UK to have "opt out" Porn filters

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

David Cameron has persuaded the four biggest ISP's in the UK to move to "opt out" filters for pornography rather than "opt in" ones.

Worth pointing out - he said he'd do this in 2007, so this is a Minister following through on a pledge he made (shocking).

Aside from that, I can't help feeling that most people will "opt out" and that the only "losers" will be teenage boys and young men in rented accommodation who have to ask the landlord to "opt out".

I'm trying to muster some indignation about privacy and freedom of information - but I'm really struggling here. There's no new law, Cameron has basically convinced the ISP's this will look better for them than fighting the government.

An ancillery issue is a ban on owning "rape" pornography.

[Montmorency]

Obviously, most of the existing pornography will not be filtered out. There's a lot more to pornography than Brazzers and Naughty America. Most people don't look up porn by googling "porn".

What a waste of time.

[Strike For The South]

THIS IS WHY YOU NEED FIREARMS

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Obviously, most of the existing pornography will not be filtered out. There's a lot more to pornography than Brazzers and Naughty America. Most people don't look up porn by googling "porn".

What a waste of time.

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

I'm not convinced this isn't just publicity, so that the government makes everyone aware of the filters, and then walks back and makes them "opt in" at the last minute.

[a completely inoffensive name]

IT'S HAPPENING!

[Montmorency]

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

Or Moonlight Kingdom.

[Beskar]

Or it goes the other way - and BBC iPlayer gets filtered out when it runs Basic Instinct.

Urgh... It is basically boiling down to this.

Many governments are scrambling to gain control of the internet after the Arab Spring. It's (in my opinion) an excuse to place control of the internet into government hands, should such an event happen here (not that it would).

Pornography is just the excuse.

[lars573]

An ancillery issue is a ban on owning "rape" pornography.

Which is a de-facto ban on Japanese pron.

[PanzerJaeger]

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

[Major Robert Dump]

I support the ban on porn because it will clearly reduce the occurrences of drug addiction, child abuse and human trafficking. Pre-internet era studies prove this

Now if only the UK would ban fat people we might solve the World Death Crisis once and for all

[a completely inoffensive name]

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

Well, I guess that multiculturalism policy seems to be working.....

[Fragony]

From my warm sweaty hands

[HoreTore]

The outrage here should be on the idiotic waste of time and money.

Every single porn filter ever created will fail spectacularly. Why? Because no person on earth is smarter than the collective sex drive of all the teenage boys of a given country.

Boys will have their porn, no matter what Cameron thinks.

[Andres]

Urgh... It is basically boiling down to this.

Many governments are scrambling to gain control of the internet after the Arab Spring. It's (in my opinion) an excuse to place control of the internet into government hands, should such an event happen here (not that it would).

Pornography is just the excuse.

Call me a conspiracy theorists if you must, but those thoughts crossed my mind as well.

Under the guise of protecting the youth against the evil pornography, they try to control the internet.

I hope some smart kid manages to hack David Camerons' personal website and places porn on it.

[InsaneApache]

Alex Deane, the Head of Public Affairs at Weber Shandwick, looked red in the face on yesterday’s #SkyPapers when he criticised David Cameron and Claire Perry’s plans to block pornography in households unless there is an opt-in submission to have access.

He was of course right: if we are genuinely concerned about the problems that pornography is causing young people then it is a family issue to control – not a role for the state to police.

But that’s irrelevant, because using the moral argument can only get you so far in our sorry state of contemporary British Politics. What is not irrelevant is that this policy announcement does not have a hope in hell of being successful.

If you’re slightly savvy with a computer you would have heard about web proxies. A proxy server is an invisible filter that acts as an intermediary between a user’s computer and the Internet so that the individual or business can ensure security, administrative control, and caching service – or anonymity.


With a few clicks on a search engine, you can use a proxy which is based in the Cayman Islands, India, or Japan to search for anything with a hidden IP address. And, to put it bluntly, there is nothing the government can do to stop you from accessing any site you wish – including pornography.

To see how hard it is to block off the internet, we need to look across to the UAE, where restrictions are put in place on pornography and gambling. I worked as a Journalist in Bahrain last year, and from my time spent in the UAE, I know from first hand experience that many people living there use proxies to play online poker, for example. States are trying, but are failing, to block off the web.

Christina Patterson, Alex Deane’s ‘opponent’ on Sky Papers, argued that only a minority of people will know about proxies, and therefore the government’s plan would work. She was in a sense correct: Britain has taken quite a liberal approach to internet freedom, and as such, users have no reason to use a proxy as the vast majority of the internet is free to see. So of course, to begin with, only a minority will be aware of blocked website bypassing techniques – but that will soon change when the state realises that all men watch porn. Even so, when it comes to the children – the very people who this policy is supposed to protect – how long do we think it will be before one computer savvy kid in each school finds out how to use a proxy, and then the entire school knows? It really is not very difficult to do.

A recent example in music pirating shows how easy it is: Earlier this year, the High Court declared that internet blocks were to be put in place on KickassTorrents, Fenopy and H33T – due to illegal music sharing. What is interesting is that traffic on those websites did not drop massively even with the blocks in place.

Companies such as BT, Sky, Virgin Media, O2, EE, and TalkTalk were told by the court to block subscriber access to KickassTorrents, Fenopy and H33T, and when they did so, users immediately searched for alternative methods to enter these websites. One notable example was the sudden surge in people searching for “KickassTorrents proxy” through Google, which will supply you with a wealth of proxies through which you can access the website. And an even more extreme example is that of PirateBay, which saw its traffic increase after blocks were put in place.

Methods have been introduced by governments to remove proxy servers across the internet – for obvious reasons. So if you are having trouble accessing KickassTorrents, or whatever it may be, you can use come.in, which is a website dedicated to providing the latest and most up to date proxy servers to these sorts of websites.

It is naïve that the government believes it can regulate the internet; it is far too open to ever be curtailed. A fantastic example which proves this is the black market economy, of which the notorious Silk Road website is a major player. Silk Road is essentially an underground Ebay website – but you cannot access it via Google, and the government seemingly cannot do anything about it either.


Silk Road lets users purchase drugs of almost any source – even heroin – anonymously. The company produced $22 million in sales in 2012. These transactions are performed using Bitcoin and sellers are given a recommendation rating like they might receive on Ebay. You can have MDMA sent to your house – and it is practically impossible to stop.

Examples like these highlight the flawed agenda of the government. Cameron and Perry’s plans to regulate households is not a role for the government, it is immoral that the state should assume the role of the parent in a family environment, but what’s more is that this policy will fall flat on its face. It cannot work. It is completely redundant and will damage the government’s credibility as a lawmaker when it inevitably fails – and the tech generation knows it too.

http://thebackbencher.co.uk/the-gove...ch-generation/

That is all.

[Papewaio]

There was a similar blacklist setup in Aus. Except legit businesses were being added and not notified and a school kid showed how to bypass the filter pretty before any of the ISPs implemented it... Most of them refused and the most vocal opponents have only got more business.

[Tellos Athenaios]

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

Well, I guess that multiculturalism policy seems to be working.....

This is the UK we're talking about. Everything is done thinking of the children and moral outrage is a national past time.

It's also the precursor to the USA. Now you understand where your conservatives get their ideas from.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Call me a conspiracy theorists if you must, but those thoughts crossed my mind as well.

It's power landgrab alright, but I don't doubt that it was done purely and solely to stop the "evils" out there. Unfortunately your or my idea of the "evils" out there is somewhat more limited than what conservatives can conceive of.

I hope some smart kid manages to hack David Camerons' personal website and places porn on it.

I hope not. Remember it is the UK we're talking about, knickers in twists is the least of your worries. Next thing you know there will be draconian laws passed banning the use of the Internet by teenagers with more wherewithal than a lobotomised lobster entirely.

[Husar]

The british government has one of the largest porn collections itself given that GCHQ stores all incoming traffic for three months.
Maybe they want to save on hard disk drives.

Either way I'm looking forward to official statistics about where Britain's porn capitals are based on the opt-outs.

[Catiline]

I find the idea of a list of 'abhorrent search terms' to be the most worrying aspect of this

[Ronin]

Politician announces politically correct moralistic PR campaign.
‪#‎truthfulreporting‬

[Rhyfelwyr]

I am very happy with this development. I don't doubt that as a policy it will be limited in its effectiveness - the most important thing for me is the recognition that internet porn is damaging and that it is having a corrupting influence upon younger generations.

Lads mags have to be concealed in supermarket isles to prevent children picking them up. If parents left pornographic material lying around in their house, social work would take issue with that, and few would contest that it would be right to do so. I do not see why things should be any different with the internet.

The 'moral' argument, that regulation ought to be left to parents, has itself clearly failed and for obvious reasons. Parents often just aren't as up to date with what goes on, never mind how to control it. The first time I seen porn was when I was maybe 10 or so when I would get pop-ups on the computer while doing homework (never the full act IIRC, just nudity etc). I expect this is true of a lot of the current generation. I thought it was cool at the time, but I don't think its good for you and kids should not be seeing that sort of stuff.

I find the notion that this is somehow a step towards tyranny to be hilarious. This measure does not require any innovations that the government could use for more nefarious purposes. And the only precedent it sets is that the government may play some role in protecting children from outright offensive material - a precedent that was set a long time ago, and would I think be accepted by any sane person as an entirely appropriate role for a government to play. It does not in any way set a precedent for the government to censor political or other sorts of material.

As for the comments about this being more befitting of a Third World Dictatorship, it is worth noting that in Iceland there is a serious discussion on whether or not internet porn should be banned entirely. I think it is no coincidence that this discussion is taking place in one of the most secular, liberal nations on the planet. When you remove the partisan narrative of religious moralism or tyrannical governments, I think people tend to recognise that porn is inherently damaging to society, since it both reflects and perpetrates its ills.

[Ronin]

The 'moral' argument, that regulation ought to be left to parents, has itself clearly failed and for obvious reasons. Parents often just aren't as up to date with what goes on, never mind how to control it. The first time I seen porn was when I was maybe 10 or so when I would get pop-ups on the computer while doing homework (never the full act IIRC, just nudity etc). I expect this is true of a lot of the current generation. I thought it was cool at the time, but I don't think its good for you and kids should not be seeing that sort of stuff.

I do not accept to be limited in my choices or somehow "deputized" in the raising of other people's children.
I do not want to raise a child, and because of that I didn´t make one...... therefore other people's children shouldn´t affect my life.
if the parents can´t control their child's internet usage, then don´t give them a computer, cellphone etc, or get educated on it....but once again, not my problem.

[Montmorency]

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

While there are certainly people out there who think the Internet as a whole should be brought down or curtailed due to its neurophysiological impact, even the utter and everlasting removal of pornography from the Internet (through magical means, say) would do precious little to mitigate the damage of the Internet itself.

Alcohol and coffee carry health risks. They also carry health benefits. It's always a trade-off. IMO the Internet, despite its ills, is too valuable to dismantle unless we are prepared to return entirely to a Neolithic (or even more 'primitive') lifestyle. And even porn alone, it seems, is not empty of value. It can be implicated as a contributing factor in the decline of sexual and violent crime across the Western hemisphere over the past two decades.

Same old moralism, Rhy - and it doesn't hold up.

[CountArach]

How could this happen in a supposedly First World nation? It would seem more appropriate in a Third World Middle Eastern dictatorship.

It was going to happen in Australia too but there was enough public outcry that it was eventually cancelled. I wouldn't be surprised if the same thing happens in this case.

EDIT: Also, assuming Labour oppose it (though surely some would cross the floor to support this), and assuming the Lib Dems aren't once again going to commit political suicide by supporting this (which they probably will, but for the sake of argument let's say they won't)... how will this even pass? This would be a huge thing to propose without a really confident Whip count.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

Nonsense, the vast majority of them are just plainly stated facts. If I may go through them one by one, maybe you could tell me which ones you contest? Would it be:

1. That measures are taken in public places to protect children from pornographic material (eg having to cover lads mags and place them on the top shelf)?
2. That parents overwhelmingly fail to protect their children from porn, and that for most children, they are first exposed to it online?
3. That censorship has always existed in some form even in our modern liberal democracies, without leading to tyranny?
4. That the country seriously debating banning all porn completely, Iceland, is in fact not a Third World dictatorship but rather a very secular, liberal demoracy?

So, no, I don't believe I am wrong on any of my points. Although I do see a very lazy complacency on the part of the opposition. But anyway, to address the point that you actually discussed rather than just declaring to be wrong...

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

While there are certainly people out there who think the Internet as a whole should be brought down or curtailed due to its neurophysiological impact, even the utter and everlasting removal of pornography from the Internet (through magical means, say) would do precious little to mitigate the damage of the Internet itself.

Alcohol and coffee carry health risks. They also carry health benefits. It's always a trade-off. IMO the Internet, despite its ills, is too valuable to dismantle unless we are prepared to return entirely to a Neolithic (or even more 'primitive') lifestyle. And even porn alone, it seems, is not empty of value. It can be implicated as a contributing factor in the decline of sexual and violent crime across the Western hemisphere over the past two decades.

Firstly, I don't see how on earth this can be seen as "dismantling" the internet. You get a one-time choice when you get a subscription about whether or not you want to opt-out of basic parental guidance, a decision which I assume you can change if you wish. Not unlike how you can pick what you subscribe to with the TV.

Secondly, this policy is not concerned with the "neurophysiological impact" of the internet in general, its aims are no more that what they are stated to be - to allow households to have automatic filters in place to protect children from content that is inappropriate for them. And like I said the effectiveness of this law will of course be very limited - the point is the gesture.

And finally, any link between the rise of porn and a decline in sexual violence is, as you are no doubt well aware, highly tentative at best. And there are a whole host of factors that would better explain such trends. Eg progression of women in all sorts of social life whether it be politics or the workplace etc - a trend against which the world of porn stands in stark contrast. If anything, I think the evidence tends to indicate that there are links between porn and violent, and especially sexually violent, behaviour, although they are by no means conclusive. Going by a basic wiki link, at least.

Same old moralism, Rhy - and it doesn't hold up.

If not allowing instant and unchallenged access to pornographic material in the homes of children is regarded as moralism, then I will happily be charged with it, and hold that such moralism has its place in political policy.

I find it strange that I am seen as being the unpractical, idealistic one, when people come out with stuff like this:

I do not accept to be limited in my choices or somehow "deputized" in the raising of other people's children.
I do not want to raise a child, and because of that I didn´t make one...... therefore other people's children shouldn´t affect my life.
if the parents can´t control their child's internet usage, then don´t give them a computer, cellphone etc, or get educated on it....but once again, not my problem.

This is just libertarian idealism (in the context of this discussion, I would go as far as to say dangerous fanaticism), divorced from reality.

As Montmorency said there is always a trade-off. Because of the practical realities (and indeed, failures) of relying on parents to protect children from porn, this policy has been deemed necessary. Sure, parents could opt-in for filters rather than have porn-fans opt-out, but the reality is that it is just easier to do it the way we are doing it since most households will want them in place. Do you feel that you are being "limited in your choices" when you walk into a supermarket and the lads mags are on the top shelf behind a plain covering? Are you being unfairly ""deputized" in the raising of other people's children" when this happens?

In short, your having to opt-in to receive porn is an acceptable trade-off for protecting children from being exposed to it.

[Greyblades]

Way I see it this will not do anything, the porn wont be going anywhere and access is but a google search away, filters or no. "Best" case scenario: a miniscule portion of technologicaly disabled kids will ends up finding about porn at age 13 instead of age 12.

Whether or not it happens is irrelevant to nigh all of us, the only concern worth noting is if our tax money will be wasted maintaining these filters.

[Montmorency]

Nonsense, the vast majority of them are just plainly stated facts.

Well, I'll go by the original post.

internet porn is damaging and that it is having a corrupting influence upon younger generations.

The substance of my previous post dealt with this.

If parents left pornographic material lying around in their house, social work would take issue with that, and few would contest that it would be right to do so.

I was skimming anatomy books when I was 5. There's far more worrisome content in those than in most pornography, unless it's the snuff or torture kind. In fact, I expect that widespread exposure to pornography - as part of exposure to sexual realities more generally - would be extremely beneficial to young children, who don't tend to receive proper sex ed from their parents anyway. Proper sex ed would include treatment of pornography. Since you discount the neurophysiological effects for broader ones of 'social corruption', I will just mention that they closely mimic those of addictive syndromes, and reduce capacity for attention and impulse control. With that said, why do kids get into porn? Mostly, it's because their friends tell them about it, because there's a certain mystery to it, a sense of the forbidden. If children were familiarized with pornography at a young age, they would not be, uh, enthralled by it so easily. Being furthermore conditioned with extensive education on gender issues and sexual politics, they would be resistant to any putative pernicious effect that may stem from the nature of the content. And I'm not so sure that this even now is a significant effect. You mentioned

a trend against which the world of porn stands in stark contrast.

I'm of the opinion that the character of pornography available today is almost entirely epiphenomenal, and so has almost no effect on society in itself - rather the reverse. The character of a country's or civilization's pornography merely reflects the underlying social mores. As for children, I can assure you that entertainment media, parents, and peers have a far more substantial impact on their understanding of gender issues than pornography does. We won't be seeing Jim Carrey starring in any films entitled "The Porn User", if you know what I mean...

Take Japanese pornography - clearly, the existing pornography is merely created by individuals steeped in a patriarchal and chauvinistic culture wherein women by expectation have no sexual agency, and for the very same sorts of individuals. Remember a few years back, when UN pressure got Japan to explicitly ban drawn child pornography? Even now, this sort of "hentai" continues to be produced, either secretly or under loopholes. Would you really conclude that this genre of porn was inducing pedophilia in developing young Japanese (boys), rather than that this was merely created to appeal to a culture overly infatuated with youthfulness in women? And after all, who could have less sexual agency than pre-adolescent minors, eh? Myself, I got into Japanese porn, both live and drawn, around age 13. It shaped quite a lot of my sexual appetite. Then, as I became more educated, I realized, 'Hey, this is pretty creepy', and dropped it around 17. Now of course I'm not so sensitive on those terms, but it still makes me vaguely uneasy to watch it - so I don't.

While American porn is a far cry from whatever goes on in Japan, to be sure you could find that most of it is perhaps regressive in content, or even outright demeaning or exploitative. Even softcore could be charged. However...

it is worth noting that in Iceland there is a serious discussion on whether or not internet porn should be banned entirely. I think it is no coincidence that this discussion is taking place in one of the most secular, liberal nations on the planet.

It is indeed no surprise, considering that in Iceland organized feminism has reached a perigee. The problem is that organized feminism tends to think of pornography as a problem, and one that ought to be solved with bans. It's a very backward mindset, and unfortunately many of the same individuals would endorse banning racial slurs in a nugatory and perhaps even counter-productive attempt to reduce racism. In truth, since Iceland is apparently so sexually enlightened, they should be taking it upon themselves to improve pornography. They should be striving to become leaders in global directing and production of pornography, but now with more sensitivity toward women. They could be using pornography as a tool to advance women's rights, squeezing out whatever cultural impact pornography is capable of and directing it toward their own ends. Just how much less effective, though, is 'Don't do that, it's bad' than 'Don't do that, it's bad. Now here's how you do it'? Trying to ban pornography is definitely counterproductive, as could only be so when one attempts to destroy rather than innovate. I mean, have you seen all the aggressively sexist comments engendered throughout the Internet

Feminists need to realize that they must bend social phenomena to their cause, not merely attempt to suppress them. Suppression is something which organized feminism in the world simply does not have sufficient power, and attempts at it merely damage their own political and moral capital.

As with Panzer and his aggressively barbaric and self-interest harming ideology of international relations, anti-porn feminists must seriously reconsider their position: their goals, and their means. There's nothing I abhor more than complacent, self-defeating self-righteousness. It's just so annoying.

And the only precedent it sets is that the government may play some role in protecting children from outright offensive material - a precedent that was set a long time ago, and would I think be accepted by any sane person as an entirely appropriate role for a government to play.

You probably won't be surprised to hear from me that I take this to be a rather jejune precedent and a poor use of the government's time and resources.

I think people tend to recognise that porn is inherently damaging to society, since it both reflects and perpetrates its ills.

Yes, it is damaging, but only as an extension of the Internet, which as a whole surely is more damaging.

I would also contend that the majority of humans, male and female, are either ambivalent or positive toward pornography.

As I noted previously, pornography is almost entirely reflective and can really have very little impact with respect to perpetuation of anything.

Now, for your reply more properly.

Firstly, I don't see how on earth this can be seen as "dismantling" the internet.

No, what I said is that Internet pornography has the aforementioned neurophysiological effects of Internet usage more generally, and so there's not much point in keeping one while declaring a fruitless war on the other - despite, as I mentioned, the small number of reactionaries who genuinely aspire to dismantle modern civilization, meaning no Internet, powered transportation, enhanced agricultural techniques, and however many other modern amenities you can think of.

And like I said the effectiveness of this law will of course be very limited - the point is the gesture.

Gestures from states are an incredible waste of time and money unless they are used as tokens to pacify targeted demographics. To be honest, I don't think there are very many of your ilk in the UK, especially among the working class, and I also doubt that you or your ilk would cause extensive national turmoil and property damage through massive riots or whatnot, should the legislation fall through. So, uh, this is definitely just a waste of time and money.

since most households will want them in place.

On what basis do you think so?

And finally, any link between the rise of porn and a decline in sexual violence is, as you are no doubt well aware, highly tentative at best.

We're all just speculating here. Insofar as pornography increases sexual satiety and fantasy fulfilment, it decreases the impetus for many males to violate strangers, friends, and/or family.

I'll also speculate that FPS proliferation has lowered the incidence of violent crime among young males in the West, even as they have heightened aggressive impulses and so on.

There's always a trade-off, and I certainly do not see that the balance is very far into the negative, even as I see a potential for a modest positive net.

[drone]

Can't wait until the hackers grab the opt-out lists and match them with Tory MPs' names.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Wrong on almost every point, Rhy.

Most substantially: Porn is only damaging to society as a function of its effect on individual neurophysiology, an effect which is difficult to differentiate from Internet usage in general.

The argument runs that the violent porn normalises abuse of women. 13 year old boys see a porn actress pretending to get thrown into a wall and then they do it to their girlfriend, or they force themselves on a girl because they think girls like that.

Having spent the last few daces pushing "no means no" we now have a generation exposed to exactly the opposite, and parents have entirely given up on sex education.

Whether or not it happens is irrelevant to nigh all of us, the only concern worth noting is if our tax money will be wasted maintaining these filters.

I made this really big because it's wrong.

The "Big Four" ISP's have agreed to this, some smaller ISP's have refused.

Imagine the headlines if they hadn't, "BT Refuses Cameron Request to block Porn".

A few facts:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23403068


The basic point: we're moving to the ISP's enforcing the same standards as youtube.