×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Gov't Wants To Block Internet Porn By Default

timothy posted more than 3 years ago | from the get-naked-for-the-cctv-instead dept.

Censorship 642

airfoobar writes "Yet another country wants to 'protect the children' by blocking all internet porn — not just child porn, all porn. The British gov will talk with ISPs next month to ask them to make porn blocking mandatory (and they appear more than happy to comply). As an effect, adults who want to access pornography through their internet connections will have to 'opt in.' Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well."

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

642 comments

cp (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607248)

o-+-[

You just looked at ASCII Child porn. You should be ashamed of yourself.

Oh wow. (5, Insightful)

contra_mundi (1362297) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607256)

Is there a better example of the slippery slope associated with any censorship?

Re:Oh wow. (5, Insightful)

hairyfeet (841228) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607324)

Hey now. Personally I think we should thank Britain. Thank you, o British people, for no matter how big of a bunch of douchebags our government in the USA becomes, you will ALWAYS end up so much worse we here in America will always have something to feel good about. You are to us what Mississippi is to the south. At least we can point at you, with your fifty bazillion cameras and nanny state BS and go "Well at least we aren't them!". So thank you Britain, for always stepping up to the plate.

Seriously, I thought the religious ninnies in the USA were bad. When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA? I thought being a giant bunch of prudes was OUR gig! And wouldn't you just looooove to snatch the PCs of the ones pushing this? You know they probably need TB sized drives just to hold all the kink.

Re:Oh wow. (5, Insightful)

jonbryce (703250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607352)

and if they do want to block porn, then why not start with the photos on page 3 of our biggest selling newspaper?

Re:Oh wow. (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607504)

I'm not saying I agree with this, but they're not trying to block porn, they're trying to make it opt-in. Buying a newspaper is definitely opt-in.

Re:Oh wow. (1, Informative)

devbox (1919724) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607540)

And it's still opt-in. I'm currently in Thailand and they block all porn, you opt-in or not. Of course, it's only the most known sites blocked while smaller less-known ones work.

Re:Oh wow. (2)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607752)

Makes good business sense. The sex industry there might suffer.

Re:Oh wow. (4, Interesting)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607768)

Are you nuts? The porn industry is one of the biggest driving forces behind the "fight against online porn".

Think about it: Internet gives you free porn without the embarrassing trip to your local porn shop. Who do you think is the biggest loser in this?

Re:Oh wow. (5, Insightful)

lambent (234167) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607668)

How is it not opt-in the way it is already? Nobody forces you to look at porn when you open a web browser. They very act of going to specific sites to look at pornography is opt-in by itself.

Re:Oh wow. (4, Informative)

supertrinko (1396985) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607750)

Many pornographic sites are named in such a way that children could come across them by mistyping a website they were trying to go to.

Re:Oh wow. (1)

Opportunist (166417) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607780)

Like which one? I'm no expert to be honest, but I was under the impression that they are named like "bigboobsandasses.com". How could you possibly mistype "disney.com" to end up there?

Re:Oh wow. (5, Informative)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607518)

Apparently they don't actually want to block all porn: [thisissomerset.co.uk]

Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has refused a request from a West MP for the Government to take action to stop children being able to access internet pornography.

Devizes Tory MP Claire Perry raised the issue at a special Commons debate, because as a mother-of-three she knew how difficult it was to keep youngsters from seeing inappropriate material.

But Mr Vaizey made it clear ministers will not take any steps to force internet service providers (ISPs) to tackle the problem.

He said: "We believe in an open, lightly regulated internet. The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary about regulating or passing legislation."

The minister suggested it was for parents to take responsibility for what their children see online, rather than the ISPs that make money from pornography.

Re:Oh wow. (2)

click2005 (921437) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607528)

When did the British become more uptight about sex than the USA?

We brits have always been a bunch of prudes.. or at least those who make the laws seem to think they are (when they're not involved in sex scandals).

Our adult channels are basically breasts and dry humping. As the comment below me states.. we think a topless woman is porn.

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn.....

They have? I know they blocked wikipedo a while back for an album cover but are they really claiming to have successfully blocked all child porn?

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607738)

Calling this as an American pretending to be British.

"we think a topless woman is porn", an image which gets sold every day in red-top tabloids that you can send your kid out to buy.

----
Hard on porn, hard on the causes of porn.

Re:Oh wow. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607602)

If I had mod points, would that be "troll" or "flamebait"? I can never remember.

Censor this! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607434)

(oYo) - ASCII FTW

what the fuck? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607260)

This is just absurd. How do governments end up thinking shit like this is a good idea? I just don't understand why the government, the guys in charge, always seem to be doing things that are completely retarded.

Re:what the fuck? (0)

postbigbang (761081) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607772)

Blocking children from viewing porn is a good idea. No one has had a good idea regarding how to do this. Parents try, and parents fail. Children deserve to be a bit mature before they're exposed what can sometimes be very shocking material for a young mind.

Having the ISPs do the job is probably a bad idea, and there ought to be a better way. Nudity isn't as important as graphic sex. Immature minds aren't ready for some of the stuff you can simply google these days.

And... (1)

symes (835608) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607264)

Who protects the children from the government? Just saying...

ask obama and the fbi (1)

chronoss2010 (1825454) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607278)

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

Re:ask obama and the fbi (3, Funny)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607406)

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?

Re:ask obama and the fbi (2)

WrongSizeGlass (838941) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607550)

after all they pulled kids off missing children cases so they can go after IP issues.

They were using kids to investigate missing child cases? Is this why nothing ever gets done in government?

I'm sure you've heard the childhood retort "it takes one to know one"? Well, now we know where it came from.

Opting in (4, Insightful)

Arancaytar (966377) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607270)

"Opting in" will likely place customers on a permanent record that will be "accidentally" leaked to a "citizens for decency" movement to publish.

Re:Opting in (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607606)

Reminds me of V for Vendetta, where the government will go round up "deviants" and send them to facilities where they are experimented on.

Re:Opting in (-1, Troll)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607628)

If your ashamed of what you are doing you should not be doing it.
Internet porn is for people who are to chicken shit to walk up to the magazine rack pick up something with big tities on the cover and a caption like "face full of cum" and then walk over to the till with some cute little blonde who turns red when she sees what you have in your hand. And no not that "thing".

Re:Opting in (2)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607754)

Uh, no. Internet porn is far more convenient, so even if everyone were willing to go to the magazine rack and get a few porn mags, internet porn would still be viewed more often. So no, it's not for cowards (and I would dispute that they are cowards, they are just raised in an amazingly prude culture). It's like saying "online stores are for people that are too chicken shit to check out." Plus, internet porn is going to have more variety, just like other online services. Finally, the holy grail: Internet porn can be had for free.

Re:Opting in (4, Interesting)

Patch86 (1465427) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607720)

Just like to point out, Virgin Media already do this (they have it as a "Parental filter" that is on by default, but can be turned off very easily by editing your account settings (which are linked to by the "this material is blocked" placeholder page).

I turned it off immediately due to the horrendous number of false positives- ever YouTube clips with the "log in to watch" adult flag were being blocked. If this were rolled out accross the ISP landscape I'm sure most people would turn it off for a similar reason, once they find their iPlayer videos and certificate 18 films on iTunes getting nixed.

What in the heck?? (1)

rcoxdav (648172) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607284)

Wow, I am glad I do not live in the UK. When will politicians realize that the more you try to regulate and squeeze something out, the more it oozes out around the edges. And, how exactly are they going to block porn?? Heuristic image recognition?? Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc??? How would they do this without killing almost all of the internet??

Re:What in the heck?? (5, Insightful)

PinkyGigglebrain (730753) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607410)

... Banning all torrents, usernet access, or file shareing sites such as Rapidshare, Uploading, DepositFiles, etc??? How would they do this without killing almost all of the internet??

I think that is their plan, both in method and intent.

Re:What in the heck?? (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607420)

This is the first step to making the internet a whitelist. You don't think its possible to block all porn, but they'll try, and the first thing to do will be to block anything that isn't proven NOT to be porn.

Re:What in the heck?? (4, Insightful)

Eil (82413) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607544)

In order to block pornography by default, what they'll have to do is put the entire country on its own network and erect some kind of great firewall between citizens and the world-wide Internet. At the firewall level, filters would then be easily implemented to block any content that the government might find objectionable.

The good news is that there several other countries who have successfully deployed such technology to their citizenship, so the U.K. should be able to seek technical and political advice from them:

  • China
  • Cuba
  • Iran
  • North Korea
  • Saudi Arabia
  • Syria

Re:What in the heck?? (1)

TubeSteak (669689) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607650)

Iran
Saudi Arabia
Syria

Many middle eastern countries have internet filtering of some sort.
Egypt, United Arab Emirates, Oman, Yemen, Bahrain, Qatar, Kuwait, and probably others I don't recall.
Some of them just limit it to porn, but most filter political topics as well.

Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over... (1)

trifish (826353) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607304)

...

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607442)

Not gonna happen, the market has too much competition, some ISPs still don't use the IWF blacklists for child porn.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607546)

'Some ISPs' meaning 'ISPs who, in total, cater to less than 5% of the population and who don't want to do any business with government or schools'.

Re:Just when you thought the Middle Ages were over (1)

zach_the_lizard (1317619) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607764)

Doing business with government and schools can sometimes end up being making deals with the devil, as it looks like may be the case in this instance.

Who defines porn? (1)

feedayeen (1322473) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607310)

Who is it exactly that defines what is or is not pornographic? The ISP? The Government? The Christian church that threatens not to vote for politician X?

Re:Who defines porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607474)

You heathens with your unveiled women will learn that a good god-fearing woman must not tempt men with the naked skin of her body. www.burqas-for-less.com

Re:Who defines porn? (1)

makubesu (1910402) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607514)

Just today my spam filter sent an email from my mother straight to the junk mail box. We've come a long way in detecting the nature of a message or website, but we've got a long way to go. I've used filters before to keep crap out of my house, but have constantly run into trouble with false positives by the software. If the filtering is done at the ISP level, it will make it even harder for customers to correct these problems.

Re:Who defines porn? (2)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607530)

Probably the IWF, the same group that currently defines child porn. Note that this is a non-government organisation that has somehow gained a mandate to look at child porn online and see if it's really child porn. Anything on their watch list is blacklisted by the major ISPs.

They managed to get this done the same way that they are proposing to do this time. Don't actually enact a law, just threaten to unless the major ISPs 'voluntarily' agree to censor. This has the delightful side effect that it's not the government's responsibility, so they have no official oversight and can deny all responsibility (as happened when I wrote to my previous ISP about their blocking o Wikipedia).

Page Three (1)

Sonny Yatsen (603655) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607326)

There is some sort of logical disconnect where the UK wants to block porn on the internet, but any idiot with some change change can buy a copy of the Sun and get glamour models IN THE F&@KING NEWSPAPER.

Re:Page Three (1)

Zeek40 (1017978) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607368)

While I agree with your sentiment and think the whole thing is stupid, when was the last time you saw someone under 18 reading a newspaper?

Re:Page Three (1)

Joce640k (829181) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607388)

"Porn" in the UK is defined as "erections, ejaculations and penetrations".

Re:Page Three (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607558)

So, if a man is naked and experiencing orgasm, that's porn, if a woman is naked and experiencing orgasm it isn't? I'm starting to see why Hollywood thinks we're all gay (or, occasionally, evil).

VPN? (2)

Grantbridge (1377621) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607334)

All internet blocking will do is increase the demand for VPN services, surely? Kids can just VPN out of the ISPs control and get all the porn they want, Adults will probably rather VPN for porn than officially be on a "want porn" list. What happens with false-positives? Many websites get blocked by net-nanny et al. which aren't porn. With a filter, you can just add a manual exception when that happens. What do you do with an ISP-level block? Will the Sun be blocked due to page3? What about artistic photos involving nudity which aren't erotic? This service should be opt-in rather than opt-out...

Next up, Wikileaks. (1)

Kifoth (980005) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607340)

Thin end of the wedge was kiddie porn. They're just thrusting (sorry!) it in further...

Poor Assumption (5, Insightful)

crow_t_robot (528562) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607364)

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

Except, they haven't...not even close.

So lets start. (5, Insightful)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607366)

1. How are you going to block porn? Would you like me to register a new domain in 2 minutes and bypass your blacklist?

2. What about porn which comes from filesharing - such as torrents or upload-services? Oh right, they're the next step. *Marks*

3. This is going to backfire horribly. 18 year old kiddy living with his mom can't get her to opt in. Married Man with very controlling wife can't get to opt in. So lets visit the bowels of the internet to get porn - and get a virus collection while we're there.

4. If you want to think of the children, you could like - give away free child-control software or something? Yes? No? Maybe?

Re:So lets start. (2)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607454)

Not once in the history of the internet have i heard that phrase used in conjunction with some proposal that would ACTUALLY protect children.

Blind political fetishism for popularist votes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607380)

And exactly who decides what is porn mmm? who's going to sit and give unbiased rates for everything? How low does such a bar go (if you say below the waist smack yourself on the back of the head immediately)? Do we now see artworks with cherubs scrubbed from the internet because they're childlike? good &deity I hope this one gets skewered on a pike on the tower of London as dangerous and pathetic.

Re:Blind political fetishism for popularist votes (1)

mrsteveman1 (1010381) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607470)

Too much ankle? That's a bannin'

2 buttons instead of 3 on that blouse? You better believe that's a bannin'

OH MY GOD, PICTURES OF WOMEN VOTING! BAN! BAN! BAN!

Moving Backwards (1)

Robadob (1800074) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607400)

It's asif we're starting to move backwards to the time when all forms of nudity were godly unacceptable. If they can't see that by making it opt in it implies there will be a list of 'porn watchers' then surely they want the list for a reason. The government shouldn't control the people.

As much as brits say... (1)

metrix007 (200091) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607402)

Thank fuck they don't live in the USA....thank fuck I don't live in the UK.

Re:As much as brits say... (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607490)

If this ever occured in the USA, you'd see the amount of people applying for a job with the TSA shoot up...

metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607564)

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607660)

Wow, hold grudges much?

I never understood the phenomenon of posters following other posters around just to point out past issues, as if you're "telling the REAL truth about ".

Get a life.

Re:metrix007 "SHOT DOWN IN FLAMES", rotflmao (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607684)

bah, should have used square brackets, that should have said "telling the REAL truth about [insert poster name]".

Won't work because (3, Interesting)

Kupfernigk (1190345) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607412)

Reading the article, the idiot MP for Devizes (itself a byword for UK backwardness) thinks that this will stop children in bad homes from seeing nasty things. The dimwit doesn't seem to realise that those are exactly the places where the parents will have opted in.

I'm ambivalent... (5, Funny)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607414)

On one hand, something does need to be done about the corrosive, depraved, negative sexual imagery that pervades large parts of the internet - it's definitely not something I want my children exposed to.

On the other hand... er, let's just say the other hand is busy right now.

Re:I'm ambivalent... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607620)

Yeah, something needs to be done... What needs to be done, is YOU need to pay more attention to your children...

The government is NOT your nanny...

Re:I'm ambivalent... (1)

IrrepressibleMonkey (1045046) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607736)

Yeah, something needs to be done... What needs to be done, is YOU need to pay more attention to your children...

The government is NOT your nanny...

FFS - it was a joke. Do I have to spell it out to you? Do you really think that I'm too busy wanking to look after my own children?

Anyway the wife can look after them for 10 minutes, surely?

In any event, I'm responsible enough to delete my internet history after every session.

Default != mandatory (2)

fridaynightsmoke (1589903) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607416)

Now for the record I consider this to be a bad idea; but I can see why they think it's a good one. Parents are generally considered to be less technically literate than their kids (on average) so you end up with a common situation where any on-computer filtering is likely to be easily removed or bypassed by the children. Putting default porn blocking on internet connections (with an easy opt out) would prevent this problem (to an extent) without the 'concerned parents' having to do anything. This is already the situation with mobile internet in the UK (I don't know whether the cellcos did this themselves, or the government told them to). By default 'adult content' is blocked on cellphones, and a phone call to the provider removes the block.

Why this isn't a good idea is that there is so much porn (or other potentially objectionable material) out there that a 'blacklist' cannot possibly be comprehensive; and of course there are proxies, mirrors etc etc so that if little Johnny really wants to see boobs he can. Ideally, sufficiently concerned parents should directly supervise their kids' access, but a lot of kids these days use their own computers in their room, and Joe Sixpack has 'better things to do'.

What would be a better solution would be for internet connections to be 'open'/unfiltered by default, but the telcos provide the option of blocking on signup, and also information about 3rd party software (blacklist/whitelist) and also information about how any block isn't completely reliable, and if you are that concerned about what the little'uns are doing online then parhaps you should keep an eye on them. Default blocking is not the answer.

So pick a different DNS provider (1)

assemblerex (1275164) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607418)

Couldn't one just change their DNS to any number of servers and make this invalid and moot?

Re:So pick a different DNS provider (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607624)

Nope, y'see the big ISPs already have filtering boxes on the networks here, this isn't DNS based.
The IWF have a 'super-sekrit' list of child pr0n sites they want to block, and others they want to monitor, the biggie ISPs play ball.
VM route all such traffic through a machine called wb7301a.network.virginmedia.net,

hell have a look at the wikipedia article on the internet watch foundation

Bandwidth costs. (2)

wjh31 (1372867) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607436)

Could one motivation for ISPs to join be a reduction in bandwidth usage. We already hear about the massive amounts of it which streaming services such as youtube and netflix. There must be also a substantial amount dedicated to comparable adult sites. Block them by default and those who dont opt in for whatever reason wont get through so many GB each month, or each day depending on the user.

Revenue opportunity for ISPs? Or am I too cynical? (4, Insightful)

Bloodwine77 (913355) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607438)

I'm sure ISPs will be happy to remove the porn block ... for a fee. Basically turning porn on the internet into a premium service.

Some UK ISPs already block porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607444)

Some ISPs in the UK already block all porn. The mobile ISP "3" does exactly this, and there is no opt-in either.

If you try to access filth over 3's network, they redirect you to their own porn-store, where you have to prove your age, and then they will sell you the material they think appropriate for you.

With .XXX this won't be hard (2)

jesseck (942036) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607446)

If all porn site are forced to use .xxx, it won't be hard- the ISP could probably get away with just blocking DNS requests to it's servers for the .xxx domains. Of course, if I were British, I'd use a VPN.

Claire Perry, Conservative MP (1)

chrb (1083577) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607448)

Discussed last month on Slashdot. [slashdot.org]

The Conservatives railed against the "Nanny State" and "Big Government" when they were out of power, and now they want to block every single web site with "adult content" by default, forcing ISPs to pay millions for upgraded filtering systems? The problem is, the filtering systems they want the ISPs to use are the same ones that they already use to enforce the IWF block list [wikipedia.org]. But the IWF block list is only a few thousand URLs; to block all adult content they will have to block tens of thousands of URLs, including Wikipedia because of the "adult content" [wikipedia.org], and many other large and popular sites, and that is going to cause the same problems with authentication and proxying that happened last time [wikipedia.org].

I hope ISPs actually bill people an appropriately expensive fee for this filtering service.

Re:Claire Perry, Conservative MP (2)

Fusen (841730) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607522)

tens of thousands...for porn? I'd bet money there are hundreds of thousands to millions of porn website, their list will grow by a ludicrous amount each day as well. http://www.domaintools.com/internet-statistics/ [domaintools.com] rough guess at how many domains are our there, I could easily see at least a couple hundred thousand of the current 125 million domains at least have porn on them somewhere, even if they aren't traditional "porn sites" dedicated to it/requiring payment. in my teen years (not so long ago) I used to visit quite a few "funny video" sites that also would randomly through in some porn just for good measure :P

Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 1984 (1)

Kjella (173770) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607458)

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

Good thing this is actually just made up by the submitter, because if someone seriously said they had blocked all child porn I'd call them up and say I have the London Bridge for sale and ask if they wanted to buy. The actual article just says there's a block list for child porn sites, why can't we make one for regular porn sites as well? And they're right, that's what all kind of parental control software do already. This is about moving that list one step up from the parental control software up to the ISP level.

What's wrong is in that every home there's at least one person over 18 that it would be perfectly legal for and natural to watch adult entertainment. Families with children of a given age where none of the adults of the household want to watch porn is a very small minority who ought to have to opt in to a clean feed. That's the ridiculousness of the assertion, though I'm sure this will be used to turn parents into some sort of criminals for having an unrestricted internet.

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

So, would these parents be likely to not opt in? Would it do something about a home life where they learn sadistic sex attacks are ok? Of course not. But hey, we got to look tough.

Re:Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 19 (1)

Antisyzygy (1495469) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607588)

I would argue its pretty normal for a kid under 18 to watch adult entertainment. Thats when your hormones are charged up and all you want to do is get chicks (or dudes if thats your thing). I used to sneak downstairs to watch porn on my family computer when I was 15, and I happened to be smart enough to hide the evidence (this was 11 years ago too). I also had a chest full of nudie mags I bartered for from various people.

Re:Orwell peered into the UK soul when he wrote 19 (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607648)

I used the word "all" for the sake of brevity, at the expense of accuracy. I don't regret that decision. Pick nics if you must; the essence of the summary remains the same.

From TFA (1)

Ismellpoop (1949100) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607492)

We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see.
How about when they want to make sure you don't stumble across something embarrassing to the government. Or is it simply just a case of certain individuals in the government working for the paper/DVD based porn lobby?

And how long then.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607496)

.. until opt-in becomes 'pay a small fee to opt-in'?

Also, the Three mobile network already blocks porn sites, redirecting you to a page where you have to prove your age and essentially opt-in. And then, they only (seem to) let you view a handful of websites linked from their over 18s homepage.

Not surprising in a socialist society (-1, Troll)

z-j-y (1056250) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607532)

after all it is a country you can't own a TV without funding BBC.

Re:Not surprising in a socialist society (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607646)

That's not 100% true, it's my understanding that if you own a TV for the sole use of connecting it to non-broadcast devices (game consoles, DVD players, PC without TV tuner, etc) then you are exempt from the license fee. As you can tell by my spelling of "license", however, I am not British, so I'm not 100% certain, but I seem to remember that's how a British friend of mine explained it to me.

blocking all porn by default.. (1)

yossie (93792) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607576)

western society has discovered that prohibition always works well (sarcasm.) I'm sure technology will rise to the occasion. In a biological sense this is just a change in the environment, the life form (society) will simply adapt to it.

Two obvious things come to mind here... (1)

mark-t (151149) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607592)

One, how on earth do they realistically hope to effectively block it all? I mean, really, porn could pose itself as absolutely anything... and isn't just available at particular websites, or going to always have certain terms that you can find with just a web search. I'd dare say that any automated filtering system may stop the most well-known content from getting through, but in the end would not be capable of stopping any more than 30% of the total porn available... if that.

Secondly, how much perfectly legitimate content that isn't anything remotely pornographic is going to get blocked by this?

What is porn? (5, Insightful)

houghi (78078) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607610)

Please tell me what porn is. Then once you are done I will come up with two things.
1) Something that you explain is porn and clearly is not.
2) Something that you explain is not porn and clearly is.

And what again is so bad about porn and what again is not bad about violence?

likely to have the opposite effect (3, Insightful)

bcrowell (177657) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607626)

This is likely to have the opposite of the intended effect.

They claim that they've succeeded in preventing people from inadvertently viewing child porn. This doesn't really make a lot of sense to me. I live in the US, where there is no such law in place, and I've never inadvertently viewed child porn. Presumably this is because child porn is illegal, so nobody just puts it up on a publicly accessible web site. I'm sure people who want to get child porn can get it, and presumably they do it using various workarounds, such as encryption, anonymization, and file-sharing on darknets, so that they don't end up in jail. However, most people who arent chil-porn users aren't going to bother learning how to use the complicated workarounds, because it would be a lot of work and they don't need it.

Now let's imagine what happens with this new setup they're proposing to protect boys from seeing naked ladies. Adolescent boys are generally extremely interested in seeing naked ladies. So now you've taken a large chunk of the population and given them a strong motivation to route around censorship. Every adolescent boy in Britain now wants to know how to use workarounds in order to evade the controls put in place by their parents and their parents' ISP. Learning to use these workarounds will be some work, but these fine young British boys are highly motivated to do that work because they've got Big Ben in their pants aching like a bad tooth.

So the net result is to take anti-censorship workarounds that are currently used by a tiny population of child-porn users and ensure their widespread adoption by every horny kid in England, Scotland, and Wales. Congratulations.

Say what? (1)

LocalH (28506) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607634)

Their rationale is that if ISPs have managed to block all child porn, they'll also be able to block all other porn as well.

What? I wasn't aware that ISPs have been able to "block all child porn".

Terrible journalism (5, Informative)

litheye (1561343) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607640)

This article is completely inaccurate and hyperbolic. It's just one MP (not a minister or anyone with any real power) calling for this and there are no signs that it is gaining traction with the actual government. In fact, the minister responsible said this: "The internet is by and large a force for good, it is central to our lives and to our economy and Government has to be wary before it regulates and passes legislation". Source: http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5jJiC8J_CirrU_ieNBO6oiEXvFlbw?docId=N0237401290546543448A [google.com]

Re:Terrible journalism (1)

airfoobar (1853132) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607686)

I looked for more sources, but I couldn't find more useful info. Cheers for the link (and I'm a bit relieved, tbh).

Fight Back (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607654)

People in less crappy countries can run Tor Relays and Freenet nodes. Here in the US, with FoxNews pigs in power (and the spineless Democrats) - we are heading down the same path. Instead of DDoS attacks, perhaps Anonymous should help improve the 'Darknets' a bit.

Not My Rights Online (1)

Greyfox (87712) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607656)

This was the first reason we kicked those guys to the curb a couple hundred years ago. I know it was the first reason because it was the first thing we put in our Constitution.

And how long until the headlines.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607664)

"LEADING POLITICIAN'S NAME ON LIST OF OP-IN PORN ADDICTS"

"POLITICIAN USED NEIGHBOUR'S HOUSE TO ACCESS PORN"

Porn has a social stigma. Any social stigma is going to be abused. Journalists that support party X is going to focus especially on politicians belonging to not-X and sort through their trash for slips of paper with the opt-in information displayed.
This is why in an actual "humanist" society, content with attached stigma should if at all filtered be opt-OUT, so that there is always a "plausible defense".

yes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 3 years ago | (#34607680)

Thankfully at last the governments of the world are reaching this point. We're all fed up with all this smut being pushed around on the internet. I say the sooner it's eliminated completely the sooner we'll have decent public morality again!

Parents need to be parents (1)

protektor (63514) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607688)

Parents need to take responsibility and keep track of what their kids are doing at all times, and that includes online. If the Internet is such a problem, move the computer into the family room or main room of the house. They won't be going to porn sites when anyone can walk by and see what they are doing online. The State isn't the parent. It's the ones who made the decision to have a child who need to step up and take responsibility and do their job as a parent and not leave it up to someone else to do what they are suppose to do. If it too hard to monitor the internet then don't let them have Internet access, or only when you are sitting there at the computer with them. It's actually really simple. You can't be bothered? Then don't have kids. It's that simple. The State doesn't own anyone the right to be the parent for you. People need to learn to take responsibility and stop demanding someone else do it for them.

No good when DIY is in vogue (2)

oneandoneis2 (777721) | more than 3 years ago | (#34607696)

I live with a teacher, and have worked in local schools myself.

I know for a fact that at least two of the schools in my area have discovered that their kids are busy making their own porn, which they cheerfully send each other via their phones.

Maybe our nanny.. I mean, government.. could do better by insisting that parenting children be the job of their parents, instead of insisting that it be done for them by teachers and corporations?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...