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 Internet Porn Blocking Rejected

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the y'kin-never-take-our-freedom dept.

Censorship 101

Gordonjcp writes "The BBC are reporting that the proposed automatic blocking of porn websites by UK ISPs has been rejected by the government. Only 35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block. The report (PDF), drawn from over 3500 responses, found that 80% of all those who responded were in favour of no filtering of any kind."

cancel ×

101 comments

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

The Internet is not a babysitter (5, Insightful)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301545)

How about not trying to be an automatic parent and actually doing some parenting.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301791)

How about not trying to be an automatic parent and actually doing some parenting.

Your parent's disagree - that's why that ultra fast connection that you're using in their basement.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302415)

Why it's what?

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (2)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306623)

What's a 'disagree'? When can I buy one?

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (1, Insightful)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301925)

Yeah, and if a kid comes into a store and wants to buy a porn magazine with his allowance then clearly the parents are just coasting on the law instead of parenting, so we should just take away the law. No matter how much you parent, kids will sometimes refuse to comply. If they don't want to brush their teeth before they go to bed, explaining it and leaving the choice up to them isn't good parenting. Sometimes you just have to hit that override switch and say either you're brushing your teeth or I'm brushing your teeth, but you're not going to go to bed without brushing your teeth and that is final. A filtering tool wouldn't be the first tool I'd resort to, but I wouldn't say I'd never use it either.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (4, Insightful)

KarlIsNotMyName (1529477) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302145)

A filtering tool should at least be something for each to set up or opt in to, if they feel they need it. If it's supposed to be good parenting, it needs to be something they actively involve themselves with in some form.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (1)

Nossie (753694) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305135)

holy shit! ... stop using logic

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (1)

Nemyst (1383049) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303285)

Then install a filtering tool on your own network and leave the rest of the country alone.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (1)

martin-boundary (547041) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306515)

Sometimes you just have to hit that override switch and say either you're praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster or I'm making you pray to the Flying Spaghetti Monster, but you're not going to go to bed without praying to the Flying Spaghetti Monster and that is final.

FTFY. (Praise Bob)

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301987)

IMHO that is not even the biggest issue here. It has already been proved in Finland, that the (child)porn filtering is
- Used to block local websites that tell people the truth about the porn filtering (e.g. by providing a list of websites that are blocked and don't contain information that according to the law should be blocked)
- The websites that are blocked, have absolutely no way to get out of the list (the owner of the website has tried for over a 4 years now)
- Already discussions have started about extending the block (e.g. the pirate bay is already blocked)
- It was not written into the law, but the creators of the law explained that it should be used only on foreign websites, yet right from the start a local website (mentioned above) was blocked.

This is absolutely insane.

What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (-1, Flamebait)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302277)

Why not block child porn?

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

kthreadd (1558445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302593)

Fix the problem, not the symptom.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (3, Funny)

davester666 (731373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303277)

Get rid of children?

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (2)

Kartu (1490911) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302841)

Dude, child porn is illegal in pretty much any country and even simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303451)

Dude, child porn is illegal in pretty much any country and even simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.

So why allow people to possess it at all? Block the bits.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

fredprado (2569351) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303625)

Because blocking the bits is simply not possible and not worth the collateral effects. The laws in place are already sufficient to deal with the problem if they are correctly applied. We don't need to break the internet to help you to fool yourself and make you feel a bit safer.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

lgw (121541) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304093)

There are many countries with Internet Blacklists "to block child porn". Every damn one of them has put opposing political party websites on the list within a year. Slashdot has had several articles about this over the years.

Create a tool for tyranny and you always create a tyrant.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306711)

There are many countries with Internet Blacklists "to block child porn". Every damn one of them has put opposing political party websites on the list within a year.

The UK has such a blacklist (known as 'cleanfeed'). Do you have any evidence at all that any "opposing political party websites" are on this list?

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

macbeth66 (204889) | about a year and a half ago | (#42310279)

Nononono.

Never block anything. Get a court order, watch the bits and arrest the miscreant that has them. Track the bits back to the originator and haul their asses away. Do this often and in a public manner.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306627)

simply possessing such images (which, one could argue, is harmless) would mean prison sentence.

Not in my country. Here we argued and decided it was harmless...

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (2)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302847)

It already is blocked. That's one of the arguments that proponents of the blocking are using: ISPs have blocked child porn, which proves that they do have the ability to block things, thus they should have no reason to refuse.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303487)

It already is blocked. That's one of the arguments that proponents of the blocking are using: ISPs have blocked child porn, which proves that they do have the ability to block things, thus they should have no reason to refuse.

If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (2)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303555)

If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution?

Unfortunately sometimes people forget to set the Evil Bit (RFC 3514) when they transmit child port. Therefore the filters sometimes fail to block.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304465)

If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.

Doesn't work. How would you flag something as child porn - or not choild porn? There is no way of doing this automatically.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305095)

If all ISPs and search engines agree to block anything flagged as child porn then wouldn't this solve the problem of child porn distribution? Then we wouldn't have to arrest thousands of people a year.

Doesn't work. How would you flag something as child porn - or not choild porn? There is no way of doing this automatically.

The users can flag it.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307069)

Even if you turn off the internet, it's not going to stop those sick people. It will just make it harder for them to get anything, but also much harder to track.

In other words, it wouldn't solve the problem, it would just make it invisible ( like so much child abuse that just happens at home ).

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302849)

because blocking:
a: doesn't actually prevent access
b: costs money
c: allows the government to ignore the fact that the material exists rather than trying to put the creator/distributor in jail
d: fucks with my internet

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

elucido (870205) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303501)

because blocking:

a: doesn't actually prevent access

b: costs money

c: allows the government to ignore the fact that the material exists rather than trying to put the creator/distributor in jail

d: fucks with my internet

A. It does make access hard enough that no one who isn't actively looking for it can stumble upon it by accident.
B. It costs even more money to arrest people on possession charges.
C. The material isn't the issue, the harm to children during the production is the issue.
D. I think our internet is fucked with more when we have to worry about tinyurl and other random links infecting us with child porn.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

kiddygrinder (605598) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303543)

where are you going that you're stumbling on child porn all the time? and c: that was my point, if you go after the creator/distributor you're actually *doing* something to protect children rather than ignoring the problem.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (2)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303639)

C. So why are we blocking it? Why is there a problem with people stumbling upon it by accident (A)? Why should possession be illegal (B)?

If the problem isn't the material but the harm but the damage caused by production, surely the trick is to make production illegal. Or even better, make actual child abuse illegal, and then try to stop it from happening? The resources put into filtering, blocking and pursuing people for possession could be better spent on prevention and helping victims, perhaps.

For the record, under the current UK law (the aptly-named "Protection of Children Act" among others) it can be (by my reading) a crime for someone to let their husband or wife take "indecent" pictures of them. Because child porn. That should give you an indication of just how crazy this area of law is.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

amorsen (7485) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303653)

D. I think our internet is fucked with more when we have to worry about tinyurl and other random links infecting us with child porn.

The existence of the child porn filter in the UK proved to UK courts that ISP's are capable of cheaply filtering Pirate Bay, and as a consequence various non-child porn sites are now blocked. Hopefully the mission creep to regular porn will be avoided this time, but it seems likely that our luck will run out sooner or later.

Once we get another terrorist attack (it is bound to happen sooner or later), "glorifying terrorism" is likely to go in the filter too, and that could end access to Roj TV and Al Jazeera.

Re:What about child porn? Shouldn't we block that? (1)

zuperduperman (1206922) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304037)

If you believe in any of the basic tenets of democracy, the case to answer is always for the "why" side not the "why not" when it comes to censorship. Simply asking "hey, why not just introduce a repressive censorship regime?" is not valid by itself if you want to call your country a democracy.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302611)

Dam straight , parents can have the right to say in if I can watch porn on the net or when I can have an equal say in if they can procreate or not.

Re:The Internet is not a babysitter (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306629)

In other news, 35% of parents are clueless about how the Internet works.

Cumming to their senses...? (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301557)

Sorry, could not help myself... :)

How is there overlap? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301567)

35% wanted an automatic block.
But 80% wanted no filtering of any kind.

What am I missing here?

Re:How is there overlap? (2)

Samantha Wright (1324923) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301573)

Not only parents were queried?

Re:How is there overlap? (3, Informative)

CheShACat (999169) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301617)

35% of [i]parents[/i] wanted an automatic block.

80% of [i]all those who responded[/i] wanted no filtering of any kind.

The numbers don't make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301599)

35% and 80% must have an overlap, so at least 15% want an automatic block *and* no filtering of any kind.

Re:The numbers don't make sense (3, Insightful)

Nidi62 (1525137) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301611)

35% of parents vs 80% overall; ie. not all of those polled were parents, but of those that were, only 35% wanted automatic filtering. Thank you. Get some reading comprehension and please try again.

Re:The numbers don't make sense (5, Informative)

BasilBrush (643681) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301619)

There's no overlap. You just didn't comprehend what was written in the summary. 35% was of parents. 80% was of all people responding to the survey.

Hardly surprising that the subset of parents were slightly more in favour of filtering than the entire group, which included non-parents.

Re:The numbers don't make sense (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42307091)

What's missing is this : how much % of the group queried were parents ?
Without it, we cannot know how big the percentage is compared to the total group.

Math fail (-1, Redundant)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301699)

35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block.

80% of all those who responded were in favour of no filtering of any kind.

Doesn't quite add up does it.

Re:Math fail (2)

jo_ham (604554) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301713)

Comprehension fail.

Consider that the set of people who are parents and the set of people who responded in total are not be the same set...

Re:Math fail (2)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301733)

Yeah, I missed that small detail, looks like I wasn't the only one, should have RTFA before commenting.

Re:Math fail (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301719)

Must have to do with the fact, that not all of them responding were parents.

Re:Math fail (1)

Sique (173459) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301741)

Or to put it into numbers: 3500 people responded, and 80% of them didn't want porn filtering, which means that 700 of them were in favour of porn filters. This could mean that 2000 of the 3500 people have to have been parents, because 35% of them would add up exactly to 700 persons, if none of the non-parents wanted any porn filtering at all. (If we assume 10% of the non-parents to be in favour of porn filters, we would have 350 non parenting people for filters, remaining 350 parents for filters, which in turn would put the number of parents responding to 1000.)

Re:Math fail (1)

MrL0G1C (867445) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301749)

"3,500 responses to the 10-week consultation - which included those from members of the public, academics, charities and communication firms as well as 757 from parents."

Indeed.

Re:Math fail (1, Informative)

Nonesuch (90847) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301729)

Actually, it does add up, when you consider the breakdown of the total people polled:

There were more than 3,500 responses to the 10-week consultation - which included those from members of the public, academics, charities and communication firms as well as 757 from parents.

So parents made up less than 20% of the total respondents, and some parents were in favor of no filtering of any kind. Even in the UK, people understand that government shouldn't be in the business of filtering lawful material, and that automatic opt-out filtering has a chilling effect.

Re:Math fail (1)

M0j0_j0j0 (1250800) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301753)

Maybe some of them were Russians.

YES !! (-1)

angelbar (1823238) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301723)

this

Re:YES !! (1, Funny)

Beardo the Bearded (321478) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301903)

I think you mean

tits

Re:YES !! (1)

angelbar (1823238) | about a year and a half ago | (#42319971)

YES !!

Translation (4, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301755)

So, in other words, 2/3 of parents actually don't want government to think of their children all the time and instead want it to stay the hell out? Who would have thought...

Who would have thought that the majority of parents do NOT want government to take over raising their kids and instead want to hand down their own values instead of letting government dictate what values they should have?

I'm surprised. For a change, it's a positive surprise.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301865)

no, just that 65 to 80 % of the users don't want the {hassle, embaressment, husband/wife to know} to unblck porn

Re:Translation (2)

RicktheBrick (588466) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302273)

Who is to say that porn is bad? How many spouses learn a trick or two that they can use to better satisfy their partner? How many parents would rather have their teenage children watch porn rather than explaining the fine points of having sex? Why should society make a teenager satisfy his or her sexual needs with a partner rather than watching some porn? Porn has been freely available for about 20 years and their is no correlation between the availability of porn and any negative consequences such as rape, teenage sex, or divorces. These are trending down rather than a large increase that would correspond with the large increase in the availability of free porn.

Re:Translation (1)

ewibble (1655195) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307903)

Although I agree porn is not necessarily bad I don't know If it is a good teaching aid either. I think most porn is not a realistic portrayal of sex, and really doesn't excuse parents from explaining sex to their children.

Re:Translation (1)

JohnSearle (923936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42301927)

Who would have thought that the majority of parents do NOT want government to take over raising their kids and instead want to hand down their own values instead of letting government dictate what values they should have?

The article states that 50% of parents wanted some form of content filtering. Besides which, I'm not sure what part of the world you're from, but the parents I've been around do try to protect their children from pornography... It's not one of the values they hand down.

I would wager that the reluctance is due in part to: 1. the parents actually wanting access to porn for themselves, but not their children (hypocrisy); and, 2. the parents weighing the consequences of accidental blocking content, such as sexual help articles (assuming they were presented with the pros/cons).

Re:Translation (0)

JohnSearle (923936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302007)

This article seems a little confusing to me. It states:

A public consultation found 35% of parents wanted an automatic bar while 15% wanted some content filtered, and an option to block other material.

and then,

The report found that, taking respondents as a whole, the majority were against all forms of control with more than 80% answering no to each of the three questions.

These two figures don't add up.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302943)

The distinction is parents vs respondents.

I.e. 80% all people said no to all filtering, while only 50% of parents did so. Possible less, as the first sentence only covers 2 of 3 questions?

In other words when you specifically look at the part of the population who have dependants who they worry about what they see, then you get more of them being in favour of blocking such content. That really isn't that surprising - plenty of people will object to all filtering but then find it very useful when little Johnny might see something he (or they) are not ready for him to see.

Re:Translation (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306349)

35% of parents. 80% of all respondents, which included non-parents, academics, industry reps, etc.

It is notable that while more parents wanted blocking than the rest of the respondents (proportionally), it was still not a majorit yin favour. That's a pretty sound rejection.

Re:Translation (1)

maxwell demon (590494) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302071)

1. the parents actually wanting access to porn for themselves, but not their children (hypocrisy)

That doesn't need to be hypocrisy. It might also just be them considering their children still too young for porn.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302085)

Why do you claim it is hypocrisy to view porn yourself but deny that to your children? Society denies many things to children - driving privileges for example. Generally this is done to make sure that the child isn't given more responsibility than they can handle at their current stage of development. At a certain age or development level, the child gets access to more adult things. In some countries this may be the ability to decide whether they want to consume alcohol, cigarettes, etc. or get a license to drive, have a firearm, etc. Access to porn can follow that same curve without being hypocritical. An example: several years ago, my kids and I were building model rockets. In a naive attempt to look up something (perhaps it was the commonly used voltage for the ignitors or something) I entered "model rocket" into a search engine. I really didn't want my kids to see the result pages we got - fortunately they didn't include images with the results back then. However they are older now (16 and 18) and I don't even think about filtering their access to any information these days. They are mature enough to deal with any information.

Re:Translation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302507)

I can see the parents' wish to keep kids from watching content they do not deem suitable for them (personally, I'd make sure they never have to endure a second of those Teletubbies), but consider this: ONE of their friends WILL have unfiltered access. Either because his parents don't care, because he knows how to outsmart the filter or because his parents use insecure passwords. And kids have a LOT of time for guessing...

And then he'll get his sex ed from his friends and their computers. Is that what you want?

Re:Translation (1)

JohnSearle (923936) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302647)

I believe the opt-in approach was supposed to take this into account... but yes, it would be possible to circumvent the system. The idea is that it is made at least somewhat difficult to do so, such as filtering at the ISP level. This would remove the convenience factor, which I think would eliminate a good deal of the problem, and is something that parents could not do without government intervention.

Though, like I said, the heavy handed approach of blocking at ISP through content sniffing will cause other problems. But I'm not willing to say that government doesn't have a place in raising / protecting children. There are a number of public efforts which neither the business sector nor individuals can or would perform. Government initiatives just need to be well thought out and discussed... not just pushed through by evangelists or elites.

Re:Translation (1)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302879)

I work at a school. We block all TCP and UDP traffic except port 80, which transparently redirects to a filter proxy. We use one of the best network filters on the market (Smoothwall). We have DNS filtered, HTTPS blocked. The stations are locked down, the list constantly updated, and on a semi-regular basis a technician (me) rummages through every image in every student area.

And guess what? I still find porn.

Yup, (1)

u64 (1450711) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304333)

that's what the internet is for.

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305027)

"Protect" and "pornography"... those two words do not make sense together is the civilized (read: non-religious-fundamentalist) world.

What the hell kind of "danger" is porn supposed to have? Hm? It's all just bullshit handed down from monkey to monkey and from parrot to parrot, initiated by fundamentalist churches (read: mentally ill crazy oppressive terrorist people). The whole stigmatization of sex.

If you want to have something for comparison, imagine the behavior for eating and for fucking were exchanged. ... Kids eating under their bedsheets at night. Food stores being all secretive or even illegal. Idiots openly screaming one should hate people that like to eat fast food. And total national outrage when that cheesy poof well out of that singer's pocket at that superbowl concert!
Yeah. That's seriously fucked up!

People that act like that sicken me. That kind of shit should be highly illegal!

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305103)

s/is the/in the/
s/well out/fell out/

Damn Idiocracy makes me so angry, I can barely type. Fuckin' religitard pieces of shit!

Re:Translation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302575)

Or they enjoy porn. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Parents can't spice things up?

Re:Translation (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302617)

Nothing wrong with porn, anyone here not knowing at the very least one page that contains it?

I just want to be as certain as possible to be there (instead of, say, a school friend) when my kids stumble upon it. If they're at home, I can. if they can only access it outside of our home, I cannot.

Re:Translation (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42304997)

What is shocking is, that 35% *did* want censorship and apparently no porn! Who the hell are those people? Old frigid ladies and radical feminists? Because those definitely weren't men! (Nor healthy girls from what I hear about the youth today. :)

Doesn't matter... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301775)

The UK government doesn't care what ordinary people think. You can be sure this or something like it will be back in the near future. It is a small comfort that the general public isn't as much brainwashed sheeple as I might have expected, but it will make no difference in the long run.

Re:Doesn't matter... (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303661)

The current UK government doesn't want this. So they will be using the figures to support their position.

The government doesn't want it as it is imposing excessive regulation on industry. The only reason they looked at it in the first place was a backbench MP got together with the Daily Mail (yes, the Mail of all people was complaining about access sexualised content on the internet, I guess they want a monopoly...) and caused a lot of fuss.

Re:Doesn't matter... (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306351)

The UK government was only doing this as a response to a vocal (and typically vicious) campaign from the Daily Mail and other members of the right-wing gutter press. They didn't really want to implement anything like this (being expensive and difficult), but they couldn't afford to have their usual support base turning against them.

This consultation lets them drop it while saving face. "We tried our best, but the people have spoken- sorry grass-root supporters!".

duh (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42301845)

its more likely that the parents themselves are watching porn rather than the kids.

No survey on the pirate bay? (1)

patriciacurtis (920142) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302023)

So for porn they have a survey and the results was no blocking, so what happened to the survey on blocking the pirate bay? would we have had the same turn out? would the government have lost that one, that's why there was no survey. hmmmmm!

Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! (4, Insightful)

Heebie (1163973) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302093)

Censorship is *ALWAYS* wrong under *ALL* circumstances. There are *NO* reasons that justify it under any circumstance. Every human being should have access to the sum total of human knowledge.

Re:Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302339)

I agree.

Please tell me your bank account details.

Re:Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303711)

Censorship (imho) is when the state tells you you can't talk about something.

Privacy is when you tell other people you don't want them talking about your personal stuff.

While there can be some overlap (the state telling you not to talk about someone else's personal stuff), they are two different things. Bank details come under privacy. Web-blocking comes under Censorship.

I think it would be great if we lived in a society mature enough to not need privacy, but for now we are stuck with it. Same with censorship, sadly (although censorship is not a goal, like privacy, but more of a means to various other goals). Both are (usually) interferences with Freedom of Expression - the issue should be identifying a legitimate aim, and checking the level of interference with FoE is necessary and sufficient to achieve that aim.

Re:Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42305209)

Agreed. Now let's get the Americans to stop bleeping out supposedly "bad" words for religitard reasons.

Re:Hooray!!! Some sense!!!! (1)

purpledinoz (573045) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306445)

I would add one exception... I wish goatse was censored... Now it's burned into my memory... arrrrgh!!

Correlation (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302271)

The real correlation to draw from all this is that 65% of parents want to be able to view porn when they choose to. Given that parents are less inclined to want access to internet porn than the general population, we can possibly assume that having kids reduces one's desire to watch chicks/men/animals getting banged. These are important demographics for porn marketing!

Well done to all who responded (1)

Shemmie (909181) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302645)

As someone who responded, my 14 families are all grateful that the MP's have listened to reason.

Now, back to redtube.

but when it came to torrents... (1)

Zemran (3101) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302865)

...no survey, just an order to the ISPs to block it. No real threat to people, just big money heading towards politicians pockets...

Re:but when it came to torrents... (1)

Grumbleduke (789126) | about a year and a half ago | (#42303715)

That was a court, not politicians. The law was introduced by the EU in the early 2000s, so Labour was behind it, not the Tories. Labour love interfering and nannying (and cosying up to has-been musicians). The Conservatives don't like interfering with businesses unless its to make other businesses they prefer richer, so were against this web-blocking proposal from the beginning (and only looked into it because a backbench MP and the Daily Mail kicked up a fuss) - the survey was to give them an excuse to shelve the plans.

Re:but when it came to torrents... (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306239)

Blocking torrents was targeted at blocking people from accessing outright illegal material.

Porn (most of it at least) is afaik not illegal in the UK.

And that is a key difference. Also the torrent block is non-optional: it applies to all subscribers. The porn block would be optional (albeit probably on an opt-out basis).

And yes I know those blocks are generally ineffective, but that's not the point here.

But think about the parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302903)

Only 35% of the parents who responded to a survey on filtering wanted an automatic block.

In other news, at least 35% of parents admit to occasionally visiting porn websites together in an effort to spice up their love making.

Re:But think about the parents (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302955)

Uh yea, that should have been "In other news, at least 65% of parents admit to occasionally visiting porn websites together in an effort to spice up their love making."

Correction (1)

kuhnto (1904624) | about a year and a half ago | (#42302921)

"...80% of all those who responded Enjoyed watching porn on their computer..."

Suck it, lazy parents. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42302929)

The internet and the government is not your damn babysitter, do your own damn work for once.

Fair-dos if you have a kid and take time off, but don't expect permanent vacation from your parenting.
If you are in a bad situation in life, DON'T HAVE A DAMN CHILD.
Hell, get your eggs and/or sperm frozen if you are so worried about damage.
Freezing has gotten to be a considerably better process now.

Now if only more was done about those parents abusing benefits for child monies.
So many kids are in horrible situations because of these horrible people.
Worse when you see some poor kid who is a wreck, sitting next to a lard-ass of a parent. Sure see where all that money is going.
It is an absolute joke.
Worse is when legitimate people who are ill are being attacked and accused of lying about illnesses, even DYING, and these people sometimes get more money than them!
Me with Crohns, I felt that even I was getting too much money and asked to be put on a lower bracket because I simply don't spend much money at all. Then get accused of being suspicious!
Maybe I should just headbutt a damn wall to the point of being half-conscious the next time I go in to see someone, I might actually get a better reception.

Say what you want about this government, they have gotten far more done than the past two combined despite being 2 separate groups working together.
Maybe we should have more coalitions, it seems to actually get more done.
And I say that after being taken off disability, despite still technically being disabled from being able to do anything that requires any sort of effort because it absolutely wrecks my body over time. I have to triphasic sleep just to keep my body from wrecking itself because surgery wouldn't work and so far all medications haven't worked with me besides steroid treatment, which isn't the best long-term.
Bring on the 8th next month to see what other wonderful nonsense medicine that won't work! Woo!

That's good. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42303257)

Sincerely, A UK citizen.

Blocking Child Pornography (1)

Crypto Gnome (651401) | about a year and a half ago | (#42304255)

For all those brainless sheep suggesting that Blocking Child Pornography is a good thing, please take a few seconds to think through the actual real world implications of what you're suggesting.

- In practice when they talk about filtering "the internet" they mean filtering HTTP (and HTTPS) access ONLY.
- That means that OTHER distribution means (HTTP over VPN, TOR, encrypted files over P2P, URLS to FTP servers, private email servers, etc) will not be filtered.

Functionally it's just sweeping the problem under the carpet - if nobody can SEE child pornography (accidentally, I mean cause those who are REALLY into that will find ways to bypass the filter) then it must not exist, magically we believe we've solved the problem and children are not being sexually abused, right?

WRONG!

Imagine you and your famiy (wife-n-kids) are walking down a street and in passing an alley you see a homeless person being viciously stabbed to death. Rather than REPORTING this event to the police (or perhaps intervening in the situation yourself) you put your hands over your childrens eyes and ears, turn and walk away. Sure this is CONVENIENT FOR YOU, and you can pretend that the world is a safe place because your children neither saw nor heard violence - but SOMEBODY WAS MURDERED AND YOU IGNORED IT.

Filtering Child Pornography on the internet is EXACTLY the same behaviour.

Also keep in mind that just about EVERY piece of legislation proposing filtering of child pornography NEVER actually goes so far as to REQUIRE that attempted access of child pornography be reported to the police.

Seriously folks: they KNOW that someone just attempted breaking the law, they literally caught someone in the act, but they have NO INTENTION WHATSOEVER of reporting that to the police - but they somehow think they're doing something useful.

Filtering Child Pornography on the internet is all about GENERATING A WARM AND FUZZY FEELING and NOT about stamping out evil in the world (and, in doing so, instituting an infrastructure and policy of censorship). An INFINITELY better plan would be to NOT BLOCK anything, but merely reporting every access to child pornography to the proper authorities so that they can NAIL THE SICK BASTARDS!

Re:Blocking Child Pornography (1)

Patch86 (1465427) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306363)

This was not about Child Pornography. It was about blocking children from viewing otherwise legal pornography (consensual adults etc.).

The Government already automatically blocks Child Pornography web pages, where known.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation [wikipedia.org]

The People Who Know Best love this, don't they? (2)

Handpaper (566373) | about a year and a half ago | (#42305705)

About 70% of the 78 voluntary and community sector organisations that responded answered "yes" to an automatic block while a strong majority of respondents from all other groups answered "no".

For "community [ ] organisations" they don't seem very much in tune with "the community", do they?

Nothing new there then, the NSPCC [nspcc.org.uk] et al have to keep the pressure on or their State Funding might dry up.

Policymaking with the aid of government funded pressure groups - more incest than you'll ever find online!

Re:The People Who Know Best love this, don't they? (1)

wvmarle (1070040) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306255)

They are idealists, have their opinion, and will seek as much publicity as they can with that opinion. Now they certainly will do good work within their niche, those strong opinions are not usually a reflection of the overall community.

And that's not about government funding (which they normally get for their real activities such as manning a child abuse report hotline), those remarks are to get private funding, which comes from people that have the same strong opinions, and think that by donating to like-minded groups they can make a difference.

Wisdom follows, pay attention! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#42306593)

> UK Internet Porn Blocking Rejected

This development is not so suprising. After all the anglican "religion" was created by a King who could not control his desire for pulsating lust and wanted to swap women like bedsheets. Like monarch, like sucjects...

The solution took almost 500 years to develop, but nowadays more and more wholesome britons, laymen and anglican "clergy" alike, return to the Bishop of Rome and receive true ordinations with the validity of apostolic continuity.

As Britain returns to catholicism, the demand for obscene imagery will decrease and more parents will desire method of blocking online indecency for the sake of their children and the greater glory of Jesus Christ.

Surely it should be opt-in? (1)

rklrkl (554527) | about a year and a half ago | (#42306819)

Automatic porn blocking is wrong on so many levels. Firstly, it should be opt-in so "concerned parents" are probably the only ones using it. Secondly, it's very likely to block non-porn sites as false positives and yet there will never be a porn list you can check publicly check against (because a) it'll be a good source for your porn bookmarks and b) it's done in "secret" to avoid a rival org taking the list and putting it in their porn filter list for free). Thirdly, it *will* be use as stepping stone to block other types of non-porn material in the future.

To most of the general public, the obvious steps are:

1. Provide an easy way to opt-in (presumably there's a block password supplied) and, equally importantly (e.g. kids leave or reach adult age), opt back out again.
2. Once opted-in, you should be able to report blocked URLs as being false positives (i.e. the block page should simply have a button to report it, perhaps with your block password needed to stop kids trying to unblock it). Each reported false positive should be put on a checklist sorted in most reports per URL order and then manually checked in sorted order by whoever maintains the list and appropriately whitelisted if necessary (anything in a grey area should be put aside for discussion in regular meetings of an independent panel, so that guidelines on what consistutes porn - and those guidelines should absolutely be public - can be refined).
3. If they want to expand blocking categories in the future, those new categories (which I reckon will include gambling) should also be opt-in only.

It's okay, though. (1)

partyguerrilla (1597357) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307115)

Google image search already made that decision for them.

pssst (1)

RedHackTea (2779623) | about a year and a half ago | (#42307701)

hey kiddos, click this link [google.com] for porn, just make sure your parents aren't around ;)
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>