- Messages
- 19,164
- Reaction score
- 8,768
I guess it will be time to 'opt-in' then!
- Thread starter Mod
- Start date
- Status
ForeverCarefree
If she said it's Chelsea or me. Would you miss
- Messages
- 21,634
- Reaction score
- 12,177
Tough one. Although you can see the morale argument for this the Internet itself isn't "owned" by any nation in particular which makes it a unique thing to Police.
You now have to tell your provider you don't want parental controls because you want to do the five knuckle shuffle, not sure that's right personally.
You now have to tell your provider you don't want parental controls because you want to do the five knuckle shuffle, not sure that's right personally.
Jonty
Deal with it.
- Messages
- 7,133
- Reaction score
- 848
It's not difficult to put filters on a child's computer, not that i'd give a young child their own private computer with internet access anyway.
So either they've done this for another reason or it's a load of bullsh*t.
Fortunately I live in Australia so I won't have to call someone up from my service provider if i've come back from the bar with blue balls.
So either they've done this for another reason or it's a load of bullsh*t.
Fortunately I live in Australia so I won't have to call someone up from my service provider if i've come back from the bar with blue balls.
Last edited by a moderator:
moi
Welcome back, twin! XXX
- Messages
- 32,538
- Reaction score
- 5,744
If "five knuckle shuffle" means what I think it means, can't you just use your imagination? Do you actually have to have a picture in front of you?
ForeverCarefree
If she said it's Chelsea or me. Would you miss
- Messages
- 21,634
- Reaction score
- 12,177
Surprising as it may be I don't actually access porn online myself but I respect the right of those who choose to do so and I don't believe we should be flagging up our interests to our ISP's telling them specifically what we intend to use the Internet for once we have signed up to them.
Just strikes me as an invasion of privacy, which can be rather off putting given the subject "at hand".
moi
Welcome back, twin! XXX
- Messages
- 32,538
- Reaction score
- 5,744
Oh totally with you there. We're really getting into Big Brother territory with that! What I do in my private little world is none of their business - as long as certain activities are not available i.e. rape scenes, child porn and any other "tastes" which harm those involved in making the films or photos.
- Messages
- 19,164
- Reaction score
- 8,768
I think there is also a line of what is 'adult' and what isn't! Any child can go into a newsagents and legally buy 'The Sun' and Cameron is trying to protect children's innocence online?
To start to govern the internet by doing things like this, he also needs to address adult content on a larger scale offline.
Youtube can be accessed by anyone and some content on there is quite suggestive as well as not filtering swearing.
I think this will just be the start of governing the internet and more countries (and more content) will follow on.
To start to govern the internet by doing things like this, he also needs to address adult content on a larger scale offline.
Youtube can be accessed by anyone and some content on there is quite suggestive as well as not filtering swearing.
I think this will just be the start of governing the internet and more countries (and more content) will follow on.
Zola
I am Zola.
- Messages
- 20,806
- Reaction score
- 3,097
Why not opt out, rather than just blocking it for everyone? Wouldn't that be more practical for parents? I think its a bit unfair to make people contact their ISP to ask for adult control...
What happens when you 'opt in'? Presumably your name goes on a list and your details get stored in the 'dirty bar steward database' for further analysing?
This solves absolutely nothing, but I think this is merely a trojan horse, a lazy transparent excuse.....which in time will lead to the main objective that is censorship of anything the government doesn't like.
Welcome to China.
What happens when you 'opt in'? Presumably your name goes on a list and your details get stored in the 'dirty bar steward database' for further analysing?
This solves absolutely nothing, but I think this is merely a trojan horse, a lazy transparent excuse.....which in time will lead to the main objective that is censorship of anything the government doesn't like.
Welcome to China.
Last edited by a moderator:
bluedave
Gold Member
- Messages
- 6,490
- Reaction score
- 4,511
Not surprised to see who is taking the credit for this. Their hypocrisy amazes me with all the sexual imagery they plaster all over their website (just check out the right hand column).
Maybe Mr Cameron should make it opt-in for Daily Mail readers only and leave the rest of the population to enjoy their privacy.
Maybe Mr Cameron should make it opt-in for Daily Mail readers only and leave the rest of the population to enjoy their privacy.
bluedave
Gold Member
- Messages
- 6,490
- Reaction score
- 4,511
I think you have a point there; it shouldn't take anybody who knows how to use a search engine more than 10 minutes to find a way around any ISP block. It will be a completely futile effort but I still find it objectionable on principle.
Zeta
Members AF
- Messages
- 24,697
- Reaction score
- 11,406
It won't do a damn thing. There seem to be 2 elements to this:
1. Blocking children from viewing porn - This is easily circumvented and downloaded, either on computer or smartphone, etc... if they really want to view it. And I'm sure they will all tell their friends how to get around it.
2. Blocking child porn from search engines - It's not in search engines. Cameron seems to think that if you type "child porn" into Google you get a load of explicit images. You do not. You'd be hard pressed to find 1. It's all on these "invisible networks" which are cut off from the public internet and thus can't be found by search engines. Only way to take them out is to physically destroy the networks. But there will just be 2 more in its place afterwards.
The only thing that will come out of this opt-in scheme is yet more information the government have on us in some insecure database. Why the hell should a grown man have to inform the government if he wants to look at naked women on his computer? I swear to God we're drifting closer and closer to a 1984 world and no-one is doing anything to stop it.
1. Blocking children from viewing porn - This is easily circumvented and downloaded, either on computer or smartphone, etc... if they really want to view it. And I'm sure they will all tell their friends how to get around it.
2. Blocking child porn from search engines - It's not in search engines. Cameron seems to think that if you type "child porn" into Google you get a load of explicit images. You do not. You'd be hard pressed to find 1. It's all on these "invisible networks" which are cut off from the public internet and thus can't be found by search engines. Only way to take them out is to physically destroy the networks. But there will just be 2 more in its place afterwards.
The only thing that will come out of this opt-in scheme is yet more information the government have on us in some insecure database. Why the hell should a grown man have to inform the government if he wants to look at naked women on his computer? I swear to God we're drifting closer and closer to a 1984 world and no-one is doing anything to stop it.
undertow
BLUE Nights
- Messages
- 4,368
- Reaction score
- 1,057
The PRISM is dead, long live the PRISM!
This is my favourite quote from the article:
They really don't get how the internet works, do they?
Granticus
Youth Team
- Messages
- 288
- Reaction score
- 5
I'm much the same. I don't like porn, it's not my thing, but I really don't see why it should be blocked. There is a petition already set-up to battle this, and I have signed it. For anybody that is considering doing the same it can be found here.
http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746
Last edited by a moderator:
- Status