Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

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 Prime Minister To Announce Porn Blocking Plans

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the enjoy-your-riots dept.

Censorship 286

Overly Critical Guy writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron will announce network-filtering plans targeted at porn websites, possibly requiring users to 'opt-in' with their ISP to access such content. The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'"

cancel ×

286 comments

First they came.. (5, Insightful)

Bongoots (795869) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896607)

What next? The Internet and web should be free. There should never be any large-scale blocking of this sort, otherwise they'll add more categories in the future until we're left with a heavily restricted Internet/web, or worse: whitelisted categories.

Filtering doesn't work! (5, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896961)

It's been proven time and time again that filtering isn't effective, and often it's abused by people with access and the power to affect what is and is not filtered!

Re:Filtering doesn't work! (5, Funny)

avajcovec (717275) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897185)

When you put it that way, it sure sounds an awful lot like prohibition.

How do you think this quote will work in this case (1)

mapkinase (958129) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897057)

How would imagine it working?

First they came for porn, but I do not watch porn, so I was silent, when people who watched porn were too shy to declare that.
Then they came for people who read Inspire magazine (wait, they came for them first, with drones), so I was silent, when people who read Jihadi websites opted-in without shame.

How do you expect this beaten to the death quote to work in this case?

Re:How do you think this quote will work in this c (4, Funny)

Sebastopol (189276) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897081)

I think the emphasis is on the word "came".

now no one else can (5, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897183)

Clearly the thing to do would be to start a porn site where the talent make political speeches against David Cameron. Then he'll be repressing political speech.

Re:now no one else can (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897201)

Clearly the thing to do would be to start a porn site where the talent make political speeches against David Cameron. Then he'll be repressing political speech.

Brilliant

lol niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896619)

Re:lol niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896705)

Mod parent up! That shit is funny as hell!

"LAWD I NEEDS ME SOME CHIKUNZ!!!"

Re:lol niggers (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896817)

hahahahahahahahahahahaha omg

Ah... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896621)

The Royal Firewall (HMRF)

Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (5, Interesting)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896631)

I would not be surprised if the use of Tor, and proxies/VPNs in other countries spiked as a result of this law.

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896695)

What? It says you can opt in. They're not outlawing it or anything.

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (2)

Lunix Nutcase (1092239) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896715)

Yeah it's opt-in. For now. It's rather naive to think that this isn't just the first step to banning it.

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (4, Insightful)

mhajicek (1582795) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897181)

Next you'll have to opt in for any site associated with political dissent, thereby labeling yourself as a dissenter.

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896763)

What will happen is there will be a list compiled of the "weirdos" who choose to opt in. That list will be used to deny employment, raise insurance rates, and all manner of discrimination.

Salem witch trials/Spanish Inquisition all over again except this time it's digital.

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896893)

lmfao! you think they will deny employment to porn viewers? there'll be no one left to do anything, anywhere! the predictable result of a situation like that is a huge boom in the porn industry as they become deluged with job applications for "key grip."

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897021)

Grip on what, exactly?

Re:Suddenly, Tor usage spikes (2)

firex726 (1188453) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897029)

Considering the government track record on security, that Opt-In list will probably be leaked in a couple years of going into effect.

Hang on a second... (1, Redundant)

Narcocide (102829) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896649)

How would that not be censorship?

Re:Hang on a second... (5, Insightful)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896731)

Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.

It's really just another moronic step in the funeral parade of personal responsibility; this idea that people shouldn't have to think about requesting adult material be blocked on their connection, let alone actually look after their children and keep an eye on what they're doing online because, you know, that's *hard*.

Stupid lazy fuckers would happily give away all their rights and freedoms if it meant they didn't have to think about anything too hard.

Re:Hang on a second... (3, Insightful)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896813)

Just use email. I suspect special feature will emerge to allow you to email a time it's on, or have it turned on for a set amount of minutes.

BTW, anyone reading this who has to hide porn from the So, should sit down and talk to there So about it, right now.
Make a decision, either get comfortable watching it, or decide not to watch it.

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896837)

personal responsibility? this is empowering person responsibility. I have the option to have it turned off for me. How is exercising that not taking perosonal responsibility?

Shut it at the ISP,. and I don't have to worry so much about being tricked by an add, or plop up, or malware.

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896889)

>>> I have the option to have it turned off for me.

No you don't. The porn and nudity will be turned-off by default whether you like it or not. Next up: The government will "by default" block foxnews and infowars and 2600.com from your ISP.

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896983)

Ok, I am all against this censorship and everything, but if they gonna use if to block foxnews... Maybe we should allow it for once.

Re:Hang on a second... (2)

Imagix (695350) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896921)

Other way around. As described, you have the option to have it turned on for you. They are taking the default position of blocking certain segments of the 'net. I'm of the opinion that it should be the other way around. You ask to have certain sections turned off. Or even better, adjust your own firewall to do the same. No need for the ISP to get involved at all.

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896951)

The government gets to stick it's arse in my face unless I make a stink about telling them to bugger off. You know, because you might see something unpleasant. Hurray for personal responsibility!

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896967)

You are more likely to be tricked by an ad, pop up or malware when using a religious site or a site promoting an ideology. Why shouldn't we shut such sites at the ISP?

Re:Hang on a second... (0)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896859)

"funeral parade of personal responsibility;"

How do you feel about welfare state, nationalized health care laws ....

If Health Care is a right, where is the government offering to buy guns for those that cannot afford them?

Re:Hang on a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897115)

I would like to point out that the morons that want to bring this in are the right wing party. This isn't that "evil" socialism. IAAS (I am a socialist)

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896871)

I would wonder what else they are blocking. Also, I would rather have full control of my internet connection. If I want to filter my internet, I will do it myself.

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Eponymous Hero (2090636) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896959)

Because you can opt out. Of course, you won't opt out because you don't want to have to call your ISP and say "Please can you let me look at porn", or explain to your boyfriend/girlfriend/husband/wife why you've had the filth-filter turned off.

this makes no sense. the rule here is "opt-in." that means you necessarily have to call your ISP and say, "Please can you let me look at porn." that's exactly what this is. you are, by default, opted-out. censorship is on by default. what was that about not thinking too hard? stupid lazy fuckers and that...

Re:Hang on a second... (1)

Fwipp (1473271) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897103)

Opt out of censorship = opt in to porn.

Re:Hang on a second... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897005)

Once upon a time people had to buy dirty mags at the shop, possibly from a female shop keeper, the level of embarassment for publically unacceptable behaviour dropped with the internet generation. Asking your ISP to allow porn is just raising the bar again and if people haven't the fortitude then frankly they shouldn't be looking at it. I personally don't see how this is any different from filtering adult TV channels and I expect neither do the vast majority of people - "stupid lazy fuckers" are not giving away any rights, they can still see porn, you 're just getting wound up by sensationalism and conspiracy theories.

Also, blocking porn is *not* easy for most people, local filters can easily be bypassed e.g by mobile phone connections, proxies, direct ip addresses etc etc. so it is "hard" - being technically able is not an excuse to deride others.

Re:Hang on a second... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897099)

I personally don't see how this is any different from filtering adult TV channels

The internet is not a fucking cable service. It's designed to be free and open by default. The majority of people are ignoramuses when it comes to technology, so they wouldn't understand that.

they can still see porn

Yeah, and if the government censored speech for everyone, those people could just move out of the country!

How would you react if they said they were censoring certain political opinions by default? You could still see it if you asked, after all!

Also, blocking porn is *not* easy for most people

I don't give a shit. They can figure it out by themselves.

Re:Hang on a second... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897151)

I'm an adult child still living with my Christian parents. Because of their views on pornography my chances of persuading them to opt-out is zero. I'm pretty annoyed with what the government is doing but I'm sure that I'll be able to bypass the government's scheme. As will the children that the government is trying to "protect".

Um, yeah, actually ... (5, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896657)

The idea has support from MP Claire Perry, who said, 'There is a "hands off our internet" movement that sees any change in how access is delivered as censorship.'

Yes. And?

Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (1)

betterunixthanunix (980855) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896701)

Well you see, it is not "censorship," it is just "sanitized content" for the purposes of "protecting the children." Clearly different things, right?

Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (4, Insightful)

Daniel Dvorkin (106857) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896801)

Ah, yes. Clearly.

A couple of days ago, I told an English friend of mine, who was claiming that the UK would never tolerate anything like America's level of right-wing crazy, that I strongly suspected their Tories would be just as bad as our Republicans given the chance. I think this is all the proof I need that it's already happened. Not just the proposal itself, but the smug, smarmy, iron-fist-in-the-velvet-glove way Perry is defending it.

The right wing here wants to leave you alone (1)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896855)

The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.

On any point where they do not seem to want to do this, they are no different than Democrats (gay marriage for example).

But basically overall any political group in the EU or UK is far to the left, hence the desire to control what the populace does or sees. A true nanny state comes about as the result of a left-wing "we know what is best for you" kind of mindset that few on the right have now (and the Tea Party is getting rid of the ones that remain that still think like that).

Really to use the term right/left anymore is meaningless, you should be looking for "statists" - those that think the state should be your master instead of yourself. The modern left is wholly bought into this idea, the U.S. right only half way, the EU/UK nearly irredeemably lost down that road now.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (1, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896945)

>>>"we know what is best for you" kind of mindset that few on the right have now (and the Tea Party is getting rid of the ones that remain)

Oh really? The Tea Party Caucus in the House voted 71% in favor of CISPA. They've been co-opted by the Republican Party (which acts like Democrats). By the way I agree the left/right paradigm is pointless.

It was originally a reference to the French Assembly of the 1790s, and has little relevance to the U.S. or modern politics. You are either for government control over individuals' choices, or against it. i.e. Statist or not.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (5, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896971)

The right wing in the U.S. these days mostly wants to reduce the power of federal government and leave you the hell alone.

What a bald face lie. They want to reduce the power of federal government to enable corporations to rampage freely across the country, extracting profits and leaving negative externalities for everyone else to deal with.

Personal liberty doesn't enter into it with the right wing. You won't find John Boener advocating for marijuana legalization any time soon.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897107)

Vice-versa the corproations use Democrat politicians to write regulations that FAVOR the corporations by blocking new competitors from entering the market. Or getting bailouts for their Chevy Volts, which they then ship-off to China. IMHO we'd actually be better-off without the regulations (except basic worker and customer rights), so corporations could not block the growth of new competitors like Ubuntu, Hulu, Netflix, megaupload, Solectria, and so on.

The bottom line: Both Republicans and Democrats pretty much suck. To favor one party over the other is pretty foolish.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (2, Insightful)

rmstar (114746) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897219)

The bottom line: Both Republicans and Democrats pretty much suck. To favor one party over the other is pretty foolish.

That is imbecile drivel. Obama is pretty much an enlightened saint next to all the crap the Republicans had as possible candidates. Claiming there is no difference is just utter idiocy.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896993)

unless you own a vagina. In which case they know whats best for you.

Re:The right wing here wants to leave you alone (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897003)

Unless you want an abortion. Or a gay marriage. Or freedom to practice your non-Christian religion. Moron.

Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (1)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896973)

Bad enough that one old punk song I had loved actually had the title as Kick Out the Tories. Where you find Tories, alas you find corruption of rights. I would say
Guy Fawkes is needed in this day and age. Right person, wrong era.

Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897179)

I don't think that's much of a sign by itself. I think it's also the fact that they think such a scheme would somehow magically work, even though all technical information suggests it would be ineffective and easy to circumvent. That's two distinct levels of crazy. One for wanting to do it, and one for thinking it would work in defiance of all evidence to the contrary. That sounds more on par.

Re:Um, yeah, actually ... (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897225)

It's infuriating when politicians just don't get it.

It's more infuriating when politicians DO get it, and do what they're going to do anyway.

Is this live (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896667)

Monty Python?

Excellent! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896669)

British porn is terrible.

Re:Excellent! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896707)

Almost. Almost. Almost. There we are.

Re:Excellent! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896865)

American pron is worse...

WTF UK? (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896671)

Stick a camera up everyone’s ass, outlaw solitary men walking through parks on the off chance they're pedos, confiscate almost all the guns, now you erect a government run firewall ah la china to 'save' someone from porn or something.

This desire to make your island a pink and blue romper room will not work. Stop doing it.

What about books, newspapers? (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896689)

Do I have to "opt in" if I want to read Huckleberry Finn or Anne Frank's uncensored diary? No. Free speech/press/expression means exactly that..... no censorship by the government of any book, paper, or website.

Dumbass PM.

Re:What about books, newspapers? (1)

BootysnapChristAlive (2629837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896769)

No, but you should have to! What if someone innocent (unlike you, you murderer) accidentally reads those books and gets offended? People have a right to not be offended, you know.

Re:What about books, newspapers? (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897227)

Yeah I was highly offended by the girl-on-girl touching in Anne Frank. I'm scarred forever and think the government should ban that book from all libraries/bookstores everywhere. No it's not censorship..... it's "content filtering".

Woah.
I channeled the British PM for a second there.
Sorry.

Re:What about books, newspapers? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896793)

Only if you live in Scunthorpe.

Or Cockermouth.

Re:What about books, newspapers? (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897043)

PM's are usually politically savvy. And this is unworkably stupid.

My guess is it's a ploy like the common one in my country where the Congriment person sponsors and talks a big game about a bill, one they know will never get through, just to let the authoritarian conservatives feel like he's on their side and secure their votes for the next election.

Of course, the "other dark side" is that, I doubt the porn sites kick back nearly as much money as the newspapers do, today....

Re:What about books, newspapers? (1)

CrazyDuke (529195) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897171)

Look at the bright side: The current laws read a lot like such classics as 1984 and Animal Farm. So, there is a workaround.

And that movement is... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896727)

against your regime, and includes everybody including you when int comes to your internet. But as a politician the control of everyone elses internet is your concern. Another tail that wags the dog. Please resign now. Its less painful in the long run.

Please no... (5, Insightful)

BootysnapChristAlive (2629837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896737)

Please don't make it a hassle for people who want to view the content. Not for the children, and not for anyone else. This isn't necessary. We've lived without this, and somehow the world hasn't collapsed due to it yet.

This anti-sexuality nonsense has got to go. Even if a child does see the content, it will most likely not hurt them, anyway. I'd say ignorance is far more damaging.

Re:Please no... (-1, Troll)

geekoid (135745) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896795)

Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.

Of course, the parent should filter then content.

OTOH, if I don't want someone watching porn , cutting it off at the ISP make sit harder for anyone to circumnavigate.

Re:Please no... (2)

BootysnapChristAlive (2629837) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896811)

Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.

Well, damn. I guess I'm just a rapist then. Or whatever that "detrimental effect" is. Probably similar to video games making people murderers.

Re:Please no... (5, Insightful)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896833)

Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.

[citation needed]

"Well Documented" (2)

SuperKendall (25149) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896885)

It's well documented.

You are a lying scumbag. It's well documented.

Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life.

Only if you fail to stock the Kleenex properly.

It has zero detriment to feelings towards women or sex. Kids have been looking at porn for decades now...

Re:"Well Documented" (1)

ZeroSumHappiness (1710320) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896935)

It has zero detriment to feelings towards women or sex. Kids have been looking at porn for decades now...

Not that I disagree with your distrust of the OP but yeah, uh... That's not a great argument.

Re:"Well Documented" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897253)

I also agree with the distrust, but only because I bet the OP is probably referring to this study from 1973:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1540-4560.1973.tb00095.x/abstract
which was at a time that propaganda like this was "scientific":
https://www.ncjrs.gov/App/Publications/abstract.aspx?ID=2991

Re:Please no... (1)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896937)

. It's well documented.

Where, exactly? Because all I have ever seen is people saying how well documented it is, without any actual documentation.

Re:Please no... (1)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897019)

B.S.

Porn is no more detrimental than teaching kids "Everybody poops" and wiping the shit off their bottom. I've been downloading nude images ever since I got a computer with decent video (4000 color Commodore, 1985) and it hasn't had any detrimental effect. On the contrary it's probably had a GOOD effect overall, because I'm not going round raping women (or peeping through windows).

Re:Please no... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897055)

Early exposure to porn as serious detrimental effect latter in life. It's well documented.

Nice troll. Completely unnoticed.

Goodbye Internet (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896761)

It was nice knowing you.

Create your own internet and leave ours alone. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896771)

If yours becomes popular your views will be confirmed. If not then you'll know to shutup more often. but please leave our internet alone. I can filter my own porn thanks.

Should be opt-in.. (1)

bjourne (1034822) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896773)

I see no problem with isp level filtering as long as it is opt-in. I'd image many parents would gladly pay extra to have the isp filter out some of the naughtiness from the internet connection their children uses. If some parents want to minimize the chances their children will be exposed to goatse and other even more deranged porn fetishes that is their right. It could also be much more efficient than client-side filtering at the end point which is only effective if the parent is more technically savvy than their child which is not always the case. However, it should be opt-in, not opt-out. And it doesn't need to be government mandated - the "free market" should be able to solve it by itself. Lots of concerned parents would freely purchase isp filtering if it was available as a product and everyone could be happy.

Re:Should be opt-in.. (2)

Spad (470073) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896829)

I'm all for providing parents with the tools to filter their local internet connection for their children, but centralised blocking will never work effectively.

How do you decide what's appropriate for 5 year olds? 10 year olds? 15 year olds? Sure, you could just block everything that you think might be inappropriate for under-18s but then you're going to be blocking a massive amount of stuff that most parents would probably be happy for their teenage children to view, even if they wouldn't want their 8 year old looking at it.

What if your cunning ISP-based blocking system starts missing sites here and there? Or over-zealously blocks perfectly legitimate sites? Or doesn't catch some Youtube video with "suggestive" content? Suddenly you've got a lawsuit from some idiot parents on your hands.

By all means give parents a copy of Netnanny, but leave it at that.

Re:Should be opt-in.. (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897261)

Norton DNS provides a fairly good job and different levels levels [norton.com] .

I use it for just basic malware and phishing protection, but it has level 2 filtering for just malware and porn domains, and 3 which is family unfriendly sites. A DNS option is a much better solution and easy for an ISp to write a tiny program that can setup your router to the right DNS for filtering.

If you want to refine it there are parental controls if you run Windows 7 where you can block keywords. Many routers do this too now if the user is educated enough to know what 192.168.1.1 is.

Of course nothing is perfect but NortonDNS is used by many school and is pretty decent. I may hate their anti virus product but it does nice things as my own DNS service for just the malware protection only.

Re:Should be opt-in.. (1)

zlives (2009072) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896831)

STOP making sense.
thank you

Re:Should be opt-in.. (4, Insightful)

NeutronCowboy (896098) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897013)

You do realize that the parents ALREADY can filter out the naughtiness from the internet connection? It's called putting the computer in the living room, and using a password on it. By the time the kids are old enough to defeat those security measures, they're old enough to browse for boobies. By the time they can defeat anything more serious, as well as the threat of "I'm logging everything at the router", they're old enough to have sex.

In other words, this is a solution to a non-existent problem.

Re:Should be opt-in.. (1)

Githaron (2462596) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897063)

I always wondered why I have never seen a business/organization that offers consumers a verified whitelist and filters accordingly. They could sell routers with their filtering software loaded. If the administrator of the home network wants access to a site that is not whitelisted for the chosen categories, they type in their credentials to open up the site for their home and the system automatically sends an anonymous review request to the company. Eventually, an employee pulls the request off the queue and reviews it. They categories the site and update the system. These updates would regularly get sent to all the home routers. That way, the next guy doesn't have to go through the trouble of opening up a site that is perfectly legitimate for the categories he has checked in his home router. The router could even be designed to filter by internal IP address, MAC, or keys. Plenty of parents would pay for this.

Opt-In (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896781)

How about, if you WANT TO BE CENSORED, you have to OPT-IN to being censored?

What is the internet but opt in access? (4, Insightful)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896785)

Everything on the internet is "opt in" access!!!

nice example of a specious argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896789)

there's a movement that says any change would be censorship. I won't comment on whether or not this proposed change is actually censorship.

English! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896803)

"This porn is blocking my plans!"

About $$$ I suspect (1)

dittbub (2425592) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896819)

It sounds more like a government surcharge on porn sites to get a piece of the porn profit pie. They only do this because porn sites make money. It has nothing to do about protecting kids or some god damn thing.

This is stupid. (4, Informative)

Tei (520358) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896835)

Porn is not illegal, so what is the base to discriminate it over other stuff? Its much less damaging to everyone than religion, and religion is not bloqued. Is less damaging than sport, and sport is not blockqued. WHY THE HELL.

because (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896847)

And that would be because... if you're limiting access to content, you're *censoring* it.

Go google 'breast' or 'boobies' or 'titties' or any other euphemism you can think of. the cat is already out of the bag for any 13 year old boy who grew up after, say 2000. People who grew up in the unsexualized 50s-70s are just going to have to acknowledge to themselves that children are going to grow up knowing the birds and the bees after the age of, say, 10, and deal with it, and make sure to teach their children accordingly. Fuck, if you grew up on a farm you probably already knew that by the age of 10 anyway. It's not like it's fucking rocket science, it's tab A in slot B and look , a baby.

Society changes. You can't hold back the tide with your hands, it's futile. You're about 20 years too late. At this point you're just using it as an excuse to create the fascist government that V for Vendetta only hinted at, and you're not fooling anybody. It's only a question of whether the populace is quiescent enough to let you do it. (They Probably are, but that'll only go so far.)

Fuck.

I'd better hurry up... (1)

Covalent (1001277) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896899)

And finish reading Fahrenheit 451. All this censorship all in a row...madness.

Any change IS censorship... (2)

wealthychef (584778) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896927)

when the government is the one that manages "how access is delivered." What does it even mean to "deliver access?" How orwellian. He makes it sound like access is something you need the government to provide for you.

Dear Prime Minister David Cameron (4, Insightful)

Ralph Spoilsport (673134) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896943)

Fuck You.

Let's Do It (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896953)

We have to start building our own Internet composed of wireless links and operated by thousands of independent individuals. Will it ever be as large as the public Internet of today? No, but anyone who remembers the Wild West Internet of yesteryear will realize that's a good thing.

https://wiki.projectmeshnet.org/Getting_started

Everybody's favorite TV show "No, Minister!" (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896977)

It's time for people who like porn to announce British Prime Minister-blocking plans.

These feckin' politicians... (1)

satanclause (2626589) | more than 2 years ago | (#39896987)

...seem to think the interwebs are theirs. It's time they realized they aren't!

Perhaps it's time for Occupy Internet!

Leave our internet alone (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39896997)

Censoring data, is censoring data. Even if there is an avenue to avoid the censor, as there always will be. Please for the love of God leave the internet be. It is not a government entity. It's a global entity. If the majority of the global internet community finds something to block(CP) then block it. If you don't want it in your country, then don't allow the itnernet at all and let your country disappear in the global trade game(which doesn't sound that bad ATM). The deal is knowledge is power, people are gaining too much knowledge for the haves comfort level. Hence why you can't search for information on democracy from within China's firewall.

You can't just block perfectly legal things, in any manner, and not see that as censorship in some form. Things legal should be allow to flow unhindered. Things that are illegal need to be handled with the people involved with the illegal activity. Not with an entire nation, or the entire globe. But that's another topic, porn is legal in the UK.

We are seeing an all out assault on the internet freedoms under a different guise every day. Once we start down this path, there is no going back.

If I don't want my children to look at porn, I will handle that. I will not expect the world to adapt to my views, and inadequate paranting. And yes, I'm the father of two fine young boys, parenting is not easy. But my children are my responsibility alone(well along with the misses).

"We want to protect the children"
"We want to protect IP holders"
"Protect..."
What about protecting the majority of people that do not fall under these catagories?

Get Claire kicked out. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897093)

There is a seriously obvious Conflict of Interest and her motives are so stupidly obvious.

She sounds like one of those fruitloops who do more damage to children than porn ever could.
The type who practically locks their kids in their rooms until they have a stable job and arrange a marriage with another equally fruitloop of a family.
30 year old virgin offspring breeders. Those types.

Do you really want someone like that in office, Britain?
She is almost certainly this kind of person just by reading her absolutely naive little words.
She is acting like EA calling everyone homophobes and entitled because they are hating their terrible games recently.

How about you actually TALK to your kids once in a while?
Stop being lazy. If you can't take care of your own kids, DON'T HAVE THEM. Stop throwing your responsibilities as a parent on to others at the detriment of others.

TPB, now this, and you can bet your ass they will go after other stuff.
It is up to you, Britain.
Act, don't talk about it. Act.

I must have ... (2)

PPH (736903) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897109)

.... missed that news. I was busy looking at the page three girl.

Slippery slope (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897131)

That slope got slippery because I accidentally spilled some lube. Sorry about that.

Malicious compliance? (2)

davidwr (791652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897143)

An ISP who didn't want to comply could just add this one line to the account application:

Mark only one:
_X_ I am a legal adult and am okay with _ISP_ not blocking porn
___ I am not not a legal adult and agree to have porn blocked. Note: Non-adult customers must have an adult agree to pay the bill. :)

Terrible implementation (3, Informative)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897197)

Why doesn't the british government just have an option at sign up for child protection and use a simple DNS blocking service like NortonDNS? That would not disrupte free speech nor would it require expensive procedures and upgrades for ISPs.

I am an advocate of OpenDNS, and NortonDNS for phishing and crossite protection in case my anti virus package misses something. NortonDNS has porn filtering as well if you enter the IP addresses here. Basically the last subnet .50 filters unfamily friendly sites, .40 just porn and malware, and .20 for the rest of us with just security protection.

I have my router with .20 filter at home. If I had a child I would put his/her own computer with a subnet of .40 for the DNS IP Address. Problem solved. No expensive tax dollars or expensive hardware or software.

If you run Windows you can turn on family safety too for a childs account. I imagine most users are not this savy or smart to know this or set this up and you can do custom filtering as well. However DNS filtering is the best and an easy way.

I am for free speech and this is outragous! I think an option with those who pick family safety just run a script which configures their new shiny routers to the NortonDNS that protects agaisnt porn and viola! Easy

Re:link here (1)

Billly Gates (198444) | more than 2 years ago | (#39897205)

The link is here [norton.com] .

Messed up the tags

What's the problem? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39897255)

Where are the snarky remarks about USA?

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>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...