Current Affairs Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM to announce

[BOF]

That whole article is based on this one sentence:

 

But the block apparently won’t be limited to porn

 

Apparently?

No quotes, nothing to link it to actual government policy, just an article written by an anonymous person who may or may not have any information at his disposal. 

 

Of course, if information does come out that the government is going to censor vast areas of the internet, then at that point the benefit of doubt becomes opposition.

Which i think is a better way than opposition at first followed by acceptance if rumours turn out to be false.

Here's an article that wasn't written by a fool the likes of yer one back on the previous page. Maybe he puts it a lot better than I have up to now. Well worth a read.

Regulating pornography is no simple matter

 

David Cameron has just executed a very skilful gambit. Desperate to appease the Daily Mail, keen to improve his dismal standing with female voters, the UK prime minister announced a proposal to impose a class of casual censorship on the internet. Don’t we get in a tizzy when the Chinese try this sort of thing? Isn’t this the first step on the road to totalitarianism?

The twist, of course, is that Mr Cameron is seeking to restrict digital pornography and, in particular, the availability of that unlovely stuff to children. To this end, his government will demand that all service providers install “family-friendly filters” and ensure that the virtual devices begin life in the “on” position. Should the user wish to receive any restricted content he or she will have to deactivate the blocking software.

He also wants to ban pornographic depictions of violent acts and to restrict searches for certain terms.

Cameron and his media sponsors (the Mail has long campaigned for such legislation) have constructed a looming bear trap for anybody who dares to lodge an objection. Raise concerns about the creeping hand of censorship, the obvious practical difficulties or the shifting of responsibility from parent to state and you risk looking as if you are defending the (ahem) dissemination of online pornography.

I have, in this place, argued that the rampaging growth in demeaning sexual imagery – and its increasing social acceptance – has served to accelerate the objectification of women in ways that feminists of the pre-internet age could barely have contemplated. The growth of lad culture in the 1990s spread a lusty stripper aesthetic that, to this point, had remained confined to rugby-club changing rooms and stag parties for slopeheads. I am, in short, puritanical in these matters. Pornography is a bad thing.

The proposed initiative, however, reminds us of Sir Humphrey Appleby’s satirical take on government by knee jerk in the timeless TV comedy Yes, Minister. “Something must be done. This is something. Therefore we must do this.”

If you want an example of where such tabloid-massaging foolishness can lead then think back to the video nasty frenzy that engulfed the UK in the 1980s. Inspired by largely imaginary concerns about children turning into maniacs after a few viewings of Driller Killer, the hysteria led to raids on shops selling titles such as Apocalypse Now and the harmless Dolly Parton musical The Best Little Whorehouse in Texas. David Hamilton Grant, an independent distributor, actually ended up in prison for selling a version of Romano Scavolini’s jolly Nightmares in a Damaged Brain that was a few seconds longer than the approved cut. Even cultural conservatives now regard the episode as an unmitigated disaster.

The challenges facing the officials who will decide what constitutes online pornography are considerably more complex than those that flummoxed framers of the 1984 Video Recordings Act.

We can hardly trust pornographers to police themselves. If every civil servant and every employee of the service providers were reallocated to online censorship it would still prove impossible to assess the millions of websites established daily. The job will, of course, be trusted to lumps of software.

Anybody who has ever tried to file copy through the firewalls of a national newspaper will understand how quirky such modesty filters can be. Earlier this week, an English journalist told me of the difficulties a colleague had submitting cricket reports on Sussex matches (think about it) to a prominent left-leaning quality newspaper. Heaven help you if you are attempting to write the ornithology column when the coal tits are mating.

It is inconceivable that any anti-pornography software will not kick up such anomalies. So what? You are a responsible adult. Genuine enthusiasts for shaggy donkeys can turn off their filters and – without going near the properly naughty sites – continue their researches into “hairy asses”.

Here’s the problem. You are now on a list of people who have requested that pornography be allowed on their computer. Given certain revelations about government snooping, no sane person could be relaxed about such a situation.

Then there are the wider moral and social issues. How do we decide whether a depiction of sexual violence is pornographic or not? Ban all such sequences and you lose The Accused and Thelma and Louise (not to mention adaptations of certain works by Thomas Hardy, William Shakespeare and John Galsworthy). Who or what draws the line?

Cameron can call it what he likes. But if it smells like state control then it probably is state control. Padraig Reidy, indomitable toiler for Index on Censorship, addressed the plans with impressive clarity last week. “It simply sets up the idea of censorship as a de facto thing that we accept as the default,” he said.

True. And it won’t work anyway.

[ender4]

Thats a good article. 

 

btw, you've got me wavering on the fence now...  (not purely just because of that article)

[LxYoungAVFC]

BS.

Edited December 30, 2013 by LxYoungAVFC

[leviramsey]

British Library blocks Hamlet

A man using the British Library's wi-fi network was denied access to an online version of Shakespeare's Hamlet because the text contained "violent content".

Author Mark Forsyth was writing his book in the library, and needed to check a line from the famous play.

The British Library said the fault was caused by a newly installed wi-fi service from a third-party provider.

One security expert said the incident highlighted the "dysfunction" of internet filters.

Mr Forsyth revealed on his blog that the filter had logged his attempt to access the page.

A spokesperson for the British Library said Hamlet had since been made accessible.

"The upgraded service has a web filter to ensure that inappropriate content cannot be viewed on-site," he added.

"We've received feedback from a number of users about sites which were blocked, but shouldn't have been. We're in the process of tweaking the service to unblock these sites."

Internet filters have recently come under increased scrutiny, after the government announced that pornography will be automatically blocked by UK internet providers, unless customers choose otherwise.

Digital rights activists raised concerns about the move, fearing that the lists of "banned" sites could be expanded to include pages that should be publicly available.

Prof Ross Anderson, a security expert at Cambridge University, told the BBC that internet filters were "pointless" and that it was "completely inappropriate" to have one in the British Library.

He added: "Everything that is legal should be available over the library's wi-fi network. The only things they should block are the few dozen books against which there are court judgements in the UK.

"One of the functions of deposit libraries is to keep everything, including smut."

The British Library defended its position, saying that it wanted to protect children visiting the building from content "such as pornography and gambling websites".

[leviramsey]

And in related news

Internet users have been prevented from accessing the Radio Times and hundreds of other websites as a result of the Premier League's battle with an unrelated copyright infringing site.

The accident occurred because the sites share an internet protocol address with First Row Sports, which offers unauthorised streams of football games.

Internet providers had been ordered to block the IP.

The Premier League only become aware of the issue when the BBC contacted it.

The problem only occurred if users typed in "radiotimes.com" rather than the full "www.radiotimes.com" address, or likewise dropped the "www" ahead of the other sites affected.

The editor of the Radio Times expressed anger at the news.

"It's outrageous that our website has been suddenly switched off and our users wrongly informed that it's to protect against copyright infringement," said Ben Preston.

"The Premier League seems to be behaving like the worst sort of blundering striker who's forgotten the first rule of football - check you're at the right end before you shoot."

The football body said it was "urgently" looking into the matter and stressed that it had not meant to block other sites.

Blocked sites

The High Court has ordered ISPs to prevent access to a growing number of sites including The Pirate Bay, EZTV, Fenopy, and Newzbin2 after rights-holders complained of copyright infringement.

Last month the Premier League added First Row Sports to that list - a Swedish-based site offering video streams to football games from around the world.

The way the system works is that the rights-holders are responsible for identifying which IP addresses are being used and then sending the details to the ISPs.

The court specifically said that ISPs are "wholly reliant" on the rights-holders "accurately identifying" which IPs should be blocked and had "no obligation" to check them themselves.

In addition to Radio Times, several football clubs - including Blackburn Rovers, Reading and Brentford - as well as the Notes from Nature science project and Galaxy Zoo space education site have been affected.

Virgin Media confirmed its subscribers had flagged the issue last week and added it had taken action to rectify the problem.

"As a responsible ISP we obey court orders when addressed to the company," said a spokesman.

"However, we do not believe the instruction to block this particular IP address meets the criteria of the court order against First Row Sports so we have stopped blocking it and are writing to the Premier League."

Virgin acknowledged this meant that in some cases users might be able to access First Row Sports again.

BT added it was taking similar action.

"Under the terms of the court order to block First Row Sports, it is the Premier League's responsibility to provide BT with IP addresses to block that relate only to First Row Sports," a spokesman said.

"The Premier League is currently looking into whether the IP addresses provided to BT included any IP addresses that related to radiotimes.com. BT has suspended blocking of the IP addresses in question in the meantime".

Telefonica - which has sold the Be Unlimited network to Sky, but continues to run the operation - said it had also unblocked the IP address, but planned to use another way to prevent subscribers accessing The First Row site.

"We anticipate that this will be actioned shortly," added a spokesman.

TalkTalk said it was not aware of the problem.

'Respect the rulings'

The Premier League said it had never intended legitimate sites to be affected. But it also expressed concern at the idea that the ISPs were taking unilateral action.

"The court order that requires internet service providers to block this website clearly states that any issues they have in implementing the block must be raised with the Premier League before taking any further action," said a spokesman.

"This is the first we have heard of this issue and are looking into it as a matter of urgency.

"The fact remains that the High Court has ordered an injunction requiring ISPs to block First Row Sports and we will continue to implement it and expect the ISPs to respect the ruling."

[Tegis]

Look at the brainiacs hard at work here. What could possibly go wrong?

[AVFCforever1991]

Clearly that is the biggest problem in this country

[coda]

Parliamentary porn consumption laid bare in official figures

Attempts per month

May 2012: 2,141
June 2012: 2,261
July 2012: 6,024
August 2012: 26,952
September 2012: 15,804
October 2012: 3,391
November 2012: 114,844   
December 2012: 6,918
January 2013: 18,494
February 2013: 15
March 2013: 22,470
April 2013: 55,552
May 2013: 18,346
June 2013: 397

[AVFCforever1991]

July 2013: 15,707

[Eames]

Parliamentary porn consumption laid bare in official figures

Attempts per month

May 2012: 2,141

June 2012: 2,261

July 2012: 6,024

August 2012: 26,952

September 2012: 15,804

October 2012: 3,391

November 2012: 114,844   

December 2012: 6,918

January 2013: 18,494

February 2013: 15

March 2013: 22,470

April 2013: 55,552

May 2013: 18,346

June 2013: 397

 

 

Its a bit of a non story isn't it. Rob rattles up November '12s figures on a quiet weekend. 

[Kingfisher]

Only 15 wanks in February.

[leviramsey]

Only 15 wanks in February.

Over at least 650 rocket polishers, that's an impressively low ratio!

[tonyh29]

Safe for work

[Chindie]

Unsurprisingly, these filters are already proving problematical. They block anything with any reference to sexuality, meaning for example that sex education sites, rape advice and support services, and LGBT community forums Gerry blocked.

[NurembergVillan]

Unsurprisingly, these filters are already proving problematical. They block anything with any reference to sexuality, meaning for example that sex education sites, rape advice and support services, and LGBT community forums Gerry blocked.

 

If you need someone to talk to, we're all here for you...

[PompeyVillan]

The digital age is a problem for children. I feel pity for them, I never had to deal with the issues that they have to, day in, day out. How do we moderate this? I don't know. However, government censorship does not seem like the solution. I work with young people. They understand about the dark web. If they want to access it, they can. 

 

Is education the solution? Perhaps? Although feebley , I think that people who want to access illegal content, will access it. How can we stop them? I consider myself tech savvy, but the skills of children are quite scary. If they want to access illegal content, they will, and they will be difficult to track. Pornography is really easy to access and children often know more than their parents when it comes to internet security.

 

I think our only hope is to educate children to understand about pornography, and at quite a young age. Unfortunately children lose their innocence at quite a young age now. 

 

Is it better that they are mentored by responsible adults or by their peers, who are swimming against the tide in the dangerous waters of the internet? Really, nobody knows the right answer.

I am glad I do not have children to educate about this, it must be really difficult. 

[StefanAVFC]

This is the first generation that have grown up with this sort of technology. Even at 21 I feel completely out of the loop regarding some things, but generally it's okay.

 

It's not as difficult to educate as you might think. You tell them early that, if they're uncomfortable with it, then click straight off it. Children generally know what they should be going on and what isn't good from an extremely early age as computers/ipads are freely accessible in schools now. Compare this to when I was growing up and it wasn't just the kids who didn't have a clue, but the adults as well. Broadband came in when I was about 10 so I didn't have the same sort of education with it.

[Tegis]

I really don't get the problem. How bloody difficult is it to talk to your kids about sex/porn? Sure, their eyes grow to saucer-size but they absorb it, process it and thats that. Not much difference from, when us, born in the 70s, picked up our first porn-mag at the age of, what, 12? I didn't die then either.

 

It's not rocket science. If the kids spend time on the net, they will find dubious shit. Tell them that before you let them loose or don't let them use it. The latter is a dumb choice though as they WILL use it somewhere else.

Edited December 22, 2013 by Tegis

[bickster]

I really don't get the problem. How bloody difficult is it to talk to your kids about sex/porn? Sure, their eyes grow to saucer-size but they absorb it, process it and thats that. Not much difference from, when us, born in the 70s, picked up our first porn-mag at the age of, what, 12? I didn't die then either.

 

It's not rocket science. If the kids spend time on the net, they will find dubious shit. Tell them that before you let them loose or don't let them use it. The latter is a dumb choice though as they WILL use it somewhere else.

You aren't a repressed Brit though!

[StefanAVFC]

I really don't get the problem. How bloody difficult is it to talk to your kids about sex/porn? Sure, their eyes grow to saucer-size but they absorb it, process it and thats that. Not much difference from, when us, born in the 70s, picked up our first porn-mag at the age of, what, 12? I didn't die then either.

 

It's not rocket science. If the kids spend time on the net, they will find dubious shit. Tell them that before you let them loose or don't let them use it. The latter is a dumb choice though as they WILL use it somewhere else.

 

 

I really don't get the problem. How bloody difficult is it to talk to your kids about sex/porn? Sure, their eyes grow to saucer-size but they absorb it, process it and thats that. Not much difference from, when us, born in the 70s, picked up our first porn-mag at the age of, what, 12? I didn't die then either.

 

It's not rocket science. If the kids spend time on the net, they will find dubious shit. Tell them that before you let them loose or don't let them use it. The latter is a dumb choice though as they WILL use it somewhere else.

You aren't a repressed Brit though!

 

 

This. We're far too prudish for that!!!