Want porn? Let the government know please.

Khannie

If you thought you lived in a nanny state, you will. I heard on the radio that there are moves to introduce this nonsense here.

BBC News article.

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

(highlighting mine)

Genuinely shocked at this. Parents can't parent, therefore everyone's porn gets turned off. Want it turned back on? Oh, you'll have to let us know you watch porn.

danjo-xx

Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC.

Is this not just giving people an on/off button or once you've made your decision is that it, and will your choice be recorded by your isp for other purposes perhaps.

sounds a bit big brotherish though.

drunkmonkey

I can't wait to see how there going to block furverts from kids.

Overheal

So wait, did they censor fashion TV or the red hot euro 10 minute preview yet? Good times..

Soundman

online pornography was "corroding childhood".

More like it is teaching kids about sex considering the schools and parents don't. Maybe not teaching them in a wholesome way and teaching them the wrong aspects of sex, but better that than no education. Haha

Duggy747

Learned more from pornos than I did from sex ed. which was essentially non-stop talk of warts and STDs from a ghoul of a teacher. The actual process of sex was learned in Biology :pac:

This was essentially sex ed.:

Soundman

You had sex-ed? All we had was a 10 minute talk if we did Home Ec or Biology. That's a penis, that's a vagina. Yadda yadda yadda.

Duggy747

Duggy747 wrote: »

Learned more from pornos than I did from sex ed. which was essentially non-stop talk of warts and STDs from a ghoul of a teacher. The actual process of sex was learned in Biology :pac:

This was essentially sex ed.:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tJNhDeBoLTE

jill_valentine

I'm pretty concerned about this precedent. Who decides what counts as "inappropriate" and what isn't? In every country with anything similar, the facility has been abused by governments or ideologically biased, and I do not see the Tories as likely contenders to break the trend.

Duggy747

Soundman wrote: »

You had sex-ed? All we had was a 10 minute talk if we did Home Ec or Biology. That's a penis, that's a vagina. Yadda yadda yadda.

Sex ed in the most extremely loose term, it was basically one 30 minute Religion class dedicated to it. That was the last it was ever mentioned and everyone came out thinking that once you have sex you'll catch something.

VampiricPadraig

That is all.

Khannie

jill_valentine wrote: »

I'm pretty concerned about this precedent. Who decides what counts as "inappropriate" and what isn't?

This is it in a nutshell really. Nipple = inappropriate? Bye bye imgur. Is boards inappropriate? (there is a sex and sexuality forum). God knows the government here wants rid of boards. Could the government decide that any web site that speaks out about them is sexual in some way and get rid of it? News site that tells the cold hard truth about a government. Oh, they're very sexually charged. Shut that down there Pat.

Where does the line get drawn and who draws it?

That's not even mentioning false positives (which naturally happen).

I'd have no objection to an opt-in system. Opt-out is horrific though.

edit: Jaysus Padraig. That gif is horrific.

jill_valentine

Khannie wrote: »

This is it in a nutshell really. Nipple = inappropriate? Bye bye imgur. Is boards inappropriate? (there is a sex and sexuality forum). God knows the government here wants rid of boards. Could the government decide that any web site that speaks out about them is sexual in some way and get rid of it? News site that tells the cold hard truth about a government. Oh, they're very sexually charged. Shut that down there Pat.

Where does the line get drawn and who draws it?

That's not even mentioning false positives (which naturally happen).

I'd have no objection to an opt-in system. Opt-out is horrific though.

edit: Jaysus Padraig. That gif is horrific.

The false positive thing is such an obvious problem that I don't know how they intend to serious implement it. Just about every combination of words in the English language has some euphemistic meaning, and with measures like this, that's only going to be more apparent, so how do they mean to avoid that credibly?

The other issue that occurred to me immediately, and it's probably not one that's going to bother many others here, is that, almost universally, existing filter systems treat gay websites as "adult" content by default, regardless of how harmless the subject matter actually is. Lumping general gay news or community websites into the same box as wacky gonzo porn and gore chans or whatever is irksome enough.

But it's a more serious concern, given that the internet is where a lot of alienated young lgbt people, for instance in rural areas, come to try and find advice or support, or some sense of community, when they cannot necessarily turn to family or peers. Now they're to lose that channel, unless they want to ask their parents to be added to the porn user's register?

Somehow, that's something I can't imagine the Tories would be crying themselves to sleep about, but it's troubling.

FouxDaFaFa

The gay website point didn't even occur to me, Jill, and it's a very good one.

I know a poster on one of the AH threads mentioned that he found information and, indeed, gay porn on the internet very helpful in coming to terms with being gay. He didn't feel so abnormal.

I'd hate to think of teenagers being deprived of that and wallowing in confusion and insecurity instead.

I'll have a go contacting my TDs but there is an incredible dearth of tech-savvy ones in my locale, even the younger ones. I would worry that they will just go along with whatever, especially since I can't imagine any of them want to be branded the "pro-porn" TD.

jill_valentine

FouxDaFaFa wrote: »

The gay website point didn't even occur to me, Jill, and it's a very good one.

I know a poster on one of the AH threads mentioned that he found information and, indeed, gay porn on the internet very helpful in coming to terms with being gay. He didn't feel so abnormal.

I'd hate to think of teenagers being deprived of that and wallowing in confusion and insecurity instead.

I'll have a go contacting my TDs but there is an incredible dearth of tech-savvy ones in my locale, even the younger ones. I would worry that they will just go along with whatever, especially since I can't imagine any of them want to be branded the "pro-porn" TD.

Exactly. That's the killer about the banner this has been brought in under, no politician in their right mind is going to put themselves in a position for the Daily Mail to brand them a child porn defender.

As anybody who's been treated to "sex education" in the Irish school system will know, it can be somewhat... lacking.... even in terms of heterosexual sexual health and sexual practice information. It's nonexistant for close encounters of the homosexual kind, so the internet is a really important touchstone for younger LGBT folks just finding their feet.

But the "normalisation" - by which I mean "feeling normal", rather than some mad Russian idea of turning people spontaneously gay - is a big deal too. Right now, all the shows I can think of featuring gay or bisexual female characters in prominent roles are primarily available here via Netflix or iTunes. Being able to see gay or bisexual superheroines or lead characters, even if only occasionally, is a really big deal and RTE is not in a hurry to fill that need.

It doesn't even need to be particularly explicit for the disparity between how content is treated to be visible - just about anything featuring lesbians, for instance, is automatically considered "adult" no matter how tame.

So this video, featuring some fairly explicit necking and shagging on various points of the soft-focus spectrum is fine. But this one isn't. Flagged as adult content, it's "inappropriate for some users", and requires a sign-in to confirm your age, despite the fact that it was originally broadcast before 6pm on terrestrial television and features about 34873947 square feet of woolly jumpers on all concerned.

That's just a stark example that comes to mind, but it should illustrate the problem, which extends well into pure text content. This stupid idea places a lot of valuable stuff above the "adult" threshold, and out of reach of the young people who could benefit from it most, when they're still coming to grips with their identity. I'm unaware of any comparable filter that did not similarly exclude completely innocuous gay interest sites as a matter of course, and I've no reason to believe this one will be the exception.

I may be getting cynical in my old age, but while I'd prefer to think that's not, in itself, a deliberate move by the Conservatives, I can't imagine they're hugely upset that it comes as a handy bonus. And the fact that Cameron is bringing this in at the same time as he's cutting funding to child exploitation prevention taskforces doesn't exactly fill me with confidence in his motives, whatever they may be.

AlmightyCushion

So, that's shows like The Tudors and Game of Thrones getting blocked I take it. Seriously though, I see this being scrapped pretty quickly. ISPs will complain. Website owners and big internet lobby groups will complain when something non pornographic gets blocked (penisland for example). Even sites like Reddit could get blocked considering it has loads of gonewild subreddits despite all of the brilliant subreddits. The papers will rip them to shreds when they discover that some hardcore websites showing all sorts of freaky shít are still getting through the filter.

I can't see it lasting very long.

hfallada

It sounds like something the extreme "Christians " in america would try to introduce in texas or Florida. But even then they would be shouting keep the government out of my private life.

Once you start censoring it becomes the norm. Only about 20 years the government abolished the censorship board who got banned anything they liked for no reason. By the looks of it we are heading in that direction.

RikuoAmero

So what will Cameron do about euphemisms? If I want to search for a story on "Insert Fandom Here", I don't type in "sex story", I use the word lemon. So, if some kid wants to Google a recipe for lemonade, and just type in lemon, is Cameron going to bitch slap them, saying "Naughty naughty! You iz looking for pronz!"
Not to mention, since porn is opt in, there will have to be a record kept someplace of who has opted in. That's data that can very easily be leaked or stolen, or on a thumb drive left on the train.
More to the point, you can't say definitively what is and isn't porn. What gets regarded as porn by society changes over time. Cameron here is trying to lock in his own personal definition.
Not only that, but he's demanding that internet related companies do more, which they simply can't do. I went to Google and typed in child porn. I checked the first five pages. Everything was news and articles about CP, but not any CP itself. Image search was likewise free of CP, just a bunch of mugshots of child pornographers. This was with Safesearch off.
So...Cameron, how exactly is Google providing or aiding in the distribution of child porn again?

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

So, that's shows like The Tudors and Game of Thrones getting blocked I take it. Seriously though, I see this being scrapped pretty quickly. ISPs will complain. Website owners and big internet lobby groups will complain when something non pornographic gets blocked (penisland for example). Even sites like Reddit could get blocked considering it has loads of gonewild subreddits despite all of the brilliant subreddits. The papers will rip them to shreds when they discover that some hardcore websites showing all sorts of freaky shít are still getting through the filter.

I can't see it lasting very long.

Thats the logical argument. You know by now that won't make a damn bit of difference. Like controlled substance law.

AlmightyCushion

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rabbitte-ignores-calls-for-state-role-in-blocking-online-porn-29443620.html

Thankfully, our politicians are showing some sense and see the downsides of implementing a system like this.

Khannie

Super. I'm impressed. Particularly with this bit:

Even if it were possible to ensure that such measures were not easily circumvented or didn't inadvertently block perfectly acceptable content, the principled question of whether the State should be encouraging service providers to filter or block content to all users, regardless of whether there are children resident, would still arise.

Mark.87

Great article, I hope it holds up to be true. I was a bit worried reading yesterday that he was considering introducing such a system in Ireland.

There are no laws in the country to prevent adults from viewing pornographic material. No government, ISP or anyone else should filter LEGAL content on the internet. It is the start of a very slippery and dangerous path. What comes next?

I find many people’s references to child abuse imagery in this topic around the net absurd. What is being proposed is to filter known pornographic websites. Child images are illegal in most countries around the world with varying degrees. Any knows sites to have such material are reported to authorise and filtered by search engines, ISPs, etc. (try go onto Pirate Bay!!! – not pornographic but determined illegal). The way child images get around this is by "hiding" and "burying" them within other litigate sites, messenger services, file sharing websites and cloud based systems or by creating a false site disguised as something else. Depending on how and what kind of filtering system ISPs will use, such sites probably wont be flagged. We all want better protection and more to be done regarding child pornographic material but the fact of the matter is that what is proposed has nothing to do with child porn and at its face is about preventing children form viewing "adult" porn (by preventing everyone from viewing it by default).

The argument for non-tech savvy parents not knowing how to filter material for their children goes both ways. What if a non-tech adult wants to view porn but doesn’t know how? The fact of the matter is there are numerous ways to filter material for parents (search engines, browsers, operating systems, routers all have ways to do so). A simple Google search will tell them exactly how to. In my opinion it is just laziness and ignorance that prevents it.

The opposite side prevents far more problems. How do I turn the filter off, do I have to call my ISP (embarrassing for many) or use an online interface (kids would probably know more about using this then some parents). What is stopping ISPs from introducing a fee to turn off the filter further down the road, what happens to the lists of people who requested it off and what assurances and procedures are there that it won’t be used for anything it shouldn’t. I live in a rented apartment in which the internet and other bills are in the name of my elderly landlord. Am I supposed to call her up and ask her to call the ISP to turn on the porn for me?

The internet is a dangerous place for any child, least of all because of porn. Parents need to do a lot more with the internet and their children than just filtering!

The whole thing seems crazy to me, filtering legal content should not be done! Why not just have an opt-in system? That way any non-tech parents that want to can call up their ISP and ask for the protection. No embarrassment and any parents who want to can “protect” their children. Everyone wins!!!

Tomk1

Think my first education was everyday seeing a donkey in the field next to the primary school, and then seeing dogs do what they do, then latter biology "o just like any animal" but some Humans just believe they ain't animals. Probably some christian/muslim- ethics group with their own philosophy agenda.

If this passes you can blame me, as this must be why I voted for Labour. Time to take the decisions away from these demi-god politicians, that have nothing to do. People should be given direct rule, the right to vote for every single policy change. We have the technology but the lads will loose their self-importance.

46 0s

Technologically illiterate MP who masterminded UK porn blocker gets hacked, threatens reporter for writing about it


In other news, the first Porno vid shot with a Google Glass, out soon.:pac::pac:

Not Safe For Work (probably, maybe)

Reamer Fanny

Damn no more tentacle porn

46 0s

justryan wrote: »

Damn no more tentacle porn

shudders

Peregrine

Thank god Rabitte realised how stupid it would be to force ISPs to implement a block like this. Censoring everyone and allowing people to 'opt out' is madness. I'm not saying no to parental controls on the internet but enforcing parental controls to the whole bloody country is just plain stupid.

If parents wish to do so, there are already many ways to control what kind of websites their children access. If they think these are inaccessible to some less technologically informed parents, they can create a system where people can opt in for content filtering through their ISP.

Mark.87

BBC News wrote:

“The filters would apply to all devices linked to the affected home Wi-Fi network and across the public Wi-Fi networks".

Just read the article again, don’t know how I missed this the first time. Does it mean that wired networks will be OK…. Really shows he knows what he is talking about!!!

AlmightyCushion

Mark.87 wrote: »

Just read the article again, don’t know how I missed this the first time. Does it mean that wired networks will be OK…. Really shows he knows what he is talking about!!!

The filter is at the ISP level so wired networks would be affected too. So, yes he doesn't know what he's talking about.

Overheal

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/rabbitte-ignores-calls-for-state-role-in-blocking-online-porn-29443620.html

Thankfully, our politicians are showing some sense and see the downsides of implementing a system like this.

the funny bit is he looks like a lad who enjoys a fap now and gain himself

MonkstownHoop

Overheal wrote: »

the funny bit is he looks like a lad who enjoys a fap now and gain himself

theres a look? we all do it