This a boon for parents who aren't as geeky and as tech-savvy but are at least as horny as the average tWF member
Printable View
This a boon for parents who aren't as geeky and as tech-savvy but are at least as horny as the average tWF member
1 file on 1 router is all that's needed to filter everything that goes through that home's connection, and will likely be more effective and less influenced by political leaning than anything the government would enact.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
if the child is old enough to be trusted to use a cellular connected device unsupervised, then we've already passed the "porn is damaging" age for that argument.
Are you saying you can't block things on the isp side when mobile devices are involved? Are you saying there is a specific age over which porn is not damaging?
I'm saying an ISP shouldn't be involved in any type of filtering outside of very extreme cases. Filtering, shaping, throttling, it all goes against the concept of what the internet is.
And I think there is an age that kids/tweens/teens hit to where they can mentally understand what porn is and isn't. Parents need to man up and address those concerns, not kick the can down the road and expect their kid to suddenly and independently understand what the internet really is capable of.
Anyone under the age of ²³ is likely to be stupid and anyone over 30 is more than likely to be too technophobic to place a single file on their locked-down isp-provided home router.
I've never had a locked router from an ISP. Hell, my current router's first set of directions for after the tech leaves is how to change the DNS settings. Plus just about every big box store sells routers, and they can all daisy chain together, so even if you do end up with a router that you're afraid of or can't change, a 2nd one is $15.
and if its something parents are unwilling to learn about, then I don't consider the concern large enough for the government to get involved with.
I guess the libertarians will be happy to see you join the movement against the FDA and consumer protection lawsQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
The FDA and US protection laws both provide protections that citizens wouldn't be aware of or capable of, no matter the level of research or protections they attempt. FDA protects the population and environment from being turned into a giant testing lab and some of largest consumer protection laws focus around debt collection or credit reporting (of which the consumer has no controlling role in), or the regulation of false or misleading advertising (which the consumer would possibly use in better understanding a product).
Adults aren't being censored, if an adult wants to view everything they can. I've already unblocked it on my mobile (for non-porn reasons and a stricter block than what's proposed here).Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
As for being "far from" what's suggested, actually its almost exactly what's suggested. Just switch in for out and its identical. I'd rather not have it but let's not pretend this is some monstrosity as opposed to an opt in filter.
Both are simple binary choices easily changed, the only difference is the default.
Yeah and isn't that convenientQuote:
Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer
Well if I'm understanding correctly, these filters are bloody inconvenient. I saw Rand comment in the beginning of the thread how this sort of filtering blocks a site he frequents which sometimes discusses gambling. That sort of filtering would also presumably see safe-sex tips as porn. But hey, that's not something we want teens being able to find on the internet anyway, right?Quote:
Originally Posted by Aimless
This is a good example of how new technology can outpace almost everything, using sheer speed, and changing expectations. Today's tech safety is fully incorporated into car safety.....but many parents think their kids are safer if they don't drive. The opposite holds true for computers/internet....and parents thinking their kids are safe driving/surfing the internet.
If I don't want my kid to kill herself in a car accident of her doing, I won't buy her a car when she's older and deal with the consequences of that.
Makes "balancing" life and "driving age" an interesting dichotomy, huh. Buying kids computers or laptops isn't the same as buying them cars, but it can be just as dangerous and deadly, if not moreso.
Yeah, because the number of people harmed/killed through computer use is anywhere near the number of people killed/harmed through car accidents.
Well, there's more than physical harm, i suppose.
I'm pretty sure the 26k dead per year in car accidents more than outweigh any non-physical harm.
But, it's children, and nudity! Are you sure you're American if you don't think that's the worst thing ever?
It would be fun to see how many of those car accidents are caused by adolescents.Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
A disproportionately high amount.
I suspect you're truly playing devil's advocate here, but I think it's just another form of censorship to require people to step up and add their name to a government-mandated registry of people who specifically want access to content deemed "objectionable" by the government.Quote:
Originally Posted by RandBlade
If you want to make something opt-out for the benefit of the country you might want to make the donor registry opt out.
I want absolute numbers :mad:Quote:
Originally Posted by Loki
I am guessing most of the torrent websites would be hit by the filter. I remember tat arguments for anti money laundering laws was to make like difficult for drug dealers and other crooks, where is the most requests received actually concern tax issues.
UK already has a filter list for torrent sites.
Which is about as easy to get around as Googling a name of the site plus the word proxy.
I would consider it a negative that you have to work around government filters at all, regardless of how easy it is.
brings up a question. hows the porn filter going to work on language proxies like google/bing translate, much less proxy proxies...
The ban on The Pirate Bay came not from a government filter but the courts. Attempts to stop the site like how others have been pulled down hasn't worked so instead copyright holders took ISPs to court insisting that the Pirate Bay was criminal and should be blocked. The government didn't take a side and the ISPs fought against but lost in court.Quote:
Originally Posted by Wraith
So it's a court-mandated ruling. And to be fair Pirate Bay is criminal.
Wow, whenever I complain about the anti-free speech tendencies of some US newspapers, I'll always keep this mind. :bulb:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...web-users.html
Quote:
Net porn block on EVERY home: Victory for the Mail as PM pledges 'opt in' rule for all web users
PM will today warn that internet pornography is 'corroding childhood'
All internet-connected homes will be asked whether they want filters
And all new subscribers will have to opt out if they want obscene material
Porn simulating rape will also be banned under new legislation
By James Chapman
PUBLISHED: 16:52 EST, 21 July 2013
Every householder connected to the internet will have their access to online porn blocked unless they ask to receive it.
In a victory for the Daily Mail, David Cameron will announce the move today among a series of measures cracking down on against the tide of web sleaze.
The Prime Minister will warn that internet pornography – much of it easily accessible to youngsters – is ‘corroding childhood’.
By the end of next year, all 19million UK homes currently connected to the net will be contacted by service providers and told they must say whether family-friendly filters that block all porn sites should be switched on or off.
From the end of this year, all new customers setting up a broadband account or switching provider will have the filters automatically switched on unless they opt to disable them to allow sites with ‘adult content’.
‘The Daily Mail has campaigned hard to make internet search engine filters “default on”. Today they can declare that campaign a success,’ Mr Cameron said.
‘We are taking action to help clean up the internet and protect a generation of children from often extreme online pornography.’
Other measures being announced by Mr Cameron today include adult content filters on all new mobile phones, a bar on accessing adult content through public wi-fi and calling in Ofcom to regulate industry progress. Internet giants such as Google will be told they have a ‘moral duty’ to do more to stop child abuse images being accessed.
Pornography involving simulated rape will be banned both online and offline, and online videos will be subject to the same rules as those sold in sex shops.
There will be stronger powers for watchdogs to investigate the ‘hidden internet’ – heavily encrypted forums and pages that allow abusers to cover their tracks
There has been growing alarm at evidence that a third of children have accessed online pornography by the time they reach ten. Six in ten parents now say they are worried or very worried about their sons and daughters seeing violent and sexual material on the web.
In his landmark speech at the NSPCC, Mr Cameron will say action is more urgent than ever because web access has ‘changed profoundly’ in recent years.
‘Not long ago, access to the internet was mainly restricted to the PC in the corner of the living room, with a beeping dial-up modem, downstairs in the house where parents could keep an eye on things,’ he will say.
Today, there is material freely available that is a ‘direct danger to our children’.
The Prime Minister will add: ‘I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence.’
Mr Cameron will announce that in future deciding about family-friendly filters will be a required part of the set-up process for installing an internet connection.
THE PRIME MINISTER'S PLEDGE
Automatic web filters for new customers, and opt in for existing accounts by 2014.
Filters fitted to all new mobile phones.
Ban on adult content for public wi-fi.
New offence of possession of porn simulating rape.
New powers for watchdogs to access heavily encrypted sites.
Search engines urged to ban searches for child abuse.
Ofcom to drive move towards a family-friendly web.
BUT... no default block across the web and providers and social media not forced to bar indecent sites.
When existing web users are contacted, family-friendly filters will be pre-selected. Only an adult will be able to change the filter settings and the account holder will receive a confirmation email. Some ISPs are offering text alerts, in case children hack into the account.
Any adult ignoring the alerts will have filters installed automatically.
‘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. If you just click “next” or “enter”, then the filters are automatically on,’ Mr Cameron will say.
‘And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account.
‘No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.
‘Once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing. So we have agreed with industry that those filters can only be changed by the account holder, who has to be an adult. So an adult has to be engaged in the decisions.
‘But of course, all this just deals with the flow of new customers – those switching service providers or buying an internet connection for the first time. It does not deal with the huge stock of existing customers – almost 19million households. So this is now where we need to set our sights.
‘Following the work we’ve already done with the service providers, they have now agreed to take a big step.
‘By the end of next year, they will have contacted all of their existing customers and presented them with an unavoidable decision about whether or not to install family friendly content filters. TalkTalk, who have shown great leadership on this, have already started.
‘We are not prescribing how the ISPs should contact their customers – it’s up to them to find their own technological solutions. But however they do it, there will be no escaping this decision.
‘And they will ensure it is an adult making the choice.’
‘I’m asking Ofcom, the industry regulator, to oversee this work. If they find that we are not protecting children effectively, I will not hesitate to take further action.’
Mr Cameron will announce further measures to tackle extreme pornography, which depicts violence against women, including 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.
‘Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole – making 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.'
Holly Dustin, of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said:
'We are delighted that David Cameron has responded to the call by experts and women’s groups to ban pornographic images of rape that promote and eroticise violence against women.
'The Coalition Government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this.
'The next step is working with experts to ensure careful drafting of the law and proper resourcing to ensure the law is enforced fully.'
The little girls whose killers viewed child porn on the web
Google and other internet firms have a ‘moral duty’ to do more to rid the internet of child abuse images, David Cameron will say.
Search engines should block any results for a ‘blacklist’ of terms compiled by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop). Porn users trying to access images of children should also be confronted with a warning telling them they risk losing their jobs or access to their family, the Prime Minister says.
Web firms have come under scrutiny in recent months following the convictions of Mark Bridger for murdering five-year-old April Jones and Stuart Hazell for murdering 12-year-old Tia Sharp. Both men had visited child abuse sites before the attacks.
The Government has been involved in lengthy negotiations with technology firms over the best way to crack down on child abuse.
Service providers have agreed to introduce ‘splash pages’ which tell people if they are attempting to view illegal images.
The Prime Minister will insist firms should go further, with a warning of consequences ‘such as losing their job, their family, even access to their children’.
Mr Cameron will dismiss arguments from some in the industry that it is impossible to design more effective filters to stamp out vile images.
‘There are some searches which are so abhorrent and where there can be no doubt whatsoever about the sick and malevolent intent of the searcher that there should be no search results returned at all,’ he will say, adding that he wants a response by October.
‘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.
‘We are already looking at the legislative options we have. This is quite simply about obliterating this disgusting material from the net – and we will do whatever it takes.’
In a statement, Google said: ‘We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it.’
What does that mean for animated, "comic book", or "artistic" porn? :confused:
British newspapers have a long history of instigating public campaigns for the government to change laws or introduce new ones. More often than not they're rather knee-jerk.Quote:
Originally Posted by Dreadnaught
Falls under generaly porn categories so will be filtered in the same was as regular porn will be.Quote:
Originally Posted by GGT