Online pornography to be blocked by default, UK Prime Minister announces

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#1
Online pornography to be blocked by default, PM announces
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

Most households in the UK will have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron has announced.

In addition, the prime minister said possessing online pornography depicting **** would become illegal in England and Wales - in line with Scotland.

Mr Cameron warned in a speech that access to online pornography was "corroding childhood".
The new measures will apply to both existing and new customers.

Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.

He told the BBC he expected a "row" with service providers who, he said in his speech, were "not doing enough to take responsibility" despite having a "moral duty" to do so.

He also warned he could have to "force action" by changing the law and that, if there were "technical obstacles", firms should use their "greatest brains" to overcome them.

'Innocence'
In his speech, Mr Cameron said family-friendly filters would be automatically selected for all new customers by the end of the year - although they could choose to switch them off.

And millions of existing computer users would be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to use or not use "family-friendly filters" to restrict adult material.

The filters would apply to all devices linked to the affected home Wi-Fi network and across the public Wi-Fi network "wherever children are likely to be present".

Customers who do not click on either option - accepting or declining - will have filters activated by default, Tory MP Claire Perry, Mr Cameron's adviser on the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood, told the BBC.

The UK's biggest internet service providers have agreed to the filters scheme meaning it should cover 95% of homes.

Other measures announced by the prime minister included:
  • New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops
  • Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content
  • Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks
  • A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it

Mr Cameron also called for warning pages to pop up with helpline numbers when people try to search for illegal content.

He said: "I want to talk about the internet, the impact it is having on the innocence of our children, how online pornography is corroding childhood.

"And how, in the darkest corners of the internet, there are things going on that are a direct danger to our children, and that must be stamped out.

"I'm not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger, but because I feel profoundly as a politician, and as a father, that the time for action has come. This is, quite simply, about how we protect our children and their innocence."

But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those responsible for creating it.

He added: "You need a real deterrent, not a pop-up that paedophiles will laugh at."

But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.

She added: "It's impossible to buy this material in a sex shop... but it's possible to have it served up on a computer every day."

In his speech, Mr Cameron said possession of online pornography depicting **** would be made illegal.
Existing legislation only covers publication of pornographic portrayals of ****, as opposed to possession.
"Possession of such material is already an offence in Scotland but because of a loophole in the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, it is not an offence south of the border," Mr Cameron said.

"Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole - making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts ****."
The move has been welcomed by women's groups and academics who had campaigned to have "**** porn" banned.

Holly Dustin, director of the End Violence Against Women Coalition, said the group was "delighted".
"The coalition government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this," she said.

"The next step is working with experts to ensure careful drafting of the law and proper resourcing to ensure the law is enforced fully."

'No safe place'
Mr Cameron, who has faced criticism from Labour over cuts to Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre's funding, insisted the centre's experts and police would be given the powers needed to keep pace with technological changes on the internet.

"Let me be clear to any offender who might think otherwise: there is no such thing as a safe place on the internet to access child abuse material," he said.

A spokesman for Google said: "We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it.

"We recently donated $5m (£3.3m) to help combat this problem and are committed to continuing the dialogue with the government on these issues."

According to some experts, "default on" can create a dangerous sense of complacency, says BBC technology correspondent Rory Cellan-Jones.

He says internet service providers would dispute Mr Cameron's interpretation of the new measures, insisting they did not want to be seen as censors.
 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#2
So if one opts out of the default censoring of pornography, the Crown could construe that the individual is a sexual deviant... that seems logical...

One must examine the question "What material is deemed to be pornographic" to fully grasp the extent of such a system.

It sounds to me like the Crown has a far-reaching internet censorship system that they are laying the foundation of implementing under the guise of keeping the Internet child and family friendly. The consequences of such a censorship system only serves to suppress citizens and empower the Crown.

IMO this has the potential to be very dangerous globally.
 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#7
Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense
The prime minister's so-called plan for controlling access to online pornography is a breathtaking piece of political sleight-of-hand
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn

The prime minister is looking at porn. For research purposes, of course. He's not sitting in cabinet meetings peeking under the table at a looped three-second clip of a woman's bra falling off that Michael Gove e-mailed to him by mistake. He is looking for a way he can pretend to be fighting it. He wants to declare himself the first prime minister to win the war on online porn. And, according to a letter leaked to the BBC last week, he reckons he has found one: default-on.

Default-on is a system whereby internet service providers block access to pornographic images as standard, unless the customer opts out of the filters. In the eyes of certain newspapers, it is the silver bullet solution to the problem of kids watching pornography. But, for various reasons, most of the major ISPs are not up for asking their customers: "Do you want porn with that?" They have negotiated with the government and agreed on a system called "Active Choice +" in which customers opt in for filters, rather than out for falling bras. The system gives new users a choice at installing filters, and existing customers the option of switching to safer browser modes. The default setting remains filter-free.

The leaked letter, sent to leading ISPs from the Department for Education, makes it clear that Cameron's war or porn is propaganda masquerading as policy. It suggests: "Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions [as] 'default-on'". It is a sleight-of-hand worthy of the Ministry of Truth, a move from the "Let's not and say we did!" school of regulation.

It raises the question: where else does Cameron use this line? Do his aides write to Starbucks, Google and Amazon to ask that, without changing what they are doing (avoiding paying billions in tax), they find a way for him to refer to this as "paying billions in tax"? Do they ask tobacco firms if, without ditching branded packaging, they could find a way for Dave to pretend they have? Has he ever asked George Osborne if he can refer to him as "not George Osborne"?

In a bid to add a veneer of legitimacy to its attempt to call a spade a hosepipe, the letter goes on to ask the ISPs: "Would you be able to commit to including 'default-on' or similar language both in the set-up screen and public messaging?" Which raises the question: how exactly? Ironically? With a winking smiley at the end? By smuggling the words into some irrelevant side-box asking customers "Do you think Greece will 'default on' its debts?" Snuck in as an anagram or across the first letter of each word in a sentence? Maybe it could flash on the screen as a split-second subliminal message?

It almost makes you feel sorry for the internet companies – but their intentions are no more noble than the prime minister's. The ISPs make three arguments against default-on. First, that it encourages parents to be complacent about their children's internet use. Second, that filters are imperfect. Third, that children are smart enough to find their way around filters anyway. All are sound. The third, in particular, is hard to argue with, since any default-on system needs to be simple enough for a stupid adult to navigate, and, if it is, any web-savvy kid should find their way around it in no time. To work, the filters would need to prevent users from asking search engines "How do I turn off these porn filters?" And then the question "How do I turn off the filters for questions about turning off filters?" And so on, for ever.

But I suspect they have their own reason for rejecting default-on, which is that they know if they don't, their call centres will be inundated with bashful customers who have skipped through the set-up process without checking what they ticked or didn't tick and have just realised they are locked out of their favourite porn site. I can hear the calls now: "Yes, hello. I, um, I can't access, er, some of the internet." "Do you mean the porn?" "No, just, er, just some websites." "Porn sites?" "No. Just sites with-" "Porn on?" "Yes, alright, yes. What kind of internet service provider doesn't include the porn as standard?!" It is, in a sense, a fair question.

We – children and adults alike – need to learn about the damaging psychological, social and physical effects of online porn. Default-on would be an error. It would be buck-passing on our part, asking our internet providers to somehow stem the unending tide, rather than face the need for some frank and very un-British conversations. But the worst of all possible worlds is one in which the prime minister announces he has solved the problem when he's only pretending to have brushed it under the carpet.
 

ironman25dc

A Smug Cunt Who Loves The Cock
Jun 1, 2004
6,583
3,908
588
Chicago, IL
#8
What are you telling me for? I dont care either way.

That the other thread wasn't up when I was formatting my thread... and the vague headline is blah

Really, I'm just being an ass....