Just out of interest, which children are they going to be protecting by messing about with my internet?
As far as I can work out the last child who was in my house was my brother and he's well into his thirties now.
Politicians and "campaigners" have been doing it forever. Claim you're doing something to "protect the children" and you'll get as near to a free ride as you'll need because, let's face it, if you object then why are you in favour of causing harm to children ?
It's scaremongering and, sadly, far too many people fall for it.
If someone sat down and gave Cameron an idiot's guide to Tor, he'd try and ban that as well.
I was always getting e-mails from them about activating my shield, when i transferred over from O2, so i told em i wasn't interested in it, and not to bother reminding me about it again, as i don't need to restrict my access being over 40, but now, im going to have to activate it, to lift my restriction of only being able to view websites that are only suitable for 13s and under lol.
Because I'd prefer to live in a country where parents supervised what their kids view online and implement their own way of deciding what their kids should read.
I don't want to live in a country where the default choice is of a nanny state implementing policies to make ISPs decide what legal online content I should be allowed to view by default and then having me enact to opt-out just because some people are shouting "Won't somebody please think of the children!". Nor should I be labelled a "pervert" for opting-out either. Also, not keen on there being a database anywhere of everyone who opts-out that could be hacked, leaked and used as a "perverts database".
How about parents do some parenting and I be allowed to conduct legal online business without intrusion or inconvenience?
What about the nanny state policies that restrict the supply of goods and services to childern, from porn to gambling to alcohol and cigarettes to cerification of films, tv shows, and video games, to the 9pm watershed on TV, to adults only sex shops, bookmakers, etc;
Having internet service providers have an opt out system is merely bringing the online world into line with the high street and suppliers of physical goods and services.
As for perverts database that is ridiculous, in the real world it would be like claiming you are afraid to rent or buy anything rated above PG, going to the cinema and seeing anything over PG rated, to borrow or buy any book aimed at adults, buy alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, go into a bookmaker, etc; Because you would be doing something children are not permitted to do.
What about the nanny state policies that restrict the supply of goods and services to childern, from porn to gambling to alcohol and cigarettes to cerification of films, tv shows, and video games, to the 9pm watershed on TV, to adults only sex shops, bookmakers, etc;
Having internet service providers have an opt out system is merely bringing the online world into line with the high street and suppliers of physical goods and services.
As for perverts database that is ridiculous, in the real world it would be like claiming you are afraid to rent or buy anything rated above PG, going to the cinema and seeing anything over PG rated, to borrow or buy any book aimed at adults, buy alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, go into a bookmaker, etc; Because you would be doing something children are not permitted to do.
Kids are already protected from Internet pornography in the same way as they are from alcohol etc. Someone under 18 cannot purchase an Internet connection off their own backs, it's up to parents to do that. If a parent opts to buy something which is potentially dangerous to their kids then it's up to them to safeguard them. After all no one expects Tesco to ensure kids don't drink the alcohol their parents bought there.
I also think you're being naive about the potential impact of opting out on those who do.
I just love how every household in the country, most of which don't have children or certainly those of a younger age, are being inconvenienced for the sake of the minority of clueless nit wit parents.
So the momentum of online censorship moves forward thanks to David Cameron.
So it's fine for our government to do it but when the Chinese and Iranian government censor the internet "to protect people from inappropriate content"....
By way of selecting a web page after logging in securely, the subscriber has completely unfettered control over whether their broadband connection allows pornography through.
You don't have to do it every time. You just click a button once, and that's it.
Wrong. It IS censorship creep.
The better option would have been to have had some solution that could be bought and connected to the home network's boundary - with maybe per-user authentication on the local Wifi hub... you could then have a local Bluecoat filter or similar.
But it would be at the EDGE of the network - rather than baked in.
You know, for all this garbage the PM has been pushing about computer related issues, he could do with having a chat with someone who has a clue. Most of the stuff he suggests flat out wouldnt work, I dont mean my opinion states it to be wrong, I mean its actually, factually, not possible. Odd that such a powerful man doesn't have an advisor.
As for this, why not actually protect the children by prosecuting child rapists, and stop protecting the ones in power, or allowing the old Pope to move members of his church who molested children out of the country. Why not ****ing enforce the laws we do have, or is it that this appeals to the brain dead rag readers and their relentless levels of stupidity.
It's disappointing that the group opposing the porn filters, the Open Rights Group (ORG), couldn't have found an appropiate word beginning with Y to add to their title.
I heard they're changing their name to the Open Rights Group Against State Meddling.
Why are there still porn channels when porn is available for free online?
For those who aren't online (believe it or not, not everybody has the internet!) and/or wouldn't know how to access porn even if they were.
Also people who don't fall into this category may still use a service like that if they were quite drunk.. which is why most of these channels offer a grossly overpriced one-off/single night access model as well as a monthly subscription.
Because adults buy computers. There shouldn't be an assumption that they are parents.
Or, like me - my son is 37 and can make his own mind up if he wants to look at porn (if he is ever in my house (e.g. holiday time) and uses my computer or internet connection.
Too much "Daddying" going on with this Conservative government - at least his proposals won't apply to Scotland!
What about the nanny state policies that restrict the supply of goods and services to childern, from porn to gambling to alcohol and cigarettes to cerification of films, tv shows, and video games, to the 9pm watershed on TV, to adults only sex shops, bookmakers, etc;
Parents can easily choose to opt in to the porn filter when it comes out. If the parent opts in, the child wouldn't get to see the porn anyway.
If you want to view porn opt in or change your supplier.
Job done.
Until the new rules apply to your new supplier. It's only a matter of time before this latest legislation applies to all ISPs, not just the major players. It's feature creep.
Because I'd prefer to live in a country where parents supervised what their kids view online and implement their own way of deciding what their kids should read.
I don't want to live in a country where the default choice is of a nanny state implementing policies to make ISPs decide what legal online content I should be allowed to view by default and then having me enact to opt-out just because some people are shouting "Won't somebody please think of the children!". Nor should I be labelled a "pervert" for opting-out either. Also, not keen on there being a database anywhere of everyone who opts-out that could be hacked, leaked and used as a "perverts database".
How about parents do some parenting and I be allowed to conduct legal online business without intrusion or inconvenience?
Tend to agree with this. The government should stop meddling (even more) in people's lives and parents should resume a bit more responsibility.
I don't want David Cameron to become my dad or nanny. The government craps over your life enough as it is, without all this big brother type censorship.
Blocking should be an option not an assumption. We are supposed to be living in a socially liberal country but I am seeing less evidence of this daily.
Comments
Politicians and "campaigners" have been doing it forever. Claim you're doing something to "protect the children" and you'll get as near to a free ride as you'll need because, let's face it, if you object then why are you in favour of causing harm to children ?
It's scaremongering and, sadly, far too many people fall for it.
If someone sat down and gave Cameron an idiot's guide to Tor, he'd try and ban that as well.
I was always getting e-mails from them about activating my shield, when i transferred over from O2, so i told em i wasn't interested in it, and not to bother reminding me about it again, as i don't need to restrict my access being over 40, but now, im going to have to activate it, to lift my restriction of only being able to view websites that are only suitable for 13s and under lol.
Having internet service providers have an opt out system is merely bringing the online world into line with the high street and suppliers of physical goods and services.
As for perverts database that is ridiculous, in the real world it would be like claiming you are afraid to rent or buy anything rated above PG, going to the cinema and seeing anything over PG rated, to borrow or buy any book aimed at adults, buy alcohol, cigarettes, lottery tickets, go into a bookmaker, etc; Because you would be doing something children are not permitted to do.
heh
boob
Kids are already protected from Internet pornography in the same way as they are from alcohol etc. Someone under 18 cannot purchase an Internet connection off their own backs, it's up to parents to do that. If a parent opts to buy something which is potentially dangerous to their kids then it's up to them to safeguard them. After all no one expects Tesco to ensure kids don't drink the alcohol their parents bought there.
I also think you're being naive about the potential impact of opting out on those who do.
That's what will happen.
With time you're going to get all sort of things that aren't pro establishment or in line with how the government want people to think, blocked.
So it's fine for our government to do it but when the Chinese and Iranian government censor the internet "to protect people from inappropriate content"....
The better option would have been to have had some solution that could be bought and connected to the home network's boundary - with maybe per-user authentication on the local Wifi hub... you could then have a local Bluecoat filter or similar.
But it would be at the EDGE of the network - rather than baked in.
As for this, why not actually protect the children by prosecuting child rapists, and stop protecting the ones in power, or allowing the old Pope to move members of his church who molested children out of the country. Why not ****ing enforce the laws we do have, or is it that this appeals to the brain dead rag readers and their relentless levels of stupidity.
For those who aren't online (believe it or not, not everybody has the internet!) and/or wouldn't know how to access porn even if they were.
Also people who don't fall into this category may still use a service like that if they were quite drunk.. which is why most of these channels offer a grossly overpriced one-off/single night access model as well as a monthly subscription.
Indeed, so now you have to opt out to use the actual internet.
Or, like me - my son is 37 and can make his own mind up if he wants to look at porn (if he is ever in my house (e.g. holiday time) and uses my computer or internet connection.
Too much "Daddying" going on with this Conservative government - at least his proposals won't apply to Scotland!
Parents can easily choose to opt in to the porn filter when it comes out. If the parent opts in, the child wouldn't get to see the porn anyway.
Job done.
Until the new rules apply to your new supplier. It's only a matter of time before this latest legislation applies to all ISPs, not just the major players. It's feature creep.
Tend to agree with this. The government should stop meddling (even more) in people's lives and parents should resume a bit more responsibility.
I don't want David Cameron to become my dad or nanny. The government craps over your life enough as it is, without all this big brother type censorship.
At the behest of nanny state.
More and more choice being removed from individuals.
Blocking should be an option not an assumption. We are supposed to be living in a socially liberal country but I am seeing less evidence of this daily.
Think you will find that your beloved Labour party are equally bad when it comes to Internet policy. Take off the partisan blinkers.
If you don't want your children accessing porn, do you job and stop expecting the state or ISPs to do it for you.
Simple.