http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076
QuoteMost households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.
In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting rape would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.
Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".
The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.
This is going to get hilarious.
QuoteMr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.
He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.
He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them.
This is from the people that could find an effective way to block YO HO HO .com
QuoteHe said: "I want to talk about the internet, the impact it is having on the innocence of our children, how online pornography is corroding childhood.
"And how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.
I'm not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence."
But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.
He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."
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.
She added: "It's impossible to buy this material in a sex shop... but it's possible to have it served up on a computer every day."
In his speech, Mr Cameron said possession of online pornography depicting rape would be made illegal.
The reaction I've seen to this so far would be pretty much exactly what you'd expect. Conservatives smug, Liberals screeching and very little attention paid to the fact that Cameron has refused to publicly condemn page 3(some tabloids tradition to show topless woman on, page 3.)
The whole thing is a fucking joke. Aside from the censorship issues and lists due to opt-in, it seems totally and utterly unworkable.
So come world, and laugh at the UK. Our PM is actually trying to block boobs from the internet. On the plus side, Tons of MP's are about to have their porn habits exposed.
BUT THINK OF THE CHILDURRUN!!1
England: Racing back to the 1800s!
FUCK YOU, MARQUIS DE SADE!
You know the rules, they take your porn you take their government.
You can ring your internet provider to be excluded from the porn ban...which will no doubt lead to some of the most hilariously awkward phone conversations in all history.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:29:42 PM
You can ring your internet provider to be excluded from the porn ban...which will no doubt lead to some of the most hilariously awkward phone conversations in all history.
"I should like to have my lemon party back, please."
:lulz:
I would totally fucking do that, and I don't even like porn.
Of course, that caveat also puts lie to the whole conflation of child porn with legal porn and with sexual abuse of children, which is the alleged argument behind this legislation.
Apparently, porn is so horrible it can drive you to Sexing The Kids, but, if you want to be able to access legal porn, all you have to do is ask your internet provider nicely.
See, this is what happens when you have a moral campaign built on bullshit and scaremongering. You start contradicting yourself.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:36:25 PM
Of course, that caveat also puts lie to the whole conflation of child porn with legal porn and with sexual abuse of children, which is the alleged argument behind this legislation.
Apparently, porn is so horrible it can drive you to Sexing The Kids, but, if you want to be able to access legal porn, all you have to do is ask your internet provider nicely.
See, this is what happens when you have a moral campaign built on bullshit and scaremongering. You start contradicting yourself.
I thought the argument was that porn was desensitizing kids viewing it. That lizard you have as PM should be more clear.
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
The best thing is, the Mail online is pretty fucking dodgy on the whole kiddie porn front.
If I ran a website with some of that content, I'm pretty sure I'd have been arrested at least once.
You mean pictures emphasizing a 15 year old Charlotte Church's breasts are not morally righteous?
I suspect not.
Nor is the best of 13-14 year olds in bikinis.
How those guys are not in jail is a fucking mystery.
There's some stuff about pornography's effect on arousal thresholds and correlations between availability of pornography and acceptance of abusive behavior by males towards females but really I'm too tired and stressed to write about it right now. Not saying I'm in favor of what sounds like a kind of harebrained plan, just that there are actual reasons that it might not be bad to rethink the whole pornography thing.
Nigel, I suspect this to be very little to do with Porn in actuality. It's seems to be more about control, precedent and vote winning.
Aside from it being unworkable, aside from this guy being News International's bitch, Aside from the fact that what he's making illegal is already illegal.......
Can you not wait to make that phone call?
"I'm trying to see this man and jar and you've blocked me! Make sure I'm seeing the right thing! Watch it with me!"
That job is going to see so much fucked up shit on the internet, I'm almost jealous. Almost.
It occurs to me that it will likely catch some of the more stupid sex offenders like the chap who liked to text people. I suspect the number of folk who will directly ask for something seriously fucking illegal to be unblocked to be likely high enough to justify it's existence and expansion. Probably being paranoid crazy man again.
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
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.
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.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 09:50:20 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:35:42 PM
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:26:02 PM
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.
Quote from: M. Nigel Salt on July 22, 2013, 10:35:42 PM
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 10:38:52 PM
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?
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.
Quote from: Cain on July 22, 2013, 10:58:30 PM
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.
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?
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on July 22, 2013, 11:28:36 PM
Surfacing to ask.
Canadian submariners. :argh!:
QuoteDoes 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.
Quote from: Hoser McRhizzy on July 22, 2013, 11:28:36 PM
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Enron executives had accessed legal pornography before moving on to fraud.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Edward Snowden had accessed legal pornography before moving on to treason.
Quote from: Pæs on July 23, 2013, 04:34:15 AM
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
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.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that Enron executives had accessed legal pornography before moving on to fraud.
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 22, 2013, 08:00:58 PM
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
Quote43
Percentage of all internet users who view pornographic material online
75
Percentage of people who "accidentally" viewed a pornographic site
Accidentally?
:lulz:
:craig:
I dunno if I can endorse the conclusion of this article...but I thought I'd throw the opinion in the ring:
QuoteFirst, 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
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"
If this is in any way similar to the filters they put in US libraries, all sites relating to "naughty bit" cancers (breast, testical, cervix, rectal) will also be blocked.
Abortion, too.
OH MY GOODNESS, WHAT A COINCIDENCE.
Well, it's a bit more sophisticated than that.
But there will be a lot of blocked sites that are purely collateral damage, yes.
Ha
Ahaha
AHAHAHA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097
QuoteThe pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned.
UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks.
Politicians in both the UK and US have raised concerns about alleged close ties between Huawei and the Chinese government.
The company says the worries are without foundation and prejudiced.
On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011.
Wonderful.
Is there a circumvent in place yet, or are we just going to keep playing proxy whack-a-mole? Companies and governments failing to fuck with my internet is becoming tiresome. Why won't these retards just give up? :argh!:
Somebody really ought to shut these fuckers down
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 26, 2013, 09:23:50 AM
Is there a circumvent in place yet, or are we just going to keep playing proxy whack-a-mole? Companies and governments failing to fuck with my internet is becoming tiresome. Why won't these retards just give up? :argh!:
Somebody really ought to shut these fuckers down
The government sites should be filtered out. Why?
Governments do WAY more harm than porn ever even
thought of doing.
...Won't someone THINK OF THE CHILDREN????
The fact that governments are still running websites was what led me to believe that lulzsec really was just a toothless fuckabout
Cameron had to do *something* to appease The Daily Mail crowd after gay marriage.
For the Children.
Quote from: Pixie on July 26, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Cameron had to do *something* to appease The Daily Mail crowd after gay marriage.
For the Children.
Putting the cart before the horse there, Pix. You make it sound like the daily mail crowd are capable of independent thought :lulz:
The daily mail crowd were spoonfed their outrage and opinions by government inc. Precisely so that they'd demand this level of censorship and open the door for even more at a later date.
Quote from: P3nT4gR4m on July 26, 2013, 10:55:31 AM
Quote from: Pixie on July 26, 2013, 10:49:26 AM
Cameron had to do *something* to appease The Daily Mail crowd after gay marriage.
For the Children.
Putting the cart before the horse there, Pix. You make it sound like the daily mail crowd are capable of independent thought :lulz:
The daily mail crowd were spoonfed their outrage and opinions by government inc. Precisely so that they'd demand this level of censorship and open the door for even more at a later date.
oh, yea.
:lulz:
Quote from: Junkenstein on July 26, 2013, 08:39:19 AM
Ha
Ahaha
AHAHAHA
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097
QuoteThe pornography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned.
UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks.
Politicians in both the UK and US have raised concerns about alleged close ties between Huawei and the Chinese government.
The company says the worries are without foundation and prejudiced.
On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011.
Wonderful.
According to Michael Hayden, former head of the CIA, Huawei is a Chinese intelligence cut-out, supplying them with intelligence on foreign networks it is allowed to operate on.
So Cameron's not only going to be setting up an online surveillance system, it's going to be likely controlled by Chinese spooks.
Hahaha, what a retard.
"We block your porn, China watches you masturbate to old Christine Aguilera videos."