Print 63 comment(s) - last by MZperX.. on Jul 26 at 3:47 PM

David Cameron   (Source:
The idea is to protect children and keep "extreme pornography" out of the hands of residents

Britain's prime minister is getting serious about blocking pornography from the eyes of children through a new set of strong measures. 

Prime Minister David Cameron wants all British citizens to tell their Internet service providers (ISPs) whether they'd like to opt in for filters on their computers and mobile devices. Once a household chooses to use the filters, they are applied to every computer and mobile gadget used in the home -- and they can't be turned off by the child. An adult must call their ISP and disable the filters themselves. 

This is just one step in Cameron's plans to keep children from being able to easily access pornography online. He also wants to reduce the number of rapes and abuse cases against women, which can be triggered by violent pornographic material found on the Internet. 

Cameron is expected to discuss a new set of measures to accomplish a more porn-free Britain, including banning the distribution and ownership of "extreme pornography," such as violence and fake rape scenes; offering stronger filters through ISPs, and attempting to target pedophiles and rapists by creating a blacklist of search terms (which will pinpoint those who use the search terms) and allowing police forces to work with one secure database of illegal images. 

Cameron sees pornography as being a bad influence on both children and "sick" adults who search for the wrong things, and hopes these new rules will deter any foul play. 

Cameron has even addressed huge Internet companies like Google and Microsoft in his quest for a better Web experience for British residents. 

"I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest," said Cameron. "You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don't just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.

"You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it."

Last year, the UK introduced the Online Safety Bill, which aimed to force internet service providers (ISPs) and mobile network providers to offer internet packages that exclude access to pornographic material by default.

Some UK ISPs agreed to enforce the opt-in option for pornographic material as early as last year. TalkTalk Telecom Group PLC was one of the first to agree, and now, Cameron is looking to make this a widely-used method.

Source: The Guardian

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Nanny State
By Ammohunt on 7/22/2013 11:16:36 AM , Rating: 5
This is typical nanny state mentality where government steps in where personal responsibility should be; i.e. Neo-totalitarion English fascism. My wife and i control what part of our worthless culture my kids are exposed to. I don't need the government doing me any more favors.

RE: Nanny State
By kattanna on 7/22/2013 11:20:41 AM , Rating: 2
there has been a new kindle ad i believe that talks up how you can set parental controls on the device to set how long your kids can watch games.. or read..because .."so you don't have to"


RE: Nanny State
By Vardant on 7/22/2013 12:07:46 PM , Rating: 3
First of all, you're just really stupid and here is why.

The article is incorrect, for example, you DON'T need to call up the ISP to disable the filters. You can do it from your own account settings online.

Also, if you don't want to have the filters on, YOU DON'T HAVE TO. You have a choice. So basically, the UK government is forcing ISPs to give us a tool in the form of a filter which we may or may not want to use.

The problem is what exactly?

RE: Nanny State
By Ammohunt on 7/22/2013 12:19:27 PM , Rating: 1
You must be from the UK because the concept of "liberty" is obviously foreign to you.

RE: Nanny State
By Dribble on 7/22/2013 1:47:45 PM , Rating: 5
Somewhat ironic that American's preach liberty over something that gives free choice to the user while living in a country where freedom barely exists. About the only things American's are still truly free to do is shoot each other. Beyond that freedom is just a facade. It's like a hollywood film set - the masses see pretty buildings, but those with power and money know it's all fake.

RE: Nanny State
By Kurz on 7/22/2013 2:00:09 PM , Rating: 3
Its not free choice for the companies mandated to spend their capital on filters, man-power, programing, etc...

The person at home already has tools, Routers that Filter, or their own damn fingers to not type in urls that lead to porn.

RE: Nanny State
By Samus on 7/23/2013 1:12:26 AM , Rating: 4
Seriously...I could never live someplace where my extreme ATM gonzo porn would be considered unusual let alone illegal.

RE: Nanny State
By BRB29 on 7/23/2013 8:42:37 AM , Rating: 2
Somewhat ironic that American's preach liberty over something that gives free choice to the user while living in a country where freedom barely exists. About the only things American's are still truly free to do is shoot each other. Beyond that freedom is just a facade. It's like a hollywood film set - the masses see pretty buildings, but those with power and money know it's all fake.

don't read a few articles and pass blind judgement. UK has literally video surveillance everywhere while the US does not and that's just the tip of the iceberg. Your tax system is crazy high. I don't know of a single thing the UK does better besides Top Gear and Ramsey Gordon.

Stop stereotyping the US when your country is doing the same thing but worse.

RE: Nanny State
By testerguy on 7/23/2013 10:23:16 AM , Rating: 2
I don't know of a single thing the UK does better

Yeah OK, other than not being hated by basically the rest of the world and not having the worlds fattest population. And don't even get me started on the actual content of your post: hint 'PRISM'.

RE: Nanny State
By applepie on 7/24/2013 1:33:48 AM , Rating: 2
Perhaps the UK should focus on the use of private devices to access internet in the workplace. A former employee in health care, I can tell you some staff routinely accessed porn on the night shift, and were often brazen enough to use a laptop. Making personal laptop use at work unlawful boosts productivity, and is often enforced via peer pressure successfully.

Sleazy co-worker barricading the break room again? Porn addictions are tough to break... He'll get sloppy, and you'll see it real time soon enough. An anonymous tip to your supervisor is all it takes. Porn in the workplace is unethical, and underage porn viewing jail city. The US is ahead, but only by a hair. The UK is striving to advance and educate their law enforcement regarding cyber crime and porn. Great job!

RE: Nanny State
By Cloudie on 7/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Nanny State
By Motoman on 7/22/2013 1:00:36 PM , Rating: 3
The problem is dipsh1ts in parliament declaring that there's something so inherently wrong with photos of naked people and/or people having sex that by default no one should see it.

That's the horrifically, mind-bendingly, a$$-smackingly stupid act of morony which is the problem.

RE: Nanny State
By FaaR on 7/22/13, Rating: 0
RE: Nanny State
By rs2 on 7/22/2013 11:04:34 PM , Rating: 4
Except that anyone who doesn't want it can opt out.

True totalitarians and fascists would never allow that option in the first place. Of course, if they ever remove the ability to opt out, your point becomes very valid.

RE: Nanny State
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2013 3:29:12 AM , Rating: 4
Normally, I'd agree with you, as governments love to run our lives.

However, we now live in a world where there are a large number of stories of 11 and 12 yo girls who think that it's normal to kneel down in a circle of boys and men and perform oral sex on them, and boys are growing up thinking that it's normal to use girls for sex as seen in the videos they watch, girls thinking that it's normal to expect that from a "relationship" too.

The thing is, you probably grew up in a pre-internet porn world so have no idea about what it's like to be a pre-teen/early teen watching this stuff. However, it's been left out of control for too long.

Sure, people/parents should look out for themselves and their children, but they haven't and have had the chance to for a long time now and have failed. You might point out how great you are because you have turned on filters etc but (sadly) there are large numbers of people who have kids who don not know how to, or simply can't be bothered too.

Yes, there is political posturing too, and Cameron wants to look like he's tough, and moral, and protecting children, but the thing is, people have not been looking after their children themselves, so who is going to at least try to do something to protect them if many many many parents can't be bothered?

And this is just, filter on by default, and blocking obvious searches for child porn, hardly the thought control that people seem to be suggesting here, from the land of the *cough* free.

RE: Nanny State
By rountad on 7/23/2013 11:39:47 AM , Rating: 1
And there's murder and theft and all kinds of other problems, too.

These problems mainly come down to a lack of decent values instilled in people, primarily by their parents.

But when government starts censoring what can be seen or communicated, you are going down a dark road.

If parents aren't doing that or knowing where their children are or with whom, then there are going to be BIG problems.

If government does do those things, then there will be even bigger problems.

Here in the USA and there in the UK, we seem to have lost our way. PRISM and the NSA spying on us are serious problems here.

Don't emulate our failures!

RE: Nanny State
By japlha on 7/23/2013 11:43:41 AM , Rating: 2
But this just treats the symptoms. It ignores the real problem and gives more control to the government. It sets a false precedent that politicians can just legislate our problems out of existence. It's a step in the wrong direction.

The real problem is with the parents. The real message should be on good parenting. Parents must learn how to teach their children to think critically, what is acceptable behaviour and why these things are important. This must be done not through force, coercion or shame. But with love, decency and respect.

If the government wants to force anything it should be on forcing parents to learn how to be good parents. A parent should not have the right to raise a child however they see fit. Parents can force their children to accept as true any supersitious/religious nonsense without question. We only seem to be concerned with physical abuse and not mental abuse.

Politicians and government should just disappear. We don't need them holding us at gunpoint for our money, our productivity or on how we ought to behave.

RE: Nanny State
By Aloonatic on 7/23/2013 4:26:58 PM , Rating: 2
I quite agree, but sometimes when the symptoms get so bad they have to be treated and can't be ignored. (And is anyone saying that this is the silver bullet that will cure all of societies ills and save every child? Why do people assume this?)

Everyone's answer is always... The parents aren't good enough. Well, well done you. You've pointed that out, has it fixed the problem? Forcing parents to be good parents? Just how do you suggest that will work? Will that be any less "nanny state" like?

One problem we have in the UK is that we (thanks to Labour, the socialist party that was in power for a long time in the late 90s and 2000s) have been supporting people having kids whether they are able to look after them (financially) or not, which will inevitably have consequences down the road.

So, sadly, in the real world there are lots of people who aren't good parents, and the world is becoming a harder and harder place to raise children too. No longer do we have large extended families, and nor does everyone know their neighbors because they live in the same village or town where their family has always lived.

There is a proverb about taking a village to raise a child. However, we now live in a "global Village" (I know, cliché) that our children are being raised in, but in this version a child can find ridiculousness hard core porn (not just straight sex, but BDSM, simulated rape, torture, bestiality..) even more quickly that they could have found a friendly neighbor that would have helped them.

And you might raise you daughter well, and do everything right. You might get her to a good school, so she's surrounded by "good" and well raised kids, but until we have full segregation you aren't in control of the people that she will meet when she's older.

This isn't going to sort everything, and probably wont do much in reality, but it will make people think about what they are doing at least. Porn is something that can't be ignored and parents can't pretend that they didn't know.

Blocking obvious child porn search words and phrases too seems like just common sense, although, it's obvious that some slang terms will quickly be developed, such is the way that social groups work, but still, it's something.

Again, no argument that it wont solve much, nor that it's a politician playing to the gallery and trying to look good to the majority of the electorate, but still, I think many are over reacting on the nanny state stuff in this instance.

(sorry for rambling, and for being too long. I would be bothered to read a comment this long so well done if you made it to the end, I hope that it made some kind of sense)

RE: Nanny State
By rountad on 7/24/2013 10:23:09 AM , Rating: 2
I don't want to force people to be good parents. My idea of good and other peoples' idea of good is likely to be quite different, anyway.

It doesn't take a village to raise a child. People can and do raise them without resorting to public assistance all the time.

You shouldn't restrict peoples' freedom without a hugely obvious benefit. The very act of restricting is a detriment.

The problem here is that others and you, too, by your own admission, don't think it will do much good at all, but have no problem with telling other people what to do anyway.

ISPs will have to spend money and incur the wrath of many customers to comply. Customers will have their freedom to view what someone else considers indecent blocked from their view.

Much better would be for a parent to monitor, filter, and limit his child's Internet access.

RE: Nanny State
By Aloonatic on 7/25/2013 3:08:50 AM , Rating: 2
You live in a fantasy world of ideals, not a realistic one. I totally agree with what you say, it would be wonderful, and the best way to solve this problem, if it was remotely realistic, but it's not.

In reality, you are not going to get even a small number of parents and people to behave as you (and I, and most here) think that they should, so governments have to take what action they can, and I don't buy that this is some huge restriction on our freedom either.

You want porn? Just change the setting to porn mode and make an active choice to allow it into your home, and as such, make a decision to manage how/if your children are able to access it. As it stands at the moment, porn on is the default, and many people don't even think about how to manage it. In reality, what is happening here is the government want to make porn something that the have to think about, rather than pretending that it doesn't exist or ignoring it.

I don't think you got the point of the village/child/raising comment I made. I did not mean that the village should restrict what you do, I meant that your children will interact with many people, and that you can't raise a child in isolation. They will interact with people, and you and your partner do not know everything, and have not experienced everything, which is why everyone needs to interact with society, and the most well rounded individuals will be those who have been raised by and interacted with a large number of different people, but they will also interact with people who have not been raised as you might like.

Of course ISPs will be angry. We all know that one of the big draws (historically) of the internet has been pr0n. However, that doesn't mean that action shouldn't be taken when things are going wrong, and I'm sorry to have to tell you this, but things really are going badly wrong. As I drove home the other day, a girl who was no more than 12 or 13 was stood t a crossing in the centre of town (a small town in the north of england), flashing her hold up stockings under her school uniform to men staring at her, quite happily it seemed. Sadly, our children are being overly sexualised, earlier than I think almost everyone would agree was healthy.

The sad truth is that People have had a chance, since the internet made it's way into most homes in the late 90s/early 2000s, to police it themselves, without government intervention (as you want and think that they should) and that system has failed. I know, it's cool to say "back off gummerment, I can run my life without you" and maybe you can, but not everyone (indeed, probably the majority) can it seems.

If we were talking about banning pron from the internet entirely, then I'd totally agree with you, that it was a slippery slope to censorship, but this is really just forcing people to manage porn and how it is handled, not banning it.

Anyway, calm down, you can still have a sly one off the wrist while the wife's out ;-)

RE: Nanny State
By applepie on 7/24/2013 1:51:36 AM , Rating: 2
Did you miss the part where it says "choose to filter"?

It's an offering, not a mandate. For the protection of children... At the discretion of accepting parents who cannot be at all places at all times. I think that means the adult shops still sell videos for private viewing. Oh yeah... the free buffet is still being served at the club every Friday. But your 10 year old kid won't be dialing up XXX with two buddies after school, OK?

By inperfectdarkness on 7/22/2013 1:06:42 PM , Rating: 2
...that's why GB's per-capita violent-crime rate is among the highest (if not THE highest) in the world. Clearly criminals follow gun-control laws. /sarcasm. Here's some additional thoughts:

1. Prohibiting a vice only pushes the distribution methods for said vice underground. It will not prevent use, access or profits generated from said vice--and will actually increase the crime rate (since more things are now criminal). Additionally, secondary and tertiary crimes will also increase (i.e. a junkie robs a house to pay for a hit of cocaine).

2. Nanny-state government not only is an ineffective replacement for self-control, it's also hideously expensive.

3. "Sick" individuals are "sick" regardless of their environment. Certainly environmental factors can trigger psychotic tendencies (abusive parents, etc), but--as of yet--there has been no authoritative study which has proven that pornography is the cause of sociopathic behavior, rather than a symptom. Similarly, one cannot conclusively blame Doom, Call of Duty, or Halo for any of the infamous shooting sprees that have transpired in the last 20 years.

The pendulum needs to swing back to personal accountability and responsibility. It's the only way a free society can survive.

By Vardant on 7/22/2013 4:48:59 PM , Rating: 1
Yes, we are missing school shootings over this side of the pond.

Are you on drugs? Your lack on gun regulation is killing your children. How many school shootings have the UK had since Dunblane when the banning of hand guns took place? ZERO!

The Americans obviously like their innocent children to be shot and killed..... Obviously.

By MZperX on 7/23/2013 12:15:59 PM , Rating: 2
Thanks for putting on display the true nature of rabid anti-gun drones. Don't look now but your ignorance and hate are showing. Are you jealous that you are not allowed by your masters to defend yourself?

What part of highest violent crime rate do you not understand? Forget, if you can for a moment, your irrational fear of firearms and think about this: is someone maimed or killed with a baseball bat, steel pipe, crowbar, etc. any less hurt or dead than someone shot with a gun? The obvious answer is no, they are just as hurt or dead. The category of violent crime (assault, rape, robbery, murder) on the whole is much higher in the UK and is on the rise. It makes no difference whether it's done with guns, knives, frying pans, or sledge hammers. You are much more likely to fall victim to violent crime in the UK than in the US. Also, violent crime is more prevalent in the UK (as in being present more uniformly) than in the US where it is typically confined to low income urban areas. These high crime areas in the US also happen to coincide with the strictest gun regulation and prohibition laws (Chicago, NYC, LA, etc.).

Gun control is a surefire way to create low risk environment for criminals because these laws all but guarantee that their victims will be unarmed. It's a feel-good, irrational, foolish idea that simply does not work.

By iano80 on 7/23/2013 3:16:55 PM , Rating: 2
I'm sorry but where do you (and the OP) get this erroneous fact that the UK suffers more violent crime than the US?

By inperfectdarkness on 7/24/2013 3:37:49 AM , Rating: 2
No shooting sprees on your side of the pond? I'm not sure what the Norwegians would say about that. What happened in 1996? What happened in 2010? Are these figments of my imagination?

Lack of gun regulation isn't killing our children--it's that there's TOO MUCH OF IT. Statistically, the least effective shooting sprees are the ones in which someone armed with a firearm resisted the shooter (law enforcement or bystander). Newtown doesn't happen if you allow teachers to arm themselves.

England reminds me of the movie Demolition Man, where the police are only armed with stun-prods. Let me know how that works out for you when you face a North-Hollywood Shootout type scenario. And no, your "laws" won't prevent criminals from stockpiling weapons and body armor.

By testerguy on 7/23/2013 10:28:11 AM , Rating: 2
that's why GB's per-capita violent-crime rate is among the highest (if not THE highest) in the world. Clearly criminals follow gun-control laws

Violent Crime != Guns

By testerguy on 7/23/2013 10:32:15 AM , Rating: 2
UNODC murder rates most recent year:

United States: 14,748 (4.8%)
United Kingdom: 722 (1.2%)

By MZperX on 7/23/2013 12:31:26 PM , Rating: 2
Violent crime rate:

UK: 31 victims per 1000 (2010/2011 data)
US: 16.9 victims per 1000 (2009 data)

Almost twice as likely to be victimized in the UK than in the US. And if you consider that the vast majority of the US cases are from crime ridden urban areas (like ghettos in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA etc.) the "real world" numbers are even less. Meaning middle class and higher income people who live in nice neighborhoods and in states with strong self-defense laws see very little violent crime. The stats are heavily skewed by the extreme crime rate in the aforementioned sh|tholes.

By Aloonatic on 7/24/2013 3:02:14 AM , Rating: 2
You'd rather be four times as likely to be a victim of murder than twice as likely to be a victim of violent crime*?

*Different countries probably have wildly different definitions.

By MZperX on 7/25/2013 12:53:52 PM , Rating: 2
You fail at comprehension. Murder rates in the US are high in certain (very isolated) hot spots. I personally do not run the high risk of being murdered anywhere close to what the national statistics would suggest. AND because where I live I am legally allowed to defend myself with a firearm from would be assailants, the risk of other violent crimes is also very low. Criminals who would simply mug you or beat you up for the fun of it have a huge deterrent factor: the very real possibility of being shot in the face in the process. This leads to a high risk environment for them, and a low crime environment for me. Just the way I like it. I do not frequent the ghettos and slums where drug dealers and gang-bangers shoot each other by the dozens every day. I could not care less if they do. Frankly, the fewer the better.

In a country where all citizens are disarmed by law, even the petty criminal is emboldened. Their victims are defenseless (unless they are huge and martial arts experts). This means that in real terms the chance of being mugged, beaten, raped, robbed, etc. goes up for everyday folks. It's no longer confined to just "certain areas" there is generally a higher risk of victimization for all citizens.

BTW, I lived in Europe for over two decades including the UK in case you'd like to suggest that I don't know what I'm talking about. It was much more dangerous and crime ridden than in sleepy small town America. Do you leave your car unlocked when you go into the store? Have you ever left a briefcase in a shopping mall or a wallet in a movie theater and found it was still there hours later (or the next day) when you returned? Didn't think so. The distorted image painted about the US (based on movies, media hype, etc.) has nothing to do with the reality for the majority of folks who live here. I can assure you it's not gunfight at the OK corral every day.

By Aloonatic on 7/25/2013 2:31:27 PM , Rating: 2
I realised my rather basic statistical error after I re-read my reply later, as I posted it in a hurry. One thing to bear in mind is that the UK stats use a much wider and loser definition of "violent crime" than the US stats, making comparing them useless. I am also sure that murder rates are often higher in certain areas, but then that's true everywhere. The stats on murder rates are still very high in the USA though, to pretend otherwise is mind boggling, and I would wager that you probably think it's OK anyway as they are just "those kinda people" who deserve to be shot anyway. Am I right?

Anywho... Americans like yourself are so deluded, viewing the world through stars and stripes tinted spectacles, it's hard to say if I'm more amused or i feel pity for you. It must be horrible to be so scared that you genuinely feel the way that you do, to think that someone is just waiting for you to forget to take your gun out with you so that they can mug you. I have never walked the streets with a gun, in cities, towns and villages in the UK, day and night, and never been attacked. Maybe I look like I'm packing heat? I also pity you (and other similar, but not all of course, Americans) for putting such a low value on all human life, especially that of the poor and lower classes who are many of the petty thieves that you talk about. What percentage of your population he's been locked up and thrown away like trash by the way? Probably helps to keep stats low when you have many of "them" locked away huh?

I agree that everyone gets a distorted view of each others countries though, always makes one feel better to think that your country is so much better or, as is most often the case, other countries are so much worse.

Not sure what the sleepy small town stuff is about, maybe I came in half way through another argument there? Most "small town" places are usually pretty safe in most countries, as you usually have to be pretty wealthy to live in them, or they are so small that everyone knows everyone and looks out for each other too, as well as generally being more amiable due to the more relaxed area.

I'm glad that you live somewhere that is so friendly to the forgetful :o)

By MZperX on 7/26/2013 3:47:57 PM , Rating: 2
Now that you established that you are superior to me and all Americans like me, having pity and all, maybe we can discuss why you think that carrying a defensive weapon is being fearful (in your mind anyway).

Do you have a fire extinguisher in your car? Do you have one in your house (or perhaps more than one)? Do you have a first aid kit? Do you wear your seatbelt? You see, similar questions could be asked about all of these: are you so fearful of fire that you cannot leave the house without a fire extinguisher in your car? Are you so fearful of an accident that you cannot drive without being buckled up? Are you so fearful of getting hurt that you must have a first aid kit with you?

I'm sure you start getting the picture... These questions sound really stupid, don't they? That's because they are. The whole premise is laughable. Being prepared has nothing to do with fear. It has to do with recognizing risk and being responsible in addressing that risk. Carrying a firearm is part of everyday life for me and a lot of people I know. It's like taking your car keys or umbrella. It's nothing special or exciting. Because so many people carry concealed, almost no one has to actually use it. I never had to. And I hope it stays that way. You know the saying "Hope for the best, prepare for the worst." I consider it my civic duty to my family and my fellow citizens to carry, because it makes our streets safer. The only people who have reason to be fearful are the criminals.

By testerguy on 7/25/2013 9:13:56 AM , Rating: 2
Almost twice as likely to be victimized in the UK than in the US

Important difference: being 'victimized' isn't being killed. Violent crime can be as soft as being pushed over whilst out at night. Death? Not so much. If anything the fact that there is 'more' violence but fewer deaths indicates the success of the anti-gun laws.

And if you consider that the vast majority of the US cases are from crime ridden urban areas (like ghettos in Chicago, Detroit, NYC, LA etc.) the "real world" numbers are even less

Exactly the same as in the UK so an irrelevant point.

By applepie on 7/24/2013 1:57:24 AM , Rating: 2
Thanks for those numbers.

"Kindly withold your outrage until you have a clue as to what you are feeling smug over".

This is idiotic.
By deksman2 on 7/22/2013 12:05:36 PM , Rating: 2
This is idiotic on so many levels.

Prohibiting something will only force people to find alternative means of getting it.

The sensible thing to do would be not to prohibit access to pornographic content, but to ask users on whether they want access to the content blocked or not (make the option available for example and then have people call their customer service or send an email requesting to block access).

An even better measure would be parents actually doing some... parenting.
For one thing, shielding kids away from the world is counterproductive.
Instead, try exposing kids to relevant general education, critical thinking and problem solving.
Talk to them about these things, encourage them to find more information on the subject matter, instead of shying away from it as if its some sort of taboo.
They are Human beings who need information/knowledge to learn (like any other Human being - child or adult).

Seriously... this kind of excessive paranoia serves nothing.

Politicians are NOT problem solvers. Their main purpose is to push THEIR agenda and the status quo.

RE: This is idiotic.
By Vardant on 7/22/13, Rating: -1
RE: This is idiotic.
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2013 12:33:04 PM , Rating: 2
So the UK government is forcing ISPs to gives us a tool which we may or may not want to use

That IS the problem. Insult people all you want, but this is typical nanny state nonsense you're supporting.

RE: This is idiotic.
By jabber on 7/22/2013 1:01:01 PM , Rating: 3
But there is a choice.

If there was no choice then you would have a point.

I can still have my Ukrainian Headscarf Hotties.

However, it will U-turn before it comes to pass. The ISPs will says its too expensive/cumbersome.

RE: This is idiotic.
By Motoman on 7/22/2013 1:07:07 PM , Rating: 2
But there is a choice.

That's not the point.

The point is that parliament has made a moral ruling dictating that by default it's "off."

That fact. Right there. That act, in and of itself, should never have happened. It should never have come to a vote...never been submitted...never even written on paper.

The fact that it *happened* is the problem.

RE: This is idiotic.
By jabber on 7/22/2013 1:11:34 PM , Rating: 2
Well when the NSA etc. give us the choice to opt out of whether they monitor our emails and calls I'll agree on that.

Sure its a pain but chances are like previous attempts it will come to nothing.

Read between the lines...any bad news to bury this week?

RE: This is idiotic.
By Aloonatic on 7/24/2013 3:24:03 AM , Rating: 1
I don't get your point.

The moral ruling for porn/sex in every day life is "off", as you can't walk around the streets naked nor fuck your partner in the center of town whenever you like*.

This is all just the normal societal rules and morals trying to catch up with the internet.

*brings back memories of "that" scene in crank.

RE: This is idiotic.
By SlyNine on 7/22/2013 2:19:44 PM , Rating: 2

"by creating a blacklist of search terms (which will pinpoint those who use the search terms)"

Next they will strap a brain activity monitor on you, and if you even think of illegal things they will black list you.

Pornography triggers rape?
By jRaskell on 7/22/2013 1:00:32 PM , Rating: 2
He also wants to reduce the number of rapes and abuse cases against women, which can be triggered by violent pornographic material found on the Internet.

Where's the supporting data on this claim?

RE: Pornography triggers rape?
By Camikazi on 7/22/2013 3:57:16 PM , Rating: 2
Mostly in his head I am guessing.

RE: Pornography triggers rape?
By Reclaimer77 on 7/22/2013 4:29:08 PM , Rating: 2
He also wants to cut down on women forcing their asses on mens faces and repeatedly farting on them over and over.

Because, you know, if you see it in a porno you'll totally act it out in real life.... /sarcasm

RE: Pornography triggers rape?
By MZperX on 7/23/2013 12:58:38 PM , Rating: 2
So, by that same logic, I can make up a bunch of crap that needs to be filtered or banned:

- Movies showing car chases, or people driving fast because it leads to speeding and other traffic law violations.
- Movies or imagery depicting large sums of cash or valuables (jewelry, gold bullions, etc.) because it makes people commit bank robbery or they go and hold up a jewelry store.
- Movies showing any form of violence or aggression because it causes people to assault or murder others.
- Movies or imagery showing people procrastinating or avoiding work because it causes people to become lazy and irresponsible.

BTW, I have the same supporting data to prove cause and effect as does Cameron, i.e. none whatsoever.

THIS is their biggest problem?
By topkill on 7/22/2013 11:09:53 AM , Rating: 2
They have a load of issues that need serious attention over there, and this is what he spends his time on?

RE: THIS is their biggest problem?
By M'n'M on 7/22/2013 1:01:31 PM , Rating: 2
It's like our Congress investigating MLB for steroid use. A high publicity stunt that looks and feels good to the sheeple.

RE: THIS is their biggest problem?
By AssBall on 7/22/2013 4:04:06 PM , Rating: 2
Several cases of corruption among the highest levels of our government. Bleeding money out of our bungholes. Over-regulation causing prices of goods and services to skyrocket.

And what is our gov't's solution?
"Lets sue George Zimmerman."

This isn't about children
By GatoRat on 7/22/2013 11:31:04 AM , Rating: 4
It's a way to enable censorship under the guise of morality. It's also a way for the government to distract people from the real problems it refuses to solve and is a cynical attempt to buttress support for government.

RE: This isn't about children
By Vardant on 7/23/2013 2:51:47 AM , Rating: 2
It's not censorship if you're given a CHOICE.

I don't think a lot of you understand what is really going on.

What else to do while on welfare?
By jimbojimbo on 7/22/2013 11:49:14 AM , Rating: 2
Maybe they should try to figure out how to stop the abuse of the welfare system out there where millions of people are receiving aid and many are just leaching off society.

By silverblue on 7/22/2013 12:55:21 PM , Rating: 2
By Vardant on 7/23/2013 2:54:42 AM , Rating: 2
As silverblue already linked.

This policy was already in the works 6 months ago and finally getting implemented. Where do you read your news?

Easy to do this
By kmmatney on 7/22/2013 12:08:40 PM , Rating: 2
You don't need to call your ISP for filtering. What I do at the moment is use OpenDNS servers

This will work with any service provider and router, and filters all devices connecting to the router. It's not perfect, and doesn't filter out Google image search that great, but overall it works well. Besides porn, it also filters out malware, phishing, gambling and parked sites. If you have a Netgear router with parental controls, then you can customize the filtering per user, and the level of filtering.

There are several other free DNS servers as well, such as DynDNS, Comodo Secure DNS, DNS advantage, OpenNIC, etc...

RE: Easy to do this
By jabber on 7/22/2013 12:27:06 PM , Rating: 3
Actually you want the -

That's the FamilyDNS settings.

However, expect a U-Tun from the Eton toff anytime soon.

Anyone stating a lack of Liberty in the UK obviously hasn't been keeping abreast of events closer to home either.

In other news...
By dj LiTh on 7/22/2013 11:16:25 AM , Rating: 2
In other news, teen pregnancy has skyrocketed in the U.K.

RE: In other news...
By Vardant on 7/23/2013 3:04:04 AM , Rating: 2
Still no where near as high as the US...

By Iaiken on 7/22/2013 4:38:45 PM , Rating: 2
Reminds me of No Sex Please, We're British...

Some of my favorite porn is British
By ipay on 7/22/2013 4:49:04 PM , Rating: 2
The German stuff is still confusing to me, however. But whatever floats your oma's boat...

By agon on 7/23/2013 8:42:31 AM , Rating: 2
Experience it yourself by requesting a beta key @

PM Porn scandal
By wolfmanjam on 7/23/2013 9:02:10 AM , Rating: 2
the government knows full well that this wont deter or stop people from viewing what they want to view. this is the thin end of the wedge and it will spiral off from this. little extras will be tacked onto this new law until the government here has full control over what they want you to be able to access in this country. anything they dont like they will just deem illegal and either have blocked or removed. this is a very scary age we are living in. doesnt matter if you are english or american, none of us have freedom. we just have the illusion of it. bickering over whos country has the bigger penis will not help to resolve the issues we are all facing at the moment with our freedoms slowly being stripped away from us one by one while we all sit back and sip another beer. i can honestly say im kinda worried as to where this will stop. i only hope that it doesnt push society over the brink. tensions are already running high here and with the price of gas/electric and fuel set to go up again just before winter sets in, theres going to be a LOT of very unhappy campers here

"Paying an extra $500 for a computer in this environment -- same piece of hardware -- paying $500 more to get a logo on it? I think that's a more challenging proposition for the average person than it used to be." -- Steve Ballmer

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki