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!

David Cameron 'Orders New Curbs On Internet Porn'

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the adam-sutler-knows-what's-best dept.

Censorship 345

First time accepted submitter fustakrakich writes with news reported in The Telegraph of new anti-pornography regulations ordered by UK Prime Minister David Cameron: "The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children. If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper."

cancel ×

345 comments

Sorry kids... (5, Insightful)

fuzzyfuzzyfungus (1223518) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012567)

I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

Loveley, to live in a Republic! (-1, Redundant)

Jeremiah Cornelius (137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012637)

Those people get to vote, and elect the Dictator that they choose to express mandates of state power over their lives.

This is different than how it's done in Britain, where they have a queen, and the Prime Minister must serve at her pleasure - once people have voted which party will manage the bureaucracy.

Freedom. That's why they hate us!

Re:Loveley, to live in a Republic! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012699)

Eh, Cameron is in Great Britain?! Sorry but your post doesn't make any sense (at least from my point of view)...

Re:Loveley, to live in a Republic! (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012829)

Honestly, what the fuck are you blathering about? In the sentence : "This is different to..." - what is "this". Who are "Those people". Who are the "they" and "us" in the last sentence. Did you construct this post by running it through some kind of Markov-chain idiocy algorithm?

Re:Sorry kids... (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012645)

I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

Well a Catholic priest is the traditional authority figure to fill this role.

Re:Sorry kids... (1, Offtopic)

dkleinsc (563838) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012701)

You do know about the whole Henry VIII thing, right? The UK hasn't been Catholic for centuries.

Re:Sorry kids... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012785)

If he knew about history, he wouldn't be here spreading typical leftist propaganda.

Re:Sorry kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013565)

If he knew any history, he wouldn't be on /. posting.

Re:Sorry kids... (1)

rtfa-troll (1340807) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012819)

You do know about the whole Henry VIII thing, right? The UK hasn't been Catholic for centuries.

Don't worry, the Church of England has been negotiating to link with the Catholic church [thefreepressonline.co.uk] * for years and already have compatible teachings [bbc.co.uk] . Fortunately it's considered that they aren't really mad enough.

* honest to god [sic]**; this is the first link that popped up on Google. It must be the best source.

** [sic] as in that's really what the little voice in my head said... not as in a humour marker by someone who doesn't know what sick means.

Re:Sorry kids... (3, Funny)

Vinegar Joe (998110) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012979)

I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

Well a Catholic priest is the traditional authority figure to fill this role.

In Britain it's been Jimmy Saville and the BBC.

Re:Sorry kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012689)

I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

In fairness, the nation had been wondering who'd take up the "think of the children" mantle now Sir Jimmy Savile is no longer with us.

Re:Sorry kids... (4, Insightful)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012707)

Got to love the U.K. 'You viewed porn on your computer?! OMG You are a child molester! GAOL 4 U." Don't worry though, the religious right here in the U.S. desires Taliban like laws to the same effect.

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=the-sunny-side-of-smut [scientificamerican.com] is a decent summary of a few studies that pretty much say 'What internet porn problem?'

If you google 'effects of porn on children' you'll get tons of results saying the terrible scary things that will happen, but most made on actual studies read more like this http://www.apa.org/monitor/nov07/webporn.aspx [apa.org] .

So it seems that all this hand waving by Cameron is about getting reelected and society control.

Just kids? (5, Funny)

Roger W Moore (538166) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012769)

I'm actually surprised that it just asks for kids. Given their established record I would have thought the question should really be "Do you have any kids or MPs in the house?".

Re:Just kids? (1)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013081)

if there are merry pranksters in the house, I'm pretty sure they would not object to porn.

Re:Sorry kids... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013223)

I'm afraid that your first sexual experiences will have to be with a trusted friend, family member, or respected community authority figure, rather than the internet...

As opposed to your second?

Look, I jacked it to Internet porn both as a kid, and to this day, but it really irks me when people suggest life was all but impossible before the Internet.

It's not that old, and everything changes, even the Internet.

Re:Sorry kids... (1)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013521)

Get off the grass, Junior. When we were kids, the only porn available were stained copies of Playboy and Penthouse.

Re:Sorry kids... (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013313)

Nah, this has nothing much to do with porn. It is step one in introducing an "Internet Drivers License". Anonymity is a bitch, you see.

Captcha: terrors

Re:Sorry kids... (3, Funny)

Stan92057 (737634) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013337)

My first sexual experience was with a magazine called Playboy. For kids of this age it will be a misspelled word that will give them there first experience.

Good try but... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012575)

...who pays? That's a lot of knowledge to pass on for free. Like, reams of it...

What happens.. non standard OS? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012585)

What if you are taking a connection solely for use with Cell phones over wifi for example?
  OR some weirdo config of Arch Linux?

Is that a trick question? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012603)

How do they define "have"?

Re:Is that a trick question? (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012805)

It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. If the--if he--if 'is' means is and never has been, that is not--that is one thing. If it means there is none, that was a completely true statement...

*music please* (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012607)

His name is James. James Cameron!
The greatest pioneer!
No budget too steep, no sea too deep.
Who's that? It's HIM! James Cameron...
James. James Cameron!
Explorer of the sea!
With a dying thirst, he'll be the first!
Could it be? That's him! James Cameron...

Warez, porn and mp3s... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012615)

This is the vast majority of the internet :)

This Will Certainly Work (5, Funny)

retroworks (652802) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012627)

Finally, internet pornography will be thwarted, and David Cameron will go down in history.

Re:This Will Certainly Work (5, Funny)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012669)

and David Cameron will go down

But we won't be able to see the video.

Re:This Will Certainly Work (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013455)

But we won't be able to see the video.

Thankfully. It would probably make goatse look respectable.

Re:This Will Certainly Work (1)

Aardpig (622459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012755)

In or on?

Re:This Will Certainly Work (1)

epSos-de (2741969) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013269)

It seems like a perfect excuse for installing surveillance software. Great idea of him.

A new study on statistics (4, Interesting)

KBentley57 (2017780) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012639)

I doub't it would have much effect. You cannot stop human nature. Besides the view that sex is "bad, dirty, evil..ect", I'm going to throw a broad sweeping generalization that most men in a household take care of the tech stuff anyways, and will answer the question with a "no" and go on about their business, or answer "yes" and set the limits to off.

Re:A new study on statistics (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013541)

I've known more than one family where a kid handles the tech stuff.

Pornography addiction is harmful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012641)

Yourbrainonporn.com ... you can thank me later!

Re:Pornography addiction is harmful (2)

Gaygirlie (1657131) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012703)

I don't see anything to thank you for. It's just a website with incoherent ramblings about how bad porn supposedly is.

Re:Pornography addiction is harmful (3, Interesting)

PlusFiveTroll (754249) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012741)

Well, Well, porn is bad because it has to be, my leaders told me so.

In the meantime, can anyone link any actual scientific studies showing this is the case. Almost everything that I've read so far is 'not enough data for conclusion' or 'other inputs from your environment have a much stronger effect'.

Re:Pornography addiction is harmful (2)

Runaway1956 (1322357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013551)

I doubt very much that anyone can offer you such a link. All the evidence is anecdotal, or scriptural. Except in those cases where a modern day prophet converses directly with God.

Empirical evidence shows that almost all boys are interested in girls, and are titillated by viewing girls in varying states of dress and undress. That's about as far as "science" goes in this matter.

Religion is much worse (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012653)

Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?

Re:Religion is much worse (2)

McDrewbs (2434030) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012711)

Because religion is already intertwined with law/politics. Just like how tobacco, alcohol or caffeine are legal substances. If you want something to be legal nowadays you need to already have it established. Imagine if 50 Shades of Grey was written instead of the bible, porn would be what influenced law/politics and religion would be frowned upon.

Re:Religion is much worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012905)

> Why aren't government officials trying to keep kids from being exposed to something so dangerous as religion instead?

Because many goverment officials are religiotards themselves.

Re:Religion is much worse (0, Flamebait)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013097)

religion gets in the brain and rots it away, early on.

for as long as we subject our kids to early brainwashing, it won't be easy to remove this virus from the brain.

(I'm 100% serious too. I was raised with religion and it took a lot of effort to purge it from my thought processes.)

I'm not surprised that it has a stranglehold on most of the population. things that embed in the conciousness early and are accompanied by 'good, family feelings' are extremely hard to reverse.

Re:Religion is much worse (3, Insightful)

MillerHighLife21 (876240) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013231)

Because religion isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use religion as an excuse for their actions are dangerous. If anything, we need more Christians that are actually Christians in this country. The kind that understand "judge not lest ye be judged" means something. The kind that understand gossip and gluttony are on the same level as sodomy in the Bible meaning a fat guy has no business being critical of somebody who is gay.

Christians SHOULD be people that everybody on earth is happy to see because we are supposed to strive to be humble, helpful, loving, charitable and self controlled. Instead there is a large group of people in this country that have never even read the Bible and wish to try to legislate a person's character.

If more Christians focused on acting like Christians they'd be setting an example that others would respect rather than becoming some imaginary force that is trying to control people's lives. If somebody locks you in a box where you can't do anything wrong, it doesn't make you a better person. You have to choose it. The Bible is playbook to being a better person (New Testament) but it's so often twisted in public that most people have no clue what it actually says about anything.

Re:Religion is much worse (-1, Flamebait)

couchslug (175151) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013571)

"Because religion isn't dangerous."

You must be religious, as your assertion is the standard defense of Superstition. Superstition IS its REAL EFFECTS, not its IMAGINARY, IDEAL effects.

Superstition is dangerous because it subordinates humans to other humans in the most profound way, which is inherently exploitable (Allahu Akbar! Deus Vult!) and is so exploited.

Anyone who tries to separate belief from believers is being disingenuous. We see through such things nowadays, as in (most) countries Superstitionists can no longer have us burned for heresy.

Re:Religion is much worse (3, Insightful)

Cruciform (42896) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013597)

Religion indoctrinates people into accepting things without proof, to forego critical thinking for statements from "authority".
The new testament is just fine with saying women are not equal to men, and it justifies such claims with an imaginary force.

Re:Religion is much worse (2)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013615)

Because porn isn't dangerous. Crazy people that use porn as an excuse for their actions are dangerous.

FTFY

(I know you were being sarcastic and/or facetious, but thought this point was important too.)

Re:Religion is much worse (2, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013249)

I'll second this -- and I'll do it openly, not as an AC.
Children should be protected from religion until the age of 18, so they have some chance of actually making an intelligent decision about it, rather than being indoctrinated/brainwashed by it while their brains are still forming.

Re:Religion is much worse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013603)

You already know how it will work out. In most countries you can start voting at 18, and things are pretty much the same.

Religion, political views, family values and other things like that are directly influenced by other family members.

To fix the problem, change the schooling system first. Look back into history and see how schooling and school material influenced society. You don't get a high literacy because you have an advanced society, you get an advanced society, because you have high literacy.

If you want to get rid of those religious nuts, then make history clases more intersting by explaining religion and it's role in politics in the past 4000 years. Kids are smart, it won't take them long to realize religion killed more people than wars and plagues put together.

Add to that some courses about the more recent political developments, what democracy is, how communism manifested itself in the USSR and the rest of the world, and let them draw their own conclusions.

Like I said before, kids are smart, but with little life experience making them believe the wrong things is easy.

Just two hours per week, for four years of highschool, are easier to change, for a person, than 10 years later when you have to undo literally a lifetime of misunderstandings and bias.

Suspicious (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012675)

Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

Re:Suspicious (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012757)

Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper)...

Unless it's talking about anything to do with liberals, the EU, the ECHR, human rights, the judiciary, regulation of the media, the Internet...

But no, this plan has been in the works for a while now - there was a consultation over the summer (run by the Department of Education of all people) on how to protect children from evil things online (including non-traditional religions and political views), and the underlying move to "do something about the Internet" has been around for a few years. I think it is an attempt to win support from the Daily Mail (who want to make sure that children have to go to their site to view pictures of scantily-clad women).

I think the only part they've got wrong (having not read either the Telegraph or DM articles, but having read some of the briefing material earlier in the year) is that this is about buying a new computer. I think it is only about signing up to a new ISP account. In theory the ISPs were supposed to be doing this voluntarily, but I guess the DM wanted the government to do more - so yay for more pointless legislation.

Re:Suspicious (2)

maroberts (15852) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012831)

Reading the Telegraph (fairly respectable paper) article, it actually links back to a story on the Daily Mail.

Since the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag that makes up whatever lies suit its agenda, I'd suggest taking this story with a vary large pinch of salt.

Correction, the latter is a hate-filled gutter rag read by a huge part of middle class England which believes what it prints (which is the real problem)

But this will kick the Daily Mail off the net (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013569)

Assuming they use the same overkill rules that most online censors do, the Page 3 Girls will get the Daily Mail blocked for anyone who has children. And won't that be a good thing! You'll still be able to get the actual paper copies if you need to wrap fish in it, of course.

UK once again... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012679)

"Monkey Island" ...one of their inofficial names here in continental Europe - for a reason!

You've got that backwards (1)

newcastlejon (1483695) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012875)

Everyone here knows that monkeys come from France! [wikipedia.org]

To get around it (5, Insightful)

epp_b (944299) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012691)

"No, I don't have any kids."

At least until it becomes illegal to answer untruthfully.

Just porn? (4, Insightful)

symes (835608) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012695)

I don't mind this - I think a lot of people who buy computers are not particularly, shall we say, well versed in protecting themselves. If this could also be bundled with some firm general advice it might help. One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies, horse riding. It was a bit of a shock for all concerned. No harm done, as far as I can tell (I wasn't there). I am however fairly sure her grandparents would have preferred that this had not happened and were able to take steps to prevent it from happening. At the moment, a lot of people are exposed to the internet in it's raw form and this isn't necessarily something that is healthy - giving people the choice of restricting their browsing freedom might be welcomed.

Re:Just porn? (2, Interesting)

1u3hr (530656) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012793)

One of my kids, visiting their grandparents, managed to conjure up some pretty sordid images of bestiality in no time by just googling one of her hobbies

He did it on purpose. Google by default has "safe search" and you have to uncheck it to get porn results. Unless grandpa did it.

Re:Just porn? (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012821)

In another article on this subject the Daily Mail wanted to show how easy it was to find porn online (and why Google was to blame), so showed a screenshot of a Google search (normal search, not image) for "porn" and highlighted the massive number of results. What they failed to point out was that with safe search on (to maximum) you get 0 results.

Which is kind of silly - you'd think you'd at least get dictionary results...

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012939)

and of course the article

Even dailymail.co.uk (1)

billstewart (78916) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013583)

Even with Safesearch turned on, they could just turn to page 3 on their own site. Sure, it's just topless women, bu they're there for men to ogle, so that makes it porn, so they're being hypocrites about the whole thing.

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013215)

I suspect that there are certain queries for which Google's filter will return absolutely no results because they are so likely to otherwise return a vastly disproportionate number of pornographic results. An image search for "porn" is probably a good example.

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013351)

Or, thanks to the news, a picture of David Cameron.

Re:Just porn? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013267)

Maybe, but not necessarily. First, I think Google only filters images by default, not regular results, so it's possible that *she* clicked a link in the results and was directed to the wrong kind of site. Also, Google's filter isn't perfect, especially in the age of user-generated content. There are always new blogs, Tubmlrs, and other pages blinking in and out of existence, and some of these sites offer very little useful metadata to search engine spiders, so it's not always possible for Google to infer what is porn and what isn't. I have performed many innocent image searches on Google with SafeSearch enabled and seen the occasional pornographic image mixed in with the rest, so it's not unthinkable that the same could happen to a naive child.

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012893)

Yes, as long as it is attached with a guarantee of secrecy with the penalty of death for every member of govt if the secrecy is broken for any reason, including but not limited to govt and law enforcement reasons.
  Any lawyer trying to use such data for/against a client would be immediately shot in the head.
Then, and only then is such data collection acceptable
(Same should apply to URL logs as of today)

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012919)

Well said. There are many weaknesses in human nature. And the success of a large part of the internet economy involves exploiting those flaws. Not always intentionally. I don't see much difference between porn, gaming, facebook or most news sites in their ability to exploit those weaknesses. Most people running these business like to say people dont have to visit our sites they can always leave.

And this has the same ring to it as those wall street bankers who said its not our fault that people bought those mortgages. Of course it was. Its always a case of the intelligent exploiting the unintelligent. And there is nothing right about it. Might as well bring back slavery and the caste system.

Re:Just porn? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013197)

> I don't mind this

But you will pay it. Even if you live in another country, this makes it more likely that it will happen in your country also.

Re:Just porn? (3, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013283)

See, here's the problem with that: Net-nanny software doesn't work for several reasons. Desired content gets inadvertently blocked. Undesired content manages to get through. Whitelists and blacklists, when managed by third parties (especially governments) end up reflecting someone's agenda, rather than the actual intent (i.e. it'll eventually end up being used as a tool for censorship instead of a tool for protecting children). Your best way of protecting your children from internet content you don't want them seeing? Monitor them personally; sit there with them when they're using the internet. If you don't have time or wherewithall to do that, then perhaps you should either tell them "no internet" or re-evaluate your priorities in life.
Remember: when you vote away your right to choose, you usually don't get to vote to take it back again.

As a father (5, Insightful)

Max Romantschuk (132276) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012721)

I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.

I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.

The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)

Re:As a father (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013275)

I really really hope my kids rather watch porn than all the violent entertainment which for whatever twisted reason seems to be OK accoriding to society.

I simply don't undertand how consentual sex could possibly do more harm than violence.

The best advice about porn that I got as an adolescent was really simple: Watch all the porn you want, don't just confuse it with real life. (99% of all porn is rather unrealistic fantasy, after all.)

How can you use that advice to support sexual entertainment, but not all other forms?

Re:As a father (2)

lhunath (1280798) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013411)

Grammar is important. "Don't just confuse it" means something rather different from "Just don't confuse it".

Rude. (1)

uCallHimDrJ0NES (2546640) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013549)

Ihunath, your comment is rude. English is clearly not Max's first language. If your textual criticism skills are so poor you can't spot this obvious fact, you have no business posting about grammar.

Re:Rude. (1)

lhunath (1280798) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013605)

My comment is not rude, it is factual and constructive. For all you know, Max is a perfectly reasonable person who's interested in learning where he makes mistakes in his usage of English so that the next time he'll say it right. Not everybody takes criticism as an insult, and the world would be a much happier place if we could all be like them.

Re:As a father (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013423)

But if the pizza man really loves that woman, why is he spanking her?

Maybe not the worst idea (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012739)

As long as there are no costs, and it's trivial to opt out and get an unfiltered connection, and this doesn't turn out to be the thin end of some wedge... I guess it's not an awful idea

Re:Maybe not the worst idea (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012853)

The trouble is, if you opt out for an unfiltered connection, you will be labeled as a pedophile, and if you do have children in the house, the government (whatever their version of the department of child welfare is called) will remove them. </sarcasm>

WARNING! DAILY MAIL! (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012759)

So here we have a right-wing broadsheet reporting on a story that only appears to be covered in a right-wing tabloid. Are we going to start seeing stories on slashdot about other things the Daily Fail covers, like women apparently being impregnated by aliens (space aliens, not Polish lorry drivers, of course) and the police having the audacity to arrest people for making indecent phone calls?

Re:WARNING! DAILY MAIL! (1)

Astatine (179864) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012869)

Yes, because the Daily Mail runs the UK, these days.

Yeah luke that is going to stop anything (1)

pointyhat (2649443) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012763)

If its like my kids, they just crack someone elaes WiFi which does have pr0n. This is usually due to the default passwords of all very popular alcatel/thompson routers being easy to calculate.

Stupid (3, Insightful)

zrbyte (1666979) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012791)

You can't regulate people into having common sense.

Re:Stupid (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013213)

+1

This doesn't bode well for my (1)

future assassin (639396) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012825)

.xxx domain indeas overseas. Damn foiled again. So now on top of religion being a thorn in the side to the world, we not have to include children as freedom killers?

It's secretly just a plan to improve education (5, Funny)

Art Challenor (2621733) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012833)

A brilliant move to improve public computer education in the UK. Now kids will have incentive to learn networking, system administration, and generally how the internet works in order to defeat the feature. A much better, practical lesson, than they'd ever get in formal classroom training - and it's free to the governemnt.

And normally, you'd be able to ask the nerdy Linux kid to fix your computer for you, but what interest would they have in porn?

Re:It's secretly just a plan to improve education (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013297)

100% true. You can't really prevent people from seeing what they want to see on the internet, you can only slow them down.

You've all got this quite wrong (5, Interesting)

folderol (1965326) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012871)

What will actually happen is that the adults will be told to fetch the kids and then be told to go away. The kids will then be asked if they want parential controls, i.e. stuff to stop the parents logging on to dodgy malware-infected sites etc.

My children are grown.... does that count? (3, Insightful)

mark-t (151149) | about a year and a half ago | (#42012881)

What about grandchildren?

teenage parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012931)

Ministers will also tell ISPs to impose "appropriate measures" to make sure that those setting the controls are over 18, according to the Daily Mail.

And what about teenage parents [wikipedia.org] ? Do they have to ask their parents to configure the filters?

It's good that there are tools for parents to shield their children from unwanted parts of the internet and people probably do need to be made aware of them. I nevertheless suspect that those who would need these tools the most, namely the inattentive parents of young children who let their kids do whatever they want, will also be the ones who don't bother turning it on due to apathy or technical inability to manage it properly.

lol (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012961)

inb4 a mysterious leak where camerons pc gets "hacked" and lots of porn was coppied to it "without him knowing"

So let me get this straight (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42012969)

They aren't worried about kids playing games where all you do is shoot or blow up people, but if they might see 1 nipple or breast we're better off just locking the whole thing down? Does nobody else see how retarded this is? Humanity as a culture is backstepping a lot faster than it's moving forward.

GOD FORBID THEY CAN SEX (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013003)

Yeah, because murdering people with a screwdriver or finding out ways to meet kids on Facebook is SO MUCH BETTER.

Ban actual dangerous sites, porn is harmless.
Hell, Facebook alone is far more dangerous than a stupid porn site is.
I'm pretty sure nobody has been murdered / suicided / raped / etc from whacking it to some girl on my free cams.
Meanwhile on Facebook... racist killing bullying suiciding teens all over the place.
So, yes, ban Facebook under this law. Fucking hypocrites.

It's not even harmful (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013007)

There's no evidence (and some contrary to the idea) that exposure to porn at a young age doesn't damage children (the only thing we know for sure is that pornography use by couples is correlated with slightly lower relationship satisfaction). It's just a case of some adults being very outspoken against the association of children with anything sexual at all. Haggard's law, anyone?

Firm hand with England (2)

globaljustin (574257) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013021)

David Cameron is a total dishrag...the epitome of the 'empty suit'...maybe a Romney comparison isn't out of line

Cameron can and will **roll over** for any interest...he let Rupert Murdoch have his way with the entire country's phone system, now he's helping cover for him...

We have to take a firm hand with England politically....fuck them 2x I say...they should **know better**...hell 1984 was set in England for fuck's sake.

US policy should be almost antagonistic with England...we should work to have them join the EU in the future

In other news, PM Cameron... (4, Insightful)

Chris Mattern (191822) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013047)

...went to the seashore at Southampton and commanded the tide to stop coming in.

I'm ok with this. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013055)

That's actually not a terrible idea.

Obligatory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013063)

TOR

My filter (2)

ironman_one (520863) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013085)

Why cant we have a mandatory filter on political stupidity instead? To filter out David Camerons and the lot.

So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that (1)

Joe_Dragon (2206452) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013153)

So will they need to be a UK ver of windows that adds to this to the install??

As the full windows disk do not have this as part of there installs maybe on the OEM install loaded with bloated software they will ad that but people who build there own PC, who want to do clean install, enterprise installs may not have this.

Does this make the parents legally responsible? (2)

Bookwyrm (3535) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013209)

While this seems a bit poorly thought out, if (and only if) it makes the parents *legally* responsible for anything objectionable their children might find, not the ISPs, not other websites, etc., but leaves all the responsibility squarely on parental supervision, then I could get behind this. Shielding ISPs and web hosting companies from frivolous lawsuits from stupid, irresponsible parents is actually positive.

If, if (and only if) it puts the 'think of the children' squarely on the responsibility of the parents while offering them the tools/filters/guidance to supervise computer use, that could be good. Less "How could you put that up where children might find it?" and more "Why are you not being responsible for your children's activities? You were warned, given the tools, shown how to watch them. Why are you not responsible?"

If this does not provide any additional legal protections for ISPs or such from stupid parents, then, no. This is worthless.

You gotta stem the evil (1)

WindWhale (2188696) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013325)

And keep it on the inside. David, you're nearly a treat but you're really a cry.

No comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42013363)

I'd give an honest evaluation of this idea, but: http://yro.slashdot.org/story/12/11/15/1644241/in-uk-twitter-facebook-rants-land-some-in-jail

Austerity measures... (1)

Hagaric (2591241) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013421)

He's just trying to boost the income of the domestic sex-shop sector.

really... (1)

Nocturnal Deviant (974688) | about a year and a half ago | (#42013439)

doesnt he know the internet is for porn? /ducks

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...