Porn to be blocked!!

[taxman]

Meanwhile, when Cameron isn't grandstanding on the Andrew Marr show, his government cut vital safety measures according to the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

 

"I am in no doubt that some children have been placed at greater risk... If you'd wanted, at a time of doom and gloom, to destabilise those trying to do a good job you couldn't have done it better. There are people who are just driven by dogma, and this government is," he said.

 

Now banging on on tele about getting tough with search engines is one thing, but surely a better use of resources would be track down the criminals posting illegal content, knock down their doors, arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison. And there are global law enforcement agencies who will do this given the chance.

 

The blaming of internet search engines seems a an easy way to avoid committing to proper action.

[andygardener]

God you must be well hacked off to have written all that, bet you you've got brail on your laptop!

 

It was hardly War and Peace. Just a few salient points on how stupid this is.

[CPC464]

That's the problem, if people want porn they have to opt in, not opt out. Besides, filters can already be set and password protected on computers so limitation already exists. It all smells a bit sinister to me. This is only porn we're talking about at present but other content will surely be blocked in the future for whatever reason. And to think the UK lectures other countries over their Internet content.

 

Its a stupid idea yes, but people are missing the point.

 

Its not like you will have to go out of your way to opt in - you will be presented with a choice at some point in the future where you will be able to choose if you want to see porn or not. That's all. If you do nothing it will default to 'block' - but you can change it in a few seconds by logging into your ISP account page and changing it to allow.

[discodown]

If you lived in china and you'd always lived in china you probably wouldn't be aware of the tank man in Tiananmen Square.

 

Thats just one example of why we shouldn't allow the state to be allowed to meddle in policing the internet. Its a short step from from 'protecting' us to censoring us and then to controlling us.

 

The internet was always meant to be free. It was always meant to be open and always meant to never be under the control of one nation or state. That means it was always going to have its problems but freedom comes at a price it means you have to exercise control and you have to discipline yourself. Technology moves quickly and the web expands swiftly and savagely and almost everything is on there to see both good and bad. Its no good relying on government to do your thinking for you otherwise you will lose this most fantastic and useful of tools.

[melthebell]

Meanwhile, when Cameron isn't grandstanding on the Andrew Marr show, his government cut vital safety measures according to the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

 

"I am in no doubt that some children have been placed at greater risk... If you'd wanted, at a time of doom and gloom, to destabilise those trying to do a good job you couldn't have done it better. There are people who are just driven by dogma, and this government is," he said.

 

Now banging on on tele about getting tough with search engines is one thing, but surely a better use of resources would be track down the criminals posting illegal content, knock down their doors, arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison. And there are global law enforcement agencies who will do this given the chance.

 

The blaming of internet search engines seems a an easy way to avoid committing to proper action.

its easier

 

its easier to block porn for all rather than track down the people who post, and make the vile stuff

 

its easier to put booze up for everybody instead of sorting out the problem drinkers

 

etc etc

[ratrace]

It was hardly War and Peace. Just a few salient points on how stupid this is.

 

 

Your secrets safe with us old boy!

 

Edited July 22, 2013 by ratrace

[andygardener]

Meanwhile, when Cameron isn't grandstanding on the Andrew Marr show, his government cut vital safety measures according to the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

 

"I am in no doubt that some children have been placed at greater risk... If you'd wanted, at a time of doom and gloom, to destabilise those trying to do a good job you couldn't have done it better. There are people who are just driven by dogma, and this government is," he said.

 

Now banging on on tele about getting tough with search engines is one thing, but surely a better use of resources would be track down the criminals posting illegal content, knock down their doors, arrest, prosecute, convict and imprison. And there are global law enforcement agencies who will do this given the chance.

 

The blaming of internet search engines seems a an easy way to avoid committing to proper action.

 

Spot on. Rather than grandstanding with this utter rubbish he could have name checked effective user side content filters for parents and on the child porn side looked at some genuine new ideas to get the scum brought to justice. Allow law enforcement to use tech to create fake "unique" child abuse images to get trust of the scum who abuse kids in order to take them down would be a huge step in the fight against child abuse. AFAIK they can't do this now. So the real heart of the problem can't be infiltrated by law enforcement.

 

It's just pathetic gesture politics and for once I hope your lot actually get stuck into them, though I'll not hold my breath.

[SevenRivers]

What's the point in blocking porn? I bet 90%+ of homes with broadband will opt in.

[Eccentric]

Sex is greatly overrated, tedious nonsense. One really wonders what the relevance of this policy is, other than mobilising those who have some kind of issue with bodily functions. Pornography is a load of rubbish. I daresay, we all feel a primitive urge now and again, but in the end, you realise: nothing of interest lies therein.

Back in my student days in Belgium, I used to like a site called ‘rotten dot com’, a self-styled "archive of disturbing illustration". A Belgian then-minister for something (I forget what) thereupon tried to ban it, to which the website replied: ‘looks like he needs an a***-b*****ing’. Restricting sites like that is understandable, but I fail to see the point where it concerns plain pictures of human bodies. I do get the impression that most Brits seem to associate nakedness with lewdness. Never been to a beach or visited a spa in Germany or Denmark? Please. It’s just what our anatomy is like. Sex has nothing to do with it. And if it did, no one would be interested anyway.

 

Unless this filter specifically concerns images of explicit sexual intercourse, of course. Well, that’s just more of the same old tedious nonsense. You would expect people to become desensitised after a while. Any rational parent ought merely to tell their children the plain truth: ‘Don’t expect too much of this sex thing. It’s rubbish.’

[melthebell]

Sex is greatly overrated, tedious nonsense. One really wonders what the relevance of this policy is, other than mobilising those who have some kind of issue with bodily functions. Pornography is a load of rubbish. I daresay, we all feel a primitive urge now and again, but in the end, you realise: nothing of interest lies therein.

Back in my student days in Belgium, I used to like a site called ‘rotten dot com’, a self-styled "archive of disturbing illustration". A Belgian then-minister for something (I forget what) thereupon tried to ban it, to which the website replied: ‘looks like he needs an a***-b*****ing’. Restricting sites like that is understandable, but I fail to see the point where it concerns plain pictures of human bodies. I do get the impression that most Brits seem to associate nakedness with lewdness. Never been to a beach or visited a spa in Germany or Denmark? Please. It’s just what our anatomy is like. Sex has nothing to do with it. And if it did, no one would be interested anyway.

 

Unless this filter specifically concerns images of explicit sexual intercourse, of course. Well, that’s just more of the same old tedious nonsense. You would expect people to become desensitised after a while. Any rational parent ought merely to tell their children the plain truth: ‘Don’t expect too much of this sex thing. It’s rubbish.’

you dont get any do you?