Labour want to regulate the internet for the childrens sake

July Rain

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/11/minister-rabbitte-announces-formation-of-internet-content-governance-advisory-group/?cat=62

The Diabolical Monocle

Well labor you just lost my vote.

From now on Im only voting for .....

emm...


..sh.it

PizzamanIRL

Labour can **** off.

Blame the parents for letting their kids on the internet which can damage their innocent brains.

WoollyRedHat

The trouble with these advisory groups is, they're often set up to give expert and in depth knowledge, but often if their foundings goes against the grain/ the state's agenda, they are subsequently ignored and the report buried.

But it's important to keep up appearances.

eviltwin

Isn't that the job of the parents?

mfceiling

eviltwin wrote: »

Isn't that the job of the parents?

No, no, no, no, no...it's the governments job to interfere protect us...

Frosty McSnowballs

Fcuk Labour!

Regulate my arse!

Heh

catallus

Well, people do need protecting from themselves: any internet forum ever tells us that the kids can only be let have limited freedom.

JohnMarston

All I can see in my minds eye is the image of Rabbitte going "wont someone please think of the children!"

wazky

You would think that they might have something more important to do instead of worrying about little Johnnie seeing a pair of knockers on the internet.

FearDark

We're getting to a point where we aren't even a nanny state anymore, we're somewhere between a nanny state and North Korea if they want to tell us what we can see and what we can't on the internet. The country is miserable enough as it and all I've got going for me is the few wanks I have a day.

renegademaster

FearDark wrote: »

We're getting to a point where we aren't even a nanny state anymore, we're somewhere between a nanny state and North Korea if they want to tell us what we can see and what we can't on the internet. The country is miserable enough as it and all I've got going for me is the few wanks I have a day.

Cannabis is legal in North Korea!! :eek::eek:

wazky

renegademaster wrote: »

Cannabis is legal in North Korea!! :eek::eek:

Its not called the "Cool Korea" for nothing.

FearDark

renegademaster wrote: »

Cannabis is legal in North Korea!! :eek::eek:

"reportedly"

We don't know because they only have a North Korean internal internet.

It's all ahead of us.

StupidLikeAFox

The government sets up a task force to make a policy recommendation on the governments approach to how young people now use the internet - 11 posts in and we are compared to North Korea

There is a massive rise in online bullying and the government are attempting to tackle that, yet some people are happy enough to wash their hands of it and say "its the parents fault".

PopePalpatine

renegademaster wrote: »

Cannabis is legal in North Korea!! :eek::eek:

Does the average North Korean know what weed is, though? :pac:

hmmm

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

There is a massive rise in online bullying and the government are attempting to tackle that

Yeah right, won't someone think of the children.

Politicians hate the Internet, it's a form of media they can't control. They are desperate to censor it, and the excuse for putting the infrastructure in place will be to "protect children". The UK has already decided to do the same to "protect children", and barely two months later Cameron has now said that "extremist websites" will also be censored. Before long, they'll be blocking "deviant lifestyles" and "harmful medical information" and in order to enable all this they'll need everyone to register to get access.

The Internet was great, and we'll look back fondly on it in the future when it's been turned into little more than a shopping mall alongside carefully selected and authorised news websites.

FearDark

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

The government sets up a task force to make a policy recommendation on the governments approach to how young people now use the internet - 11 posts in and we are compared to North Korea

There is a massive rise in online bullying and the government are attempting to tackle that, yet some people are happy enough to wash their hands of it and say "its the parents fault".

Well, it is.

Drakares

StupidLikeAFox wrote: »

yet some people are happy enough to wash their hands of it and say "its the parents fault".

That's because it IS the parents fault. Whenever I have kids you'll be damn sure I'll know what they're doing online and in real life until they're old enough to know better... Christ where did common sense ever go to?!

Artful_Badger

Lets not get carried away here. You simply cannot stick your head in the sand and keep muttering "Blame the parents", online bullying and content available to kids cant be ignored. And it looks like a pretty well rounded group of individuals charged with investigating these issues. You certainly couldn't outright dismiss any recommendations the group would make based on the issues the government are seeking advice on.

I understand that people get worried any time politicians talk about regulating online content and activities but I'm not so sure the commissioning of this report is a bad thing.

Membership
Chair – Dr Brian O’Neill
Dr Brian O’Neill is Head of the School of Media at Dublin Institute of Technology.

Mary Aiken
Mary Aiken is a CyberPsychologist and Director of the CyberPsychology Research Centre at the Royal College of Surgeons in Ireland (RCSI) and Research Fellow at the RCSI Institute of Leadership.

Prof Joe Carthy
Professor Carthy is College Principal and Dean of Science at UCD, Director of the UCD Centre for Cyber security and Cybercrime Investigation (CCI).

Áine Lynch
Áine Lynch is the CEO of the National Parents Council (primary).

Kate O’Sullivan (UPC)
Kate O’Sullivan is Vice President Corporate Affairs at UPC Ireland where she is responsible for regulatory and public policy.

Ronan Lupton
Ronan Lupton is a practicing Barrister, specialising in the areas of commercial law, Chancery, defamation, intellectual property / copyright and competition law.

Draft Terms of Reference (To be finalised at the first meeting of the Advisory Group)
Having regard in particular to:
- The development of the internet as a platform for media consumption and creation on a pervasive and persistent basis, and in particular the rise of social media;
- The profound benefits that the internet offers to society as a whole, and to children and young people in particular;
- Incidences of bullying and harassment online, particularly with regard to children.
- The present national legislative framework around electronic communications, internet governance and the sharing of material online;
- Recent proposals in other jurisdictions to request that ISPs block access to certain legal material ‘by default’;
- The need to preserve the free and open nature of the internet, and to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of access to information online;
- The recent report of the Joint Oireachtas Ctte titled ‘Addressing the Growth of Social Media and tackling Cyberbullying’;
- Recent decisions taken at the ECHR on the issue of online commentary.

The Taskforce is requested to consider the following and make recommendations to the Minister by 30th May 2014:
- Whether the existing national regulatory and legislative frameworks around electronic communications, internet governance and the sharing of material online remain relevant;
- Whether other existing policy responses by the State remain sufficient in relation to dealing with any of these issues;
- What the most appropriate relationship should be between ISPs, online service providers, the State and citizens in relation to access to legal material and bullying and harassment online.

Czarcasm

July Rain wrote: »

http://www.merrionstreet.ie/index.php/2013/11/minister-rabbitte-announces-formation-of-internet-content-governance-advisory-group/?cat=62

Would've been nice OP if you'd been bothered enough to dump some random link post a link that you would've taken the extra few seconds to add your own opinion.

I wouldn't worry too much about this anyway, ways and means around everything. This is just another exercise in politicians needing to appear like they give a shìt.

Phoebas

An awful lot of kneejerk reaction on this thread.

There isn't any proposal in this to block any content or to introduce any additional regulation.

Thread title is misleading on a number of counts. I presume deliberately so. [I note that the OP hasn't even bothered to contribute to the thread.]

onerone

they cant remember when they were inquisitive and horny youngsters. we are all human. making young people out to be from another planet is the same as saying men and women are from a different planet, blowing up an obvious physical difference. i knew little basterdos when i was young and you couldnt blame the parents and they didnt change as they got older. just experts who need to get paid and politicians who need to get paid appealing to old people. ah the innocent little ****s think of the innocent little ****s we used to beat around in school where the majority of people who were given a few slaps when they misbehaved turned out prefectly normal.

its hot hot **** child protection throw anything out there and everyone will agree. one extreme to another.

btard

Bullying is bullying. It's got **** all to do with the internet. Set up an advisory committe to advise on bullying if it bothers them that much. They can't stand that there's something out there they can't control. ****ing controlling bastards.

Phoebas

btard wrote: »

Bullying is bullying. It's got **** all to do with the internet. Set up an advisory committe to advise on bullying if it bothers them that much. They can't stand that there's something out there they can't control. ****ing controlling bastards.

You must really blow a gasket at all of the asterisks that just showed up in your post.

Karl Stein

Can the internet actually be regulated? Is it not a bit like trying to regulate the ocean?

My name is URL

The Taskforce is requested to consider the following and make recommendations to the Minister by 30th May 2014:

- What the most appropriate relationship should be between ISPs, online service providers, the State and citizens in relation to access to legal material

Why should 'the State' have any part in that relationship?

Phoebas

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Can the internet actually be regulated? Is it not a bit like trying to regulate the ocean?

It already is regulated to some extent - I think hardly anyone would want no regulation at all.

Phoebas

My name is URL wrote: »

Why should 'the State' have any part in that relationship?

That's a question that the advisory group will no doubt consider.

Karl Stein

Phoebas wrote: »

It already is regulated to some extent

How?

Phoebas

Carlos Roca wrote: »

How?

See the asterisks a few posts up?
Or type 'child pórn' into Google and see if you get it delivered.

Andrew_Doran

..

Phoebas

Andrew_Doran wrote: »

From the press release:



What a cretinous job title.

Cretinous?

Karl Stein

Phoebas wrote: »

See the asterisks a few posts up?

What fucking asterisks?

Or type 'child pórn' into Google and see if you get it delivered.

No thanks. Regardless, I'm sure peados would be well capable of sourcing it on the web.

Phoebas

Carlos Roca wrote: »

What fucking asterisks?

You ask about regulation on the web and you've just self regulated. Anyway, the asterisks here.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

No thanks. Regardless, I'm sure peados would be well capable of sourcing it on the web.

Yeah - I didn't really mean for you to look for child porn; it was more of a thought experiment.

zenno

Please enter your parental control password to gain access. Has any parent set the pc to this with a really good password ? no, because the parents need education to do such a thing, their kids are more intelligent than their parents when it comes to technology. The lazy parents do not have the brain-power to implement a simple computer - security lock, to protect their kids.

Also, the government are just as bad, they haven't a clue how to use a computer properly either. They both need further education, maybe they should be the one's doing a computer security course

BurnsCarpenter

My name is URL wrote: »

Why should 'the State' have any part in that relationship?

Because private companies are mainly interested in profit. The state is often involved in regulating legal activities, the idea being that it is an objective party who will act in the interests of society as a whole. May not always work well of course.

Karl Stein

Phoebas wrote: »

You ask about regulation on the web and you've just self regulated.

I just ever-so-easily circumvented the regulation. Methinks the genie is out of the bottle and simply cannot be put back in.

Phoebas

Phoebas wrote: »

It already is regulated to some extent - I think hardly anyone would want no regulation at all.

Carlos Roca wrote: »

How?

Carlos Roca wrote: »

I just ever-so-easily circumvented the regulation. Methinks the genie is out of the bottle and simply cannot be put back in.

We done?

Karl Stein

Phoebas wrote: »

We done?

How can easily side-stepping 'regulation' mean that the internet can successfully be regulated?

They can't keep drugs and mobile phones out of prisons and yet they can somehow regulate this nebulous source of information?

I'm not convinced Sir.

Phoebas

Carlos Roca wrote: »

How can easily side-stepping 'regulation' mean that the internet can successfully be regulated?

They can't keep drugs and mobile phones out of prisons and yet they can somehow regulate this nebulous source of information?

I'm not convinced Sir.

Not quite sure what you think I was trying to convince you of.
I said that the internet was regulated already to some extent and I showed you how there was regulation. Sure - you can sidestep some of the simple regulation on this site, but there is regulation here nonetheless.

There are plenty of other examples of internet regulation, for example ISPs blocking various individual sites (e.g. piratebay and the like) and search providers restricting various results (e.g. child porn).
For sure, a determined internet user can circumvent almost any internet regulation, but the same can be said about any regulation in any sphere. That doesn't mean that we shouldn't have regulation.

Cienciano

Phoebas wrote: »

See the asterisks a few posts up?
Or type 'child pórn' into Google and see if you get it delivered.

Probably shouldn't do that on your work computer.

renegademaster

Carlos Roca wrote: »

Can the internet actually be regulated? Is it not a bit like trying to regulate the ocean?

and considering 97% of the net is dark, not accessible through search engines so in theory they'll try regulate the 3% of the net the average joe sops see

lolz

returnNull

Phoebas wrote: »

Or type 'child pórn' into Google and see if you get it delivered.

**** google,type 'child porn' into the TOR browser......

Tangatagamadda Chaddabinga Bonga Bungo

Kids, there's three ways to do things. The right way, Labours way, or Frankfurts way.

Isn't that the wrong way?

Yeah, but faster.

Phoebas

Cienciano wrote: »

Probably shouldn't do that on your work computer.

:eek:

renegademaster wrote: »

and considering 97% of the net is dark, not accessible through search engines so in theory they'll try regulate the 3% of the net the average joe sops see

lolz

I'm presuming that that 97% figure consists of all non publicly accessible intranet content (company intranets etc) and not what most people would consider as the dark web (stuff not indexed, but publicly accessible via TOR etc).

KyussBishop

- Recent proposals in other jurisdictions to request that ISPs block access to certain legal material ‘by default’;
- The need to preserve the free and open nature of the internet, and to preserve freedom of speech and freedom of access to information online;

Mutually exclusive/contradicting one another, no?

Seems they're looking to make 'freedom of speech and freedom of access to information' opt-in only, in order to protect us, seeing as free speech and freedom of information is so dangerous and all.

Phoebas

returnNull wrote: »

**** google,type 'child porn' into the TOR browser......

I've got limited experience of TOR, but I'm pretty sure you can't enter search terms into it (because of how stuff on the dark web isn't indexed).

Phoebas

KyussBishop wrote: »

Mutually exclusive/contradicting one another, no?

Seems they're looking to make 'freedom of speech and freedom of access to information' opt-in only, in order to protect us, seeing as free speech and freedom of information is so dangerous and all.

Possibly - but this isn't a set of policy proposals. I think that that document was just setting the outline terms of reference for an advisory group.


[btw, I totally agree that this opt-in idea that the UK seem to be considering is a really bad idea. But advisory groups shouldn't not look at bad ideas.]

Jester252

To parents that what to censor the internet I ask.
Why do you let your kids watch so much porn?

BurnsCarpenter

Jester252 wrote: »

To parents that what to censor the internet I ask.
Why do you let your kids watch so much porn?

To people who agree with laws to prevent drunk driving - why don't you just stop driving while drunk?

Personal responsibility only gets you so far. This guy accessed his porn at school for example.

And just to be clear, I know that most people will grow up just fine despite accessing porn from a young age.