News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

That's your endless list?

I took the liberty - my freedom of expression - of numbering your points for ease of reply

1) Well let's do nothing then, don't even try, yeah? Thankfully that approach isn't adopted in medical advancement, criminal activity investigation, ...

2) & 4) well you're not exactly right there Articles 8 and 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights - the treaty that gives you those freedoms of thought, expression etc. - actually states:

Right to private and family life

1. Everyone has the right to respect for his private and family life, his home and his correspondence.
2. There shall be no interference by a public authority with the exercise of this right except such as is in accordance with the law and is necessary in a democratic society in the interests of national security, public safety or the economic well-being of the country, for the prevention of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, or for the protection of the rights and freedoms of others.

Freedom of expression

1. Everyone has the right to freedom of expression. This right
shall include freedom to hold opinions and to receive and impart
information and ideas without interference by public authority
and regardless of frontiers. This Article shall not prevent States
from requiring the licensing of broadcasting, television or cinema
enterprises.
2. The exercise of these freedoms, since it carries with it
duties and responsibilities, may be subject to such formalities,
conditions, restrictions or penalties as are prescribed by law and
are necessary in a democratic society, in the interests of national
security, territorial integrity or public safety, for the prevention
of disorder or crime, for the protection of health or morals, for
the protection of the reputation or rights of others, for preventing
the disclosure of information received in confidence, or for
maintaining the authority and impartiality of the judiciary.

3) In the same way we pay green energy development subsidies you mean?

5) You honestly think the investigating authorities, in this day and age, have the time/man power/money to check on everyone's sexual proclivities in the UK, or at least the probable millions who access porn at least once? If you're accessing certain sites with content that is deemed illegal - including, as of today I understand, rape videos - then they'll be doing that anyway or should be.

6) Now you didn't follow the rules did you, even when you rephrased this in your closing statement Noone can prove beyond a shadow of doubt slippery slope will happen. And if it does you can take them to court under Article 10, the flip side Now this is knee jerk http://forums.bit-tech.net/showpost.php?p=3388074&postcount=24

As for parents constantly monitoring "children's activity" at time of use, I'd venture to suggest that's an impossibility 100% of that time. Ask anyone with a couple of kids say between 4 and 14, if they could do it? The door bell rings, the telephone rings, dinner is being prepared, the call of nature, one of them scrawls on the wall, one of them finds the matches ...

 

I'm not sure I care enough about the "moral" argument to comment (there are far worse things than porn on the internet), but can they not see that this is just an utter waste of resources? The blocks will be circumvented on day one and there will be countless web pages detailing how to do so across the web.

So for adults wishing to view pornography there will be an additional check box when signing up to a new ISP (just like mobile providers currently have). For children/adults living with their parents or in a property where they do not have control over the connection there will be an additional 5 minutes work to do the first time they want to view this material, and then the status quo will be restored.

All in all, nothing will be achieved apart from preventing a very small number of people (mainly little kids) from accidentally stumbling across porn.

 

I have no problem ringing up my isp and saying I want to look at porn, but I guess it might be difficult for some.

I don't think this is about blocking CP cause the filters don't block Tor or p2p, it's more about a child just coming across hardcore porn.

Google images>search>porn

Now I wouldn't want my child seeing that !! Would you?

In the days of dial up before the cp block the search 'lolita' would bring it up.

 

Welcome to china

 

Friends of mine discovered their two children (early teens) had five phones between them and a load of sim cards, they have no idea where they got them, we all know kids don't need to use a home PC to access the net.

 

And when it comes to custody battles I can just see the line "well he turns off the filter on his Internet therefore he should have only supervised access to his own kids... Ya know just in case"

And this is the danger of such sweeping gestures. Ask anyone who has ever dealt with any of the various agencies, reasonable arguements are not something they accept as they take a guilty first approach

 

Well that actually supports the argument for default blocking on all devices.

 

But what Cameron is proposing is nothing to do with child abuse, trying to merge illegal pornographic material that we already have laws against with legal pornographic material is something that pro block campaigners will be all to happy to do in an effort to support their argument.
We already have laws in place to prevent indecent material, and from what i gather search company's already report and remove illegal pornographic material.

 

<3 VPN

 

Isn't that already the case?

Three points:

• Correct, no, they don't do it manually, they'll use an algorythm for it, have you been living under a stone these last few weeks or does GCHQ mean anything to you?
  
• Nono, it's not Rape-Video's, it Video's of adults consensually playing rape.
  About the difference between a snuff movie and any given action flick
  
• So...you propose to ban matches, unless listed as a "Match-user"

 

Awesome the ~think of the children~ approach to voiding net neutrality and imposing a filter.

 

Immediately disagree and you *have to be a criminal*

 

But noone is saying you can't access the legal stuff, simply that you have to say "yes please" as it were. But obviously you'd rather an unwitting kid came across something it may well find disturbing at that age than make you admit, by having to opt in, that you might want to access porn at all. Hmmm ...

There is no true net neutrality otherwise websites would never be taken down at all.

 

They should apply same filters for adult porn also

 

If a kid is searching for that then they most likely know what to expect.

I sure as **** did when I first started trying to get around parental controls, and in dealing with a fair few home installations of customers, I don't think I've once seen a kids laptop come back with porn in the history until around the teens anyway, bearing in mind we have customers who buy their seven year olds laptops.

I've, personally, repaired a pair of laptops from a former customer six times for two kids 4 and 7 in the first encounter, and their browsing histories (The father asked us to check whenever we were there, he wasn't convinced the router blocks were working) were clean as a whistle when it came to porn. Not so for game cheat codes, mind you..

I think there's a degree of over sheltering kids on the assumption that they must all immediately want to look at dicks and tits because they have one or the other. Absurdity in my opinion, and far beyond what's necessary.

And what about homes where there's one internet connection and dad's turned on the porn for him? What about those kids?

Should we start filtering porn except until midnight? Because that's when adult TV channels become live on freeview, so that must be porn hour after all.

Maybe we should all have profiles at our ISP end so we can't possibly look at age inappropriate stuff until the ISP record shows we're old enough?

Absolutely ridiculous waste of everyone's time and resources as far as I'm concerned.

 

Well i couldn't be bother to carry on as i guessed most people would know what Cameron proposes is so full of holes and problems it wouldn't need much explaining. But i guess some people cant see the woods for the trees.

OOoo numbers,cool
Parents can do all they like about it, like not letting there children use the internet without parental control. Trying to draw a comparison between the lack of parental control, and "medical advancement, criminal activity investigation" is just laughable

So who is going to decide what my morals are, you ? the government ?

But we don't pay green energy development subsidies because some people cant be bothered to implement restrictions on what their children can and cant do. the benefits or drawbacks of green energy its self is a much debated topic.

"sexual proclivities" has nothing to do with it, you only have to look at a List of UK government data losses to know your personal information isn't safe in third party hands.

Yes indeed it is , But taking them to court would be a no-no as they have cut legal aid so unless you are rich you have no chance.

That is why there is a plethora of software solutions, Windows even comes with parental controls built in. If parents cant be bothered to setup software so little johnny doesn't view what they deem inappropriate why should the onus be put on ISP's and the rest of society ?

 

For the record I'm not anti porn (yes I've watched it more than once) but I am pro blocking because I see it merely as a minor inconvenience and neither as an "oh **** someone might know" nor a "my freedom rights are being eroded!" and frankly I'm not so lazy that I can't tick a box or whatever it'd take to clear the filters if I wanted to.

That said, I do agree consistency should be applied wherever possible. For example, if simulated rape scenes are banned from legal porn then they should also be from the "Hollywood" film industry. Cos let's face it, if you get your kicks viewing that you'll still get a degree of stimulation from whichever medium it's in since it's all about being in control at someone else's cost, just less graphic. If they're not, then the same rule should apply to both.

 

No i would prefer the "unwitting kid" to have responsible parents that care about protecting their child from what they deem inappropriate, and not to put that responsibility on the rest of the world.