HomeLatest ThreadsGreatest ThreadsForums & GroupsMy SubscriptionsMy Posts
DU Home » Latest Threads » Forums & Groups » Main » Latest Breaking News (Forum) » David Cameron 'orders new...
Introducing Discussionist: A new forum by the creators of DU

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:40 AM

David Cameron 'orders new curbs on internet porn'

Source: The Telegraph

The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children.

If the answer is "yes", the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper.

The options include allowing parents to impose timed access limits on explicit material, or preventing children from viewing social networking sites such as Facebook during particular hours of the day.

Ministers will also tell ISPs to impose "appropriate measures" to make sure that those setting the controls are over 18, according to the Daily Mail.

Read more: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet/9684797/David-Cameron-orders-new-curbs-on-internet-porn.html



Y'all line up for your Tory censorship now.

34 replies, 5069 views

Reply to this thread

Back to top Alert abuse

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum
Replies to this discussion thread
Arrow 34 replies Author Time Post
Reply David Cameron 'orders new curbs on internet porn' (Original post)
onehandle Nov 2012 OP
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #1
caseymoz Nov 2012 #6
dipsydoodle Nov 2012 #8
dlwickham Nov 2012 #2
SoapBox Nov 2012 #4
Journeyman Nov 2012 #14
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #21
PSPS Nov 2012 #3
Coyotl Nov 2012 #18
behindenemylins Nov 2012 #5
RC Nov 2012 #7
whistler162 Nov 2012 #9
Kablooie Nov 2012 #10
SoapBox Nov 2012 #11
Fearless Nov 2012 #12
valerief Nov 2012 #13
AlphaCentauri Nov 2012 #15
RC Nov 2012 #16
AlphaCentauri Nov 2012 #17
RC Nov 2012 #22
mwooldri Nov 2012 #23
AlphaCentauri Nov 2012 #28
Posteritatis Nov 2012 #19
Kablooie Nov 2012 #26
alp227 Nov 2012 #20
hrmjustin Nov 2012 #24
high density Nov 2012 #25
Socal31 Nov 2012 #32
yurbud Nov 2012 #27
Glamrock Nov 2012 #29
AndyTiedye Nov 2012 #30
Gumboot Nov 2012 #31
davidpdx Nov 2012 #33
chelsea0011 Nov 2012 #34

Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

1. "Tory censorship" has got sfa to do with it

This issue has cropped up in the past and its not solely to do with what may conventionally be classed as porn - its also associated with sites which target children for the purpose of selling.

Originally raised back in May of this year in the UK :

Web giants gang up to fight online porn block saying it is not up to them to 'police' the internet

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2138184/Web-giants-gang-fight-online-porn-block-saying-to-police-internet.html#ixzz2CUprhki0

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dipsydoodle (Reply #1)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:30 AM

6. Legally speaking, it's not.


That's been adjudicated in court, at least in the US, and since the Internet is a bunch interconnected servers, it would be impossible to determine who's responsible for policing what. The Internet can't run on any other basis.

I don't think these lawmakers realize just what the consequences of this might be.

As for selling to children, they don't seem to be filtering for sales here, unless I've misread it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to caseymoz (Reply #6)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:35 AM

8. Was just a UK issue.

.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:53 AM

2. I don't think I've heard the Christian Taliban suggest something like this YET

hope this doesn't give them any ideas

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:19 AM

4. OH, it would be laughable if they did...

It's such a joke about, porn...men...and the Holy and Pious Christian types.

Put those men out on the road for travel and they can't get to the porn channels on hotel sets fast enough (not to mention strip bars and/or dirty bookstores). Now, with the advent of "porn on the net", they just need a tablet or lap top.

If they were to start more of that kind of baloney talk here, we would suffocate from the HYPOCRISY!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:05 PM

14. Romney talked about something like this back in 2007. . .

Here's a video of him making his pitch in Ottumwa, Iowa. (The guy in the striped shirt at the end of the video doesn't seem too pleased with the plan.)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/101733232

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to dlwickham (Reply #2)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:00 PM

21. Rough equivalents show up all the time in the US. Courts love slapping them down. (nt)

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:01 AM

3. Why not just establish a "Ministry for the Propagation of Virtue and the Prevention of Vice?"

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to PSPS (Reply #3)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:29 PM

18. That's why they have a Prime "Minister" in England

That and to Save the Crown, of course!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:23 AM

5. Go figure

Commie dictation by a Tory. No surprise here.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:31 AM

7. If my kids were still living with me, no matter their age, I would answer the question NO!

 

This is another solution looking for a cause. Porn isn't near the problem that the lies, propaganda, greed and subjugation of the Republican party. In fact this is just more of it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 11:58 AM

9. In a surprising move David Cameron hires Mark Suben

Cortland DA to head the agency!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:04 PM

10. It's not so bad for an ISP to offer parental controls to those who wnt them.

As long as the parents are in charge, not the government.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:10 PM

11. And if Petraeus had

stuck to Net porn, he wouldn't be in the mess he is now.

Just say'n!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:47 PM

12. Ahh Victorian England... Guess people don't learn from their mistakes.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 12:56 PM

13. Even if your children are 40 and 32 and don't live with you? How silly. nt

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:08 PM

15. As a parent I'm really concern about online pornography

also about websites who promote self destruction, like the proAna and self cutting websites.

It's irrational to use freedom of expression as an excuse to let people expose young children to adult content or something they don't have the judgment to analyze or discern its content.

It's so weird that websites like Tweeter and Tumblr are becoming sanctuaries for those who wants to promote pornography and denigrate other humans, for example searching google for the words "gay tumblr" will result in hundreds of porn oriented websites instead of or about gay rights, life and struggles.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlphaCentauri (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:15 PM

16. Maybe you would want to ban Google then?

 

That seems to be the real problem.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to RC (Reply #16)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 01:25 PM

17. No, Google doesn't produce those images

It shows you what is available, the only responsible party is the person who produce it and distribute that content.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlphaCentauri (Reply #17)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 03:26 PM

22. But Google helps you find them.

 

Those sites you don't like are located all over the world. The United States is only the World Police where For Profit Wars and oil are concerned. There isn't enough money in banning smut to get serous with banning it anyway. The money is in producing it.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to AlphaCentauri (Reply #15)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 04:20 PM

23. Agreed about parenting & the Internet.

There is some decent filtering stuff out there - some of it for free. I use on our PC's Qustodio - it gives a good range of choices on what to control and such. Unsure what's good for a Mac tho, or even mobile devices.

As to the OP - I think the Bailey Review went far enough. Give parents the tools. If filtering is going to be in there from the get go, state it "on the package" (so to speak) and if the device or service has the ability to access adult content and the owner or subscriber wants to do so, they can then opt in. This "got kids?" and mandatory install filters thing is too draconian IMO.

Bottom line:

1) Let parents parent...
2) Give parents the tools and make them fully and blatantly aware of their existence,
3) Kids will find the stuff with or without filters if they're intentionally looking for it.

and finally

0) Watch what your kids are doing online! Qustodio does that for me just fine.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to mwooldri (Reply #23)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:17 PM

28. There are scenarios where parents are not perfect

or parents need parenting

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:19 PM

19. Wait, wait, *mandatory* internet filters?

There isn't a content filter on the planet that isn't hopelessly broken as is. Mandating them is beyond absurd.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to Posteritatis (Reply #19)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:56 PM

26. It sounded to me like the mandate was for ISPs to offer content filters.

And if the user is a parent to insure that they are aware the filters are available.

I know the filters aren't terribly effective but some parents might feel better if they have them.

I don't think it required any user to use them.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 02:50 PM

20. Expect asylum applications from American fundmentalist Christians.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:17 PM

24. I thought most computer have this anyway.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 05:33 PM

25. England seems like one of the biggest purveyors of Big Brother

Endless surveillance, amazing amounts of traffic cameras, and now proposals for mandatory internet filters.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to high density (Reply #25)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 03:43 AM

32. Australia is not far behind.

Thank lawd almighty that relig-nut Santorum couldn't even smell the White House grass.....scary stuff.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 06:07 PM

27. I thought they were going to filter out people with straight teeth

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 09:18 PM

29. I must be a sucker for punishment....

but I don't get what the big deal is. I don't see it as censorship. Sorry, just don't. This isn't anything like Japan's porn laws which require blurring of all genitalia (I know, what's the point right? But, I digress). Maybe I'm wrong, but I view it as more of an id issue. More along the lines of alcohol or tobacco or, I don't know, porn. I mean, sure, if a kid really wants to see it he's going to. Just like beer, and weed, and playboy. I get that it might be inconvenient to have to install a program and enter a password. But, who is this law hurting, really? Unless the law criminalizes the parent if they don't go through the rigmarole, that is. Seems to me like a responsible thing to do.
There are plenty of parents that just don't. This will, at the very least make them think about it. For at least one second, they'll think about it. Maybe even do something. I don't know. But communism and censorship? Really? I don't get it.

Before the insults begin, I will go on record as
-not having children
-being agnostic
- being a 40 yr. old white male who will let the demographics for aforementioned stats speak for his views on porn

Fire away!

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:14 PM

30. Some of Those Filters Filter Out a Lot More than Porn

They also filter out any site that advocates in favor of gay rights, for example, probably including this one.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sat Nov 17, 2012, 10:23 PM

31. B.... b... b.. but conservatives LOVE their porn!

Curbing Cameron will happen mercifully soon, at Britain's ballot boxes.

It will be good riddance to another Tory control freak.


Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 05:58 AM

33. Conservatives touting government

I guess that only applies when it comes to porn. Poor Brits will be wanking themselves with no skinflicks if this trend continues.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink


Response to onehandle (Original post)

Sun Nov 18, 2012, 12:22 PM

34. As a parent, years ago I tried one of these blocking programs for my small children.

You could not do anything on the computer without having to override the system It blocked nearly everything. It had to be uninstalled immediately.

Reply to this post

Back to top Alert abuse Link here Permalink

Reply to this thread