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!

British MPs Propose Censoring Internet By Default

Unknown Lamer posted more than 2 years ago | from the think-of-the-children dept.

Censorship 255

judgecorp writes "An all-party inquiry by British MPs has proposed the Internet should be censored to prevent children seeing 'adult' content. Users would have to opt in to see adult content. The proposal is similar to that already used by mobile operators." From the article: "The move, first suggested in 2010, has been firmed up , after a cross-party Parliamentary inquiry examined the state of online child protection. The current proposal is a 'network-level "Opt-In" system,' going beyond the 'active choice' model launched by ISPs ... last October. ... They also want the Government to 'consider a new regulatory structure for online content, with one regulator given a lead role in the oversight and monitoring of Internet content distribution and the promotion of Internet safety initiatives.'"

cancel ×

255 comments

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

How does this help? (4, Insightful)

Dog-Cow (21281) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723193)

When the parent opts in, how does that prevent a child from using his PC or iPod Touch from using the same connection?

Finally, a good reason for ipv6 NAT :)

Re:How does this help? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723239)

I'm 15 and I still can't figure how not allowing me to watch pron is protecting me.

Re:How does this help? (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723329)

Just because you already learned it in sex ed years earlier doesn't mean you should know it!

Re:How does this help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723343)

Are you the kind of guy who think kids don't have sex ? that boobs start to grow at 18 ?

Re:How does this help? (1)

tmosley (996283) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723629)

Ignorance is awesome!

Re:How does this help? (4, Funny)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723465)

Same here. When I was a teen I started downloading nude women on my Commodore 64 and Amiga (4000 color), and it didn't do me any harm. (Except give me a strange nostalgia for low-res 360x240 photos.)

Didn't do you harm? (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723635)

I think the fact that you posting on slashdot is clear evidence that your mind was tainted at a young age.

Re:How does this help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723469)

I'm 12 and what is this?

Re:How does this help? (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723605)

OK, seriously, here's the only warning teenage boys need about porn:

Porn is to IRL sex as movie car chases are to IRL driving. They do some things that look cool but would be absolutely horrible IRL. If you jump your Charger/Camaro 20ft. in the air it is going to be wrecked when it hits the ground. If you try to do anything seen in a F&F2+ movie you'll cause a horrible accident (or if you're lucky, turn your transmission into a box of metal cornflakes first). In movie car chases the laws of physics are fictionalized. In (straight) porn, it's women's sexuality.

Using spit for lube is freaking gross and doesn't work, and anal sex can cause horrible, painful anal fissures. Sperm burns like hell if it gets in your eye. Most women don't want you to cum in their mouth and many don't even like it on the face. Just jamming your cock in and thrusting like mad won't pleasure most of them, they like a lot of foreplay - sucking your dick doesn't count as foreplay. I could go on but I think these are the most important.

So watch and enjoy but don't emulate.

Re:How does this help? (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723671)

Why should I care if the girl I fuck have fun ?

Come on, we're talking about sex, not making love to someone you want to make your life with.

Re:How does this help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723749)

Because if you don't want to get interrupted 20 seconds in then she damn well should have fun.

Re:How does this help? (0)

Hentes (2461350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723667)

They don't want you to go blind.

Re:How does this help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723743)

Internet porn isn't like Playboy. It's full of some really weird and twisted stuff. Try to emulate that with young women and you'll end up living in your mom's basement the rest of your life, with Internet porn as your only release. Just say no to Internet porn.

Re:How does this help? (1)

FyRE666 (263011) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723315)

Do not question our infallible overlords. There's no way this idea could possibly fail. It's foolproof...

Re:How does this help? (2)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723323)

They simply would not opt in, theoretically.

Re:How does this help? (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723425)

They simply would not opt in, theoretically.

Uh, yeah. Sure. Parents would never look at Pr0n.

Re:How does this help? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723411)

When the parent opts in, how does that prevent a child from using his PC or iPod Touch from using the same connection?

Finally, a good reason for ipv6 NAT :)

What exactly would IPv6 NAT accomplish in this scenario?

Re:How does this help? (2)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723423)

It would place the blame firmly on the parents for opting in?

Re:How does this help? (4, Insightful)

biek (1946790) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723573)

Instead of placing the blame firmly on the parents for not regulating/monitoring their child's internet use?

Re:How does this help? (1)

digitig (1056110) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723497)

When the parent opts in, how does that prevent a child from using his PC or iPod Touch from using the same connection?

What child? There are no children in my household.

Re:How does this help? (3, Insightful)

Rakishi (759894) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723517)

Simple solution, parents should never ever opt-in and any who do are obviously unfit since, as you said, their children may sue their computers. So if they do then the parent will simply be brought up for child endangerment charges and have their children taken away. Problem solved.

Given the UK's famous bureaucracy, I give it two years before their version of the CPC starts using that line of argument.

Re:How does this help? (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723647)

Simple solution, parents should never ever opt-in and any who do are obviously unfit since, as you said, their children may sue their computers.

Ah, I love it when a typo transforms into profound social commentary!

Re:How does this help? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723543)

Presumably the next step is to make it socially unacceptable to opt-in if you're a parent. It would be fairly easy to spin it as "Parent exposes their children to porn, therefore they're a bad parent..."

Think of the Civil Libeties! (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723205)

America has dibs on taking away liberties in the name of child safety, sorry UK, find your own thing.

Re:Think of the Civil Libeties! (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723277)

Speed cameras! Wait till you get thousands of those on all your motorways.

Re:Think of the Civil Libeties! (4, Funny)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723361)

Speed cameras? Sounds cool! How do they make the traffic go faster, exactly? :-)

Think of the children (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723211)

This would be a better world if we just shot all politicians who used the instinct to protect children to push agendas.

Re:Think of the children (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723235)

This would be a better world if we just shot all politicians who used the instinct to protect children to push agendas.

This would be a better world if we just told the sexually-repressed politicians that it's OK to look at boobies. Or weeners, if that's their thing. So they would no longer feel the need to ban things for "our" protection. And the only shooting that would be required would be the shooting of the video, and the shooting that takes place at the end of the video.

Dear UK: I like looking at boobs. Looking at boobs is more fun than shooting people.

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723245)

That only solves a part of the problem. We also need to make legaleze a jailable offense and attempting to craft a law in legaleze punishable by catapult.

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723291)

as ammo or target?

Re:Think of the children (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723353)

as ammo or target?

Yes.

Re:Think of the children (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723525)

Someone draft it, ill start the petition.

Re:Think of the children (1)

AngryDeuce (2205124) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723675)

It would almost be worth reading the canned WhiteHouse.gov bullshit to actually have a petition like that get the 25,000 sigs it needs for an official response.

Re:Think of the children (4, Insightful)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723341)

Or people could just stop voting the alpha sociopaths into positions of power and- pbbbbbbtttt BAH HA HA HA... yeah, couldn't keep a straight face there.

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723349)

This would be a better world if we just shot all politicians

FTFY

Re:Think of the children (1)

Mister Whirly (964219) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723513)

This would be a better world if we just came up with ridiculously over-simplified solutions for complex problems.

FTFY

Re:Think of the children (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723753)

This would be a better world if you just sucked a huge fucking cock.

FTFY

Re:Think of the children (5, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723379)

Think of the children in 10-15 years when they're grown up. As young adults will they want to live in a world where they have a censored internet? Of course not. By protecting children, you are actually HARMING them by limiting their freedom as free, adult citizens.

Re:Think of the children (1)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723693)

Think of the children in 10-15 years when they're grown up. As young adults will they want to live in a world where they have a censored internet? Of course not. By protecting children, you are actually HARMING them by limiting their freedom as free, adult citizens.

Agreed - this is "helicopter parenting," made worse by the fact that the vast majority of the people affected will be adults who have not been in need of parenting for quite some time.

Ban Bullshit (3, Insightful)

kawabago (551139) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723731)

to silence all politicians!

Re:Think of the children (1)

hemo_jr (1122113) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723757)

The last resort of the scoundrel is no longer patriotism, it is paternalism.

Hmmmm (5, Insightful)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723217)

I thought the Internet already had an opt-in. It's called getting on the Internet. There's already plenty of solutions for parents to limit what children can see on the Internet (including technological solutions and good parenting). Why fuck it up for the rest of us by adding yet another layer of complexity that can go wrong and block everything?

"Teacher, I couldn't do my homework because the government required an opt-in for Wikipedia because there could be a link to a link to an article with citations that might contain a penis."

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723281)

"Teacher, I couldn't do my homework because the government required an opt-in for Wikipedia because there are articles with a large number of penises."

Fixed it for you.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723371)

Or follow the example of China and Iran or the like. Replace what now is Internet access with some sort of country-wide ethernet that follows laws, rules and morality of the country you are in and require those, who want to exchange data with foreign servers to explicitly request that data. You could use some sort of number codes to limit this. For example, if you want to visit any website hosted within your place of residence or work, you enter a code, for example http://192.168.13.37/ [192.168.13.37] There could be lists of codes that you could look at and that tell you, where your packets are going to end up. Or if you need information about what is going on in another country you use special services that can even have names like, I don't now, something with alots of zeroes in it's name for example. On a more serious note, what good is internet filtering going to do, when kids can just raid their parent's DVD collection for the same stuff? Wait, that's the parent's responsibility!

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723485)

A corrolary is letting your kids out the front door. Should you give them a helmet, shoulder pads and a knife? How about a manual to be civil to fellow human beings. Or how about have them walk around with a bible in hand. Surely that could never result in any harm, or ostricization. Why don't we go historical with it. How about putting isignia patches on citizens like the Romans did 2000 years ago.

When broken down, this is about control by those in power, against those who have something to lose. Which means, it is in fact, bad by design.

Re:Hmmmm (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723771)

"How about putting isignia patches on citizens like the Romans did 2000 years ago."

What? Citation please.

Re:Hmmmm (3, Informative)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723541)

Problem solved. [schools-wikipedia.org] ... not that I disagree with you, I'm just ruining your particular example.

Re:Hmmmm (1)

Imrik (148191) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723687)

I think if I ran an ISP required to provide censored internet I would use a whitelist consisting of the ISP's website. Attempting to access any other site, or even to get to your ISP provided email (someone could send porn to your children through it) would require opting-in.

"Opt-in by default"? (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723229)

"Opt-in by default" makes no sense. I believe they mean "Opt-out"

Re:"Opt-in by default"? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723699)

No, when they say 'network-level "Opt-In" system', they mean you have to "opt-in" to get the whole internet; i.e., they're trying to paint filtered access as the new normal, and real internet access as something only you filthy perverts need.

Once that's done, give people five or ten years to get used to it, then you can start gradually adding restrictions on who can "opt-in" to the unfiltered 'net, and bingo! government control of internet content. I propose we call it Hadrian's Firewall, just like the Great Firewall of China, only better, because it's British.~

Filter everything that's not porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723231)

How about the opposite? Filter everything that isn't porn, then parents would be forced to do their job and monitor children's activities on the internet and turn the filter off to access non-adult content.

Re:Filter everything that's not porn (4, Funny)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723399)

How about the opposite? Filter everything that isn't porn.

"And I believe that if they removed all the porn from the internet, there would only be one web page, and it would be "Bring back the porn!"

I don't see the point in filtering that web page.

Anybody who thinks this is really about porn... (5, Insightful)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723259)

... hasn't been paying attention.

They won't quit until all 'net speech is controlled, censored and regulated.

Re:Anybody who thinks this is really about porn... (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723481)

britiain? control freaks?

bah!

Re:Anybody who thinks this is really about porn... (1)

X0563511 (793323) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723637)

I'm sorry, part of your comment is missing and impairs it's readability. You might try typing it all into the body next time.

That said, this is exactly what is going on. The UK is just ahead of the US, that is - we're still fighting the copyright battle... they have yet to pull the "think of the children" card from the deck.

Great Idea (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723263)

This is not something the Slashdot crowd wants to hear, but i like this idea. Really, it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff. Objectionable material should not be seen by minors and there are many others who prefer not to be subjected to this stuff. Like cigarettes or alcohol, basic protections need to be put in place. Like it or not, this is the way the internet will go.

Re:Great Idea (3)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723357)

There are already protections in place - very similar to the most basic ones for alcohol that existed before the government had to regulate them. It's called "don't go to places where stuff is that you don't want to be around". Don't want to be around booze, stay out of bars and liquor stores. Don't want to be around porn, keep the default safe search on when you use Google and don't put naughtyasiantrannieswithanappetiteforexcrement.org in your address bar.

Re:Great Idea (5, Insightful)

Rhapsody Scarlet (1139063) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723397)

Really, it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff. Objectionable material should not be seen by minors and there are many others who prefer not to be subjected to this stuff.

Fine by me too, but here's an idea: Why don't they opt-in?

People who don't want to see 'objectionable material' or who don't want their children to see the same can opt-in to a filtering system, that ISPs are required to provide at no charge and notify all their customers of, and anyone who doesn't gets the same internet they always have, warts and all.

Because you see, the internet is what it is. It has pornography, hate speech, and even illegal materials. Those are facts of life. But when I ask to get 'the internet', I want the internet, not some filtered subset of it. So the default should be an unfiltered connection, and those who want filtering should have to ask for it. I'm perfectly willing to make it easier for those who want filtering to have access to it, that is their choice. But it should be their responsibility to ask for such things, not my responsibility to ask for them to be removed.

Also, should this 'opt-in' filtering come into effect on my ISP (Sky Broadband, I believe they haven't started yet, please inform me now if I'm mistaken because they haven't told me anything) then I am taking my 'opt-in' rights, and if someone should say "So you're opting-in to pornography then?" I tell them "No, I'm opting-out of your stupid, unnecessary filter that I did not ask for and do not need".

Re:Great Idea (5, Insightful)

Thanshin (1188877) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723427)

it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff.

I don't want to read your ideas ever again.

What do you think it's the correct behaviour:
A - I stop reading you.
B - I ask slashdot to block all your posts for everyone unless they opt-in.

Re:Great Idea (5, Insightful)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723433)

This is not something the Slashdot crowd wants to hear, but i like this idea. Really, it is about time we protect our children and others who don't want to see this kind of stuff. Objectionable material should not be seen by minors and there are many others who prefer not to be subjected to this stuff. Like cigarettes or alcohol, basic protections need to be put in place. Like it or not, this is the way the internet will go.

You are missing the point because you are taking the politicals at their word.

This isn't about blocking porn to protect children, it's about the government having a system to block anything they don't like the look of. Such things might include evidence of their own misdeeds or alternative political views. The UK government has been blocking newspapers from printing things they consider inconvenient for many years and they want the same power over the web.

Re:Great Idea (2)

Roger Lindsjo (727951) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723437)

Disclaimer: Maybe I was trolled into this.
Completely agree, we should protect the children from porn, tobacco, alcohol, violence, horrible pictures, tragic events, homicides, pictures of naked people, people kissing, everything you think is not good, everything I think is not good, and last, but possibly most important we need to protect them from stupid posts that think that the best way to grow children into responsible, thinking adults is to protect them from everything that tells them that life is not all pink colored, sugar coated happy endings.

Re:Great Idea (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723713)

I'm offended by your post because it attempts to infringe on my rights of free speech.

I think that your ISP should track you down and shut down your service. And that you should be watch listed so that no other ISP can provide you service.

That's the internet you want?

Re:Great Idea (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723747)

This is an awesome troll, saying it in a serious tone guarantees a large response as well... at least I hope for the poster's sake it is a troll...

Re:Great Idea (2)

Bigby (659157) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723755)

What will fall under the "basic protections" in 10 years?

The Internet (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723275)

The Internet proposes censoring British MPs by default

And that will help... how? (5, Insightful)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723283)

How will the system distinguish between children and adults? At a guess, I'm thinking you would need some sort of login system, where known adults would have a login they could use to access "uncensored" Internet (oh and yeah I'm guessing torrents would be censored by default too, since of course you can use that for porn also), which means they will be able to track anyone accessing "undesirable" content. Oh but of course the government would never do such a thing... right? Only people who access illegal things need to worry about the government watching you! Just think of the children!

And anyways it'll never work, new sites spring up way to fast for a censor to keep track of them all, unless you use a white-list for approved content, so again, if you browse "unapproved" content, you will need to log-in to the system, which allows for tracking. Paranoid? Maybe. You can bet many governments would absolutely love such a system, though.

And of course, if you decry the system as restrictive, you must be a pedophile who hates children and wants them to see porn. Obviously.

Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723309)

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." They can't censor the internet. Or cable TV. Or books. Or newspapers. Doesn't the UK have a similar Bill of Rights to forbid the Parliament from censoring the right of speech?

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (3, Informative)

KermodeBear (738243) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723389)

They can pass laws regarding "obscene" content.

The Supreme Court has found that obscenity is an exception to the constitutional rights under the First Amendment, and is usually limited to content that directly refers to explicit sexual acts that are publicly accessible, though it has at times encompassed other subject matters, such as spoken and written language that can be publicly transmitted and received by the general public.

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723581)

Got examples in the last 2 decades where obscene content was censored by the U.S. Congress? I'm trying to think of some, but came up with nothing.

The sole exception is broadcast TV/radio and that's only because the broadcast spectrum is visible to everyone (therefore the FCC restricts its use). Cable TV or radio is not censored. Nor the internet. Or books/newspapers.

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (2)

CanHasDIY (1672858) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723767)

Got examples in the last 2 decades where obscene content was censored by the U.S. Congress? I'm trying to think of some, but came up with nothing.

Probably because Congress doesn't handle censorship of "obscene" content, the FCC does.

To that end: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Super_Bowl_XXXVIII_halftime_show_controversy#Aftermath_and_effects [wikipedia.org]

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (1)

1s44c (552956) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723489)

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press." They can't censor the internet. Or cable TV. Or books. Or newspapers. Doesn't the UK have a similar Bill of Rights to forbid the Parliament from censoring the right of speech?

No, it doesn't. But even if it did the governments of the world can and do break their own rules.

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (1)

sohmc (595388) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723555)

You must be new here.

A few months ago, Congress was considering a bill known as SOPA & PIPA. While the sponsoring representatives said this legislation was necessary to stop copyright pirates, many technical people said it would cripple the internet. SOPA was pretty much going to pass, if it weren't for the "meddling nerds" who just painted the law in a negative light, forcing the representatives to table the bill for a non-election year.

There is a difference between how the world *SHOULD* be and how it actually is. If the last two administrations have taught us anything is that the Constitution is not worth the paper it's printed on when it comes to "national security" and "re-election".

The point is that what the UK is considering COULD happen here. We need to watch what they do carefully.

Re:Glad this can't happen in the U.S. (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723565)

The UK actually has remarkably weak free-speech protections - there are a few cases of people going to prison for a couple of posts on Twitter or Facebook already. My impression (from having lived in both countries) is that the UK has a few terrifyingly bad laws that manage to remain because they are rarely applied, whereas the US has a whole swath of moderately bad laws which are applied with some regularity. Both systems suck, but I marginally prefer the UK's, for the moment.

Spot on, old beans! (1)

Quiet_Desperation (858215) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723313)

Awesome! Lead the way into a free and unshackled future of- oh, wait... what?!

I've got a better idea. (2)

JustAnotherIdiot (1980292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723327)

What to protect the children from the internet? Disconnect from it.
Bam! No porn, no children being hurt, no annoying/expensive laws needed.

Are you sure? (1)

toxonix (1793960) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723337)

Your about to look at boobies. Are you sure you want to see boobies? y/N: y Are you really sure? y/N: Y Absolutely, positively sure? y/N: YES GIVE ME TEH BOOBS ALREADY Please answer Yes or No. y/N: DIE IN A FIRE COCK

Backwards (1, Interesting)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723373)

Should they not first prove that porn is harmful to children?

And I thought that Europe was supposed to be less prudish then North America.

Re:Backwards (4, Insightful)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723507)

this is the UK. the UK is NOT EUROPE.

even europeans don't want to be mixed in with the UK riffraff.

sorry brits, but you truly have fallen. a once great culture, you have fallen so fully and completely.

so sad.

Re:Backwards (1)

MoonBuggy (611105) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723641)

Particularly irritating is that the UK's comparatively sub-par language education makes it rather difficult to move to one of the parts of Europe in a better political state.

Re:Backwards (1)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723711)

OH, the UK might once of been important enough for a small country sized island group to be considered a continent but that is not true any longer.
And besides it appears the UK is in Europe as far as academics are concerned (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Europe), but even more surprisingly Iceland is as well.

re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723387)

Oh God, who elected them?

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723673)

About 35% of those who voted, I think.

Yes, think of the children (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723391)

If we protect them properly, the only thing the world will have to offer when they turn 18 is some kind of corporate sponsored police state.

Do your god damn own parenting. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723421)

Jackasses.

I am sick of these lazy parents who won't take part in a kids life, explain to them what things mean and so on.
STOP PUSHING YOUR JOB AS A PARENT ON TO OTHERS.

There is a reason the recent generations are absolutely terrible, because the previous generation are a bunch of lazy festering twats!

As if we even need to discuss (1)

AdrianKemp (1988748) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723429)

If they're going to filter any pornography, I demand that they also filter words with the letter 'e' in them. They offend me greatly when written by other people, so to be safe it's best to just get rid of all of them.

[Filtered]

If going to any pornography, I that also words with in. by, so to it's to just rid of all of.

A very one-sided consultation (2)

garyok (218493) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723447)

Reading the report, all parties consulted were either child protection special interest groups or the ISPs (whose arguments could be dismissed as just them trying to save money). No-one from any civil liberties groups were asked to testify. This is the archetype of the Nanny State infantilising its electorate. And would (as pointed out upthread) require people to sign into their ISP and enable personalised tracking of web browsing.

Fuck that.

Done with it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723493)

The internet that is. I'm going back to using the library.

Children should not be online, by default (1)

Skapare (16644) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723499)

Just take those British children offline, along with their funny spelling.

Dear MP technotards (1)

Jawnn (445279) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723509)

Thanks, but I've got this.
There are, at my disposal, many technological tools for censoring this or that content on my Internet connection. If I feel the need, I can make easily make it reasonably certain that nobody using that connection can see naked human naughty bits. Please butt out.

Re:Dear MP technotards (UK version) (1)

Zocalo (252965) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723651)

Thanks, but I've got this.

There are, at my disposal, many technological [censored] for censoring this or that content on my Internet connection. If I feel the need, I can make easily make it reasonably certain that nobody using that connection can see [censored] human naughty bits. Please [censored] out.

You know they are not going to draw the line at a sensible point, right?

Parents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723545)

Again with parents not wanting to parent. When you bring a child into this world, it is *your responsibility* to make sure s/he is raised by whatever codes of conduct you decide to go with. It should not be society's problem if your kid turns out to be a perv.

Re:Parents... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723715)

I'm a parent, and I agree with you. This is why I'll opt-in to the unfiltered internet. Then, should my kids accidentally find some porn, social services will take them away and call me an unfit parent for not using the state-sponsored block. This is why it sucks.

And the kids say.... (1)

3seas (184403) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723609)

Well there goes the instruction book.

And the historians say: Look another version of fabricated guilt over things in nature.

And the religious leaders say: Wonderful... more business

And the underage geeks say: Dammit we're busted.

And law enforcement say: Wonderful... more business.

And the Catholic church sex abusers say: Thanks you god, we need sex ignorant children.

And you say: ...

Thanks for saving my kids, government! (1)

Rogerborg (306625) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723631)

Now I can relax and leave my children to surf totally unsupervised, completely safe in the knowledge that there is no way that the curious inventiveness of technically literate young people can bypass the... eh, no son, that octopus-thing us just giving the nice lady a hug, in all her private places.

NetSplit (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723645)

One for children, say under 18, and one for adults. Anyone casting adult content of ANY form (not just pron but alcohol and what not) will be persecuted, drawn and quartered; anyone == you, me, companies 3.

This protocol could be implemented forcefully by w3c/UN/govts of the world by browser (the browsers would have to conform).

Have a browser unlock key provided by your ISP or have a 3rd party provide valid ID.

Could be achieved by content on servers being dished up either by separate hosted ports (i.e. !80 for children and unauthenticated users) or within html at the root.

Honestly, how hard is this to achieve?

As if.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39723665)

Most kids are better at technology than their parents will ever be and certainly better at it than the politicians. They're just going to get soaked in urine in that gale force 7 wind.

Cue the fees in 3...2..1... (2)

JigJag (2046772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723717)

Knowing what the brits are capable of inventing to legally steal money (congestion charge anyone?), I give it 2 years before the activation for adult content is a privilege you must pay for.

JigJag

Politicians and the Printing Press. (1)

forkfail (228161) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723725)

Politicians conflate the printing press with what it prints when it comes to the internet.

And perhaps intentionally.

Duckhouses, Moats and, err, Porn (2)

phonewebcam (446772) | more than 2 years ago | (#39723727)

Clearly these British MP's can all be trusted and have no ulterior motive for such censorship. Why, if they'd had their way, we'd never know about the great corruption exposure of the summer of 2009 [wikipedia.org] where MP's from every party were variously fiddling their duck houses [telegraph.co.uk] , moats [wikipedia.org] and yes, even the noble Home Secretary was at it fiddling her (yes, her!) porn [wikipedia.org] .

That's the thing about censorship and control freakery. You have to trust the people doing it 100% or you are screwed.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

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>