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?

"I'd be pissed too, but you didn't have to go all Minority Report on his ass!" -- Jon Stewart on police raiding Gizmodo editor Jason Chen's home

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