For your eyes only.

A board for news and views on what's happening in the world

For your eyes only.

Postby Workingman » 22 Jul 2013, 12:16

Cameron is about to bring in new laws to block access to Internet pornography unless a user opts in. This is in order to protect children by stopping access to child porn and rape porn. Family-friendly filters are to be applied at the ISP side, and search engines are to have "horrific" search terms show no results.

It is a "bad" good idea simply because it will not work. Those who wish to access child porn, rape, or whatever, will be savvy enough to get round the blocks; and it is tackling the problem from the wrong end. The best way would be to go after the hosts and uploaders again and again and again. Block the problem at source.

It is also quite sinister. For the search term filters to be in any way effective they will have to be so comprehensive as to make search engines almost impossible to use unless a person has opted in. Opting in will also mean your details being kept on a database, which could be used for any purpose. It doesn't mean you want to access child porn, it means you want to use the Internet, but it could be used in CRB checks, for example, because you will be seen as "suspect". Another worry from you innocently opting in is the chance of inadvertently visiting a dodgy site, as already happens to millions of people every day. Once you hit a site, no matter how quickly you click out, your IP address will be logged, the consequences of which could be life changing.


As I said earlier, it is a badly thought out "good idea" that will not work. The big hint is in the "www" part of a an Internet address. If we are not careful we could end up with a sanitised "gbw" with only sites authorised by the authorities allowed.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby pederito1 » 22 Jul 2013, 13:03

Absolutely, WM. When TalkTalk ask me if I want a filter I shall say No thanks. In the million to one against odds that I should ever want to watch kiddy porn, I still would not want any more restrictions than already exist. :( Anyway I have yet to see any evidence that a pervert who does watch that is necessarily inspired to commit a crime. I can still remember a school master who kept telling us not to generalise on unsubstantiated evidence. 8-) I have always followed Hippocrates and "First do no harm" and I cannot believe you can do any with your eyes.
pederito1
 

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Workingman » 22 Jul 2013, 13:20

pederito1 wrote:I cannot believe you can do any with your eyes.


I have to disagree on that Ped. The action of viewing creates a supply and demand situation, and as we know from normal life we get tired of watching the same thing over and over. If that was not the case TV and film studios and publishers would keep producing the same product to eternity.

The simple act of viewing child porn creates a market for new victims to be used and abused. IMO it is rightly a criminal offence.
User avatar
Workingman
 
Posts: 21745
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 15:20

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Suff » 22 Jul 2013, 13:32

Actually he's postulating a regulation which blocks all pornography and you have to opt in to see porn. Then, having opted in, you are responsible for your own welfare.

I can't see how this can work in an open and pervasive internet. Therefore it can't work because nobody can have a closed and non pervasive internet. Even China.

As far as I can see it will drive child porn viewers to hide themselves in the crowd of people who will also be hiding themselves....

As WM says, this kind of thing doesn't work. Hit the purveyors of the information as many times as required until the message gets across.

The biggest and most successful, sting operations, are those where the authorities take over the sites which push this media out and then note the credit card details of those who subscribe....

Work the ethics out of that one...
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Aggers » 22 Jul 2013, 21:41

I remember someone saying that some websites could not be accessed in certain countries
(I think Turkey and China were mentioned) because they were blocked by the Governments
of those countries. If such blocking is possible, why don't our Government take the bull by
the horns and block all the disgusting sites? Those who want to watch filth should be shown
a cess pit and then thrown into it.
Aggers
 

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Suff » 23 Jul 2013, 02:51

Because there are too many ways around it Aggers. Blocking only blocks those without knowledge. Saudi, China, Turkey and a host of others block content on the web, yet there are dozens of ways around it so it's nor really a true deterrent and costs huge sums of money. For China you can see that the sums are, to their mind, justified. For Britain, not so much so.

Pornography (the normal stuff, not the child variety), is common throughout Europe and seen as fairly normal if you like that kind of thing. Like legal "Eros" centres in Germany for the lonely male to pay for some sexual activity. All regulated, taxed and "business as usual".

What needs to be controlled is this push of pornography into the lives of children. Then again, where we live in France, a TV in the child's bedroom is seen as a decadent luxury and also seen as "un family like". Our friends won't allow a TV in the child's bedroom, let alone a computer.

So where do you start looking? Parental control? There are tools and, as Kaz will tell you, they work. But they need to be applied by parents who care, parents who take an interest not only in their children but in the solutions to keeping their children safe.

Whilst it is the responsibility of the Government to keep a safe environment for our children to live in, safety also begins at home. Government can't be responsible for everything, some things should be done at home.
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Aggers » 23 Jul 2013, 08:50

Suff wrote:Whilst it is the responsibility of the Government to keep a safe environment for our children to live in, safety also begins at home. Government can't be responsible for everything, some things should be done at home.


I agree, Suff. If parents accepted their responsibilities the problems would be reduced.
Aggers
 

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby KateLMead » 24 Jul 2013, 15:04

By all accounts looking at porn sites is a favourite pass time for school boys
User avatar
KateLMead
 
Posts: 2407
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 12:11

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Aggers » 24 Jul 2013, 17:52

Kate wrote:By all accounts looking at porn sites is a favourite pass time for school boys


I'm not surprised, but I think the practise will have serious effects on the quality of life in future.

The benefits of the IT revolution are fast being overtaken by its disadvantages.
Aggers
 

Re: For your eyes only.

Postby Suff » 24 Jul 2013, 17:58

Kate wrote:By all accounts looking at porn sites is a favourite pass time for school boys


We live in an equal society today Kate. School Girls too.....
There are 10 types of people in the world:
Those who understand Binary and those who do not.
User avatar
Suff
 
Posts: 10785
Joined: 26 Nov 2012, 08:35

Next

Return to News and Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: medsec222 and 40 guests