All Internet Porn Will Be Blocked To Protect Children

[Infiltrator]

THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

The new initiative is in advance of the imminent convergence of the internet and television on one large screen in the living room.

It follows the success of an operation by most British internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites. Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

TalkTalk, which includes Tiscali and the British version of Aol.com, is already introducing a new free service early next year called "bright feed," which allows people to control the internet so that all devices are automatically covered without the need to set up individual controls.

Homeowners can either specify which adult sites they want to receive or put a cinema-style classification on their feed to restrict what is received according to age ranges, such as U, 12 or 18. A survey by Psychologies magazine this summer found that one in three children aged 10 in Britain had viewed pornography on the net.

Mr Vaizey said: "This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that it's the ISPs that come up with solutions to protect children.

"I'm hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years."

Claire Perry, the Tory MP for Devizes and a keen lobbyist for more restrictions, said: "Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get the ISPs together and say, 'Either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you'."

"There is this very uneasy sense for parents of children that we do not have to tolerate this Wild West approach. We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure our children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see."

Previously the Internet Services Providers' Association (ISPA) has told MPs that such a blanket ban would be expensive and technically difficult to operate.

But Miranda Suit, co-founder of the charity Safermedia, which held a conference on internet porn at the Commons last month, said: "Technically we know it can be done because the ISPs are already removing child porn after the government put pressure on them. "In the past, internet porn was regarded as a moral issue or a matter of taste. Now it has

become a mental health issue because we now know the damage it is causing.

We are seeing perverse sexual behavior among children. Legislation is both justifiable and feasible."

She quoted the example of two underage brothers sentenced to at least five years' detention this year for a sadistic sex attack on two other boys in South Yorkshire. The brothers were said to have had a "toxic" home life where they were exposed to pornography.

This weekend some ISPs appeared ready to introduce an "opt in" clause voluntarily. Andrew Heaney, executive director of strategy and regulation for TalkTalk, said: "Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us to do but to do what was right by our customers.

"If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on. Legislation is a sledgehammer but it could work."

A spokeswoman for Virgin Media said: "We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We've taken this approach as mobiles are taken out of the home - and kept in a pocket - whereas parents can control what happens within the home and online "We're able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach."

A spokesman for BT, which has a "clean feed" system to block access to illegal sites, said: "We do what we can to protect children."

The ISPA did not return calls to London's Sunday Times.

Source: http://www.news.com.au/technology/all-internet-porn-will-be-blocked-to-protect-children-under-uk-government-plan/story-e6frfro0-1225973501259

[Infiltrator]

"THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today."

Its a good thing that, its not a mandatory filter, its up to the end user if she/he wants to have porn sites blocked or not

"It follows the success of an operation by most British internet service providers (ISPs) to prevent people inadvertently viewing child porn websites. Ministers want companies to use similar technology to shut out adult pornography from children. Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them."

Wish we had this same system here in Australia.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Infiltrator

[deleted]

It's still a load of rubbish. If parents want to set up a web filter, fine. If ISP's want to offer a web filter service, fine. However it should not be mandatory for an ISP to offer that kind of service.

I am sure a child see's more sexual content on television than on the internet, however if a voluntary scheme was somehow set up to filter television there would be a backlash.

I firmly believe in ISP's being a common carrier, they should not interfere with content in any way shape or form, even if requested by the subscriber.

[Infiltrator]

I agree I don't see how this Government internet filter plan is going to work out.

Here in Australia, whether the ISP/User like or not, it will be required by law to have it.

Edited December 19, 2010 by Infiltrator

[Trip]

its a good idea but pretty non-viable i cant see this happening

lol ... BAN JPGS !!! and gifs! and tiffs !! and bmps etc etc

it just wouldn't be possible .... a waste of money

[digip]

I don't want my kids going to porn sites, but I also don't want the government(s) deciding what we as a society can and can't see. As a parent, I think its our job to decide what they see and be an active role model for them. Who should be in charge of filtering and "censoring" what we see? The government? The ISP?. I think its up to the parents to govern what their kids do online, not everyone else's job to do it for them.

Censorship by any means, and control taken away from the people at large is bullshit, in any country or place around the world. For people to not like porn, they have as much right to that opinion as the people who enjoy it, but neither have a right to force upon or take away from the other the basic right to either view.

To leave it up to the ISP is like giving the MPAA and RIAA control of the ISP's (and the internet in general) to block sites they deem illegal, whether legit or not. While we're at it, lets get rid of free speech, freedom of expression, and every other right we take for granted. While porn may be offensive to some and inappropriate for people under a certain age, what defines porn as a whole, because there are plenty of artistic alternatives that could be misconstrued as porn as well(all based on opinions), such as photography, sculpture, paintings, etc, that contain nudity or even sexual expression. How do they filter and define what is acceptable to me or you? Shouldn't that be up to us? Its a touchy subject because this pertains to PORN in general, but take porn and substitute it for any other freedom to view any content online. Where do we draw the line in who controls the content?

By law porn sites have to register their sites as well as put code in them to be detected by different software filters and such. They are supposed to comply with laws regarding their presence online, but you can't filter everything this way. Not all sites are going to comply with this, especially people who put their own stuff online. You would need to be able to have people sit and view EVERYTHING there is online in order to be even remotely effective. Especially kiddie porn sites, which are the scum of the earth, but even still, you will never completely filter all of it out no matter what you do. There isn't any software that can distinguish between a nude pic of an adult vs a child. There also is the debate of child porn, vs artistic nudes of children, because there are photographers who have documented their own families, and children, both clothed and in the nude. There are many families who live nude 24/7, and have albums of photos of their kids in the nude. The bigger issue is, if you don't want your kids seeing porn, or any content for that matter, be an active parent in your child's life, and you control what they see, instead of just letting them sit online 24/7, unattended to do whatever they want. Raising your kids properly starts at home with the parents, not with the Government.

Edited December 20, 2010 by digip

[Netshroud]

That's how the Cleanfeed proposal started...

[Trip]

if they did it'd be like the prohibition ... its just not a wise move

the internet is about freedom of information !!! whatever the information may be

Edited December 20, 2010 by Trip

[IOSys]

Next they will want to protect your child from 'extremist' political opinions.

(ie anything that the neo-nazi conservatives disagree with).

Strangely, they don't want to protect your kids from stupidity, that's why

nobody talks about blocking 'creationist' websites or any other website spreading the religion-parasite,

despite the fact that they turn children into idiotic losers ..

[deleted]

While they are at it, why not just get it over with and create a whitelist. Thats what they want in the end. The internet gives a voice to the people, allows organisation, free information and discussion. Pretty much anything that "Running a Country 101" says to avoid.

I do not buy the "protect the children" reason. I feel they are only guising it as that because you cannot argue with it, and if you do you will be branded as some kind of pervert or degenerate.

I like how this is the government that supposedly rallied internet users using open technologies over the internet to get them in power, but now that they are in they want to take that away. Transparency my arse, the only thing transparent are the conservatives sense of subtlety.

[Trip]

apart from the fact its going to be impossible to do ?

... what about all the industries and shops etc that rely on adult content?

its a waste of money and also going to fail .... and push these images further underground (which is a bad move imo)

we should have a more liberal view like the germans and french .... its only human nature

and tbh if you supervise you kids internet access you'll never have a problem

.... i have my lounge setup like a gaming cafe whenever my son needs to use the net i can see what he's up to

i blame lame irresponsible parenting for the problem not the internet.

[Trip]

+ you can download blocked site lists already and add them to your router filter list (ip specific)

i spent my time doing this last year to increase the productivity @ my dads work .... worked wonders (fb/twit/yahoo/etc)

[digip]

If the ISP's give in to this, and has general public backing(which I can see it probably would for the most part) it just opens the door to other censorship, et al: Wikileaks, Piratebay, political activists and protestors, underground news networks, internet television shows, podcasts, free internet radio stations, free speech, etc, etc, etc. Once they have control of the doors, all they have to do is lock the ones they don't want you to enter.

[astromech_kuhns]

government control over what you do is crap. im 16. i can tell you it comes down to parenting. i dont do that because my parents taught me not to. not because my school had a block on there Internet.

although i dont agree with porn, its your choice. not the governments.

[Infiltrator]

Government should never control what people see on the internet. I find it a waste of time, resources and most of all they don't know what to do with the tax payer's money.

[Trip]

this makes me laugh ...

All Internet Porn Will Be Blocked To Protect Children

lmao

it should read internet porn will be blocked so we can govern the internet !

Edited December 24, 2010 by Trip

[digip]

it should read internet porn will be blocked so we can govern the internet !

Yeah, because they don't already have enough control over people, they need Über governing control. WWIII won't be between nations over land and sea, it will be between pirates & ninjas vs all governments over "a series of tubes".

[charm_quark]

Yeah, because they don't already have enough control over people, they need Über governing control. WWIII won't be between nations over land and sea, it will be between pirates & ninjas vs all governments over "a series of tubes".

lol, that would truly be interesting

I just had a bizarre notion in my head,

Pornography sites will be blocked at source unless people specifically ask to view them.

. so imaging you go to your ISP, and they have a counter called "PORN", and there is a long form to fill, and you have to stand at the counter till they sort out a "problem".. it would be super embarrassing... Edited December 24, 2010 by charm_quark

[deleted]

Yeah, because they don't already have enough control over people, they need Über governing control. WWIII won't be between nations over land and sea, it will be between pirates & ninjas vs all governments over "a series of tubes".

You are absolutely right. Look at the past 3 major conflicts: Cold War, WWII & WWI.

(Note: I have intentionally over-simplified the wars mentioned for the sake of argument)

WWI: First proper use of propaganda and information control aiding the physical conflict.

WWII: All out propaganda and information war in parallel to physical conflict.

Cold War: First information war. Sporadic outbreaks of physical conflict.

Following that pattern, what do you think the next major conflict will be like?

Idea's are more powerful than bullets, so who would be more vulnrable to destabilisation: A country with an open information system, or a country with heavily regulated information system?

So in a way, they are acting in the ideals of defense. However is this the defense of the country, or the protection of themselves?