All internet porn will be blocked to protect children under UK Government plan

145791015

Comments

  • Jane Doh!Jane Doh! Posts: 43,307
    Forum Member
    marjangles wrote: »
    Why should i have to? I am a grown adult paying for internet service, I don't have kids, why should I have to do anything to gain the full service that I am bloody well entitled to? There is nothing illegal about pornography provided I am over 18 so how dare anyone attempt to limit my legal activites becasue parents are too lazy to watch their kids.

    Nobody is limiting your activities. You can still get the same access.
  • Jane Doh!Jane Doh! Posts: 43,307
    Forum Member
    marjangles wrote: »
    I don't care how impractical it is. If you don't want your children to access anything on the internet that you are not comfortable with then don't let them use the internet without you present. Simple.

    That's not always possible.
  • AzagothAzagoth Posts: 10,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    LostFool wrote: »
    Actually, if you make the effort to look at the details of this proposal it's as bad as the scaremongers make out.

    It's not the the government is proposing that *all* porn is blocked, it's that some sites will be blocked unless the bill payer opts in. This already happens on mobile phones where you have to go through an age verification process to access certain content.

    If you don't have children or live alone then just opt in.

    Any responsible parent will be monitoring their offspring's use of the internet but this may help the children of the ****less (though I suppose the really ****less will just opt in to keep their kids quiet)

    In doing so you give the government yet another piece of information about your life to file away on a list somewhere, and we all know they have a tendency to turn up on a park bench for the tabloid media to find.

    Me, I don't care if someone knows I occasionally knock one out to a bit Russian teenage porn or that the Mrs and I sometimes like to fool about whilst we stream HD porn to the TV, but others may not like the fact that something they do in private is out in public. That could quite easily lead to blackmail or worse.
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    If you stop it in one persons house - you'll have to stop it everywhere - for everyone.

    Otherwise they'll be downloading stuff from sites using an unrestricted connection then burning it on to DVD or putting it on USB sticks and passing it around school.

    What about those WiFi connections that aren't secured? If you secure it at the ISP who is to say they won't find an unrestricted WiFi connection and get it that way?

    I'm afraid parents need to talk to their kids. Take some time to implement filtering on their PC -- apparently only 15% do this at the moment because either they say they don't have time, or don't understand how to do it. So make the time and find a package which is easier to use as a first step.

    But again ... are you going to kick your 14 year old off DS, in case something you don't approve of is discussed?
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    marjangles wrote: »
    You feel it is the responsibility of the government to raise children? Fast food is bad for children, is it the government's job to ban sales of fast food or is it the job of the parents to ensure that their children eat healthily?

    You mentioned cigarettes and alcohol before. An adult over age 18 can buy both of these items and keep them in their homes and it is then up to them to ensure that their children do not have access to or use these items.

    As far as I'm concered, the same applies to the internet. There is bad stuff on there but it is the responsibility of the person who purcahses the service from the ISP to monitor their child's use of it, not the government. Someone under the age of 18, and certainly 16, are incredibly unlikely to be able to pay for internet access.

    Parents being too lazy (because ultimately that is what this is) to monitor their children online is not a good enough excuse for everyone else's internet access to be affected.

    Parents being too lazy because both have to work to pay the bills and the young children cannot access the computer to do their homework because said parents have to monitor what their child could possibly access over the internet at the click of a button.

    Alcohol and cigarettes have to be brought by an adult these are legal drugs that do harm to the body. What happens after they are bought is the adults responsibility but that is out of the hands of the shopkeeper and government because they have placed their restrictions.

    The internet and a computer should not be potentially harmful to a child and internet porn should not be available unless proof of age can be established. If it is not available then the government has placed their restrictions. After that if the parents allow children to see it whilst letting them drink whiskey and smoke **** then that is their responsibility.
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    Jane Doh! wrote: »
    Nobody is limiting your activities. You can still get the same access.

    Yes they are, I am being told that unless I go out of my way to opt in then I am not entitled to the full service. This is not a case of granting rights that aren't already there, my rights are being limited unless I go out of my way. I am having a restriction imposed upon me and that is not right.

    It is not up to me to make sure that kids don't have access to porn. It is simply lazy parents who can't be bothered to look after their kids properly and so everyone else has to be responsible because they can't or won't be.
  • SpacedoneSpacedone Posts: 2,546
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    lemoncurd wrote: »
    Aww, I like internet pr0n. Whither shall I get my cheap thrills now? :(

    Hedges.
  • spiney2spiney2 Posts: 27,058
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    Totally unacceptable.

    This means you have to "opt in", and any access to material considered "porn" will be recorded and stored (which happens anyway, but unofficially!).

    What's condsidered "porn"? Frank Harris? Henry Miller? Sexually explicit images of people "just turned" 18 (but might look younger)? Anime cartoons?
  • You_moYou_mo Posts: 11,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    It does sound a bit pointless. If you don't monitor your kids and leave it to the government to protect them they're going to see it anyway through other means. The only way is to personally look at what they're doing and what they're watching.

    The only reason I can see for investing in technology like this is for censoring ANY information that you don't want the general public having access too. But people of course will sleep walk into that situation under the guise of 'protecting children'. :(
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    jules1000 wrote: »
    Parents being too lazy because both have to work to pay the bills and the young children cannot access the computer to do their homework because said parents have to monitor what their child could possibly access over the internet at the click of a button.

    Alcohol and cigarettes have to be brought by an adult these are legal drugs that do harm to the body. What happens after they are bought is the adults responsibility but that is out of the hands of the shopkeeper and government because they have placed their restrictions.

    The internet and a computer should not be potentially harmful to a child and internet porn should not be available unless proof of age can be established. If it is not available then the government has placed their restrictions. After that if the parents allow children to see it whilst letting them drink whiskey and smoke **** then that is their responsibility.

    Of course parents have to work to pay the bills but if they have kids they also have work to do when they get home with those kids. They shouldn't be using the internet as a babysitter and there is nothing wrong with saying that the kids cannot use the internet unless one or both parents are present. Put the computer in the family room with the screen facing out, as others have said, and there's no problem.

    And just as adults buy the booze and ****, the adult buys the internet service. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the adult to make sure that the items that they have bought are used correctly. Or maybe government should be popping round to check that, once you've bought **** or booze, you are not then giving them to your kids.

    You cannot simply buy a computer or the internet unless you have the money to do so, it is in effect its own inbuilt age limit. TVs, DVD players etc etc all have the potential to damage kids, it is the responsibility of the parents to monitor the use of those items so that their potential to create harm is limited or removed.
  • vanzandtfanvanzandtfan Posts: 8,897
    Forum Member
    Azagoth wrote: »
    In doing so you give the government yet another piece of information about your life to file away on a list somewhere, and we all know they have a tendency to turn up on a park bench for the tabloid media to find.

    Me, I don't care if someone knows I occasionally knock one out to a bit Russian teenage porn or that the Mrs and I sometimes like to fool about whilst we stream HD porn to the TV, but others may not like the fact that something they do in private is out in public. That could quite easily lead to blackmail or worse.

    Nobody is proposing that your internet activity is monitored
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    marjangles wrote: »
    Of course parents have to work to pay the bills but if they have kids they also have work to do when they get home with those kids. They shouldn't be using the internet as a babysitter and there is nothing wrong with saying that the kids cannot use the internet unless one or both parents are present. Put the computer in the family room with the screen facing out, as others have said, and there's no problem.

    And just as adults buy the booze and ****, the adult buys the internet service. Therefore, it is the responsibility of the adult to make sure that the items that they have bought are used correctly. Or maybe government should be popping round to check that, once you've bought **** or booze, you are not then giving them to your kids.

    You cannot simply buy a computer or the internet unless you have the money to do so, it is in effect its own inbuilt age limit. TVs, DVD players etc etc all have the potential to damage kids, it is the responsibility of the parents to monitor the use of those items so that their potential to create harm is limited or removed.

    So basically you are saying that the internet service should automatically be for adults 18 years and over.
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    Jane Doh! wrote: »
    That's not always possible.

    Of course it is, yet again it's simply people who can't be bothered and who want to use technology to babysit their kids who maon about how impossible it would be. Rubbish, it might take a little effort but they're your kids, make the effort.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 15,411
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jules1000 wrote: »
    So basically you are saying that the internet service should automatically be for adults 18 years and over.

    No they are basically saying look after your own kids.
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    jules1000 wrote: »
    So basically you are saying that the internet service should automatically be for adults 18 years and over.

    Did i say anything even remotely reaching that? I believe what I said is that parents are responsible for purchasing TVs, laptops, the internet, cigarettes etcetc and it is therefore up to the parents to regulate the use of those items in a way which they are comfortable with.
  • vanzandtfanvanzandtfan Posts: 8,897
    Forum Member
    marjangles wrote: »
    Of course it is, yet again it's simply people who can't be bothered and who want to use technology to babysit their kids who maon about how impossible it would be. Rubbish, it might take a little effort but they're your kids, make the effort.

    LOL, you're the one who's moaning about the great ordeal of having to go to a website and select "yes, give me the porn".
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    No they are basically saying look after your own kids.

    Exactly, look after your own kids and don't expect everyone else to.
  • Gingerbread'Gingerbread' Posts: 192
    Forum Member
    I can't see how this will ever work. I mean seriously how do they block it?
  • marjanglesmarjangles Posts: 9,619
    Forum Member
    LOL, you're the one who's moaning about the great ordeal of having to go to a website and select "yes, give me the porn".

    I don't have kids, it's not up to me to make any effort in order so that parents can shirk their responsibilities and pass the buck to the government.
  • jules1000jules1000 Posts: 10,709
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    No they are basically saying look after your own kids.

    No they are not they are stating that the internet should have porn readily available at the click of a button without any restrictions on who views it, because if a parent has to be sat by a child who is on the computer because of what is readily available to anyone it is basically an adult service.
  • LostFoolLostFool Posts: 90,623
    Forum Member
    ✭✭✭
    I can't see how this will ever work. I mean seriously how do they block it?

    There are lots of ways to do it. First you could have a list of URLs to block (e.g. pornxxx.com), you can do an analysis of the text and even do some image analysis. All of these technologies already exist for you to run on your own computer, this is just talking about extending it to the ISP.
  • You_moYou_mo Posts: 11,334
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    I can't see how this will ever work. I mean seriously how do they block it?

    Maybe China or the Middle East will give some tips? Those countries are good at monitoring and blocking access to sites. :(
  • AzagothAzagoth Posts: 10,169
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    Nobody is proposing that your internet activity is monitored

    I know that, but there will be a list of those who opted in. Want your Daughter to go to that nice private school? Sorry, your name is on a list saying you have a child in the house and that you watch porn.
  • jswift909jswift909 Posts: 11,360
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    marjangles wrote: »
    ........

    nothing wrong with saying that the kids cannot use the internet unless one or both parents are present. Put the computer in the family room with the screen facing out, as others have said, and there's no problem.

    ........

    Oh gawd. Can you imagine.

    Mum: what are you up to on the computer Johnny?
    Johnny: just trolling mum.
    Mum: you're not accessing porn are you?
    Johnny: no mum, I'm on DS. I'm just trolling *exhasperated*
    Mum: that's ok darling, I'm just asking.
    Johnny: I love you too mum.

    *mum thinks for a moment*

    Mum: what's trolling?
    Johnny: it's just chatting about stuff mum, nothing to worry about. *grins*
    Mum: okayyyyy.
  • [Deleted User][Deleted User] Posts: 15,411
    Forum Member
    ✭✭
    jules1000 wrote: »
    No they are not they are stating that the internet should have porn readily available at the click of a button without any restrictions on who views it, because if a parent has to be sat by a child who is on the computer because of what is readily available to anyone it is basically an adult service.


    I would have thought that a responsible parent would already have one of the many parental control systems which have been available for years.
Sign In or Register to comment.