UK.gov plans to legislate on smut filters after EU net neutrality ruling Prime Minister David Cameron confirmed today that the Tory government planned to legislate on smut filters, following yesterday's net neutrality ruling in the European Union. Cameron told MPs during PMQs that he had "spluttered over my cornflakes" when he read this morning that the EU measures would fail to think of the …
This post has been deleted by its author
These providers will not be able to block or throttle traffic in their networks or give priority to some particular content or services in exchange for payment.
To be fair, the telling phrase is that one in bold, and shouldn't have any impact on government imposed filtering, which (should) not be driven by commercial interests.
Well, quite... we don't know exactly what "TalkTalk account information" might include, but it wouldn't surprise me if it does indicate if someone's on the "porn user" list.
Even if it doesn't in this instance, this should hopefully make people think about the potential consequences of forcing companies to record this sort of info, which will almost certainly leak in one way or another.
for giving my kids first-hand experience of what censorship is like. I mean, you talk to them kids about democracy and censorship, regimes and survaillance, and they just yeah-yeah-dad-whatever. But hey, real-life application... it's like "wow, lol, let's find 365 ways to go round it and post them on PM's website!
"I think it's absolutely vitally important that we enable parents to have that protection for their children from this material on the internet," he told the Palace of Westminster.
Well there you have it, we have to enable parents to do their job and safeguard children. Never mind that its parents and close family that abuse children more than strangers, never mind children have been finding dads porn collection for years now. No the internet is the big evil they must be protected against.
If these politicians were serious about this they could simply asset up a separate internet for children that only has content suitable for them. They would then be safe, its simple enough for the isp's to route one lot of logins to the safe network and all others to the internet itself. But no, they expect others to do the impossible and block all content they feel is not acceptable ignoring that this is impossible....
"I think it's absolutely vitally important that we enable parents to have that protection for their children from this material on the internet," he told the Palace of Westminster.
We already enable parents to do this. There are a variety of technical solutions available which require little-to-no technical ability to set up. On top of that, the parents could, I don't know, spend time with their children, take an interest in what they are doing, and educate them about sexual matters.
It is not the government's place to do this. The correct way for them to handle it would be to educate parents on how to protect their children. A website, some TV ads, mailshots, access to free tools etc. would do a better and more ethical job than blanket censorship.
"I think it's absolutely vitally important that we enable parents to have that protection for their children from this material on the internet,"
More accurately, we have to enable parents to do nothing to protect or monitor their children's use of the internet, because why should parents be expected to show any interest in raising their kids?
I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that our children will be protected.
I can tell the House that we will legislate to put our agreement with internet companies on this issue into the law of the land so that we can control what people have access to on the internet then make it mandatory for everyone without an opt-out.
Fixed it.
Censorship.
Kids will always seek the forbidden. (some dude wrote something about it once, involving a snake I think). Look up on how that ended.
Only when adults get involved in a child discovering their sexuality does it become threatening to the child.
Some porn goes way beyond what I would like my child to see. But people do these things. It's a fine line choosing how much reality and ideology one teaches/indoctrinates/conditions into a child.... And how the ratio should change over the years.
Children have to grow into, integrate into and know how to react in a world made up of many characters.
The days of playing with Lego at 14 are over. And I think we underestimate the resilience of our children. Not from physical abuse. No, that always damages. But from the bullshit and insensitivity to another's feelings so often available as a cheap image/download.
One only has to trust someone to have ones mind swayed. Generate trust in your children.
Basically Mr Cameron you are an employee, Look after your own children, don't you dare tell me how to look after mine. And, don't you dare employ legislature that restricts how I raise and educate my children.
Of course once in place it would be simple mission creep for "political filters" to be included; I mean yer pinko-commie Corbyn-style content is likely to harm the kiddies by making them question the Leader!
or restrict comment about current policies that might be embarrasing (the comment & the Policies)
or restrict all content to the Red Tops -but then there is page 3...
how long before they Ban classical statues - after all they are frequently nude - but only for the general masses who can't control themselves not like the elite!
Anyone who wants to be a Censor isn't fit to be one - much like most politicians
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
