UK Government Changes Tack and Demands Default Porn Block 163
judgecorp writes "British Prime Minister David Cameron is set to reverse a policy announced last week, and demand that ISPs filter adult content by default. This system would require users to actively opt out of a filter designed to block adult content and material about self-harm. Last week, after consultation with parents, the Department for Education had said that an opt-in system would be sufficient and no default porn block would be required, but the Daily Mail has announced triumphantly that Cameron will be presenting the policy in the paper. MP Claire Perry, who has argued for the block, will be in charge — and freedom of speech campaigners have branded the sudden change of mind as 'chaotic.'"
"Will announce later today..." (Score:5, Informative)
This is like this news stories you see where they tell you what someone is going to "announce" later. If we already know what they're going to say, why are you telling me before they've said it?
Re: (Score:3)
Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that the Weekly World News ceased publication in 2007 could also have something to do with it.
Re: (Score:2)
You will be glad to know their website is still in operation. It appears to be update regularly.
Re: (Score:2)
The fact that the Weekly World News ceased publication in 2007 could also have something to do with it.
Was that an answer to his first question or his second, or both? I think it works as an answer to both. :)
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
Not quite sure, probably because they're batshit crazy right wing hypocrites who love to make up sensational headlines. They also like to pretend they're 'for the people', they are in fact are made up of the same set of Tory toffs that would take away every-ones rights and freedoms as long as it didn't affect them too much, as long as they get to make a little profit along the way.
Re: (Score:2)
So, it's similar to Fox News in the USA.....
What is truly scary, is the number of people that are susceptible to this flavor of shit.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sadly, it's actually the most visited online news site: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-16746785 [bbc.co.uk]
It's not surprising it gets a lot of press - a lot of people "read" it.
Re: (Score:2)
Why does the Daily Mail get so much press on the internet?
You never see slashdot quoting the Weekly World News about the latest exploits of Batboy.
Maybe because it's the most visited newspaper website there is? Not that that legitimizes their reporting. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mail_Online [wikipedia.org]
Re:"Will announce later today..." (Score:4, Funny)
Re: (Score:3)
This is a truly dipshitted comment. Cameron wrote the fucking article in the fucking Mail announcing the policy change. He's a twat.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2250809/Victory-Mail-Children-WILL-protected-online-porn-Cameron-orders-sites-blocked-automatically.html [dailymail.co.uk]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Apropos, as government policy now appears to be driven entirely by Mumsnet.
A more shallow, spineless, hypocritical self serving bunch it would be hard to imagine... apart from every other politician, everywhere.
Re: (Score:2)
Although if the same man is in charge of writing both, it's probably a fair bet that they'll say the same thing.
Re: (Score:3)
The Pretend Democracy Continues... (Score:2)
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen... Of course then they will do whatever the hell they want anyway.
I'd rather not be asked in the fucking first place, it's like teasing a child with a cookie it can never have, all they do is piss people off AND ignore the majority view.
Re: (Score:2)
As in, the government will ask about what the people think and then prettend to listen...
Uhm..., don't the Brits elect their "government"? So, just like here in the U.S., they keep electing the same lousy people to represent them. Imagine that.
Re: (Score:2)
It's almost exactly like the US yes, ie basically nothing important really changes no matter who's in power. Even when you vote for the "other side" (or in our case a coalition of 2 parties), "democratic" government is "democratic".
Re: (Score:2)
Not very much is democratic about a party or coalition being voted into power with less than 30% of the total electorate wanting it...
Re: (Score:2)
Hence the quotation marks.
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is with the voting system - it reduces the "political parties" into 2 camps while not serving the majority who did NOT want them.
These videos highlight the problem and one of the _many_ solutions:
* First Past the Post http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo [youtube.com]
* Alt. Vote http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3Y3jE3B8HsE [youtube.com]
Re: (Score:3)
There are three major parties (discounting UKIP, who may or may not come to something in the next General Election), and two of them coalesced to form this government. The other party has not voiced strong opposition to this policy. So of a choice of 3 parties, two are implementing it and one doesn't seem to care overly. So not much of a choice there.
For what it's worth, the government launched a public consultation, which came back overwhelmingly against this policy. So you can't vote against it, and can't
RTFA (Score:5, Insightful)
none of this is true....
Re: (Score:3)
Give option by default (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
1) What else might end up on it "by accident" and th
how about (Score:5, Interesting)
Can I get a default block on things I find offensive to children please?
* Violence
* Religion
* Telephone Scams
* Adverts to tacky products
* politicians
* The Daily Mail
Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people? If you have a problem with receiving something, you fix it, the tools are out there and free! Don't make your problem my problem because of your ignorance and laziness.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:how about (Score:4, Interesting)
Seriously why the focus on this one thing that some people think is bad for some other people?
Agreed, but didn't they already do this once? Think about it. If you ask everyone then eventually you'll find that everything on the Internet is offensive in some way to someone. They group all of this "offensive" content under one umbrella and opt you out of the Internet by default. If you want access to the Internet you have to opt in, and even pay for it!
The whole cycle is starting again. IMHO, it's just another way to increase the price of Internet access. Once everyone's paying the additional "opt it to everything" fee the process will start again.
That's the whole point (Score:2)
Once you define one filter and have a functioning censorship system,
adding another filter is trivial and *NOBODY WILL NOTICE* until it's too late.
Religion is a form of control of the people.
Now that it's going away, they need something new and quick!
Comment removed (Score:3)
Morons (Score:5, Insightful)
Speaking as a British citizen, one with two small children (aged 7 and 8), my take is that my government is acting like a bunch of morons. They're allowing themselves to be led by the Daily Mail - a newspaper that has a long track record of spouting an ultra-conservative line that includes rabid xenophobia and plain and simple hatred of a significant proportion of the UK population. This move is not about making a rational choice, it's simply all about securing votes - the Daily Mail's readership are exclusively Conservative party voters, David Cameron's party.
I'm strongly against net filtering. Implementing mandatory filtering is the thin end of the wedge. It will not be long before there's complaints and campaigns by the likes of the Daily Mail complaining about inappropriate material that is not being filtered. How long will it be before Wikipedia gets banned? That site is packed full of very adult material that some will find objectionable. And what about the BBC News covering stories about pedophilia? And all the swearing in YouTube videos? Google searches can link through to objectionable material, complete with previews, so shouldn't that be banned too? Even without such encroachment into areas that rational people can see as being innocuous, filtering still ends up being a blunt weapon, filtering out sites that deal with issues such as contraception and abortion since they fall under the label of "sex". If kids can't do research into such things then the problems we have in this country of teenage pregnancy can only get worse.
As an example of such blunt filtering, I recently used a wifi network at a local church that had filtering enabled on their connection. They wanted to prevent childrens groups that met there from accessing things they deemed as being objectionable material. The end result was that almost every single link off of the church's own website was blocked. They saw the light after a few weeks and disabled the filtering.
If this move happens I will be opting out of the filtering. That in itself makes me nervous - some people will assume that because I've done that I must be a bad parent. That sadly is exactly the kind of false conclusion that an average Daily Mail reader will reach.
Re: (Score:3)
If only we could use this against the Daily Mail website.
It's filled [dailymail.co.uk] with [dailymail.co.uk] things [dailymail.co.uk] that [dailymail.co.uk] could be deemed porn [google.co.uk].
Re: (Score:3)
Well, quite. This "policy" is being driven by the most shrill of Mail Mums. But Daily Dad does like to drink of the beer and look at teh boobies, so - like all pulpit pounders, ever - the rag and its site is rank with hypocrisy.
Similarly, I recall the Sun running its usual "Find the paedos, spill their blood" stuff in the same issue where they ran a "Phwoar, Charlotte Church wins rear of the rear" wankpiece, using a photo taken when she was 15.
Re: (Score:2)
It was the Daily Star - there was a piece decrying the depravity of Chris Morris's Brass Eye paedophile special, and in the next column had the pic of Miss Church (15) with the heading of "She's a big girl now
http://screenagers.me/2010/07/21/tabloid-hypocrisy-charlot
Re:Morons (Score:4, Insightful)
Nail. Head.
The very MINUTE a celebrity turns 18 (sometimes even earlier), they're hung on the Daily Mail's wall of shame, often with a headline in the vein of: "Ooh! Look! Celebrity X is all grown up! Here's some hawt pix!!!".
You can practically hear the heavy breathing in articles like this [dailymail.co.uk] where the young age of the actress is the focus of the article. Seems odd for a newspaper that claims to campaign against the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, right?
Then there's the straight up porn stories. I mean.. wtf? [dailymail.co.uk]
Just have a scroll down the "FEMAIL" column on the right of any page. The "articles" listed there really say it all.
They're hypocritical bastards of the worst kind.
Re: (Score:2)
And what about the BBC News covering stories about pedophilia? And all the swearing in YouTube videos? Google searches can link through to objectionable material, complete with previews, so shouldn't that be banned too?
It does not work that way. It is much worse - big player are not filtered because of the outcry they produce. Instead random small website that have pissed either connected people or an obsessed joe calling customer service 10 times an hour, get filtered. Most of them would never even realise that they are filtered because, if this filter is implemented as all the others, the list of blocked website is considered confidential.
That is the danger. And yes, even Google could get along and filtering its searc
Re: (Score:2)
If they did introduce such filtering it would generate endless complaints from parents finding sites that somehow got through. If the government wants to be every child's nanny they will have to be effective, which is impossible.
Re: (Score:2)
Title is WRONG (Score:2, Informative)
So there are two issues here:
1) As others have mentioned, using the Daily Mail as the definitive source for anything ridiculous
2) No matter the source, it would be nice if the submitter/editor actually read the content of the article and not just link blindly to it.
The article quite clearly states:
Ha-Ha! (Score:2)
Aah seriously though, setting up Tor isn't that hard and might be an option for those countries in which "Freedom" comes with dickish air quotes. At least until such time as your government decides to ban it. It should be good for another decade or so, though, until someone rea
Say one thing, do the opposite... (Score:2)
... what can we learn from this political flip flop?
Can I Have an Automatic (Score:2)
Daily Fail strikes again (Score:2)
After consultation with parents? (Score:2)
What next, the Sun (Score:2)
Will the Sun (UK paper) have to put a "warning filter" on its front page (ok, slashkiddies, google Page 3 girl")?
mark
Let me guess... (Score:2)
Maybe I just know too much about the UK government (Score:2)
Welcome to Politics (Score:3)
A sudden reversal of announced policy within a week is absolutely someone whoring out their principles to get what they want elsewhere.
Most (but not all) Politicians have the morals, ethics, and integrity of pondscum.
How about NO? (Score:2)
I demand the Internet to have a default David Cameron block. I think that might be more useful.
Re: (Score:3)
Orwell was a brit. Stands to reason....
Re:Wow! The UK is... (Score:5, Insightful)
Orwell was a brit. Stands to reason....
Orwell was a bloody optimist.
Re:Wow! The UK is... (Score:4, Funny)
So was Murphy.
Re:Wow! The UK is... (Score:4, Insightful)
things have become untenable.
Oh gods, I have to tell that that I want to be able to view adult content! This position is untenable!
Despite the US being far from perfect, at least I have the freedom to do pretty much whatever I want as long as life and property are respected.
I live in the UK, and I also have that freedom. I also had a few freedoms a lot earlier than I would have had them in the US:
UK public drinking age: 18
US: 21
UK public smoking age: 16
US: 18
UK age of consent/adulthood: 16
US: 18
Tell me, which is closer to being a "totalitarian state".. the country with an opt-out porn filter, or the one where the government can do whatever the fuck it wants, whenever it wants - without telling anyone - via the PATRIOT act? How can you be so hypocritical?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Wow! The UK is... (Score:4, Informative)
No, he's right. Age of purchase moved to 18, age of possession is still 16.
Re:Wow! The UK is... (Score:4, Informative)
This is somewhat misleading. States actually determine the age at which all of these things are legal. While it's true that all states fall into line with federal policy on drinking and tobacco ages, this hasn't always been the case. The legal drinking age in Louisiana was 18 well into the 1990's. It didn't change until 1996 or 1997 (I remember becasue I'd just graduated college, and my girlfriend at the time was only 20. She was "grandfathered" in and could drink, as could anyone who at least 18 the day the new law went into effect). Age of consent varies wildly state by state and can be as low as 14. In theory any state can change any of these ages independently (though in practice funding rules from the feds make it unlikely that they will for drinking or tobacco)
Re: (Score:2)
Well, you can live away from your parents/guardians and get married at 16 in the UK. I always considered that the point adulthood, but obviously there will be a lot of differing opinions on the term.
After looking it up just now I see you still need permission from your parents though, so I guess you're right about 18.
Yep, it doesn't have anything to do with totalitarianism, but it does have to do with freedom. An optional web filter doesn't have much to do with either.
Re: (Score:2)
Ah, well I'm Scottish so that explains it. Thanks for clearing that up :)
Re: (Score:2)
Legally, you become an adult at 18 in the UK but the age of consent is 16.
The UK is not England. The age of majority is not 18 in Scotland and never has been. Do keep up at the back.
Re: (Score:2)
Erm, the first opportunity for Scottish people aged 16 or 17 to vote in elections is coming up but hasn't happened yet....and Scottish 16 year olds who commit a crime are not imprisoned in adult jails.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
And the Patriot act is the big bad boogie monster that supposedly strips everyone of their constitutional rights even when nobody can actually give an example of what constitutional rights have supposedly been nullified.
Privacy. And examples or not, such legislation must be eliminated.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I know.
Re: (Score:2)
Really?
http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/12/scandal-alert-congress-is-quietly-abandoning-the-5th-amendment/266498/ [theatlantic.com]
You might want to rethink that "I have freedom" opinion a bit..
Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)
Bearing in mind that there are particularly lurid and erotic oil paintings hanging in Britain's museums, voluptuous topless women in many British mass-distribution daily newspapers, and fine art photography of nudes, not to mention album cover art, statues, anatomy and medical journals, encyclopedias, etc...
Re:And (Score:5, Funny)
Okay, define pornography then.
Pornography: Noun; That which becomes uninteresting after mastrubation.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And (Score:4, Funny)
therefore, nothing?
Re:And (Score:4, Funny)
The Supreme Court says "any act that has no artistic merit and causes sexual thought". So that's the Daily Mail blocked...
[Source: Bill Hicks: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LcefX9TPlkY]
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
My point is that it's difficult to define pornography because it always comes down to one's own perspective. Someone might find some fetish work to be art because of some characteristic of the fetish that requires skill to wear or display or carry out, while others will simply see it as pornography without any consideration for the craftsmanship. Even basic nude photography without any hypersexualized intent can fall into this, where some see an image of a naked person as pornography, while others look at the composition of the photograph for focus, lighting, lens selection, background content or props, the work put into the model in hair and makeup, posing, even the particular selection of the model as being able to have artistic merit. It's also possible for those same characteristics to apply to an image or a work that is of something sexual.
Do I believe that parents should have both the right and the responsibility to control their children's exposure to content? Absolutely. Do I believe that it's the State's job to do that? No, I don't.
Re: (Score:3)
Opt-in would be that the state would make it generally known that the controls exist, and would encourage those with children who do not know how to monitor their own connections to subscri
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
The Sun will have to shut down its web site, that will be a great loss to society...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Anything that the government does not like. If it is anti government, it is obviously offensive and therefore pornography. Look at the things the US gov has done under the anti terrorist legislation to get an idea of how this will go. You accessed a web site that had once been used by someone that is now in the army, you are a terrorist... You looked accessed a photo of someone with a naked shoulder, you downloaded pornography!
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Okay, define pornography then.
'Pornography' means 'anything the government does not wish you to see'. Surely you knew that?
Re: (Score:2)
Indeed, one painter that needs to be blocked entirely is probably Rubens. All that naked flesh!
Re:And (Score:5, Interesting)
This has been a standard for Mobile internet for a long time.
I remember getting a Pay-as-you-go 3G dongle that was opt-out filtering, but it filtered a hell of a lot more than just pornography.
It filtered Reddit, it filtered 4chan, it filtered b3ta, it filtered a fair few web comics too. And they wouldn't unlock it over the phone unless you had a credit card (I only had a debit card and they wouldn't accept it, go figure), so you had to take the dongle into the store and ask them to unlock it, and take proof of age with you.
If the proposed filter is in any way similer to the current mobile one - and it's opt out - expect there to be a right shitstorm regardless of the ethics of the filter in the first place.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's probably a technical thing. They may not have an API that lets them query your bank for your date of birth, while I believe running such a check against a credit card may be included in the usual antifraud capabilities (i.e. they make a preauth that doesn't charge you anything but lets them validate your DOB).
Re: (Score:2)
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe because there's a strong correlation, when speaking in terms of population, between how religious one is and how likely one is to be offended by the sight of a nipple. Or in some cultures, an ankle.
Now remember, correlation causation! But in this case, I'd put my money on "sure it does", if I were a betting man.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Funny)
Silly me, thinking I could get away with Unicode 2260.
Get that 21st century technology off of Slashdot, we run ancient Perl here and we like it! *mumbles something about uphill in the snow*
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Man, I WISH I could default block all religious content.
THAT stuff is offensive.
Re: (Score:3)
Re:And (Score:5, Insightful)
from times where the human body was the sculpture of God incarnate.
Hahahahhahahahhahaha!
You are in good fooling today, sir.
Either that or you are _amazingly_ and I mean AMAZINGLY ignorant of history. Or, indeed, the human condition. I'll let you in on a little secret about people:
nothing is new.
Lest you leave this thread believing that people in ye olde days were somehow less interested in sex, porn and all else, let me hand you a few links.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fanny_Hill [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emma,_Lady_Hamilton [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Odyssey [wikipedia.org]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Caligula [wikipedia.org]
And do you really think those nude paintings are for some pure, religious perspective about how the human body is god incarnate? My god that's naive.
I'll bet you believe people when they read Playboy for the the articles, too. Or read the Sun for the sports.
Re: (Score:2)
OK, maybe this was a bit harsh, but the religion was nothing but an excuse and a handy background setting. Note that many also had classical themes, not Christian ones.
There's a reason they didn't draw ugly, naked ladies.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Except your privacy. Unless you feel that is of no value.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Lawful Evil, else he would not be trying to get it instituted in a legal manner.
Re: (Score:3)
This already happens in the UK. 'Adult' shops have plain frontage with nothing on display.
Anne Summers stores seem to get away with putting undercrackers in the windows though.