UK to have "opt out" Porn filters

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

Probably quietly, behind a curtain.

Even then - it we're talking about examples - the example of your parents getting it on is completely different to the example you get on a porn set, isn't it?

[drone]

Yeah, yeah, I know, you kind of lose if you talk about protecting the children, its almost like a mini-Godwin.

It's officially called a thought-terminating cliché.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Who is more responsible, or indeed more likely to develop habits of responsibility? Someone who recognizes what they don't approve of, and therefore doesn't partake? Or someone who has been prohibited from experiencing these things in the first place?

Personal responsibility is a very Christian concept, as is the idea of giving people a choice to be good or bad. What do you hope to achieve, morally or spiritually, by forcing your views on others who will almost certainly be resentful for it? It is counter-productive to your whole cause.

Yes, I was talking about myself voluntarily not partaking in these things.

Of course it's a fetish. It makes sexual relations special for you, doesn't it? Things, situations or whatever that makes sex special for you is called a fetish.

It doesn't have to be all fecal matter and leather to be called a fetish, you know...

A fetish generally means an abnormal fixation/obsession, so normal sexual desires can hardly fall under that banner.

I just recalled something: didn't cottage-dwellers back in the early modern period - to say nothing of the ancient period - fornicate with children in the vicinity pretty much all the time? Those domiciles, being small, of as little as one room, privacy not then what it is now...

I don't know tbh... it seems like a whole different matter from porn/voyeurism though, I suspect it was done subtly under the covers when the rest of the family was asleep at least.

Oh, and I very much liked your earlier quote that "The bondage we are born into is the bondage we cannot see. Verily, freedom is little more than the ignorance of tyranny. Live long enough, and you will see: Men resent not the whip so much as the hand that wields it." I might even sig that if that is OK (a quick Google suggests it is from an R. Scott Bakker)...

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_fetishism

It's only a fetish is it's unusual and you specifically get your rocks off to it.

So - getting off on the thought that you'd made your partner pregnant would be a fetish if it's more fun for you/you're sexually disappointing if you think she isn't pregnant.

Ergo, just wanting to have sex is not a type of fetish.

[Papewaio]

Going down Horetore's line, I'll admit it once and for all:

I get off at the thought of a man and a woman having missionary sex for the purpose of procreation, while the woman is ovulating. I have an impregnation fetish.

Be careful what you wish for. Children are a massive joy but they need a lot of time and effort. With a teething 6 month old and no real sleep since she was born I'm much more grumpy than normal.

[Montmorency]

Be careful what you wish for. Children are a massive joy but they need a lot of time and effort. With a teething 6 month old and no real sleep since she was born I'm much more grumpy than normal.

Obviously the (purely imaginary) fantasy concludes with the administration of a Plan-B pill.

[Greyblades]

....or just do it like everyone else and torrent it.

Come on, who pays for porn??

What part of my plan costs money?

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Can I just point out - American Porn's quite expensive to make - they have all the problems of the "mainstream" movie business re pirating, and given the rate at which porn is produced, they probably work harder than non-porn actors.

It's not cool to cut into the profits of an important American export industry.

Hurts the world economy.

[Slyspy]

I think it also depends on the society. I think in the Catholic, socially backwards Asian island where I am currently visiting, legalizing porn and removing the filters could possibly have a damaging effect on society. The rape rate here is very high, the incest/child abuse rate among locals is out of control, alcoholism in an epidemic and people here are generally very uneducated about sex as the schools teach NOTHING and expect parents to do it all.... ya know, those alcoholic parents with 8 children.

But rolling back the clock in a place like the UK would just be silly

So a country in which porn is illegal has all those problems regardless?

Smaller ISP's have refused to do it - such pressure as has been applied has been of the PR variety. If the Big Four ISP's had refused they would have struggled to spin it as anything other than "neglecting the children". That would have left a gap for the mid-size ISP's to market themselves as "family friendly" and steal market share.

Basically - this measure is in line with the public mood.

It's also important to understand that these filters are already in place, all that is happening is that the default is being set to "on" like on websites like YouTube.

In this case - the government is not the force behind this, they are riding the wave of public feeling. This debate about access to pornography has been going this way for at least half a decade - which is about how long the talking heads have been demanding action. As action goes this is very restrained - no new laws - just ISP's being persuaded to bow to public pressure.

I would argue that this is more dangerous than law making.

[a completely inoffensive name]

Well you know that better than anybody else can and I won't use your own feelings as a platform for my views, but I do think we all have to some degree a natural longing to have an intimate, monogamous relationship. Even when, in this present age of ideology and fanaticism, HoreTore would have that branded a fetish!

I think one of the saddest things about modern Western culture is the lack of value on companionship. Plenty of cheating and back stabbing and casual sex, and even though it seems everyone gets hurts by it at least once, settling down is treated as this burden when you get older. Even the phrase 'settling down' is negative. I had a very fulfilling relationship when I was 18-21 years old and while my outlook on my single future is more optimistic everyday, I do not think that any number of random sexual encounters can compare to some moments I have already experienced.

But maybe I am just too young to understand, or maybe my testosterone levels are too low. Either way, I guess I will find out sooner or later as I adapt to this new lifestyle since I do not plan on having another relationship for a long time.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I would argue that this is more dangerous than law making.

People clamour for something - the government gives it to them.

There comes a point when you have to accept that the majority doesn't agree with the wisdom of the Org.

[Sir Moody]

People clamour for something - the government gives it to them.

There comes a point when you have to accept that the majority doesn't agree with the wisdom of the Org.

this must be a new form of "Majority" since in fact it was a Vocal MINORITY which were demanding this while the Majority couldn't care less and still don't...

[Papewaio]

Surely filters should be set by the adult consumer. Much like selecting a book be it Anne Rice or Mills and Boon surely it is the individuals choice. It shouldn't be the landlords anymore then your landlord should choose your spouse.

As for children. Porn isn't appropriate, but I haven't seen any teenage suicide reference porn. Exposed sexting sometimes. The biggest danger is bullying. If the parents are worried than monitor their kids Internet consumption just like checking out who they play with and what magazines they have stuffed under the bed or the bottom draw.

A censorship argument that starts with "think of the children" is very ironic given its censoring sex. Seven billion of us. That's a lot of semen. Think of it say a teaspoon each x seven billion that's 35 billion mL or 35 million liters or about 100 Olympic pools. That's a little too much to try and hide... and that's just the portion that fulfills Rhyfelwyrs fantasy.

So what is the fascination in filtering something adults should decide for themselves and parents should monitor there own kids in doing? Really a nanny state... But I'm sure that is a whole different fetish.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Seven billion of us. That's a lot of semen. Think of it say a teaspoon each x seven billion that's 35 billion mL or 35 million liters or about 100 Olympic pools. That's a little too much to try and hide... and that's just the portion that fulfills Rhyfelwyrs fantasy.

....what?

EDIT: Oops silly me.

So what is the fascination in filtering something adults should decide for themselves and parents should monitor there own kids in doing? Really a nanny state... But I'm sure that is a whole different fetish.

OK, so not giving children instant and automatic access to porn = nanny state?!

Truly, and age of ideologues, fantasists and fanatics.

[Papewaio]

Seven billion people are created by seven billion acts of procreation.

Both men and women require semen from their father to inseminate their mother.

=][=

Nanny state is when it removes adult choices and responsibilities from the adults to the state.

Adults should be choosing what they consume and be responsible for what their kids do as well. Adults in a household should put in place supervision, boundaries and conditions of use not renounce those responsibilities and give that to the state. The state should be focused on criminal misuse.

In short a nanny state is one that treats adults as children ie putting in filters that an adult should decide for themselves.

[InsaneApache]

Claire Perry, the member of parliament who led the campaign for an on-by-default porn filter in the UK, is being sued by a blogger after accusing him of “sponsoring” a hack on her website. The whole episode provides a fascinating insight into Perry’s technical knowledge.

Here’s what happened: a couple of days ago, someone hacked Perry’s website to display offensive images. Paul Staines, a right-wing political blogger who writes as “Guido Fawkes”, duly reported on the incident, complete with a screenshot of one of the more tame images displaying on Perry’s site. Perry took to Twitter to accuse Staines of “hosting a link that distributed porn via my website”; Staines replied that Perry was “confused by technology”; Perry didn’t back down, and repeated her reference to “the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes.”

(Click here to read the full, facepalm-worthy argument.)

Now, don’t forget that the UK has very strict libel laws. While Staines is usually on the defensive rather than offensive side of such issues, he polled his readers to see whether they thought he should sue. Eighty six percent said he should, so late on Wednesday Staines wrote that he was “reluctantly” instructing his lawyers.

If you’re reading this site, chances are you don’t need to be told that a screenshot of a hack does not equate to responsibility for said hack – in terms of determining cause and effect, it’s utterly back-to-front. But then again, Perry reacted to the news of her porn-blocking success by claiming it “represents a comprehensive and pragmatic approach to tackling the key issues which threaten the safety of our children online.” As I and many others have argued, the system won’t do what it’s meant to, and will probably lead to the unintended censorship of a wide range of online material.

Perry is, however, probably a bit more technically literate than Rhoda Grant, a member of the Scottish parliament. Grant recently asked why, if there is a watershed on TV – the 9pm break point before which adult material shouldn’t be shown, for fear of children seeing it – there can’t be one for the internet too.

The U.S. had Ted Stevens and his “series of tubes”; the United Kingdom has Perry and Grant. I think there’s a strong case for lawmakers being forced to undergo some basic training on how the internet works before they get any opportunity to try “fixing” things through new legislation.

http://paidcontent.org/2013/07/25/ar...ter-hack-spat/

Well said.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

Surely filters should be set by the adult consumer. Much like selecting a book be it Anne Rice or Mills and Boon surely it is the individuals choice. It shouldn't be the landlords anymore then your landlord should choose your spouse.

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

I don't think you understand how this series of tubes works either...

[Papewaio]

Filters need to be set in the firmware or server level, not at the level of a program on top of the OS.

Come one - you can't set it at the level of the terminal.

Actually most things that can be done by dedicated hardware can be done by software. For instance dialogic fax cards used to allow servers to fax at around $1000 a port (phone line). Now you can run a virtual server and software emulate those cards for a fraction of the price.

The filters can be applied anywhere in the system including layer 8. Just like having pop up blockers you can have local filters, you can also put them on your search engine. Some require you to signin to allow unfiltered browsing.

The advantage of some filters is that they will block the content before its sent. Disadvantage with some is that you blacklist legitimate sites but the sites aren't notified.

Even with all the filters in place I wouldn't bet good money against a bunch of 15 year olds to get around them. So I'd bet on parent-child communication, adult supervision and setting up boundaries.

Technology is great, but I would not assume its infalliable. It breaks all the time and I bet sometime one of those filters will get inverted.

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

I don't think you understand how this series of tubes works either...

Scarily - children (not teenagers) are developing the wherewithal to hack their PC's - hacking the router or the ISP's server is still (mostly) beyond them

[Andres]

Back when I was a teenager, we didn't have internet.

There were videotapes which our fathers kept hidden. Somehow, we all found those tapes and were able to watch them. We even knew how to copy them. There was this guy in our school who sold such videotapes for hard cash. A few of those in the final year of high school (18 years old or almost) bought pr0n magazines and sold them with profit to the younger teenagers. Yes, kids aged 12 bought them as well.

Those of us with an older brother saw pr0n even before that age, allthough most considered it ewww (an attitude that changed drastically within a few years).

I do not consider myself a deranged sick pervert and most of the people my age with similar experiences don't strike me as perverts either.

If this is not an attempt to gain control over the internet by the government and these people are sincere, then the politicians making and/or voting this legislation are complete and utter morons who need to be removed from any position of power as soon as possible and locked up in the nearest mental institution.

Imho, there are plenty of other fish to fry than waging a war on porn

[Greyblades]

Can I just point out - American Porn's quite expensive to make - they have all the problems of the "mainstream" movie business re pirating, and given the rate at which porn is produced, they probably work harder than non-porn actors.

It's not cool to cut into the profits of an important American export industry.

Hurts the world economy.

One of these days you should look up a speech from danny devito about buggy whip makers.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Although the effects of porn on adults is a whole other matter than protecting children, it does I think have an amplifying effect on the problems of certain individuals. According to Ariel Castro:

"My addiction to pornography and my sexual problem has really taken a toll on my mind."

[rvg]

Although the effects of porn on adults is a whole other matter than protecting children, it does I think have an amplifying effect on the problems of certain individuals. According to Ariel Castro:

"My addiction to pornography and my sexual problem has really taken a toll on my mind."

Yeah, porn and violent videogames. Oh, and gangsta rap.

[Rhyfelwyr]

Yeah, porn and violent videogames. Oh, and gangsta rap.

Wouldn't be surprised.

Maybe less so for video games, since they are purely fantasy, whereas porn presumably tends to be more an accompaniment to a physical act. As for gangsta rap, it glorifies violence and mistreating women, and no doubt attracts a lot of young guys into that lifestyle.

[Tellos Athenaios]

Scarily - children (not teenagers) are developing the wherewithal to hack their PC's - hacking the router or the ISP's server is still (mostly) beyond them

But here's the funny thing: the ISP's server is not what serves you the porn. This means the ISP does not, fundamentally, have much control over the whole porn watching process. It's by and large just a dump pipe in the delivery of smut.

There's a few key points along the way where the ISP could do something:

• The ISP probably does provide you with DNS servers to lookup the IP address of your-porn-website.com, but switching DNS servers is easy and crucially should not aversely affect any other ISP service and does not require any changes to the your-porn-website.com site. And yes, there are free DNS services available (OpenDNS is one).
• The ISP routes your TCP/IP packets and those packets carry fields to identify recipient and sender. A blacklist could be devised to filter out the porn traffic that way, but: people who do actively opt out must not have their porn filtered. Furthermore due to the network design it is not as straightforward as you might think. TCP/IP networks were originally designed to be bomb proof. A key thing here is redundancy: for every link there's a couple of others, and no link in the system knows the overall topology and pathways of internet traffic. This means your ISP does not know which routers are guaranteed to see your porn, apart from the last/first one: the exchange. Busting filtering at the exchange is easy: just route your traffic via a proxy. And yes, there are free web proxies available (HideMyAss, Proxies.org).
• The ISP could however do DPI, deep packet inspection, and notice that your HTTP traffic is served from your-porn-website.com, filter that way, right? In that case encrypting the traffic should normally ensure that the ISP cannot do DPI. Between a proxy or VPN and encryption an ISP can no longer know whether a stream is porn and thereby filter it. Moreover some proxy services specifically offer the use of SSL between you and the proxy, which means that you don't even need the your-porn-website.com to support SSL in the first place.

[Crazed Rabbit]

First off, I was completely correct - they haven't even implemented the filter yet and it's already more broad reaching than porn;

UK PM David Cameron and Claire Perry say that they plan on forcing Britain's ISPs to have a "default-on" censorship app for every connection in the UK. But the UK Open Rights Group have been talking with whistleblowers from the ISPs that have met with the government's censorship grandees, and they report that the censorware will come equipped to block an enormous swath of legal Internet content, and unless you untick the boxes, this will all be censored for your Internet connection:

A few points of order...

1. State regulation of the internet is already normalized. It has to be, for example to ban things like abusive porn, animal abuse etc. Or do you think these things should be free and legal?

Strawman. The state doesn't censor child porn so much as it arrests and prosecutes anyone who possesses it. Regulation is not censorship.

2. The state already has vastly more invasive laws and regulations in place when it comes to the internet. Unlike the 'war on terror', this adds no new powers, and is actually an example of the state using its given-powers appropriately.

Wrong. This censorship is unheard of (well, besides Australia) in a free nation.

But instead of worrying about that people cry out:
"But no, all that's of no concern! The great tyranny is not having porn automatically accessible in every household with a computer! And what a tyrannical government it is that asks us if we choose to access it or not! We're living in 1984"!

1984... yes, you know what, it is 1984 indeed. Because the whole of humanity can live under such a malicious behemoth, and be so blinded to the superstructure around them, that they deem policies like this to be the most tyrannical and oppressive imaginable. And so they happily consume their opiates and wallow in some sort of outrage/paranoia-based collective stupidity, while their elected government panders to another corporation, another entrepreneur is forced into wage labour, minorities are incarcerated en masse, and the like. Ye blind guides, which straw at a gnat, and swallow a camel!

This is painfully ironic. As I said, this isn't about porn. This is about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

You completely miss that and go one to complain about opiate-dulled masses. This is one of the measures of government control that you speak of.

CR

[Rhyfelwyr]

First off, I was completely correct - they haven't even implemented the filter yet and it's already more broad reaching than porn;

Who said that it would not? For you to present this as evidence of a slippery slope is wrong, since, as ever, the internet user has 100% free choice in what he filters.

Strawman. The state doesn't censor child porn so much as it arrests and prosecutes anyone who possesses it. Regulation is not censorship.

My point was that regulation was broader even than censorship, not that censorship did not occur. From wiki:

"Home Office Minister Vernon Coaker set a deadline of the end of 2007 for all ISPs to implement a “cleanfeed”-style network level content blocking platform. Currently, the only websites ISPs are expected to block access to are sites the Internet Watch Foundation has identified as containing images of child pornography"

Such censorship has been commonplace since 1996 through the Internet Watch Foundation which has worked with the government to censor material.

Curiously enough, for all that, "in 2010 the OpenNet Initiative found no evidence of technical filtering in the political, social, conflict/security" (from the first linked article).

Wrong. This censorship is unheard of (well, besides Australia) in a free nation.

Besides the above, I expect that this was commonplace in any Western nation. Certainly, it seems that this is true of the USA.

Of most significance to our purposes is this bit - "with a few exceptions, the free speech provisions of the First Amendment bar federal, state, and local governments from directly censoring the Internet. The primary exception has to do with obscenity, including child pornography, which does not enjoy First Amendment protection"

This is painfully ironic. As I said, this isn't about porn. This is about normalizing government censorship of the internet.

You completely miss that and go one to complain about opiate-dulled masses. This is one of the measures of government control that you speak of.

CR

I have missed no points and shown no irony. Regulation of child porn is in no way the same as the government controls I lament, since unlike them, I consider this to be entirely within the state's remit. I do not oppose government censorship of the internet per se, as I have previously said. I am happy for it to censor material that involves the abuse of children, but little else beyond that.

I do not believe this will lead to tyranny. I do not believe that this sets us on a slippery slope, since a) the line is very clearly drawn, and it addresses a very particular issue; and b) the principle has been so long established without leading to censorship in other areas.

[Beskar]

There is a clear and easy difference between illegal content such as Child Abuse and the filtering of legal content. No one is arguing against illegal content, only complain about legal content. (Illegal content being by this definition those things which are universally accepted as immoral. Not what laws are in place in some where like China where the word 'Democracy' is illegal. )

[Philippus Flavius Homovallumus]

There is a clear and easy difference between illegal content such as Child Abuse and the filtering of legal content. No one is arguing against illegal content, only complain about legal content. (Illegal content being by this definition those things which are universally accepted as immoral. Not what laws are in place in some where like China where the word 'Democracy' is illegal. )

You contradicted yourself - you said "illegal" and then linked it to "accepted as immoral".

Drinking in public is illegal - is that immoral?

Owning a cheap Katana sword, or knuckle dusters, or a handgun, are all ABSOLUTELY illegal - despite the UK having Olympic Karate and pistol shooting teams.

Nobody is arguing that porn should be illegal in the UK - merely that ISP's should adopt the same policy over this stuff as video streaming sites, that it be unavailable by default.