It's a necessary idea. The problem is it's 10 years too late and they are making a pig's ear of it.
Perhaps if we had blocked porn in the early days, we wouldn't have tv shows on mainstream broadcasters that trivialise and sexualise rape. The rise in sexually charged media is not unrelated to the rise of easy access hardcore pornography. It isn't progressive, it's destructive and the sooner people wake up and realise this, the sooner civilisation can get back on track.
Some studies have shown that sexual imagery does increase aggression. As some studies have shown that video games do too. So we have age controls on difficult to get hold of video games, but not on easy access hardcore internet pornography?
Just because some will find ways to get around it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In an ideal world, young people would get access to this stuff when they are mature enough to comprehend and understand the nastiness of it.
wxw.goawaypervs.co.uk
There is plenty of hardcore pornography in 18-rated movies nowadays, it is fairly common. Will it block those as well?
We've also asked for comment from MP Claire Perry, who led the efforts to get ISPs to offer the filters, but her office said she had no response as she no longer acts as advisor to the PM on the issue.
For somebody who was passionate about this subject, I think it odd that she abandoned the cause so soon. ;-) A case of making a lot of fuss in the papers and getting rewarded for the nagging of Cameron by Cameron?
I wonder if I could nag Cameron into giving me something too.
In other news the government has decriminalised (if you can decriminalise something that wasn't illegal) piracy of media on the internet.
They were going to restrict internet access of people who had been proven to have pirated media by sending them letters and a failure to desist would have resulted in having your internet service restricted or cut off.
Although the investigation that found 25% of all downloads in the uk were of pirated/stolen content might have been damning perhaps it might spur the providers of such content to consider the benefits of providing their content online instead of trying to hide behind drm and region restricted content.
People don't choose to be censored, it has to be forced. Which is what I imagine will happen next.
But before it can be forced you would need in place the necessary technology, you get that technology in place by saying... it'll all be a choice.
Job done! And people fall for it every time.
I think they'll wait until there's a few paedophile convictions where the offenders viewed indecent images online. They'll make an argument that if only the filter had been in place this person might not have been corrupted and gone on to abuse children and "if it saves just 1 innocent child from being sexually abused" then any price is worth it, and a large amount of the public will fall for that rubbish.
I think they'll wait until there's a few paedophile convictions where the offenders viewed indecent images online. They'll make an argument that if only the filter had been in place this person might not have been corrupted and gone on to abuse children and "if it saves just 1 innocent child from being sexually abused" then any price is worth it, and a large amount of the public will fall for that rubbish.
At least some, probably all, UK ISPs already block child pornography websites.
At least some, probably all, UK ISPs already block child pornography websites.
There's a blacklist maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation that UK ISPs already implemented before the porn filter, which added another layer of Pointless to the porn filter.
In China does the ISP account holder get to decide what things to filter, and turn the filter on and off at whim.
The government is trying to create unspoken pressure to opt in. We already know they are keeping lists of the people who don't opt in and it's obvious that will be used as evidence against someone if they are accused of child sex offences. And most important is it won't always be optional. One day after a few child abuse convictions of people who did't opt in to the filter the government will say we can't be trusted and the filter needs to be mandatory.
According to wikipedia. Cleanfeed is the name given to various privately administered ISP level content filtering systems.
The post I was replying to was that in the name of preventing pedophiles filtering would be made non-optional at some point in the future. The point of my reply was it is already non optional for child pronography websites. ISP account holders are not asked if they would like illegal child porn website blocked or not.
The government is trying to create unspoken pressure to opt in. We already know they are keeping lists of the people who don't opt in and it's obvious that will be used as evidence against someone if they are accused of child sex offences. And most important is it won't always be optional. One day after a few child abuse convictions of people who did't opt in to the filter the government will say we can't be trusted and the filter needs to be mandatory.
That is like claiming the Government is interested in everyone who watches TV past the 9pm watershed, or who buys films or dvds or video games with a higher than U certificate. The point of the optional ISP child filtering is to help parents protect children from accidentally stumbling on to unsuitable material on the intenet, making the internet more child friendly.
The post I was replying to was that in the name of preventing pedophiles filtering would be made non-optional at some point in the future. The point of my reply was it is already non optional for child pronography websites. ISP account holders are not asked if they would like illegal child porn website blocked or not.
All through the debate about these filters the government played the child pornography card, despite the fact that due to clean-feed it was a completely unrelated issue, so if they decide to make the filters mandatory I'm sure they'll trot it out again as a justification.
All through the debate about these filters the government played the child pornography card, despite the fact that due to clean-feed it was a completely unrelated issue, so if they decide to make the filters mandatory I'm sure they'll trot it out again as a justification.
The government played the child protection card, that of protecting children from things inappropriate for children, including legal pornography. Protecting children from legal pornography.
The government played the child protection card, that of protecting children from things inappropriate for children, including legal pornography. Protecting children from legal pornography.
They also made many references to child pornography, often starting a sentence talking about child pornography and how terrible it was and needed to be blocked, and ending the sentence talking about blocking perfectly legal adult pornography.
They also made many references to child pornography, often starting a sentence talking about child pornography and how terrible it was and needed to be blocked, and ending the sentence talking about blocking perfectly legal adult pornography.
Find some quotes then, with links to prove it.
The government look to have made the distinction between illegal and legal that they are very distinct and different challenges, and annouced different measures to tackle those two distinct challenges.
The first challenge is criminal and that is the proliferation and accessibility of child abuse images on the internet. The second challenge is cultural; the fact that many children are viewing online pornography and other damaging material at a very early age and that the nature of that pornography is so extreme it is distorting their view of sex and relationships.
Now, let me be clear, the 2 challenges are very distinct and very different. In one we’re talking about illegal material, the other is legal material that is being viewed by those who are underage. But both the challenges have something in common; they’re about how our collective lack of action on the internet has led to harmful and, in some cases, truly dreadful consequences for children.
.... So let me start with the criminal challenge, and that is the proliferation of child abuse images online.
...
Once CEOP becomes a part of the national Crime Agency, that will further increase their ability to investigate behind the pay walls, to shine a light on this hidden internet and to drive prosecutions and convictions of those who are found to use it.
....
But government needs to do more. We need to give CEOP and the police all the powers they need to keep pace with the changing nature of the internet. And today I can announce that from next year we’ll also link up existing fragmented databases across all police forces to produce a single, secure database of illegal images of children which will help police in different parts of the country work together more effectively to close the net on paedophiles. It will also enable the industry to use digital hash tags from the database to proactively scan for, block and take down those images wherever they occur.
...
A new UK-US taskforce is being formed to lead a global alliance with the big players in the industry to stamp out these vile images.
...
Here in Britain, Google, Microsoft and Yahoo are already actively engaged on a major campaign to deter people who are searching for child abuse images.
....
So quite simply we need the search engines to step up to the plate on this issue. We need a situation where you cannot have people searching for child abuse images and being aided in doing so.
...
What we’ve already done is insist that clear, simple warning pages are designed and placed wherever child abuse sites have been identified and taken down so that if someone arrives at one of these sites they are clearly warned that the page contained illegal images. These so-called splash pages are up on the internet from today and this is, I think, a vital step forward. But we need to go further.
...
These warning pages should also tell people who’ve landed on these sites that they face consequences
....
There are some searches which are so abhorrent and where there could be no doubt whatsoever about the sick and malevolent intent of the searcher
....
In these cases, there should be no search results returned at all. Put simply, there needs to be a list of terms – a blacklist – which offer up no direct search returns
..... So that’s how we’re going to deal with the criminal challenge. The cultural challenge is the fact that many children are watching online pornography and finding other damaging material online at an increasingly young age. Now young people have always been curious about pornography; they’ve always sought it out.
But it used to be that society could protect children by enforcing age restrictions on the ground
In other news the government has decriminalised (if you can decriminalise something that wasn't illegal) piracy of media on the internet.
They were going to restrict internet access of people who had been proven to have pirated media by sending them letters and a failure to desist would have resulted in having your internet service restricted or cut off.
Although the investigation that found 25% of all downloads in the uk were of pirated/stolen content might have been damning perhaps it might spur the providers of such content to consider the benefits of providing their content online instead of trying to hide behind drm and region restricted content.
Find some quotes then, with links to prove it.
The government look to have made the distinction between illegal and legal that they are very distinct and different challenges, and annouced different measures to tackle those two distinct challenges.
Fair comment, and technically true (and only applies to those who watched it or read the transcript) but the speech starts with talking about the nasty stuff, with the result that the assembled press will be too busy writing OMG paedogeddon to spot that the subject has now shifted.
Actually even if the subjects were raised in a different order, the headline-grabbing bit would flood out anything else.
So on one hand blame the press, but on the other - let's not forget that speech writers and politicians know exactly how it works.
The words "let me be clear" and other such introductories are usually followed by a bunch of stuff that's easily shoved together under the wrong headline or is so confusingly unclear that it all gets shoved together under the wrong headline.
I always prefer to wait and see what they try and do rather than go by what they might seem to have said.
It's a necessary idea. The problem is it's 10 years too late and they are making a pig's ear of it.
Perhaps if we had blocked porn in the early days, we wouldn't have tv shows on mainstream broadcasters that trivialise and sexualise rape. The rise in sexually charged media is not unrelated to the rise of easy access hardcore pornography. It isn't progressive, it's destructive and the sooner people wake up and realise this, the sooner civilisation can get back on track.
Some studies have shown that sexual imagery does increase aggression. As some studies have shown that video games do too. So we have age controls on difficult to get hold of video games, but not on easy access hardcore internet pornography?
Just because some will find ways to get around it doesn't mean we shouldn't try. In an ideal world, young people would get access to this stuff when they are mature enough to comprehend and understand the nastiness of it.
wxw.goawaypervs.co.uk
what studies? Anti porn propaganda? When you consider the vast amounts of people who watch porn, i think we can safely say the effects are minimal.
That is like claiming the Government is interested in everyone who watches TV past the 9pm watershed, or who buys films or dvds or video games with a higher than U certificate. The point of the optional ISP child filtering is to help parents protect children from accidentally stumbling on to unsuitable material on the intenet, making the internet more child friendly.
It's a bit different than the watershed. The government are keeping a list of people who opt out and I'm certain that this will at some point be leaked and leave innocent people open to vigilante attacks. The filter has never been about porn it is about the government adopting a Chinese style approach to censoring internet access. The Chinese only block "inappropriate" content to keep the public safe which sounds nice, like they will only be blocking terrorist and paedo sites. The problem is the government decides what inappropriate means and stuff like pages about the Tienanmen Square protests are considered inappropriate and harmful. No one not even a benign democratic government should have this amount of power because they will abuse it eventually.
Comments
There is plenty of hardcore pornography in 18-rated movies nowadays, it is fairly common. Will it block those as well?
Install a browser plugin that does half that for you? Extremely easy.
Answer to your question? REALLY easy.
For somebody who was passionate about this subject, I think it odd that she abandoned the cause so soon. ;-) A case of making a lot of fuss in the papers and getting rewarded for the nagging of Cameron by Cameron?
I wonder if I could nag Cameron into giving me something too.
They were going to restrict internet access of people who had been proven to have pirated media by sending them letters and a failure to desist would have resulted in having your internet service restricted or cut off.
Although the investigation that found 25% of all downloads in the uk were of pirated/stolen content might have been damning perhaps it might spur the providers of such content to consider the benefits of providing their content online instead of trying to hide behind drm and region restricted content.
Particularly given the unreliability of the ISP Filters.
I think they'll wait until there's a few paedophile convictions where the offenders viewed indecent images online. They'll make an argument that if only the filter had been in place this person might not have been corrupted and gone on to abuse children and "if it saves just 1 innocent child from being sexually abused" then any price is worth it, and a large amount of the public will fall for that rubbish.
At least some, probably all, UK ISPs already block child pornography websites.
There's a blacklist maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation that UK ISPs already implemented before the porn filter, which added another layer of Pointless to the porn filter.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation
The government is trying to create unspoken pressure to opt in. We already know they are keeping lists of the people who don't opt in and it's obvious that will be used as evidence against someone if they are accused of child sex offences. And most important is it won't always be optional. One day after a few child abuse convictions of people who did't opt in to the filter the government will say we can't be trusted and the filter needs to be mandatory.
Most of the child porn sites use the deep web which ISP's can't really block as they are accessed using TOR.
Cleanfeed blocks them, not the ISPs.
The post I was replying to was that in the name of preventing pedophiles filtering would be made non-optional at some point in the future. The point of my reply was it is already non optional for child pronography websites. ISP account holders are not asked if they would like illegal child porn website blocked or not.
All through the debate about these filters the government played the child pornography card, despite the fact that due to clean-feed it was a completely unrelated issue, so if they decide to make the filters mandatory I'm sure they'll trot it out again as a justification.
They also made many references to child pornography, often starting a sentence talking about child pornography and how terrible it was and needed to be blocked, and ending the sentence talking about blocking perfectly legal adult pornography.
The government look to have made the distinction between illegal and legal that they are very distinct and different challenges, and annouced different measures to tackle those two distinct challenges.
https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action
Actually, they haven't
http://torrentfreak.com/the-uk-did-not-just-decriminalize-file-sharing-140723/
Actually even if the subjects were raised in a different order, the headline-grabbing bit would flood out anything else.
So on one hand blame the press, but on the other - let's not forget that speech writers and politicians know exactly how it works.
The words "let me be clear" and other such introductories are usually followed by a bunch of stuff that's easily shoved together under the wrong headline or is so confusingly unclear that it all gets shoved together under the wrong headline.
I always prefer to wait and see what they try and do rather than go by what they might seem to have said.
what studies? Anti porn propaganda? When you consider the vast amounts of people who watch porn, i think we can safely say the effects are minimal.
And let's not forget that there have been studies showing that instances of sexual violence go down where porn is freely available.
Fixed:D
Labour don't exactly have a great record on Internet related policy either.
Leave the tribal nonsense in the trash where it belongs.
It's a bit different than the watershed. The government are keeping a list of people who opt out and I'm certain that this will at some point be leaked and leave innocent people open to vigilante attacks. The filter has never been about porn it is about the government adopting a Chinese style approach to censoring internet access. The Chinese only block "inappropriate" content to keep the public safe which sounds nice, like they will only be blocking terrorist and paedo sites. The problem is the government decides what inappropriate means and stuff like pages about the Tienanmen Square protests are considered inappropriate and harmful. No one not even a benign democratic government should have this amount of power because they will abuse it eventually.