News Cameron pushes on porn-filtering programme

Agreed, but wouldn't it just be easier as the parent of a twelve year old if the ISP did it all for you? No need to worry about technicalities then, as many folks seem not to anyway.

 

Since when was parenting supposed to be easy? Aren't parents supposed to have the kind of relationhip with their children where children want to share with them what they get up to? Aren't parents supposed to take an interest?

 

Yup. But from what I see and hear, it seems that tragically few actually do.

I'm still struggling to grasp the issue here. Those who want porn will be in no different a position than they are now. Those who don't will by default be excluded from the club until they ask permission to join in again.

If asking one's ISP to switch a filter off is considered a hardship then I'd invite the complainant to spend a day in my shoes.

 

It's the principle: ISP's and non-parent users are suddenly responsible for something that the parents should be responsible for. They should be responsible for opting into a filter; the rest of the users should not be responsible for opting out. It reinforces the message that when your child is exposed to inappropriate material in their own home, that somebody else somewhere out there is to blame, and that it is not the responsibility of the parents living in the same house.

 

If asking ones ISP to switch on a filter is a hardship to far...

 

There is also a bigger picture here, one of controlling the net & basic rights, freedoms &, censorship, recently piratebay was added to the isp blacklist, now they have porn turned off as default; where is all this leading? ..I can see in less than 10yrs we will have a government sanctioned ISP whitelist; slowly slowly catchy monkey.

This porn switch is a supposed solution to a non-existent problem, the argument is that some parents don't care, so why will they care to turn off the porn or go without porn for the sake of their kids? A blanket wide solution that effects every net user for the sake of people that cant be bothered bringing their kids up properly ..no thanks. If a parent cannot secure the tech in their house from their kids, they should not have tech in their house. Do parents not supervise their kids any longer?

If kids/porn are a real problem ..then make it a criminal offense to let your kids watch porn & leave the net out of it.

 

You seriously ascribe too much intelligence to the government, given their track record on large IT projects do you honestly believe they could organise some great firewall of Britain? And even if they could, to what end? They don't need to control the people they're generally too ingrained in there mind set to look out side their current media suppliers, be that the mail or the guardian. Those who want to see past the GFoB easily can and will, just look at currently controlled countries.

 

Britain already has a firewall.

The internet is the new media that is quickly replacing the mail, guardian etc ...controlling the media means largely controlling what people think. a better question is why wouldn't they want to control the internet?

yes, but it will be a tech savy, risk taking, fringe minority ..most people are law fearing.

 

It is a relatively modern issue. When I was a young boy then the only exposure we ever got to porn was finding a few sodden pages of Mayfair flapping in a hedgerow. Nowadays you're never more than a few seconds from extreme pornography or violence the likes of which most of us would have struggled to imagine 20 years ago.

To all the naysayers, have you ever thought about why adult TV channels are encrypted and only shown in the dead of night? Why there is still a watershed on television? Why jazz mags are on the top shelf? Why the BBFC exists? It's to help prevent small children from seeing things that they are not supposed to, things that could be damaging to an impressionable child.

If we are not going to police the internet ourselves, then what other option have we got? Or does everyone advocate having ad-funded softcore porn channels broadcasting throughout the day, never more than a few clicks of the remote away from being displayed?

I totally agree with the censorship sentiment - I would have been a very unhappy 15 year old if someone had taken my precious porn away from me - but I was 15, not 8.

The problem is that whilst all parties commenting on this thread are astute, intelligent and strong-minded individuals, the vast majority of the population are far less so. This translates into their little kids growing up too quickly, and losing their innocence extremely young. The less intelligent of them will have skewed ideas about the opposite sex, sexual violence etc.

"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize (sic) half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin. Oft quoted but oh so true.

I ought to just say that I would never have felt so strongly before becoming a parent, but seeing how carelessly some of my peers raise their children sickens me, and quite frankly I want the very best for mine.

 

And how effective is it?

What do they gain?

What does one risk?

Don't you think this would be better handled by paying ISP to send a flyer round to all their customers saying we have this filtering software you can use for free if you want? This gives parents/consumers the information to make an informed decision. If they can't be bothered to make an informed decision the kids probably have bigger problems...

 

I would say its fairly effective at stopping users inadvertently clicking on hardcore child porn and beheading videos ..of course you can still find these things but it takes some conscious effort.

Power.

Prosecution.

 

I doubt many ISP's will do anything unless forced to as many are run on a very tight budget, filtering .XXX domains may not be as labour intensive and costly as being the nets "Pirate Police" but censoring all online porn at source is impossible and it must be the parents responsibility to restrict access using net nanny type software, etc.

Just as many people think that teachers should police their children a lot of people seem to think that ISP's should police the internet to keep their children safe, they are your children and it's your responsibility to do as much as you can to protect your children from unsuitable material.

 

I agree with you that young children should be shielded from hard core pornography ..but imposing controls on the internet at ISP level is not how to do it. btw cameron doesn't really care about kids watching porn, that's just the excuse to get the knee jerking sheeple behind his plan ..see 'bigger picture' previously mentioned.

If Camerons suggestion was handed in as 2nd year computer science project it would receive a D- as a solution not-fit-for-purpose & failing to identify the parameters of the initial problem.

not quite, these controls are simply the residue of a bygone age, which is why you can watch porn on the net 24/7, if its only about young children why cant you watch porn late at night on normal channels after the watershed, why is the news still heavily censored at 2am especially in regard to war reporting. 'Think of the children' is the panacea excuse of government control and crackdown. Don't let them push your parental buttons ..for the sake of your children take a step back.


e2a: @shirty ...its good to see parents like yourself taking the time to thrash out the issues instead of leaving everything for the electronic babysitter to decide.

 

Thanks for the addendum tuk

To be honest I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm well aware that as far as Cameron is concerned this really isn't all about the kids, it'a about appeasing some of the noisier members of the electorate.

Parents like myself and the majority on forums such as these won't be affected in the least by the proposed legislation, it's geared towards those who are unable (read refuse) to help themselves. Which is a terrifying proportion of the population.

In an ideal world education would be the best policy, and the best place to put public money. But if that could ever work then it certainly isn't at the moment - hence these sorts of knee-jerk suggestions. There has to be a better way, but no practical measures have been attempted as yet.

 

I'm with shirty on this one - it's the parents' responsibility, and unfortunately there are many parents who are irresponsible.

We never had any filtering software when I looked at porn as a teenager, but then again the internet was in its infancy and Net Nanny didn't exist, and I'm sure the attitude to porn was one of naivety; most parents probably weren't aware how easily it could be accessed back in the late 90s (mine most certainly were blissfully unaware... blissfully for me, that is).

Things have changed since then however and I think that today's parents are without excuse; it's patently obvious that children can easily access porn on a PC that is not protected by filtering software.

I agree. I'd go so far as to say the problem (in part) comes back to our nation's attitude to sex, and the business of not saying anything to the kids just spikes their curiosity and makes matters worse.

 

So its not actually effective at all at controlling the population, if any one can make a concious effort to get round it.

What power? You've been reading too much 1984 mate. Whilst I seriously worry for the intelligence of most of the population, what power can be made by controlling their access to the internet?

What prosecution? Has any one been prosecuted for accessing piratebay going round the the isp filters?

 

I think your confused, the current national firewall is there to prevent specific media(already mentioned) nothing to do with controlling the population.

It's self-evident that media/propaganda can be used as a form of control to shape and mold what people think; controlling the media is undemocratic for starters ..what power can be gained from media/information control? ..is that really a serious question?

you were alluding to internet censorship in other countries, I imagine there are relative stiff penalties for breaching Chinese law in regard to censorship.

btw that book is really about 1948 but he flipped the last two numbers and made it seem like the story was set in the future; otherwise it would not have been published..why? ..you guessed it: government censorship, control & power.

Extrapolating from World War II, the novel's pastiche parallels the politics and rhetoric at war's end—the changed alliances at the "Cold War's" (1945–91) beginning; the Ministry of Truth derives from the BBC's overseas service, controlled by the Ministry of Information; Room 101 derives from a conference room at BBC Broadcasting House; the Senate House of the University of London, containing the Ministry of Information is the architectural inspiration for the Minitrue; the post-war decrepitude derives from the socio-political life of the UK and the USA, i.e. the impoverished Britain of 1948 losing its Empire despite newspaper-reported imperial triumph; and war ally but peace-time foe, Soviet Russia became Eurasia.

 

So you think that the government will be able to implement a better one?

It is evident that if a large media organisation chooses to back a party that support can be an enormous boost, NI (The Sun) swapping to the Tories (In England). However I'm not seeing how that translates to power for any one but Murdoch. In your world the government is at worst a puppet for the media corps, but since these big corps are disappearing thanks to the web I can't see it being an issue long.

In reality people consume the news which fits their world view. Alf Garnett isn't a bigot because he reads the Daily Mail he reads the Mail because it panders to his world view.

The paradigm shift required to end up with a one party system so powerful that it can do as it pleases just because it controls the media is at best unproven, realistically more than a little unlikely. History shows us that a single group can seize power one way or another and then once in power restrict access to "unhelpful" information and blanket the country with propaganda but even that doesn't leave them with the kind of absolute power you seem to think would result. See Egypt, Syria and Libya for recent examples and the USSR for a little more history.

No I wasn't I was questioning how many people have been prosecuted in the UK for circumventing the UK's filter. To call it a firewall is to aggrandise it more than a little.

[citation needed]

 

"Maybe, please follow me to room 101 and we will discuss it"

 

In principle yes. But to be educated you need to be willing to learn. There in lies the problem and as you say, hence these knee jerk reactions.