Online porn block for England

Rabies

Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron is to announce.

In addition, Mr Cameron will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal, bringing England and Wales in line with Scotland.

In a speech, the prime minister will warn that access to online pornography is "corroding childhood".

The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.

Family-friendly filters will be automatically selected for all new customers - though they can choose to switch them off.

And millions of existing computer users will be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to activate filters to restrict adult material.

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

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


I'm all for banning rape (real or not) porn and child porn.
As for standard porn, let them have it.

Who doesn't like to look at some porn now and again, or even hourly?


Do you think it will get passed?
Will there be much of protest against this possibly getting enacted?

Dravokivich

so, from nanny state, to net nanny state.

mad turnip

now everyone will know how to use proxies and VPN's!!!!!!!!

Riamfada

Ban violent porn on the internet, meanwhile in the popular prime time TV show Game of Thrones prostitutes are being graphically raped and murdered and no one cares.

NinjaK

The conservatives will love a few votes over this im sure

robinph

Rabies wrote: »

I'm all for banning rape (real or not) porn and child porn.

That is already is banned and you'll get convicted if they find it on your PC.

This is bad that they are trying to block things though. Firstly it is impossible to do, secondly you'll then have people not taking responsibility for what they or their kids then find on the net and they will blame the ISP for corrupting them, and once you start censoring one thing on the net you'll then have other people wanting more and more things censored.

Cienciano

mad turnip wrote: »

now everyone will know how to use proxies and VPN's!!!!!!!!

Or you could just ask for the block to be turned off.

syklops

Cue a surge in porn sites with nondescript names. I wonder is shoes-by-wok-gon.com available?

Like the ban of the piratebay here, they obviously don't realise how difficult it is to implement.

You have to choose to receive it? That's going to be an awkward conversation to have with someone.. "er, yeah, I'd like to see some porn".

Rabies

Riamfada wrote: »

Ban violent porn on the internet, meanwhile in the popular prime time TV show Game of Thrones prostitutes are being graphically raped and murdered and no one cares.

They'll ban that too.

We'll be back to 80's sex ed classes where nuns describe sex acts *shudder*
Imigine the voice overs :eek:


If I want to watch porn online, I should be allowed. People can install their own porn blocker if they're worried about the kids finding the baby sitter in a compromising position with the pizza delivery guy.

Rabies

Deleted User wrote: »

You have to choose to receive it? That's going to be an awkward conversation to have with someone.. "er, yeah, I'd like to see some porn".

I'd have no problem calling up asking for the porn site filter to be removed

BeerWolf

It's not a permanent block per se, you can still opt to have the block removed. Just the joy of calling them saying you want watch your smut.

martinedwards

yup, my reading of it is that it'll be blocked unless you ask for it.

which means that if you have your own house and phone line you can watch as much "regular" porn as you want.

if you're 13 then you'll need to be more creative!!

if you drive a getaway car for a murder then you are seen i9n law to be equally guilty of the crime.

maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

it's symptomatic of our society. no-one is willing to accept responsibility for anything.....

kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

MrStuffins

Wow!

Every 16 year old in the country will be eligible to vote in just 2 years.

The next election will be just like gay porn for the Tories it seems. A buinch of a*seholes being destroyed!

Tiddlypeeps

FFS :mad:

Why do governments keep trying to meddle with things they don't understand and that don't hurt anybody else.

Banning child porn is fine, banning porn of somebody actually being raped is fine. People are being hurt in those instances so I'm all for taking reasonable precautions to stop them.

What is it about sex that makes people so uncomfortable. We can show people being brutally murdered on prime time TV but if you show one dick or vagina it's totally outrageous. That's completely mental!

The only thing this bill will achieve is embarrassing adults who have to request access to porn from their ISP. It also means that somewhere out there is a list of people who have requested access to porn which means there is the possibility of those people being embarrassed even more if somebody hacks the ISP's databases and makes those lists public.

Kids will still access porn regardless. The ISP's can't run a better system than current net nanny software and kids have been getting around those for decades. If they want to access nudey pictures then they will find a way.

MrStuffins

martinedwards wrote: »

maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

Shut up!

martinedwards

MrStuffins wrote: »

Shut up!

eh?

if this works (unlikely) then I see a massive resurgance in the popularity of the Empire Stores catalogues......

robinph

martinedwards wrote: »

kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

If Google lets you find it then you were searching for it.
If your ISP lets the pictures through then you asked for them.

Is the postman responsible for items that get delivered through your letterbox?

Lelantos

Tiddlypeeps wrote: »

FFS :mad:

Why do governments keep trying to meddle with things they don't understand and that don't hurt anybody else.

Banning child porn is fine, banning porn of somebody actually being rapped is fine.

I'd love if they banned rapping, jail time for watching Jay-Z seems fair to me!

conorhal

Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

MrStuffins

martinedwards wrote: »

eh?

if this works (unlikely) then I see a massive resurgance in the popularity of the Empire Stores catalogues......

So if I buy a hammer from Woodies and use it to smash someone to death, Woodies are to blame?

Saying your ISP and Google are to blame for child porn is like saying that the roads are to blame for letting serial killers get from murder to murder.

floggg

martinedwards wrote: »

yup, my reading of it is that it'll be blocked unless you ask for it.

which means that if you have your own house and phone line you can watch as much "regular" porn as you want.

if you're 13 then you'll need to be more creative!!

if you drive a getaway car for a murder then you are seen i9n law to be equally guilty of the crime.

maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

it's symptomatic of our society. no-one is willing to accept responsibility for anything.....

kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

**** outta here. It's a search engine. If you ask it to find something, it's automatically programmed to find it if its there.

It doesn't create the content, and it's not Google's fault if

(A) somebody creates and posts child porn or
(B) somebody searches child porn n

Anyway, I doubt you can just type "child porn" into google and come up with actual results. Pretty sure google does actively have filters and blocks on that.

robinph

conorhal wrote: »

Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites

But there are other shops that you can go to to obtain that material. If you let your kid go wandering the streets unsupervised and wander into those shops though that is your fault. It is not the fault of the street (read ISP) that you were walking down.

Local-womanizer

conorhal wrote: »

Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

What if you don't have kids? Should childless people have to opt in just because the government doesn't trust parents to properly supervise and take the proper precautions that exist to stop their kids looking at porn?

who the fug

But look on the bright side the government did something, the Daily Mail is happy

Now all is rosy in the garden and child abuse and rape will never ever ever happen.

am surprised that google or google employee has not had one of these idiot MPs up for slander, as they are all put saying google facilitate rape and child pornography

conorhal

robinph wrote: »

But there are other shops that you can go to to obtain that material. If you let your kid go wandering the streets unsupervised and wander into those shops though that is your fault. It is not the fault of the street (read ISP) that you were walking down.

But the street you refer to is not the unregulated enviornment you suggest it is.
Your street is managed and maintained by the county counsel, there are bylaws about rubbish, there are often prohibitions regards what kind of development can take place and what kind of shops can apply for planning permission to be on certian streets.
Those streets are policed (well, in some places they are) and when they are not well regulated and policed enviornments you can easily end up with shambling junkes slumped on the footpaths outside a row of sex shops, which no parent would want their kids to unwittingly wander down.

the_syco

How does one go about getting a site listed as a pornography website? I'm thinking of getting a couple of the (insert political party here) websites banned, so no-one can see their sh|te... :pac:

who the fug

One other thing, this ban is for the United Kingdom, I know we are trying, but we still stuck with Scotland Northern Ireland and Wales

floggg

conorhal wrote: »

Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

There's your solution right there - you don't want your child looking at porn unsupervised on the net, then do your ****ing job and supervise them!

Don't expect the rest of society to do it for you.

And no, what we are concerned with is that

(a) mature adults capable of making their own decisions or being restricted in their capacity to consume lawful content because other people couldn't be ****ed looking after their own children; and

(b) the idea of the government installing a massive online filtering system sets a horrible precedent and raises genuine concerns about freedom of speech and independent media. The other countries with massive online filtering systems don't exactly use it for the good of their citizens b

zl1whqvjs75cdy

A bit of education would sort this right out. It's really not hard to restrict what your kids see on the net at a local level. But of course a large percentage of the population is technically clueless. Combine this with an attitude of passing the buck and I suspect we will see more of these types of laws going through.

Tiddlypeeps

conorhal wrote: »

I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

I don't even watch porn and I'm against this, so that throws your theory out the window. I don't like this because it won't work, it's a waste of money, it causes unnecessary embarrassment to people and it allows parents to hold other people responsible for their failings as parents.

If Ann Summers want to have a kids halloween costume section then that is their perogative. If a parent doesn't want their child to see sex toys and adult costumes then they should not bring their child to Ann Summers.

If Easons want's to put S&M porn mags among the comic books then that is also their choice. A responsible adult should not bring their child to Easons if they did choose to do that.

In both of those scenarios the store has the right to sell whatever they like (as long as it's legal), it is the parents responsibility to make sure they aren't exposing their child to anything they don't want them exposed to.

What is wrong with parents actually monitoring their child's internet usage?

Richard Hillman

A great time for blank DVD sales.

Dravokivich

conorhal wrote: »

Should Anne Sommers have a new section for kids halloween costumes?
Would it be acceptable for Easons to put hardcore S&M porn mags in amongst the comic books?

Of course not, and most people would hit the roof if such things happened, yet the have no problem allowing their children roam unsupervised around the net.

There is a real problem with the level of access children have to online pornography and it does need to be addressed. It's hard to say how effective such measures might be, but an opt in measure would be a good start. I suspect most people against such a measure are just bashful about wringing tech support about the problems they're having accessing dodgy sites, man (or woman up) if your adult enough to view such material, you should be adult enough to maturely request it.

They don't have it in the kids section, but next time you are in Easons, go to the mens section and look up. Is it such a problem that it's in the same shop?

martinedwards

floggg wrote: »

**** outta here. It's a search engine. If you ask it to find something, it's automatically programmed to find it if its there.

It doesn't create the content, and it's not Google's fault if

(A) somebody creates and posts child porn or
(B) somebody searches child porn n

Anyway, I doubt you can just type "child porn" into google and come up with actual results. Pretty sure google does actively have filters and blocks on that.

but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

and he supplies it......

he didn't take the pics.....

he didn't publish the mag......

but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

they CAN do it.

they choose not to.

robinph

conorhal wrote: »

But the street you refer to is not the unregulated enviornment you suggest it is.
Your street is managed and maintained by the county counsel, there are bylaws about rubbish, there are often prohibitions regards what kind of development can take place and what kind of shops can apply for planning permission to be on certian streets.
Those streets are policed (well, in some places they are) and when they are not well regulated and policed enviornments you can easily end up with shambling junkes slumped on the footpaths outside a row of sex shops, which no parent would want their kids to unwittingly wander down.

So are you saying that the street is policed or that it isn't?

You can do whatever you like and go wherever you like down the street, if you do something illegal then you will get charged for it though. Exactly the same as on the internet already. What they are now trying to do though is make pretend that they have put a big road block up to stop you being able to find any of the nasty stuff. That is impossible and they are just playing for votes and trying to fool people that they are doing something useful.

You can also go all conspiracy theory on this and follow the train of thought that once they have the systems in place to block the nasty porn they can then easily start blocking other sites that don't agree with the powers that be.

Talib Fiasco

This is like the block they put on computers in schools and such. Our IT teacher in secondary school was an absolute whiz with computers and everytime someone searched porn related terms (no need for examples) a big message would come up and the browser would automatically close. He had the same thing for 'games', 'proxy', 'facebook' and other things that would distract the learning :pac:. He explained one day that there is this software where you can input a search term and choose to have it blocked.... And it damn worked.... Until he unblocked games as he knew ECDL was like watching rain evaporate....

bronte

They've had these blocks on dongles for a while. Even youtube was blocked in case someone was offended by something on it. You have to show proof of age in order to get it removed. Why the hell are these blocks not something you can opt in for if you so choose?

mike65

Note for the OP England is not the UK.

matrim

martinedwards wrote: »

yup, my reading of it is that it'll be blocked unless you ask for it.

which means that if you have your own house and phone line you can watch as much "regular" porn as you want.

if you're 13 then you'll need to be more creative!!

if you drive a getaway car for a murder then you are seen i9n law to be equally guilty of the crime.

maybe if the CEO of google served a few month in jail for child pornography charges they might not need this legislation.

it's symptomatic of our society. no-one is willing to accept responsibility for anything.....

kiddie porn is just plain wrong. if goole lets you find it, and then your ISP lets it through then they're as guilty as the scumbags abusing the kids and taking the pics & videos.

Should the people behind the yellow pages be sent to jail if someone looks up an address in it and then kidnaps someone?

ferike1

I'll just leave this here.

shruikan2553

martinedwards wrote: »

but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

and he supplies it......

he didn't take the pics.....

he didn't publish the mag......

but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

they CAN do it.

they choose not to.

Google do block child porn. I know someone whos job was to go through search results for bing and if it was child porn they were to report it so it could be blocked.

The internet is far larger than people realise, what we see is a tiny fraction and anyone who thinks it can be fully controlled has no idea what they are talking about. Unless we have to have any websites we want to see pre approved by a person working for the ISP you cant stop stuff slipping through.

MrStuffins

martinedwards wrote: »

but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

and he supplies it......

he didn't take the pics.....

he didn't publish the mag......

but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

they CAN do it.

they choose not to.

How can you talk about there being a need for accountability for these types of crimes and then go around spouting rubbish about people the likes of Google being liable?

Listen, if I use the phone to harrass somebody, it's not Vodafone's fault.

If I use a neck-tie to strangle someone, it's not Tie-Rack's fault

You're talking sh*te!

Tiddlypeeps

martinedwards wrote: »

but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

and he supplies it......

he didn't take the pics.....

he didn't publish the mag......

but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

they CAN do it.

they choose not to.

Google will not show up a website called child rape monthly in a search. That will absolutely be flagged.

Using any obvious terms to search for child porn on google is unlikely to be successful. They do take precautions to stop it getting through.

That doesn't mean that stuff won't slip through the net.

If the Farmers Journal decided to add a big spread in the middle of their magazine featuring child porn should the shop assistant be held responsible for selling it? They will remove it from the store the second it's been flagged by somebody, but that doesn't mean that a few won't get out before that happens. Should they be prosecuted for that?

conorhal

Dravokivich wrote: »

They don't have it in the kids section, but next time you are in Easons, go to the mens section and look up. Is it such a problem that it's in the same shop?

I've no problem with porn, you're missing the point though, the point is that there has to be some level of control or responsibility on the part of the provider. 'Top shelf' is a term for a reason. You have to have a degree of gatekeeper control, especially given how ubiquitous net access is these days between smart phones, tablets and wi-fi access. You wouldn't want an off licence that only required sombody to click 'yes' to confirm that they were over 18 and legally entitled to purchase alcohol, so why would it be acceptable regards hardcore porn?

Yakult

I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.

shruikan2553

Yakult wrote: »

I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.

How is this anyones problem if parents are lazy? Im too lazy to lock my front door, should the landlord provide me with a security company who will have a guy at my door to make sure nobody gets in?

Dravokivich

conorhal wrote: »

I've no problem with porn, you're missing the point though, the point is that there has to be some level of control or responsibility on the part of the provider. 'Top shelf' is a term for a reason. You have to have a degree of gatekeeper control, especially given how ubiquitous net access is these days between smart phones, tablets and wi-fi access. You wouldn't want an off licence that only required sombody to click 'yes' to confirm that they were over 18 and legally entitled to purchase alcohol, so why would it be acceptable regards hardcore porn?

It's you who missed the point of what I said. On websites designed for children, I'd expect there'd be no links or ways for;em to get to porn. Just as on a shelf for childs comics, I'd expect the store would not intentionally place porn there. But the store does not force me to go through some authentication process to access the porn on their respective shelves.

If my kid was to access porn on the internet, It'd be because I wasn't paying attention to them. Not because porn is there.

robinph

Yakult wrote: »

I'm actually for this, if you read the article you have an option to accept or decline the filters and they can be removed anytime. Which is good because a lot of parents might not be aware of how to set up such a thing to prevent kids from looking at 18+ material.

They aren't outright blocking websites or forcing you to do anything, so why the rage? Seems to me like they are giving parents an easy option to prevent kids looking at dodgy **** on the internet.

The "default on" is the main problem people have.

If you are incapable of controlling yourself or your child's internet surfing habits then get the block turned on, don't set the default as blocked for everyone else because of a few peoples incompetence.

Yakult

robinph wrote: »

The "default on" is the main problem people have.

If you are incapable of controlling yourself or your child's internet surfing habits then get the block turned on, don't set the default as blocked for everyone else because of a few peoples incompetence.

But that is only when you do not accept or decline after your provider contacts you. Fair enough, if they don't contact you, ya I'd be pissed too. But if you neither accept or decline, well that's your fault.

floggg

martinedwards wrote: »

but if you go into the paper shop and ask for a copy of child rape monthly.....

and he supplies it......

he didn't take the pics.....

he didn't publish the mag......

but he accepted your money, just like Google accept money from the advertisers on the side of your kiddie porn search.

In china google can filter searches for anything American because it's a choice ebtween operating in China with cencorship or not operating there.

they CAN do it.

they choose not to.

Blaming google for online content is like blaming the index of a book for the contents of chapter 3.

It's not creating the content, it's just a computer program that is able to find stuff.

And again, I would very much doubt google throws up child porn results.

Adults engaging in consentinh scat play? Probably.

But I would be pretty sure anything like child porn would be removed from search results as a matter of course.


But i appreciate its easier to have a bogey man to blame problems on.

Also, China probably isn't the best example to cute when trying to arguing that a government introducing a big all encompassing web filter is a positive development.

Toto Wolfcastle

What a load of (opted in) cock.