David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jul 2013 at 18:15

Cameron has outdone himself. And I didn't think that was possible tbh. His empty and pointless platitudes are just an attempt to win easy votes from a largely ignorant population. They are also an attempt to divert our attention away from the real criminals. The criminals who run our banking system will be the source of more child abuse than a thousand Jimmy Saville's could ever hope to achieve.

It gets even worse when you consider that 80% of child abuse is carried out in the home by a family member or by a close friend of the family. So, the Government want to give more power to the very people who are most likely to abuse their child. It'd be flipping hilarious if it wasn't so painfully ridiculous.

Richie · 24 Jul 2013 at 18:36

C.R.A.Z.Y said:
The criminals who run our banking system will be the source of more child abuse than a thousand Jimmy Saville's could ever hope to achieve.

Care to run me through the thought process behind this statement? :confused:

gothic_hobbit · 24 Jul 2013 at 18:59

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2375582/UK-online-porn-ban-Cameron-stand-pledge-porn.html

smelly_legend · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:06

gothic_hobbit said:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2375582/UK-online-porn-ban-Cameron-stand-pledge-porn.html

I'm actually surprised by the top rated comments on that story.

C.R.A.Z.Y · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:06

Richie said:
Care to run me through the thought process behind this statement?

Because of the socioeconomic impact on families that are already struggling, increased drug/alcohol abuse in said families, increased poverty, domestic and mental welfare issues ...etc ..etc

Helping run our country's economy into the ground has significant social consequences and sadly one of which is child welfare including child abuse be it physical or sexual!

Child maltreatment occurs in many forms and across all socio-economic groups. We know
that most parents who live in poverty do not maltreat their children and parent effectively, but research shows that children who grow up in poverty can be more vulnerable to some forms of maltreatment, particularly neglect and physical abuse

http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/research/briefings/povertypdf_wdf56896.pdf

Muffin` · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:16

Am I the only one who thinks Claire Perry's hot?

Janesy B · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:18

Aye, looking good for 49.

Mynight · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:18

yes

I cant wait for a hacker to show us camerons internet history.

With all the "research" hes been doing for the past 30 years

Fire_fly · 24 Jul 2013 at 19:24

Sometimes I really do think the Daily mail enhabits it own little world cut off completely form the rest of the World.

Hopefully though Cameron may finally be beginning to see some sense and realise that these proposals won't work and may even backfire and potentially cause more harm.

V F · 25 Jul 2013 at 01:10

Muffin` said:
Am I the only one who thinks Claire Perry's hot?

Janesy B said:
Aye, looking good for 49.

May 14 2013.

Efour · 25 Jul 2013 at 01:13

smelly_legend said:
I'm actually surprised by the top rated comments on that story.

Pleasantly refreshing...

They really need to think these hair-brain schemes through before pushing them out... I hope they back track this.

mmj_uk · 25 Jul 2013 at 01:34

It seems like a good way to censor the internet should that be the plan, I'm sure a few political websites will eventually get caught up in the censor and eventually anyone who chooses to have the porn block removed will all be stigmatised by the media as paedophiles just as all unemployed are made out to be workshy and living it large.

MonsterMoshi · 25 Jul 2013 at 01:36

My opinion on filters and why they can't work to protect anyone.

I first figured how to bypass my school Internet filter in year 6 (only actually 7 years ago) and even now, almost any child can do the same by spending half an hour watching YouTube videos on the subject
I have not yet come across a filter which works as it is supposed to. Either it can be easily bypassed by someone with a mediocre technical knowledge or it blocks things which are entirely appropriate and necessary for young people to access.
What worries me is who has control over over the blacklists. Controlling Internet access on any level is a step to far. North Korea anyone?

Now monitoring what sites I access I do not have a problem with. No government official gives a **** about my unhealthy addiction to cat videos.
I read somewhere that the government has already logged information of some 50,000 people who have visited sites containing the kind of material which Cameron and everyone else is so worried about. The government are inventing solutions which are not solving the root cause of the problem just to try and please campaigners.
Why not use these secret Prism type operations to track the people they already know about more closely and deal with them and not restrict the lives of everyone else!

On Holiday · 25 Jul 2013 at 02:20

Shamelessly stolen;

Ironic the biggest ****** in Britain wants to block porn.

Rhymes with tanker

smelly_legend · 25 Jul 2013 at 03:15

V F said:
May 14 2013.

Stockings. I bet she would make a REALLY good pornstar.

GAC · 25 Jul 2013 at 08:04

smelly_legend said:
Stockings. I bet she would make a REALLY good pornstar.

still say she's repressed and is scared of her own reflection.

RDM · 25 Jul 2013 at 08:45

mmj_uk said:
It seems like a good way to censor the internet should that be the plan,

No, it's a rubbish way to censor the internet should that be the plan. Having the ISPs offer you the option to turn on parental filters with the check box ticked is pretty easy to get around. You uncheck the tick box. As government conspiracies to censor our internet goes, it's pretty weak. Especially when the government already have the IWF list that all ISPs already use, they could just quietly add to that if they really wanted to censor the internet.

robgmun · 25 Jul 2013 at 12:01

Seems like Cameron tried this with the excuse of terrorism, didn't work, now it's child abuse and it's getting traction

smelly_legend · 25 Jul 2013 at 13:43

GAC said:
still say she's repressed and is scared of her own reflection.

That's why

Angilion · 26 Jul 2013 at 01:13

RDM said:
No, it's a rubbish way to censor the internet should that be the plan. Having the ISPs offer you the option to turn on parental filters with the check box ticked is pretty easy to get around. You uncheck the tick box. As government conspiracies to censor our internet goes, it's pretty weak. Especially when the government already have the IWF list that all ISPs already use, they could just quietly add to that if they really wanted to censor the internet.

It would be a rubbish way for a strong authoritarian state with unassailable dictatorial powers to censor the internet, because they have the power to impose censorship openly by force.

It's a good way for a government in a representative democracy to censor the internet, because they don't have that power. They have to do it in stages, setting the foundation in place first and then expanding it over time, and they have to have excuses for doing it and methods for silencing dissent. This is perfect for that purpose. You have the option to untick the box...in the plans and probably to begin with when it goes live. Since the scheme will obviously do nothing to protect children, there's an obvious opening for removing that option by blaming the failure of the scheme on people who untick the box. That is doubly useful - it increases the stigma of unticking the box and it makes it "reasonable" to restrict the option by stages until it's removed entirely, or possibly even skip straight to removing the option if public opinion can be swayed enough by propaganda and disinformation.

Doing it by deceit, e.g. fraudulently adding to the IWF list, is far riskier and far less likely to succeed permanently because it carries a constant risk of exposure of the deception.