The Govt net block goes beyond child porn…

Home Forum Chat Forum The Govt net block goes beyond child porn…

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 47 total)
  • The Govt net block goes beyond child porn…
  • Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    activistpost definitely under threat of censorship then..

    jonba
    Member

    See you seem to have fallen into the trap of many other people.

    This new government intiative has very little to do with child abuse. That is already illegal, sought out and removed. The new filters block (legal) pornography although some of it is about to be made illegal. It will do very little to stop child abuse but will stop children from viewing things they shoudn’t (because their parents aren’t looking after them properly IMO)

    It also includes a whole heap of other stuff as the article suggests. Also given the governments track record on all things I imagine that Scunthorpe and Middlesex are about to dissapear from all google searches unelss you opt out.

    sobriety
    Member

    Can I get the porn in, but keep Scunthorpe and Middlesex out?

    Premier Icon unklehomered
    Subscriber

    but will stop some children from viewing things they shoudn’t for a bit until school friends tell them how newsgroups. proxys and other stuff works

    FTFY

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    hora – Member

    Ah, that’ll be the active **** ers list then

    Hardly. People who don’t like intrusion and censorship, people who know they’ll **** it up and end up blocking legitimate sites, people who (rightly or wrongly) are nervous of the thin end of the wedge…

    A bad law is a bad law regardless of the subject but bad laws that impede on freedom of expression are double plus ungood.

    Besides, I have a lifetime supply already banked.

    rogerthecat
    Member

    As soon as it effects the ability of a few large corporates to sell online, particularly in the financial services sectors, there may be some hasty U-turns.

    That is assuming they can get it to work in the first place!

    zokes
    Member

    The headline should read: [rhymes with] Banker in porn filter shocker

    Premier Icon binners
    Subscriber

    I wouldn’t worry about any of this.

    Its a government project involving the use of IT. They’ll spend 127 billion quid, deliver it finally in 2037, whereon its discovered, as it goes live, that it inadvertently blocks Mumsnet, who are now running the country, so it is immediately scrapped!

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    The filtering will I’m sure be poor but..

    But its not censorship. Its just that by default filtering will be on. If you don’t like it turn it off. The filtering is already there and it’s not run by the government. No one is making suicide sites illegal just making sure that adults opt in.

    The child pornography is censorship and already happens. The new bit here is rather trying to block illegal sites, which happens already, they will get the search engines not to return certain searches. This is because its so hard to take down illegal sites fast enough. this seems sensible to me.

    To me the debate is over. The harm that child porn does is enough to justify the censorship of the internet.

    Jamie
    Member

    activistpost definitely under threat of censorship then..

    Too late.

    tinribz
    Member

    Its a government project involving the use of IT.

    It’s not though, it’s the ISPs that are implementing. Why are they based on just a whim when it will cost them much resource and cause such ongoing headaches. What are the cons threatening them with?

    dan1980
    Member

    The child pornography is censorship and already happens. The new bit here is rather trying to block illegal sites, which happens already, they will get the search engines not to return certain searches

    I’m sorry, but whilst child pornography is a terrible thing, this act of censorship will have no impact whatsoever.

    The majority of child porn is accessed through methods this censorship will have no impact on.

    This censorship is down to people who are to lazy to parent properly, and is a cheap attempt by the government to gain the daily mail vote.

    Premier Icon cloudnine
    Subscriber

    But there’s the dark side / underground of the internet where all the really dodgy stuff is.. (i forget what it’s called)
    What are the fascist regime government doing about that

    tinribz
    Member

    None of the arguments in favour of this really stack up. Sounds more like a means to control and extort those websites who don’t want to lose 80% of traffic, and go out of business, by being put on the naughty list.

    Big Business will have an angle on this and it’s just another on their wish list that some lobbyist has whispered in the big C’s ear as a great idea.

    Premier Icon Northwind
    Subscriber

    cloudnine – Member

    But there’s the dark side / underground of the internet where all the really dodgy stuff is.. (i forget what it’s called)

    Facebook

    duffmiver
    Member

    cloudnine – Member

    But there’s the dark side / underground of the internet where all the really dodgy stuff is.. (i forget what it’s called)

    dark net?

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    after 5 years of trying in Oz they went to blocking the Interpol Blacklist instead.
    There is no way you can block access to every pair of knockers on the internet without millions of false positves
    Amputee Porn (sick people)

    IanW
    Member

    Isn’t this linked to the more recent story on cybercrime? Suspect its actually the banks lobbying government to do something about credit card fraud.

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/30/britain-losing-war-against-internet-crime

    Why should the banks pay to fix it when they can just get the tax payer to do it and control the web at the same time, win, win.

    Premier Icon mikewsmith
    Subscriber

    and while we are here
    [video]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RcU7FaEEzNU[/video]
    wathc & reflect

    Premier Icon portlyone
    Subscriber

    It even extends to blocking “web forums”

    How will I know if it’s illegal to kill my neighbour’s noisy rabbit?

    TuckerUK
    Member

    The harm that child porn does is enough to justify the censorship of the internet.

    Creation of, possibly (depends on content obviously). Access to, which study proves it does harm? Not that long ago people said similar of any porn, in fact some still do.

    Junkyard
    Member

    Creation of, possibly (depends on content obviously).

    POSSIBLY WTF 😯
    Making child porn with children may possibly harm …words fail me

    You are aware that the harm is done to the the child who is getting abused …you know the victim who then has the abuse on the internet for others to watch

    I dont know what is worse that you would troll about this or that you may actually believe it

    Premier Icon DezB
    Subscriber

    cloudnine – Member
    But there’s the dark side / underground of the internet where all the really dodgy stuff is.. (i forget what it’s called)

    Newsgroups. Where it all started.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    The new bit here is rather trying to block illegal sites, which happens already, they will get the search engines not to return certain searches. This is because its so hard to take down illegal sites fast enough. this seems sensible to me.

    To me the debate is over. The harm that child porn does is enough to justify the censorship of the internet.

    Two things here.

    1) the main search engines already filter out child “porn” in searches.

    2) the vast majority of material isn’t exchanged by using mainstream search engines, it’s on private servers and p2p networks.

    Censorship of the Internet is nothing to do with child porn. Nothing. It’s a disingenuous headline grabber intended to make people, well, reach exactly the conclusion that you just have.

    mogrim
    Member

    POSSIBLY WTF
    Making child porn with children may possibly harm …words fail me

    You don’t need children to make child porn, you could use 3D computer models for example.

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    Access to, which study proves it does harm?

    It’d be interesting to find out whether people are more or less likely to offend if they’ve got free access to their illegal grot of choice instead. I don’t really know how the mind of your average nonce works, but perhaps if they had access to their ‘porn’ then it’d scratch an itch that would otherwise drive them to abuse someone in person. Or maybe it’d just encourage them, who knows.

    But either way, it’s irrelevant in terms of legislation. The issue isn’t that it harms the watcher, it’s one of supply and demand. The more people that want it, the more it’ll be created and thus the more cases of abuse there’ll be. Theoretically, anyway; abusers will probably still be abusers regardless.

    Premier Icon robh
    Subscriber

    Depends on definition as well, what if I filmed my kids running round in my private back garden in the nack. Somehow that gets posted on the internet is that pron? If so no-one is harmed in the making of it.

    mogrim
    Member

    But its not censorship. Its just that by default filtering will be on. If you don’t like it turn it off. The filtering is already there and it’s not run by the government. No one is making suicide sites illegal just making sure that adults opt in.

    So who’s deciding whether a site is included or not? What happens when your completely legitimate site is included by accident? What happens if a future government decides to extend the list of categories – perhaps include sex education or homosexuality?

    I have no objection to ISPs offering filtering services, but they should be opt-in, not opt-out, and they are still a very poor alternative to actually educating your kids.

    Trimix
    Member

    Ankles are pron in some middle east countrys.

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    Cougar I’m utterly baffled by what you said

    have you just said that removing child porn has nothing to do with removing child porn

    Premier Icon ampthill
    Subscriber

    So who’s deciding whether a site is included or not? What happens when your completely legitimate site is included by accident? What happens if a future government decides to extend the list of categories – perhaps include sex education or homosexuality?

    I have no objection to ISPs offering filtering services, but they should be opt-in, not opt-out, and they are still a very poor alternative to actually educating your kids.

    Its decided by your service provider just like now. If you don’t like it turn it off. Surely opt in or opt out isn’t a very big deal either way?

    My experiencing of filtering is that yes loads of sites will be included and that shouldn’t be. Solution turn it off

    Premier Icon Cougar
    Subscriber

    have you just said that removing child porn has nothing to do with removing child porn

    I suppose. They’re saying this measure is to reduce the availability of child ‘porn’ on the web, but the fact of the matter is that it won’t make a fig of difference to the availability of such material and stands a very good chance of accidentally restricting legitimate material instead (as discussed at length on a previous thread here).

    There’s also the small matter of, if you have a filtering system, by definition you also have a monitoring system. Reckon Daveywaveyraveygravy won’t want access to that too?

    Junkyard
    Member

    You don’t need children to make child porn, you could use 3D computer models for example.

    Fair point never thought of cartoon child porn but still WTF to that as well

    I would imagine that this accounts for a fraction of a % point of all child porn and is as far from typical and “victimless” child pron is somewhat rare./ largely theoretical

    emma82
    Member

    Child sex abuse and the sharing of images of child sex abuse (its not porn is it – ‘porn’ tends to indicate a willingness to participate) was happening long before the Internet came about. Sticking some crappy filters blocking porn sites unless you opt in isn’t going to reduce the number of cases of child sex abuse, sex abuse circles are very sophisticated and a lot of them pretty well structured, they know what they are after and where to get it through whatever means they have available. Similarly stopping adults or children accessing porn won’t stop child sex abuse, people who abuse children generally don’t do it because of a porn addiction and you couldn’t generalise that children exposed to porn at a you g age will grow up to abuse. They might have some warped ideas about what sex really is but their overall life experiences will make them abusers, not accidentally accessing porn on the net a few times as youngsters.

    Throwing a load of filters at something like the Internet is pointless. Awareness raising and improved support channels for victims would be a much more productive approach.

    As an aside, I just tried to search for ‘porn filter articles’ on yahoo search and it told me I was a sex pest and could get stuffed. Well, it told me I was searching for ‘sensitive’ material and so it had been blocked. Meh.

    TuckerUK
    Member

    Making child porn with children may possibly harm …words fail me

    You are aware that the harm is done to the the child who is getting abused …you know the victim who then has the abuse on the internet for others to watch

    I dont know what is worse that you would troll about this or that you may actually believe it

    Sir Elton John owns an arty photograph that closed a gallery when displayed because it was deemed ‘child pornography’. However, the Police have now said that is isn’t, though it might be if in the possession of others, which is why it’s very difficult to actually find out what the photo was (but try hard enough and you can).

    Now, the photo is merely of a young girl crouching down who is naked. Nothing pornographic in the slightest, no worse than the peeing boy statue even.

    The candid unposed photo was taken by the girl’s mother, a famous artist.

    What harm was done to the child? What abuse?

    If someone draws a cartoon where a minor character (even if that character isn’t human) is involved in sexual conduct, that is ‘child pornography’. Was the cartoon character, who doesn’t even exist, harmed? Abused?

    Perhaps now do you understand my insistence that is depends entirely upon content? Or perhaps you think this isn’t true?

    Don’t call people trolls just because you don’t understand something, ask for clarification instead.

    TuckerUK
    Member

    Fair point never thought of cartoon child porn but still WTF to that as well

    So you’ll be offering me a full apology then?

Viewing 40 posts - 1 through 40 (of 47 total)

The topic ‘The Govt net block goes beyond child porn…’ is closed to new replies.