ISPs: Relax. Blocking porn online won't really work Since the start of this year it has become clear that the UK government has shifted from a hands-off approach to censoring content online by leaving ISPs to work out an agreed code that would prevent regulatory intervention. So-called Active Choice - whereby a subscriber gets to choose whether or not to block websites …
This post has been deleted by its author
Unless you're muslim. And I don't mean this being racist, but.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2268395/Adil-Rashid-Paedophile-claimed-Muslim-upbringing-meant-didnt-know-illegal-sex-girl-13.html
Apparently ignorance is a defence. (Sorry for the daily fail link, first one I found)
@AC 10:32
I read the article and the defence was that he was poorly educated in a closed society. This could have been *any* closed secular society as far as I can tell, but in this case it was a muslim school he went to.
Do you see the difference between leading your comment with 'muslim' and adding it as a point of note at the end?
If she can somehow manipulate the situation to involve a word of 'national security' then she could get this heard in a secret court where the claimant won't be represented, he'll only get told about the result.
Then the secret court can issue an order for him not to mention the case, and if he does he can be sent to prison for contempt of courst *without legal representation*.
Farfetched? It's happening in this country right now - the only thing missing are the black bags but I believe they are on order.
Look , you can disable it - so what's the problem.
Compare with speeding, for a moment. As no one can control a driver's speed, that means we shouldn't have speed limits??? And yes, the results of speeding and the more unpleasant aspects of the pr0n industry can be very simliar.
The filtering solution isn't going to be 100% perfect, but given time, it will improve.
But it has already been alluded to that the "powers that be" will be able to find out who has disabled the filter. Imagine you're trying to adopt, and you get refused... Turns out you're considered unsuitable as a potential parent because you turned off the filter. Or not given custody to your child, or turned down for a job as a teacher, etc....
Scaremongering?
To avoid government censorship one has to explicitly put their name on what is likely to be regarded as 'The Pervert List'.
The government doesn't exactly have great form when it comes to keeping lists and databases secure.
I give it a year before the entire thing is left on an unencrypted laptop on the tube.
"To avoid government censorship one has to explicitly put their name on what is likely to be regarded as 'The Pervert List'."
I hate to raise Godwin but does this remind anyone of the gay and lesbian box on the 1935 German census to prevent discrimination because of gender preference?
Turned out to have other uses.
You know, it occurs that this whole "naughty list" tack misses the point. If things were done the other way round, they'd have a list of everyone who does have filtering, so the set of those who don't is is also identifiable by anyone with a copy of the Electoral Roll, by elimination. Any nationwide filter by its very existence rules out obscurity for the refuseniks.
Icon: well, maybe it was just too bleedin' obvious for anyone to bother explicitly mentioning...
Dude, it's unlikely to be even 1% effective, it's going to be fucking expensive and it's introducing a mechanism whereby the government can start to censor anything they like. Given the lovely new censorship tools Our Glorious Leader and his successors witll then have their sweaty hands on, how long you you really think it will take until it becomes compulsory?
Yeah, coz there's no chance of mission-creep is there? Our Government would never do that, would they?
It's not like they have form for that, is it? They'd never, for example, user anti-terror legislation to catch people who didn't pick up their dog's excretions, would they?
(a different AC)
If you're going to compare it to speed limits, at least get the comparison right...
We have laws against exploitation etc = laws against speeding
They are wanting to do the internet equivalent of putting a governor on every car that is set to limit to a speed the gubermunt thinks is safe (ie 10mph?). With no concern for where or who is driving.
But it's alright because if you can work out how to, you can remove the governor... but 'they' will know that you've done so and therefore every policeman you see will be reaching for his speed gun because you're obviously a lunatic intent on causing destruction and mayhem.
AC #2 or #3 -
"But it's alright because if you can work out how to, you can remove the governor... but 'they' will know that you've done so and therefore every policeman you see will be reaching for his speed gun because you're obviously a lunatic intent on causing destruction and mayhem."
Nono, it's that the average 3 year old knows how to not only remove the governor but also drive at 300mph on country lanes in full view of the cops without them being able to do anything about it.
That's why it's such a massive waste of money. It's not that it'll help stop some kids "accidentally" stumbling upon porn as some clueless reg columnist suggested the other day (i've never accidentally stumbled upon porn accidentally in my life, on or off the internet) - it's that it will be completely 100% transparent to anybody over the age of 5. And it totally skirts round any chance of parliamentary discussion on the issue because instead of legislating he's scared the slimiest of our ISPs into doing it *without* any legislation.
It *is* a total clusterfuck, there can be no doubt. A damn Chinese clusterfuck at that - one that totally removes our ability to take the moral high-ground when talking about freedom in discussions with them too.
Also don't talk about scaremongering when posting as AC - makes you look like an idiot (had to be said - what are we scared of?).
(i've never accidentally stumbled upon porn accidentally in my life, on or off the internet)
I have, back in the day you used to find it in hedges, and sometimes it'd fall out as you were walking by. Skinned my knee and now whenever I see tits I get excited and upset at the same time.
Hows that for a 'knee-jerk' reaction
In all seriousness though, I've never stumbled across it on the www. without looking. Little easier to do on some of the other internets but given this filter won't apply to them it's kind of a moot point
Edit: How'd that apostrophe get there?
Quite right, Anonymous Coward. Why, just the other day, I was casually surfing the web, when I found myself confronted by a wealth of grot; before I knew it, I'd accidentally caused the deaths of three children, and maimed a dog.
My wife was livid when the penalty notice came through the post.
> Look , you can disable it - so what's the problem.
Today you can. That may not be the case in the future, especially once the web sites that don't agree with the government position get added to the censor list.
Once filtering is at the network level it is totally out of your control. It can be turned on without telling you, and returns a 404 for a site on the list so it just looks like it's dead. The list of censored sites is not published, and there is no review process.
Quote
TalkTalk's Homesafe.... harvests all the URL's
All in the interests of keep a few web pages out of the eyes of children.
How long before NoTalkTalk decides that ElReg should be on the blacklist then?
and don't try to tell me that even if you switch the filter off ALL your web pages still won't be logged by this package....
This post has been deleted by its author
The built in mission creep will take away that problem since the filter is NOT a 'hard core porn' filter, not even a 'porn' filter - it's described as a 'family friendly' filter.
So you're mission becomes: find something you or your wife wants to see that isn't porn but is disapproved of by the controlling bastards setting the blacklist, demonstrate it not working. Shouldn't be hard with the certifiably insane pressure groups politicians love listening to.
Don't expect it to work better than the mobile carriers have managed, there's no incentive for ISPs to do more than comply with having a filter. Expect ludicrous situations like not being able to check what hours children are allowed in a pub because pub sites are adult material...
>> find something you or your wife wants to see that isn't porn but is disapproved of by the controlling bastards setting the blacklist, demonstrate it not working. Shouldn't be hard with the certifiably insane pressure groups politicians love listening to.
One of the obvious ones that usually gets caught up in this are LGBT rights issues. Because clearly anyone searching for "Lesbian" is looking for porn.
Something that I personally have run into on mobile phones is that the filter has decided that music festivals are an "adult" topic, and banned me from looking at the schedule for a festival I was in at the time. It was full of kids too!
"Tory MP Claire Perry, who is Cameron's adviser on the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood"
Hmmm. It is rather unfortunate that it makes her sound like the recruiter for an underage brothel, does it not?
Oh dear I think I'm going to have to go away and meditate on that dreadful thought.
"That's great! Someone should start a campaign depicting her in the role exactly as described in her title."
You can bet that CEOP have shown her some of their gallery of shame. Shocking images of children and what they have been made to do.
Who can say if she hasn't taken her work home with her? Nothing to hide, nothing to fear, right Clare?
Might be a bit embarrassing if something turned up on her home PC.
Just saying.
@TrishaD:
Unfortunately, being good most of the time at stuff that only your local constituents ever notice or have reason to care about, while also deciding that your total ignorance in a given area is no obstacle to imposing your views on those who work in that area, means that the vast majority of people will take one look at you and say "So who is this person and why did they decide that Olympic Gold Medallist In The Field Of Bellendery was their life's calling?".
And, frankly, it's kind of deserved. Especially when she's pulling "Think Of The Children" crap on us. If she really wants to help better look after the children in the UK, she'd be pushing for much greater support and education of parents re: effective parenting techniques, and (if she wanted to go Full-on Pants On Head Mental) probably mandating much greater amounts of profiling and pre-natal education for prospective parents, with a Licence To Sprog (with attendant bureaucracy similar to that which adopting parents go through) as the endgame.
But instead, she and Cameron are going for the low hanging fruit of giving the Mumsnet Moron Brigade (Proud Home Of Those Who Don't Let Ignorance Get In The Way Of Having An Opinion since 2000!) what they keep asking for, even though they barely understand what the problem is, never mind what available options might have any impact whatsoever in terms of solving it.
Tl, dr;
Nuts to her, she can reap what she sows in much the same way as Paul Chambers had to over the course of several years. It's about time someone in UK.gov got to feel the full pants-on-head mental state of current UK law in relation to the internet; it's probably the only way to make them understand.
@Captain Underpants
Unfortunately far too true. There are steadily less and less support for parents (and teachers for that matter) when it comes to bringing up (educating) children.
It's a ludicrous situation that many women (or to be PC, either parent) with children are working to earn money to pay somebody else to look after their children, yet after a full day's work will often see very little change out of £5 when the costs and fees are taken into account. Is this helpful? Like hell it is, but women with children are pressured into working as that is what modern society dictates and if they don't then they're often stuck at home with few resources or assistance. Local groups and support networks help considerably, but with the growing litigation society, bureaucracy and these services being seen as easy cost savings for local councils mired in inefficiency and waste there are less and less of these.
But it is, of course, much more important to waste millions on high profile projects that throw money at the usual suspects, usually never work (for reasons of incompetence at all levels) and deliver no real benefits but tick the box about "having done something"... than invest in and promote ground level support that is harder or even impossible to quantify and therefore justify.
and couldn't think of anything that could go wrong. Then I decided not to give up so easily and thought of about 200 things.
Prohibition has never, and will never, be an effective means of modifying human behavior.
The fact it's a waste of time & money most certainly does not mean the government should do it anyway. Who's logic is that? This is my money we're talking about. Please do something worthwhile, or stop taking it.
Governments adopt a position of 'when we see an 'evil' we are required to mitigate it to the best of our ability. To do nothing makes us as bad as those who are doing it.'
They take away freedoms and liberty using the same justifications for action in the famous Edmund Burke quote used all the time to protest the curtailment of freedoms.
It is really screwed up and leads me to believe that the whole conversation on inherent freedoms needs new quotes that the government hasn't/can't use. The problem is most of the really good new quotes are coming from either basically unheard of 'nobody's' or from rather extreme individuals who, overall, aren't good for quoting.
We need a new crop of deep thinkers who also have popular appeal ('real world' & online) as well as connections to the political class so that their words don't swept under the rug.
you're absolutely wrong, saying, that prohibition has never and will never be an effective means of modifying human behavior.
Prohibition has always and always will modify human behavior, thank God, by making humans do exactly the opposite of what is prohibited.
Think of all the glorious moments in the human history, starting with the good old Eve showing the Old Bearded Man, what she thinks of his restrictions. Think of the prohibition in America in 1930s, think of what stimulating effect on growth of piracy was the public stake burning of napster and chasing them pirates. Prohibition is like manure that makes the flowers blossom, it's like a terrorist to a US government, nay, to ANY government - a true blessing. So, let us rejoice, wankers, for this is the dawn of a new area. Era.
Andy, prohibition has worked pretty well on modifying human behaviour regarding the slave trade. Much of human behaviour is influenced by risk-reward analyses. Where risk is seen as low and reward is perceived as high (e.g. buying alcohol in 1920s USA, downloading music without the copyright holder’s consent now), prohibition will be largely ineffective. Where risk is high and reward is low (e.g. Joe Bloggs walking around Westminster with unconcealed firearms), prohibition will be largely effective.
> prohibition has worked pretty well on modifying human behaviour regarding the slave trade
I'm not sure it did. Was it "stop it, or we'll throw you in jail" that stopped it, or public opinion turning against it?
Public support was pretty widespread at the beginning of alcohol prohibition, because there was a problem with alcohol abuse at the time. It was the abuses and corruption it spawned that turned the public against it. If you don't have public support, you're hosed.
Alan, since the vast majority of the public was not involved in either the slave trade or its suppression, it was the risk of (19th century quality) jail time to those who were involved that made it effective. Given the number of interdictions of slave traders by the Royal Navy during the 19th century, it’s fairly clear that public opinion did not play a significant rôle in preventing these people from becoming slave traders; it was the risk-reward analysis that convinced them to pursue their high-risk, high-reward path, just as smugglers of various goods do now.
Regarding alcohol prohibition in the US, there has been widespread alcohol abuse (along with its accompanying vices) and simultaneous support for inexpensive alcohol since colonial times. (See Rorabaugh’s book The Alcohol Republic: An American Tradition.) Ratification of the 18th amendment represented the high point of the temperance movement; but temperance had long since shed its meaning of moderation; we have a history here of swinging from one extreme to the other, and temperance was no exception. Public support for national prohibition at its introduction was by no means universal, and its unintended consequences (e.g. furtive binge drinking at speakeasies to minimize the risk of arrest, thus increasing alcohol abuse; the explosive growth of organized crime to supply the demand; &c.) certainly accelerated calls for the amendment’s repeal. But if public support were all that would be necessary to end prohibition of something, there would be at minimum no prohibition on either cannabis consumption or online gambling here now. In the interim, it is the perceived low risk of being caught that convinces people to engage in both of these behaviours, despite the laws prohibiting them.
So when this has been proven not to make the slightest difference, what then? What draconian legislation will they eventually come up with in the name of protecting the children?
And how long before this filtering is extended/subverted to cover just about anything HMG decides it doesn't wanty us to see?
"So when this has been proven not to make the slightest difference, what then? What draconian legislation will they eventually come up with in the name of protecting the children?"
Well NuLabor made all naked image of underage children including all cartoon robots and aliens illegal (look up the cartoon pron law)
So it's going to have to be something really stupid.
Stacking ineffective legislation on top of ineffective legislation is how it is done and how laws become terribly restrictive and ultimately draconian. It is how mission creep actually occurs.
Rarely do political types have a coherent grand strategy for usurping power in such a sideways manner (they do it straight up) it is the jumble of conflicting, loophole ridden legislation all working together to fix existing loopholes that results in strange, unfavorable rules and enforcement practices that screw everything up.
Hmm, but will they then decided the OpenDNS and Google are spreading porn, and deny them?
I already use OpenDNS because, err, I can apply filters. That's my filters which not only block restricted sites, but also logs which of the PC's in my household attempted access. Very illuminating when kids are growing up!
However, the best idea's are still that parents should supervise young children on the net (in much the same way they should supervise what films or TV programs they watch) and educate older children. That reads parent, not Nanny-Claire.
"Vanilla" OpenDNS (or indeed, use of ANY non-ISP based DNS service) will use port 53, and your ISP can easily "hijack" that and force it to their own servers.
OpenDNS DO provide DNSCrypt for exactly that - it (a) runs on different ports and (b) is encrypted and (c) certificate based - so it's going to be a sod for the ISP to get around.
The DOWNSIDE of any of the above is DNS is just a resolver - if the block is at IP level, then you're still hosed.
The only solution's are then a proxy, or a VPN.
As I've said before, with my tin foil hat on, I predict that someone will call for the outlawing (read: revocation) of ALL existing SSL certificates, with new ones being issued by Government signed keys, and any traffic which cannot be 'inspected' getting blocked....
The government is pandering to a widely held belief amongst the public that there is an area of the internet which is porn & you can simply cut off access to that area. another part of the public misconception is that the porn industry is completely autruistic & makes all its content freely vailable to everyone who goes to the porn area.
The truth is that the easily identifiable part of internet porn is big business that already restricts access to the majority of its material by charging for it (usually by credit card) but most porn is spread about & not so easily identifiable. To give two obvious examples both facebook & Flickr contain what average Daily Mail reader would consider to be porn. You soon end up in a rather old argument from cinema about what is classified as art house & what is porn.
On the other hand real time checking of content can end up with medical sites like NHS Choices STI advice pages or Net Doctor being classified as porn
HMG's problem is that anytime anyone within gov searches for the above, the top ranked results are for a certain website belonging to another Teresa May (who appears to be more into the social servcies). Therefore anyone within HMG searching for Home Secretary gets a face full of norks. This is why they keep frothing at the mouth (and not in a good way)
" Therefore anyone within HMG searching for Home Secretary gets a face full of norks. This is why they keep frothing at the mouth (and not in a good way)"
Well that sounds like a simple solution.
Bye bye Teresa May. Just leave the crib sheet ("maintaining capability..." "...changing threats..." "safety of the state...") for the next sockpuppet honourable member.
As far as I am concerned the proposed plans are likely to breach my human rights on the basis that the requirement to state whether or not my "shared" internet connection is able to access pornographic or other websites that the Government believes I should be able to choose between whilst allowing collection of my personal data. This is a pretty clear breach of the right to respect for private and family life, Freedom of expression (right to receive information whether sexual positions or otherwise e.g. suicide, etc) and Protection of property (it is my broadband connection use as I wish or wish to permit).
So role on the law case over these activities, I can see a few lawyers getting a lot richer.
Finally, how does the govt propose to deal with students sharing a property and broadband line, each pays a share of the cost and therefore if some want access and others don't who makes the decision? Or will they be required to each buy their own individual broadband link?
That stupid self-righteous bint deserves it (along with the mentally-challenged simpletons that constitute the repellent and odious 'mumsnet').
Why do the public continue to put up with total ignoramuses determining technology policies that are forced onto the entire nation?
In any other area (defence, health, treasury etc.) you'd expect the people involved to have at least some semblance of understanding of the topic that they're meddling in. But when it comes to computing, it's always the most technically illiterate that end up having the greatest say.
Maybe I should start determining economic policy for the country. I haven't got the first clue about economics (nor any qualifications) but I'd be no less qualified for the job than Cameron or Perry are to spout their asinine nonsense about the internet.
How are they not embarrassed to display such unmitigated ignorance? I guess some people just have no shame.
"As for politicians, I'm fairly certain most of them believe the 'computer guys' engage in some kind of witchcraft."
Whatever you do DON'T mention the traditional prayer and blood sacrifice to appease the tech gods for a new system build! You know, the one that goes "*&!%ing cheap cases!" while trying to stop the bleeding - they'd bring back witch trials and burning at the stake!
(Flame icon for obvious reasons)
For the people who claim this isn't censorship.
The entire purpose of this block is to block anything with "sexual content" (the UK sure does love vague terms, doesn't it?)
So things like art websites will be blocked, Wikipedia entries, YouTube videos, etc.
When you start blocking legal stuff like that, it IS censorship.
All this talk of filters and opt in is just a waste of time, look how long it took to get around the network level isp blocking of piratebay, h33t, etc. A quick search on youtube and hey presto a step by step guide to getting round the blocking, problem is that the people making the decisions about this are very ill advised, while i agree that hc pr0n should be kept out of kids eyes, this is just not the correct technical solution. the problem is many fold imho, the gulf between some parents knowledge and their child's knowledge means that the child is left to their own devices, particularly ones in their teens and they run IT rings around their parents.
whilst it may well stop the innocent stumbling on to the wrong site which i agree is good it will by no means deter the teenager who wants to find the odd grumble clip. in fact the block will probably be seen as a good thing as we all no kids love a challenge
this does smack of a control agenda by the back door (pardon the pun) next thing you know they will be trying to ban TOR
expect us!
Is this the smut filter really about family values and tech? Or is it about politicians grabbling to take control of the net ever since it went mainstream. They loath the fact that its 'in the wild' and outside of their grubby hands. Why? Because its made them less relevant. Now they want to claw their way back by controlling the beast.... What's next, taxing it?
That's probably the most astute post here.
We know it won't be much good at blocking things people seek but it will be very effective at censuring alternative news sites and getting sites like YouTube to self censure. If you don't know what you are looking for you are unlikely to stumble upon it if it's hidden.
The gov tried to leverage PHORM to do their dirty work but we stopped that (I think). This is another attempt and won't be the only thing.
Indeed, The sheeple in my constituency will still vote for the Conservatives regardless of their policies...
Unfortunately people voted against changing the voting system so we are stuck with first past the post for the next 20 years of so.
It's not important who gets elected since they are all into politics so are all corrupt liars. You would be voting for a corrupt liar. Changing the system simply means different corrupt liars get more of an opportunity.
Really? Do you think our muppets are going to be in the slightest bit better than the Westminster muppets?
Clearly you are a dim-wit who has not considered Scotland's history of repressive religion, or the way that Scotland's parliament went beyond the already stupid goals of the extreme pr0n legislation when drawing up their own. You know, the one where they asked for public submissions on sex-laws then filtered out and discarded the emails that mentioned sexual things due to a filter (or intelligence) cock-up?
The vote in 2014 is only so Wee Eck can be First King of Scotland (reprise), and then hand over a bucket of fail to Ms Sturgeon. It's a stupid idea, and if I had my way the whole of Holyrood would be disbanded - it's a huge waste of money.
Also, as already pointed out, what makes you think "our" policiticians are any better than "your" politicians? B-Ark, the lot of them (First Class of course!)
at deciding if the site is safe or not...
Does that mean it would automatically have decided that Ms Claire Perry and her website was hosting Adult content and then automatically added it to the blocked list?
So not only do the script kiddies get the pleasure of defacing a website, theres then odds on chance that it starts getting blocked by the very systems she has campaigned for. A whole new approach to denial of service. I like it :)
And I can only imagine the red-tape to get a site de-listed from the blocks!!
Ms Perry, "My site is safe!"
ISP Support, "No it's not"
"Yes 'tis!"
"Prove it?"
"If you go look you'll see its clean now.
"I can't go look at it, you're on the blocked list"
"If you can't go look at it, how do I prove its clean?"
"Shouldnt have told us to put this bloody system in then should you"
Every debate on this seems to miss what I found really scary, which is Camerons idea that search engines should be forced to amend their results depending on what is being searched for, and alert the authorities when certain search terms are used.
It was on Radio4, womans hour.
I'll leave El Reg readers to think why this might be a Bad Idea.
"I'll leave El Reg readers to think why this might be a Bad Idea."
Just don't leave it to Daily Fail "readers", or worse, the newspaper that must not be named (clue - they are so stupid they misspelled their own name on the front page on Tuesday in a completely misguided attempt to make "woman has baby" = "earth-shattering news").
I doubt it would be that overt. However what the government would like is terms such as "donate to Labour party" or "Tory party scandals" get a mark against your internet connection (although as we know, politicians can't see that an IP address doesn't identify anyone) to be used in nasty subtle ways that have yet to be thought of, but will manifest themselves as your being unable to get a clean CRB check (or whatever it's called now).
"Today, I am going to tread into territory that can be hard for our society to confront, that is frankly difficult for politicians to talk about...I want to talk about the internet, "
Because most of you are so f**king clueless about it perhaps?
"Once CEOP becomes a part of the National Crime Agency, that will further increase their ability to investigate behind pay walls to shine a light on the hidden internet and to drive prosecutions of those who are found to use it. "
Funny , I thought they were an industry funded body of non police people.
"to produce a single secure database of illegal images of children "
And it will be very bit as secure as the 200 000 personal details sent by HMRC through the post and which got lost. Twice. Handy if you want your CP "to go." It's got the ****ear Seal of Approval.
"It will also enable the industry to use the digital hash tags from the database to pro-actively scan for, block and take down these images wherever they occur. "
Aha. The Achilles heel of any pedophile ring, its meticulous (and standardized) picture tagging protocols.
<how we will make search engines throw up a warning, CP ahead message>
Well it's way cheaper than paying up the billions in tax they should be paying for the UK market.
"On Friday I sat with the parents of Tia Sharp and April Jones. "
Obligatory human interest aspect. Individual personal tragedy makes bad policy. Individual personal tragedy to whitewash a policy already decided is disgusting.
"If CEOP give you a black-list of internet search terms, will you commit to stop offering up any returns to these searches?
If in October we don’t like the answer we’re given to this question if the progress is slow or non-existent then I can tell you we are already looking at the legislative options we have to force action. "
"The cultural challenge is the fact that many children are watching online pornography - and finding other damaging material online – at an increasingly young age. "
Translation. Clare Perry's youngest showed me more filth in ten minutes than I saw in all my time at Eaton.
"But we as a society need to be clear and honest about what is going on. "
Hahahahahahhahahahaha.
And seriously?
"In a survey, a quarter of children said they’d seen pornography which had upset them."
And did they go looking for it? And did they stop looking for it afterward or did they just say "Damm that was fugly and move on to the next video?" Enquiring minds Davy
"Parents say – ‘we’ll do our best to raise our children right’ – and the state agrees to stand on their side; to make that job a bit easier, not harder.
But when it comes to internet pornography, parents have been left too much on their own and I am determined to put that right. "
No Clare Perry still can't set up a web filter, and frankly neither can I, but now we parents won't have to.
Highly amusing if you know the UK Conservative party as the government favoring personal responsibility and smaller governmental interference.
"Those who wanted default ‘on’ said – it’s a no-brainer just have the filters set to ‘on’ - then adults can turn them off if they want to and that way we can protect all children, whether their parents are engaged in internet safety or not.
But others said default ‘on’ filters could create a dangerous sense of complacency.
They said that with default filters, parents wouldn’t bother to keep an eye on what their kids are watching as they’d be complacent and assume the whole thing was taken care of"
And other said your plan was b***ocks to begin with.
"I appointed Claire Perry to take charge of this for the very simple reason that she is passionate about this issue and determined to get things done."
IE To get a seat in cabinet and a newspaper column. This is the women who wanted to age limit every website by a similar system to how gambling website work. Until it turned out several of them had fed the bank account details to scammers.
"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."
And saves them having to set up some kind of "sub account" management software, which costs them money and makes it clear you're in some one else's system at their sufferance.
"I know there are lots of charities and other organisations which provide vital online advice and support that many young people depend on.
And we need to make sure that the filters do not – even unintentionally – restrict this helpful and often educational content.
So I will be asking the UK Council for Child Internet Safety to set up a working group to ensure that this doesn’t happen as well as talking to parents about how effective they think the filter products are."
"UK Council for Child Internet Safety" WTF are these people?
"In the new national curriculum, launched just a couple of weeks ago, there are unprecedented requirements to teach children about online safety.
Which will be handled mostly by grossly unqualified teachers, some of whom probably want some help in downloading their pron.
"We need to teach our children not just about how to stay safe online but how to behave online too – on social media and over phones with their friends."
"Our parents kept an eye on us in the world they could see. "
But mostly packed us off to some school to be warehoused and raped by the staff most of the year, allegedly.
"We are closing the loophole – making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape. "
Because y'know we need more laws in this area to arrest charge and imprison people for.
"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."
Some of my relatives were farmers. I know s**t when I smell it.
"Everything I’ve spoken about today comes back to one thing: the kind of society we want to be.
I want Britain to be the best place to raise a family.
A place where your children are safe.
Where there’s a sense of right and wrong, and boundaries between them.
Where children are allowed to be children."
Translation "I want an internet where children can remain children forever and not learn anything that might scare them. Like how much we will spy on them for the rest of their lives. "
Having read the full speech I think I can say that I was very moved, in a gastrointestinal sense. The experience was truly, quite abnormal.
There you have it:
"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."
There are some excellent videos on YouTube about government corruption etc which would not get approval to be sold in a shop. Imagine going through the approval process every time you want to use a webcam.
Clearly this can't happen but Dave says they are doing it.
However much they foam at the mouth, at present this is completely legal.
There is no current law against viewing hard-core Cameron.
Even stuff which most people would find revolting and disgusting - it's not even illegal to look at videos of people Murdoching!
use OpenDNS to filter my net connection (I've got a few years before the kids understand enough to know what they need to change to get around something like that, by which time I should be comfortable discussing "adult content" with them). Luckily for me, BT have locked down the DNS settings on their latest HomeHubs, necessitating that I either a) use their software filtering (not a enticing prospect, given the volume/variety of devices in the household, or b) faff about with the firmware on my own router to enable me to bypass the HomeHub settings.
Thanks, BT, for making it more difficult to be a responsible parent (I pity the tech-illiterate), and making Cameron's "default on" filter seem like an attractive option in the eyes of my better half.
You're trying to say now that it won't really work so we can relax?! I'm sure most if not all of us who comments already know we can bypass it on DAY 1!
The problem here isn't wether we can still access pornography. There is a HUGE list of problems with this new "law".
1] Cameron is simply trying to assert HIS idea of moral onto everyone - this isn't what government is supposed to do - we all know what happens when people try to FORCE their ideologies onto others. Hitler, Communist China are prime examples of recent history.
2] Breach of privacy - default-on involves telling somebody else at some point that you'd like it disabled - and privacy is something that needs to be respected in bedroom matters.
3] Spying - this isn't just about porn, illegal search terms being potentially intercepted.
4] Freedom of speech and expression - I know this is an American thing, but I do expect the UK to at least start tilting that way instead of towards communist China ideologies.
5] Precedence - This is BAD. Bad for the ENTIRE world. No really. The moment the British who helped invent the internet start filtering and censoring - everyone else will think it's "normal" when it isn't and shouldn't be. Iran, China, Russia will have more excuse on clamping down on their dissidents.
So given that there these 5 issues that I can see immediately, I really don't think it's a matter of whether it works or not.
Am I missing something here, yes you can use OPENDNS, however your traffic is still routed through your ISP, and as they will be the ones applying DNS filters, I don't see what difference using OpenDNS offers, as the DNS ranges are still blocked ?
Also the way I see it, using automatic filters that trawl, are not selective, they'll just block anything remotely related to what the filters are being asked to block. Given then if someone was to hack a site and plant nasty images et cetera, how long would it be before the DNS filters kick in and block what was a legitimate site ?
Also if I was to say look for an online source for Viagra & the potential side effects, would that also be blocked as it's remotely linked to what the filters are being asked to block.
This hasn't been thought out in the slightest.
Filters are not selective in what they block, humans are.. let us decide ourselves what is / isn't appropriate, not some idiots in parliament who run fetish parties!.
She could try doing something about the number of children in the UK that get murdered each year by their "care givers."
Most of whom seem to be known to the local social services department.
But apparently they are "acceptable" losses.
The dead will remember her silence.
"...will use DNS lookup to help customers block the material they want to censor in their homes."
Hmm.
"...will use DNS lookup to help the government block the material they want to censor in people's homes."
There. Fixed it for you.
Porn today, under the guise of protecting the children. Anything else they don't want you to see tomorrow, so that what you can't see can't hurt them.
If you personally don't opt out of this filtering when given the opportunity then you are supporting this measure and all the ones that will follow. You may be able to work round the filters this time, but if you're not openly against this then you will be counted as supporting it, and the level of support will be used when they justify more intrusive measures next time.
Related articles:
"German publisher accuses Microsoft of URL sniffing"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/05/14/skype_snoop_or_phishing_defence/
"Chinese telecoms giant furiously scrubs links to Phorm"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/01/huawei_phorm/
"BT admits misleading customers over Phorm experiments"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/bt_phorm_lies/
"BT and Phorm secretly tracked 18,000 customers in 2006"
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/01/bt_phorm_2006_trial/
I wonder if there is any evidence that children say under 10 actually view hard core porn. Would not suprise me if there isn't.
This piece of legislation is being proposed to satisfy the "dirty minds" of British adults.
No other country I am aware of needs to "protect their children" like this.
Why here?
I believe that the REAL aim of this government nonsense has already been made clear albeit in a very subtle way
Every discussion about it I have heard so far has had the generally quite ancient interviewer bringing up the claim that "you cant stop people exchanging child porn over peer to peer networks though can you?"
So I don't really think this is about porn at all, but is simply a ruse that they aim to use as justification for an aggressive assault on peer to peer file sharing using rape porn and child porn distribution as their reasoning
That would mean that to the majority of people in the country who are mindless media brainwashed sheep opposing such a move would be supporting the distribution of child and rape porn so they would have effectively minimised opposition to such an invasion of privacy on rather flimsy and nonsensical grounds
It should also be noted as rape porn (which in all instances I have seen is so blatantly and clearly fake its almost silly btw) is fantasy not rape fact.
If anything it would potentially provide an alternative to a would be rapist than actual rape
But the least mentioned fact about rape porn and rape fantasy is that it always without exception features in the top 5 sex fantasies of WOMEN!!!
Yup. the better sex in high numbers fantasise about sex. Despite what the media tells you its NOT just men in dirty macs or even just men period. In fact a woman I dated many moons ago had her own wank fantasy of her car breaking down and a coach giving her a lift that had a returning (still muddy) rugby team on it and I am sure you can imagine the rest
but you shouldn't as that would obviously make you a pervert....but ONLY if youre male it would seem
I think if the government is going to try to tackle rape porn though maybe they should also start jailing men and women who find it erotic as a fantasy along with anyone who performs any sexual act that involves domination, handcuffs, whips, being tied up, pseudo tortured and anything else that a church ministers wife "might" think seems rapey
or would that put a total end to all politicians sex lives in one foul swoop and leave hundreds of "other women", dominatrixes and prostitutes with no income I wonder?
Maybe the real point here is that the government just thinks that its improper for POOR people to have rape fantasies??
That would seem like a far more apt view for tories I reckon
Someone who knew nothing of IT suggested to me that the ISPs introduce a PIN system to access Legal Porn or legal anything else. Sky already do this for TV, why such a leap for Internet ? At least everyone is agreed that any illegal rape or kiddie porn website should be blocked and is not in the scope of this Big Brother filter project.
Maybe this is more complex than we realise! Maybe the porn industry has influenced the gov because of all the free porn on the net! Maybe by forcing you to sign the good or pervert list they are ensuring increased DVD sales! A new wave of DVD and magazine sales to boost the industry and create jobs!
Or maybe this is a half brain idea from some puritanical, interfering and generally unwanted anti-tossers.
The internet service providers association would say that the blocking is easy to circumvent, because most of their major members are using DNS or are intending to use DNS. One of the reasons why DNS is the wrong way to do blocking is that it is easy to avoid and it is also very inaccurate. However there are much more effective methods of blocking traffic but they are more expensive to implement.
The TalkTalk system may suffer from issues with its URL blacklist coverage but it at least does do the blocking in a way which is much more difficult to circumvent than DNS which any 10 year old can defeat. There are a number of YouTube videos which seem to have been posted by pre-teens which demonstrate all that is required to defeat DNS.
Hey! Look, a squirrel!
This is just another distraction ploy from the ex- PR flack Cameron.
This time he wants you to forget about Lynton Crosby the lobbyist for No
Plain Cigarette Packaging and No Minimum Pricing of Alcohol. Crosby
just happens to work for the Conservative Party -very suitable
bedfellows, but Cameron HAS NOT BEEN LOBBIED BY HIM. Nope, not at all. No, really, not even a little bit.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
