UK Trying To Block Porongraphy.. Want ISPs to Block At Source

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Gotta love the Brits man.... Beacons of freedom, I tell ya.

We can tell the younger generations about the days when the internet was a last place of freedom we had until the shackles were put upon us. All in the name of the "nanny state."

-------------

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063

The proposal to cut off access to pornographic material was floated by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview

with the Sunday Times.

The government is talking to ISPs to set up a meeting at which the proposal will be discussed.

But, say experts, technical challenges mean any large scale filtering system is doomed to failure.

Legal issues

A spokesman for the Department of Business, Innovation and Skills, confirmed Mr Vaizey's plan to talk to ISPs about setting up an age verification scheme to govern access to pornographic sites.

"This is a very serious matter," said Mr Vaizey. "I think it's very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children."

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

In response to the government proposal, Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Ispa industry body, said: "Ispa firmly believes that controls on children's access to the internet should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down."

Mr Lansman said its members provided parents with many different means of controlling what is accessible via the computers in their homes.

"Online safety is a priority issue for the internet industry and ISPA will be discussing the options available to protect children with Government," he said.

"ISPs currently block child abuse content which is illegal and widely regarded as abhorrent," said Mr Lansman. "Blocking lawful pornography content is less clear cut, will lead to the blocking of access to legitimate content and is only effective in preventing inadvertent access."

BT, the UK's largest ISP, said it would be "happy" to take part in any discussion of the issues, but added: "There are many legal, consumer rights and technical issues that would need to be considered before any new web blocking policy was developed."

Filter failure

"Unfortunately, It's technically not possible to completely block this stuff," said Trefor Davies, chief technology officer at ISP Timico.

He said the sheer volume of pornographic material online and the number of ways that people access it, via the web, file-sharing networks, news groups, discussion boards and the like, made the job impossible.

While some proponents of a national pornographic filtering scheme cite the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) as an example of how such a scheme might work, Mr Davies said it was not a good guide.

The IWF circulates a list to ISPs of sites found to be hosting illegal images of child sexual abuse.

However, said Mr Davies, the IWF draws up its list largely using information passed to it by the public. In addition it only tackles illegal content found on websites.

Such a system would not work if it was used to deal with millions of porn sites, chat rooms and bulletin boards, he said.

Experience with filtering systems, he said, shows that they are a very blunt tool that often blocks access to sites that could be useful.

"You end up with a system that's either hugely expensive and a losing battle because there are millions of these sites or it's just not effective," he said.

"The cost of putting these systems in place outweigh the benefits, to my mind," he said.

Continue reading the main story

“

Safer Media

Mr Davies also feared that any wide-scale attempt to police pornographic content would soon be expanded to include pirated pop songs, films and TV shows.

"If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see," he said.

'Child protection'

His comment was echoed by Jim Killock, chair of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital liberties issues.

"This is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door," said Mr Killock.

"This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."

Miranda Suit, co-chair of Safer Media, which campaigns to make media safe for children, told the BBC that the pornography available on the internet was "qualitatively and quantitatively" different from any that has gone before.

Ms Suit cited a report compiled by the US conservative think tank The Witherspoon Institute which suggested that easy access to pornography was damaging some young people.

"Children are becoming addicted in their teens to internet pornography," she said. "They are being mentally damaged so they cannot engage in intimate relationships."

Safer Media backed the government call to block pornography "at source", said Ms Suit.

"What we are talking about is censorship to protect our children," she said.

[faust-yusov 103]

Well it's a valid issue, and one that we would be remiss not to address.

A particular way of addressing it is via some form of censorship, so I see no harm in opening that avenue up for discussion, as is being done here.

[The_Dude 1,142]

"This is a very serious matter," said Mr Vaizey. "I think it's very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children."

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

In response to the government proposal, Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of the Ispa industry body, said: "Ispa firmly believes that controls on children's access to the internet should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISPs provide, rather than being imposed top-down."

Paul, did you read your own article here? Seems quite hypocritical of you, seeing as you are the one usually arguing that the marketplace is better than goverment at working out problems.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well it's a valid issue, and one that we would be remiss not to address.

A particular way of addressing it is via some form of censorship, so I see no harm in opening that avenue up for discussion, as is being done here.

how about parents keep their little brats off the computer or setup proper parental controls instead.

Censorship over all though? really? Wow....

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Paul, did you read your own article here? Seems quite hypocritical of you, seeing as you are the one usually arguing that the marketplace is better than goverment at working out problems.

the point is that the government there is making a threat of "do something or we will."

By threat or force, it's virtually the same thing.

[The_Dude 1,142]

the point is that the government there is making a threat of "do something or we will."

By threat or force, it's virtually the same thing.

Maybe in your mind

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Maybe in your mind

so if you walk up to someone with a gun and threaten them to do something, 'or else' - what do you call that?

[The_Dude 1,142]

so if you walk up to someone with a gun and threaten them to do something, 'or else' - what do you call that?

How about you try an example that actually is analogous. This is another situation where libertarians are just insane. This scenario seems just like the libertarian crazy flow chart. Is there a problem? Yes, well then industry is much better at determining it's own environment than government. Ohhhh wait, there is no endgame profits in this, hence, it is now the problem of the parents, they must deal with it.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

How about you try an example that actually is analogous. This is another situation where libertarians are just insane. This scenario seems just like the libertarian crazy flow chart. Is there a problem? Yes, well then industry is much better at determining it's own environment than government. Ohhhh wait, there is no endgame profits in this, hence, it is now the problem of the parents, they must deal with it.

Now the government is going to come back and legislate then and force their hand on the issue.

THAT is the point.

[faust-yusov 103]

how about parents keep their little brats off the computer or setup proper parental controls instead.

Censorship over all though? really? Wow....

Well, it's difficult. I think ultimately I would echo your stance on the policy (albeit reluctantly, and with less vitriol for its proponents).

But people do seem reluctant to see porn for what it is, videlicet a severely under-regulated industry, the produce of which remains remarkably free from scrutiny. In many (I might even be so bold as to say 'most') cases, abuse of women is a form of narrative; the climax a misogynistic industry standard (the money shot); and the denouement an exercise in debasement (I need not spell it out).

We rightly censor any form of child abuse without hesitation. Yet the question of how closely porn toes the line of what is acceptable remains conspicuously unaddressed.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Well, it's difficult. I think ultimately I would echo your stance on the policy (albeit reluctantly, and with less vitriol for its proponents).

But people do seem reluctant to see porn for what it is, videlicet a severely under-regulated industry, the produce of which remains remarkably free from scrutiny. In many (I might even be so bold as to say 'most') cases, abuse of women is a form of narrative; the climax a misogynistic industry standard (the money shot); and the denouement an exercise in debasement (I need not spell it out).

We rightly censor any form of child abuse without hesitation. Yet the question of how closely porn toes the line of what is acceptable remains conspicuously unaddressed.

Porn only shows what many do (boldly I say most people) do in the privacy of their own home. Even the most goody little Christian religious nuts know how to get down and freaky. Dare to show it in a public light though and they get up in arms about it.

There's a reason why it's a very very popular industry.

[Danno 1,228]

the point is that the government there is making a threat of "do something or we will."

By threat or force, it's virtually the same thing.

I hear what you are saying but the problem is, there are no means to protect children from access to the most perverse or dangerous imagery and ideas.

It's like selling guns to children and then blaming the parents for not watching them close enough.

It would seem they could come up with partitions..... something to separate some of this stuff out of the reach of those who have no interest in subscribing to it.

There are no easy answers, thats for sure.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I hear what you are saying but the problem is, there are no means to protect children from access to the most perverse or dangerous imagery and ideas.

It's like selling guns to children and then blaming the parents for not watching them close enough.

It would seem they could come up with partitions..... something to separate some of this stuff out of the reach of those who have no interest in subscribing to it.

There are no easy answers, thats for sure.

There's plenty of means to protect kids from it.

#1 - don't give your child their own computer.

#2 - don't allow them on the internet

#3 - monitor your child's use

#4 - setup parental controls

#5 - buy extra parental control software

There is NO REASON for anyone else to be responsible here other than the parents.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

FFS Paul, you really are the Victor Meldrew of VJ. Never happy unless you're moaning about the sky falling.

The article refers to an idea that's been floated by a single politician, it is not law nor are there any indications that it will become law or even how such a thing would be practically feasible.

Certainly nothing to justify your (yawn) ranting about it as if some crime against humanity has been committed. Get a grip!

Edited December 20, 2010 by Ron Burgundy

[The_Dude 1,142]

There's plenty of means to protect kids from it.

#1 - don't give your child their own computer.

#2 - don't allow them on the internet

#3 - monitor your child's use

#4 - setup parental controls

#5 - buy extra parental control software

There is NO REASON for anyone else to be responsible here other than the parents.

So you support keeping your children in prison, or some sort of police state under constant supervision? If a kid is determined enough, I doubt your technical expertise would be able to stop them.