UK Online pornography to be blocked by default

[SummerRain]

I know this was mentioned in the "in the news thread" but I thought it was an interesting topic.

Online pornography to be blocked by default

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it... Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing...

Other measures announced by the prime minister included:

• New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
• Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content
• Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
• A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it

I'm quite interested in peoples views... because lots of people on FB/etc seem to be dead against this, but as far as I can see blocking people from searching for illegal pornography (i.e. child porn), putting the same restrictions on online porn as porn you'd buy in a store, and having an "opt-in" setting for access to adult material (that you can click to opt-in) seems reasonable to me. I feel like I'm missing something, so I'd like to hear what others think.

 

[ledboots]

I don't live in England, but I would not like it if they did it here. I am certainly not pro-child pornography, and don't like any porn, tbh. But I like the idea of a free internet without the government making rules. Child porn is already illegal; I feel the bad guys will just find a way around it, and it opens the door to more restrictions and laws to come later. Slippery slope.

Of course, my government is apparently spying on the entire planet earth now, so I guess this is our future: being treated like naughty eight-year olds.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I have problems with this as it won't in any way stop people accessing child porn. I've been told from police friends of mine that this type of stuff is encrypted and hard to access anyway and is also hard to trace and most people/kids would not stumble upon this type of illegal porn accidentally. I think the child porn angle is a red herring actually.

I have the 'family-friendly' filters on my computer but I don't like the idea that anyone would have to tell their internet provider if they wanted to access any type of legal porn on their computer and if the companies were keeping lists of their customers. I worry who would be able to access these lists too and whether it would be private?

I think instead parents should have more information about setting filters and restricting what their children see online as I think most people agree that children should be protected from certain images etc... as some are not developed enough to distinguish porn from real life sexual relationships.

 

[Forster]

I think instead parents should have more information about setting filters and restricting what their children see online as I think most people agree that children should be protected from certain images etc... as some are not developed enough to distinguish porn from real life sexual relationships.

This.

 

[Clueless Git]

For some reason the hilariously named 'Child Proof' bottle caps spring to mind ...

 

[SummerRain]

What's also quite confusing, is since three main issues (blocking adult material by default, blacklisting certain illegal searches and making rape-scenes in pornography illegal) are being discussed simultaneously, it's like all three are the same, which they clearly aren't.

I don't live in England, but I would not like it if they did it here. I am certainly not pro-child pornography, and don't like any porn, tbh. But I like the idea of a free internet without the government making rules. Child porn is already illegal; I feel the bad guys will just find a way around it, and it opens the door to more restrictions and laws to come later. Slippery slope.

I see what you mean, but why is it a "slippery slope" to censor things online, but not in real life? Why is it okay to try to stop people committing illegal offenses IRL but doing it online is suddenly attacking our liberties? I'm not trying to argue that it is okay (to censor online), I'm just interested.

I guess it's slightly different in the US anyway since we don't have freedom of speech in the UK, there are some things (hate speech, inciting violence, slander, etc) that you can't say in the real world. It seems generally to me that people expect to be able to say things online that wouldn't be legal in person (here).

 

[Pirate]

I have problems with this as it won't in any way stop people accessing child porn. I've been told from police friends of mine that this type of stuff is encrypted and hard to access anyway and is also hard to trace and most people/kids would not stumble upon this type of illegal porn accidentally. I think the child porn angle is a red herring actually.

I have the 'family-friendly' filters on my computer but I don't like the idea that anyone would have to tell their internet provider if they wanted to access any type of legal porn on their computer and if the companies were keeping lists of their customers. I worry who would be able to access these lists too and whether it would be private?

I think instead parents should have more information about setting filters and restricting what their children see online as I think most people agree that children should be protected from certain images etc... as some are not developed enough to distinguish porn from real life sexual relationships.

I agree with all of this! I think all this will do is create a false sense of security. I highly doubt a paedophile would go onto google and type in "child porn" to get his kicks. There are probably code words and special websites only they know about anyway. I dont know why I thought this, but I thought those kind of websites were all pay-only anyway.

With regards to restricting normal porn, I disagree with this too. If its jsut a click in then fair enough (like those alcohol websites where you have to enter your date of birth), but if you have to call your ISP to enable porn that's just too far. I don't watch porn, but I hate the idea of having to call (the appropriately named) Virgin Internet just to get my name added onto some list if I did for some reason. Concerned parents should just buy a filter, or the government could develop one to distribute.

 

[Second Summer]

With regards to restricting normal porn, I disagree with this too. If its jsut a click in then fair enough (like those alcohol websites where you have to enter your date of birth), but if you have to call your ISP to enable porn that's just too far. I don't watch porn, but I hate the idea of having to call (the appropriately named) Virgin Internet just to get my name added onto some list if I did for some reason. Concerned parents should just buy a filter, or the government could develop one to distribute.

I support the opt-in measure, especially if opting in is just a matter of ticking a box for the account holder. I think porn has become much too prevalent in our society, and I don't want children to be exposed to it.

I believe there are workarounds for both client-side filters and ISP filters, but if you have both types of filters, then that is probably the best technical solution.

 

[Moll Flanders]

If I had young children I would only let them use the internet in a family room and I would put the filters up and I would still monitor their searches and viewing. I think some parents are being either naive or lazy if they don't keep a strict eye on what their kids are looking at online.

 

[Envy]

Like father, like son, or maybe the opposite in this case.

 

[Second Summer]

If I had young children I would only let them use the internet in a family room and I would put the filters up and I would still monitor their searches and viewing. I think some parents are being either naive or lazy if they don't keep a strict eye on what their kids are looking at online.

I think once they get a little older, they need a little privacy though. You really don't want your parents hanging over you when you're 13 and doing important stuff on the Internet.

 

[ledboots]

I think once they get a little older, they need a little privacy though. You really don't want your parents hanging over you when you're 13 and doing important stuff on the Internet.

Yes. My kids were both active on the computer from toddlerhood, sitting with my husband in his home office. One of my daughter's early searches (before even google i believe) was on "seahorses" for a project in school. She was maybe 7. I was right there with her, she clicked the first result, and it was nude women riding seahorses. I had some 'splaining to do to her.

But as they got older, they got more freedom from us. My daughter was making web pages for profit when she was 12. But then Myspace became the thing, and she gave me her password, etc.

My son was very computer savvy from a very young age, and showed me how to bypass the porn filter we had put on his computer.

 

[Muggle]

I'm completely against it.

Any good parent would already be using the parental controls that are all ready provided. If they're not, then it's not up to the government to decide what to censor everybody else from just because of lazy shitty parents.

Oh and it's not just porn that they're blocking. And the other things they're blocking really worry me. Like self-harm sites. Just how are they going to decided what counts as a self-harm site? It's most likely going to be every single ******* website that doesn't lecture you on how self harming is just so wrong and you should never do it. Some of the best support I've had online is not from those shitty judgemental twats that just lecture you about how you should do it (aka the sites the government won't block) but actually from the sites which let you talk about it and describe it, and have other people describing their experiences. But the government will be blocking those and they are a bloody good thing for people who self-harm. (They're the main reason I've been able to stop doing it. Mainly because I can go on there and honestly talk about how I feel and how much I want to cut and I don't get judgemental twats jumping on me about how I shouldn't do it... )

Yeah I'm ******.

Also, David ******* Cameron and his little arse-licker Nick Clegg have spent most of their time in power saying that they don't want a Nanny State and that all Labour wants is a Nanny State so Labour is Bad and Tories and Lib Dems are Good. This is the nanniest Nanny State thing they could do!

 

[Blobbenstein]

I hope it isn't going to be complicated to opt out of this filter.

There will be some embarrassed people who wouldn't want to be on the filter free list, and will just have to buy the Sun, or something.

 

[ledboots]

The filter we used when our kids were young blocked breastfeeding support and information sites. I was a lactation consultant at the time and had to disable the filter to reach sites for my work.

 

[das_nut]

The UK government seems to think that the average Internet user should be blocked from seeing naked people and sex acts. Not only is it disturbing how the government views the maturity of the people, but it seems likely that this will be expanded and abused.

What counts as porn? Information on contraception? Detailed sexual information? What happens when a teen is worried that they may have a STD and they can't anonymously find the information they need online? They may be too shy or embarrassed to ask their parents for an exemption from the filter, and won't seek the information elsewhere.

And how soon until this gets expanded? If the UK government thinks most of its citizens shouldn't be trusted with porn, then what about "hate speech" and other controversial sites? Once the filter is in place, it is going to be very easy to expand it to cover other things.

 

[Moll Flanders]

I think once they get a little older, they need a little privacy though. You really don't want your parents hanging over you when you're 13 and doing important stuff on the Internet.

Well, I know these are hypothetical kids of mine that will never be born but I hope we would have the type of relationship where I could explain about sex and relationships to them and they would be intelligent enough to understand that porn online wasn't realistic and more of a fantasy.

Any good parent would already be using the parental controls that are all ready provided. If they're not, then it's not up to the government to decide what to censor everybody else from just because of lazy shitty parents.

Yes, exactly. The irresponsible parents would still have porn on their computers and won't put up the filters so what difference would this make apart from to censor everybody else.

The UK government seems to think that the average Internet user should be blocked from seeing naked people and sex acts. Not only is it disturbing how the government views the maturity of the people, but it seems likely that this will be expanded and abused.

What counts as porn? Information on contraception? Detailed sexual information? What happens when a teen is worried that they may have a STD and they can't anonymously find the information they need online? They may be too shy or embarrassed to ask their parents for an exemption from the filter, and won't seek the information elsewhere.

And how soon until this gets expanded? If the UK government thinks most of its citizens shouldn't be trusted with porn, then what about "hate speech" and other controversial sites? Once the filter is in place, it is going to be very easy to expand it to cover other things.

+1.

 

[cornsail]

One issue with banning nasty search terms (aside from the fact that people would find ways around it) is what if someone learn about something horrific rather than participate in it? I don't think decreasing awareness about these things by barring people from using them as search terms is helpful.

 

[Mischief]

I support the opt-in measure, especially if opting in is just a matter of ticking a box for the account holder. I think porn has become much too prevalent in our society, and I don't want children to be exposed to it.

This.

 

[das_nut]

I support the opt-in measure, especially if opting in is just a matter of ticking a box for the account holder. I think porn has become much too prevalent in our society, and I don't want children to be exposed to it.

If this worked 100% of the time (doubtful in this world, but let's say, hypothetically), then you could let your kids access the internet and never see any bit of porn.

Of course, they'll still have access to plenty of non-porn sites of dubious quality. Do you really want your teenager browsing pro-anorexia sites? Or how about sites that objectify one gender or another, such as pickup artist sites and sugar daddy sites? What about sites detailing how one race or culture is inferior to another?

Maybe the best thing to do is to pay attention to what your children are accessing online.

I understand not wanting your kids to be exposed to porn. It's probably not healthy for them. But there's a lot of things not healthy for children, and a blanket censorship ban on porn doesn't fix the other problematic websites your children can visit (nor does it prevent your child from seeing dubious content offline). I think having a two-way dialog with your child, and paying attention to what they are doing, is a far better solution.