemical weapons. Not before.

With regards to the filtering system, as others have pointed out we have had child pornography being removed for quite sometime and all that seems to have happened is that they have found other ways around it.

If children are accessing pornographic material then you have to look at how they are accessing it. Is it by their mobile phone, computer/tablet, magazines, etc. I also think parents need to take a bit more responsibility as well for their own children and what activities they are using their computer and mobile for. You probably won't ever be able to stop kids sharing their dvds and magazines between themselves or electronic copies that they have.
Nexxo 31st August 2013, 20:23 Quote
I stand corrected. But a Labour amendment called for “compelling evidence” that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack before UK involvement. This was rejected by 332 votes to 220. This leads me to think that the evidence that Cameron was looking for was a bit less substantial.

In any case such actions would still require UN approval, and there was a glaring absence of an exit strategy and management of the aftermath.
andreinuk 31st August 2013, 20:34 Quote
Very true Nexxo. Our politicians are incapable, it seems, of running a peaceful(ish) country let alone a war.

Oh and Nexxo, I don't think that you can be classed as simply an ordinary geek. I'm sure you're closer to Bit-Tech Legend.
Nexxo 31st August 2013, 21:29 Quote
I'm but a humble follower of the Way of Relix. :p
forum_user 1st September 2013, 01:20 Quote
I still want my filters to shield those innocent little eyes from crap. But I reckon most of us are in agreement about how we're being dragged towards Syria.

I have a bad feeling no matter what, we're going there whatever ...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
But a Labour amendment called for “compelling evidence” that the Assad regime was responsible for the attack before UK involvement.

Oh, how things change when a different party/coalition is in power.
Corky42 1st September 2013, 08:42 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I still want my filters to shield those innocent little eyes from crap.

No filter can be a substitute for education.
Nexxo 1st September 2013, 09:26 Quote
Indeed. The filter has to be inside the head. And usually it is; research shows that prepubescent children pay no attention to porn. It is just adults acting yucky and weird (again), and they ignore it. As for the really bad, traumatic stuff: they'd have to go looking for it to find it, and no child goes looking for Al Qaida beheadings.

Personally I just wouldn't let a child browse the internet unsupervised. I'm sure there are stupid or careless parents who would, but generally they spend their money on Sky TV rather than broadband (where their little tykes can tune into Adult Babestation). I think that the way to deal with bad or inadequate parenting is not to restrict the flow of ideas and information to the whole of society. I strongly object to a society which believes that certain ideas and information are dangerous, and that people should not be exposed to them because of what they might think, feel or do. That way totalitarianism lies.

Cameron, meanwhile, by trying to push through another moronic policy, has demonstrated that he does not have the intelligence to properly think through the ramifications of his policies. If anybody is going to censor the internet, this government should not be the one doing it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I still want my filters to shield those innocent little eyes from crap. But I reckon most of us are in agreement about how we're being dragged towards Syria.

Yeah, but how would we have known about Syria in the first place if it wasn't for those graphic images of real violence that are all over the news, and hence the internet? The videos and photos posted by citizens on the net? Shouldn't we, you know, filter that stuff to protect our little children's innocent eyes? What imagery of violence is harmful and should be filtered, and what imagery of violence should be legitimately shown to the world because it concerns is all? Who gets to determine that?

Think about it, because that censorship is already happening. We get shown graphic pictures of children firebombed in Syria, but we don't get to see the wedding party that was bombed by a US drone in Afghanistan.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Oh, how things change when a different party/coalition is in power.
At least they learned from their mistake. For now.
CrazyJoe 4th September 2013, 11:27 Quote
Corky42 4th September 2013, 12:20 Quote
It would seem the filter may not even be legal.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/bt-seeks-legal-clarity-before-implementing-pornography-filters/
Quote:
Under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA), the interception of communications is generally prohibited. It is only legal to intrude on private communications if you have a warrant or both the sender and recipient of information consent to the activity, even if the interception is done unintentionally.
You would think things like this are checked before hand, well unless they don't understand the technical details of how a filter would work..
theshadow2001 4th September 2013, 12:34 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
It would seem the filter may not even be legal.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/bt-seeks-legal-clarity-before-implementing-pornography-filters/

You would think things like this are checked before hand, well unless they don't understand the technical details of how a filter would work..

I would imagine that they just have to change the contract from the ISP to say you consent to the filter which would get around the above paragraph nicely.
Corky42 4th September 2013, 13:03 Quote
They cant get around it just by bringing in new terms, as it is only legal to intrude on private communications if you have a warrant or both the sender and recipient of information agree that it is acceptable, even if it is done unintentionally.

So unless they get the recipient (the rest of the world) to agree the ISP would be breaking EU law (supposedly) Then there is the problem that if they do change the terms does this mean they no longer need a warrant to monitor any and all internet traffic in the UK ?
theshadow2001 4th September 2013, 13:45 Quote
You would still need a warrant because to intercept communications by other means would not have been consented. Agreeing to the filter as part of an TOS would be consenting. They could also then make the case that the filtering servers are the recipient. Anyway, my point is not to try and find loop holes. My point is that I'm sure the British government would hardly let a silly thing like EU law get in the way of implementing the filter.
Gareth Halfacree 4th September 2013, 13:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
They cant get around it just by bringing in new terms, as it is only legal to intrude on private communications if you have a warrant or both the sender and recipient of information agree that it is acceptable, even if it is done unintentionally.
Sure they can. "As a valued customer, we would like to bring your attention to our new Terms and Conditions. These new Ts&Cs will go into effect as of next month. Your continued use of our service constitutes acceptance of the revised Ts&Cs; if you do not agree to the changes, please contact us to cancel your contract ahead of the new terms going into effect." Ta-da: either you leave your ISP (and go to another one that has made exactly the same changes to the Ts&Cs) or you 'agree' to the changes. No problem at all.

Also, RIPA is the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act and controls how a third-party can eavesdrop on a conversation; the ISP isn't a third party, but the other half of the conversation and thus can snoop as much as it likes without falling foul of RIPA - same way you can record all your telephone calls without letting the other party know, so long as you don't publish them. This isn't new: ISPs have been snooping on your traffic for years. That's how spam filters work. And virus scanning. And deep-packet analysis. And P2P throttling. And various other features, ad nauseam.
Corky42 4th September 2013, 15:24 Quote
@theshadow2001, Either they would need a warrant, or would need consent from both the sender and recipient of the information. Unless ISP's send out consent letters to the entire world asking if its OK to monitor people connecting from the UK, they maybe breaking EU law, well at least BT is worried enough to seek clarification from the government.

And when it comes to EU law getting in the way of UK law, it has happened many times. Most notably when the EU forced the change in RIPA http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2013/august/bt-seeks-legal-clarity-before-implementing-pornography-filters/
If the government cant do anything about EU migration laws, why do you think they would flout EU law when it comes to such a trivial matter as an internet filter.
Quote:
It was previously the case under RIPA that, without a warrant, you only needed to prove there was 'reasonable grounds' to accept consent had been given to allow communications to be intercepted. However, those particular RIPA provisions were scrapped and updated after the European Commission launched a legal challenge arguing that the old rules did not adequately protect against intrusion into personal privacy.

@Gareth, I would respectfully disagree, the ISP is a third party in the same way the post office is a third party when you send a letter to someone, or your phone company is the third party when you make a call. Yes ISP's monitor and block certain traffic, but afaik this blocking is done on certain ports known for spreading virus, Torrent ports, etc, etc, not on specific URL's.

But what do i know, I'm no lawyer Although BT must be concerned about break EU law, other wise why would they ask the government for greater legal clarity ?
theshadow2001 4th September 2013, 15:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
@theshadow2001, Either they would need a warrant, or would need consent from both the sender and recipient of the information. Unless ISP's send out consent letters to the entire world asking if its OK to monitor people connecting from the UK, they maybe breaking EU law, well at least BT is worried enough to seek clarification from the government.

I was essentially making the same point as Gareth. That the ISP could easily force consent through T&C and also be considered the recipient and not a third party and so the criteria has been met to allow interception. Gareth has also pointed out numerous examples of ISPs doing this already. How can an ISP throttle peer to peer comms if it is not intercepting and examing your commincations? They do this yet they don't seem to be falling foul of EU law. The filter is unlikely to be any different.
Corky42 4th September 2013, 16:05 Quote
Because they don't intercept and examing your communications, they simply throttle based on amount of GB sent or received in a set time, or they block certain known P2P ports.

The European Court of Justice already ruled its illegal.
http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/november/courts-cannot-force-isps-into-broad-filtering-and-monitoring-for-copyright-infringing-traffic-ecj-rules/
Quote:
The ECJ ruling means national courts cannot force ISPs to use filter systems, installed at ISPs' own expense and used for an unlimited period, to monitor all its customers' electronic communications to prevent illegal file-sharing. It said that such an order would breach ISPs' rights to freely conduct business and individuals' rights to privacy, free speech and the protection of their personal data.

I'm not pretending i know anything better, i don't :) It just seems a lot of this filtering/monitoring law thingy is very much untested, what is and isn't allowed, and it seems parts of it are still being written. I just hope Governments and the legal system can strike a good balance between personal freedoms and the law.
(some chance) :|
Gareth Halfacree 4th September 2013, 16:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
@Gareth, I would respectfully disagree, the ISP is a third party in the same way the post office is a third party when you send a letter to someone, or your phone company is the third party when you make a call. Yes ISP's monitor and block certain traffic, but afaik this blocking is done on certain ports known for spreading virus, Torrent ports, etc, etc, not on specific URL's.
Ooh! Respect! Eermm... You smell! (Sorry, I panicked. I'm not used to respect.)

On a more serious note: while ISPs do port blocking, they also do full-on communications monitoring. How can an email system know whether an email is spam or not without analysing the contents? How can a traffic shaper know whether packets on a randomly-chosen port are P2P without analysing the contents? Taking things to their logical extreme, this is how Google makes money from Gmail: every single incoming (and outgoing) message is read, analysed, and used to display 'relevant advertising.' All of 'em. It's in the Ts&Cs. Now, obviously, it's machines doing the reading, not people, but still.

As for URL-based filtering, as it says way-back-threadwards that already takes place in the UK: there's a filter system in place called Cleanfeed, which was brought in to prevent access to known child pornography but which has already been used to block websites such as Newzbin for copyright infringement; as the Pikiwedia page shows, Cleanfeed works by comparing the requested URL to a blacklist, just like the proposed wider-ranging opt-out anti-porn system would work. RIPA doesn't come into it, 'cos the communication is you-to-ISP and then ISP-to-remote-server - so the ISP is the 'recipient' under RIPA, and can consent to the monitoring.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Because they don't intercept and examing your communications, they simply throttle based on amount of GB sent or received in a set time, or they block certain known P2P ports.
Simply, and sadly, not true: ISPs routinely use deep packet inspection systems to analyse for P2P traffic, otherwise you could just move to a different port. In fact, that's exactly what BitTorrent does: the majority of clients use UPnP to open a randomly-chosen port every time the client is loaded, to prevent exactly that kind of port-based blocking system.
Quote:
Re-read the ruling you quoted: the ECJ has ruled that courts cannot force an ISP to install and use a mandatory filter system for copyright infringement; the ruling says nothing about the legalities of the ISP installing a system voluntarily for its own purposes.
Corky42 4th September 2013, 18:44 Quote
How did you know i didn't take a shower this morning

I didn't know they used Cleanfeed to block Newzbin, it just goes to show how this filter will also be subject to remit creep.

On the subject of deep packet inspection systems, the only time we have come close to testing the legal standing of RIPA was when people tried to take BT to court over Phorm DPI targeted advertising, sadly the CPS refused to give consent for criminal prosecution
So afaik how RIPA applies to DPI has yet to be tested.

And yea i know the ECJ "ruled that courts cannot force an ISP to install and use a mandatory filter system for copyright infringement"
(i was hoping i would get away with that ) Although it does show that ISP's may have a chance if Cameron tried to bring in a mandatory filter system. Like i said though a lot of these laws are very new, and have yet to be tested in the courts. Until they are its difficult to know how the written laws will be interpreted by the courts.
Corky42 2nd October 2013, 19:42 Quote
Sorry for necroing an old thread, but it seems this ill thought out filter has been blocked by the other half of the coalition.
http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/09/uk-isp-introduction-child-internet-censorship-rules-face-possible-delay.html
Quote:
It’s understood that many of the party faithful viewed the proposal as “illiberal” (censorship), likely to be highly ineffective (i.e. very easy to circumvent), incompatible with previous policies (e.g. Autumn 2011: Preparing The Ground: Stimulating Growth in the Digital Economy and Spring 2012: Civil Liberties) and some feared that it would ultimately result in the arbitrary blocking of legitimate sites (e.g. medical, online shops etc.).
But it would seem even with politicians saying it need redrafting, ISP's are still going ahead with it.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/16/liberal_democrats_oppose_smut_blocking_plan/
Corky42 13th November 2013, 09:38 Quote
The Government has responded to the e-petition and to say their response is pathetic is an understatement.

The basics of their reply is to say its not our responsibility and its all down to your ISP, if over-blocking happens people can seek redress from the ISP. So if a business losses money due to being blocked they can seek damages from the ISP's and in turn this compensation will be passed on to customers resulting in higher bills.

This proposed ISP Filter and their response is so full of holes im surprised the ISP have agreed to implementing it especial as the ISP will be entirely responsible for any mistakes or financial loss, and with nefarious people able to monitor or sell what sites you and every other person in the UK visits.
Corky42 15th December 2013, 08:46 Quote
BT is the first to fall in line with Cameron's nudge censorship of the internet.
http://www.btplc.com/news/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=01D79706-2F81-4111-91AE-148E0C89C02B
Quote:
BT will be contacting all of its existing Consumer customers during 2014 so that they then have to make a decision on whether or not to set up the controls.

The new controls have been tested in trials with a variety of different customers and help from interested groups, such as Mumsnet, the UK’s biggest network for parents.
ripmax 22nd January 2014, 12:56 Quote
Some more news, a League of Legends update was actually blocked because it had the word "sex" in a file name.

files name: VarusExpirationTimer.luaobj and XerathMageChainsExtended.luaobj

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/21/uk-porn-filter-blocks-game-update-that-contained-sex
Corky42 29th January 2014, 17:03 Quote
Perry: ISP filter overblocking reports are "fanciful"
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/386785/perry-isp-filter-overblocking-reports-are-fanciful
Quote:
"When these filters came out there was anecdotal evidence - some of it completely, completely fanciful - that sites were being overblocked. Including mine, which is ridiculous, because it wasn't," she said, speaking at a Westminster eForum event.
____

Web filtering policies put our digital infrastructure in unaccountable hands.
http://dtc.webscience.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2014/01/web-filtering-policies-put-our-digital-infrastructure-in-unaccountable-hands/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=web-filtering-policies-put-our-digital-infrastructure-in-unaccountable-hands
Quote:
It gives ISPs a new role in managing the content they provide. Until now (with a few minor exceptions), ISPs have just been the providers of traffic, shipping packets of information down ‘dumb’ pipes. They are utility providers, not stewards of content. According to the ‘end-to-end’ principle, a well-regarded rule of computer networking design that gave rise to the internet as we know it, decisions about what software to run, what files to consume and send, and who to communicate with, should take place at the ‘ends’ of the network, i.e. by individual users. Neglecting this principle sets a dangerous precedent, changing key protocols and putting power over our networked communications into different hands.
_____

Slippery Slope Part II – They make it law anyway.
https://survivetheclaireperryinter.net/2014/01/27/slippery-slope-part-ii-they-make-it-law-anyway/
Quote:
The ISPs tried pacifying opponents of UK Web Filtering by telling them they had to do it or David Cameron would legislate it anyway.

They backed down and co-operated. Only a few weeks after a Lord suggested it be mandatory an amendment has already been proposed to the Children and Families Bill
Tangster 29th January 2014, 17:49 Quote
Viva la Great Wall of Great Britain. Stupid politicians should all be sterilized so they can't breed.
Corky42 31st January 2014, 20:08 Quote
So first we get a multitude of private company's dictating what sites are not acceptable for UK citizens to view and now we have a whitelist being drawn up of what is acceptable.

UK government tackles wrongly-blocked websites.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25962555
Quote:
The government is drawing up a list of sites inadvertently blocked by the filters it asked internet service providers (ISPs) to implement.
Quote:
The group is also looking into ways to set up a standard system that will let any site which thinks it has been wrongly blocked tell ISPs about the mistake so it can get on to the approved list.

We are getting an Internet divided into what privately run company's deem inappropriate, and an Internet deemed appropriate by a "working group" comprised of people with unknown political or religious agendas.

And all payed for by the great British public via an increase in monthly broadband bills.
MrJay 31st January 2014, 21:23 Quote
I don't expect people to think I know better, likewise I don't expect my government to think they know better.

It's another case of applying a sticky plaster to a bloody festering wound, the problem is not that the content exists, the problem is education on the safe use of the internet, which should be open and free for everyone. Even the people who sit at home all day and play with themselves...
Nexxo 31st January 2014, 21:34 Quote
God forbid that parents take responsibility for their own children. That's just not how things roll these days.
Corky42 11th February 2014, 10:32 Quote
Claire Perry voted against the smoking in cars ban.
https://twitter.com/claire4devizes/status/432966213929406464
She said "I voted No to the Ban. I totally support the principle but think it will be unenforceable. Education needed."
How can someone who is the key architect of these block-by-default web filters think a ban on smoking in cars is unenforceable, yet at the same time think these filters are.
Smoking in Car Laws “Unenforceable” – Filtering the Internet? Easy.

Turkey sees people rioting on the streets because their government wants to introduce what we already have in the UK. http://mwcnews.net/news/europe/36328-turkey-freer.html
Quote:
Turkey's president, Abdullah Gul, is under pressure not to ratify the internet legislation, passed on Wednesday by parliament, which would allow authorities to block websites for privacy violation without a court decision.

Internet providers would also be forced to keep users' data and make it available to authorities.
Meanwhile Ministers in the UK want to block extremist videos.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26124541
Quote:
Emma Carr, deputy director of campaign group Big Brother Watch, said: "Politicians and civil servants should not be deciding what we can see online. If content is to be blocked then it should be a court deciding that it is necessary and proportionate to do so.
Not even a year has passed and we are already seeing some categories of the opt-in, opt-out filter being changed to a no choice, enforced censorship filter. And before anyone says "good extremist materiel should be blocked" bear in mind that simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut have been labelled extremist by some.
Corky42 1st March 2014, 08:27 Quote
Virgin Media masks porn filter rollout with 152Mbps broadband launch.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2331516/virgin-media-masks-porn-filter-rollout-with-152mbps-broadband-launch
Quote:
VIRGIN MEDIA has launched what it claims is the "UK's fastest broadband", offering speeds of up to 152Mbps that it clearly hopes will distract customers from the news that it has also switched on its porn filter.
If you are on VM and want these increased speeds you have to phone to request the speed bump and when you do they will actively push their new porn filter on you, payed for with the 6.7 percent increase in everyone's bills last month.
forum_user 1st March 2014, 10:10 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Virgin Media masks porn filter rollout with 152Mbps broadband launch.
http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2331516/virgin-media-masks-porn-filter-rollout-with-152mbps-broadband-launch

If you are on VM and want these increased speeds you have to phone to request the speed bump and when you do they will actively push their new porn filter on you, payed for with the 6.7 percent increase in everyone's bills last month.

That is disgraceful! I can't believe they dare increase their price by 6.7% to pay for the porn filter! And they don't use any of that price increase to pay any of of the costs associated with delivering the fastest broadband in the UK.

And they dare PUSH the porn filter like bloody drug dealers peddling crack at the school gates! It must be really hard to say "no filters, thank you" when a customer is faced with such a huge amount or peer pressure and media coverage!

Utterly disgraceful behaviour by VM!!
Nexxo 1st March 2014, 10:21 Quote
I'm good with this. The 6.7% price rise is nothing unusual given the usual inflation, rise in energy costs and updated, faster infrastructure. And at least Virgin will offer customers the option, rather than flicking on the filter by default like BT does. As long as customers have a choice it's all good.

Still concerned about whether sites will be logged, however.
Corky42 1st March 2014, 15:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
That is disgraceful! I can't believe they dare increase their price by 6.7% to pay for the porn filter! And they don't use any of that price increase to pay any of of the costs associated with delivering the fastest broadband in the UK.

And they dare PUSH the porn filter like bloody drug dealers peddling crack at the school gates! It must be really hard to say "no filters, thank you" when a customer is faced with such a huge amount or peer pressure and media coverage!
So are you saying you believe this ineffectual porn filter costs nothing to introduce and maintain ?
If only it was a simple matter of saying "no filters, thank you", or that people who didn't want it didn't have to pay for it, sadly neither of those things are true.

Even if you say you don't want the filter you are still going to have a mandatory filter imposed on you, as MP's are already pushing through laws that will block sites that they deem to be extremist, now made so much easier to do what with everyone in the UK on a filtered internet feed.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm good with this. The 6.7% price rise is nothing unusual given the usual inflation, rise in energy costs and updated, faster infrastructure. And at least Virgin will offer customers the option, rather than flicking on the filter by default like BT does. As long as customers have a choice it's all good.

Still concerned about whether sites will be logged, however.

6.7 percent is way above the annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent for 2013, and while i understand annual price rises are to be expected it's fairly obvious a large portion of this rise is because the customer is being forced into paying for a filtered internet.
Why should all customers be forced to pay for an ineffectual filter just because some parents (one in eight) are unaware or don't know how to setup filtering software on their children's devices.
Nexxo 1st March 2014, 16:22 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
6.7 percent is way above the annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent for 2013, and while i understand annual price rises are to be expected it's fairly obvious a large portion of this rise is because the customer is being forced into paying for a filtered internet.

How is that obvious?
forum_user 1st March 2014, 23:57 Quote
To clarify - I am a new BT customer - and I get the option every time I connect a new device to my home network to accept or reject filtering. The filter is not on by default for me - the question is asked by default.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So are you saying you believe this ineffectual porn filter costs nothing to introduce and maintain ?

No. And the filter is only as ineffectual as your totally biased point of view says it is. In my uncaring view the filter has had expected issues but is filtering more porn than it is not filtering otherwise it would be a complete flop and politicians would have made a hasty back peddle. My view is not based on facts, much like yours. And my only interest in this thread remains to be your regular peddling of scaremongering. It is entertaining me.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
If only it was a simple matter of saying "no filters, thank you", or that people who didn't want it didn't have to pay for it, sadly neither of those things are true.

See my first paragraph for my experience of BT filtering - which is based on pure fact.

I thought you said that when people phone VM to request the increased speeds, they are asked if they want the filter on or off? I reckon that would be a yes or no answer, no?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Even if you say you don't want the filter you are still going to have a mandatory filter imposed on you, as MP's are already pushing through laws that will block sites that they deem to be extremist, now made so much easier to do what with everyone in the UK on a filtered internet feed.

Extremist sites being blocked by our government? And? If you had evidence that the Labour Party website was next on the hit list you might have support, but extremists ... needing access to extremist websites? I couldn't give a toss.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
6.7 percent is way above the annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent for 2013, and while i understand annual price rises are to be expected it's fairly obvious a large portion of this rise is because the customer is being forced into paying for a filtered internet.

Do you know how much the filter is costing VM to implement? And do you know what their new broadband offering is costing?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Why should all customers be forced to pay for an ineffectual filter just because some parents (one in eight) are unaware or don't know how to setup filtering software on their children's devices.

Why should I have to pay more in insurance premiums because house builders are throwing caution to the wind and building on flood plains with ineffectual water run-offs? Why should I pay higher taxes, for longer, when Labour takes out a humongous mortgage based on expecting the good times to keep on rolling, to pay for all the stuff that the coalition is having to painstakingly put back to some sort of sensible order, and for the private sector to shoulder the burden again without collapsing under the strain?

Life is ****, hey?

Not.
Teelzebub 2nd March 2014, 00:05 Quote
I don't mind filtered water though :) it's not really a coalition is it the conservative say jump and the liberals say which way sir
Corky42 2nd March 2014, 09:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
To clarify - I am a new BT customer - and I get the option every time I connect a new device to my home network to accept or reject filtering. The filter is not on by default for me - the question is asked by default.
So when the question is asked by default to either accept or reject filtering are the devices put on different physical networks ? when you choose to have the filter on a particular device do you pay extra for that, or are the costs involved payed for by everyone else who isn't raising your children.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
No. And the filter is only as ineffectual as your totally biased point of view says it is. In my uncaring view the filter has had expected issues but is filtering more porn than it is not filtering otherwise it would be a complete flop and politicians would have made a hasty back peddle. My view is not based on facts, much like yours. And my only interest in this thread remains to be your regular peddling of scaremongering. It is entertaining me.
Hardly biased, you only have to look at the amount of both over and under blocking to see how ineffectual and dangerous it is. You admit your self to having an uncaring view of the filter so is it you that is totally biased, as you don't care that we have given control of the internet to the very people that want to restrict what information is available to people.
And unlike you, because i do care, i take the time to read a great deal about censorship creep and the impact that filtering information has on people, and then base my view on that.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
See my first paragraph for my experience of BT filtering - which is based on pure fact.

I thought you said that when people phone VM to request the increased speeds, they are asked if they want the filter on or off? I reckon that would be a yes or no answer, no?
So based on the very limited sample size of 1 person who doesn't care what private company's deem is suitable or unsuitable, i wouldn't call that fact, i would call that living in ignorance.
And like i have said just because you say no, does not mean you avoid the filtering systems and does not mean you are not having to pay for other peoples apathy.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Extremist sites being blocked by our government? And? If you had evidence that the Labour Party website was next on the hit list you might have support, but extremists ... needing access to extremist websites? I couldn't give a toss.
That is until what the government deems to be extremists expands to encompass simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut, BNP or UKIP, all of whom have been labelled extremist by some.
But then i forget that you don't care what gets blocked, well that is until it happens to target a majority rather than the minority that you don't care about.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Do you know how much the filter is costing VM to implement? And do you know what their new broadband offering is costing?
The actual monetary cost involved is irrelevant as we don't need to know how much it costs, just that we are having to pay for a ineffectual and dangerous scheme, and that we wouldn't have had such a large increase in annual cost if they didn't have to pay for it somehow.

Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Why should I have to pay more in insurance premiums because house builders are throwing caution to the wind and building on flood plains with ineffectual water run-offs? Why should I pay higher taxes, for longer, when Labour takes out a humongous mortgage based on expecting the good times to keep on rolling, to pay for all the stuff that the coalition is having to painstakingly put back to some sort of sensible order, and for the private sector to shoulder the burden again without collapsing under the strain?
You don't, people who live in flood risk areas pay more.
And putting your obvious political bias aside we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world.
forum_user 2nd March 2014, 10:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) So when the question is asked by default to either accept or reject filtering are the devices put on different physical networks ? 2) when you choose to have the filter on a particular device do you pay extra for that, 3) or are the costs involved payed for by everyone else who isn't raising your children.

1) no idea, nor do I care, yet. If I can still access my bank account, emails, gaming, and BT forums, I'm alright.
2) not yet, nor do I know of impending price increases from BT.
3) I don't think BT have increased their prices to pay for a filter, I'm unclear on that. Likewise you are unclear how much, if any, of that 6.7% is paying for the evil filtering at VM.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) Hardly biased, you only have to look at the amount of both over and under blocking to see how ineffectual and dangerous it is. 2) You admit your self to having an uncaring view of the filter so is it you that is totally biased, as you don't care that we have given control of the internet to the very people that want to restrict what information is available to people.
3) And unlike you, because i do care, i take the time to read a great deal about censorship creep and the impact that filtering information has on people, and then base my view on that.

1) is it blocking a much higher majority of targeted websites than accidentally blocking the wrong ones? I am guessing yes. Do the errors get ironed out? Yes. Was it ever going to work without issues? No.
2) take a breath, relax a little. This world was built by rapists, murderers, thieves, fraudsters. Our kindness towards one another develops at a much slower rate than our inventions, technology and sciences - until our kindness and mindsets develop to truly incorporate a free world, free of war, famines and illness, free of rapists, murderers, thieves and fraudsters - then we just have to roll with the punches. You are powerless. You cannot take control of the world from the people who built it. Just enjoy what it is and what you have got. Be grateful and enjoy yourself. Build a happy and content life for you and your family. The tinfoil hat is reserved for when it hasn't happened yet.
3) You are scaremongering and picking and choosing your media hyperbole to create a little podium for yourself. You read something that supports your hatred of this filtering, and then post it here. You don't read and educate yourself. You just fuel your desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes you warm and fuzzy inside. Much like the feeling I get responding to you!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) So based on the very limited sample size of 1 person who doesn't care what private company's deem is suitable or unsuitable, i wouldn't call that fact, i would call that living in ignorance.
2) And like i have said just because you say no, does not mean you avoid the filtering systems and does not mean you are not having to pay for other peoples apathy.

1) I explained to you how it works with BT and me, based on my experience of their system - and you say that isn't good enough? Ok.
2) don't care. Labour has cost pensions, investors, The Workers (love that union BS), public sector promises and lies; much more than a lifetime of broadband costs. The filtering we have already addressed - it's no biggie - yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) That is until what the government deems to be extremists expands to encompass simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut, BNP or UKIP, all of whom have been labelled extremist by some.
2) But then i forget that you don't care what gets blocked, well that is until it happens to target a majority rather than the minority that you don't care about.

1) really?! Go outside, look up at the sun (if you can find it today amongst the clouds), close your eyes, focus on your breathing. Come back inside after 20 minutes of doing that, and realise how far you are taking this debate.
2) we already talked about errors being corrected, and extremist sites - don't care. Etc.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) The actual monetary cost involved is irrelevant as we don't need to know how much it costs, 2) just that we are having to pay for a ineffectual and dangerous scheme, 3) and that we wouldn't have had such a large increase in annual cost if they didn't have to pay for it somehow.

1) it's irrelevant since you cannot produce the figures to back up your original apocalyptic claim.
2) says you.
3) oh, there you go again. Facts? Figures?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
1) You don't, people who live in flood risk areas pay more.
2) And putting your obvious political bias aside we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world.

1) you sure about that? I was fairly (unfactually) sure the knock on effect of an insurance company suddenly getting raped by a load of flooded customers means that all premiums take a little hit long-term?
2) you are right of course, I am politically biased. You don't put a drunken teenager back in charge of driving a car-load of kids around, after he has taken a corner too fast; rolled the car several times; killed and seriously maimed his passengers. That is Labour. They took out a self-assessment mortgage based on future expected windfalls of cash - then scuttled out of the limelight (denying the holocaust as they went) when it all went to ****. Yeah, let's be thankful and get them back in - because they say they are no longer drunk ... MmmmmK!

As for the "we pay more taxes" than my "simplistic view of the world" comment.

You win. I might find some connection with you if you stuck to posting actual facts that negatively affect me. But otherwise, I look forward to your next media frenzied posting.
Nexxo 2nd March 2014, 10:57 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Teelzebub
I don't mind filtered water though :) it's not really a coalition is it the conservative say jump and the liberals say which way sir

Actually it's more like:

Conservatives: "Lick my boots"
Lib Dems: "Your boots taste delicious, sir"

:D
Teelzebub 2nd March 2014, 12:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Actually it's more like:

Conservatives: "Lick my boots"
Lib Dems: "Your boots taste delicious, sir"

:D

Lol it's ironic really the Libs was so desperate to get into power they gave all their power up by joining with the Conservatives
Corky42 2nd March 2014, 12:44 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1) no idea, nor do I care, yet.
For someone who freely admits they don't care, you seem to have a lot to say the subject.
Maybe you should go put your head back in the sand and let the people who do care, stand up for your rights so you can continue to live in your blinkered world.

Or is it just that you prefer to de-rail a thread for your own political grand standing, maybe you should climb back under that bridge over there.:D
Nexxo 2nd March 2014, 14:15 Quote
I don't think forum_user is being political here. He has some valid comments. You know that I certainly don't share his views on the need or effectiveness of filtering, or its insusceptibility to political abuse, but let's keep perspective and stick with the facts, and not get all ad hominem on each other's asses.
Corky42 2nd March 2014, 15:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I don't think forum_user is being political here.
And you are free to think what you like, but so far forum_user has been the only one to use a thread about block-by-default web filters to stand on his soap box so he can take the opportunity to grandstand his political views, proclaim he doesn't care, accuse people of scaremongering, of not reading or educating them selves and accuse others of hyperbole.

Anyone would think forum_user is sowing discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, or in other words being a troll.
Nexxo 2nd March 2014, 16:57 Quote
I'm sorry, forum_user is being a troll for disagreeing with you (us)? :|

I'm sorry, byt that is BS. You (reasonably) commented on the political dimension of this issue right from the start, and posted a link to an e-petition in post #43. From there on your argument has been not just about the effectiveness of the filter, but also how it interferes with freedom of information, the right to privacy (in that sites visited are logged) and the potential for political abuse. All very valid arguments, no problem there.

forum_user did not join the debate until post #211, and his stance throughout has been that as a concerned parent he thinks it is good for the kids, that the filter is reasonably effective and that the potential for political abuse is exaggerated. I do not get the impression that his argument is a political one. I think that he just happens to have an opinion which disagrees with ours. That does not make him a troll.
Votick 2nd March 2014, 17:37 Quote
As long as you can disabled it then I don't see the issue.
I think TalkTalk switched on "HomeSafe" by default a few years back.
2 clicks and it's off no biggie.
Corky42 2nd March 2014, 17:38 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I'm sorry, forum_user is being a troll for disagreeing with you (us)? :| <Snip>
Sowing discord by starting arguments or upsetting people is a long way from politely disagreeing with someone. You see I'm about to disagree with you, but notice how I'm going to do it without resulting to emotive attacks, accusations or disrespecting you (i hope).

I fail to understand why posting an e-petition would be considered political grand standing as both main party's have said they support this block-by-default web filters, IIRC forum_user has been the first person to use this thread as a platform to show his disdain for one particular party.
Nexxo 2nd March 2014, 19:15 Quote
Sorry, but having re-read all forum_user's posts in this thread (you owe me 10 minutes of my life), I still don't see how he was starting arguments, upsetting people or engaging in political grand-standing. The only political comments he made was that Labour was not any better than the Tories are now. And he would be kind of correct on that one.
impar 2nd March 2014, 19:48 Quote
Greetings!

Ok, so I am curious.
Is this internet filtering being discussed by the common UKer? Or just by tech people?
Shirty 2nd March 2014, 20:27 Quote
In reality very few non-geeks give much of a toss. There are substantially bigger problems in the world and most people prefer to concentrate on those.

Not saying that's the right approach, just that from my experience it isn't a hot topic whatsoever.
forum_user 2nd March 2014, 22:05 Quote
To clarify my stance in all tech debates regarding politics - I don't start with a political view regarding tech. However when I see a poster blaming the Conservatives, or the Liberals, or the Coalition of being evil-doers, then I react accordingly. Seems it's all too easy for posters to bring in politics with regards personal freedoms etc, except try looking as far back as the Blair/Bush years. It isn't party politics - it's the same decisions made by different politicians.
Corky42 3rd March 2014, 07:39 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Sorry, but having re-read all forum_user's posts in this thread (you owe me 10 minutes of my life), I still don't see how he was starting arguments, upsetting people or engaging in political grand-standing. The only political comments he made was that Labour was not any better than the Tories are now. And he would be kind of correct on that one.
So you wouldn't consider this post and this one, where he says "I am politically biased" as political grand-standing, and using forum_user's own words creating a little podium for himself ?
As for starting an argument and or upsetting people, would this post do, where he admits that he doesn't care about the subject being discussed and only post here because "It is entertaining me", or how about this one where he accuses me of scaremongering, hyperbole, creating a little podium, that I'm not reading or educating myself, or that "you just fuel your desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes you warm and fuzzy inside. Much like the feeling I get responding to you
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
To clarify my stance in all tech debates regarding politics - I don't start with a political view regarding tech. However when I see a poster blaming the Conservatives, or the Liberals, or the Coalition of being evil-doers, then I react accordingly. Seems it's all too easy for posters to bring in politics with regards personal freedoms etc, except try looking as far back as the Blair/Bush years. It isn't party politics - it's the same decisions made by different politicians.
Sorry please do show me this post that i made, where i blamed a particular political party.
Or would you just be imagining things ?
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 08:58 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sorry please do show me this post that i made, where i blamed a particular political party.
Or would you just be imagining things ?

I'm not sure you did make any statements regarding the coalition or anyone else - maybe that is why I didn't accuse you of doing it?!

However, I do know that SOMEONE or even a few people (whoever that may be, I don't care right now) has suggested the filters and loss of freedoms is party political based, ie. those pesky blues, it's all their fault. Am I trawling through the thread to find my evidence - heck no.

Know what I did this beautiful morning? Fixed the puncture on my bike. Got on it. Rode down to the river bridge. Raised my gaze up towards the sun. Stood there for 10 minutes with my eyes shut. soaking in the red heat. Finally, I opened my eyes to find the happy hormones had kicked in!

I highly recommend it.
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 09:06 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So you wouldn't consider this post and this one, where he says "I am politically biased" as political grand-standing, and using forum_user's own words creating a little podium for himself ?
No, I wouldn't.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
As for starting an argument and or upsetting people, would this post do, where he admits that he doesn't care about the subject being discussed and only post here because "It is entertaining me", or how about this one where he accuses me of scaremongering, hyperbole, creating a little podium, that I'm not reading or educating myself, or that "you just fuel your desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes you warm and fuzzy inside. Much like the feeling I get responding to you"
He is basically saying that you are as emotionally involved in this debate as he is (see bold). And yeah, we basically debate on these forums for fun (I mean, why else would we do so?).
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Sorry please do show me this post that i made, where i blamed a particular political party. Or would you just be imagining things ?

You are blaming the government, which de facto is the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. There is nothing wrong with that, like there is nothing wrong with forum_user arguing that Labour (would have) acted the same.

Now you know that I mostly agree with you on this whole issue, but I like to argue from fact and logic, and avoid ad nominee slanging matches. forum_user's political views or personal reasons for taking part in this thread have nothing to do with the facts and logic of the case.
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 09:19 Quote
I think maybe I need to spend more time explaining myself; a common issue of mine. And if you agree that I could explain myself better, you should meet my missus. Jesus!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are blaming the government, which de facto is the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. There is nothing wrong with that, like there is nothing wrong with forum_user arguing that Labour (would have) acted the same.

True.

As for the previous accusations of trolling (thanks for the defence!) - people need to be reminded of what a troll is. Commenting on the content of a poster's post is not trolling. Nor is commenting on the emotions or attitudes that a poster might post with. Bickering, and badly debating is not trolling either.
Corky42 3rd March 2014, 10:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, I wouldn't.
So even when told...
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
1) no idea, nor do I care, yet. <Snip>
2) you are right of course, I am politically biased. You don't put a drunken teenager back in charge of driving a car-load of kids around, after he has taken a corner too fast; rolled the car several times; killed and seriously maimed his passengers. That is Labour. They took out a self-assessment mortgage based on future expected windfalls of cash - then scuttled out of the limelight (denying the holocaust as they went) when it all went to ****. Yeah, let's be thankful and get them back in - because they say they are no longer drunk ... MmmmmK!
You still don't see this as turning a thread about block-by-default web filters into a podium for him to espouse his views on a particular party.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
He is basically saying that you are as emotionally involved in this debate as he is (see bold). And yeah, we basically debate on these forums for fun (I mean, why else would we do so?).
No. He posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in order to fuel his desire to hate and feel an emotion that makes him warm and fuzzy inside.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
You are blaming the government, which de facto is the Tory/Lib-Dem coalition. There is nothing wrong with that, like there is nothing wrong with forum_user arguing that Labour (would have) acted the same.
No. I am arguing that a block-by-default web filter is a bad idea on so many levels. In fact i have even said in other thread that it doesn't matter who you vote for because Labour support the exact same thing, i have also posted details either in this thread or another on the same subject that the Lib-Dems may save us from this block-by-default web filter.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Now you know that I mostly agree with you on this whole issue, but I like to argue from fact and logic, and avoid ad nominee slanging matches. forum_user's political views or personal reasons for taking part in this thread have nothing to do with the facts and logic of the case.
And what you describe forum_user doing is the accepted definition of a troll.
And why i ignored the majority of this post as it is plainly obvious he is posting inflammatory, extraneous or off-topic messages.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
As for the previous accusations of trolling (thanks for the defence!) - people need to be reminded of what a troll is. Commenting on the content of a poster's post is not trolling. Nor is commenting on the emotions or attitudes that a poster might post with. Bickering, and badly debating is not trolling either.
Yes they do need to be reminded, here let me help.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Troll_%28Internet%29
Quote:
In Internet slang, a troll is a person who sows discord on the Internet by starting arguments or upsetting people, by posting inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community (such as a forum, chat room, or blog), either accidentally or with the deliberate intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
So while you are party correct by saying commenting on the content of a poster's post is not trolling.
Accusing someone of biased, not based on facts, scaremongering, take a breath, relax a little, picking and choosing media hyperbole, creating a little podium, don't read and educate yourself, don't care, media frenzied posting.
Maybe if you dropped the inflammatory posting and stuck to the facts we could have a grown up debate on the subject, but all the time your post contain inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic, i will see you the generally accepted definition of a troll.
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 10:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
So even when told...

You still don't see this as turning a thread about block-by-default web filters into a podium for him to espouse his views on a particular party.
No, because he didn't mention it until you called him on it.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Maybe if you dropped the inflammatory posting and stuck to the facts we could have a grown up debate on the subject, but all the time your post contain inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic, i will see you the generally accepted definition of a troll.

It takes two to tango. Just ignore emotive posts and stick to the facts. Such as: how do you know that Virgin's 6.75% rise in fees is accounted for by the internet filter, and not inflation, rise of energy costs and updating infrastructure to deliver higher internet speeds?
Andy Mc 3rd March 2014, 10:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user


Know what I did this beautiful morning? Fixed the puncture on my bike. Got on it. Rode down to the river bridge. Raised my gaze up towards the sun. Stood there for 10 minutes with my eyes shut. soaking in the red heat. Finally, I opened my eyes to find the happy hormones had kicked in!

I highly recommend it.

I find it easier to just take the pills for that. Seriously when was the last time you saw the sun? With all the water round our way I'm starting to be thankful for doing the sea survival swimming courses when I was a kid. Finally going to come in useful.

As much as the porn filters are a pain at least you can turn them off. The day that changes or becomes difficult is the day to really worry.
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 10:40 Quote
One little point occurred to me, the title of this thread injects a personal stab at "Cameron" right from the start. Not "the government" or "whoever may be in power at the time". However, I guess even though,right at the start of the thread creation, the little personal stab is present, it was easy to let it go because we can all lean whichever way we choose - even journos.

If you are clean in this debate Corky42, let's get back to you showing how you are not trying to scaremonger by regurgitating media created nonsense to use as logs for your anti-filter fire hatred, and let the thread know how that 6.7% pays for the filter. I don't hate by the way, like I already said, I get my warmth and fuzz from you entertaining me.

Note: I am not accusing you of trolling. You are telling the thread how I am derailing it with my arguments, whereas I am telling the thread that you are plain wrong in your post. Who is trolling? Who is not on topic?!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andy Mc
I find it easier to just take the pills for that. Seriously when was the last time you saw the sun? With all the water round our way I'm starting to be thankful for doing the sea survival swimming courses when I was a kid. Finally going to come in useful.

As much as the porn filters are a pain at least you can turn them off. The day that changes or becomes difficult is the day to really worry.

Sun still up here! Although having said that I can now see the moody clouds coming this way. Garlic, Magnesium, B12, Ginger and vit C supplements also help
Gareth Halfacree 3rd March 2014, 10:48 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
One little point occurred to me, the title of this thread injects a personal stab at "Cameron" right from the start. Not "the government" or "whoever may be in power at the time". However, I guess even though,right at the start of the thread creation, the little personal stab is present, it was easy to let it go because we can all lean whichever way we choose - even journos
Hey, don't bring me into this: the headline is entirely unbiased and accurate, 'cos the web filters were to be announced - and, indeed, were announced - in a personal speech by David Cameron. Hence 'Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters,' which is exactly what happened. It even says so, right there in the introductory paragraph:
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Article
The Prime Minister David Cameron is due to make a speech to a child protection charity today which pledges government support for mandatory pornography filtering on UK internet connections - a move which has privacy and anti-censorship activists concerned.
Corky42 3rd March 2014, 10:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
No, because he didn't mention it until you called him on it.

Sorry but that is incorrect as forum_user first used this thread to state the following...
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Why should I pay higher taxes, for longer, when Labour takes out a humongous mortgage based on expecting the good times to keep on rolling, to pay for all the stuff that the coalition is having to painstakingly put back to some sort of sensible order, and for the private sector to shoulder the burden again without collapsing under the strain?
To which i answered...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And putting your obvious political bias aside we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
It takes two to tango. Just ignore emotive posts and stick to the facts. Such as: how do you know that Virgin's 6.75% rise in fees is accounted for by the internet filter, and not inflation, rise of energy costs and updating infrastructure to deliver higher internet speeds?
I am not claiming all of the 6.7 percent is to fund the filter, but based on what is known we can be sure some of it is. Things like the annual inflation rate for 2013 was 2.5 percent, and that ISP's already pay anything from 1k-40k pa, to support the running of the IWF as well as recently making a £1 million donation. And from what i can tell the IWF's total resources expended in 2013 was £1.6 million.
I'm happy to pay extra to fund blocking illegal content, like in the case of the IWF. But i object to paying what theoretically will be a larger amount because only 1 in 8 parents don't know how to setup filters on a per device basis.
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 11:19 Quote
How can we be sure? As I said, there is not only inflation to consider, but also the steep rise in energy costs and renewal of infrastructure to deliver higher baud rates (for instance when Virgin upgraded existing 20mb customers free of charge, all their modems needed upgrading too). So I'm not at all sure how much internet filters add to that cost.

My concern is different. forum_user rightly suggested that if someone fails to behave in a responsible manner (whether it's drink driving or handling the finances of a country), you hold them to account for that behaviour. You do not give them a car with breathalyzer ignition lock; you do not install a nanny who will oversee a government's financial behavior. If they cannot handle the responsibility, they shouldn't have it in the first place.

Similarly if parents cannot manage their children's internet access in a responsible manner, they are arguably not fit to parent children and/or have internet access at all. A government-imposed internet filter just allows ineffectual parents to continue abdicating parental responsibility --when little Johnny inevitably across some unsuitable material, as filters are never 100% proof, they can simply blame someone else again. Internet filters will encourage ineffectual, lackadaisical parenting, not more responsible parenting.

Basically the question is: do we want more or less nanny state?
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 11:20 Quote
Haha sorry Gareth!

I just wondered that the title may have spawned the original political injections.

Corky42, my COMPARISON (added: I thought) was clear regarding how we pay for stuff that we don't ask for all the time. I don't get your 'paying for the filters' argument, I don't think you've made a very good point to defend your overall stance of detesting the idea of other people saying yes to being filtered, while you are free to say no.

How much extra is it going to cost everyone?! Not a lot I imagine. Certainly, so far, NOTHING on BT.
Corky42 3rd March 2014, 11:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
How can we be sure? As I said, there is not only inflation to consider, but also the steep rise in energy costs and renewal of infrastructure to deliver higher baud rates (for instance when Virgin upgraded existing 20mb customers free of charge, all their modems needed upgrading too). So I'm not at all sure how,much internet filters add to that cost.
Yes, like i said we don't know how much of this years price rises that all ISP's have introduced are to pay for the filter. But we can be sure that some of the increase is to pay for it, after all the administration and hardware doesn't come without costs attached.

As we probably wont get to see figures for how much the block-by-default web filters cost each ISP, we can only go on estimates and rumors, like the widely reported figure that TalkTalk's filter costs them £20 million per year.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Corky42, my COMPARISON (added: I thought) was clear regarding how we pay for stuff that we don't ask for all the time. I don't get your 'paying for the filters' argument, I don't think you've made a very good point to defend your overall stance of detesting the idea of other people saying yes to being filtered, while you are free to say no.

How much extra is it going to cost everyone?! Not a lot I imagine. Certainly, so far, NOTHING on BT.
Your COMPARISON may have been clear, but it was incorrect IMO.
You drew the comparison between everyone facing higher insurance cost because of other households being at risk of flooding, something that doesn't happen as households at risk of flooding pay a premium for living in flood risk areas.
And the other comparison you drew about higher taxes, as i said at the time "we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world."

Maybe if i use an analogy it will help explain why i think its a bad idea to make everyone pay just because 1 in 8 parents don't know about, or how they setup per device filtering.

If we all had to pay higher insurance cost because 1 in 8 drivers didn't know about, or thought car insurance was to complicated would it be right to get the 8 people that do have insurance pay for the 1 person that refuses to use all the service available to make getting insurance easier, or refuses to educate them selves on why insurance is needed.

And just so you know BT has increased charges this year by an average of %6.5
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 12:50 Quote
Another, related question that has been forgotten in this is: forum_user, as a concerned and responsible parent, do you use any of the home PC internet filters that are already available for parents to control their children's internet access? I can't remember if you answered that question.

If the answer is: "Yes, I do", then why still expect the government to compel ISPs to do it?

If the answer is: "No, I don't", then why abdicate this responsibility to government and ISPs?

Would you consider internet filtering a form of "nanny state" behaviour?
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 14:32 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Another, related question that has been forgotten in this is: forum_user, as a concerned and responsible parent, do you use any of the home PC internet filters that are already available for parents to control their children's internet access? I can't remember if you answered that question.

If the answer is: "Yes, I do", then why still expect the government to compel ISPs to do it?

If the answer is: "No, I don't", then why abdicate this responsibility to government and ISPs?

Would you consider internet filtering a form of "nanny state" behaviour?

No we don't use BTs filters on [any] devices. We use the built-in restrictions on Apple devices that kids might use.

I've said it before, I believe that anything is better than nothing. I also agree with you and the others who say parents should teach their kids and take responsibility for what their kids have access to.

On one unrestricted device I typed into Google web search (not image search) "Sky presenters" - Google very kindly then offers 3 suggested pictures. The first 2 pictures are one female presenter in her pants, the other in her bra. Not for kids though. For dad's, yeah.

(Added) Internet filtering is a yes or no option. It's got nothing to do with the state, yet.

However, does state-forced internet filtering of content that normal healthy 'people' should have access to, add to a nanny state? Yes. Although when that happens I would probably agree its our time for a revolution.
Corky42 3rd March 2014, 16:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
On one unrestricted device I typed into Google web search (not image search) "Sky presenters" - Google very kindly then offers 3 suggested pictures. The first 2 pictures are one female presenter in her pants, the other in her bra. Not for kids though. For dad's, yeah.
So no better or worse than most daily newspapers.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
(Added) Internet filtering is a yes or no option. It's got nothing to do with the state, yet.
Yet is the operative word, does the introduction of network level filtering make it a lot easier for the state to do exactly what they wanted to do in 2011. In Britain, a Meeting on Limiting Social Media
Quote:
British officials and representatives of Twitter, Facebook and BlackBerry met Thursday to discuss voluntary ways to limit or restrict the use of social media to combat crime and periods of civil unrest, while trying to dodge charges of hypocrisy and censorship that trailed Prime Minister David Cameron’s call to restrict use of the networks after this month’s riots.
Luckily that time they backed down, but how long before MP's come around to thinking it would be a good idea again.

And you only have to look at the list of sites that are, or have been blocked in the UK to see how far outside of it's remit, of targeting only alleged child sexual abuse content cleanfeed has been used for.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
However, does state-forced internet filtering of content that normal healthy 'people' should have access to, add to a nanny state? Yes. Although when that happens I would probably agree its our time for a revolution.
And who is going to be passing judgment on what a normal person is.
MP's already want greater powers to block other legal content.
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 16:44 Quote
Are we on page 3 yet? :p My feeling is: pre-pubescent children will not be that interested in ladies in their bra and pants except for confirming a few anatomical differences between men and women which they most likely were already aware of (or should be). Children well into puberty will be interested, but by that time you should already have started having discussions with them about sex and sexuality, how porn is not a realistic representation of sex or love and the objectification of women (and increasingly, men) in the media. Basically, you should already be building the cognitive framework for them within which to make sense of such imagery.

Interestingly on the restriction of social media during civil unrest, research on the role of Twitter in the 2011 UK riots showed that its influence had been predominantly positive, with people appealing for calm and organising community clean-up and rebuilding activities post the riots.
forum_user 3rd March 2014, 17:02 Quote
Regarding twitter and the looting of shops, and violence.

Think about those calls for calm and restraint. Made by people sat at home watching buildings burning on TV.

Then think about the looters using social media to state their targets and using it to request overwhelming support for their looting activities, to render the police useless in the face of mobs too large to stop.

Social media was shown to be preventing, stopping, a force of good and positivity? I disagree.

The reason for the "riots" (?!?!) was to bag new trainers and laptops. Voices don't stop looters.
Nexxo 3rd March 2014, 17:31 Quote
That may be your impression, but that is not backed up by the evidence:
Quote:
Originally Posted by BBC News
The study was funded by the Joint Information Systems Committee (JISC).

The JISC is an education and research body paid for by higher education funding councils.

The committee included experts from a range of disciplines from the universities of Manchester, Leicester, St Andrews and Wolverhampton, and University College London.

The study looked at 2.4 million tweets sent during the disturbances and found "no evidence" to back calls that Twitter should be closed down for inciting unrest.

Prof Rob Procter from the University of Manchester, who led the team, said: "In August this year social unrest spilled over on to the streets of English cities and the summer riots were the largest public disorder events in recent history.

"Politicians and commentators were quick to claim that social media played an important role in inciting and organising riots, calling for sites such as Twitter to be closed should events of this nature happen again.

"But our study found no evidence of significance in the available data that would justify such a course of action in respect to Twitter.

"In contrast, we do find strong evidence that Twitter was a valuable tool for mobilising support for the post-riot clean-up and for organising specific clean-up activities," he added.

In any case, it is not a simple issue. When Egypt killed internet access during its own civil unrest, there was condemnation of this attempt at restricting the freedom of speech and information, and it didn't slow down civil unrest one bit. After the 2011 UK riots (and the government's call to restrict social media), comparisons were inevitable. Some researchers decided to study what may actually be the best way to deal with social media during periods of civil unrest. Their study can be read here.

Their conclusion: any move by the government to censor social media is likely to result in future civil unrest, higher levels of violence, and shorter periods of social peace. As a psychologist I can tell you that people are cussed like that --they seem to behave in the most paradoxical ways.
Corky42 4th March 2014, 08:25 Quote
I'm really not sure what to make of this...

David Cameron's online filters aide Patrick Rock arrested in child imagery investigation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/david-camerons-online-filters-aide-patrick-rock-arrested-in-child-imagery-investigation-9167395.html
Quote:
Downing Street confirmed Rock was one of the advisers involved in the Government's policy on internet filters to protect against child abuse images online.
While i am sickened to think of what he has allegedly done, I'm also at a cross purpose and find my self oddly conflicted. Is it a good thing someone who maybe knowledgeable and have a good understanding on the subject gave advise on the setting up of internet filters, or a bad thing ?
Nexxo 4th March 2014, 20:55 Quote
In which case, why isn't the police recruiting more criminals? Oh, wait...
Corky42 17th April 2014, 08:21 Quote
Stop UK Internet Censorship.
The UK is moving dangerously close to internet censorship and we need your help to stop it!

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/stop-uk-internet-censorship#home

UwgLhT8clOs
Quote:
The UK is moving dangerously close to internet censorship and we need your help to stop it!

Recently the Government, with the help of religious lobby groups, has persuaded ISP’s to introduce an internet filter across the UK. By default, your ISP can decide what you can or can't see online, unless you request otherwise.

It’s a bad idea that doesn’t work, is dangerous for internet freedom and could give parents a false sense of security when it comes to their children’s use of the internet.

We need your help to launch a campaign to make the UK public aware of this important issue. It will be led by a funny and pointed video that will show people why this filter is bad for them and their families.

It’s been developed by the advertising creatives who were behind the campaign that helped kill off plans for an internet filter in Australia. The Australian Prime Minister of the time even admitted as much!

We need your help to raise £12,000 to get this campaign off the ground. So if this is an issue that is important to you, please donate now and help us raise awareness about internet filtering in the UK!
Nexxo 23rd July 2014, 18:55 Quote
Update-a-looza:

The majority of Brits are disabling government-backed porn filters.

Interestingly while just one in every seven customers opted to keep the filter, TalkTalk ranked as a significant outlier: it reports that 36 percent of customers had the government-mandated filters enabled on their home router. TalkTalk puts it down to the fact it pre-ticks the selection box, suggesting that people tend to just ride with the default state of affairs. Still, 36% is quite low if you consider it's the 'do nothing' option.
theshadow2001 23rd July 2014, 19:07 Quote
Lol no shocker there.

http://youtu.be/cNARJPNz2CA
RedFlames 23rd July 2014, 19:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Update-a-looza:

The majority of Brits are disabling government-backed porn filters.

Interestingly while just one in every seven customers opted to keep the filter, TalkTalk ranked as a significant outlier: it reports that 36 percent of customers had the government-mandated filters enabled on their home router. TalkTalk puts it down to the fact it pre-ticks the selection box, suggesting that people tend to just ride with the default state of affairs. Still, 36% is quite low if you consider it's the 'do nothing' option.

And VM don't tell anyone about it and the engi's tend to just disable it during setup anyway...
Corky42 23rd July 2014, 20:03 Quote
Not had a chance to check it out yet, but the Stop UK Internet Censorship kickstarter is done.
http://www.departmentofdirty.co.uk/

60eKauWFFPk

I'm a little disappointed as i was expecting more, not had a chance to check out the whole site yet though, just the above video.
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