Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

reply to post by penninja

It's not Science nor reality to base opinions upon a victim focus. I'd challenge anyone to find a consumption of human behavior that doesn't have victims and if you work with the victims and see only that pov everything is evil by that standard.

Occams razor: they will probably introduce a porn-tax later on.

Originally posted by PhoenixOD
Wow this present government has really gone power mad. In Amsterdam they have had legal porn for many years and they have a very low sex crime rate. Blocking porn should be a decision made by us not forced on us!

I think this country needs to grow up do some real parenting and stop letting Cameron bully us around.

edit on 22-7-2013 by PhoenixOD because: (no reason given)

This

claps and uses the phrase in nutshell loudly.

the more they ban the more interest is grown, keeping things in the open allows open discussion rather than behind the bins chat.

reply to post by Thundersmurf


No, I'm sorry but your are wrong on both counts...I've spoken open and honestly to my children about just about everything you can think of.

2nd....if you read my other posts on this thread you would have read that I didn't have internet in my home whatsoever when my kids were growing up... for many reasons, but therefore it was never an issue in my home.

The one thing I do find odd about this thread is that the MSM article I read regarding the issue is stating the object is to block CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, so to say the least I'm a little confused
news.msn.com...

Originally posted by shell69
reply to post by Thundersmurf

 

No, I'm sorry but your are wrong on both counts...I've spoken open and honestly to my children about just about everything you can think of.

2nd....if you read my other posts on this thread you would have read that I didn't have internet in my home whatsoever when my kids were growing up... for many reasons, but therefore it was never an issue in my home.

The one thing I do find odd about this thread is that the MSM article I read regarding the issue is stating the object is to block CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, so to say the least I'm a little confused

news.msn.com...

After all this ... It is a no brainer !??

Child porn is - as far as I'm concerned - is not open to discussion. Just work hard to kill it !

Are the goalposts moving? ( they put it out there looking to see how far they may be able to take it; For now.)

As some wiser folk than I have posted in this thread ... " Give them this power and we will live to regret it."

This is quite Orwellian.

Cameron demands action to block child pornography


What sort of backflip is this?

After reading and pondering about this iv found
that most ppl here have no clue what its about...

Its about fighting CP, Goreporn, violence and the sort...
Not regular porn...

But i have serious doubts about the possibility
to make it work...

3 steps:

1: Download tor and install...VERRY EASY
2: Start tor... Point and click...VERRY EASY
3: Find hidden wiki...No brainer at all

all set for all the above...

And THAT is what they need to fight...

WAY to simple...

reply to post by Miccey


Sure, let's forbid Tor and deny surpressed people the right to communicate with other parts of the world freely

The reason this is a terrible idea as i gives people unwilling to learn technology an oppertunity to allow technology to be to blame for there current short commings....

it in no way (as has been mentioned on page two) increases Rape etc. as it was pointed out in page 1 holland has a cery relaxed model for porn etc. with an increadibly low sex crime rate...

if you cant stop your child right now from accessing porn, your child will always be able to access porn, this isnt like just blacklisting a site that registers its self as porn, there are alot of ways and loopholes round this, and will this extend to network providers of mobile phones?

will you then need to enforce network security across your entire street so you child could not use a wireless device to connect to another porn enabled internet connection anywhere?

what about a black market at schools being created as people who do have access to porn can sell it digitally to those who do not??

it is simple, i have been exposed to the internet since essentiallty as early as you can be (as a child) my father owned a nation wide IT company, i had full access to the internet forever, i watched it grow with me, im pretty certain i was in my early teens when i seen porn or at least new of its exsistence, i have a family and a good job.... so i can be used as a base level on a scientific study to say it does not corrupt...



Here is the question... do you not think conspiracy sites corrupt? many people here are making the effort to disprove God, to bad mouth government policy, to search for truth at times that might overstep what would be seen as lawful.... people on here suggest uprisings, people on here pick apart government "policy" that is created to keep the populace "safe".... once you give in to children not being allowed access to stuff as its "unsafe" where does that line get drawn? are conspricay sites next?

Originally posted by shell69
reply to post by Thundersmurf

 

No, I'm sorry but your are wrong on both counts...I've spoken open and honestly to my children about just about everything you can think of.

2nd....if you read my other posts on this thread you would have read that I didn't have internet in my home whatsoever when my kids were growing up... for many reasons, but therefore it was never an issue in my home.

The one thing I do find odd about this thread is that the MSM article I read regarding the issue is stating the object is to block CHILD PORNOGRAPHY, so to say the least I'm a little confused

news.msn.com...

They can claim its to block whatever they will get the rise out of the general populace, anyone who is involed in IT and the internet will be aware that the blocks in place here wont effect child pornography rings, wont effect darknet, wont make any difference to those using proxys etc, they wont be blocked because they cant (in most cases) be traced that easily, its how they get away with it currently and as such is how they will get away with it after they start taking away your ability to search for things online!!

In the BBC story about the proposed changes to internet access to porn and the proposed change in legislation on the depiction of rape there is an NGO (Non governmental Organization) mentioned. It is the End Violence Against Women Coalition. They expressed "delight" at the changes to the law regarding depiction of rape.

On the other hand, the internet service providers involved in this situation constitute another set of "stakeholders", corporations, who in this case are expected to play an obstructive role in implementing the changes desired by Mr. Cameron and the NGO.

www.bbc.co.uk...

He (Prime Minister Cameron) told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.

A third stakeholder, an NGO, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, commented, rather sensibly, that

. . .it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.

He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."

This NGO is actually going to be given more power by the government to surveil the online activities of others.

Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks

The story contains no mention of a referendum on the proposed changes and no mention of an election in which citizens might voice their opinion on these changes. Citizens in general are not part of this discussion. "Stakeholders" only are taking part in this.

This is classic fascism, government by "stakeholders".

In fascism, citizens are expected to subordinate their personal interests to those of the State and the "stakeholders" that govern the State.

A good citizen is seen (and pays taxes) and not heard.

In these times of prevailing fascism, NGOs are often seen by citizens as "the good guys", providing a countervailing influence against the pressures exerted by large corporations, but even when this is true, NGOs are still a hallmark of fascism. They represent a failure of democracy, an inability of the electorate to make its influence felt in government, usually because the government does not want to be bothered with the electorate's opinions on any subject. Often, sad to say, the government is actually being paid by "stakeholders" to ignore the electorate.

The practice of fascist governments is to eliminate interference from the electorate in the business of governing the State.

Another interesting thing to note is the absence of any reference to parents of young children who elect not to use the "filters" to be provided by internet service providers. How about it Mr. Cameron? Will those households be subject to surveillance by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre? Will the children of those households be checked periodically for evidence of "corroded childhoods"?

look at me, i watched porn for many years throughout high school and heck, i turned out ok. i can't watch porn anymore. isn't entertaining anymore as it was before.
im not a sick twisted minded kid tho.

here we go again calling up the government for help in exchange for our liberty.
you parents need to stop being so vociferous and ignorant, learn parental control blocking. sheeesh.

Well, I suppose if your citizens are such immoral and uncontrollable little babies and children that they cannot refrain from viewing pornography in a form or at times it isn't appropriate? The State must step in and regulate the baby's lives for them. Waaaaaaaaaaa....gimmie more Government!

...Now who among the British are NOT children and resent having Big Brother dictate to them what they can and cannot even physically access, while hoping the Government censors are, of course, 100% accurate and sincere in their motives for censorship? I'd expect a lot of annoyed people as I've known England to be a nation of men, not babies. The P.M. suggests something quite different, I think. Boo on him and his Nanny state B.S..

Originally posted by EarthCitizen07
reply to post by ThaEnigma

 

I personally don't have a problem with this legislation unless they plan to charge extra money. I think people are making a bigger deal about this than actually exists. Technically the parents should have been tasked with controlling the information flow, which like I said before is free if you use windows, but if it actually makes a positive difference sure why not.

Agree, if they completely take away your freedom to choose what your exposed to, then damn them.. However, if this is about limiting children's access to unsavoury and immoral images that erode young minds, I'm all for having that choice..
I think the key point in this debate is that there are "types" of pornography they have marked for censorship, not all pornography will come under scrutiny..

It's most definitely not the governments place to make the decision to block by default our access to porn !

It should be our own choice as consenting adults to view adult material and should request this ourselves from our service provider

Next we will have the government blocking access to sites which give useful information on drugs and any other taboo subject because we are deemed too stupid to make the decision for ourselves !

cameron is a farce of a PM has no idea of the current state of the UK or the voting public and how they live
but still feels that they can make these decisions and push through the necessary legislation or act and then deal with the public afterwards !

vote grabbing maybe , but its all just diversion tactics away from all the # that goes down on the daily at westminster !

anyone forgetting the 11% pay rise which was voted in ?

yeh thanks for that you # !

Originally posted by LABTECH767
reply to post by Rocker2013

 

Very angry answer to my post,

Possibly, but I always get angry when I see my government using the emotive responses of the people to defy all logic and reason, especially when they are on some kind of moral crusade with more than a hint of religious dictatorship.

I also happen to work in the adult industries as a creative service provider, so my livelihood is at stake here too. The adult industry has already been attacked by piracy, limiting profits and lowering costs and pay across the board. Google and others have done almost nothing to prevent the free sharing of pirated content, and this has seriously damaged studios around the world.

That should be one of the first things to be done - kids are not paying for site memberships, they're sharing stolen content and watching it on tube sites. If existing law was upheld and used, and piracy diminished, those kids seeing this stuff would have a much harder time accessing it.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
in British law we have the concept of duty of care,

I'm well aware of duty of care, having worked in the security business for over ten years also. Duty of care does not apply to this instance. Media and access to it cannot be blamed for some ethereal moralistic imagining of "damage" to youngsters. If this were the case, parents up and down the country should be being prosecuted for allowing their kids unfettered access to the internet.

If duty of care is a facet of this, then smoking should be criminal, the sale of alcohol should be banned, violent videos games and movies should all be destroyed and banned from the UK... where do you draw the line and say it's the PARENTS JOB to police their own children?

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Adult material should be policed more effectively though I am sure you will agree that shutting this out is like trying to kill a cockroach with a feather, it will always be there still if it in any way protects children then I am in principle for it so we will have to wait and see what is implemented if anything.

Adult material is already policed effectively, PARENTS ARE NOT.
There are thousands of tools parents can use to prevent their kids from accessing this content on the net, if they refuse to actually do their job and take responsibility, that's their problem.

Just as there are laws to prevent kids from drinking, it comes down to the responsibility of the parent to ensure their child is not involved in breaking those laws.

A reasonable and intelligent government does not force restrictions on the entire population just because some kids have crappy parents who don't care if they're drinking cider in the park.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Sadly the paedophiles have one thing that sets them apart from normal morally driven human beings and that is a lack of empathy also they find a child attractive which to my mind and emotions is offensive and alien, maybe we should treat them as mentally ill but personally I just want them out of society entirely.

This is the problem here - adult material on the net does not immediately equate to abuse, and that is what Camoron and his team of right-wing nutters is trying to assert.

After several years of working in the adult business on the net I have never stumbled across what they are claiming is such a massive issue, never, not once. It's just simply not out there for people to accidentally stumble onto.

This is an attack on an entire industry, not an attack on people who are already criminals, and people who could be tracked, arrested and locked up without these draconian measures.

Originally posted by LABTECH767
Sorry to rattle your cage but lets keep this on the subject,. Personally though I believe it to be an unworkable approach in the short term.

It's not just unworkable, it's criminalizing millions of innocent people, and damaging a global business, with a religiously led crusade behind it. It also reeks of mission creep, and we know for a fact that this will be taken to ridiculous degrees.

The government always abuses the powers it has - ALWAYS. This is a far bigger problem than people are willing to face. This will lead to mass censorship of the internet to silence political opinion and dissent, we know for a fact that they have been trying to do this for five years now, and this is just another attempt in many to get their jack-booted foot in the door, ready to shut down bloggers, citizen journalists and political opposition, under the banner of "protecting the public" from the truth.

reply to post by ThaEnigma


pornography as art ? where do we draw the line ?

it should never be their choice to block it by default and no one should be ok with this.
We are all adults and can make those decisions for ourselves and shouldn't have to rely on the government to change our ISP settings and content blocking !

Youtube could do a better job of it in 5 minutes you can find a tutorial that teaches you how to block sites
rather than the government spending who knows how much money to implement this !

absolute waste of tax payers money to start this up and get it all sorted with the ISP's

Originally posted by Swizzy
I mean COME on.

There has been software available to filter the internet for parents for WELL over a decade. I remember my School network had such a filter. It was rather crude back then and blocked a whole lot of other things too but it worked. The ones available today are much more sophisticated.

There is no need for this. If parents buy a computer and an Internet connection they should educated themselves on the subject instead of expecting the Government to do it all for them.

This is just another example of parents delegating their DUTY to the government but most people are too shortsighted to see that.

I completely agree. Some of you parents would be absolutely shocked to hear of what some of your kids get up to on the internet. And these days it seems the younger they are, the worse they get. You may want to consider this before taking the "my kid is an angel and the victim" moral highroad.
School kids were given a laptop but had filters on it and you couldn't even use Facebook on it. Now if kids want to go and find a way to unblock those filters, then are they really the victim that Mummy and Daddy think they are ?
And if we didn't have such a corrupt legal system in favour of pedophile rings, then maybe we wouldn't have a reason to filter the net in the first place. If we put half the amount of focus into this corrupt system, then most of the scum pedo's would be locked up. But that's the thing with pedophile rings, they are usually controlled from the top down, and those arrested at the bottom often escape conviction because they know who's involved at the top. And you can be assured that some at the top also work in the legal system in positions where crucial decisions can be made.
And the "porn makes kids twisted" argument makes about as much sense as saying heavy metal music makes you want to worship the devil and drink blood !
Parent's, just do your job as a parent, and stop falling for this age old trick of them using your worst fears for your child against you and your child to bring in more and more laws [control].

Originally posted by sapien82
reply to post by ThaEnigma

 

absolute waste of tax payers money to start this up and get it all sorted with the ISP's

That shows you that this is not about what they are claiming it's about.

No government would be spending so much time and so much money on something like this unless there was something in it for them.

The only reason they have taken on this minor issue (pun intended) and blown it out of all proportion is because they are DESPERATE to have some control over the internet. This will allow them to set a precedent, once this is done, they can then claim that any site can be blocked, shut down, and the owners arrested for anything they deem to be "morally objectionable" or in the "best interests of the nation".

Originally posted by Rocker2013
Adult material is already policed effectively, PARENTS ARE NOT.

This is absolutely true.

In Canada there is a responsibility gap through which a great deal of mischief is enabled.

Parents are not held legally responsible for the criminal conduct of underage children.

There is no law against "latch key" or absentee parenting, due to work schedules, etc. Parents may simply refuse to accept responsibility for their children, except under circumstances mandated by law and that is exactly what large numbers of them do. It is very difficult, granted, to address that behavior.

It is the height of hypocrisy and cowardice to penalize an entire society to avoid holding parents accountable for the conduct of their children and for their own conduct in bringing children up. I know these issues are not simple, but Cameron is not approaching this situation in a reasonable way, in my opinion.