No sex please, we're British! Page 2

  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

  • glaeken 22 Jul 2013 09:31:49 11,265 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    No they will just have lists of sites they automatically block for some customers. There are quite a few applications that can do this sort of thing as many corporations block such content. You can go a basic where you just block site names or you can get more advanced where you do intelligent content filtering. I suspect for ISP's it will be the former of these as intelligent content filtering is likely to be unworkable from a processing stand point.

    Edited by glaeken at 09:42:18 22-07-2013
  • MrDigital 22 Jul 2013 09:37:55 1,866 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Benno wrote:
    MrDigital wrote:
    I think it overall might be a good thing to restrict porn to kids
    :S
    You're such a twat :p

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • senso-ji 22 Jul 2013 09:43:27 6,041 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It does seem like a pretty stupid piece of legislation to push through; you'd think that with all the other problems the the UK is facing, filtering Internet content will be on a low list of priorities.
  • Whizzo 22 Jul 2013 09:47:25 43,351 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Fake_Blood wrote:
    So does this mean that every ISP is going to have a guy that has to look at all teh pronz and block it?
    How much does this job pay?

    As for this plan, it's just a sop to the idiots like the Mail and Claire Perry, it's not going to do an awful lot other than whoever pays for an ISP going on to a website and clicking a few boxes. If the New Victorians somehow think it'll do much and people will feel a bit shameful about it so won't I think they're a bit mistaken.

    The more ludicrous stuff is saying search engines should block certain terms and tell you you're a nonce and plod will be kicking your door in if you keep doing it, I'm sure that will work very well and will never potentially remove other things from searches either.

    It also highlights the fact the W3 still haven't created sarcasm tags.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • glaeken 22 Jul 2013 09:49:17 11,265 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    @senso-ji It's classic politician "won't someone think of the children" stuff though. It's difficult to go wrong with protecting children from bad shit legislation from the perspective of gaining popularity.

    I am actually quite surprised Keith Vaz has not been on speaking about this yet. It's classic Vaz stomping ground.

    Edited by glaeken at 10:07:19 22-07-2013
  • urban 22 Jul 2013 10:04:42 11,067 posts
    Seen 19 hours ago
    Registered 11 years ago
    Seems like they are making some pretty bold internet filtering steps. We won't be far behind the Great chinese firewall at this rate.
  • Kafeen 22 Jul 2013 10:10:18 555 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    Blocking dedicated porn sites is pretty easy (unless people use proxies to get around it) but what about non-porn sites that have user content containing porn?

    Sites like Twitter, Flickr, Reddit, is the ban going to include those too?

    Edited by Kafeen at 10:10:56 22-07-2013
  • Sponz 22 Jul 2013 10:13:15 648 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    This is a load of bollox, and they'll never be able to implement a working system.

    Another government run IT project of disastrous proportions, that they'll spend billions of pounds on because of useless low paid IT contracting staff. (read: NHSnet)

    I'm glad i'm an ex-pat. :)
  • Kafeen 22 Jul 2013 10:17:01 555 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
    How long before a scandal involving this is uncovered?
  • PazJohnMitch 22 Jul 2013 10:29:32 8,724 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Kafeen wrote:
    Blocking dedicated porn sites is pretty easy (unless people use proxies to get around it) but what about non-porn sites that have user content containing porn?

    Sites like Twitter, Flickr, Reddit, is the ban going to include those too?
    Flickr and Reddit are available in China. So they are likely to stay in the UK. (Ans unlike China I cannot see Twitter been blocked in the UK).
  • PazJohnMitch 22 Jul 2013 10:30:42 8,724 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Kafeen wrote:
    A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
    How long before a scandal involving this is uncovered?
    You cannot possibly be suggesting that the police are collecting it for their own personal use?
  • MrDigital 22 Jul 2013 10:36:05 1,866 posts
    Seen 5 months ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    PazJohnMitch wrote:
    Kafeen wrote:
    A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
    How long before a scandal involving this is uncovered?
    You cannot possibly be suggesting that the police are collecting it for their own personal use?
    I think the suggestion is what if images from this database get leaked, or if there is an officer with access who turns out to have had a dodgy history, etc.

    Formerly TheStylishHobo and Geesh.

  • Mr_Sleep 22 Jul 2013 10:37:13 17,366 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    Tom_Servo wrote:
    A bit worrying to have a government that doesn't appear to understand how the internet works, no?
    They don't seem to understand how to run an economy, health service or housing sector so it shouldn't surprise us that they can't figure out how the internet works. They probably don't understand that Google isn't the internet.

    I can't help but think that this proposal is another in a long line of vote grabbers that they are aware wont actually get implemented but it'll create a nice headline for a while.

    Edited by Mr_Sleep at 10:48:46 22-07-2013

    You are a factory of sadness.

  • neilka 22 Jul 2013 10:42:00 16,527 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    "Sir, someone's hacking into the Glittertron 3000!"

    BAAANG!!!!! EXPLOTION!!!!!

  • Deleted user 22 July 2013 10:46:45
    Here's how I see it, internet companies aren't going to do it to a satisfactory level, government will bring in new internet legislation in the guise or protecting children. And then have state controlled internet.

    Well they did need a replacement for Prism.

    I think the Daily Mail does more harm to our society than porn, so I may petition the government to include it in sites to be blocked.
  • MrTomFTW Moderator 22 Jul 2013 10:51:52 39,754 posts
    Seen 6 hours ago
    Registered 12 years ago
    MrDigital wrote:
    PazJohnMitch wrote:
    Kafeen wrote:
    A secure database of banned child porn images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
    How long before a scandal involving this is uncovered?
    You cannot possibly be suggesting that the police are collecting it for their own personal use?
    I think the suggestion is what if images from this database get leaked, or if there is an officer with access who turns out to have had a dodgy history, etc.
    Well I don't think they're actually collecting the images themselves, it's poor phrasing!

    And anyone with access to said database will be subject to all sorts of intrusive security checks, there's little chance of anyone with a "dodgy history" getting access to any law enforcement database.

    Follow me on Twitter: @MrTom
    Voted by the community "Best mod" 2011, 2012 and 2013.

  • Maturin 22 Jul 2013 10:52:42 3,228 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    First they came for those that liked a bit of a wank.

    And we remained silent.

    Then they came for... er where is everyone?
  • HelloNo 22 Jul 2013 11:01:07 1,270 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    Let the kids look up porn if they want to: they'll get grossed out and not look it up again til they're older. It's like the other useful lessons you learn at that age like 'don't touch the hot tray' and 'don't jump out of tall trees'.
  • Fake_Blood 22 Jul 2013 11:02:45 4,445 posts
    Seen 7 hours ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    I don't live in the UK so I hope they make you "opt-in" in the most stupid way possible.
    Like make you stand in a special line at the local council, and you have to renew it each year as your home situation might have changed. Maybe a special picture id-card is in order.
  • RobAnybody 22 Jul 2013 11:08:46 945 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 3 years ago
    ecureuil wrote:
    This is nothing to do with protecting the children, it's about the government controlling the internet.
    Got it in one.
  • Whizzo 22 Jul 2013 11:32:18 43,351 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    margot james ‏@margotjamesmp 1h

    All households soon to be barred from online child abuse images and rape porn unless they actively opt in, congrats to @claire4devizes
    Oh dear, don't go looking for the tweet either, it's since been deleted.

    This space left intentionally blank.

  • PearOfAnguish 22 Jul 2013 11:36:52 7,494 posts
    Seen 4 hours ago
    Registered 10 years ago
    mowgli wrote:
    I don't think it is fair to call it lazy parenting. It runs the risk of typical Internet nerds thinking everyone else in the world is a clued up and patient with pcs as them.
    The people campaigning for this are asking the government to filter an entire country's internet access. That's pretty goddamn lazy.

    You don't need to be a "typical internet nerd" (nice one btw) to use parental control software. If you're unable to install an application, or control your children's access to the internet in some way, then these measures are going to be useless. They'll be bypassed instantly using a proxy or VPN, and probably by simply changing the DNS server. Thus having no impact on any kid with either a basic level of skill with computers, or simply a friend who can do it for them. It'll stop younger kids maybe, but if they're getting online unsupervised you've got other problems.

    It's also not going to matter for many households because the adults who live there and pay for the internet access are going to find that they can't access sites, then they'll switch off the controls and you're back to square one.

    I don't like it but the arguments against bit seem to stem from this lovely notion that we have an inherent right to view what we want on the Internet, because it started that way. Which in itself is nonsense.
    No they stem from the fact that as adults we should not have to put up with restrictions on what we do (within the bounds of the law) because of the ignorance of a minority.

    There's also the perfectly valid arguments that it'll probably cost a great deal, block innocent sites and has the potential for further controls down the line and for people who opt-out to end up on some kind of perv watch list.

    Edited by PearOfAnguish at 11:43:43 22-07-2013
  • Dave_McCoy 22 Jul 2013 11:42:38 2,807 posts
    Seen 3 hours ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    It had to happen one day. We'll be reminiscing when we're older, 'Hey, remember when the internet was unfiltered?'

    This is probably just the start of it.
  • DaM 22 Jul 2013 11:43:34 13,528 posts
    Seen 12 hours ago
    Registered 13 years ago
    It's such a ridiculous proposal.

    I have to admit, I am a bit concerned that today's kids will have a slightly different view of sex before they start doing it, as they doubtless have watched hours of it online. Porn stars at it just looks strange to me - will our kids feel they have to pull those faces during sex?

    I already tell my 9 year old that I can see everything he does online (which is mainly play puzzle flash games). That's a bit of a lie, but I might see if I can fit a network wide http request logger or something (that ignores my devices obviously!).

    Edited by DaM at 11:44:37 22-07-2013
  • Tekkirai 22 Jul 2013 11:47:55 104 posts
    Seen 1 day ago
    Registered 4 years ago
    I hope people won't accept steps such as these. They're really going haywire with trying to nanny the population and quite scary as well. Not so much aimed at only the porn obviously, but they have no right to decide such things for us and if parents REALLY want to filter such things, they have enough tools to do so. Not everyone is tech savvy, I can understand that, but we're not exactly talking rocket science here. Just a little bit of effort will do. Not to mention, this endless ranting about sex and whatnot is just ridiculous. Fucking is part of the human race, it's not our fault that these washed up baby boomers can't get it up anymore.
  • thelzdking 22 Jul 2013 11:56:29 4,413 posts
    Seen 1 week ago
    Registered 5 years ago
    Maturin wrote:
    First they came for those that liked a bit of a wank.

    And we remained silent.

    Then they came for... er where is everyone?
    :D
  • sega 22 Jul 2013 12:04:28 908 posts
    Seen 1 month ago
    Registered 7 years ago
    I love the comments on the BBC and other news sites that say "what have you got to hide"? I wonder why people would want to hide something they're being morally judged on.

    I think this is a dangerous solution. If all the legitimate porn sites are blocked, then won't this mean people will view it through servers that get around this firewall? I doubt people will want to opt in to some "pervert" database with their ISP, so they'll find a way around it. Doing that, the sites will more than likely be unregulated and more chance of coming across something that is actually illegal.
  • X201 22 Jul 2013 12:05:46 15,734 posts
    Seen 5 hours ago
    Registered 9 years ago
    At least we can get rid of governments.

    Google force the publishers of Nuts, to produce a version for the Android Store that doesn't show any boobs. The same goes for Apple. The same happens for games as well.

    Because the Christian political lobby is so strong in America they force companies to stick to christian values, hence we suffer the creeping enforcement of it over here too.


    Edit: Not that I condone the content of Nuts, just their right to publish it.

    Edited by X201 at 12:07:08 22-07-2013
  • Deleted user 22 July 2013 12:09:44
    PearOfAnguish wrote:
    mowgli wrote:
    I don't think it is fair to call it lazy parenting. It runs the risk of typical Internet nerds thinking everyone else in the world is a clued up and patient with pcs as them.
    The people campaigning for this are asking the government to filter an entire country's internet access. That's pretty goddamn lazy.

    You don't need to be a "typical internet nerd" (nice one btw) to use parental control software. If you're unable to install an application, or control your children's access to the internet in some way, then these measures are going to be useless. They'll be bypassed instantly using a proxy or VPN, and probably by simply changing the DNS server. Thus having no impact on any kid with either a basic level of skill with computers, or simply a friend who can do it for them. It'll stop younger kids maybe, but if they're getting online unsupervised you've got other problems.

    It's also not going to matter for many households because the adults who live there and pay for the internet access are going to find that they can't access sites, then they'll switch off the controls and you're back to square one.

    I don't like it but the arguments against bit seem to stem from this lovely notion that we have an inherent right to view what we want on the Internet, because it started that way. Which in itself is nonsense.
    No they stem from the fact that as adults we should not have to put up with restrictions on what we do (within the bounds of the law) because of the ignorance of a minority.

    There's also the perfectly valid arguments that it'll probably cost a great deal, block innocent sites and has the potential for further controls down the line and for people who opt-out to end up on some kind of perv watch list.
    If it is easy to bypass then great, people in the know will bypass it. But it would mean that millions of kids that don't know or care enough to find out will not be able to find stuff no one should be looking at. And again you are assuming a greater level of understanding and ability on the average parent. I have a side job helping adults with basic it skills and the level of sheer incompetence and just general inability to sit down and discover for themselves is shocking. The thought of them being able to configure access for their kids by whatever way is just laughable. And children need computers now. It's a requirement of almost every primary school around now.

    Every single fucking law in the history of mankind involves restricting what we do because of the ignorance of the minority.

    I Don't particularly like it. And don't look forward to the sheepish call to have it lifted. But of it stops little jimmy stumbling onto pictures of bukake because he heard some older boys mention it on the way home it is a small price to pay.

    Edited by mowgli at 12:12:55 22-07-2013
  • Page

    of 9 First / Last

Log in or register to reply