backtop


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


David Cameron   (Source: sbnation.com)
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

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?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_politics_in_the_U...

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
quote:
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
quote:
UNODC murder rates most recent year:

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



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_...


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)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Violent_crime#Violent...

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
quote:
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.

quote:
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".


"I'm an Internet expert too. It's all right to wire the industrial zone only, but there are many problems if other regions of the North are wired." -- North Korean Supreme Commander Kim Jong-il














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki