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 Considering Automatic Web Filtering For Adult Content

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the you-can-trust-us dept.

Censorship 170

Dupple writes with news that the British government is considering restrictions for ISPs that would block by default anything considered "adult content." From the article: "Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it. It is one of several suggestions being put out for a consultation on how to shield children from pornography. Websites promoting suicide, anorexia and self-harm are also being targeted. The discussion paper asks for views on three broad options for the best approach to keeping children safe online, in a rapidly changing digital industry. ... The latest system, called 'active choice-plus,' is aimed at reaching a compromise. It would automatically block adult content, but would set users a question, along the lines of whether they want to change this to gain access to sites promoting pornography, violence and other adult-only themes. This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."

cancel ×

170 comments

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

Yes, I want my porn. (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480493)

And also fuck the establishment!
(Punk is not dead!)

Re:Yes, I want my porn. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480945)

Active choice-plus is double-plus good. My god, it has really happened...

It is easy to sheild them from porn. (5, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480495)

Ban the Bible it is full of porn.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480567)

Dude, all media is full or porn, be that the Internet or the stories told over the campfire.

I'm just glad they left the dirty parts in when they wrote the thing down.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (2)

Razgorov Prikazka (1699498) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480833)

I never thought of that... Usually I say that porn will always be at the forefront of the technological frontier. Be it the press, betamax, the internet, DVD, Blueray, interactive DVD etc. Never thought of the good old "writing". Of course that started off as an oral tradition... (pun intended)

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (3, Insightful)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481239)

Porn AND Violence.

And they give that thing to KIDS

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (3, Insightful)

couchslug (175151) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481523)

If porn were produced as literal re-enactments of specific Biblical (and Quranic!) texts, on what grounds could it be censored?

Lot turning out his daughters comes to mind as does Mohammed's marriage to Aisha.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (5, Informative)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481935)

Ezekiel 23:20 There she lusted after her lovers, whose genitals were like those of donkeys and whose emission was like that of horses.

Genesis 38:15-16 When Judah saw her, he thought she was a prostitute, for she had covered her face. Not realizing that she was his daughter-in-law, he went over to her by the roadside and said, 'Come now, let me sleep with you.'

Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (4, Insightful)

CrimsonAvenger (580665) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483533)

Genesis 38:9 But Onan knew that the offspring would not be his; so whenever he lay with his brother's wife, he spilled his semen on the ground to keep from producing offspring for his brother.

Which has less to do with sex and more to do with inheritance laws of the time.

The brother had died sans children, so the law required Onan to impregnate his sister-in-law so as to produce an heir for the brother.

On the other hand, if the brother never comes up with an heir, then Onan gets the brother's stuff....

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (4, Insightful)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483961)

Fine but it this segment of the story was ever put in a film illustrating this act of support for his wife/sister-in-law it would be considered pornography.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (1)

preaction (1526109) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481745)

When correctly viewed / Everything is lewd
I could tell you things / About Peter Pan
And the Wizard of Oz / There's a dirty old man
- Tom Lehrer

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (0)

Baloroth (2370816) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483475)

Merely containing sexually explicit material does not make it "porn". Porn as such is specifically produced to create sexual arousal, the Bible is not, no more than a medical textbook is. Adult content, perhaps, but not porn.

Re:It is easy to sheild them from porn. (2, Funny)

arthurpaliden (939626) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483741)

Which is why the Religious Right never complains about sex education in the schools nor equates it with exposing their children to pornography ... oh wait ...

Government and Internet don't mix (2, Insightful)

Walterk (124748) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480501)

The blocking is so easy to circumvent, it's ridiculous. More legislation from politicians who don't have a clue how the Internet works.

How can we show people how stupid this whole "won't someone think of the children!?" argument is?

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480871)

The point isn't to be hard to circumvent(in a technical sense), the point is to appease the moralists by bringing back some of the good, old-fashioned, inconvenience of getting your hands on the good stuff.

Sure, kids these days will reflexively click through anything that stands between them and their porn/warez/facebook/etc; but a reactionary's cold, bitter, circulatory core warms just a little bit at the thought that you will have to click the "Yes, I, an internet subscriber who knows that my ISP knows my name and where I live, do affirm that I wish to be recorded in the Database as desiring access to the vilest smut on the internet." button...

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (4, Insightful)

cpu6502 (1960974) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481181)

Of course those of us who call our ISPs and say "Give me unfiltered internet," will be placed on a separate list, which the government will be able to view on demand & then label us "potential child molesters, rapists, sex offenders". Not immediately of course... some bright politician will pass this "anticrime" measure 2-3 years down the road. (In the U.S. it's already in the works; it's called CISPA.)

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (4, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482901)

You are aware, of course, that knowingly disabling the filter in a household that contains under-18's is almost certainly neglect of a minor. Maybe even 'grooming' them for paedophile activities, if you have the correct mustache...

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (3, Funny)

pushing-robot (1037830) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481467)

It's worse than that, though.

Even after you switch off the blocking mode, the filter switches to "subtle innuendo and thinly-veiled disapproval" mode. And did they have to use Stephen Fry's voice?

circumvention (4, Insightful)

petes_PoV (912422) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482707)

The point isn't to be hard to circumvent(in a technical sense),

it doesn't need to be hard to circumvent the filters to prevent people from doing it. It just needs to be illegal.

it's the same as hacking into a site. The law doesn't stop you from being prosecuted if the site had lousy security - the "But M'Lud, it wasn't burglary the door had an easy lock" defence is a myth. If the law is drafted so that intent to circumvent is illegal then the strength of the lock-out doesn't matter.

And if ISPs know which sites are banned for the opt-in's it will know which of it's opt-in'd users are trying to access them. If there is then some traffic flow from that banned site the only question is whether the ISP has a duty to report it. Until the law is written we will have no idea just how draconian it will be.

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483957)

I am in the UK (My ISP is BT). Please can I have this button? (is it Firefox compatible or IE6 only?)

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (5, Insightful)

MozeeToby (1163751) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480997)

No problem, they'll just block the proxy sites as 'adult content' too then. And the download sites. And torrents and other P2P protocols. And direct browsing by IP address. And chat rooms, email, IM software, and photo sharing sites (including Facebook). And any page with the words "circumvent" and "filter" appearing anywhere on them. And search engines. See, it's easy!

And all that ignores the kid who goes to Google to search for "I think my friend might hurt themselves, what should I do?" or "breast cancer" or "how to use a condom" or "anorexia support group". The whole thing is ridiculous.

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482587)

Well, when I type in bighooters.com so I can go view porn, aren't I "choosing to view it"? What a bunch of redundant censoring bullshit.

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482613)

(O) ==8

Re:Government and Internet don't mix (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40483297)

+1 insightful

CleanFeed (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40483775)

You sir are no longer correct. The UK is already using CleanFeed (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_%28content_blocking_system%29), a sophisticated transparent proxy system. All UKs ISPs must use it. Most people don't know it exists. Canada also has it. Australia is considering it.

Apparently if you don't like it, you can try your hand at tricking it into revealing the blocked website.

Well... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480507)

Hey, if they're blocking things they don't like by default, can they do the same for things I don't like? How about we automatically block all religious websites?

That's fine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480511)

Its not like they're not allowing you to see it 1984 style, it's just helping avoid that awkward moment when you look up hot dog for a homework assignment and you get to see a lovely picture of a girl getting rammed in the butt. At school. On a projector.

Re:That's fine (4, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480619)

I wouldn't say that's fine. They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked, yet if it was proposed, I believe there would be far more outrage.

If the schools don't want that happening, they can implement a meaningless block themselves.

Re:That's fine (2)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481811)

They're suggesting that things they don't like should be automatically blocked. What if I said that we should automatically block republican/democrat/religious/atheist websites, for instance? I'm sure there are some people that would like at least a few of those blocked

It's difficult to fathom being so grotesquely insecure as to be that deeply threatened by the mere existence of people who disagree with you. These are the people least worthy of getting what they want.

Re:That's fine (1)

Moheeheeko (1682914) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481303)

Thats why schools and workplaces have internet filters as dictated by the company, not the government.

Are you telling me... (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480543)

...that every 18 year old still living at home, with the legal right to view such material... now has to approach his mother and father and say "Could you please turn the porn on?". This could destroy more lives than the current setup.

Re:Are you telling me... (2)

mindwhip (894744) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480915)

No. because the father probably already did without the knowledge of the mother...

Re:Are you telling me... (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40484037)

Or vice versa - the best selling book in the UK is allegedly "Mummy porn". I have not read it myself, but the lurid details have been summarized by media spokes-people I inherently distrust.

Re:Are you telling me... (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481563)

Every 18 year old has the liberty to have sex with any other adult that they want to as well. That doesn't mean they can just drag someone home and have sex on the living room couch whenever they want without asking their parents, or more properly, the owners of the house that they are now technically guests in.

So, yeah, having to ask your parents to turn on the porn is very inconvenient, but it's not what I would call a serious human rights issue or something particularly onerous.

"active choice-plus" (4, Insightful)

saibot834 (1061528) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480571)

Me still thinks this is doubleplusungood. If you want to protect your kids, don't let them unsupervised on the Internet when they are still young. You don't let them play on a dangerous road either, do you?

Re:"active choice-plus" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481277)

You don't let them play on a dangerous road either, do you?

My mom lets me play on busy roads, it hasn't been a pr

Re:"active choice-plus" (4, Interesting)

cornjones (33009) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481431)

It really isn't that simple. I had always thought that it wouldn't be a problem, put the computer in the main room, not in the kids bedroom and there is at least passing oversight when my son is getting his allotted half hour of 'robots' (some nick jr game he likes). Even now, at 3, he can start to wander through the internet and has stumbled onto some inappropriate sites. Now, I do not beleive the gov't should step in here, but i do need a way to manage what he is seeing.

I see this 'parents should just parent' complaint a lot but any parent knows you can't be watching your kids all the time while we are running around trying to get dinner on the table and the myriad other things required to keep a house going.

Enter tablets and smart phones and communication enabled diapers. in 4-5 years, every one of these kids is giong to have a personalized internet device. This idea of a computer in the living room will be completely separate from his primary connection to the internet and I am going to need a way to manage that. My personal plan is to stick a proxy on our network and let it be clear that I have the logs so I will know if you do dumb things but that will only work until they get a little bit sophisticated. While I don't agree w/ gov't stepping in, I have yet to see a workable solution.

Re:"active choice-plus" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482607)

AGAIN

the solution is to PARENT. Do not permit your children to access YOUR computer unless you are around. You can password protect it, cut off the internet so that your children can only play the games installed on the computer. (while you still can)

Seriously, it's not unreasonable to ask that people watch their kids.

Re:"active choice-plus" (1)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40484067)

You seem to forget - a significant percentage of parents are utterly useless (maybe they did not see enough porn when young?).

Re:"active choice-plus" (1)

PRMan (959735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482635)

K9 is very effective and free. You can also select exactly what you want to block or not block.

Re:"active choice-plus" (1)

Jens Egon (947467) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481611)

Also, if you want to protect your children, try to protect them from meaningful threaths!

I keep an eye on what my children do online, but not for fear that they might see a nipple.

We even have mirrors in the house!

Re:"active choice-plus" (1)

tnk1 (899206) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481729)

Yes, but it's not feasible to fence off or block access to dangerous roads or they would probably do that. I grant that supervision is always the better option, but defense in depth is usually the best strategy. Relying on blocks like this is a terrible idea, but if you really do combine it with proper supervision, it could help. The question is what the disadvantages are of this in other regards.

Choice is already in place in Google.. (3, Insightful)

davecb (6526) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480585)

... as one can chose "safe search" or not. It seem like a good option for search engines, a possible-but-onerous one for browsers (ask Google if a page is safe?) and a huge expensive kludge for ISPs.

--dave

Ask whether you want to view adult material.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480621)

..and your choice will be logged, along with your IP address and probably your name, so that you choice to view such trash and filth can be used against you by the government at a later date -- such as when they decide to arrest and imprison and/or deport "undesirables" from the UK. Keep being awesome, UK..

I have an even simpler solution (5, Interesting)

atomicxblue (1077017) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480643)

How about parents become engaged in their children's lives and be more aware of what websites their children visit? Simple! Problem solved!

Re:I have an even simpler solution (1)

decipher_saint (72686) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481137)

That's crazy talk!

We all know that children must be raised by strangers on the internet, like the kind of strangers we can trust on television.

Re:I have an even simpler solution (2)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482927)

We didn't have this "Internet" thing when I grew up, most people didn't even have computers, and somehow we still got hold of porn.

Persuasion A US Idea? (2)

johnos (109351) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480695)

Pity they don't try it with the War on Drugs. Enforcement seems to rule there.

Content Filtering IRL (2)

rjstanford (69735) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480721)

Pornography, at least, is already age-restricted. Asking ISPs to do the same level of filtering that brick-and-mortor stores do, while a little unreasonable, does make a certain amount of sense.

I would suggest, however, that any laws surrounding that be tied to pre-existing format-neutral regulations. If there's no law prohibiting someone from buying a book that promotes anorexia, for example, why make a ruling that only affects online users?

Re:Content Filtering IRL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480993)

Pornography, at least, is already age-restricted. Asking ISPs to do the same level of filtering that brick-and-mortor stores do, while a little unreasonable, does make a certain amount of sense.

I would suggest, however, that any laws surrounding that be tied to pre-existing format-neutral regulations. If there's no law prohibiting someone from buying a book that promotes anorexia, for example, why make a ruling that only affects online users?

When you try to buy in a brick-and-mortar store, you at least get to see what is on display - which provides transparency. You know exactly *what* you're 'blocked' from buying, there is not some kind of obscure blocklist that noone will ever be able to figure out. Somehow I have the idea that we're not going to have a publicly browsable list of blocked sites for this proposal, nor do I think it will solely rely on the voluntary metatag indications for adult content on websites.

Re:Content Filtering IRL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481617)

No, it doesn't.

What makes more sense is "You can have access to unrestricted internet by putting in your account password"
DONE. No messing around with stupid crap.

Without it, they can filter the crap out of anything for all I care. I don't care about kids or their parents prudishness, they are already destroyed before they became an adult, nothing will save them from terrible parents.

Re:Content Filtering IRL (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481739)

Pornography, at least, is already age-restricted. Asking ISPs to do the same level of filtering that brick-and-mortor stores do, while a little unreasonable, does make a certain amount of sense.

Bullshit. Requiring ISPs to filter is roughly equivalent to expecting people to install age-detecting bollards in the road that block minors from going NEAR the pr0n store.

Re:Content Filtering IRL (3, Insightful)

Roogna (9643) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481857)

But ISP's aren't the equivalent of the Brick and Mortar store. That's the Porn sites themselves.
This is more like asking the road construction crews to prevent people under 18 from going to the Porn Shops.

Re:Content Filtering IRL (3, Interesting)

gman003 (1693318) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483595)

The *sites* are the ones that should be held to the same standards as brick-and-mortar stores. Having the ISP enforce those rules would be like putting regulations on roads that prevent minors from visiting those brick-and-mortar stores.

And guess what? The porn sites *already* follow laws designed to keep minors out. Granted, they usually follow US laws instead of UK laws, simply because of statistics (the US has more porn sites per capita than ANY other country, and a rather large population to boot). But they're effectively the same.

File sharing (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480735)

Kids probably get more porn from sharing with each other (phones, USB sticks, etc).

Just like the "old days" when dubious magazines were not allowed to be sold to kids, there were always kids with porn magazines ready to share.

This block will do nothing to stop any of that. The kids with access will just give to the kids without and the excitement will be that much greater because its "forbidden".

Re:File sharing (2)

Anne Thwacks (531696) | more than 2 years ago | (#40484121)

When I was young we had to draw or write our own porn. It taught me a life-skill I can still use today!

Really? (5, Insightful)

causality (777677) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480811)

Ministers are suggesting that people should automatically be barred from accessing unsuitable adult material unless they actually choose to view it.

So, leave it exactly the way it is, then?

No really, I am trying to think of the last time I saw anything pornographic that I wasn't looking for, and I can't name a single example. Maybe it's because I took two minutes to read Google's tips on how to get good search results? At any rate, this is the very first time in recent memory that I sincerely felt pro-status quo.

The Internet is a really great thing. Can't we have just one nice thing that the Puritannical busybodies don't fuck up for us? Is it really everyone else's problem if this tiny minority gets offended? Can we just decide to trust the parents to be parents, and accept that if we can't do that, the children have much bigger problems than any censorship is going to fix?

Promoting Featuring (2)

gsslay (807818) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480837)

Where is the line drawn between "promoting" and "featuring"? Who decides where it lies?

I view a website practically every day that regularly features violence of the most brutal kind. Abuse, murder, assaults, genocide, mass murder, casual, premeditated. It's all there. It's called BBC News. I wouldn't say it is "promoting" violence, but someone else may have a more censorious view on that. Why should they get to decide and not me? Why does my habit of reading this website need "nudged"?

I'm all for blocking the most offensive content (4, Funny)

jd2112 (1535857) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480885)

Let's block censorship!

UK has always been a womans country. In Mens Count (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40480939)

The UK has always been a womans cuntry. A mans country marries young girls to men. In a mans country if a man rapes a little virgin girl he simply keeps her and pays the father (Deut 22 28-29 in the hebrew). Women's countries jail or kill men for such things and police the world to make sure their citizen males aren't finding FREEDOM form women somewhere else.

There should be a War on Women's Cuntries

Who gets to decide what's adult content? (3, Insightful)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40480983)

That's always the problem with censorship systems.

For instance, is a picture that is clearly a depiction of Nick Clegg and David Cameron going at it while not showing any private parts qualify as adult content or political speech? How about if they aren't even engaged in sexual activity, but just depicted wearing drag? How about classic artwork, like "Liberty Leading the People", where a breast is clearly visible? How about smutty literature, like Harry Potter lemons, the Song of Soloman, or D.H. Lawrence?

The line isn't clear, and the answer is usually that the government hires some prude to decide for the rest of us what's ok and what's not.

Re:Who gets to decide what's adult content? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481269)

How about a clothing competitors website. I mean, they have girls looking sexy in bikinis and underwear.

Somebody is bound to try it.

Re:Who gets to decide what's adult content? (1)

BeanThere (28381) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482963)

No, the problem is that they're wrong, regardless of 'who gets to decide'. It's morally wrong to impose the forced oppression of speech.

Story of two lives (2)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481039)

A friend of mine was never allowed to look at porn as a teenager. He was severely punished when a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress. I've never known anyone more sexually suppressed.

He is now a convicted sex offender. He ordered a video from a website claiming to be of teenage girls. That website was a honeypot. He didn't go to jail, but the constant death threats you get mailed to your house from complete strangers when you're on the sex offender list drove him out of the country. He lives in China now.

I was always allowed to look at porn if I wanted to. I was allowed to watch the sexually explicit movies on Cinemax, Showtime, etc. I watched Real Sex on HBO as a kid. I looked at all the porn I wanted to on the internet.

I no longer have an urge to look at porn. I haven't since I was a kid. Got it all out of my system, I guess. I'm now happily married and have a normal and satisfying sex life. No sex convictions.

Glad I didn't grow up in a house where it's wrong to masturbate.

Re:Story of two lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481217)

If you are in the UK, The Register has the link to the e-consultation:

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/06/28/public_consultation_internet_smut_filtering/

However, several people have already found that they get the details (including email address) of earlier respondents when they use the form (see the comments).

Re:Story of two lives (3, Funny)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481333)

a Playboy magazine was found under his mattress.

Thus began his downfall...

Proof that pornography turns well-adjusted individuals into sex offenders!

Promoting Fear (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481071)

>This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."

This "Nudge theory" has proven only to be the bullshit of "we're okay with letting private entities to automatically enroll and then subsequently allow customers to opt-out instead of an opt-in".. regarding a system of what is essentially censorship.

That being said I don't think any major U.S. telcos do this, yet. What the FUCK do you care if I'm looking at legal porn? What the fuck do I care that you know? It's not like you don't know all the data I'm sending anyways. What's next, want to post a public list with my name and address on it as a 'peruser of adult content'?

Thank god we grew out of this shit 40 years ago.. better watch out! The communists, oops, terrorists, will get you next!

Fuck you too, terrorists.. I don't want or need your fear in my life, and I'm not interested in invoking fear on others. I reject it.

Fuck you fear, in all of your myriad of forms in this world. Realizing that, as you collapse down the categories of all things human, it is all due to the motivating force between you and love. And I choose love.

I love you, fear, for driving me to this understanding.

I love you, web filter, for hopefully driving others to understand the very same concept. That you are a piece of fear and should be rejected by all those who seek to free themselves from such.

Re:Promoting Fear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482213)

The whole nudge concept is profoundly evil and illiberal to begin with. Even the explanation that Slashdot duly quoted contains doublespeak. Nudge is not about persuasion in the commonly understood sense of the word at all; instead of persuading people to do what you want you make it more cumbersome to do otherwise. It's the mentality of a sociopath: rather than viewing people as human beings, with a mind and character and rights and so on, they're viewed as objects, to influence, to manipulate, to have them act out your will, whether it's in their own best interests or not.

Re:Promoting Fear (1)

sgbett (739519) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483067)

Excellently put. Alas, today is no mod point day.

Websites promoting suicide? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481105)

Such a thing could only be written by someone telling others to do something they themselves haven't done.

You know... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481163)

If this is something people want, I'm sure there are companies willing to sell them an appliance that plugs in between the internet and their home network. It's not rocket science. And it will be more difficult to get around if they sell a nice little locking box with room for the DSL modem/wireless router/whatever with it.

So doctors will not receive their fields updates, (1)

kandresen (712861) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481323)

I once worked for an ISP and we did try to help our clients with central filters against spam, however, general filters we found quick enough could not be applied as part of our recipients were employed in Pharmacies, were doctors, where system administrators who wanted updates about the latest threats, and the list goes on. Essentially whatever we tried to filter had legitimate use too! Sure we can say the hotel doctors/pharmacists need to find alternative ways to communicate, but they are not alone.

I think this type of legislation typically cause more problems than it is worth.

Re:So doctors will not receive their fields update (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481621)

You're right. The proper way to solve this "problem" (and im not so sure it is a legit problem that should concern the government), would be to commision or otherwise incentivise the software industry to develop cheap and easy software that deals with this issue.

They have many tools at their disposal for this such as offering tax advantages or handing out kickstart money. They could even go the less democratic route and simply hire a large software firm to develop some jack of all trades filtering package that works on the major operating systems (or atleast Windows, OSX, Android/linux).

The program could simply be a one click installer which uses some reasonable defaults that match the average family (only attempt to block extreme violence, porn and the like). And it could offer a simple (grossly oversimplified) checklist that allows the owner/parent to select if they want to allow/disallow certain topics.

Block them from PORN? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481331)

YEAH, BECAUSE THAT HURTS ANYONE.

How about you block them from social networking.
That has killed far more people than I think porn has ever actually killed anyone. (outside of the what the UK is trying to become, a prudish country who kills those who have any sort of interest in the sexuality of the body)

Fucking prudes, get the fuck out my country. All of you.

Dupe (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481363)

Is it just me, or this story regarding UK internet censorship reappears here every few months? And it's always some sort of "consideration".

Why not post this when it's a concrete story, and not just a politician trying to gain some popularity using empty rhetoric?

Re:Dupe (1)

YrWrstNtmr (564987) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482543)

Because then it is too late. Much better to inform people beforehand so they can (hopefully) prevent it, rather than trying to get it undone after the fact.

Re:Dupe (1)

slasho81 (455509) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482675)

You missed my point. It's no use calling wolf again and again. It'll just cause habituation. When the real deal comes, no one will rise to the oppose it.

Who choses what is problematical content? (1)

asdf7890 (1518587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481445)

One of the key problems with anything like this (opt-in, opt-out, forced-opt-in if you are Chinese, or anything else) is the question of who gets to chose what should be blocked. Where should lines be drawn?

There are some very vocal groups who would have any information about family planning and sexual health blocked because they think that complete ignorance is going to save their kids' futures, which as you can tell from my wording I very much don't agree with.

Likewise by the same definitions religious groups would use to try classify content as sexual or violent (or both), the Bible should most definitely be banned. I'm guessing this double standard will be brushed under the carpet.

Beyond the specification question of how we classify the content: how do those rules get implemented? Any automated classification will produce masses of false positive while letting much "bad" content through, and will probably be quite easy for content providers to "game". Any system of human intervention will be costly (probably prohibitively so) in terms of employing those people and is similarly prone to bad decisions (though due to bias more than misunderstanding). Either way there would need to be some form of appeals process for the system to have any credence what-so-ever/ They could use existing content classification services of course - but can you name one that is does not suffer from the above problems?

Think of the kids! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481511)

Think of the kids! Unplug the internet completely from life is the only way to stop them from seeing anything on the internet that "adults" don't want them to see, as well as burn all books, magazines, etc. Turn it completely off and remove it all, only the spoken word should exist. Think of the kids. Did we learn nothing from the book "nineteen eighty four" and the movie "Caveman" staring Ringo Starr? Sure you can more easily remove pictures and video from the internet and block it, but what about text? Words will just change to mean something else. Look at the word FAG it use to mean a cigarette now it means a derogatory word against a group of people. You must cut the language up and remove the ability for people to express things in a sexual manner which is impossible. just remember you are Bobo and you ZuggZugg your partner.

So children answer, "Yes, show me the porn!" (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481515)

Children would be a hell of a lot better off if they were familiar with the naked human form. Humanity managed to raise children before we had clothing so seeing the nude human form can't possibly be harmful or we wouldn't be here. Early children would have seen or at least heard adults engaging in sexual acts but that didn't seem to stop humanity either. All this worry over porn is just people who want to tell other people how to live their lives. If the naked human form was presented as a thing of beauty to children growing up they probably wouldn't develop affinities for "forbidden" imagery.

"Active choice plus" eh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481545)

I've got just as much choice without filtering.

I guess that many thousands of horny teenagers... (1)

aaaaaaargh! (1150173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481579)

...will choose the option "Yes, I want to see adult content."

And to be honest, speaking from experience as a child of the internet-free 80s, it is much better to wank off to real porn than to mail order catalogue models and used old adult magazines.

Question for all the censors and Net Mods: (1)

ReallyEvilCanine (991886) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481649)

"How is it that you manage to look at all this filth and horror and remain a mentally healthy member of society?"

After they take your pr0n... (1)

kurt555gs (309278) | more than 2 years ago | (#40481651)

Then they will come for your guns...

Re:After they take your pr0n... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40483101)

They can have my guns, but never my porn.

They can have my porn when they pry it from my raw, slimy hand.

There's no harm in children seeing porn... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481737)

... just like there's no harm in children getting their knees bruised from time to time and whatnot. It's part of life, really. It's probably not really interesting until puberty anyway, except as in a hushhush-we're-not-supposed-to-see-this manner. If it frightens some kids, they'll stay away from it.

The fact is that in the world we live in, you can easily choose to see or even cause yourself some pretty horrible things. This was true before the internet arrived, and true afterwards. Porn is benign, even if 95% is incredibly fake and shallow.

Double-plus filtering (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481917)

They should take this a ways further -- requiring anyone who wants to access adult content to fill out and sign a form to mail to the government. And be added to the sex offender registry.

The title (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40481945)

the way it reads, I thought that only adult material could be viewed

An idea... (1)

tool462 (677306) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482109)

So they're going to pre-filter all offensive content?
At least they're willing to turn that off when the user requests it, but I wonder if they could provide something a little more tailored to my needs.
Can I pre-filter to see ONLY the offensive content? It would get me what I'm looking for much more quickly. It would be like Rule 34 for the entire internet!

not just porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482223)

It's anything the government doesn't like, according to TFS.

If they need Mary Poppins to work their internets for them, I'm fine with it.

UK can pretty much fuck off. They don't offer anything to the rest of the world. The islands could sink into the sea, and nobody would care, and nothing of value would be lost.

It's true. Go suck a joffo cake, spit spot.

If you took all the porn off the Internet, ... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40482713)

... there would be only one site left: bring-back-the-porn.com.

Leaked opt-in form (1)

GameboyRMH (1153867) | more than 2 years ago | (#40482971)

Here is a leaked copy of the "pornography" section of the opt-in form:

UK Ministry of Internet Freedom Opt-in form (DRAFT)

Please check the boxes for any content you wish to view.

Pornography:
[ ] Masturbation, manual
[ ] Masturbation, unpowered sex toys
[ ] Masturbation, powered sex toys
[ ] Vaginal intercourse
[ ] Oral intercourse
[ ] Anal intercourse
[ ] Intercourse, 3 or more partners
[ ] Hentai, non-tentacle-rape
[ ] Tentacle rape hentai
[ ] Tranny
[ ] Scat
[ ] Bestiality
[ ] Furry
[ ] Vore
[ ] Goatse, 2g1c, 1m1j, lemon party

Date:__________
Print name: ____________
Sign: ___________

Re:Leaked opt-in form (1)

Sesostris III (730910) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483525)

Checking the 'Bestiality' box would have interesting consequences - it is illegal to view such material in the UK!

Why do they want to change my behavior? (1)

NoSalt (801989) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483041)

"This is partly based on 'Nudge' theory, a U.S. concept which states that persuasion, rather than enforcement, can be an effective way of changing behavior."

Why do they want to change my behavior? What is "wrong" (i.e., in need of changing) about wanting to view adult content if you are an adult?

Programming contest to start the effort (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40483133)

In order to get automatic controls accurate, perhaps a good approach would be to open up a contest to produce suitable software. I predict the first challenge ("Implement an efficient nipple detector in PHP") will create a massive surge in the skills (is that what we're calling it today?) of budding web hackers, which would be a win-win: killing two pigs with one bird, as it were.

Off to start my research.

oh no! (1)

Gravis Zero (934156) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483145)

now kids wont be able to see youtube videos of my cats playing. perhaps "pussy on pussy action" wasnt the best choice of titles.

Uh (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40483503)

Since when is it the government's responsibility to "change behavior" of its own people?

How is the list controlled? (1)

Hamfist (311248) | more than 2 years ago | (#40483603)

An opt-in system may make sense, but when it comes to material some find objectionable the opt-in list itself becomes and issue. Who controls the publication of the list? Will employers or political enemies use the list to smear or block people? Opt-in lists provide a chilling effect.

When one goes to buy a porn mag in a bricks and mortar store, one can pay by cash and remain anonymous as the store may check identification but is not required to make record of it. Not so with an opt-in system.

I for one do not like an opt-in for censored material system.

Now 6th graders can't report on breast cancer (1)

jsepeta (412566) | more than 2 years ago | (#40484053)

big government, small-minded ideology. fuck you, britain.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?
or Connect with...

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>