Results 1 to 27 of 27

Thread: UK outlaws all pornography, bombing will start in five minutes

  1. #1

    Default UK outlaws all pornography, bombing will start in five minutes

    All internet porn will be blocked to protect children, under UK government plan

    THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

    The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

    The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

    Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

    The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.

    It follows the success of an operation by most British internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites. Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

    TalkTalk, which includes Tiscali and the British version of Aol.com, is already introducing a new free service early next year called "bright feed," which allows people to control the internet so that all devices are automatically covered without the need to set up individual controls.

    Homeowners can either specify which adult sites they want to receive or put a cinema-style classification on their feed to restrict what is received according to age ranges, such as U, 12 or 18. A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.

    Mr Vaizey said: "This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children.

    "I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

    Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

    "There is this very uneasy sense for parents of children that we do not have to tolerate this Wild West approach. We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see."

    Previously the Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) has told MPs that such a blanket ban would be expensive and technically difficult to operate.

    But Miranda Suit, co-founder of the charity Safermedia, which held a conference on internet porn at the Commons last month, said: "Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the government put pressure on them.

    "In the past, internet porn was regarded as a moral issue or a matter of taste. Now it has become a mental health issue because we now know the damage it is causing. We are seeing perverse sexual behavior among children. Legislation is both justifiable and feasible."

    She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

    This weekend some ISPs appeared ready to introduce an "opt in" clause voluntarily. Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation for TalkTalk, said: "Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us to do but to do what was right by our customers.

    "If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work."

    A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said: "We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We've taken this approach as mobiles are taken out of the home - and kept in a pocket - whereas parents can control what happens within the home and online "We're able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach."

    A spokesman for BT, which has a "clean feed" system to block access to illegal sites, said: "We do what we can to protect children."

    The ISPA did not return calls to London's Sunday Times.
    This is just the dumbest thing
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    This is just the dumbest thing
    Usually the "Think of the Children™" and modesty laws are the dumbest things.
    . . .

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by Nessus View Post
    This is just the dumbest thing
    Agreed. The government has no business in regulating people's lives this way. This is what happens when the Nanny State is allowed to prosper. Where the government thinks it knows best we can crap laws like this potential one or seat-belt laws. People should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to act as long as they are not directly harming others.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    seat-belt laws. People should be able to decide for themselves how they wish to act as long as they are not directly harming others.
    Unless you're going to pass a law that the family of the deceased or maimed, or the person who directly caused the accident, has to pay the cleanup costs, seat belt laws are also in place to save taxpayer money and reduce the cost to others because of traffic accidents in addition to making sure the person wearing the seat belt isn't killed. So yes, not wearing your seat belt and getting into an accident does harm others.
    . . .

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Illusions View Post
    Unless you're going to pass a law that the family of the deceased or maimed, or the person who directly caused the accident, has to pay the cleanup costs, seat belt laws are also in place to save taxpayer money and reduce the cost to others because of traffic accidents in addition to making sure the person wearing the seat belt isn't killed. So yes, not wearing your seat belt and getting into an accident does harm others.
    Clean up costs? Seriously? LOL

    You think that is going to be more expensive then the money that is taken from citizens through all the "Click it or Ticket" fines that they have to pay? Let alone the fact that these ads are on bill boards and radio. I've heard different arguments for seat belt laws but "clean up costs" that has got to be the worst one.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by Lewkowski View Post
    Clean up costs? Seriously? LOL

    You think that is going to be more expensive then the money that is taken from citizens through all the "Click it or Ticket" fines that they have to pay? Let alone the fact that these ads are on bill boards and radio. I've heard different arguments for seat belt laws but "clean up costs" that has got to be the worst one.
    The fact that you blew this off without considering how much more likely you are to be thrown from the car without a belt, and the likelihood of death after be thrown... its only another display of your ignorance.

    Its almost as if you purposely troll other people's threads with completely unrelated and moronic stories or grievences, just to see how much you can get away with before people start jumping on you.

  7. #7
    Let sleeping tigers lie Khendraja'aro's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    In the forests of the night
    Posts
    6,239
    Hey, the Christian-In-Name-Only will be going to hell anyway, so why bother telling him anything?
    When the stars threw down their spears
    And watered heaven with their tears:
    Did he smile his work to see?
    Did he who made the lamb make thee?

  8. #8
    Okay, but back to the subject of the thread: how the hell is this actually supposed to operate? I guess I'm not familiar with this kind of technology, but doesn't this involve making a comprehensive list of porn sites and then having people manually opt-in to receive specific ones? Why the hell do I have to tell my ISP which porn sites I may want to browse before I actually browse them?


  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    The fact that you blew this off without considering how much more likely you are to be thrown from the car without a belt, and the likelihood of death after be thrown... its only another display of your ignorance.

    Its almost as if you purposely troll other people's threads with completely unrelated and moronic stories or grievences, just to see how much you can get away with before people start jumping on you.
    Of course you are more likely to die if you don't wear a seat-belt. Only fools don't wear their seat-belts. But why is the governments responsibility to protect people from themselves? If you decide it is the government's job to protect people from themselves then you open the door for the kind of law the original post was objecting to.

  10. #10
    And if you aren't wearing your seatbelt and someone ass-ends you, should that person be charged with vehicular homicide when you die from being flung from your vehicle? Even if they don't get that charge, I think you can reasonably assume they will feel guilty as hell for your death, even if it was your own damned fool fault.

    So yes, seatbelt laws do not only protect the people who are wearing the seatbelts and their innocent children.
    We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    Okay, but back to the subject of the thread: how the hell is this actually supposed to operate? I guess I'm not familiar with this kind of technology, but doesn't this involve making a comprehensive list of porn sites and then having people manually opt-in to receive specific ones? Why the hell do I have to tell my ISP which porn sites I may want to browse before I actually browse them?

    Or opt to have an "18" rated feed.

    I like the idea of being able to opt into being U, 12 or 18 ... if it is optional. If an ISP wants to offer a U or 12 service that blocks porn sites for customers that sign up for that, that sounds like a good idea.

  12. #12
    Why can't they just ban toxic families? If they MUST mess about with the internet then they should start by just blocking all malware ever.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Or opt to have an "18" rated feed.

    I like the idea of being able to opt into being U, 12 or 18 ... if it is optional. If an ISP wants to offer a U or 12 service that blocks porn sites for customers that sign up for that, that sounds like a good idea.
    I don't like the idea of the government making judgements about what's "12+" or "18+" when it comes to Internet content. I suspect it wouldn't be long before the Atari mentality waltzed in and decided that anything remotely controversial (including news) should be 18+.

  14. #14
    I agree that the government shouldn't do it, but why shouldn't Virgin Media do it entirely voluntarily and advertise to their customers that they'll block porn (unless the customer chooses to allow it)?

  15. #15
    Sure, that's alright if someone wants to offer that as a service to competitively differentiate themselves. But this is being done at the whim/baseball bat of the government.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't like the idea of the government making judgements about what's "12+" or "18+" when it comes to Internet content. I suspect it wouldn't be long before the Atari mentality waltzed in and decided that anything remotely controversial (including news) should be 18+.
    The difference between the Atari mentality and this is that the Atari attitude was entirely non-negotiable. If they started making ridiculous things "12+" or "18+" then everyone would just go on the 18+ feed, presumably defeating the purpose.

    The other fundamental difference is that while it's just about doable to have a comprehensive list of porn sites, expanding the remit to anything that might offend the English soccer mom equivalent is wholly impracticable.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  17. #17
    There is a lot of gray area porn that would make lists like this useless. You would end up blocking everything thats considered 2.0 or uses member input; wikipedia, youtube, imgur, torrents, p2p, etc.

    There are already dozens of programs out there that block porn, they are all designed to react to known "threats" (another flaw in this logic), and they all suffer from varying ideas of what porn is. The government telling ISPs to start playing CyberSitter doesn't make the idea anyless stupid.

  18. #18
    Incidentally, I simply don't believe the government is saying they need to do this. There's been no discussion on this at all in the UK I've seen, nothing on the BBC and the quote in the OP was very wishy-washy and non-committal.

  19. #19
    Oh, well done Brits! Next, state-mandated chastity belts. Bravo!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    The fact that you blew this off without considering how much more likely you are to be thrown from the car without a belt, and the likelihood of death after be thrown... its only another display of your ignorance.

    Its almost as if you purposely troll other people's threads with completely unrelated and moronic stories or grievences, just to see how much you can get away with before people start jumping on you.
    Hey, shouldn't require helmets for motorcyclists either. Brain damage = more kidneys available!

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    The difference between the Atari mentality and this is that the Atari attitude was entirely non-negotiable. If they started making ridiculous things "12+" or "18+" then everyone would just go on the 18+ feed, presumably defeating the purpose.

    The other fundamental difference is that while it's just about doable to have a comprehensive list of porn sites, expanding the remit to anything that might offend the English soccer mom equivalent is wholly impracticable.
    I don't think governments are especially negotiable about these things once consumers get used to the status quo. But more importantly, there shouldn't be a negotiation at all with the government about what's "appropriate".

  21. #21
    Looks like this is dead in the water anyway. Not technically possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Beeb
    Internet porn block 'not possible' say ISPs

    Government plans to block pornography "at source" are unlikely to prove effective, say ISPs.

    The proposal to cut off access to pornographic material was floated by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times.

    The government is talking to ISPs to set up a meeting at which the proposal will be discussed.

    But, say experts, technical challenges mean any large scale filtering system is doomed to failure.

    Legal issues
    A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, confirmed Mr Vaizey's plan to talk to ISPs about setting up an age verification scheme to govern access to pornographic sites.

    "This is a very serious matter," said Mr Vaizey. "I think it's very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children."

    "I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."


    In response to the government proposal, Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Ispa industry body, said: "Ispa firmly believes that controls on children's access to the internet should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down."

    Mr Lansman said its members provided parents with many different means of controlling what is accessible via the computers in their homes.

    "Online safety is a priority issue for the internet industry and ISPA will be discussing the options available to protect children with Government," he said.

    "ISPs currently block child abuse content which is illegal and widely regarded as abhorrent," said Mr Lansman. "Blocking lawful pornography content is less clear cut, will lead to the blocking of access to legitimate content and is only effective in preventing inadvertent access."

    BT, the UK's largest ISP, said it would be "happy" to take part in any discussion of the issues, but added: "There are many legal, consumer rights and technical issues that would need to be considered before any new web blocking policy was developed."

    "Unfortunately, It's technically not possible to completely block this stuff," said Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico.

    He said the sheer volume of pornographic material online and the number of ways that people access it, via the web, file-sharing networks, news groups, discussion boards and the like, made the job impossible.

    While some proponents of a national pornographic filtering scheme cite the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) as an example of how such a scheme might work, Mr Davies said it was not a good guide.

    The IWF circulates a list to ISPs of sites found to be hosting illegal images of child sexual abuse.

    However, said Mr Davies, the IWF draws up its list largely using information passed to it by the public. In addition it only tackles illegal content found on websites.

    Such a system would not work if it was used to deal with millions of porn sites, chat rooms and bulletin boards, he said.

    Experience with filtering systems, he said, shows that they are a very blunt tool that often blocks access to sites that could be useful.

    "You end up with a system that's either hugely expensive and a losing battle because there are millions of these sites or it's just not effective," he said.

    "The cost of putting these systems in place outweigh the benefits, to my mind," he said.

    Mr Davies also feared that any wide-scale attempt to police pornographic content would soon be expanded to include pirated pop songs, films and TV shows.

    "If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see," he said.

    His comment was echoed by Jim Killock, chair of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital liberties issues.

    "This is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door," said Mr Killock.

    "This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."

    Miranda Suit, co-chair of Safer Media, which campaigns to make media safe for children, told the BBC that the pornography available on the internet was "qualitatively and quantitatively" different from any that has gone before.

    Ms Suit cited a report compiled by the US conservative think tank The Witherspoon Institute which suggested that easy access to pornography was damaging some young people.

    "Children are becoming addicted in their teens to internet pornography," she said. "They are being mentally damaged so they cannot engage in intimate relationships."

    Safer Media backed the government call to block pornography "at source", said Ms Suit.

    "What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children," she said.
    On a different tangent, this piece jumped out at me: "This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."

    Looks like authorities and government departments are instigating greater transparency in what they do, with the fear that anything opaque will eventually be revealed through good ol' Leakywiks.
    Last edited by Timbuk2; 12-21-2010 at 10:05 AM.
    Quote Originally Posted by Steely Glint View Post
    It's actually the original French billion, which is bi-million, which is a million to the power of 2. We adopted the word, and then they changed it, presumably as revenge for Crecy and Agincourt, and then the treasonous Americans adopted the new French usage and spread it all over the world. And now we have to use it.

    And that's Why I'm Voting Leave.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I don't think governments are especially negotiable about these things once consumers get used to the status quo. But more importantly, there shouldn't be a negotiation at all with the government about what's "appropriate".
    You're assuming the blacklist would be held by the government rather than ISPs.
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  23. #23
    I think the negative impact is the same if the government is compelling the ISPs to keep a blacklist.

  24. #24
    I don't support this proposal, or any other kind of censorship of the internet. However, the law, as described in the original post, would simply not have the particular negative consequences you described. Atari's forum is a very different case to the whole internetz, not least because censoring the things Atari found it necessary to censor, especially at the end, is completely impossible for the entire Internet. It's like the difference between stopping certain people or things from coming into your house and stopping people in your house going out and getting certain things or meeting certain people. It's barely possible to do that just for porn. Like Timbuk said, you can only stop inadvertent access - though, ostensibly, the point of the policy is to block inadvertent access by children, though it does look suspiciously like standard moralizing legislation smuggled in under the guise of "protecting children".
    The light that once I thought compassion still casting shadows in your action
    The words you shared were cold transactions that bring me to curse what you've done
    When you're up there absorbed in greatness with such success you've grown complacent
    I hope you scorch your many faces when you fly too close to the sun

  25. #25
    I don't think you and I disagree on this. I was merely holding up Atari as an example of idiot dictatorial censorship because it was. But obviously it's not totally comparable to anything in the wider world of government regulation.

  26. #26
    Spin it let's begin it. Angel_Mapper's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Cape Suzette
    Posts
    338
    "Children are becoming addicted in their teens to internet pornography," she said. "They are being mentally damaged so they cannot engage in intimate relationships."
    Wait, that sounds like they want to ban puberty.
    Angel Mapper - Prometheus

    To have said goodbye to things!

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by Angel_Mapper View Post
    Wait, that sounds like they want to ban puberty.
    I think everyone would be happy with that, really
    In the future, the Berlin wall will be a mile high, and made of steel. You too will be made to crawl, to lick children's blood from jackboots. There will be no creativity, only productivity. Instead of love there will be fear and distrust, instead of surrender there will be submission. Contact will be replaced with isolation, and joy with shame. Hope will cease to exist as a concept. The Earth will be covered with steel and concrete. There will be an electronic policeman in every head. Your children will be born in chains, live only to serve, and die in anguish and ignorance.
    The universe we observe has precisely the properties we should expect if there is, at bottom, no design, no purpose, no evil, no good, nothing but blind, pitiless indifference.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •