David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

[Bernie Gunther]

Like the "war on rugs", I doubt the point is to actually be successful.

The point(s) would be likely to be stuff like; a) to be seen to be 'doing something', b) to create investment opportunities in various Orwellian technologies and opportunities for secure-aucrats to create new enforcement organisations, c) to offer emotive precedents to deploy such technologies and new forms of enforcement 'to protect the children' and d) to then use those technologies and new forms of enforcement to suppress various sorts of inconvenient stuff online ... copyrighted material, political dissent etc.

 

[mwgdrwg]

The whole point is to have a controlled "Government Approved" internet, obviously.

 

[salem]

Exactly. There is an inevitable chance of mission creep and it won't be long before child porn is joined by sites breaking injunctions, wiki leaks and the like and so on.

 

[GarfieldLeChat]

The puritanical nonsense has no justification at all. Sure stop child porn no one wants that except those unfortunate individuals who are peados...

How exactly does consensual acts of sex performed by actors (all be it terrible ones usually) relates ("rape" porn) to the actual abuse and rape of children is beyond me.

There's been zero credible studies by any one which can show a causal link between Adult porn and child rape. Hmmm I wonder why that'd be, could it be that those aroused by child rape are not aroused by adult porn...

It's the start of the attempts to introduce the great firewall of the UK...

net neutrality comes in via the back door.

Interestingly 5 days ago the EU changed the law to allow companies to charge higher tariffs for certain data types thus ending European net neutrality and indeed paving the way for the inevitable function creep.

http://www.dw.de/eu-to-abandon-net-neutrality-on-internet-speed/a-16957670

Want out of the walled garden, sign this register please... want access to a porn sign this register please,
Name
Age
Sex
Address
Place of work
Mobile
Mobile provider
martial status
spouse or partners address
spouse or partners email address
all email addresses used by yourself since you began using the internet

Finally please be aware we will retain these details for future usage (in your internment at a reeducation camp you filthy pervert). Anyone found to be in breech of the rules regarding the state sanction pornography will be imprison and may have their reputation dragged through the mud...

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...midts-open-marriage-string-exotic-lovers.html

Oh btw your ISP will unlock them for your now but as you are one of a limited number of excessive users who want access we'll need to charge you a premium on top of your monthly fee to access those sites.

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Exactly. There is an inevitable chance of mission creep and it won't be long before child porn is joined by sites breaking injunctions, wiki leaks and the like and so on.

This is exactly what this is. Control of the media is what the state have always sought. 477 years ago William Tyndale was strangled and burnt at the stake for publishing a version of the bible that contradicted what was presented in the church/state presented version. It's what they have always done and always will do. Technology scares those in power unless they have control of it.
This has nothing to do with pornography or child abuse images (I deliberately choose to not use the phrase child pornography because that is not what it is). If they wanted to filter pornography for those that wanted it. They could do so. If they wanted to put the effort into finding those people creating child abuse images, they could do so - I don't know if you are aware of this, there are already block pages in place for sites hosting child abuse images. The database of this is shared between several European counties, including the UK. If they wanted to gain control of the black market of the drugs industry they could do so, but it actually benefits their agenda to allow drugs into the country. Because, by allowing these things to prosper, they can use these as an excuse to gain control over a populace of which they are scared, and to maintain that control, they must keep you ignorant and in fear of what they say is out there.. There also is a huge industry on which this depends. Most states operate from a functionalist perspective. Everything in society has a function that enables the state to maintain control. In this case the control is not about kids gaining access to pornography. That is a parental issue. By all means, the government ISPs can offer advice on how parents can prevent this from occurring but they don't. Like everything in the UK, they seek to outlaw it. Rather than look at the underlying causes and fix them.

Hell, I don't even like pornography. I like women and how they look, yes, I like having a wank, true, I don't like pornography but I hate censorship more.
In terms of freedom, this is far more serious. this is about controlling the information and your freedom online. First it will be "someone must think of the kids" then soon it will be anything that offers a form of dissent to the status quo. I would be very afraid.

 

[articul8]

Online pornography to be blocked automatically, PM to announce
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076


I wonder how they will define "depicting rape"..

And whether this will affect the bsdm community.

It's opening the door to criminalising consensual acts between adults - do we really government getting into this territory (again)?

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

Can we merge this with the other thread?

http://www.urban75.net/forums/threa...porn-in-starbucks.301984/page-4#post-12420103

 

[weltweit]

It's opening the door to criminalising consensual acts between adults - do we really government getting into this territory (again)?

No I don't think it is that, consenting adults will still be able to do whatever they want.

It is online images or video of simulated rape that he is trying to get made illegal.

 

[articul8]

what if they want to simulate a rape? That's not the same as actually carrying out a rape

 

[Puddy_Tat]

I think it really depends just what is blocked.

I would have few issues with more being done to block access to child porn / abuse (although isn't it illegal to view / host such stuff already? In which case isn't this an issue of enforcing existing laws rather than passing new laws to make it look as if they are doing something?)

But if they are going to impose an "adult filter" on the internet, then it's potentially going to block a heck of a lot more.

For example, anything with lesbian / gay related content (irrespective of whether there's anything blatantly sexual involved) is blocked by most such filters.

Anywhere with rational discussion of drugs is likely to be blocked.

I've worked somewhere it wasn't possible to get at the National Express website from the office because their filter noticed it offered "adult fares"

 

[weltweit]

what if they want to simulate a rape? That's not the same as actually carrying out a rape

Consenting adults can do that, nothing to do with government.

But they won't be able to film it and publish it on the net.

 

[articul8]

So the government has set itself up of the arbiter of what acts between consenting adults we can and can't see? By this logic you could, say, ban all gay porn from the internet.

 

[weltweit]

So the government has set itself up of the arbiter of what acts between consenting adults we can and can't see?

Yes, they are trying to do that which may or may not be wise. Apparently there is some law about rape images already but it did not cover simulated rape on the internet which is why they are wanting to change the law. But what effect will this have on people like the bsdm community where consenting adults are involved I have no idea.

Extreme pornography was apparently already made illegal, (listening to R4 now) but what that means, and if it has had any effect I have no idea about.

By this logic you could, say, ban all gay porn from the internet.

Why, surely gay porn has little to do with rape?

 

[kittyP]

As others have said, it's mealy mouthed bull shit.

Government say "won't somebody think of the children".
The people think "yes, children need to be protected, this is a good thing".
No body involved has any ideas about how this kind of thing actually works.
Essentially government just try and clamp down on all people's rights.

If it was that easy for search engine and Internet providers to stop child porn, don't you think it would already be happening.

 

[Pickman's model]

weltweit no gay porn has anything to do with rape?

 

[Boris Sprinkler]

No I don't think it is that, consenting adults will still be able to do whatever they want.

It is online images or video of simulated rape that he is trying to get made illegal.

remember they also banned " extreme pornography" and if you look at the wording of what constitutes extreme pornography you will find the wording heavily laden with emotive words, meaning that prosecution on this will be subjective to whoever is making that judgement.
Like most legislation it is absolutely fucking bollocks.
For example, google image search "Leda and the swan", that is ok.
Now google image search "goatse". Congratulations you just broke the law.


http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an02

 

[Pickman's model]

what if they want to simulate a rape? That's not the same as actually carrying out a rape

Yeh like if someone wants to simulate being a socialist, it's not the same as being a socialist

 

[articul8]

Why, surely gay porn has little to do with rape?

of course not, but the logic of saying "it's ok behind closed doors but no-one else must see" has been used to police homosexuality

 

[seeformiles]

That's Scunthorpe fucked again then.

Penistone will find itself out in the cold as well...

 

[weltweit]

remember they also banned " extreme pornography" and if you look at the wording of what constitutes extreme pornography you will find the wording heavily laden with emotive words, meaning that prosecution on this will be subjective to whoever is making that judgement.

I can imagine, I wonder what they defined as "extreme porn" but tbh I can't be bothered to look it up.

Like most legislation it is absolutely fucking bollocks.
For example, google image search "Leda and the swan", that is ok.
Now google image search "goatse". Congratulations you just broke the law.
http://www.cps.gov.uk/legal/d_to_g/extreme_pornography/#an02

I don't even know what goatse is supposed to mean.

 

[articul8]

Yeh like if someone wants to simulate being a socialist, it's not the same as being a socialist

You evidently struggle to simulate being a wit

 

[peterkro]

He is a sleazy bastard par exultance,this quote reveals what he is up to "sub-contracted someone from GCHQ to work in my office to help us understand how best to use the technology to stop this" .Now he hasn't the brains to attempt to justify the spying on everyone by linking it to child porn but at least one of his "advisors" has.

 

[weltweit]

of course not, but the logic of saying "it's ok behind closed doors but no-one else must see" has been used to police homosexuality

Oh, ok ..

I think sticking to the mantra "consenting adults" is wise.

And that it is the responsibility of parents to police what their kids are watching on the internet although that can be difficult. Perhaps for some filters may help.

I wonder how many households will leave the proposed filters on and how many will switch them off.

 

[pissflaps]

thin end of the wedge innit. Sure, everyone wants kiddy filth off the internet, you'd be mad/sick not to. Problem is we'll have people who object to any sort of censorship being labelled 'pedo enablers' because that's the level of debate you open up when you kick-off off with such an emotive issue.

On the wider issue of only gaining access to teh pr0nz being on an 'opt in' basis, what the govt are effectively doing is forcing people who don't want to be censored for whatever reasons they might have, to submit to being on some sort of de facto perverts watchlist, regardless of your attitudes about censorship or how you choose to LEGALLY get your rocks off.

Laws enacted on the basis of morality are a terrible fucking idea. Whos fucking morality? David Cameron's? Fuck that and fuck him.

 

[articul8]

That's why I don't see the need for this "simulated rape" stuff - if it's rape, it's a crime. If it's simulated by consent, it's not rape

 

[weltweit]

That's why I don't see the need for this "simulated rape" stuff - if it's rape, it's a crime. If it's simulated by consent, it's not rape

I think the thinking is that even watching simulated consensual rape encourages actual rape and or sexual violence in the real world.

 

[Puddy_Tat]

David Cameron's? Fuck that and fuck him.

would that constitute extreme porn?

 

[pissflaps]

Does his new moral crusade include shitcanning page 3 girls and similar acceptable faces of objectification?

 

[pissflaps]

would that constitute extreme porn?

/unzips

 

[articul8]

I think the thinking is that even watching simulated consensual rape encourages actual rape and or sexual violence in the real world.

assume so, but is there any evidence for this? And wouldn't it be better to deal with this by being open with teenagers about importance of consent, damaging impact of sexual violence and importance of recognising fantasy as just that?