EPTUK to crack down on internet porn - Page 2
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
NoxiousNoodles
United Kingdom61 Posts
| ||
|
Reason
United Kingdom2770 Posts
| ||
|
AngryMag
Germany1040 Posts
 Sets a dangerous precedent, I would heavily oppose it. Think it is quite funny that a parliament full of nonces decides whether porn is immoral or not. The sales of women's underwear catalogues will likely go through the roof. Remember the riots some years back. Imagine a horde of testerone filled fapless youths going on a rampage, that would make awesome TV. | ||
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
"man how am i supposed to watch porn now, i live at home with my mum and dad how am i going to ask them to unblock it?" Some other guy posts "Don't worry, im a father and my son will soon find out that it is unblocked" ahahah xD In terms of what they have suggested and what is happening with the British ISPs banning Porn unless told to turn it on (or block off however u want it to be) i am not to fussed about it. I do agree that there are tons of links and people underage watching porn and it does give the wrong idea, but if you ban it from the internet, surely you have to ban it from the TV? Ala all the naughty shows on after 11pm etc or the porn cam girls channels u get in England. All easy accessible from 9pm onwards | ||
|
SuMDuMRtArD
United Kingdom62 Posts
 But I don't agree with keeping children off the internet, as it is such a valuable resource for learning etc, it's hard to get the balance right on for whats good and whats bad with the internet, as it is difficult to control with all the child porn, rape etc but it's also hard to get rid of it as the guy from Jordan said, once they have this amount of control they will use it for another, deeper agenda which can be scary. And if the UK government succeeds in this, then it will be the stepping stone for all governments including organisations like SOPA... So yeah don't allow them to do this, it's more up to the parents/families to protect their children from what they see on the internet. Use the filters, use adblockers etc while the kids are on, don't let Cameroon and his dark history give control to what your kids should be looking at on the internet, that control goes to the parent, families alone | ||
|
theking1
Romania658 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10126 Posts
| ||
|
bITt.mAN
Switzerland3693 Posts
Also, they're fixing a loophole where distribution of certain sick sex shit is illegal, but possession is not. Comments aside about weather we should have the freedom to enjoy whatever filth we want from the bowels of the internet, they're drawing the line such that if its material which is banned from being sold in a store, you're not allowed to have it on your computer (I think). Whine about freedom, but they already do this for CP (child porn). See LulzSec guy's charges, the dirt they found on him in court was some child abuse video on his computer, even though they wanted to punish him for the digital attacks he orchestrated. It does raise a worrying point though, that if we increase the scope of what forms of media are criminal, you could get abuse of legal power by planting CP (as opposed to planting drugs or something), which is arguably easier to achieve (hack someone remotely, download a file they've never seen or consented to onto a secret part of their computer, bust them). Finally they want to make CP harder for the casual CPers to attain, which is a good thing. There are far more people who access CP (that .Gov know of) than those who are busted. It could possibly get a bit scary if one wrong google search results in the cops knocking on your door (" I'm not a pedo Mr. Officer, it was my 12 year old daughter researching a project on "abuse elephant child" which contains the words child+abuse, please don't arrest me" ). But they're not making it a crime to search CP keywords (as far as I can tell), they're pressuring search engines to return no results from those blacklisted phrases. Dude, if you waste time around 4chan ->motherless and you lose all conscience, chances are if you're really rubbed in a fucked up way, the first step towards CP will be as simple as a google search (before bothering with ToR). So what they want to do is block the casual CPers. I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get. | ||
|
Vivax
21972 Posts
Why don't the families simply install an own blacklist, firewall, whatever. There are surely miriads of products for that. Instead → The government gets extended surveillance resources for some agencies, upon which they surely can be accessed by related agencies. → The government gets an overview of all pornography consumers in the UK. → If you don't live on your own, you can't consume porn without everyone in the family knowing you do. → People will need to buy their shit in shops to stay anonymous. TAXES, and dat pornography lobby will thank them too. → Some horny boys in their early teens will become terrorists. Ultimately though, it makes sense from the point of view of people in his position. The government aims for the most control, most income, most benefit possible, it's their role, they'll try to play it. The right to privacy isn't part of that plan, as it's a right that doesn't benefit the government, and only benefits the individual, and society in a way that it allows for deviant opinions to be expressed without fear of repercussion, for example measures that benefit each individual but not the government, but it's double edges and also offers a place to hide for criminals. If you assume your government will always act the right way (in an ideal world let's say), then that anonymous freedom of expression can be gradually taken away by these measures without concern. The past has shown often enough that people with power start abusing it though. Do you prefer living with some criminal individuals or a potentially criminal government? | ||
|
MoonfireSpam
United Kingdom1153 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:44 theking1 wrote: howlong until the british people can vote this dude out of office? Doesn't really matter. Sadly there isn't anyone that is likely to be any better :D | ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
The Government has told ALL British ISPs to automatically BLOCK porn as of a date which i haven't found yet, UNLESS the ISP bill payer tells them otherwise. If the bill payer says "i want it off" they can use porn freely still. | ||
|
Danglars
United States12133 Posts
What is the fate of online advertising for escort services or other frowned upon lesser moral violations with this? If certain groups can be seen as negatively impacting the safety of children, how goes their freedom to operate websites seen by UK citizens? Do you have to opt-in to hate speech to see these, etc? | ||
|
Sated
England4983 Posts
| ||
|
BBS
Germany204 Posts
| ||
|
Pandemona
Charlie Sheens House51484 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:53 Sated wrote: I don't mind the overall idea, but the execution is backwards. It would work a hell of a lot better if you had to opt-in, as that would allow concerned parents to use it as an aid to help protect their childre (the intended purpose) without causing any uncomfortable situations for other people. Yeah my mate said that. Why not just make people AWARE that you can opt into this service to stop it. Make ISPs send out letters to customers stating that if they reply to this letter or call number "x" they can opt in | ||
|
[UoN]Sentinel
United States11320 Posts
| ||
|
Godwrath
Spain10126 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:47 bITt.mAN wrote:I mean all you young hormone loving males may think Porn is the lifeblood of all creation, but these laws are primarily for child protection, blocking them from seeing filthy scarring shit when they're 12. They'll get their dear adult content (and consent to being 18 when they're not) in due time, and so will you if you really need to, but this is to prevent early-age damage. Also, porn does fuck you up, so on a general level I think it's a good thing they make it less convenient to get. Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them? | ||
|
sc4k
United Kingdom5454 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:57 Godwrath wrote: Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them? I'd just like to point out that we have no evidence that you are not a total fuck up. | ||
|
bardtown
England2313 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:57 Godwrath wrote: Early-age damage ? I guess i should be a total fuck up since i pretty much watched my first porn at the age of 7. Can you show me studies that this is true or is just more talking about protecting the children from things they should already know and be explained to them? The ridiculous thing is that when I was about 10 I was shown beheading videos by other people from school. How bigotted do you have to be to make sexuality more 'disturbing' or worthy of blocking than snuff/torture videos which are rife and unmonitored? | ||
|
Aeroplaneoverthesea
United Kingdom1977 Posts
On July 23 2013 20:55 BBS wrote: So, U.K. does not only spy on others with Tempora, but also blocks, what people are not supposed to have on the other hand side. Long live the Empire ... Indeed. It's starting to look like George Orwell was right, we was just 40 years or so to soon on the dates. The world is going to be a scary place in a few decades time. | ||
| ||
