Pornography to be blocked by default in the UK

[xist]

Of course, this is going to have quite some backfire, seeing how popular tabloids are. I give it two months until rumors or even lists start to pop up of celebrities who don't have their blocking filters up.

The Leveson Inquiry debacle practically ensures that this won't happen.

 

[Blaze163]

Just gonna leave this here...

 

[Haloman800]

Of course, there may be negative consequences for doing so. Such as having CPS come and try to declare you an unfit parent because you opted out, your employer firing you once they find out you are on the list, or even being publicly shamed once the list is made available to the public (because after all, don't people have a right to know about the perverts in their neighborhoods?)



Oh really? So when they try to have people declared unfit parents because they opted out will you still see it the same way? Or when people get fired because they are on the list which will no doubt be made public after a while?

My point is, no matter what you do online, it's being tracked. That means your ISP can see your google search for "filipino t******'s", regardless of whether you "opt-in" or not.

 

[XDel]

Wow, they would make the internet so much less annoying! Now if they would block all those stupid adverts too! I miss the internet of 1994 badly!!!!

 

[EzekielRage]

adblock plus - you are welcome

 

[jonthedit]

adblock plus - you are welcome

Or just make a hosts file instead of having the company that made Adblock receive every page you go to?

 

[RedCoreZero]

I see LOTS of people moving to the US. Just joking.I don't watch porn anyways, and I live in the US so meh.

 

[EzekielRage]

Or just make a hosts file instead of having the company that made Adblock receive every page you go to?

yeah because without adblock NOBODY knows what you do on the internet -.-

 

[DinohScene]

EDIT: Formatting and obligatory pun: Nothing 'Great' about this.

Stop making puns, it's getting old and unfunny.

 

[Sefi]

I wouldn't have much of a problem with this if you had to opt-in, and not have it automatically throw everybody in by default. This has the potential to publicly shame anybody that wants to keep their access to porn. Odds are they are hoping that is the case, to scare people into not calling/notifying/whatever the method is, in order to opt out.

And after everything is said and done, do you really think that it will block out 100% of porn? I really, really doubt it. Is it going to catch a torrent with the files named something else? How about a compressed file? How about usenet?

 

[K3Nv2]

Yeah this is retarded, let child porn flock the internet if it wants to!

 

[xist]

And after everything is said and done, do you really think that it will block out 100% of porn? I really, really doubt it. Is it going to catch a torrent with the files named something else? How about a compressed file? How about usenet?

That's not the main point of it. It's real virtue is that a 6 year old is that much more unlikely to stumble across something they shouldn't. If a child is actively looking for porn they'll find it filter be damned...but as i say that's not why it's being implemented. It's to prevent unsolicited stumbles...

 

[tbgtbg]

What do you expect from a country that still worships a Queen?

 

[Sefi]

But it targets all porn, not just child porn. If that were the case I don't think anybody would oppose it. Nobody should be looking at that sick shit, I don't care how free you think you are.

Edit: And what if a kid stumbles upon a picture of a dead body? Shouldn't that be banned as well? There's much more than porn out there that you wouldn't want your kid to see. Also, there are such things as internet filters parents can use already.

 

[kehkou]

 

[smf]

If you live with your parents and can access it, you know your dad is doing the dirty with his hand. Also, if you rent, you have to let your landlord know about it, which is fucking creepy as hell.

Why would your landlord need to know? If you rent a property then you normally have the utilities etc in your name, not your landlords.
If you're living in shared accommodation where you share the bills then you might need to have the conversation with whoever has the name on the bill.

I think it's an interesting idea.

This isn't about whether pornography is legal or not. By compiling a list of people who opt for pornography, you are effectively doing internet surveillance. You are now spying on your own people, whether or not there is a probable cause or court order.

I assume you mean opt in for pornography. It's not particularly useful internet surveillance, because you have to opt in for even legal pornography. There will be so many people opting in that the list of people won't tell you anything. They already monitor people watching illegal pornography, the problem they have is that they have identified hundreds of thousands of people and last year they only had the resources to go after 2000 of them.

The idea of the black list on search engines is to cut down the number of people who just fall into watching illegal stuff, so they don't get a chance to become desensitized to it. Leaving them to deal with those who are committed to break the law. Google already removes search results due to DMCA takedown notices, so identifying searches that are aimed at finding child porn seems reasonable to put up a warning.

It may not be effective, but I think it's an interesting experiment. It's not as censored as internet in China and it could have a positive effect. It will be difficult to come up with something that is foolproof that doesn't trigger too many false positives, I imagine google will come up with a better solution than just black listing searches.

 

[Naridar]

The proposed intention of the bill is acceptable - namely, protecting children from pornography. However, the methods aren't thought out well enough. It's not enough that the list of opt-outs is basically a hall-of-shame in and of itself and can lead to serious blackmailing cases (after all, if you're the employee who handles this list, and you see a celebrity or politician on the list, it's easy to give in to temptation), but any idiot who leaks such a list can cause perhaps unrepairable harm to the lives of thousands.

The second, and more serious issue: define "pornography" for me. How exactly do you draw the line between porn and nude art and/or nudism? Blocking the entire domain of, let's say, deviantart is, as a proverb in my language says, "throwing the baby out with the bathwater". Not to mention that in a country of ~60 million, you're guaranteed to piss off someone who has the programming abilities to replace any government website with the most revulsive porn imaginable.

 

[Judas18]

I had to tell my mother bullshit saying that it'd stop us from being able to watch flagged youtube videos and my dad wouldn't be able to go on his gambling sites so that she'd opt out. I can't live without my porn OMG!

 

[Gahars]

The proposed intention of the bill is acceptable - namely, protecting children from pornography.

My problem with this line of thinking is that this is the parents' responsibility, not the state's. The government should not be censoring people's internet access (opt-out option or no) on the off chance that little Timmy might be exposed to naughty bits.

 

[Carnivean]

Ridiculous and poorly thought out. The incredibly strict filters in place in schools have never stopped kids accessing porn on their grounds and these filters will be just as poor about it. Censorship should never be on by default outside of actual verified child porn and the likes.

Hilarity is due when the next batch of 18-2X year olds find out they have to ask their parents to unblock porn or pay for a VPN though.