UK Internet Porn Ban.

[Junkenstein]

You know, it may just be a case of penis envy. GCHQ has seen the NSA's and is now a little shy to go to the showers without a hot towel and sack of funding.

Also, quite right. There are many unstable nutters so if those posting from the UK suddenly disappear, FUCKING HELP US.

[Cain]

According to Snowden, GCHQ are worse than the NSA, and get away with shit the NSA could do never do.

This is consistent with my understanding of the UK's place in the international intelligence community.  There is far less oversight here...historically MI5 and 6 have had a far freer hand when it comes to covert ops.  No doubt, GCHQ can use American technical expertise to deploy systems in Britain that would be considered beyond the pale even in America.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

The other problem is any filtering system the government wants to build will, inevitably, be used to censor other sites, which have nothing to dow ith porn, legal or illegal in nature.

I mean, does anyone believe that a custom-built, required by law, nationwide internet filtering system isn't going to be used to shut down online piracy, then extremist and terrorist affiliated groups?  And once that happens, it opens the entire internet in the UK into being potentially censored by a future government, for any reason.

Like Binney, the NSA whistleblower says, once the system to filter is in place, it's too late.  It will be expanded.  And there are some notoriously unstable nutters in both Labour and the Tory party.

Oh yeah. This is why I am against censorship.

Which in turn makes it hard for me to have a hard position on pornography.

[Junkenstein]

Oh.

Well I feel so much better now.

I assume the could-be-deployed means has-been-successfully-trialled-several times?


I'll have to hit you up for more background on MI5/6, but it's impressive if you're calling it a free hand compared to some american antics.

[Doktor Howl]

That too.

It desensitizes kids into a life of porn based kid-sexing debauchery, as proven by the fact two old perverts who were imprisoned for child rape and murder watched "normal" porn as well as the illegal stuff.

You wont be surprised to learn the Daily Mail played a large role in this whole thing:

https://wiki.openrightsgroup.org/wiki/Campaign_against_online_porn#Daily_Mail_campaign

No, not surprised at all.

[Doktor Howl]

The other problem is any filtering system the government wants to build will, inevitably, be used to censor other sites, which have nothing to dow ith porn, legal or illegal in nature.

I mean, does anyone believe that a custom-built, required by law, nationwide internet filtering system isn't going to be used to shut down online piracy, then extremist and terrorist affiliated groups?  And once that happens, it opens the entire internet in the UK into being potentially censored by a future government, for any reason.

Like Binney, the NSA whistleblower says, once the system to filter is in place, it's too late.  It will be expanded.  And there are some notoriously unstable nutters in both Labour and the Tory party.

Oh yeah. This is why I am against censorship.

Which in turn makes it hard for me to have a hard position on pornography.

I don't think porn should be banned.  I think it should be ridiculed.

[Cain]

Oh yeah. This is why I am against censorship.

Which in turn makes it hard for me to have a hard position on pornography.

Yeah.  I mean, I can't say I'm thrilled with the idea of kids being exposed to graphic pornography either, but I strongly suspect that is not the government's overriding priority here.

Oh.

Well I feel so much better now.

I assume the could-be-deployed means has-been-successfully-trialled-several times?


I'll have to hit you up for more background on MI5/6, but it's impressive if you're calling it a free hand compared to some american antics.

Well, remember, the government wanted to pass the Draft Communications Data Bill not so long ago.  Said bill recording the metadata of every UK user of electronic communications for the last 12 months.

But the Lib Dems refused to play ball.

And now, we have another bill.  Aimed at a less....popular demographic, but that could, very easily, be expanded in the future, should another version of the Communications Data Bill ever be passed.

Well, historically, MI6 were allowed to carry out assassinations, false flag attacks, bombings and kidnappings that American intelligence would otherwise have to contract out to locals or mercenary cut-out groups.  There is also a sizeable ex-UK intelligence officer contingent serving in the intelligence agencies of many Middle Eastern countries....you know, places where suspected terrorists are frequently shipped off to torture.  Saudi Arabia or Jordan may be paying their bills, but who do you think really gives their marching orders? 

[Cain]

Also, ask yourself this: how many horrible things from the history of the CIA can you recall?  Now how many from MI6? 

Dead men tell no tales.

[Junkenstein]

Also, ask yourself this: how many horrible things from the history of the CIA can you recall?  Now how many from MI6? 

Dead men tell no tales.

That tells you pretty much everything you need really.

Appreciated as always Cain.

[Hoser McRhizzy]

Surfacing to ask.  Does anyone know yet: Is there some reason they're choosing not to expand the nation-wide anti child pron blacklisting project they've had on the go for the past decade?  Are they declaring Project Cleanfeed a failure?  (That would be big news on this side of the pond too.  Not that this isn't.)  Or is this that expansion - going from blacklist to auto-filter - and they're just not referring to Cleanfeed anymore?

Also, anyone know which "family friendly" filtering company is getting recc'd for this contract?

[Doktor Howl]

Surfacing to ask.

Canadian submariners.   

Does anyone know yet: Is there some reason they're choosing not to expand the nation-wide anti child pron blacklisting project they've had on the go for the past decade?  Are they declaring Project Cleanfeed a failure?  (That would be big news on this side of the pond too.  Not that this isn't.)  Or is this that expansion - going from blacklist to auto-filter - and they're just not referring to Cleanfeed anymore?

Also, anyone know which "family friendly" filtering company is getting recc'd for this contract?

I've never even heard of that.

On the other hand, when I use google and image search "Chevrolet", I no longer get 10 pages of anal sex before the first car.

[Cain]

Surfacing to ask.  Does anyone know yet: Is there some reason they're choosing not to expand the nation-wide anti child pron blacklisting project they've had on the go for the past decade?  Are they declaring Project Cleanfeed a failure?  (That would be big news on this side of the pond too.  Not that this isn't.)  Or is this that expansion - going from blacklist to auto-filter - and they're just not referring to Cleanfeed anymore?

Also, anyone know which "family friendly" filtering company is getting recc'd for this contract?

I believe the latter explanation is the most likely one.  The UK government has always been very tightlipped in regard to Cleanfeed, and really does not like to talk about it at all.

Technical information is very sparse at the moment, so no news I know of in regards to who gets the contracts.  I believe it will be operated at an ISP level, ultimately, though.

[Pæs]

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Enron executives had accessed legal pornography before moving on to fraud.

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Edward Snowden had accessed legal pornography before moving on to treason.

[Left]

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Enron executives had accessed legal pornography before moving on to fraud.

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Edward Snowden had accessed legal pornography before moving on to treason.

The only thing porn use led me to move on to was divorcing my asexual wife.
http://theweek.com/article/index/204156/the-internet-porn-epidemic-by-the-numbers

43
Percentage of all internet users who view pornographic material online

75
Percentage of people who "accidentally" viewed a pornographic site

Accidentally?



I dunno if I can endorse the conclusion of this article...but I thought I'd throw the opinion in the ring:

First, porn. What happens when more people view more of it? The rise of the Internet offers a gigantic natural experiment. Better yet, because Internet usage caught on at different times in different states, it offers 50 natural experiments.
Advertisement

The bottom line on these experiments is, "More Net access, less rape." A 10 percent increase in Net access yields about a 7.3 percent decrease in reported rapes. States that adopted the Internet quickly saw the biggest declines. And, according to Clemson professor Todd Kendall, the effects remain even after you control for all of the obvious confounding variables, such as alcohol consumption, police presence, poverty and unemployment rates, population density, and so forth.

http://www.slate.com/articles/arts/everyday_economics/2006/10/how_the_web_prevents_rape.html

[P3nT4gR4m]

Someone really needs to have "the conversation" with these dumbasses. You now the one that goes "Look, you can't block things on the internets. That's not how the internets work"