UK Gov. still pushing repressive Internet censorship scheme
Cub Reporter
says 'Culture' Secretary Jeremy [H]unt.
News article@
======================================
Web firms ordered to protect children from porn by automatically
blocking offensive material
By James Chapman
Daily Mail, UK: 25 June 2011
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2007913/Internet-firms-forced-protect-children-porn.html
[ http://tinyurl.com/68rxkjh ]
Internet companies are to be forced to shield children from a growing
tide of pornography.
Ministers are backing the idea of an 'opt-in' system that would mean
users having to choose to view explicit sites.
Parents worried about what their children are looking at online would
be reassured that inappropriate material is otherwise automatically
blocked.
Providers are to be given until the autumn to develop a system based
on one already used successfully to restrict access to paedophile
sites. If not, laws will be introduced to make them comply.
Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt said: 'We are telling people that if
they do not co-operate in bringing forward measures that will deal
with this issue fast, we will legislate and regulate.'
There is growing concern about the impact of sexual content on the
internet on Britain's children. On average, they start to use the web
at the age of eight.
Research suggests as many as one in three under-tens has seen
pornography on the web, while four in every five children aged 14 to
16 admit regularly accessing explicit photographs and footage on their
home computers.
Only 3 per cent of pornographic websites require proof-of-age before
granting access to sexually explicit material, and two-thirds do not
even include any adult-content warnings.
Devizes MP Claire Perry, a rising Tory star who has led a campaign for
a change in the law, said internet firms should 'share the
responsibility' of protecting children.
'The best option would be for the British internet service providers
to come up with their own opt-in model and we know they can do it -
they worked together brilliantly to block access to child abuse
websites,' said the mother of three.
'But if they won't act or are moving too slowly, then I really welcome
Jeremy Hunt's commitment to legislating to sort this out.'
Under the proposed system, pornographic sites will be blocked until an
adult user specifically requests it.
Another possibility is a movie-type rating system only allowing adult
users in the home to view such sites.
Ministers have held private talks with the biggest internet providers
to urge them to adopt an opt-in system themselves.
The biggest providers, including BT, Virgin, BskyB, Orange, Talk Talk
and O2, have now been given the autumn deadline to develop a workable
plan or face a change in the law.
Phi
"Cub Reporter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
news:p9fb07p4qvha3g3p3...@4ax.com...
Easy enough.............ensure users are 18 to use the internet.
Phi
"Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
news:RYmdnXK7w4K6WJjT...@bt.com...
and setup a childrens internet as system for the underaged without adult
material.
Zapp Brannigan
>
> and setup a childrens internet as system for the underaged without adult
> material.
Great idea, Professor Yaffle.
But oh, wait - how exactly would you stop kids from using the full-spec
internet?
Phi
"Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote in message
news:96m2b3...@mid.individual.net...
Perhaps you have not thought that security sofware could be installed to
stop accidental access.
Mentalguy2k8
At home? The same way you stop them watching 18+ films. A combination of
technology, passwords and *gasp*, supervision.
Cynic
>Easy enough.............ensure users are 18 to use the internet.
Impractical and completely unenforceable.
It would also make the situation far *worse*, because it could then be
argued that due to the fact that nobody under 18 will be exposed to
anything on the Internet, there no longer needs to be any care taken
with the content that is freely available.
--
Cynic
Cynic
>and setup a childrens internet as system for the underaged without adult
>material.
It would be technically possible to do something along those lines,
but there is insufficient economic incentive for anyone to invest the
considerable money that would be needed to finance it.
It would probably be more viable to do the opposite. First ban all
content from the Internet that is deemed inappropriate for children,
and then allow a separate Internet to be set up that permits adult
material.
The problem is that a huge percentage of children would manage to get
access to the uncensored Internet, and so the degree of real
"protection" would be pretty minimal.
--
Cynic
Zapp Brannigan
Parents who wish to control their kids access to the web are already able to
do so - there are numerous filters, opt-outs and nanny-lists available. A
separate internet for children is wholly unworkable, for about a hundred
reasons. I'll give you four of the obvious ones, and you can take it from
there :
- Cultural norms and age limits differ widely - what is suitable for 17yr
old Germans may be wholly unacceptable to 8 year old Irish kids. Some
would argue that information about sexual health, birth control & drugs was
essential, others would demand it was banned.
- Young people would bypass it easily by pretending to be adults. This
could only be stopped if every computer had hardened gatekeeping software
installed, and there was an online way to authenticate every adult & child
(national ID database).
- If anyone invents hardened gatekeeping software and online authentication
for every user, the hackers of the world will rise up to defeat it within 24
hours, and millions of people (like me) would choose to opt out because of
the surveillance & state control concerns.
- There would be a huge amount of work required to review and approve
content, especially as the kindernet would be targeted by pranksters and
hackers using clever content masking tricks, redirects etc. Who is going
to pay for this?
Zapp Brannigan
Perhaps you were not aware that such software is already widely available to
any parent who wants it.
steve robinson
Boils down to one thing the parents cant be arsed , blame everyone
else and expect the cost of raiseing the offspring to be met by others
Zapp Brannigan
That's true, but behind this is a greater evil - UK.Gov's desire to impose a
net-nanny control & surveillance system on all of us. They dream of all
traffic going through the Great Wall of Whitehall, and all users logging-in
with biometrically assigned smartcards. Think of the Children is the
codeword, as usual.
allantracy
If I were thirteen again I would be claiming my human rights to rub
one off on the Internet.
When I were a kid all we had to rely on was a well thumbed ancient
copy of Fiesta (with the pages stuck together) passed around amongst
your mates.
Zapp Brannigan
Quite right - and we made do. Kids nowadays, they get tranny DP served up
on a plate - they don't know they're born.
Mentalguy2k8
"allantracy" <allanb...@ireland.com> wrote in message
news:d45e3d5b-0339-460b...@d1g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
>
> If I were thirteen again I would be claiming my human rights to rub
> one off on the Internet.
It's no wonder so many teenage boys never leave their bedrooms... imagine
having free porn on tap 24 hours a day at the age of 13.
Do you remember the days when you used to find porn mags in the bushes at
the park? It was like finding a winning lottery ticket!
tim....
Do NetNannies actually work?
That is, is the list of blocked sites comprehensive enough?
Does anyone know?
tim
>
Max Demian
<tims_n...@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>
>"Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote in message
>news:96majn...@mid.individual.net...
>> Phi wrote:
>>> "Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote in message
>>> news:96m2b3...@mid.individual.net...
>>>> Phi wrote:
>>>>> "Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
>>>>>> Easy enough.............ensure users are 18 to use the internet.
>>>>>
>>>>> and setup a childrens internet as system for the underaged without
>>>>> adult
>>>>> material.
>>>>
>>>> Great idea, Professor Yaffle.
>>>>
>>>> But oh, wait - how exactly would you stop kids from using the full-spec
>>>> internet?
>>>
>>> Perhaps you have not thought that security sofware could be installed to
>>> stop accidental access.
>>
>> Perhaps you were not aware that such software is already widely available
>> to any parent who wants it.
>
>Do NetNannies actually work?
>
>That is, is the list of blocked sites comprehensive enough?
>
>Does anyone know?
Comprehensive from whose POV: me, or the Mother's Union?
--
Max Demian
Zapp Brannigan
> "Zapp Brannigan" <zbr...@doop.com> wrote in message
>> Perhaps you were not aware that such software is already widely available
>> to any parent who wants it.
>
> Do NetNannies actually work?
>
> That is, is the list of blocked sites comprehensive enough?
>
> Does anyone know?
A few years back I was given a test version of a government "Home Access
programme" laptop designed for free distribution to underpriviledged
families - BECTA were commissioning these from various companies IIRC, but
the core spec included a net-nanny proxy wired into the 3G broadband
service. No doubt Gary McKinnon would have opened it like a suitcase in 5
minutes, but for the average dumb kid it seemed resilient enough.
Cynic
>+AD4- But oh, wait - how exactly would you stop kids from using the full-spec
>+AD4- internet?
>
>Perhaps you have not thought that security sofware could be installed to
>stop accidental access.
No, I have not thought that. How would it work? Do you have access
to software that can determine the age of the person sitting at the
keyboard?
Not that we are talking about *accidental* access of course, but of
children who want to deliberately use the adult Internet instead of
the children's Internet.
--
Cynic
Alex
>
> "Phi" <phi...@inbox.com> wrote in message
> news:RYmdnXK7w4K6WJjT...@bt.com...
> >
> > "Cub Reporter" <m...@privacy.net> wrote in message
> > news:p9fb07p4qvha3g3p3...@4ax.com...
> >> The biggest providers, including BT, Virgin, BskyB, Orange, Talk Talk
> >> and O2, have now been given the autumn deadline to develop a workable
> >> plan or face a change in the law.
> >
> >
> > Easy enough.............ensure users are 18 to use the internet.
> >
>
> and setup a childrens internet as system for the underaged without adult
> material.
Which can then be extended to adults. Remember that it is the internet
that no longer allows politicians to lie with the same abandon that they
were used to.
That is why it was so effective in Egypt.
I remember the discussions back in the 1990s, when the authorities
were all panicky about vanilla porn being available in porn shops,
and the Video Recordings Act of 1984. Which came when they
were panicking about *adults* having access to ordinary porn.
And it was always couched in terms of *children* getting hold
of BDSM and fetish material. Of course there never was a
problem coming out of society about that, but that is how they
couched and justified interference with what adults can view.
Nowadays you can simply download anything much more
explicit than straight porn. You don't hear them talking about
the VRA being violated, or how silly it is to ban porn from
pornshops.
The truth is that with freedom come some *unforseen* dangers,
as well as massive opportunities, and that's how it is. Some
people can't accept that there's any risk in the world.
Alex
allantracy
> 'The best option would be for the British internet service providers
> to come up with their own opt-in model and we know they can do it -
> they worked together brilliantly to block access to child abuse
> websites,' said the mother of three.
>
Which of course is all total bollocks.
It wasn't just about blocking access it also helped that in most
countries, in the civilised world, setting up a paedo site gets your
bollocks on a plate in double quick time.
That's never going to be the case for adult porn.
>
> The biggest providers, including BT, Virgin, BskyB, Orange, Talk Talk
> and O2, have now been given the autumn deadline to develop a workable
> plan or face a change in the law.
They can't do it, not without pushing up the cost of Internet access
to two or three times what it costs now.
So let's see how keen the government are when that's put to them.
We've been down this road so many times before, remember Blunket's
proposal to log everyone's Internet activity for ten years that got
watered down to three days in the end.
There's a far easier solution simply make it the law that every PC
sold must come with nanny software installed and a password (perhaps
with a shelf life).
Not perfect but more than enough for the majority that count, armed
with a typical British non-technical education (i.e. the Daily Mail,
concerned middle class parents, their dim kids and their fawning MPs)
Of course, whatever you come up with f**k all is going to work with
file sharing, which kind of makes it pointless.
Anyway, the chavs with parents that don’t give a flying f**k aren’t
going to be interested in porn. Most of them will have been shagging
since they were ten and will be on their third kid before they’re
sixteen.
At the end of the day, how many kids smoke?
That number seems to increase in direct proportion with every step
made to prevent them from so doing.
Einstein’s definition of Insanity: doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results.
So, let’s here if for yet another government minister, determined to
learn nothing from what’s gone before, embarking on yet another
monumental piss into the wind
Ted
They don't worry about its effectiveness they want to grandstand for a while
and show their "concern".
