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!

No Porn From Public WiFi Hotspots In the UK Proposed

samzenpus posted about a year and a half ago | from the waiting-for-the-bus dept.

United Kingdom 390

whoever57 writes "Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing that porn should not be available through WiFi hotspots in public areas. Exactly how this will be implemented has not been identified, even to the extent of whether the ISP or the hotspot operator should implement the blocking. From the article: ' The Prime Minister said: “We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t.” His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.'"

cancel ×

390 comments

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

Does that include Women Porn? (4, Funny)

mozumder (178398) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543721)

Like People Magazine and fashion sites?

Define pornography (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543723)

Define it first you Socialist prick!

Re:Define pornography (0, Troll)

Bahamut_Omega (811064) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543799)

Better to be a smart socialist libertarian, than a whiny tory maggot that wanks off to the biggest overpaid bankster.

Would this mean high finance porn (i.e. CEOs that happen to be celebrated for being overpaid and underperforming) could be put under the scope as well? I might say so, just to bring in some equality to the world.

Re:Define pornography (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543923)

Better to be a smart socialist libertarian, than a whiny tory maggot that wanks off to the biggest overpaid bankster.

But what people voting for the left are actually getting is socialist totalitarians wanking off to, and paying off, the biggest overpaid bankster, i.e. the worst of all worlds. We need to push all parties, left and right, to be more liberal and less corrupt.

Re:Define pornography (4, Informative)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543861)

Define it first you Socialist prick!

Whatever kind of prick David Cameron is, it's not a socialist one, genius.

Re:Define pornography (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543947)

I didn't think Cameron and Clegg were that easily confused.

Porn is bad and dirty (4, Funny)

loufoque (1400831) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543731)

You definitely shouldn't see it!
We, the British government, will protect you from this bane.

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543755)

Think of the children!

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (3, Funny)

lennier1 (264730) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543777)

I'm sure there's a joke about the catholic church somewhere in there.

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (1, Insightful)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543943)

If you think of the children that much, you are a pedo.

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (3, Interesting)

John Allsup (987) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543779)

The what happens is that people move their porn to Linux, take a file like, say 'manandwoman.mov' and do:

split -b 10M manandwoman.mov $HARMLESSFILE
for s in $HARMLESSFILE*; do
$ENCRYPT -password "${HARMLESSFILE}MrFlibble$HARMLESSFILE" $s -o $s.bin
done
# copy the files to multiple free cloud storage facilities and post links to friends, passing instructions for reassembly
# via other means (sneakernet?)
# do this for many innocent files too, so that if someone catches you, you may deduce how they did it before
# you do and realise that they have been cheating at the Game of Life, or else have supernatural powers.
# In case you need to buy yourself out of jail, present evidence in completion of a certain challenge.

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543889)

Wouldn't it just be easier to host an OpenVPN server at home, then subsequently routed through your paid for VPN and out via various exit points around the world?
How long before we get to vote these lunatics back out on their arses?
It's like we let them back in to see if they weren't batshit insane any more.
Turns out no.

It's a Catholiban terrorist dictatorship (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543877)

That's where the whole notion of sex/porn being "dirty" and "bad" comes from. Churches and mental illness.

Imagine they'd try the same for other basic human things like... for instance.. eating.
- I bet you like the smell of a freshly cooked meal... Perv!
- Of course food sites and cooking shows should be forbidden!
- A glass of milk being shown on national television? Moogate!!! Chaos!!
- You eat by yourself? Ewww, you perv! Don't you know you will go blind?
- You had dinner in public? Off to jail with you!
- A milk-drinking toddler saw you having lunch? Die you pedo!

This is the fucked-up world religious terrorism wants to enforce. I, for one, proclaim: NOT. WITH. ME!

Sex is not a sin.
Oppression is.

Re:It's a Catholiban terrorist dictatorship (2)

Yoda222 (943886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544089)

UK and catholic ? Really ?

Re:Porn is a waste of bandwidth.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543991)

and largely copyright infringing and where its property paid for has negative implication for the balance of payments.

NB. From a non-American perspective - Damn but the US geeks like their guns and porn.

Re:Porn is bad and dirty (4, Funny)

telchine (719345) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544205)

We, the British government, will protect you from this bane.

The British Government can go suck my **** !

(just so long as they don't watch the recording over public wi-fi)

wtf, mate? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543735)

What the hell does the UK government have against porn? This is the second time they've tried to ban it.

Re:wtf, mate? (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543819)

You can say that again. I thought the US was very anti-pornography, and if you believe anything Bill Maher says, Americans are more sensitive to that kind of thing than anybody. Yet other than child pornography, there hasn't been any significant effort to ban it from either private homes or public places. This, as well as the recent European parliament nearly banning all forms of pornography, hints to me that it may not be quite what it seems.

I probably shouldn't be surprised though. The US has this reputation as being one of the most racist countries in the world, yet all of the known race baiting groups in the US are relatively silent compared to those in Europe where neo-nazism is far more more common, apparently. They even have people who are openly neo-nazi in their parliament ffs.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/europe/neo-nazis-and-right-wing-extremists-gaining-support-in-greece-a-894596.html [spiegel.de]

Re:wtf, mate? (3, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543909)

Most Europeans only know about the US what is spoon-fed by their government-friendly media and their state-run education systems. And those governments love to tell their people how evil the US is because it allows them to advance their own extreme left and extreme right agendas. That's not a new phenomenon: monarchs and dictators have been telling Europeans how lucky they are not to be in America for nearly 200 years (just as millions of Europeans were voting with their feet).

Here's a quote from a famous German "politician":

I don't see much future for the Americans ... it's a decayed country. And they have their racial problem, and the problem of social inequalities ... my feelings against Americanism are feelings of hatred and deep repugnance ... How can one expect a State like that to hold together - a country where everything is built on the dollar?

It's scary to think that a large fraction of German politicians think and say pretty much the same thing today.

People In Glass Houses... (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544013)

FTFY:

Most Americans only know about Europe what is spoon-fed by their lunatic-friendly media and their corporate-run education systems. Their government loves to tell it's people how backward the rest of the world is because it allows them to advance their own extreme left and extreme right agendas. That's not a new phenomenon: politicians and militarists have been telling Americans how lucky they are not to be in Europe for nearly 200 years (just as billions of Europeans were looking at each other with confused looks on their faces, asking each other "Is he really talking about us?" and then pissing themselves laughing.)

Here's a quote from a famous American "politician":

“Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget ... beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders.”

It's scary to think that a large fraction of American politicians think and talk pretty much the same way today.

Re:People In Glass Houses... (3, Insightful)

stenvar (2789879) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544079)

So you're saying that Bush's quote is wrong?

“Because European countries now resolve differences through negotiation and consensus, there's sometimes an assumption that the entire world functions in the same way. But let us never forget ... beyond Europe's borders, in a world where oppression and violence are very real, liberation is still a moral goal, and freedom and security still need defenders.”

You're saying that Europeans are not using negotiation and consensus to resolve their differences? That beyond Europe's borders, the world is not violent and full of totalitarian governments? Really, I'm trying to understand what part of Bush's quote you find objectionable.

(The first part of your message just demonstrates your complete ignorance. "Billions of Europeans"? Corporate-run education systems?)

Re:People In Glass Houses... (4, Insightful)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544103)

As apparent from 50+ years of foreign policy fail, I'd say it is about time to abandon the meme that everything can be solved with guns and enough boots on the ground. It didn't work in Korea, It didn't work in Vietnam, it didn't work in Iraq the first time, it didn't work in Iraq the second time, it didn't work in Afghanistan (not even for the Soviets). How is that not sinking in yet? How fucking stupid do you have to be to not get that?

Re:wtf, mate? (3, Insightful)

Lemming Mark (849014) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544213)

I don't really agree with that in modern day Europe. The media companies don't toe the government line more than you'd expect in any country with a free press. There are often concerns about the closeness of ties between politicians and media but I think that's pretty common in Western countries. Moreover, in the UK the government itself makes a big deal of how important our relationship with the US is. Besides that, I'd argue that you're underestimating the reach of both the Internet and US culture generally. The Internet makes it easy to get access to a wide range of news sources, at least for those who are motivated to do it.

Probably more importantly, I'd guess that easily half the popular TV and most of the movies in Europe (and probably much of the world) comes from the US - there's a lot of information about US culture, self-image, even simple turns of phrase that continuously percolates into everyone's minds from this alone. People continually get (arguably idealised, since this is Hollywood) images of what the US stands for, what it's like to be American, etc. In terms of the vast entertainment industry, I'd argue that Europeans are routinely shown the same image of the US that Americans themselves receive.

Re:wtf, mate? (1)

AK Marc (707885) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543929)

In the US you don't hear about them because they aren't news worthy. Remember David Duke? A presidential candidate who was a leader in the KKK, and was later elected to a state legislature. Why be race baiting when the racists are open and holding public office? Racism is "illegal" but "Bob" is much more likely to get a job interview than "Shaniqua" is.

Re:wtf, mate? (4, Informative)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543899)

What the hell does the UK government have against porn? This is the second time they've tried to ban it.

I think you'll find that a large proportion of the UK population would agree that porn in public is a bad thing. We still cover up "top shelf" magazines in newsagents so you can't see the boobs. It wasn't until the advent of widespread internet access that any sort of hardcore porn was legal here. (I assume they just gave up at that point).

Supporting porn is not a vote winner here.

Define public wifi (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544077)

What if you were staying in a hotel? Does the wireless service they offer there count as public wifi?

This is just another case of government ineffectiveness via non-big-issue distractions.

Re:wtf, mate? (3, Insightful)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544233)

There's a difference between being opposed to porn in public and being in favour of government-mandated censorship. No one has yet produced a porn filter that restricts access to all porn, but doesn't restrict access to anything else, so we'll either end up with a system that has false negatives and still allows porn through (in which case why bother) or has false positives and blocks things that should be completely acceptable (in which case it's very easy to abuse). Worse, this will likely end up with the same lack of accountability that the IWF ended up with, where the government didn't legislate the block list, they just threatened the ISPs with stricter legislation if they didn't 'voluntarily' comply, so you have a private organisation with no public oversight responsible for censoring almost every UK web connection.

And, as the other poster pointed out, there is a difference between a public hotspot and being in a public place.

Re:wtf, mate? (1)

DeBaas (470886) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544219)

What the hell does the UK government have against porn? This is the second time they've tried to ban it.

They want to keep it all for themselves

Re:wtf, mate? (1)

jandersen (462034) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544235)

I'm not sure they are against pornography; this is the sort of thing that comes out of listening to your voters. The thing is, many people are concerned about internet porn, perhaps especially conservative voters, and perhaps especially parents who don't want their children to find that sort of things too easily.

Personally, I'd say 'Screw the children' - except, that sounds a bit wrong, doesn't it? What I mean is, porn is one of the things I just can't be bothered with, and the less chance I have of stumbling over it the better, as far as I am concerned; porn is too much like that idiotic advert for "Cillit Bang": some screeching idiot in a cheap suit trying to sell an indefferent cleaning product.

You can ban public wifi porn but you can't enforce (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543745)

Because i'll still masturbate in the starbucks bathroom to 2girls1cup and there aint shit you can do about it.

Re:You can ban public wifi porn but you can't enfo (2)

AlphaWolf_HK (692722) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543833)

But is there anything you can do about the shit?

Re:You can ban public wifi porn but you can't enfo (2)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543905)

Because i'll still masturbate in the starbucks bathroom to 2girls1cup and there aint shit you can do about it.

Yeah! Fight the power!

Wrong question (5, Insightful)

ruir (2709173) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543757)

Who exactly is paying/or promoting this? This seems to be a shady manoeuvre to put out free competitions to ISP.

Re:Wrong question (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543907)

Religious oppression.

Only n00bs pay. Professionals manipulate world views. And the churches are the established leaders in this for thousands of years.

Churches invented the link between sex and "dirtiness". Could have been food. Or communication. Or anything basic that allows one to control people.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543955)

I could see a few groups who would enjoy to make sure you cannot access certain content. The idea is mostly that porn is dirty and bad and everyone who is against filtering it must be a pervert. Then, if it is installed, a certain group comes in and says that if you can filter porn out, you can certainly filter other content, too.

Re:Wrong question (1)

chaos_technique (1191999) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543965)

Or ISP trying to avoid bandwidth-hogging freeloaders. As an ISP, I'd try to block YouTube and P2P next - but I've got the feeling that innocents trying to fire Torrent clients on public Wifi hotspots will realize the latter has been done without as much publicity as porn.

Re:Wrong question (1)

samjam (256347) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543999)

Darn right. This is the way to close free wifi hotspots.

Providers will not be able to pay for "approved" filtering, so one dodgy site slipping through would be grounds for prosecution; and so all free hotspot vanish.

Re:Wrong question (1)

jonbryce (703250) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544067)

I'm guessing the mobile phone companies. Porn is already banned on mobile internet, so they have the infrastructure to do it. At the moment if I am on O2, porn is illegal (unless I prove I'm over 18 and opt in to receiving it) over the 2.1GHz 3G network, but if I go 0.3GHz up the dial to their public wifi network, which my phone will do any time it is at a train station, pub, McDonalds etc that has O2 wifi, then I can get all the porn I want.

Re:Wrong question (1)

Threni (635302) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544207)

It makes no sense to say something is illegal over one network. Something is illegal or it's not. It's also not true, at least on GiffGaff, which uses O2's network. You do have to prove you're over 18 - this has nothing to do with the law.

Re:Wrong question (2)

xelah (176252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544197)

This isn't the US. Far more likely to be a political maneuvre than some sort of corruption or lobbying. It isn't hard to imagine the Conservatives seeing it as a way to pander to their core voters (just before the local elections), and to make life hard for the Liberal Democrat half of the coalition, who are generally keener on civil liberties. The Conservatives are also even more under threat from UKIP (the UK Independence Party, anti-EU and more conservative than the Conservatives), especially in things like local elections because people don't think they actually matter.

No technical solutions for social problems (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543767)

In general, you shouldn't try to solve social problems with technical solutions.

And in this case, it's not even possible unless you also forbid encryped sessions, which would mean people can't access their VPNs. And nobody in his right mind would surf from a public hotspot without a VPN or at least an SSL/TLS encrpyted session.

And as if that's not enough proof for you: a determined person can still use steganography to embed an encrypted stream inside a regular port 80 HTTP session. Therefore you cannot prevent people from accessing porn over public wifi. All you can do is make it more inconvenient for everyone to browse securely.

Conclusion: You can't stop it, so don't even try.

Re:No technical solutions for social problems (2)

zwei2stein (782480) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543945)

In general, you shouldn't try to solve social non-problems with technical solutions.

Conclusion: You should't stop it, so don't even try.

In general.. (2)

intellitech (1912116) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544081)

Technically illiterate people shouldn't make policy decisions regarding technology.

Re:No technical solutions for social problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544123)

But understanding this would require undestanding about how Internet works. You cannot expect that from a politician.

After all, it is a series of tubes, and not everyone is a plumber.

Re:No technical solutions for social problems (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544217)

Conclusion: You can't stop it, so don't even try.

Thank you Captain Binary Logic. It's also not possible to prevent murders from occurring, so murder should be legal, right?

The point is to make it so that if you want to view porn in Starbucks you have to jump through hoops to do it. Sure, every nerd on here can bypass this but hopefully nerds have the basic social skills to know not to view porn in Starbucks. Maybe I'm wrong.

It also means that if you prosecute someone for it (permitting a minor to view pornography is a sexual offence) they can't claim "oops I didn't mean to do it".

Got it now? Sheesh. Go watch that Simpsons episode where the nerds run the town and STFU. (And that goes for 95% of the YRO posters here.)

Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (2, Insightful)

gweihir (88907) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543771)

There is really no other way he could claim something as stupid as this otherwise. Just your average clueless control-freak politician. I do not even find the strength to despise him, this has gotten far, far too common.

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (4, Insightful)

tonywestonuk (261622) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543811)

I dont think they care, about VPN or proxies. If you have these, then you're obviously old and wise enough to be able to look at whatever you want, whenever you want.

This is about minors, kids, who end up getting porn on there phones/tablets by accident, while looking for something innocent.

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543883)

How about redirect all http requests to a webpage to enter your name and birth date. And if you are too young you either don't get access or you get kid stuff.

If the kid is too naive to lie about his/her birthday and name then he/she is not ready for the internet.

Of course just because you lie about your birthday doesn't mean you're ready to see the worst of the internet... ;)

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543959)

Hate to burst your bubble, but there are more 15 year olds out there who could set up a VPN network than 50 year olds...

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (2)

Inda (580031) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544243)

I disagree. This is about Cameron getting his photo opportunity and creating soundbites for the media. He's so shallow. He'll u-turn this when it's found to be unworkable too.

Who the hell stumbles on porn by accident? In my 15 years of internet use, I have never ever hit a porn site by accident. I have seen too many adverts for porn though; perhaps he should start there.

I do visit a site with funny pictures, and they have a sub-section where lovely ladies like to show their tits. Would that be on the list too? This is my concern. Where does it stop?

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (2)

locofungus (179280) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544251)

This is about minors, kids, who end up getting porn on there phones/tablets by accident, while looking for something innocent.

I don't think it's anything to do with "accident". Yes, occasionally, some idiot posts some disguised link and managed to get people to click on it (I've been caught out a couple of times in slashdot posts before they started putting the domain after the link)

But mostly I suspect it's 13+ year olds going looking for porn. Which we all did. Back in my day though it was all still photography in magazines. VHS was around but I never even saw a pornographic VHS cassette, let alone watch what was on it.

One of the problems is that what is depicted in porn, especially today when video is easily accessible, is not "normal." Children are getting a distorted view of what normal relationships are about.

The solution, however, is to educate them about what normal relationships are. To teach them that porn is, for the most part, a fantasy. That within a normal sexual relationship some people do live out some fantasies and that it's OK for others to say "that's not for me" and that it's not OK to pressure others into doing things that they aren't willing to do or ready for. It's most especially not OK to use porn as an example to say "well they're doing it."

A porn block won't work. Teenage boys are going to get porn regardless of what adults try. Accept that fact and work with it instead of trying to deny it.

Tim.

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543925)

99% of peope have never heard of VPN or proxies.

If the average user can't access porn easily, they won't be able to access porn full stop.

Anyway, what is the big deal? Who wants to view porn in a McDonald's anyway? I just don't see the terrible infringement on liberty here. You're not allowed to pull down your trousers and start wanking off to a printed porn mag in your local coffee shop anyway.

The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want wherever you are because it's on the internet is ridiculous.

Re:Guess he has never heard of VPN and proxies (1)

dkf (304284) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544017)

Just your average clueless control-freak politician.

He's not just a politician, he's a world leader!

So, slightly more objectionable and clueless than average for a politician, but within normal variation. Of course, this is an uncosted kite that he's flying, so who knows whether it will manage to get implemented. (Mind you, it's a stupid policy that I'd bet is driven by the latest moral panic in the Daily Fail, so it's got far more legs than it actually merits. Oh well.)

Think of all the people who died in WWII (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543773)

All those people died in WWII just so this guy could enact Hitler's policies in Great Britain anyway. Once GB settles on a definition of porn for WiFi, it will become the accepted definition throughout all of the United Kingdom.

Re:Think of all the people who died in WWII (1)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544003)

I don't recall WW2 being fought on the principle of access to pornography in public spaces, but maybe I missed something in my history lessons.

Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tried (3, Insightful)

Chrisq (894406) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543791)

Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tried to censor the internet for their UK subscribers: Blocking of breast cancer awareness sites, Penistone council websites, and so on.

Re:Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543847)

AOL had that problem with the town of Scunthorpe too. (Profanity filter (look closer if you haven't worked it out yet).)

Re:Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tri (1)

Spottywot (1910658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544075)

I remember trying to research into prehistoric music at college and I couldn't get on any sites that had the word homo in, ie Homo-sapiens, homo-erectus etc. Truly sad. Also in response to the person who suggested it would be helpful to stop children accidentally watching porn, it doesn't really happen, sure it probably happens on rare occasions, but not enough to be worthy of a sensational headline in the Daily Mail, let alone legislation.

Re:Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tri (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544239)

... couldn't get on any sites ...

For a brief period, the council library computers had a child-safe filter. It meant one couldn't use the word sextant. Then there are also those terms with the word sex: sexual assault, sexually transmitted disease, etc.

OpenDNS (3, Interesting)

troon (724114) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543795)

Of course a complete block would be impossible. What's needed is something like OpenDNS [opendns.com] . I use it for my home network, with (in)appropriate categories blocked. This means it's far less likely the kids will stumble across (in a few years' time, read "successfully search for") anything we'd rather they didn't see.

The router acts as a DNS forwarder for OpenDNS's servers, and it blocks outgoing port 53 requests from machines on the LAN. This stops anyone configuring their own DNS server to get around my block.

This is by no means infallible: a proxy, a DNS server not on port 53, an external online IP address lookup - all of these will get around it. My intent is to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate material making it onto the LAN.

Re:OpenDNS (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543913)

So you prefer that they get to see that inappropriate material elsewhere, where you can't see it and can't educate them about what they've seen? Because face it, chances are high that they will get to see such material.

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544031)

Of course not, children aren't the slightest bit curious!

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544053)

Aren't you just creating an atmosphere where a child interested in the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter) has to be ashamed of that, and subsequently have to go around you to satisfy said interest? How is your "solution" even solving a problem? The kid sheltered like that is just going to have a much harder landing when they actually do have interact with the rest of the World.

Re:OpenDNS (1, Troll)

Stolpskott (2422670) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544177)

Aren't you just creating an atmosphere where a child interested in the opposite sex (or the same sex for that matter) has to be ashamed of that, and subsequently have to go around you to satisfy said interest? How is your "solution" even solving a problem? The kid sheltered like that is just going to have a much harder landing when they actually do have interact with the rest of the World.

Not at all. If you look objectively at most of the porn on the internet (I can think of a few people who would apply for a job, if that was in the description...), and consider that any children looking at the same material probably have much less sexual experience than you do (I say "probably", because I am sure there are one or two 40-year old virgin geeks on this site), that porn will come to form the majority of their "sexual experience" until they start to have such encounters themselves. So things like deep-throating, anal sex, DP, multiple partners, and guys (or women) treating women (or other guys) as a collection of holes that need to be penetrated while swearing and physically abusing the victim become normal.
For sure, parents have a duty of care to their children and should actually, you know... "talk" to them to explain about sex. Will teenagers find another way to get access to all that porn? Definitely, but denying them access to it at home is not going to engender shame in them. Your attitude as a parent when talking to (or not talking to) your children about the finer points of their relationships with other human beings will take care of that.

Re:OpenDNS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544087)

The inappropriateness in humans being exactly like other mammals eludes me, anyhow.

What again is the objective problem with nudity, sex and pornography...?

Re:OpenDNS (1)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544119)

Listen, we can't have this discussion if you insist on using common sense and this "objectivity" thing. Get of my lawn.

What a great use of money (5, Insightful)

PhamNguyen (2695929) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543801)

His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.

Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.

Re:What a great use of money (0)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543997)

His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.

Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.

I would personally agree with the children's charities that preventing people from accessing pornography in public is an entirely acceptable idea. Even as an adult, I have no wish to see someone in a supermarket watching videos of goat porn, and I certainly don't want my kids to.

Re:What a great use of money (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544047)

You sir are an idiot.

Re:What a great use of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544029)

It would be nice if they identified WHICH children's charities are involved in this, so I know who NOT to send my money to.

captcha: record

Re:What a great use of money (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544165)

The somewhat-selfish way of determining this is easy:

Before you donate any significant amount of money to a charity, ask them: "What are you doing to prevent random children from seeing pornography on public wifi?"

If they say "That's not our concern", donate.
If they say "We're doing [whatever]", tell them you won't donate to a bunch of busybodies who are more concerned with censorship than helping needy children, and either try another charity or keep the money for yourself.

Re:What a great use of money (1)

tg123 (1409503) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544147)

His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.

Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.

But did you donate money to censor what people can view ?

Um What are these kids parents your trying to save from viewing porn doing?

Its a case who's watching Big Brother ?

What happens when someone viewing (a hypothetical headline ) on "free" WiFi, British troops massacre Afghan civilians becomes unacceptable ? or horror of horrors Prince Harry mistaking kills an Afghan tribal chef in his role as Gunner on a Gunship ?

Is it considered war porn and therefor banned ?

But what sort of porn? (2)

auric_dude (610172) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543807)

FTA; "His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from childrenâ(TM)s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks." It would be good to see the full list of sites that are banned because you never know some non porn sites may be slipped in at the behest of political, business, religious or assorted pressure / lobby groups.

Re:But what sort of porn? (1)

Reprint001 (1838702) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543841)

Who defines 'unacceptable'? I personally believe that children shouldn't be exposed to all sorts of unacceptable things on the internet, a lot of which aren't pornography based.

Re:But what sort of porn? (1)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543969)

Most of the stuff I deem unacceptable for kids on the internet is religion based, actually.

Re:But what sort of porn? (3, Insightful)

Merls the Sneaky (1031058) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544173)

Someone in the UK aught to add that they want religious material blocked as well. After all if you're blocking "offensive" content you better make sure you block everything people find "offensive". You should block all "offensive" content or none of it. I personally find exposing children to religion is harmful, more so than pornography.

Re:But what sort of porn? (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544041)

You'd be able to get a pretty broad consensus from the populace over the majority, with a lot of grey areas where most people wouldn't care if it was blocked or not.

The UK already has guidelines about when inappropriate content is permitted to be broadcast in the UK. I imagine this would use similar criteria.

Re:But what sort of porn? (1)

Necroloth (1512791) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544151)

I too would like to see this list... for investigative purposes of course!

Porn causes less crime (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543825)

Why do you like criminals so much mister prime minister?

People who are in front of a pc spanking it don't have time to commit serious crimes that don't involve spanking it...

Re:Porn causes less crime (0)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543949)

Why do you like criminals so much mister prime minister?

People who are in front of a pc spanking it don't have time to commit serious crimes that don't involve spanking it...

That is the most ridiculous pro-pornography argument I have ever seen. Do you seriously think that the only (or main) reason people commit crimes is because they've not tossed one off recently?

1984?? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543839)

You will only ever see what you search for on a WiFi system. Forcing ISP's and/or individual establishments that provide free internet access to monitor and block specific traffic is tantamount to authoritarian governance. I see absolutely no difference between this concept and how Egypt or Israel or Iran are manipulating and controlling the information that their citizens have access to. Honestly, please explain the difference? if any?

Re:1984?? (3, Insightful)

tehcyder (746570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543967)

You will only ever see what you search for on a WiFi system. Forcing ISP's and/or individual establishments that provide free internet access to monitor and block specific traffic is tantamount to authoritarian governance. I see absolutely no difference between this concept and how Egypt or Israel or Iran are manipulating and controlling the information that their citizens have access to. Honestly, please explain the difference? if any?

This is about accessing material over public wi fi. I may be unusual here, but I prefer to view porn in the comfort of my own home, and I certainly don't want to watch people jizzing into their coffee in Starbucks.

And even if the UK government banned porn entirely (which is of course not technically possible without completely abandoning internet access) it still wouldn't amount to censorship like in Iran or China.

Why not... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43543891)

Why not just encourage people to stare at public porn fiends? I mean, looking at porn in public is gross and weird. This is just one of those things that takes care of itself, though, you know?

"Think Of The Children!" (1)

StoneyMahoney (1488261) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543935)

The top trump rallying cry of those with no regard for anyone else's freedom. While I support the prevention of children accessing porn, I have greater support for maintaining cultural freedom for the majority adult population.

Imposing access controls (administered by who?) differentiated between two groups (on what criteria, exactly?) across all public networks (enforced by what means and deterrents?) will have huge costs (economic, cultural and social) that a technically and morally ignorant special interest group are trying to get the rest of us to pay for. (Profit!)

Ooooo-kay, that made me sound like a libertarian wingnut, but I'm seeing a pattern in these incidents now. As society progresses technologically and culturally, someone (eg: Mary Whitehouse) decides that something should be done to curtail the collateral damage of it's excesses. The actions taken are always overly broad and cause lots of collateral damage themselves. Someone else (eg: Mark Kermode) then has to undo the original cause of the damage and clean up the mess. The primary enabler of this cycle is politicians grandstanding for re-election. I'm looking at you, Cameron!

Thinking of the children a lot, Prime Minister? (0, Troll)

Opportunist (166417) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543977)

Then you're a pedo.

That old excuse. (1)

cgimusic (2788705) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543981)

Oh it's the old "people might accidentally go to porn sites" excuse. Is this a particularly common occurrence? Has anyone here gone to a site and misspelled the name and ended up at a porn site?

Wow! Slashdot really loves it porn! (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543985)

Is it really that much of a surprise that people don't think the ability to watch porn in public is not a fundamental protected right outside the US?

Do people look at porn in public ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about a year and a half ago | (#43543993)

Not that I have noticed. I will not pretend that I deliberately look at what is on other people's screens, but I have not seen anything. So if someone is looking at smut in public, but no one knows, what harm is being done ?

Is Cameron going to announce that people must not read playboy in a public place ? What would be the point, it is not a problem, so why fix it ? Oh: I see, this will appeal to those Torygraph & Daily Fail readers who have not yet come to terms with their own sexuality or have their minds infected with religious memes, so he will garner a few more votes. Others, like me, will soon forget this stupidity. On that basis I doubt that it will become law.

Good clean wifi? (1)

sevenisloud (1688814) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544011)

“We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t.”

What on earth is good clean wifi? The wording here suggests that he thinks simply allowing porn is going to make it flash up on peoples' screens.

Calling Mary Whitehouse (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544033)

Smut-master in chief from the days before the Internet.

Surely its up to the location owner/manager? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544045)

If (for instance) the cafe owner or manager objects to the internet habits of his or her patrons then its up to them to approach and intimate their objection, and withdraw the invitation to the patron to be in that venue. If the screen can't be seen by him, or other patrons then whats the problem? No different to if a customer was making offensive remarks to others, or flinging cutlery on the floor.

its a defintion (1)

Rainwulf (865585) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544083)

define.. unacceptable.
and then. filter it.
do you filter on keyword?
or not, what else?

Re:its a defintion (1)

91degrees (207121) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544155)

Unacceptable - base it on the reasonable man test. Most people will agree on what's unacceptable in this specific instance.

Filter based on a blocking list. These are widely available commercially, and based on community standards.

Some merit (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544093)

Spending a little children's charity and tax payer money on developing a "safe-browsing" filter, accessible to all, compatible with the most popular web filter software, would get a fair amount of support. Having a legal requirement for public WiFi that uses a filter to state this fact clearly would be important.

However, attempting to place a blanket, non-optional filter across all public WiFi is ham-fisted, insultingly authoritarian legislation which, alas, has become typical in the nanny state.

internet marketing (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544097)

http://internetmarketing.vn/

Personally (1)

bluegutang (2814641) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544101)

I'm happy this is being discussed publicly rather than being implemented unilaterally. Hopefully the same will occur if there is a push to block other controversial sites. If I want a certain form of entertainment (like porn) I can pay a little and get it elsewhere. But there is no good excuse for a public network to block, say, sites of unpopular political movements.

Hot old men at http://www.gov.uk/ (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544107)

Who decides what is porn?
Block it all !!!!

What about violence? (2)

Xeno-Genesis.com (2881649) | about a year and a half ago | (#43544149)

Violence is horrible, why not first forbidding violence and gruesome images of people being killed or suffering at the hands of aggressors?. Later we may discuss about the merits of forbidding images of pretty nude people engaging in a pleasurable harmless activity like sex.

For the record, I don't support any kind of censoring. The coment above is just sarcasm.

I'm reminded of something... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43544171)

...go search for "PORN ON A PLANE" by TheAmazingAtheist on YouTube.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?