1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Jul 2013.

  1. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    But you are leaving out the proposed default filtering issue completely, Why are we making a whole county child-proofed by default just because some parents don't want to take responsibility.

    We already have laws to cover obscene publications, and if this needs updating to cover violent material of an extreme nature (rape, abuse) then im all for updating existing laws. But for Cameron to incorporate a change to existing laws with a default child-proofed filter for the whole country is asinine.

    Six months ago ministers rejected the automatic block and said internet providers should encourage parents to switch on parental controls. So why is a whole country being forced down this route instead of making parents aware of ways to keep their children safe.
     
  2. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,248
    Because Governments like to pat themselves on the back, and believe me, this will give them a massive back patting session.

    Possibly a circle jerk too, but not on video anymore!
     
    stonedsurd likes this.
  3. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,110
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Indeed, when a minor takes a picture or films a video of themselves engaged in even a solitary sex act (say, masturbation), even if it is for their own private enjoyment and not shown to anyone else, they can be prosecuted under child pornography laws. Tricky.

    The problem is twofold: first, possession of the media is being prosecuted rather than the dissemination of it, which I think everybody agrees is a bit more pertinent. Second, production is made illegal based purely on content rather than how it was produced.

    The latter is already effectively covered under existing laws: it is illegal to have sex with minors, it is illegal to rape or kill; so creating photos or videos of those acts are illegal as well (and conveniently supply evidence for the prosecution). But it is not illegal to masturbate whatever your age, or to have consensual sex with another adult, no matter how kinky. Therefore producing images or videos of such acts for personal use should not be illegal either. But Cameron proposes that it will be.
     
  4. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,607
    Likes Received:
    2,627
    A more pertinent 'exception proving the rule' is that it's legal to have sex at 16, but not to be filmed having sex until you're 18. Strange, but there it is. The law is clear: if you're in a porn video, you need to be 18 or older. No exceptions.

    There will always be aspects of "for the greater good" in any given law. In this case, the aspect is "if the video were to be distributed, it could do harm to the child" - therefore you make the possession and creation of the video illegal, even if it was for personal use only. Doing anything else makes it too difficult to police: under your scenario the tape (or, these days, smartphone) is legal if the kid holds it, but what if an adult holds it? Even if the adult doesn't know what's on there?

    Do I think it's ridiculous that a child can be arrested for the creation and distribution of child pornography just by taking a picture of themselves in a state of undress with a smartphone? Absolutely. Can I think of any other way of making that law work without making it easier for ne'er-do-wells to take advantage? Not immediately, no.

    Laws need to be very carefully thought out, and my biggest issue with all of this is that what Cameron is proposing has not been thought out at all. He's even admitted as much.
     
  5. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    Please look up the facts about what's been happening with GCHQ accessing Prism data, it's been done illegally.

    In short it's alleged that GCHQ has circumvented UK laws by accessing information on UK citizens directly from Prism, GCHQ is bound by the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act to seek approval for intercepting material from telecoms and UK-based internet companies.

    UK law requires that any directed surveillance is focused on a specific individual or premises. There is a clear concern that the collection of the relevant information was not collected as part of a directed operation, and if that has happened the legality of obtaining the information is far from clear.

    When I said, "Where do the authorities go from there, will all internet users have to agree to 24/7 in-depth monitoring with no option to opt out as the norm?"

    I meant that 24/7 in-depth monitoring will become the "legal norm" that is not being done covertly in a back handed probably illegal manner by accessing Prism or GCHQ exceeding their powers of monitoring and surveillance on UK citizens as appears to have been happening, in other words, GCHQ has been doing what it wants to and will continue doing the same but with our knowledge of them doing it and it won't be something that you can opt out of if you want to access the internet.
     
    Last edited: 23 Jul 2013
  6. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,110
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Indeed, which is why we have courts of law where every case can be judged on its individual circumstances. What Cameron proposes however is blanket enforcement, and as you say, such measures need to be very carefully thought through, because there is no opportunity to do so after the fact in a court of law.
     
  7. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    210
    Personally, I don't mind content blocks for public wifi and phones etc. If the majority parents want to restrict browsing for their children they need at least something put in place for the places they don't have control over. Yes it is restrictive to the general population, but it's not really that intrusive. Think of it like putting all the porn mags on the top shelf.

    But:

    An opt-out content block? Why not opt-in? Are current commercial blocks too expensive or ineffective? Are parents not to be trusted in looking after their children? Is the government saying watching porn is bad? For the health benefits of a regular **** and the enjoyment it brings many people, surely that makes it a positive? Yes, there are people who get the wrong impression from porn, but isn't that because they don't know the alternative?

    Plus such a block is laughable and sets dangerous precedence for further blocks of ever more questionability. Frankly, the government doesn't seem to have any idea how the internet works and the impression I get is that they'd be quite happy to block it altogether rather than have to face the reality and embracing the huge benefits.

    Also, all this talk about 'protecting' children from porn or disturbing images - why do we use the word 'protecting' and why do we need to protect them? Yes, I agree, it's hardly suitable for children, but then lots of things aren't (Should we be 'protecting' them from political broadcasts?). Yes, there is definitely reason to restrict access of pornography to children but the overly hysterical method parents (or that the media depicts parents) as going about it coupled with the hypersexualisation of so many aspects of our culture seems like it does more harm than good. Perhaps our victorian legacy prevents us from talking openly about sex leading to overcompensation in how we deal with and express it.

    Also, 'extreme' pornography. The major argument I see for banning it seems to be that it encourages engaging in the act itself but that's similar to saying violent video games encourage violence, which is already looking highly in-credible. Plus there's the reverse argument that access to such meaterial could provide an outlet for such desires - possibly as incorect as the previous argument but goes to show that the coin balances out. The other argument would be that it engourages people to go and engage in these activities to create the material but lets not forget that most porn is all acted anyway, simulated rape is just an extension of that acting, plus lets not forget that porn can be drawn and written as well. Laws that prohibit the viewing of media generated by illegal activities are sensible, laws that prohibit the viewing of media depicting illegal activities are not. The only other argument I can think of is that it's all simpy distasteful which frankly is one of the stupidest non-arguments I've ever heard. Frankly, the only concernign thing about extreme porn is the potential ability to shift attitudes and create false impressions, and that really isn't going to be helped by driving it to the black market.

    Also, on the subject of hysteria, why do we seem to get that much more (read: several hundred times) uptight about child porn than rape? Yes it causes phsycological damage and yes, the viewing of it encourages the exploitation of children, but lets not forget that you encourage the exploitation of children every time you eat a chocolate bar. No, I'm not sayng it's in any way eithically justified or that it should be legalised, but lets just get some perspective here, is child abuse that much worse than rape? I agree that it is more serious and that child porn is worse than non-simulated rape porn, but to the degree that so many people seem to think?

    I think in general we shouldn't be so concerned with what people use for sexual gratification, it's really no different from the sort of films we like to watch or the sort of music we like to listen to. Plus, lets not forget the last time we used to persecute particular sexual inclinations - to the degree we drove one of our national heroes to suicide.

    Also, the government needs to start educating itself on the internet, fast.
     
  8. Ivoryspike

    Ivoryspike Air Cooled

    Joined:
    11 Jan 2010
    Posts:
    76
    Likes Received:
    3
    I'd love to know what the pro-filter camp think about adult babies and what they get up to? Dressing up as young as you could possibly be and sometimes incorporating sexual acts. Do they deserve to be locked up? Are they pedophiles? Lets filter anything to do with that.

    It's not my cup of tea but after seeing the documentary on channel 4 I can at least emphasize that there are people out there, consenting adults, that want to play dress up with their partner or others. Should the C4 program be censored? What about the people who made the program, lock them up too?

    What about S&M, simulated domination with small doses of real pain, lets lock them up too! After all violence, 'torture' and abuse is 'detestable'.

    There are lots of things I may think 'wtf' to but I hardly think it's fair for me to impose my views on others and call for them to be persecuted. We might as well go back to a religious state and let them tell us what we can and can not do.
     
  9. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,248
    I think the only thing I can even partly agree with Cameron on is that Porn is damaging youths.

    In that, maybe, just maybe, some kids are watching enough porn that they think that's how a healthy relationship works.

    It can't be that uncommon. People believe you can walk into a store in America and buy a light machine gun and enough bullets to massacre a small country thanks to movies..
     
  10. LennyRhys

    LennyRhys Oink!

    Joined:
    16 May 2011
    Posts:
    5,961
    Likes Received:
    453
    @Gareth, yep I totally misunderstood you (apologies again) and you’ve made your position very clear.

    The proposal will certainly prove intrusive for some people, however the stark reality is that a lot of so-called “rape myth” porn is in fact borderline abuse anyway, and that’s why the proposal has my seal of approval - prohibiting that sort of material is a good thing. Like you say, it’s very difficult to implement a control measure that treats individual cases as their respective circumstances warrant, so the baby will inevitably go out with the bathwater on this one.
     
  11. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,110
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    You'd expect that parents would disabuse them of any such crazy notions, wouldn't you?

    The same people that vehemently object to children being exposed to pornography often also object to sex education in schools. Seems to me that the latter would be the best defence against the former, and that what would be best of all is if parents teach children about healthy intimacy.

    But often they don't. Instead they force their children to give relatives a hug or a kiss even if they don't want to. First rule taught: you have no personal space or boundaries. Your body is not yours to withhold from unwanted physical touch. And that is just the first lesson... The next is that sex is dirty or at least embarrassing and masturbation is sinful. Your relatives get to touch your body, but you can't. And then there is the pretty overt, in-your-face sexualisation of women everywhere. Check out the commercials, the tabloids (currently rejoicing in the fact that Chloe Moretz has just turned sixteen and it is now legal to lust over her. Well, Emma Watson is getting on a bit by now...), the glossy mags.

    It's not just about the porn.
     
  12. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,110
    Likes Received:
    1,612
    Er, who is the government to decide that? I could argue that all porn is a form of abuse (of the participants). I could similarly argue that many mutually consenting relationships between adults are so dysfunctional as to be abusive. Shall we ban those? Or shall we ban the sale of alcohol and tobacco as acts that are abusive, or at least colluding with abuse? Where do you draw the line?

    Tricky if you happen to be the baby.
     
  13. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,248
    These days, I don't hope anything about parents. Most of the parents I see are barely qualified to pick their own nose, let alone explain the difference between porn and a healthy sexual relationship..

    Really, though, even with all that the parents should be (Although most aren't/dont care/want someone else to do it) able to gauge their childs mental age and inform accordingly. Obviously no sprogs on my part, but surely as a parent you get to know what your kid is capable of understanding?

    Personally, I'm looking forward to having a kid, and imparting some knowledge about women on TV & the internet and women in real life.
     
  14. Ending Credits

    Ending Credits Bunned

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2008
    Posts:
    5,238
    Likes Received:
    210
    At least banning alcohol and tobacco would restrict access to those somewhat. It's interesting to think what would happen if you did. 1.) Alcohol becomes homebrewed in secret, becomes agnostic to age and large batches of 10-40l a time require consuming, the alcohol content of which would be entirely unpredictable. 2.) Tobacco becomes something akin the cannabis fuelling crime and ruining the lives of countless people, even responsible consmers, through criminal persecution.

    So seems like banning things doesn't always solve the problem anyway.
     
  15. miller

    miller New Member

    Joined:
    10 Jun 2013
    Posts:
    175
    Likes Received:
    20
    Forget about teaching your children all that embarrassing ( for the parents) stuff, besides, many parents are too busy teaching their children far more important things.

    [​IMG]
     
    Last edited: 23 Jul 2013
  16. KidMod-Southpaw

    KidMod-Southpaw Super Spamming Saiyan

    Joined:
    28 Sep 2010
    Posts:
    12,592
    Likes Received:
    558
  17. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Unless i have misunderstood, yes it is the government that decides on new laws and changes to existing ones.
     
  18. liratheal

    liratheal Sharing is Caring

    Joined:
    20 Nov 2005
    Posts:
    11,674
    Likes Received:
    1,248
    I love that she's wearing elbow, knee and head protection, but no safety glasses..
     
  19. Shirty

    Shirty W*nker! Super Moderator

    Joined:
    18 Apr 1982
    Posts:
    12,372
    Likes Received:
    1,614
    It's a shame that the photo crops out the rollerblades...
     
    YEHBABY likes this.
  20. LightningPete

    LightningPete Diagnosis: ARMAII-Holic

    Joined:
    2 Jul 2009
    Posts:
    307
    Likes Received:
    0
    I think you all need to re-evaluate your day jobs because your all political economical experts :)
     

Share This Page