The Great Big Porn Block is coming
sheeldz.co.uk
sheeldz.co.uk
If it was actually a "porn filter", its purpose would be to filter pornographic material. In reality, there is a list of categories to be censored, and porn is only one of them. Focusing on the words "porn filtering" was a deliberate strategic move by the government, because it makes it more difficult to oppose convincingly.
Those of us who oppose censorship are playing into their hands by referring to this issue using the favourable terms coined by the government. We should all stop referring to it as "porn filtering" and start referring to it as "internet censorship".
The Internet Watch Foundation already tell ISPs to block child pornography, and the court system can tell ISPs to block file-sharing/streaming sites.
It is a myth that the internet is uncensored in the UK at the moment.
We all know that it doesn't matter how illegal something is; if it can be found, the person looking for it will find it. That's especially true for the internet. Obstacles always bear the chance of making it worse for the wrong people.
To play devil's advocate for a moment: how do we know that?
I'm guessing you and I are both liberally inclined in our politics from the very fact that we're having this conversation. Probably we are both naturally sceptical of any form of censorship.
However, objectively, it is clear that some children really are being exploited in horrible ways to produce the kind of material that we sometimes hear about in the news. If a responsibly operated system for limiting its distribution could have a significant actual benefit in terms of reducing the incentive to create that material in the first place, I don't think a principled "absolutely no censorship allowed" argument is sufficiently powerful to dismiss the alternative out-of-hand.
To make these kinds of policies, I think you have to look at the big picture, and the merits of both positions, and ideally hard evidence about the likely outcomes of each outcome. Even then, you are almost always choosing the least of evils in such a situation, because there will be real and legitimate concerns about any policy you might finally adopt.
It doesn't fight the root of the cause and in the long run will only hurt the society as a whole.
I am absolutely in favour of going after the root cause of abuses, or any other criminal activity. But when you're talking about legislation and law enforcement, I think you have to take a pragmatic view and accept that you aren't going to be able to protect every vulnerable person overnight by magically eliminating all sources of evil in the world, no matter how noble your intentions.
If a responsibly operated system for limiting the distribution of things like child pornography can reduce the amount of exploitation going on in the meantime, at a direct cost in terms of limiting the freedom of expression of those who would distribute such material and an indirect cost of requiring a technical mechanism for censorship and the risk of that mechanism being abused for other purposes, I think it is still reasonable to consider it.
Then again, I also have strong views on the need for accountability in public office. In particular, I believe that betrayal of the public should be considered a high crime. If you're going to give that much trust to anyone then the penalties for abusing that trust must be severe, and anyone who tried to censor other material using this sort of system should expect to be caught and should be facing significant jail time and a ban on holding public office. If any government isn't willing to accept that responsibility and transparency and oversight, then my view on whether they should be trusted with the kinds of system we're discussing swings sharply against them.
We all know that it doesn't matter how illegal something is; if it can be found, the person looking for it will find it.
No, we don't know that. This is my point.
Obstacles always bear the chance of making it worse for the wrong people.
Yes they do, and that is why those obstacles must have credible oversight to ensure they operate responsibly and severe penalties for anyone who abuses them. But that doesn't mean we shouldn't consider taking the chance anyway, depending on what is at stake.
...and that's why the IWF / court ordered filters are not optional, while the 'porn filter' is.
Company No. 03426366 Status: Active Date of Incorporation: 29/08/1997
Some organisations ( fewer than 100 ) have entered into voluntary commercial contracts with the IWF that oblige them to self-implement the list provided by the IWF.
The quality of that filter is so absurdly low, that it actually blocked a ton of irrelevant stuff (such as random PDF email attachments, word documents, a ton of FB and Twitter images, etc.). My smartphone was pretty much transformed into a brick, and became an annoyance to use. Also took them nearly 20 minutes to remove it, when I finally went to a shop to get it removed.
I hate filters, because they actually don't filter properly.
Virgin too, I had one of their PAYG SIMs for a while and you had to opt in to have the filter turned off (which was a faf IIRC).
The content that it blocked for me was the national lottery web site (presumably gambling was one of the filtering criteria), but the holding page presented when you visited a blocked site carried adverts which amusingly enough at the time were for what was essentially sex chat lines... I've still got a screen grab of it somewhere.
http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/20/bt-gives-parents-tool-t...
http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/07/uk-internet-filter-wil...
http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/1119...
>>This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to be stopped. And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn -- something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a limited feed
I called my Canadian cable company on some trivial matter. The end of the call went something like: "We've got a great deal on the kids TV channel package. Do you want to sign up?"
"I live by myself. Not interested."
"Oh, in that case, I can give you a deal on our adult channels."
Moral of the story: the call centre staff couldn't care one way or the other - they're just doing their jobs. Call 'em up and get the stupid filter removed.
It's a bit different with this Internet filter.
Regardless, if there is to be a filter service I guess it's good that it covers a lot more than just porn. So what if the list is leaked? People probably just want unfiltered access to news sources.
(Which sounds like a modern day version of the "I just buy it for the articles" Playboy defence.)
That's a totally different kettle of fish.
Some ISPs have been filtering "adult" content for some time.
Turning it off is simple - you visit a page and have a credit card checked (no charge to you); or you ask for content lock to be turned off.
The filters are so poor that most adults ask for them to be removed.
Asking for the filter is not saying "I want to see porn", it is saying "I want to visit a bunch of normal sites that you are wrongly filtering" and they know this.
I really wish I could find this blog. Been looking for it for months to be prepared to reply to a comment such as yours.
They were totally going for the squeamish factor. The only way was to call and request that you want pornography & other explicit content. Something the average person would at least hesitate to do.
The only time I've ever seen a system like that was in hypothetical arguments. Are you sure you saw a real conversation or a fake one designed to create discussion?
This sounds like an obvious social engineering hack waiting to happen, merely register "nude-hacker-news-pics.com" and put up a page promising to merely test a credit cards number, and to be certain you're an adult, maybe your mom's maiden name and social security number and DOB and a dr license # and ...
Well, maybe you need a better domain name, but the overall hack idea is good.
I'm against these filters but that's not how it works. Filters are only added to new accounts. I've been through this with a provider who has offered the feature for a while. When I was signing up they asked something like, "Do you want our child protection/home safety filters enabled". I said no. So really it isn't embarrassing and it's easy to choose to have them not enabled. I doubt the ISP's would sink to the level of referring to them officially as 'porn filters' and requiring customers to disable 'porn filters'.
(Not that I say censorship is good by any means.)
Right. He doesn't mind censorship, he just disagrees with where the line is drawn. Which is what a lot of debate seems to boil down to these days: we don't care about anything unless it affects us personally.
And, as others have said, trying to keep teenage boys away from porn can only fail in the most spectacular way possible.
Once any type of filtering is set up it opens the floodgates for what content can or will be filtered. Imagine how easy it would be to filter out anti-government content when the response is merely "oops, must be a bug with the filter".
How can you even be sure that the opting out will still truly allow you access to the full, unfiltered internet?
We already know that opting out of this filter does nothing about other filtered content - stuff the IWF has filtered will be hard to find; stuff that courts have ordered ISPs to filter (at the request of the companies asking for the court order) will be harder to find.
Currently, military personnel and other public servants are barred from viewing any and all 'classified' content (WikiLeaks/Snowden material). This restriction will now be applied on a national level resulting in a variety of news websites being rendered inaccessible.
It's not if but when the censorship will be applied across the world. It's coming to nations whom are regarded as shining beacons of democracy (especially all of whom are in the sphere of US influence), and such censorship policies will be as untouchable as our ever-growing war budgets.
No politician wants to be the one responsible for tragedies resulting from rolling back censorship in the same manner no-one wants fingers pointed at them for reducing the defence budget.
This is stupid to such a level you should delete your account immediately. How exactly could optional ISP filters possibly ever target people who know about computers to any reasonable degree.
It won't be applied nationally, and you're busy predicting the future when you don't even understand the present.
Is it so difficult to acknowledge that the blow-back from Snowden's documents would've been diminished had the news been prevented from reaching normal people?
The nations look at China and see a populace that is pacified whom dare not speak against the government, and they see the Great Firewall as something to marvel in its pervasiveness. America's rivalry is turning to jealousy, and they see themselves as hindered by policies that China is unaffected by (free speech, freedom of association, etc).
Also, quite importantly it's about delegitimising and criminalising whatever future content that might make them uncomfortable. It ensures that if you do get around the filter you are de facto purposefully breaking the rules (and can be judged as the miscreant you reveal yourself to be.)
Of course later on they government can label them has people who are happy to view porn or visit terrorist websites. It is a way of creating a database of people who can be labelled in a negative manner in relation to some government agenda.
That and a bunch of other technical reasons too: proper dual-stack IPv4/IPv6 across the board (they've provided IPv6 for a decade while many UK ISPs don't even have solid plans to support it soon), fully delegated rDNS for the addresses (both IPv4 and IPv6) I am assigned and so forth.
Also excellent support when something goes wrong as I experienced when BT's vDSL box died. Unlike some ISPs I could mention, after making sure I'd done all the relevant tests so knew what the problem was rather than guessing they both handled nagging BT for me and kept me well informed (all comms were visible from my login on their control panel) of that process. When a friend had similar trouble (there was a spate of those units overheating, to the point where BT eventually started proactively swapping out those installed between certain dates) it took much longer to get resolved as he was passed from pillar to post.
Caveat for balance: there are other ISPs that people describe in similarly positive terms for much the same reasons, of course. Unfortunately, like with AAISP, you do pay a bit extra for the better service.
Obviously a lot of people do enjoy watching porn on-line, and personally I have no problem with that (with the usual caveats about consenting adults etc.). Some of those people will be shy about admitting it, but plenty won't care.
Moreover, even those who don't watch porn on-line have several good reasons to opt out: support of civil liberties, technical concerns over whether any filter will actually work properly, objections to the general "nanny state" trend and absolving parents of responsibility for properly supervising their own children, and the list goes on.
I think enforcing these kinds of measures will just make Cameron and Perry look even more out of touch than they already do.
Of course if you'll agree to support what we define as network neutrality, perhaps your name can accidentally not be included on "the list". Or we can charge an extra fee for an unlisted account much as the phone company used to charge extra money for an unlisted account.
Even funnier it would be a shame if your political opponent were added to the list, right? I mean, obviously no one would ever execute a pretexting attack to tarnish the good name of their political opponent, or perhaps the good name of a coworker aiming for the same political appointment as yourself.
All you really need to do is see how the Germans treated the Jews in the mid 30s. I'm not trying to be inflamatory, merely factual. I specifically listed the 30s not the 40s.
Wow. I have nothing to say but wow.
A list will be created of people requiring special treatment by those in power, and a crowd of miscreants will enforce that treatment against anyone opposing it.
Those on the list will not be permitted to participate in the government, sensitive posts in the military, or to teach.
Those on the list will be publicly identified for ridicule. Would not be surprised to see a scarlet "P" on drivers licenses and such. After all, its "to protect the children". Some people are more equal than others.
At some point they'll be unable to hold certain non-public jobs; companies will be terrified to be identified as hiring people "on the list" so to limit liability they'll have to stop hiring.
Businesses opened and operated by people on the "scarlet P" list will be picketed. If you think I'm making this up, you probably think the Westboro Baptist Church is a made up story.
Political and family enemies will be added to the list, guilty until proven innocent of course.
"To save the children" maps of neighborhoods with "scarlet P" overlaid on homes on the list will be distributed, much as we already distribute predator maps in the USA.
Divide and conqueror, baby, divide and conqueror, thats what its all about.
Thats why I specifically listed the 30s not the 40s. I don't think we're quite up to lighting the ovens just yet, although I'm sure theres a segment of the population and a segment of .gov who wants it.
Please see a doctor. You are experiencing paranoid delusions.
If, however, that was a ridiculously bad attempt at an ad hominem, well, I'm sorry to say that was just pitiful. You can do better. I mean, even something like "your mom" would have outshined that. There's a level of disrespect beyond disrespect where not even putting in enough effort to be properly disrespectful is in itself disrespect squared, and from that point of view I can salute your effort, but still it wasn't very good. Practice practice practice...
You are claiming this will be implemented like a combination of 30s Germany and 00s USA. Despite the fact this is the UK and you have no evidence whatsoever for any of your wild predictions.
Seriously, see a doctor. Your statements are massively paranoid and not at all based in reality. If I wanted to say you were wrong because you were stupid I would. In this case you're just believing in wholly illogical things.
On the other hand your outlook is falsification of a formal hypothesis merely requires repeating over and over "illogic" "paranoid" and such as though they're magic incantations which in and of themselves will convince others, which is highly unlikely. Practice argumentation and debate. Repeated incantations just don't work.
Needless to say we aren't agreeing on a mutually acceptable, and equally applied, level of "proof". Oh well. Makes for a boring debate if we can't even agree on the rules of the road (thats a pun, you guys drive on the wrong side of the road you see)
I also sense a bit of bias toward a belief that large groups of people tend to behave in a rational and logical manner, whereas my extensive observational experience and historical reading tends toward the exact opposite. Sure would be a nice planet if you were not completely incorrect!
So I apologize for implying you were an inexperienced troll, in that I missed the root cause that we have mutually dramatically incompatible outlooks on life (although note I'm a little more of a gentleman WRT not suggesting medical treatment).
So have a nice day, and good luck with the whole fascism thing, hope it works out for the UK better than famous historical examples and I hope their cultural phase ends better than some awful historical examples. I'm sure civilization will maintain itself despite people burying their heads in the sand when faced with what boils down to evil and/or a cultural/political hygiene issue.
I'm not saying that to hurt you or your reputation. From my perspective your views are paranoid and illogical. From extensive experience debating people with similar beliefs I believe the best solution is to discuss your feelings with a doctor.
The chance of this system ever getting any further is incredibly small. The public backlash has been almost universal and the filters are already being exploited publicly. I honestly have no idea how you could rationally extrapolate 'scarlet P' letters stamped onto licenses.
The 'scarlet p' is a literary allusion to a very old book of Hawthorne's, wikipedia link below. Some decades ago it was trendy to include it on the reading lists for school children, at least in the midwestern USA. As a piece of literature, its absolutely drowning in symbolism to the point of ridicule, although it certainly demonstrates the utter inhumanity of theocracy as a form of government, so its not all bad. Its has the virtue of brevity. And a scarlet "A" makes quite an appearance. There's worse ways to pass the time, than reading "the scarlet letter".
The author hasn't made a distinction between restriction and censorship. Films unsuitable for children, say Sword of Vengeance have their availability to them restricted. On the other hand, I'm quite sure that the British release of Ichi the Killer has scenes edited from it, ie. it is censored.
I was wondering if this porn filter would block access to the works of the Chapman Brothers.
[0]: http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/women-who-stray/201305/p...
OP opened a can of worms. Seriously. (No, really: seriously.)
Arguing that it's art? That it is in itself valuable to culture as "low art" is? This isn't a question restricted to the UK, and it's one we need to get philosophically astute about pretty fast. So, again: Porn is not the problem — you are.
Whatever it is, analogies to automobile accidents and art, in any sense, is a stretch beyond palatability, and makes this entire discussion look entirely intellectually one-sided. I think such talk is a disservice to the discussion, and maybe porn should be blocked on those grounds alone, for I am quite sure OP's aesthetics are common.
This is ostensibly a "think of the children" move, it has nothing to do with aesthetics or art, low or high. In reality, it's probably also an old school conservative play to "clean up" the filth.
On the list of things children should not watch people having sex should really not be close to the top. It is just sex. After breathing, drinking and eating it is one of the most natural and common activities on earth. A coyote trying to smash a bird with an anvil seems a way less appropriate thing for children to watch.
The UK has more of a problem with children watching the weird unrealistic sex portrayed by the US porn industry.
[1] http://skeptics.stackexchange.com/questions/7668/is-the-inco...
This.
Now, why is the US unique here?
US TV shows have to censor their language unless they're broadcast on cable or satellite.
I think the movie adaptation of 1984 would be a good idea to rally around. I say "idea" rather than "film" because I don't remember if the actual film is any good, but the idea of censoring 1984 "to save teh children" but primarily motivated to politically censor is too juicy to pass up.
Boiled down to it's raw animal fundamentals, having power is about being able to maximise your reproductive chances and suppress the reproductive chances of lesser males.
As a result, the powerful will always impose a (hypocritical) morality on the weak. Even if it just provides a symbolic victory over their libido, it plays an age-old role in cementing the pecking-order of society.
So blocking porn minismises the reproductive chances of lesser males? So you feel that watching porn would enhance their reproductive success?
I think he's making an abstract argument about the symbolism of blocking access to sexuality.
The SS forced c-section on pregnant woman and stole her baby. She was visitor, foreign citizen who stayed in UK just for a few days...
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/social-servic...
Hell if you bother to read even slightly then it's wholly reasonable: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/law-and-order/1049605...
If only people on HN could be downvoted for being completely and arguably wilfully ignorant about what they comment on.
I'm new to HN, so I recently had a good look at the rules governing it. They are a bit more complex than your average site, and bound to cause a bit of controversy.
In the HN FAQ:
> There are no down arrows on submissions. They only appear on comments after users reach a certain karma threshold.
I recently posted a comment regarding some hybrid C/C++ code:
https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6949474
A comment of mine was downvoted, which I was a bit surprised at, then was upvoted when other hackers responded to it. To be fair the comment lacked sufficient information, which I corrected with a follow up. I'm thinking that the hacker who downvoted it doesn't know that much C, so I am not that really that bothered about it.
Hang on! No they didn't --what--?
How hard is it to do trivial research?
- there were other relatives who had rights and could take care of the baby.
- she was held for 5 weeks in the hospital before the baby was delivered, than deported!
- And on top of that there is gagging court order, so she could not ask for help, otherwise she would lose all chances to get baby back.
Also there are other similar cases.
I've seen it claimed that it's blocked access to the Conservative Party's web site. Based on all this, that's a block I'd like to see remain in place.
Does your definition of 'porn' include medical materials?
Does your definition of 'porn' include religious texts?
The problem with banning 'porn' is you have to ban very very specific things (like photographs of coitus, or textual descriptions of intercourse) in order to enforce it - but what you're really attempting to control or prevent is perversion or pleasure other people take in something you don't approve of.
If you even glance over a list of fetishes you'd see there's no limit to the creativity of human sexuality. Pretty soon you're going to end up banning balloons, and a whole lot of other weird things that emerge. What about things like Bubbling (https://www.google.ca/search?q=mormon+bubbling) Is that 'porn' or not?
If you hold the premise that minors must be protected against media by the government, then you can't possibly argue that this move is radical or illogical.
Most people in the UK are totally fine with some levels of censorship.
Ask them if they want a ban on people producing or distributing images of child sexual abuse and most people would say that they do want a ban.
Extend that to images of people having sex with animals and many people are happy with a ban, and some people saying that they agree it should be restricted to those over the ages of 18, and not accidentally available to anyone.
But when you ask someone in the UK if a TV show should receive a huge ($500,000) fine for an accidental < 1 second showing of a partially clothed nipple most people are going to laugh and say "no". (Unlike US FCC which imposed such a fine for Janet Jackson nipple slip. That fine was overturned 7 years later, but only because FCC had used new powers before taking action). Or if you ask whether it's okay for terrestrial broadcast TV shows to include nudity or swearing after 9pm most people are going to say it's okay. (Unlike US, where shows have to censor their language. See for example The Good Wife which parodied this situation with a street noise during a courtroom hearing. The noise was used to mask bad language.)