Online porn to be blocked

[Beefster]

David Cameron has come up with a beauty this time. Everyone is going to be blocked from accessing 'online porn' by default and must 'opt-in'. Despite never actually accessing online porn (I'm more a 'Hustler I found in the woods when I was 12" kinda guy), I'll be opting in as a principle.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

Thoughts (on the policy, not my porn habits)?

Personally, I think it's a indescribably stupid idea and begs the following questions:

- What constitutes 'online porn'?
- Why do politicians always connect images of children being abused with images of consenting adults doing legal acts?
- Why do politicians pretty much always completely fail to understand the Internet?
- Will it just drive the real sickos/illegal stuff to completely unmanageable/unpoliceable online/offline places?
- Is this the start of the censorship of the Internet (if you ignore the blocking of sites like The Pirate Bay which has been utterly ineffective, I might add)?

[IndieHibby]

It's not that far removed from how China justifies it's censorship. However, I think it's just lack of imagination on the politicians part, rather than a desire to start the thin end of the wedge on censorship per-se. For this reason it will fail, and will delay even further the kind of action needed to solve two important problems: a) child abuse / distribution of child abuse images and b) the accessing of hard porn by under-age children. For those of us who might not think that pre-teens and teenagers accessing porn on their phones/usb's etc is any different from 'passing around a razzle at school', then you are gravely mistaken. Boys and girls are having their impressions of what is expected of normal relationships completely and utterly warped by access to hard-core porn. This puts pressure on girls to commit acts that they may neither desire nor feel comfortable with, but believe it is expected. Boys also do not know where to draw the line.

[The_Todd]

A sad day for the Internet. Not because its porn, but because its the tip of the iceberg. The Internet was built on openness not censorship, if it starts here where does it lead?

I'm all for opt-in censorship, or maybe a setting on your home router which you can toggle yourself. And don't give me "kids can work it better than adults", because it should be simple to do. Parents need to take some responsibility.

[The_Todd]

Also I find it interesting that those who campaign for online censorship are the same who bemoan the "nanny state". I'm looking toward Daily Mail and Daily Express and their readers here.

[Sylar]

Firstly, I find it absolutely disgusting that they equate the abhorrent act of child pornography and indecent images of children with consensual adult pornography (I'm aware there's an argument for outlawing the darker side of the coerced adult industry but that's for another thread).

Secondly, I'd agree with you about opting in as a matter of principle. I don't (and never really have) watch porn (other than as a 16-17 year old flicking through the freeview previews on the 900+ Sky channels :greengrin) but if I were so inclined, it would be my prerogative and wouldn't necessarily lump me into a category with groups of people who take please in the abuse, circulation and distribution of indecent images of young children. Given that a 2012 FOI request highlighted over 2500 instances of MPs who had accessed x-rated websites, this blanket approach isn't going to achieve anything other than highlighting to the government quite how many of the UK population access adult websites. However, that doesn't make them perverts, beasts, potential rapists or indeed paedophiles!

I'd agree with Todd's post - it's simply the beginning.

[lapsedhibee]

It's pendulums and roundabouts, innit.

The Sun is to cover up ladies' nipples on Saturday's page 3. That's definitely the thin end of a wedge. What next, covering them up on other days as well? Sooner or later we'll be back, once more, in a situation where well brought up people will buy material to cover up furniture legs.

Do have sympathy with Cameron's intentions, as large parts of the internet are nothing more than a sewer.

[CropleyWasGod]

There are parallels here with the recent (failed) attempt by Rhoda Grant MSP to criminalise the purchase of sex, and the upcoming attempts to regulate such activities as lap-dancing. Blunt instruments which do nothing to address the real issues, and which dismiss the ability of most adults to make informed choices about their private lives.

[blackpoolhibs]

What a complete waste of time this is, they have blocked kickass and the piratebay and within days there is a way to get them, and this will happen with porn too.

Its just Cameron doing something and saying it to make himself more popular when in reality it wont make the slightest difference to anyone who wants to view porn.

[hibsbollah]

It's a shameless attempt at state control.

In an age when broadly, quality of life for most of us is getting worse, the Internet has been a mostly liberalising, democratising and entertaining force for good. Now it seems as if on one hand, companies like Facebook are making it harder and harder for us to control our security and privacy settings, (because they like having as much data on us as they can so they can sell it on, thats the price for all this great free software!) and the State is spying on what we do and 'blocking' what it doesnt like. At the same time online fraud seems to be rampant, online shopping doesn't feel secure and hacking and virus stories are cropping up all the time. We had a thread about this a few weeks ago but I really fear that accepted norms of privacy that we took for granted even twenty years ago have disappeared for ever. If we want to continue to enjoy the Internet it looks like we'll need to learn more technical knowledge about how to keep the door shut.

[Peevemor]

I don't really see the problem. The proposal seems to be that family filters will be switched on by default, with anyone who so wishes being able to simply switch them off.

My eight year old daughter spends a bit of time browsing the web so I always have Google "safe search" activated - this move saves people the hassle.

[CropleyWasGod]

I don't really see the problem. The proposal seems to be that family filters will be switched on by default, with anyone who so wishes being able to simply switch them off.

My eight year old daughter spends a bit of time browsing the web so I always have Google "safe search" activated - this move saves people the hassle.

For me, the Government has decided that the "default" is that we are prohibited from viewing pornography. That's a moral stance that they are taking, and I don't like to be told by my elected representatives what my morality should be.

[lapsedhibee]

For me, the Government has decided that the "default" is that we are prohibited from viewing pornography. That's a moral stance that they are taking, and I don't like to be told by my elected representatives what my morality should be.

If Parliament passes a law prohibiting pishing in the street, isn't that equally your elected representatives telling you what your morality should be? :confused:

[Peevemor]

For me, the Government has decided that the "default" is that we are prohibited from viewing pornography. That's a moral stance that they are taking, and I don't like to be told by my elected representatives what my morality should be.

But you're not being prohibited at all. The account holder changes a setting and can then visit whatever sites he/she wants. It seems quite sensible to me. :confused:

[CropleyWasGod]

If Parliament passes a law prohibiting pishing in the street, isn't that equally your elected representatives telling you what your morality should be? :confused:

I'd consider that a public health issue.

Point taken, though. What is "morality" to some is "protection" to others. And what is "moral" to some is "immoral" to others. It is a minefield, and one that I don't envy anyone trying to negotiate.

As a parent, though, and a liberal (small L), I think the Government has this wrong. I am surprised, too, that a party espousing Libertarianism would go down this road.

[Geo_1875]

Firstly, I find it absolutely disgusting that they equate the abhorrent act of child pornography and indecent images of children with consensual adult pornography (I'm aware there's an argument for outlawing the darker side of the coerced adult industry but that's for another thread).

Secondly, I'd agree with you about opting in as a matter of principle. I don't (and never really have) watch porn (other than as a 16-17 year old flicking through the freeview previews on the 900+ Sky channels :greengrin) but if I were so inclined, it would be my prerogative and wouldn't necessarily lump me into a category with groups of people who take please in the abuse, circulation and distribution of indecent images of young children. Given that a 2012 FOI request highlighted that over 2500 MPs had accessed x-rated websites, this blanket approach isn't going to achieve anything other than highlighting to the government quite how many of the UK population access adult websites. However, that doesn't make them perverts, beasts, potential rapists or indeed paedophiles!

I'd agree with Todd's post - it's simply the beginning.

There are only 650 MPs.:agree:

[Geo_1875]

I don't really see the problem. The proposal seems to be that family filters will be switched on by default, with anyone who so wishes being able to simply switch them off.

My eight year old daughter spends a bit of time browsing the web so I always have Google "safe search" activated - this move saves people the hassle.

The problem is that ISPs will now contact account holders and ask a simple question, "Do you want to access filth on the internet?" They will then have a list of potential rapists and child molesters which narrows down the Police list of suspects when such a crime is committed. They might as well ask you to donate some DNA while they are at it.

It's similar to our many other problems like drugs and guns. Rather than target the suppliers who are the source of the problem they take the easy route and pick up the "offenders".

[Peevemor]

The problem is that ISPs will now contact account holders and ask a simple question, "Do you want to access filth on the internet?" They will then have a list of potential rapists and child molesters which narrows down the Police list of suspects when such a crime is committed. They might as well ask you to donate some DNA while they are at it.

It's similar to our many other problems like drugs and guns. Rather than target the suppliers who are the source of the problem they take the easy route and pick up the "offenders".

They already know (and have a record of) what sites you access, so switching off a filter changes nothing in that respect.

[Sylar]

There are only 650 MPs.:agree:

Sorry, typo on my part! 2500 instances of MPs is what it should read!

[lapsedhibee]

I'd consider that a public health issue.

Point taken, though. What is "morality" to some is "protection" to others. And what is "moral" to some is "immoral" to others. It is a minefield, and one that I don't envy anyone trying to negotiate.

As a parent, though, and a liberal (small L), I think the Government has this wrong. I am surprised, too, that a party espousing Libertarianism would go down this road.

Don't think it is a public health issue - more about the undesirability of having people waving their todgers about in public. But to eliminate the public health angle I should have said that there's already a law against having sex in public. To argue that it's fine to have laws against sex in public but wrong to have laws about sex in private (eg on the internet) is imo to take a very highly moralistic position - basically An Englishman's Home Is His Castle, Even If He's A Filthy Pervert.

[SlickShoes]

The logistics of this are hilarious.

What is porn? What sites are classed as porn? what will they do about social network sites? they are riddled with porn, tumblr is probably the worst of them, but it's not a porn site at all.

It's only a matter of time before your teenager installs a VPN to get around the filter that big Dave has put on the Internet.

They get a big database of "baddies" that like to watch porn, while the real dangerous types don't opt in and use other methods.

It will block the big porn sites but all the obscure stuff, will still be available, proxies will pop up too, it will do nothing apart from start the decline in to full internet censorship.

[SlickShoes]

Don't think it is a public health issue - more about the undesirability of having people waving their todgers about in public. But to eliminate the public health angle I should have said that there's already a law against having sex in public. To argue that it's fine to have laws against sex in public but wrong to have laws about sex in private (eg on the internet) is imo to take a very highly moralistic position - basically An Englishman's Home Is His Castle, Even If He's A Filthy Pervert.

So would you suggest a law against, 3 people going to a house, 2 people having sex and one person watching?

[Peevemor]

If Parliament passes a law prohibiting pishing in the street, isn't that equally your elected representatives telling you what your morality should be? :confused:

It's already an offence. I was fined £30 for doing so about 20 years ago.

[CropleyWasGod]

Don't think it is a public health issue - more about the undesirability of having people waving their todgers about in public. But to eliminate the public health angle I should have said that there's already a law against having sex in public. To argue that it's fine to have laws against sex in public but wrong to have laws about sex in private (eg on the internet) is imo to take a very highly moralistic position - basically An Englishman's Home Is His Castle, Even If He's A Filthy Pervert.

For the record, that's a law that I have problems with as well.

[lapsedhibee]

So would you suggest a law against, 3 people going to a house, 2 people having sex and one person watching?
And would you suggest that this be made legal in the street?


It's already an offence.
Ken.


For the record, that's a law that I have problems with as well.
Fair enough. Consistency's a good thing, even in filthy perversion. :greengrin

[Geo_1875]

They already know (and have a record of) what sites you access, so switching off a filter changes nothing in that respect.

That is true but if you flag yourself as a pervert you're doing half their job.

[hibby rae]

Sorry, typo on my part! 2500 instances of MPs is what it should read!

All 2500 times were by Ian Murray MP.

[CropleyWasGod]

And would you suggest that this be made legal in the street?




I wouldn't have a problem with it, subject to consent and appropriateness.

Appropriateness is, of course, a subjective term. For me, that would include not doing it in front of a school or on a crowded bus. However, others may have different definitions of "appropriate", which is my point.

A complaint made about such behaviour can, and used to be, dealt with under Breach of the Peace provisions. Now it's illegal in any situation. I'm not sure why it was changed.

[Geo_1875]

The logistics of this are hilarious.

What is porn? What sites are classed as porn? what will they do about social network sites? they are riddled with porn, tumblr is probably the worst of them, but it's not a porn site at all.

It's only a matter of time before your teenager installs a VPN to get around the filter that big Dave has put on the Internet.

They get a big database of "baddies" that like to watch porn, while the real dangerous types don't opt in and use other methods.

It will block the big porn sites but all the obscure stuff, will still be available, proxies will pop up too, it will do nothing apart from start the decline in to full internet censorship.

I think people are getting excited about porn. I'm sure the plan is to block all adult content which includes gambling sites. And It will probably fall by the wayside when they get into arguments over the detail. They will follow Scotland's lead (what's new there?) on banning violent and child related imagery.

[Beefster]

I think people are getting excited about porn.

I think that's the purpose.

[Part/Time Supporter]

Daily Mail shows a typical lack of self awareness in welcoming this news:

https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/359288421044334592/photo/1

[jonty]

Its nothing more than putting the porn mag on the top shelf. if you want it, you'll get it.

A lot of folks getting their knickers in a twist over nothing. This is about protecting young children from adult content which has become far to easy to access anonymously.

Its not about censorship for adults, but I'm sure there's plenty of conspiracy theories going on.

Out of curiosity, how many of those who ware against this 'censorship' have kids who access/or will access online content (browser, games console, smart/apple tv etc?)?

[Peevemor]

Daily Mail shows a typical lack of self awareness in welcoming this news:

https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/359288421044334592/photo/1

What's he describing in the photo?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/21/article-0-1AD6C9F1000005DC-934_634x456.jpg

[jonty]

What's he describing in the photo?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/21/article-0-1AD6C9F1000005DC-934_634x456.jpg

For the first time in several years, David Cameron can see the palm of his hand.

[CropleyWasGod]

Daily Mail shows a typical lack of self awareness in welcoming this news:

https://twitter.com/frasernelson/status/359288421044334592/photo/1

There is a law somewhere that declares that use of the word "sleaze" automatically disbars the writer from being taken seriously.


And is Cameron saying.... "under these tough new proposals, I will have to find other things to do with THIS."

[Geo_1875]

What's he describing in the photo?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/21/article-0-1AD6C9F1000005DC-934_634x456.jpg

I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."

[hibsbollah]

I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."

:hilarious

[Baldy Foghorn]

I think he's saying "If you spit on it first it reduces the friction."

Is this from experience Dode?:greengrin

[snooky]

I'd consider that a public health issue.

Point taken, though. What is "morality" to some is "protection" to others. And what is "moral" to some is "immoral" to others. It is a minefield, and one that I don't envy anyone trying to negotiate.

As a parent, though, and a liberal (small L), I think the Government has this wrong. I am surprised, too, that a party espousing Libertarianism would go down this road.

Every law that is passed, whether good or bad, is another encroachment on our freedom. Chip, chip chip, day by day, year by year until one day it'll be all gone. Like all decent folk, I abhor all the sicko stuff that is apparently available on the www however, is the loss of our freedom to us all the price we have to pay to somehow control it?

And as for politicians the likes of Cameron 'taking a stand' on the grounds of morality - give me a break.
Those Gothic speakeasys in London have given sanctuary to parcels of rogues and scoundrels since time immemorial.
A plague on both their Houses!

[degenerated]

What's he describing in the photo?

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/07/21/article-0-1AD6C9F1000005DC-934_634x456.jpg

Not sure but the similarities with this chap are uncanny
10696

[Hibbyradge]

Every law that is passed, whether good or bad, is another encroachment on our freedom.

What about the Freedom of Information Act?

[EuanH78]

Although occasionally I have my doubts, I suspect that David Cameron isn't stupid - a little political grandstanding on a current issue even though the solution is far from workable is my take on it.

[jonty]

Although occasionally I have my doubts, I suspect that David Cameron isn't stupid - a little political grandstanding on a current issue even though the solution is far from workable is my take on it.

I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

(I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Internet_Protection_Act

Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)

[Sergio sledge]

I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

(I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Internet_Protection_Act

Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)

I'd imagine that the simplest way to do it would be for ISP's to supply their routers/modems with the filters pre-loaded, perhaps asking when you take your contract out whether you wish to have the filters in place or not.

With regards to mobile data, I'm pretty sure some mobile networks already have adult content filters as standard, I'm with vodafone and they certainly do as I was asked when taking my contract out if I wanted to disable adult filters.

[jonty]

I'd imagine that the simplest way to do it would be for ISP's to supply their routers/modems with the filters pre-loaded, perhaps asking when you take your contract out whether you wish to have the filters in place or not.

With regards to mobile data, I'm pretty sure some mobile networks already have adult content filters as standard, I'm with vodafone and they certainly do as I was asked when taking my contract out if I wanted to disable adult filters.

Quite possibly but they'd need to ship it on new ones and update the various models/makes of existing ones they had.
I was thinking of the category updates which would swallow bandwidth unnecessarily. Host at the ISP level they'd have less to manage and be less of a headache. That's assuming it was a simple category based system. Introduce page/content scanning (deep packet filtering) and the modem/routers simply aren't powerful enough (not to mention licensing costs)

[--------]

I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. There are numerous lists of websites, categorised into the areas they're looking at (gambling, adult content etc) used on a daily basis by companies, educational establishments, councils etc for employee, pupil and employer protection.

Its relatively straight forward to setup an opt-in page asking the bill-payer to tick a box (or boxes if its broken down by category) confirming that want to access the normally blocked content and they simply get redirected via another route or passed through the filter. Some households may even employ it on their router/modems or software based on PCs (ie Norton)

If this is not limited to adult sites, but includes gambling sites as has been alluded to above, then this could include sites such as the national lottery so its not limited to just those looking for content of a sexual nature.

Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.

For non-tech savvy parents, I've no doubt it'll be something less to worry about. In the age of mobile devices, not every family can have adult supervised pcs and with so many devices accessing home wifi it makes sense to move the filtering further up the chain so that the categories are managed in a smaller number of places generating less traffic.

(I'm also assuming that it'll cover mobile contracts on data tarrifs etc if those same ISPs have to filter content.)

If there was a financial incentive to sign up (ie free broadband) i'm sure many would take it without argument. ie McDonalds offer free wifi which they filter with no option to opt out.

Seems to me like its similar to CIPA (American law) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Children's_Internet_Protection_Act

Like bandwidth throttling, speeds, pricing etc it'll be part of the package from the ISP. As far as I'm aware theres no law that states you must be given free unfiltered access to the internet. (although you could always work in a university)


:top marks

Top post, jonty. I really don't see what the fuss is about.

No one's saying that people can't opt in to receive this material if they want to - just that they won't be provided with it automatically.

There are lots of unscrupulous people on the net and as things stand they have free access to every household and family with internet access. I would hope this filtering would be extended to internet gambling sites too - I know of too many people who have got themselves in serious financial trouble playing late on into the night. One family who lost their house through an internet gambling problem. The problem is that internet gambling is in every practical sense totally unregulated.

I have a Sky box. I can watch the entertainment channels, the documentaries, the sport and the news channels. The basic standard deal. I don't pay for the 'adult' channels because I simply don't want them. I could, but I don't. This is no infringement of my freedom - simply an arrangement that places responsibility for choosing the content of the TV channels viewed in my house firmly onto my shoulders.

Pornography isn't part of my Sky package; why shouldn't it be the same with my internet package?

[marinello59]

I'd say it was pretty straight forward to implement. Its protection, not censorship - its perfectly legal to opt back in or out. The problem is, for some it appears, that is too much hassle! Even then, it wont block all content, simply restrict it. Even the newer software which analyse each page are 100% perfect.



Exactly.

[DH1875]

If porn is your thing does it not just mean you need to click a button to watch it? Don't know what all the fuss is about :confused:.

[Beefster]

What else can we get the state to legislate for in order to protect the children of lazy (or just couldnt give a ****) parents?

- No more than one McDonalds' happy meal a month unless you opt out?

- A minimum of two hours exercise a day unless you opt out?

- Compulsory fruit and veg five a day unless you opt out?

- You have to take an interest in their school work unless you opt out?

- Over '15' movies blocked on TV unless you opt out?

- I wouldn't be too keen on my kid seeing that Robin Thicke video, can we get that blocked unless we opt out?

Why just porn, what about the countless disturbing images/videos of death, maiming and much more freely available all over the place?

Where do we stop in allowing parents to abdicate their responsibilties and just assume that the state will take over?

[marinello59]

What else can we get the state to legislate for in order to protect the children of lazy (or just couldnt give a ****) parents?

- No more than one McDonalds' happy meal a month unless you opt out?

That is the choice parents already make isn't it? You can choose not to go in.

- A minimum of two hours exercise a day unless you opt out?

Again.....you can let your kids be couch spuds if you want. Most parents don't though

- Compulsory fruit and veg five a day unless you opt out?

Is somebody making pornography compulsory now?

- You have to take an interest in their school work unless you opt out?

it's an unwritten clause in the parenting contract, thankfully most do take an interest.

- Over '15' movies blocked on TV unless you opt out?

On Sky they already are, you need to enter a PIN to view them before the watershed.

- I wouldn't be too keen on my kid seeing that Robin Thicke video, can we get that blocked unless we opt out?

Maybe just going a bit OTT with that one?

Why just porn, what about the countless disturbing images/videos of death, maiming and much more freely available all over the place?

Agreed. There are other things out there. But this concern is being dealt with.

Where do we stop in allowing parents to abdicate their responsibilties and just assume that the state will take over?

It certainly doesn't let parents abdicate their responsibilities. But it can help them to protect their kids. Is that a bad thing? Dismissing this as a sop to lazy parents is.....well it's a lazy argument. You don't like it so you make those who possibly do look like lesser people. Not something I often see from yourself to be fair.


It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.

[Beefster]

It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.

http://www.netnanny.co.uk/

My point is that you don't need legislation to protect kids from perfectly legal activities/goods. The tools to stop kids accessing porn, eating *****, getting fat, watching inappropriate movies and so on are already there (Sky parental controls as an example you gave). It's not controls I object to, it's the government getting involved.

PS I wasn't painting supporters of this government policy as 'lazy'. It's the parents who don't have the wherewithal or inclination to know about this policy or what their kids are up to that are lazy.

[--------]

It is such a hardship to opt in? Maybe you monitor your kids internet useage 24/7. We can continually look over their shoulders, click all the browser safety features and we can check back on their browsing history but another tool to help won't be unwelcome in our house.


http://www.netnanny.co.uk/

My point is that you don't need legislation to protect kids from perfectly legal activities/goods. The tools to stop kids accessing porn, eating *****, getting fat, watching inappropriate movies and so on are already there (Sky parental controls as an example you gave). It's not controls I object to, it's the government getting involved.

PS I wasn't painting supporters of this government policy as 'lazy'. It's the parents who don't have the wherewithal or inclination to know about this policy or what their kids are up to that are lazy.


I agree with marinello. Goods or services may be perfectly legal, but still not appropriate for children. Unless I'm wrong, it's a criminal offence to expose children below a certain age to pornographic material, yet the law as it stands makes it easier than it needs to be for neglectful parents to do so. All this is about is shifting the line a short distance to make it necessary for adults who want to surf through pornographic images to tell their internet browser that they wish to be supplied with those images.

I'm beginning to wonder why people who profess to believe that viewing pornography isn't harmful (or something to be embarrassed about) are making such a fuss. If the choice of viewing or not viewing pornography is just the same as the choice eating or not eating at MacDonald's', if it's the same sort of choice as whether or not to make sure your children get enough exercise or check up on their homework, why the fuss?

And the fact is that parents who allow their kids to eat junk food all the time, who allow them to take so little exercise that they become obese, who don't encourage or discipline them in regard to school-work or who do nothing to monitor or control their kids' internet access ARE neglectful and irresponsible, and it's surely a legitimate function of the state to act reasonably to protect those children from the ill effects of their parents' neglect.

My experience is that kids react badly to their parents constantly checking up on them. It's a lot easier if you can just say, 'We don't have that in this house.' No one can possibly monitor their youngsters' usage of the internet all the time - my browser has a function t either delete all the browsing data or to delete certain items. There's also a function for 'in-private' browsing - no records are kept of what you've been looking at. If I can work these, I'd guess any kid could too.

Human society, it seems to me, always walks a line somewhere between oppressive totalitarian control on the one hand, and total anarchy on the other. I would fight for freedom of speech and thought, but not for cyber-pimps and panders to enjoy the freedom to become rich from the exploitation of others' fragility and weakness.

[Beefster]

I'm beginning to wonder why people who profess to believe that viewing pornography isn't harmful (or something to be embarrassed about) are making such a fuss.

Just to be 100% clear, I haven't said anything remotely similar to "viewing pornography isn't harmful to kids or even not that big a deal". Given I have children, I'm well aware of what is and isn't harmful. To be honest, I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

Seeing as we're getting away from the subject in question (i.e. government legislating on blocking certain legal media as the default) and into seemingly misrepresenting arguments, because of the nature of the topic, I'm going to bow out of this thread.

[lord bunberry]

I think everyone is missing the main problem with this, when the time comes to opt in or out how do I explain to her who must be obeyed that I have opted in.

[lapsedhibee]

I think everyone is missing the main problem with this, when the time comes to opt in or out how do I explain to her who must be obeyed that I have opted in.

Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum. :agree:

[CropleyWasGod]

Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum. :agree:

The Townshend Defence. :agree:

[lord bunberry]

Essential practical research for debating intellectual points on an ethics forum. :agree:

I will give that one a bash

[OrdHibby]

FFS i'll need to find something else to do with my spare time

[HUTCHYHIBBY]

I will give that one a bash

Oo er missus! ;-)

[--------]

Just to be 100% clear, I haven't said anything remotely similar to "viewing pornography isn't harmful to kids or even not that big a deal". Given I have children, I'm well aware of what is and isn't harmful. To be honest, I thought I had made that perfectly clear.

Seeing as we're getting away from the subject in question (i.e. government legislating on blocking certain legal media as the default) and into seemingly misrepresenting arguments, because of the nature of the topic, I'm going to bow out of this thread.


Sorry, Beefster, I wasn't aiming that at you. Having quoted your post, I should have made that clear.

However I do feel that this is a legitimate question to ask of a lot f those who're opposed to this move.

I see no problem in filters being set up to make it necessary for WWW users to opt into receiving certain material, as long as they can do so within the limits of the law as it stands. As I understand it, the People's Republic blocks access but doesn't allow people to opt in. There's a difference.

Also, I suspect that there are more than a few subscribers who're quite happy with the present set-up. They can log-on to porn sites without their nearest-and-dearest knowing what they're up to - SWMBO might suspect but she doesn't know for sure - but after these proposed changes they have to click on a button that suggests they enjoy viewing sites of an indeterminate degree of dodginess.

[Future17]

I'm a bit late to this party, but having now had a chance to read up on this topic (courtesy of this thread and other less intellectual sources) I'm not overly bothered by the proposal itself, more the need for it.

With all that this Government could be concentrating on, is this really a necessary focus or an effective use of resource? If I'm picking this up correctly, the sole purpose of this proposal is to prevent children having access to images which may, in some way, corrupt them. There's a whole raft of issues to be considered here, some of which have been touched on already:

What types of images are included in this definitions of the content to be blocked?
How will the images be identified in relation to the proposed measures?
What is the evidence that supports theories around certain images corrupting children?

However, notwithstanding these observations, I don't really care either way about the propoal. My main concern is that this policy is a waste of time and money by a Prime Minister who will achieve very little except a few extra votes.

[Beefster]

http://williams-thomas.co.uk/How%20do%20Child%20Abusers%20use%20the%20Internet% 20to%20find%20material%20&%20is%2050,000%20offenders%20a%20small%20number%3F

An expert's view.