News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

And unfortunately it ignores the opinions of the experts that it consults on those.

 

Either that or it sexes up the reports to suite their agenda.

 

I hate to insult your intelligence.. but you definitely had WiFi off?

Most of them do I think.

EE, someone else said Virgin, GiffGaff do which probably indicates that O2 do.

 

Wifi is off, I'm on 3.

I thought the mobile thing was because they can't tell if you're under 18 or not. Maybe because they have my details since I'm on contract or since I've paid with my credit card before they know I'm over 18.

 

Ah yeah maybe. Might've just filled in 'profile' or whatever saying your 18. I know GiffGaff explicitly ask you to opt in to 'Adult Content'. I had to do it because their detection was blocking some several non adult sites.. Reddit understandably, but I think they were using that adult content HTML marker, because some perfectly kid friendly sites were blocked.

 

PM's child-abuse police figures are wrong, says ex-CEOP chief

 

" A moral system valid for all is basically immoral" --Nietzsche

 

The gun in that photo is for competitions. Surely you do that sort of thing on your little island, I mean after all you send a shooting team to the Olympics every year. Are you telling me your Olympic athletes in the shooting sports picked up their first gun after they were adults? I call bull...

This is just another example of people giving up their rights in the name of safety. In the end, your children will not be any safer and you will no longer have any semblance of a free internet. It's the same thing that happened when you allowed them to take your guns away. Now you face life in prison for defending yourselves, or just roll over and let the crooks do whatever they want. Seems we are right behind you guys...

 

Our shooting teams have to train overseas for the most part. We also send athletes to winter sports competitions like the winter Olympics, yet those athletes have to go to Switzerland or Canada to train.

Just because a country fields entrants for a competition does not necessarily mean they are capable of practising the activity/sport in said country [for whatever reason]...

See also: Jamaican Bob-sleigh team.

 

I'm curious as to the workability of this system.

Questions:

1) How much will this cost the consumer?

Just to start this system is being placed upon ISPs to block legal pornographic content with an opt out system. If this costs ISPs more then a large portion of this is going to be on the consumer as a result of high market price inelasticity of demand for having an internet connection.

Which with the internet being an essential tool for the economy pricing more people out would not be brilliant either.


2) How likely is implementation of this going to affect non pornographic content?

The degree of this could have huge costs for businesses and the wider economy as a whole.

3) How effective is it going to be blocking content, how easy to get around it?

I.E proxies etc

4) Tie in with 3, How effective is the block on illegal material going to be considering large portions of this occurs through the dark underbelly of the internet to evade detection anyway?

5) Is there a basis for reclassifying extreme material into illegal material in the evidence of related sciences?
By what I mean is does the rape porn fortify desires or satisfy an urge? Will it work or be counter intuitive?

6) How much harm does legal porn actually do to society, from the evidence?

7) To surmise the costs in just the internet market and to business as well how much is this going to hinder long term growth if the system is inefficient and high cost?

8) Are there better ways of controlling child viewing of material?

A lot of arguments against this state it's up to the parents. However parents aren't going to learn how to police the internet or stop giving kids connected devices that can be used in private just because who ever is shouting at them that they should. Likewise would a block make parents complacent about issues of inappropriate content that are not pornographic, like anorexia networks.

9) Is mental health support more important in combating possible related issues than restricting the viewing of legal content?

I likely have more questions than that, which I haven't thought of yet. It's a topic that throws up more questions than would be expected. Like just now: How effective will a block be if it blocked say ann summers? It's a very popular sex related outlet so if many remove a block just to use that site or those like it, it could render the scheme much more ineffective.

 

I sure hope so, doesn't mean they're not doing it, does it?
You don't want them to officially use this data, but you condone them doing it illigally?

No safety glasses needed.
It looks like a Biathlon, well without the snow, a summer Biathlon.

In this case it would be sport. No problem finding similar pictures with semi-auto attack weapons though.

That said, I only know the rules in Germany.
Sport shooting (the olympic discipline) in sport clubs is allowed from 12 upwards with certain air-weapons, and 14 upwards with small-calibre weapons (usually .22)
On private property, it is alowed ONLY from 18 upwards.

Funny enough, shooting at a fair, is allowed regardless of age.

 

Probably nothing initially but give it a few years for the prices to start climbing.
On the plus side we have all saved money as the Government has cut the child exploitation and online protection (CEOP) budget by %10 this year. While at the same time the firms that Cameron wants to implement these controls have pledged £1m

It will defiantly affect non pornographic content as Cameron has said he also wants it to cover suicide, self harm, and industry insiders have already come out and said how it will affect non pornographic web sites such as underwear or swimsuit websites with bikini images, for example. Then you have children looking for sexual health advise possibly being blocked.

It will only be affective at blocking accidental viewing, as any person with half a brain can use proxies, VPN's, etc, etc.

The scum trading in illegal material will be laughing at Cameron as CEOP's budget has been cut so if anything they are less likely to get caught. CEOP identify 50,000 cases of accessing child abuse online but can only pursue 2,000 a yr.

There is evidence to support both sides, some claim it makes people more likely to act out what they have seen, some claim its the opposite and that it actually satisfy an urge. My own personal opinion is like most things in life its the person that commits the crime, just because you play a violent video game or watch a movie it doesn't mean you will the act out what you have seen.

AFAIK there is no empirical evidence to suggest it is doing harm to society.

IDK, sorry

Yes its called parental responsibility as they should know when there child is mentally mature enough to deal with subjects of a sexual nature and are best positioned to teach what is a healthy attitude towards sex and what is normal/acceptable.

Well you only have to look at the parents of little Danny who run up £1,700 iPad bill in ten minutes to see why the need for educating parents on the dangers of the internet is there. There is no doubt it will make some parents complacent as why do they need to address these issues if they have put a block in place.

You mean treating the causes and not the symptoms ? i would say yes, but judging on other problems like drug abuse and alcohol abuse i would say society feels better about treating the symptoms than the causes.

 

Regardless of what sport it is (Tbh, I like shooting, if I had the money and time I'd have a firearms license and I'd go shooting), I'd never let my child (If I had one) shoot any gun without some safety glasses. It might only be a .22, or even a .177 air rifle, but whatever it is, eyesight is important.

 

While you can argue that there are "universal morals" this assumes everyone has basic common sense Further on this, said "universal" morals quickly spiral out of control the more you define them in detail, and soon everyone has a different view again.

A quote I feel particularly relevant myself to this debate:

 

If we are on a quote roll some more about censorship that made me say 'damn right'

 

Circling back to the issue of the filters, I was trying to think of which families these filters would actually help.

First of all, you have the families with technologically-literate parents, and (assuming they're somewhat responsible) they should be able to monitor/control their children's net access anyway. So not helping that set.

There are the families where neither the parents nor children are particularly good with the internet, and in this case I could see a filter being somewhat effective, as the kids wouldn't know how to get past it. Therefore, it would help this demographic.

However, there is the (probably much larger) demographic of families where the children are far better with "the internet" than their parents - reasonably likely in this day and age. The problem here is that the parents may well not opt-out from these filters and assume that it means their children can't access porn at all. This would be reinforced by the government, which would obviously try and convince people that their filters were perfectly effective (they couldn't really say anything else tbh). A false sense of security for the parents could ensue, resulting in them being more lax about actual parental intervention than they may otherwise have been.

There's probably a great quote somewhere summing this up in a sentence, but unfortunately I haven't seen it.

 

Frankly none of that paragraph makes any sense to me?
Where did I say that "I condone them for doing it illegally" actually, just forget it, you don't seem to understand what I'm saying at all, end of, unsubscribe.

 

The wife fails to see why this is a bad idea, even after me explaining it as simply as i can. Sadly I think she will be in the majority here.

 

Get onto the Number 10 website and sign the e-petition against this if you feel strongly against it. Not sure how much good it'll do but it's better than doing nothing!

My concern is where does this censoring stop.

 

Cameron ‘Porn’ Advisor’s website ‘hacked’

Not only is her website hacked... she shows a worrying [and depressing] lack of knowledge of how the internet works...