I really can't get worked up about this being an attack on The "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties".
I don't remember people 20 years ago demanding the right to have free porn in their households. Maybe I missed that particular crusade? I think people used to protest about CND and Nelson Mandela etc.
Anyway, what happens to "non-porn" sites like Flickr, Blogspot, Tumblr etc etc which have MILLIONS of explicit pornograhic photos and videos?
That's just small example of how completely unworkable this is.
As for our exchanges surrounding a slow crawl towards dictatorship isn't anything that undermines freedoms of speech and expression a step in that direction?
Not in my opinion as I do not hold the freedom of speech and expression as an absolute freedom. I also think it is a very big jump from extending extreme porn to cover depictions of rape to deprivation of freedom of speech and expression to the extent we end up with a dictatorship that does not premit political dissent.
As far as freedom of speech and expression I would think the Communications Act on messages of a grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character not to the recipient of the call, but to the subject of the call, and the various public order acts on things that cause harassment, alarm or distress would be much more of a concern. They make illegal things said in private conversations via telecommunications and things said in public.
What has making some types of porn more illegal than they are already (last I checked rape was a criminal offence as are sexual acts with a minor) got to do with porn filters?
David Cameron announced more than one measure to tackle internet porn. Someone in an earlier post stated they viewed the extension of extreme porn to include rape porn was more of a concern than the porn filter.
I really can't get worked up about this being an attack on The "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties".
It doesn't rate that highly on my list of priorities either (you might not think that judging by how many posts I've contributed to this thread) but it does make for an interesting debate on where the internet fits into the entire freedom of speech mantra because it's so global.
When it comes to civil liberties I rank things like those pre teen British Asian gilrs being shipped off to Pakistan, forced into marriages and returning to the UK married, pregnant and still only 14 years of age a lot higher than I do naked people enacting consensual sex scenarios on video.
I really can't get worked up about this being an attack on The "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties".
I don't remember people 20 years ago demanding the right to have free porn in their households. Maybe I missed that particular crusade? I think people used to protest about CND and Nelson Mandela etc.
Anyway, what happens to "non-porn" sites like Flickr, Blogspot, Tumblr etc etc which have MILLIONS of explicit pornograhic photos and videos?
That's just small example of how completely unworkable this is.
Exactly. But at present dont you have to tick a box on there saying you're over 18 or something to see that?
Anyway, what happens to "non-porn" sites like Flickr, Blogspot, Tumblr etc etc which have MILLIONS of explicit pornograhic photos and videos?
That's just small example of how completely unworkable this is.
No, that's an example of what will be required to enforce such a scheme. I'd hazard a guess that it's not just searches that will be filtered but access. And as you point out file sharing sites might contain porn. So some form of automated porn detection might be needed. Then once the porn has been detected a record of where it's located taken. Of course such information wouldn't make its way into the authorities hands until such times as needed. Regardless of which insisting that ISPs invest in the technology needed to block portions of the internet makes it easy for a future government to issue lists of sites it wants banned, if it isn't doing so already. Although a smart government would have a list that it didn't want blocked, but rather wanted monitored.
I suppose a prime candidate for blocking will be proxy sites and using them to avoid banned sites will be seen as having a criminal intent. Or you could opt out and go on record as a potential nonce.
I really can't get worked up about this being an attack on The "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties".
I don't remember people 20 years ago demanding the right to have free porn in their households. Maybe I missed that particular crusade? I think people used to protest about CND and Nelson Mandela etc.
It's not just about porn. It's far bigger than that. It's a matter of principle for a lot of people.
The point is that once a government starts clamping down on perfectly legal mainstream adult porn, what will be the next thing that the government will decide is "harmful" and "corrodes childhood"?
That is the issue:
"First they came for porn and I didn't say anything because I don't watch porn. Then they came for the horror movies and I didn't say anything because I don't watch horror movies. Then they came for the video games and I didn't say anything because I don't play video games. Then they came for the bloggers and independent news outlets ..... until all that was left was the Home Office web site and Thomas The Tank Engine".
See what I mean? Creeping censorship and control. Thin end of a very sinister wedge. That's what people don't like.
I really can't get worked up about this being an attack on The "freedom of speech" and "civil liberties".
Because some see porn as being a convenient excuse to get the filtering infrastructure installed. It's the new "we need this because terrorism".
If you look at the court orders every time a torrent tracker is blocked, the reasoning states that the 5 or 6 ISPs that get targeted, is partly due to the fact that they all already can filter websites (which when those ISPs installed it, was sold as being intended only to block child pornography). No doubt that when the rest of the ISPs have a filter that they'll be included too.
So, it's not too tinfoily to assume that if this ever gets put into place, the government of the day or someone via the courts could easily block whatever they don't like - porn or otherwise.
You won't be able to opt out of the entire filtering system, I'd imagine, as it'll still be there to try to prevent people accessing child pornography (try being the operative word).
Because some see porn as being a convenient excuse to get the filtering infrastructure installed. It's the new "we need this because terrorism".
If you look at the court orders every time a torrent tracker is blocked, the reasoning states that the 5 or 6 ISPs that get targeted, is partly due to the fact that they all already can filter websites (which when those ISPs installed it, was sold as being intended only to block child pornography). No doubt that when the rest of the ISPs have a filter that they'll be included too.
So, it's not too tinfoily to assume that if this ever gets put into place, the government of the day or someone via the courts could easily block whatever they don't like - porn or otherwise.
You won't be able to opt out of the entire filtering system, I'd imagine, as it'll still be there to try to prevent people accessing child pornography (try being the operative word).
I can't imagine what these things 'someone would want to block' can be.
I can't imagine what these things 'someone would want to block' can be.
Some examples would help.
Wikileaks perhaps. "Accidentally" blocking any website with information the government of the day doesn't want you to see. Blocking opposing viewpoints to the powers that be.
Now I assume that the government will respond out of the goodness of their hearts to protests from the ISPs at the expense entailed in determining which sites to block by organising a governmental service to do that part of the job and all the ISPs will be asked to do will be to implement the government hit list.
TAFT, Calif., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- A California skydiving company said it fired an instructor who also works as a porn star after he posted a video online of him having sex during freefall.
.."I didn't know it until one of the officers came over from the Taft Police Department and informed me this was going around the kids in school and stuff,"
So extreme porn and worthy of bannage, or just an example of the complexity in drafting legislation? Consensual act, risk to life and kids watched it. Ban this filth!
A California skydiving company said it fired an instructor who also works as a porn star after he posted a video online of him having sex during freefall.
During freefall !?!
Not much time for foreplay then
Exactly. But at present dont you have to tick a box on there saying you're over 18 or something to see that?
Something anyone 8 or 88 can do - and therefore pointless. . The old validation proceedure was to use a credit card to validate the age . But that just leads to hundreds of conmen getting people's credit card numbers as they sign ip to hiddenhacker.com. You just can't have meaningful age controls for free sites on the net.
Similarly you can't control international sites or monitor their output to see if it complies with UK regulation. If he tells ISPs that they are responsible for everything downloaded, they will have to ban all but a few UK sites. As violence and torture is included logically the overseas news oullets have to be blocked too.Youtubes of the syrian fighting are far more violent than anything seen in any bare knuckle fight or porn film. If ISPs are not held responsible , its all hot air designd to get a few internet phobic puritan votes.
The problem with this is "function creep". This has already happened with BT Cleanfeed.
"Oh, it's only going to be used for child porn." They said. "What kind of monster could object to that?" They said. "If it's ever used for anything else, we'll remove it."
Now, BT Cleanfeed has been extended to cover such non-Porny sites as The Pirate Bay. (Admittedly dodgy, but several billion miles away from child porn.)
That is the problem. Censorship like this is always the thin end of the wedge.
Plus, I distinctly remember a few years back when the whole of Wikipedia was rendered uneditable because of a slightly dodgy but completely legal album cover was on one page.
Hilariously, I read that O2's porn filters blocked news reports of Cameron's announcement, because it contained the word "porn".
The problem with this is "function creep". This has already happened with BT Cleanfeed...
Now, BT Cleanfeed censors such non-porny stuff as Newsgroup files and the whole of the Pirate Bay.
That is the problem. Censorship like this is always the thin end of the wedge.
What that copyright holders can get High Court rulings to block sites involved in mass copyright infringement.
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) getting a Hgh Court ruling to force BT to block access to Newzbin 2 a members-only site which aggregates a large amount of the illegally copied material found on Usenet discussion forums.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) getting a High Court ruling to force some ISPs to block PirateBay a site that enables and actively encourages copyright infringement.
The MPA and BPI are not the government and they had to get High Court rulings and the blocks are on sites engaged in copyright infringement, which is illegal activity.
BT do though, given it takes about 10 seconds to access any of the blocked sites.
Which is the entire point, it stops nothing, and neither will this.
The sort of illegal stuff being discussed here doesnt appear on google bing or yahoo searches now, its already underground enough to not be affected by attempts at blocking it.
However, what will make them less easy to catch is reducing the funding for the police department set up specifically to catch viewers of child porn, and that is something Cameron has done this fiscal year, a 10% funding cut in fact.
So given that exposes the 'think of the children' angle as a lie, someone determined to address the situation wouldnt cut the funding designed to combat it, then one must ask , is such a duplicitous person trustworthy enough to be allowed to set up a system that means he can attempt to block any site or subject he chooses? Or whomever replaces him?
I would say not, indeed, the chinese were roundly criticised for censoring its populous' access to the net.Including directly from the people attempting the same thing here.
Comments
I don't remember people 20 years ago demanding the right to have free porn in their households. Maybe I missed that particular crusade? I think people used to protest about CND and Nelson Mandela etc.
Anyway, what happens to "non-porn" sites like Flickr, Blogspot, Tumblr etc etc which have MILLIONS of explicit pornograhic photos and videos?
That's just small example of how completely unworkable this is.
As far as freedom of speech and expression I would think the Communications Act on messages of a grossly offensive or of an indecent, obscene or menacing character not to the recipient of the call, but to the subject of the call, and the various public order acts on things that cause harassment, alarm or distress would be much more of a concern. They make illegal things said in private conversations via telecommunications and things said in public.
David Cameron announced more than one measure to tackle internet porn. Someone in an earlier post stated they viewed the extension of extreme porn to include rape porn was more of a concern than the porn filter.
It doesn't rate that highly on my list of priorities either (you might not think that judging by how many posts I've contributed to this thread) but it does make for an interesting debate on where the internet fits into the entire freedom of speech mantra because it's so global.
When it comes to civil liberties I rank things like those pre teen British Asian gilrs being shipped off to Pakistan, forced into marriages and returning to the UK married, pregnant and still only 14 years of age a lot higher than I do naked people enacting consensual sex scenarios on video.
Our pornography laws were questioned for a long time, we had some of the most draconian ones in Europe for a while.
I forget the date it was changed, but until relatively recently you couldn't legally purchase in sex shops scenes of sexual penetration.
I remember people very much moaning about our rules on adult porn.
Exactly. But at present dont you have to tick a box on there saying you're over 18 or something to see that?
No, that's an example of what will be required to enforce such a scheme. I'd hazard a guess that it's not just searches that will be filtered but access. And as you point out file sharing sites might contain porn. So some form of automated porn detection might be needed. Then once the porn has been detected a record of where it's located taken. Of course such information wouldn't make its way into the authorities hands until such times as needed. Regardless of which insisting that ISPs invest in the technology needed to block portions of the internet makes it easy for a future government to issue lists of sites it wants banned, if it isn't doing so already. Although a smart government would have a list that it didn't want blocked, but rather wanted monitored.
I suppose a prime candidate for blocking will be proxy sites and using them to avoid banned sites will be seen as having a criminal intent. Or you could opt out and go on record as a potential nonce.
It's not just about porn. It's far bigger than that. It's a matter of principle for a lot of people.
The point is that once a government starts clamping down on perfectly legal mainstream adult porn, what will be the next thing that the government will decide is "harmful" and "corrodes childhood"?
That is the issue:
"First they came for porn and I didn't say anything because I don't watch porn. Then they came for the horror movies and I didn't say anything because I don't watch horror movies. Then they came for the video games and I didn't say anything because I don't play video games. Then they came for the bloggers and independent news outlets ..... until all that was left was the Home Office web site and Thomas The Tank Engine".
See what I mean? Creeping censorship and control. Thin end of a very sinister wedge. That's what people don't like.
Because some see porn as being a convenient excuse to get the filtering infrastructure installed. It's the new "we need this because terrorism".
If you look at the court orders every time a torrent tracker is blocked, the reasoning states that the 5 or 6 ISPs that get targeted, is partly due to the fact that they all already can filter websites (which when those ISPs installed it, was sold as being intended only to block child pornography). No doubt that when the rest of the ISPs have a filter that they'll be included too.
So, it's not too tinfoily to assume that if this ever gets put into place, the government of the day or someone via the courts could easily block whatever they don't like - porn or otherwise.
You won't be able to opt out of the entire filtering system, I'd imagine, as it'll still be there to try to prevent people accessing child pornography (try being the operative word).
I can't imagine what these things 'someone would want to block' can be.
Some examples would help.
If you can't imagine what a government might wish to bloke at anytime I shouldn't worry about it.
There are already all sorts of media blackouts that go on.
Wikileaks perhaps. "Accidentally" blocking any website with information the government of the day doesn't want you to see. Blocking opposing viewpoints to the powers that be.
Now I assume that the government will respond out of the goodness of their hearts to protests from the ISPs at the expense entailed in determining which sites to block by organising a governmental service to do that part of the job and all the ISPs will be asked to do will be to implement the government hit list.
Nobody is advocating absolute freedoms. It's about ensuring we don't unwittingly hand over the ones we've got.
Which bloke would that be I shouldn't worry about? I can't think of anything I watch or search for that any government is likely to put a block on.
From what I've read on these threads, paranoia is alive and well and unlikely to go away soon.
Paranoia?
I think I found an example that hits all the right buttons and obviously should be disappeared from the Internet forthwith-
http://www.upi.com/Odd_News/2011/10/17/Skydive-teacher-fired-over-freefall-sex/UPI-33851318874899/
TAFT, Calif., Oct. 17 (UPI) -- A California skydiving company said it fired an instructor who also works as a porn star after he posted a video online of him having sex during freefall.
.."I didn't know it until one of the officers came over from the Taft Police Department and informed me this was going around the kids in school and stuff,"
So extreme porn and worthy of bannage, or just an example of the complexity in drafting legislation? Consensual act, risk to life and kids watched it. Ban this filth!
During freefall !?!
Not much time for foreplay then
OK. A sense of proportion, then.
Errr.... Talk Talk's filter blocks quite a few threads on DS.
Including this one I suspect, though I haven't checked.
It's a good job for you there's people out there to protect and fight for your liberties I'd say.
My provider is Talk Talk. I can't say I've ever had a problem of the type you suggest.
Something anyone 8 or 88 can do - and therefore pointless. . The old validation proceedure was to use a credit card to validate the age . But that just leads to hundreds of conmen getting people's credit card numbers as they sign ip to hiddenhacker.com. You just can't have meaningful age controls for free sites on the net.
Similarly you can't control international sites or monitor their output to see if it complies with UK regulation. If he tells ISPs that they are responsible for everything downloaded, they will have to ban all but a few UK sites. As violence and torture is included logically the overseas news oullets have to be blocked too.Youtubes of the syrian fighting are far more violent than anything seen in any bare knuckle fight or porn film. If ISPs are not held responsible , its all hot air designd to get a few internet phobic puritan votes.
"Oh, it's only going to be used for child porn." They said. "What kind of monster could object to that?" They said. "If it's ever used for anything else, we'll remove it."
Now, BT Cleanfeed has been extended to cover such non-Porny sites as The Pirate Bay. (Admittedly dodgy, but several billion miles away from child porn.)
That is the problem. Censorship like this is always the thin end of the wedge.
Plus, I distinctly remember a few years back when the whole of Wikipedia was rendered uneditable because of a slightly dodgy but completely legal album cover was on one page.
Hilariously, I read that O2's porn filters blocked news reports of Cameron's announcement, because it contained the word "porn".
The Motion Picture Association (MPA) getting a Hgh Court ruling to force BT to block access to Newzbin 2 a members-only site which aggregates a large amount of the illegally copied material found on Usenet discussion forums.
The British Phonographic Industry (BPI) getting a High Court ruling to force some ISPs to block PirateBay a site that enables and actively encourages copyright infringement.
The MPA and BPI are not the government and they had to get High Court rulings and the blocks are on sites engaged in copyright infringement, which is illegal activity.
I don't have a problem with that.
BT do though, given it takes about 10 seconds to access any of the blocked sites.
Which is the entire point, it stops nothing, and neither will this.
The sort of illegal stuff being discussed here doesnt appear on google bing or yahoo searches now, its already underground enough to not be affected by attempts at blocking it.
However, what will make them less easy to catch is reducing the funding for the police department set up specifically to catch viewers of child porn, and that is something Cameron has done this fiscal year, a 10% funding cut in fact.
So given that exposes the 'think of the children' angle as a lie, someone determined to address the situation wouldnt cut the funding designed to combat it, then one must ask , is such a duplicitous person trustworthy enough to be allowed to set up a system that means he can attempt to block any site or subject he chooses? Or whomever replaces him?
I would say not, indeed, the chinese were roundly criticised for censoring its populous' access to the net.Including directly from the people attempting the same thing here.