Beta
×

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 Bill Again Demands Web Pornography Ban

samzenpus posted more than 2 years ago | from the internet-has-to-be-for-something-else-now dept.

Censorship 230

nk497 writes "A new bill presented to the House of Lords demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content. The Online Safety Bill, raised in the Lords by Baroness Howe of Ildicote, asks for ISPs and mobile operators to 'provide a service that excludes pornographic images' and for device makers to include ways to filter content at the point of purchase. The Bill follows efforts by one MP to make users "opt in" to access pornography, and comes despite ISPs already agreeing to offer all customers parental control software. However, as a Private Members Bill, it doesn't have the backing of the Government, so is less likely to actually be passed."

cancel ×

230 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What is wrong with pornography? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595155)

Seriously, I can't understand you US and UK people. Pornography is nice. It's one of the basic human instincts. Why do you want to deny it? Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you? Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank. And did so as teen too. Stop being so fucking jealous.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Interesting)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595249)

To be fair to the US and UK people, most of them probably don't want this bill to pass either and every other country in the world has prude powermaniacs in political office as well. You just read more about it because both countries speak the same language as this website.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

Pieroxy (222434) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595613)

every other country in the world has prude powermaniacs in political office as well.

You should look up Ilona Staller on wikipedia. And Silvio Berlusconi is also a good read. Not every country is as you seem to think it is.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (4, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595653)

Does their inclusion in Italian goverment negate the posibility of other politicians in the same government being prude powermaniacs?

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

SteveTheNewbie (1171139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595251)

Seriously ? have you not heard of Samantha Brick ? it seems they are.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595697)

What does that mediocre-looking woman have to do with pr0n?

Who is they and what do they seem to be?

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (1)

SteveTheNewbie (1171139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595805)

I was responding to the part of the post "Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you?"

Hopefully that should answer all your questions.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

siddesu (698447) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595813)

Anonymous Coward looks a lot sexier than that woman looked when she was 31.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Insightful)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595281)

Not all Uk people. Certainly a wanker here :)

I really don't think is is even the majority in UK - cdertainly not the majority that I speak with. But it does appear to be a repeated obsession with a small but influential group of (mostly) chrisitan influential groups.

My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.

I also believe strongly that those argueing for censorship here are missing the real dangers. The internet is public space and should be treated as such. If you are not yet ready to allow your child alone in public space and talking to strangers, don't let them access the internet alone and unmonitored. There are actually worse dangers for children than finding images on the internet, such as predatory grooming, that no amount of filtering will prevent.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (3, Funny)

CrackedButter (646746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595515)

The Romans were onto something when they were sending christians to their deaths. Maybe christians were trying to cock block back then as well, but the government took a different approach?

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (3, Insightful)

MrHanky (141717) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595787)

It's a bit funny that the persecution of the early Christians get so much attention (any attention at all really), considering that it's only a couple of hundred years compared to the Christian persecution of all other religions and non-religions the following 1700 years.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (4, Insightful)

rainmouse (1784278) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595569)

My interpretation is that Christianity never really made its peace with sexuality, like more natural religions, from the strange inheretence path of the greek cult of virginity into what was originally a Jewish sect.

There are many scaremongering documentaries and news articles being spewed out about the dangers of porn to teenagers such as this [guardian.co.uk] . While I cant argue if there is truth to their claims or not, the real issue seems to be a lack of sex education at school, I certainly don't remember any. Perhaps there is something to your theory about religion, over the years, continually interfering with this process. [thecitizen...zine.co.uk]

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595639)

I would argue that there's an awful lot more evidence that exposing children to religion is much more dangerous than exposing them to pornography. So, why isn't anyone trying to pass a bill to ban religion?

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (4, Interesting)

Evtim (1022085) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595753)

US and UK are mostly protestant, right? So is the Netherlands. Do I need say more...it's about culture, no so much about religion. Though I certainly think that from all popular religions Christianity has it very wrong when it comes to sexuality....

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (4, Insightful)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595847)

Not all Uk people. Certainly a wanker here :)

I really don't think is is even the majority in UK - cdertainly not the majority that I speak with. But it does appear to be a repeated obsession with a small but influential group of (mostly) chrisitan influential groups.

There's also a strong feminist element in the opposition to porn, and with Baroness Howe's background in the Equal Opportunities Commission I suspect that's where she's coming from. I can see the sense in that as far as some porn goes -- some does seem to carry a message of oppression and abuse of women. But most of the stuff I've seen just carries the message that some people enjoy sex with each other (ok, with perhaps a bit more interest in facials than I've experienced in real life, but that seems to be just so the camera has something to shoot). Have I been sheltered in the porn I've seen?

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Interesting)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595297)

We had some fairly good posts on this in the 'Egypt pornography ban' story earlier today. The general consensus (I think) is that it is a threat to the kind of compulsory, loveless marriages that are common accomplices to conservative values. It's not anyone's fault; merely an unfortunate equilibrium that built up over time. Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

...and sarcastically: escapism is clearly an unacceptable coping mechanism for a bad relationship that you're duty-bound to maintain by a bundle of two-thousand-year-old fairy tales and comic books.

Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling. It's enough to make me think that a concerted effort to reduce violence in the media might help clean up how sexuality is perceived by the people currently trying to oppress it.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595511)

Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

Actually no, and now I'm curious. Perhaps it's just the porn I tend to see (gay; no extreme fetishes), but the most violent thing I can recall is some very minor choking--really more like throat-grabbing. I read a story a few months ago about extremely violent (straight) porn that was the subject of an obscenity trial, but I figured it was a negligible minority situation. I dunno if there's a big gay/straight divide here or if I'm just out of the loop.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595707)

I can't quantify, or claim it's what GP was talking about, but look at porn for fetishes like micro/macrophilia, crush, vore, peril (at least I believe that's what it's called), abduction, rape, and the various ones based entirely around degrading/dehumanizing people or specific people. It's pretty fucked up, but nothing to get self-righteous over.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595777)

For most of the above, the UK certainly has laws in place to prevent people exploited in the creation of it - it therefore mostly gets distributed in the form of stories/fiction and artwork rather than real people.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (1)

stealth_finger (1809752) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595767)

Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

Actually no, and now I'm curious. Perhaps it's just the porn I tend to see (gay; no extreme fetishes), but the most violent thing I can recall is some very minor choking--really more like throat-grabbing. I read a story a few months ago about extremely violent (straight) porn that was the subject of an obscenity trial, but I figured it was a negligible minority situation. I dunno if there's a big gay/straight divide here or if I'm just out of the loop.

I've got plenty or 'regular' porn and can't describe anything more violent than you. Maybe it all depends what you put in the search bar.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595575)

coping mechanism for a bad relationship that you're duty-bound to maintain by a bundle of two-thousand-year-old fairy tales and comic books

AFAIK at least the catholic church "allows" (recognizes as religiously valid) up to three marriages. The problem lies with people (and media) that need a new scandal to talk about every other day and attack anything that "qualifies" like a pack of starved wolfs.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Insightful)

santosh.k83 (2442182) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595623)

We had some fairly good posts on this in the 'Egypt pornography ban' story earlier today. The general consensus (I think) is that it is a threat to the kind of compulsory, loveless marriages that are common accomplices to conservative values. It's not anyone's fault; merely an unfortunate equilibrium that built up over time. Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

...and sarcastically: escapism is clearly an unacceptable coping mechanism for a bad relationship that you're duty-bound to maintain by a bundle of two-thousand-year-old fairy tales and comic books.

Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling. It's enough to make me think that a concerted effort to reduce violence in the media might help clean up how sexuality is perceived by the people currently trying to oppress it.

Huh. Love has been hyped up far more than it is in reality. There's a vast gulf between marriages were the couple aren't romantically set on fire by each other (but which work very well nonetheless) and abusive and destructive relationships. It takes all kinds to make this world apparently. I think both rigidly orthodox, conservative societies (which tend to produce insecure, reactionary people as this House member being discussed) and amoral libertarians represent two extremes of the spectrum, and a middle-ground of a healthy society exemplified by "all for one and one for all" is the ideal we should aim for.

Like every other Internet user, having been exposed to all kinds of pornography, I'm now heartily sick of it and realise one ounce of a real relationship (no matter how imperfect it may be, as long as mutual respect is present) is worth tons of worthless fantasy. "Make love, not war" is excellent, but it's sad how it has been slowly transformed into "Make sex, not love."

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (-1, Offtopic)

ameen.ross (2498000) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595675)

Mod parent up

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Informative)

Kjella (173770) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595765)

Conversely, have you seen some of the absurdities they get up to in hardcore porn these days? Catering to private fantasies is one thing, but the amount of violence contaminating the general pool of smut at this point is pretty unsettling.

Yes and no, the market for porn is getting completely saturated. If you just want amateur porn there's tons on xHamster and RedTube and PornHub. If you want professional porn then HD only made the porn skanks go away, there's plenty girls that look stunning in 1080p. For $10/month you can get 100-200 GB of new "mainstream" porn in 30 categories each month at Brazzers (not affiliated, just to take an example). If you just want to download there's enormous siterips with more porn than you could ever get around to watching. If you're not adding anything unique to the pool, then your standard porn flick adds about 0.02$ of value.

Because of that, sites specialize. If you want just erotic pictures go to Met-Art. If you want porn but still stylish go to X-Art. If you want movie with a story get movies like Pirates,. Pirates II, The 8th Day and many more. If you have a fetish, there's probably a site dedicated to you, whether it's redheads or girls with glasses or interracial or midgets or bukkake, hell there's probably one for redhead midgets with glasses doing interracial bukkake too. Obviously somebody is going to try out just how far you can take pain/violence/BDSM too, but it's not going mainstream. They just have to make it more extreme to provide something new, like giving an addict an even stronger drug to get a new kick.

I suspect that in not that long these niches will start to saturate too, that yes we've now done pretty much everything imaginable while having sex and there's tons of videos out there already. Here in Norway some production companies did Norwegian porn for a few years when they lifted the ban like 2004-2008, today they're all shut down. Not because of legal or political reasons but simply because there's so much free porn the niche "Norwegian porn" no longer is a viable business. Not that I'm doing anything silly like predicting the death of the porn industry, but I think it'll be in decline for some time.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595857)

Personally, I'm still waiting for the complementary ban on Harlequin Romance novels.

Glad to see that this has been modded up; I've already posted on this topic so I couldn't do it.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595357)

You do know this is OPTIONAL right? That it's basically forcing ISPs to have Parental controls.

Granted, it's a likely first step towards a blanket system of Site denial. I can see the next step after this is File Sharing site denial for those convicted or suspected of copyright infringement, rather than cut off their internet entirely. A less harsh but still fucking stupid version of the 3-strikes idea.

Then after that, once it's engrained in the populace that blocking sites is natural, we'll see alot of stealth blocks going on.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (5, Informative)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595539)

You do know this is OPTIONAL right?

Actually, no. The summary should have been clearer, but from the bill itself,

... they must ensure this service excludes pornographic images unless all the conditions of subsection (3) have been fulfilled.

(3) The conditions are—
        (a) the subscriber opts-in to subscribe to a service that includes pornographic images;
        (b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and
        (c) the provider of the service has an age verification policy which has been used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over.

From (3a), the filtering is on by default and requires an opt-in to disable it, along with age verification.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (2)

FrootLoops (1817694) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595493)

Seriously, I can't understand you US and UK people.

US person here.

Are you jealous when other people look sexier than you?

Hmm, I suppose a little? Mostly I'm just thinking, "wow, he's hot" and firing up my own imagination.

Still, I can bet that 99.99% of you wank.

Yup, just did a few minutes ago, to *gasp* gay porn even.

And did so as teen too.

Also yup.

Stop being so fucking jealous.

Hah, will do.

I have basically nothing against the porn I see. The guys know what they're doing, are of age, typically get paid--even going gay-for-pay is their own choice, so that's fine. Dangerous practices like barebacking (anal sex with no condom) start to trip my sense of "that's wrong" and I typically avoid depictions of them. Child porn is a definite "no", though actually I'm alright with a guy wanking to non-exploitative pictures of children so long as he doesn't do anything harmful to an actual person. If someone is somehow forced into making porn that's also a definite "no". My view is certainly skewed towards the types of porn I like and might be substantially incomplete. For instance, I don't know enough about straight porn to really have an opinion there, though I imagine it's similar.

I have no particularly extreme fetishes, so I don't really know how I feel about apparently controversial things like fisting (inserting a fist into an anus), pissing (on your partner), (gay) incest, bondage, etc. As a rule, so long as the people involved aren't being exploited in some way and nobody's getting hurt in any way they don't want, I'm fine with it (porn or other). Child porn is the only type I can think of that I support being illegal. Mandatory default filtering seems extremely problematic and simply not worthwhile--just watch your damn kids already, accept that they're sexual beings starting around puberty, and stop treating sex as inherently dirty. I don't really care what your holy book says in this regard since your kids are real and blindly applying ancient wisdom can really screw real people up.

In the US we unfortunately have a very vocal segment of extreme right-wing nutjobs (that's the technical term [urbandictionary.com] ). They feel entitled to speak their mind because of a long tradition of protected speech, and so they do. Most of us ignore them, though there's no denying they have a large audience of willing idiots. I take a little comfort in the fact that many of them are getting old and will hopefully die soon (eg. Rush Limbaugh is 61; Pat Robertson is 82). Unfortunately up-and-comers like Ann Coulter and Sarah Palin are pretty young, so I dunno how things will work out.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595553)

"It's one of the basic human instincts. "

You must be trolling

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595645)

I can bet that 99.99% of you wank.

Not Americans. Most of them are circumsized, so wanking is virtually impossible.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595715)

I'm circumsized and I wank all the time.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595687)

How in all fuck did this POS comment get modded up? Fuck you mods.

Re:What is wrong with pornography? (3, Interesting)

humanrev (2606607) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595831)

Pornography is nice. It's one of the basic human instincts.

Yes, but unfortunately the pornographic industry is rather, well, scummy and sleazy. Oh sure they've got their rules and regulations and try to keep their performers clean, but it is known to be an industry which will take the young and pretty and squeeze the life out of them, progressively making them do worse and worse things if they want to continue being a part of the industry and, ultimately, finding themselves worn out and undesirable and with significant problems once they leave and try to get a real career.

Having said that, like most people I'm aware of this but am able to compartmentalize things, so it doesn't bother me enough to not look at porn.

Inbreeding... Just say no. (2)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595159)

That woman is actually stupid enough to believe that a single country can stop porn on the net.

-jcr

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (4, Funny)

kwark (512736) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595193)

Dude, it isn't about stopping porn on the internet, it is all about thinking of the children.

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (5, Funny)

stms (1132653) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595205)

People looking at porn on the internet should not be thinking about children.

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (2)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595503)

Oh i don't know, wanking over porn on the internet is one way to avoid the risk of unintentionally having children.

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595221)

The lady is 80 years old... There may be certain limits to her knowledge of the internet.

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (2)

sa1lnr (669048) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595279)

That stupid jcr didn't RTFA otherwise he/she would of understood that she is not trying to stop porn on the net.

Not even TFA, it's in the summary.

Here's a clue: "provide a service that excludes pornographic images"

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (2)

jcr (53032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595405)

Reading comprehension isn't your long suit, apparently. You missed this in the first line: "demands both ISPs and device makers filter adult content." The line you quoted all by itself might sound like she's just asking ISPs to offer filtering software, but if you RTFA, you'd find that she wants it to be filtered by default. Among other things, that means that the ISP has a list of people who've opted-in. A list that a government can abuse.

-jcr

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595495)

On the other hand I might like to be on that list and be forced to pay a porn tax and have government subsidized porn. Then I can see 2 government employees fuck each other. Oh wait this is UK not USA...shouldn't they already be like that? Fuck, now I've got this [youtube.com] stuck in my head.

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595365)

itchy butt goin on right here. Anybody else havin that problem right about now? its ok, just go ahead n scratch

yeah baby scratch that!

feels good, dont it

Re:Inbreeding... Just say no. (4, Insightful)

radio4fan (304271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595637)

Elspeth Rosamund Morton Howe (Baroness Howe of Idlicote in her own right and and Lady Howe of Aberavon because she's the wife of Baron Howe of Aberavon) is 80 years old.

This might give everyone a clue as to why she's got no idea about the net, or about the wide acceptance of pornography in mainstream culture.

Thankfully, this bill has no chance of passing, as there's no money in it for any of Cameron's cronies. Anyway, I can't think of a single bill from the last ten years that started in the House of Lords that became law, never mind one from a cross-bencher.

BTW: she was created a baroness, and her husband was created a baron; they're not hereditary peers, and her father was the noted architect and writer Philip Morton Shand, so putting it down to inbreeding rather than her simply being out-of-touch, over-privileged and superannuated is maybe a bit harsh!

Thanks! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595167)

Thank you for the informative post! I will keep an eye on the subject. Id like to know whether the bill will get passed. Man and Van [http]

Retarded (4, Insightful)

Idimmu Xul (204345) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595175)

The political cycle

10 introduce bill that screws over the people, sponsored by either the fundamental right or a corporation

20 society tries to rally and shoot it down

30 if people are down trodden enough pass bill; break, else throw out bill

40 sleep 5 years

50 goto 10 with same bill

Politics and corporations are moving at a glacial pace compared to society, it's getting stupid.

Re:Retarded (1)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595333)

Oh, people like Mary Whitehouse crop up every now and then. Like ebb and flood. But in between their comings people seem to forget to say

Ha-ha. Charade you are.

You don't listen to the Mary Santorums of this world. You don't argue with the Claire Santorums of this world. You don't compromise with the Rickroll Santorums of this world. You laugh them back into their churches. Two of them are (politically)dead so in that case outliving them might also be sufficient.
I don't know if Claire Perry lubes up with thoughts of the lord Jeebus like santorum does but basically they are of the same crop. Meddeling busybodies with no further insight than the rest of us.

Ha-ha. Charade you are.
Bullshit has been called. Let the ridicule begin.

Re:Retarded (4, Funny)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595559)

There is no BREAK in BASIC.

Re:Retarded (2)

SplashMyBandit (1543257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595607)

He was doing BASIC-esque pseudocode, and that certainly has BREAK, you insensitive clod!

ISP's are already compliant (4, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595183)

Nearly all ISP's in the UK have a service which allows the customer's Internet connection to be set to "off." When the "off" setting is activated, all pornographic Internet content can no longer be accessed. This technology is cutting edge — no other filtering is 100% effective.

Re:ISP's are already compliant (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595265)

Indeed.
False positives are still positives, right?

Re:ISP's are already compliant (1)

Avoiderman (82105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595303)

Nearly all ISP's in the UK have a service which allows the customer's Internet connection to be set to "off." When the "off" setting is activated, all pornographic Internet content can no longer be accessed. This technology is cutting edge — no other filtering is 100% effective.

Love it. Just for that I'd send you free pictures ;-)

Re:ISP's are already compliant (1)

Kell Bengal (711123) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595769)

Unfortunately, those pictures would be caught by his filter.

Good but bad (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595201)

Asking the ISPs to OFFER THE CHOICE of a feed filtered for adult content, GOOD.
However the danger Australia showed with this is, once politicians get this, they get carried away and start making blocking of websites mandatory (the usual terror/kiddies claims), which then becomes a list that grows and grows and starts including proxies and sites discussing how to use a proxy and and and ....

Already the UK block list had Wikipedia listed on it, (the Scorpions album cover features a topless girl, as if that was somehow porm) so they're already way down the route of state control of what you can read on the net.

IMHO, having seen what happened in Australia, its better not to go down this route.

Re:Good but bad (2)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595287)

Reading comprehension is a great thing... or possible you didn't RTFA (or the summary):

"(the bill) requires ISPs and mobile operators provide a "service which excludes pornographic images" unless the customer opts in, is over 18 and the company has verified that fact.".

So basically this bill - if it goes through - would require you not only to prove to your ISP that you're over 18, but also to pretty much ask your ISP "Can I pretty please be allowed to look at pretty women online?" (or pretty men, if thats your thing). And while it says noting in TFA about it, Im damn sure the ISP would not only keep a list on hand on who of their customers like to look at pretty women (or men) online, but would also refuse if they think it's possible that your computer might be used by under 18s.

Re:Good but bad (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595307)

No! They were supposed to hide the incriminating documents from that one time in Australia! No one in the world must know that "confidential child pornography blacklist" is a euphemism for "censor any website we like without oversight!" How will we crush dissenting opinions now?!

Re:Good but bad (1)

cyber-vandal (148830) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595541)

Not just porn but kiddie porn. I'm surprised that U2's first album wasn't blocked for similar reasons.

But we already have that (2)

Qubit (100461) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595213)

It's called "change the channel" or "disable connections to the primary Internet."

Seriously -- if the government or some other organization wants to create a walled playground for their own fun and games, then by all means do so. Lots of organizations run networks of interconnected computers spread out geographically around the world. Some of them even keep their network separate from other people's networks, with the most security-conscious even using air gaps and other barriers. The most famous of these networks is The Internet. But it's not the only network out there that can host and serve content.

Thankfully if you RTFA it looks like this is just the ranting of someone in the House of Lords, and it appears that those with a pint of good sense over in the Government are quite opposed to this whole idea, with the Department for Culture, Media, and Sport saying that "self-regulation...can be more effective than a regulatory approach in delivering flexible solutions that work for both industry and consumers.”

Re:But we already have that (1)

PiMuNu (865592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595517)

"self-regulation...can be more effective than a regulatory approach in delivering flexible solutions that work for both industry and consumers.”

Translation from British into American - "Go screw yourself you crazy old bat" cf Yes Minister/Yes Prime Minister for further examples of British English

What ISPs should do: (2)

marcello_dl (667940) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595237)

Offer a 1£ a month internet plan with a firewall that drops every incoming packet, since it is the only theoretical and practical way to prevent the user from getting any porn (breaking encryption and steganography for each possible algorithm for incoming traffic is theoretically impossible and practically next to impossible). So this is what the law says must be done.

just remember to offer users a trial period so they cannot claim they are unsatisfied with the service after subscribing.

Warning IANAL and I don't live in that fascist place (I am in another one)

Irony (1)

Bunzinator (1105885) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595241)

It's rather ironic, a Private Member trying to ban private members.

I think Dogbert put it best ... (3, Informative)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595243)

Anyone trying to put a bill through like this should be able to answer this question [dilbert.com] first. Preferably in essay form, and then present something comparable to a thesis defense.

Won't work (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595247)

Every single time I see one of these stupid bills the first thing that comes to mind is 'won't work.

You can set up the most intelligent, crazy whitelist type system in the world, then it'll get thwarted by someone sending an email, or someone posting something on a forum. And that's assuming that the blocking itself works (hint: it doesn't).

There are too many sites on the internet, there is too much of a wide definition of what is porn or not, and if you block agenericpornsite (blacklist), then someone will come up with anothergenericpornsite - and your filter is useless. The fact that you can get domain names pretty cheaply doesn't help either.

While we're here I'd like a system which excludes all malware please. K thnx.

Re:Won't work (2)

bfandreas (603438) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595379)

I think the backbencher Claire Perry doesn't think that far. Her track record:
-called for an opt-out anti smut web filter
-called for Remembrance Sunday to be a bank holiday(withdrawn by her after wasting enough of everybodies time on it)
-called for an opt-out anti smut web filter again

She seems to have a Conservative safe seat and it's good to know she puts it to good use. Since she isn't that obviously such an over-the-top kook like the transatlantic ones with their big trousers, silly noses and unfortunate names I feel the need to call her out.
That woman is a bad joke. And not even a good one. Besides, Boris "Boris Johnson" Johnson looks like he could object to limiting the steady flow of porn from the internet. So she could be in real hot water ones he makes PM. Which would be a blessing since hot water washes all the santorum away.

How to filter porn? (1)

WegianWarrior (649800) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595253)

Since no one seems to agree to a simple, easily understandable definition of what pornography actually is, and software have yet to be able to recognize images with a 100% success rate... well, I guess the only sure way to filter out all the pornographic images is to suppress all the images on the various websites the user requests. Or mandate the use of a text based browser [wikipedia.org] such as Lynx.

Next up; a bill to stop all the pornographic stories and words out there on the evil, evil interwebs...

Re:How to filter porn? (1)

greyc (709363) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595839)

Blocking all images is not sufficient for entirely blocking pornography. It'd still leave ASCII art, for instance.

Just vote her out next election . . . (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595269)

That's the good thing about living in a democracy . . . stop whining and get out in the next election and vote for somebody else, instead!

Now, when, is the next election for the House of Lords . . . ?

Oh, hmmm . . . well, how do you get rid of a member of the House of Lords? Can they be expelled by the Queen, or something like that?

Re:Just vote her out next election . . . (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595299)

The whole point of the House of Lords is that they're not elected, and hence don't have to spend their time pandering to the electorate; they can make sensible decisions that no elected politician would be allowed to do. Opposition to the Lords comes primarily from those trying to push through unpopular legislation, not because they try to push through unpopular legislation; which they can't do unless the elected politicians support it.

There is absolutely no point in electing two different groups of politicians because you'll get roughly the same mix of parties in both. Switching from indirect to direct election of the Senate was one of the most disastrous decisions in the political history of America, for the same reason.

Re:Just vote her out next election . . . (2)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595319)

Traditionally you grabbed your torch and pitchfork, met with your friends and stormed their mansion.

Re:Just vote her out next election . . . (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595463)

You'd need to get a considerable tide of public opinion to actually get someone's letters patent revoked. Given she's a Conservative peer the chances of that happening are approaching zero; such things only happen at the recommendation of the Privy Council - which is headed up by the incumbent government.

Re:Just vote her out next election . . . (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595475)

Actually I take that back, she's a Cross Bench Peer. She also got her peerage through being recommended for one by the general public. The chances of her getting her letters patent revoked are, however, still pretty much zero.

Is this what they are talking about? (1)

TheInternetGuy (2006682) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595273)

Rule 34 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595291)

Sorry Baroness Ho' but rule 34 guarantees that you cannot do this unless you block all internet traffic.

.xxx (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595329)

If they hadn't banned the use of .xxx domains then maybe by now most of the port sites would have switched over and used those domain names and browsers could have a parental section that would stop children from loading .xxx addresses... It's THAT simple... but banning porn altogether, it's a pipedream of an idiot...

Re:.xxx (1)

Haedrian (1676506) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595351)

And of course all pornography websites would be on xxx. For all descriptions of pornography. Which also includes for example artistic nudes (for some people or some jurisdictions). All you're doing is sweeping it under the rug.

House of Lords (1)

spectrokid (660550) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595377)

Are they still a bunch of old scared white men with broomsticks up their asses? And how are the plans going to change all that?

Uhm, male Baroness? (1)

steve.cri (2593117) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595395)

The Baroness Howl of Idiote obviously is a woman, although it probably is a good guess that she's old, white, and probably also with the scared and the broomstick thing

Re:Uhm, male Baroness? (1)

_Shad0w_ (127912) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595479)

She's fairly old, at 80. She appears to not be a complete fruit case though - she used to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

Re:Uhm, male Baroness? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595641)

She's fairly old, at 80. She appears to not be a complete fruit case though - she used to be a member of the Equal Opportunities Commission.

The one headed by racists like Trevor Philips?

Block Jarretiere keyword ;-) (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595407)

I would propose to block the "jarretiere" keyword on Internet .... and see what royalists think of this proposition ;-)

"Online Safety"... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595415)

What is unsafe about seeing pornography?!

Re:"Online Safety"... (1)

FrkyD (545855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595833)

Um, Blindness? At least that's what the anti-masturbators used to say.

Of course, that has the added benefit of making it impossible for one to view porn, so I guess it all sorts itself out in the end.

Still sighted, but I'm working on it...

House of Lords, methinks... (1)

Lord_of_the_nerf (895604) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595439)

...thou doth protest too much.

Illegal hardware (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595457)

From the article: "It also seeks to force device manufacturers to provide customers with a way to filter adult content "from an internet service at the time the device is purchased". That would apply to any devices that can connect to the internet."

Jesus, Mary, and Joseph; the people that write these things must have been living in a cave for the last 30 years to have such a limited understanding of technology.

Would this mean that hardware is effectively illegal (as such a requirement would be practically impossible to meet)? Would this apply to manufacturers of ethernet/wifi components or just to companies that assemble complete, internet-accessing computers?

ah yes, the Euros are so (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595459)

cultured, aren't they?

Dont like something on the net. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595485)

Don't use it.

Attention Limey Bastards: (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595489)

By getting on the internet, you are opting IN for everything on the internet. If you don't want your kids to access all the filth and evil and villainy on the internet, don't let them get on it. Like the television (or telly, as I guess you call it), the internet should NOT babysit your children for you, nor do your parental duty by your children in your stead.

Parentel control, haha (3, Informative)

Bert64 (520050) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595499)

Parental control software is utterly useless, the vast majority of kids know a lot more about computers than their parents and have no trouble bypassing a parental control system that is purely software based... It's a classic case of client side security.

If you want something like that to be even remotely effective, it has to run at a layer further up the network that the kids have no access to.

That said, porn and sex are a fact of life.
Your kids will encounter them at some point wether you like it or not... When they're really young they wont be interested in it, and when they get older they will actively seek it out.

To a kid, if a subject is forbidden then its automatically more interesting... The more you try to prevent them seeing porn, they more they will look for it, and this is nothing new.
When i was a kid, internet access was very rare and porn on computers was pixelated and dithered.. So we acquired porn from magazines and on vhs tapes.

And something else important to consider, if you try to prevent your kids from learning about such things as porn, then they will just get introduced to it by other kids at school instead... Surely better for you to educate them in a controlled environment, so they are prepared for what they will encounter when they venture out into an environment that you don't control.
If you wrap them in cotton wool and shield them from any thoughts or violence, sex, bad language etc, then they will be completely unprepared when they encounter such things form other kids at school, and will have far more interest in them because its new to them and forbidden at home.

Re:Parentel control, haha (1)

qu33ksilver (2567983) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595817)

Seriously man, do these guys think that by blocking the ISPs they can stop porn from internet ? I am from India and naturally sites like netflix, pandora is blocked. But does that mean I can't view them ? I can RDP to any machine in our company HQ in Florida or Santa Clara and open any site, do whatever I want. As simple as that. You may talk about religion and what is good for children and so many things under the sun, but hasn't society changed ? Okay I agree that children might not study if they have access to porn on their homes. But does that mean prohibiting porn will make them better students ?

Re:Parentel control, haha (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595845)

parental control software is an educational opportunity for children to learn more about computers and subverting authority.

Waste of time and effort (2)

MrMickS (568778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595501)

Reading the provisions in the bill its not so much a ban on porn but rather restricting access to it unless the primary subscriber has expressed a desire to see it and can prove that they are 18 or over.

All of the mobile (cell) providers in the UK already operate a similar system for Internet access over their networks. The ISPs will introduce a similar system if they feel that their consumers want it.

If the subscriber opts in though anyone in the household will be able to get all of the porn that they want so its pretty much a fig leaf exercise for the Daily Mail readers.

Consequences? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595507)

Expect a sudden rise in crimes of sexual nature soon after this bill becomes law. Its not like they could predict this sort of thing happening they're politicians, people who are incompetent in every area imaginable but with strong opinions about everything.

Most of the time people who seek to be in position of power are exactly those that should never be allowed to do so. It happens everywhere: in politics, work environments and summer camps.

Re:Consequences? (1)

Ash-Fox (726320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595717)

Over an optional filter?

Doesn't the Government have enough to do (1)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595509)

Without interfering in my masturbation?

title does not reflect the content (2)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595545)

Bill demands service from ISP which could be chosen or rejected by users. Users will still have this wonderful opportunity to see humans degrade themselves on camera for money.

So, no, "UK Bill DOES NOT Demand Web Pornography Ban"

My poor brothers (4, Funny)

zippo01 (688802) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595579)

My poor brothers across the pond. I can only imagine your pain. Blue and swollen pain.

'Hey let's be more like China and Iran.' (-1, Troll)

Crypto Cavedweller (2611959) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595669)

Ildiots.

Censorship isn't just a black and white issue (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595741)

Some commenters here posting about when they were a kid, they'd read dirty magazines with photos and VHS tapes but the Internet today is unfiltered. Kids can easily stumble upon shock sites and sites which primarily host death material. The mags and VHS tapes were filtered before they went on the shelves so no, times are different and different policies must be employed.

A good way, is if you have kids, you have a white list. Plain and simple. Of course you can't stop them looking at material their friends houses but at least it prevents some trauma they may not get from some material found on the Internet. The best case scenario is having ISP's have a default white list if the family has kids and the parents get a password in their broadband package that they put in for unfiltered access. This is because most parents don't know how to filter or install safe guards (some parents don't care) but its important there are some limits on what kids can see, unless you honestly think a 8 year old won't be traumatised by some material found on the Internet like real deaths as mentioned before.

Think of the children (4, Insightful)

roman_mir (125474) | more than 2 years ago | (#39595757)

Wouldn't you think of the children? Those very children, whose future you are selling out by putting all of your current and past expenses on their tab?

Wouldn't you think of the children, those very children that you are leaving with all these hatred around the world because of all the illegal and immoral wars that are you sending children into?

Wouldn't you think of the children, the same children that have no sound economy to look forward to, because you have chased away all of the savings and investment capital and all of the manufacturing and production out of your countries, because you just have to buy everything you, including the biggest governments can with fake money?

Wouldn't you think of those children, whose freedoms you are stealing by creating all these laws that ensure that the children basically end up leaving in prison like conditions, strip searched at every point, fined, jailed, regulated, taxed, etc.?

Wouldn't you think of the children, same ones that will have no knowledge or real education but huge debts, because you are lying to them that they need all that government education while putting them on the government guaranteed (and thus seemingly endless) loan needle?

Wouldn't you think of the children, who won't be able to run their own businesses due to all of the protections you are giving to your preferred monopolies, all of the regulations, laws, taxes, licenses, bail outs, stimulus, etc.etc., everything you do, when you prop up failing corporations you like so much and ensure that nobody can compete with them?

But at least you are making sure that the children don't see those 'offending' pornography images and videos. Of-course that's just a pretence that you are running in order to secure some form of total control over the information on the Internet, the only real outlet of actual data that those very children can use to learn something useful about the world around them.

Best sex-ed (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39595809)

Why would you want to remove such a great source for sexual education? Children are not as stupid as some adults seem to think - they know what is fantasy and what is real. Just because they watch a superman movie they don't think they should leap off roofs to fly. The same goes for porn. Nobody can confuse the unrealistic situation and the silicone bodies for the real thing. There is however a lot of valuable information found in a porn movie.

I can say this from direct personal experience: internet porn has made sure that my RL sex life was great from the start. In short, I learned the female anatomy and the mechanics of sex watching porn. When I had intercourse for the first time, there was no problem - I knew what to expect and roughly what I should be doing. And of course I was not a complete idiot so it was no problem excluding the porn fantasy elements.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?