Soldato
- Joined
- 21 Oct 2011
- Posts
- 22,545
- Location
- ST4
Just a series of empty tubes.
David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images
- Thread starter Azza
- Start date
Just a series of empty tubes.
Associate
- Joined
- 24 Sep 2012
- Posts
- 1,670
- Location
- edinburgh
I though this was an interesting comment from a user of the guardian
Permabanned
- Joined
- 28 Dec 2009
- Posts
- 13,052
- Location
- london
Very stupid and lacks any insight in to how the internet works.
a) If anyone is going to do something illegal they will just go through a proxy that does not have a censor.
b) the filter will definitely block more than porn. It won't be long before the politically controversial deemed websites end up on the list.
c) Web filtering technologies are already freely available for all platforms, even mobile phones.
d) an "opt in to the filter" option when signing up would be the more sensible option. In fact most ISPs already have voluntary web filtering services that you can use and if they all don't some at least do.
e) again the government is taking away responsibility from everyone else and putting it on the government and its authority.
f) how much of the policy comes from religious influences, Christian and especially Muslim on the government to islamicfy the country.
g) how much of it comes from the anti-piracy industry as a back door way to start filtering the internet with the eventual result a completely corporate and censored internet like TV.
h) most ISPs and host providers already quickly block child porn and websites deemed illegal. There is already a massive industry set up to go after illegal websites.
I) having a massive china firewall filter on the internet will not stop hardcore porn from being available to children.
I should add this does not even affect me even though i live in London, because i tunnel all my traffic through a remote host anyway. I try to use end to end encryption where i can.
a) If anyone is going to do something illegal they will just go through a proxy that does not have a censor.
b) the filter will definitely block more than porn. It won't be long before the politically controversial deemed websites end up on the list.
c) Web filtering technologies are already freely available for all platforms, even mobile phones.
d) an "opt in to the filter" option when signing up would be the more sensible option. In fact most ISPs already have voluntary web filtering services that you can use and if they all don't some at least do.
e) again the government is taking away responsibility from everyone else and putting it on the government and its authority.
f) how much of the policy comes from religious influences, Christian and especially Muslim on the government to islamicfy the country.
g) how much of it comes from the anti-piracy industry as a back door way to start filtering the internet with the eventual result a completely corporate and censored internet like TV.
h) most ISPs and host providers already quickly block child porn and websites deemed illegal. There is already a massive industry set up to go after illegal websites.
I) having a massive china firewall filter on the internet will not stop hardcore porn from being available to children.
I should add this does not even affect me even though i live in London, because i tunnel all my traffic through a remote host anyway. I try to use end to end encryption where i can.
Tbh, I doubt they'd bother. If you can buy a $2 per month VPN to get past torrenting, are ISPs really going to waste that kind of change?
More to the point, it is probably a wake up call to the nation's prudish wives.
Vodafone - let's name and shame.
Fair enough, I just think it's rather sad that there is such uproar about something that is a total non-issue. Seriously. It's porn. Get over it. Heck, I'd argue that it's a better solution than relying on computer-illiterate parents buying software to block porn on their browsers. Kids don't need to see some dude with a foot long schlong drilling some petite woman with 38DDs, whether accidentally or intentionally.
I'm rather confused as to why anybody has a problem with this proposal, frankly. :/
![[TW]Fox](/data/man-of-honor/2009.png){kind=avatar}
Where does it stop?
How long until it is a criminal offence to watch Saw V after the government expands it the legislation to ban 'simulated murder and torture'?
It's not so much the proposals but the floodgates they open.
I still need to reply to your email btw, I've not ignored it, honest
So be a parent then.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
I bet you the search term 'korn' gets blocked.
This is the start of a slippery slope and we will end up like China.
This is the start of a slippery slope and we will end up like China.
Associate
- Joined
- 7 Feb 2009
- Posts
- 2,128
This.
[TW]Fox;24649780 said:
Anything classified by the BBFC is OK (though oddly an excerpt from it might not be) so Saw et al will be OK.
As the proposed mechanism is even less strict and even easier to "opt in" than the mobile phone system I am not too sure if it is really opening any floodgates that aren't already wide open.
Exactly and this brings back memories of a class mate bringing a dirty mag to school with hordes of lads crowding around to take a look, nothing going on here, honest!
i am in favour of this and think porn should be banned altogether. the kind of stuff kids and even young adults are exposed is terrible. it can totally mess up the mind. i say good riddance to pornography. i think this society has gone bonkus judging by all the amateur things people post online. yuck
How do you deal with the home made porn? all the smart phones with cameras and uploaded right away... children even in single digits have these phones. I remember Christmas there seeing kids asking for iPhones and they got them. Yet these iPhones take real good photos.
If it's just a question of having a pornography filter on by default then I have no problem. I believe it'll be relatively ineffective but, whatever.
However, the majority of filters are not porn only they're "adult" content filters where "adult" includes such things as rape crisis centres, STD advice, contraceptive advice, alcohol abuse advice and even sites related to breast cancer. I think it's a real problem if we're blocking STD advice by default.
Moreover, the proposal spreads beyond switching filters on to requiring search engines to block certain search terms. Erm, what? I defy you to define a single search term that should legitimately be blocked to all users. Not only does this proposal show a staggering naivety about how the internet works (clue: kiddie-porn lovers aren't using Google!) but it shows a complete ignorance of the reality of how filters fail.
So how long until private police forces have to be contracted to deal with all these unfortunate things?
Do they really expect to continue to add on things while also taking away funding?
What a world we are creating, I hope it doesn't smash into the sun.
Do they really expect to continue to add on things while also taking away funding?
What a world we are creating, I hope it doesn't smash into the sun.
What are you? A Christian prude?