Urban75 Home About Offline BrixtonBuzz Contact

David Cameron urges internet firms to block child abuse images

Bernie Gunther said:
Like the "war on rugs", I doubt the point is to actually be successful.
Click to expand...

AfghanWarRugNo.c35ParatroopversionAk-74SOLD-large.jpg


:confused:
 
Boris Sprinkler said:
Well done daily mail and David Cameron.

This should be exactly like the war on drugs ( I am old enough to remember that). Before that war, there literally drugs everywhere, lying on park benches, smack trees in people's gardens, some trains were entirely made of drugs. But they changed all that literally herded up all the drugs and shot it off a cliff. Even shops selling rugs had to change their name to indicate it was carpets they meant.

But now of course, you cannot buy a drug anyway so I guess it worked. This will probably be the same.

I hope Cameron knows that google indexes about 0.05 % of the Internet. So this gesture is the equivalent of throwing a cork at the Niagara Falls in order to stop it.
If he had any balls of a man ( no pun) he could start addressing problems at root cause. Instead of banning something he doesnt understand why not addressing why pornography objectifies women and presents them as a commodity. Maybe he could do something about the objectification of women in wider society and their role therein. Not just pornography, but you know from school to employment, to the grave. Equal rights. And the same with advertising. Ban it there if you mean what you say.


Also I hope, that at some point the British people do get fed up with being spied on , lied to and generally treated like serfs. But I doubt it.
Click to expand...
 
Now what would be most amusing and quite possible is if various Tory MPs were now outed by employees of their ISPs and splashed all over the tabloids for having bizzare tastes in online porn. :D

These moralistic drives sometimes throw up such oddities, can you remember Major's family values when he was busy bonking Edwina Curry. And the lib dems, well they needn't have had a crusade, Oaten et al were just asking to be "outed"! :eek:
 
weltweit said:
I can understand the urge to purge the internet from child porn materials,
Click to expand...


But they are doing none of that, Cameron is just pulling a big thick curtain over it. No interest on how, where and by who this material is produced, on finding or prosecuting real criminals for comitting real crime, or to protect the children from actual abuse. Of course, putting a pop up saying "watching this material might make you lose your job and your family" is so much easier and cheaper than a criminal investigation.

And speaking of those proposed warning pop-ups. That's going to be be as effective a deterrent, as warning people that they'll grow hair on the palms of their hands if they wank.
 
Jackobi said:
It is already happening, which is why the Internet Watch Foundation exists, to compile a blacklist which the (BT) Cleanfeed system utilises, and the majority (near 100%) of UK ISPs implement Cleanfeed 'voluntarily'. The IWF's original remit was to focus on blocking child sexual abuse images, but it expanded to include 'content that incites racial hatred', and more recently copyright infringing content, Pirate Bay, Newzbin etc.

Although IWF do not compile lists of copyright infringers, as they do with other remits, they are added to the IWF blacklist which is distributed to ISPs. The technical effect of Cleanfeed sanitises internet content in the UK, and subsequently search engine results.
Click to expand...


Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to imply nothing was being done about it at all.
People get busted so it must be.
 
peterkro said:
Yes,I'm not about to try looking for child porn sites to see if they are blocked and Newsbin2 has shut down probably because of this.
Click to expand...

Newzbin2 was censored in the UK by media companies to try and protect their revenue. BT tried to appeal the order by claiming that having to add URLs to Cleanfeed would adversely affect the network.
____________________

1) Twentieth Century Fox Film Corporation - Applicants
(2) Universal City Studios Productions LLLP
(3) Warner Bros. Entertainment INC
(4) Paramount Pictures Corporation
(5) Disney Enterprises INC
(6) Columbia Pictures Industries INC.
-v -
British Telecommunications PLC - Respondent


Temporary shutdown
    1. BT also requests the inclusion in the order of the following provision:
"In the event that [BT] forms the reasonable view that for operational reasons relating either to the stability of its system or the functioning of the Cleanfeed system in respect of the IWF watch list it needs to shut down either Cleanfeed itself or the addition to the Cleanfeed system of IP addresses pursuant to [this order] on a temporary basis, [BT] shall not be in breach of this order by such shutting down provided that it applies to the Court as soon as is reasonably practicable but at any rate within 72 hours of such shutting down with an explanation as to why such action was necessary and the duration thereof."​

    1. The Studios resist this.
    1. I am not persuaded by BT's evidence that such a provision is necessary. For example, BT's evidence does not say that it regularly, or even occasionally, has problems with Cleanfeed which require BT temporarily to shut it down. Nor am I persuaded that BT's suggested approach of shut down first and explain to the court later is appropriate.
  1. Instead, I will provide that BT will not be in breach of the order if it temporarily suspends the operation of either Cleanfeed or the addition of IP addresses or URLs with the written consent of the Studios or their agents. If such consent is not forthcoming, BT will have permission to apply to the court on notice. In cases of urgency, an application may be made on short (and informal) notice. For the avoidance of doubt, in cases of real urgency, BT will be entitled to apply to the court without seeking the Studios' consent first.
http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/marku...h/2011/2714.html&query=Newzbin&method=boolean

____________________

Notice the last paragraph, BT are now required to obtain the Studios' consent, or a court order, to suspend the operation of Cleanfeed. The enforcment of the child sexual abuse images and incitement to racial hatred parts of the IWF watch list are optional for ISPs, although most participate, but the blocking of the copyright infringers' part of the IWF list, such as Newzbin2, is legally enforceable.
 
This simulated rape thing.

Are people really more likely to actually rape or do sexual violence because they have watched simulated rape?

I mean the most popular films in most genres are about war and warfare yet normal people on the street don't go out attacking each other because they have been watching war films.
 
I don't get it. Surely child porn is already blocked by google? And a nonce who tried to look child porn up on google would be a fucking idiot and get caught straight away anyway.

Then again it's not about noncery is it?
 
frogwoman said:
Then again it's not about noncery is it?
Click to expand...
I think it is about looking tough on crime.
Looking tough on child abuse.
And looking tough on child protection.

Perhaps they have had some research that voters will like this, I believe they (the tories) are doing better in the polls than they have for a long time, perhaps this is Lynton's idea
 
weltweit said:
This simulated rape thing.

Are people really more likely to actually rape or do sexual violence because they have watched simulated rape?
Click to expand...

No, I don't think this is any different to the argument that listening to rock music leads to satanism and school shootings, or watching horror movies and computer games leads to children who kill.

In fact it could be argued that simulated rape could actually prevent people from committing the real act of rape. They get their gratification from the porn so don't need to act out their fantasies.
 
The bit I liked that was in the news yesterday, but seems to have been dropped today, was that this issue could be fixed by a 'hackathon'.

A few years ago I was involved in a six figure central govt IT project, and some people in the upper levels of government genuinely wondered why they needed to spend hundreds of thousands on developers to build what was a hugely complicated online platform. 'Could they', they wondered, 'just get a bunch of developers in a room for a weekend and buy them lots of pizza' in order to build the same thing.

It seems this nonsensical attitude is still kicking around somewhere in Whitehall.
 
"do you want to watch bangkok chickboys? yes or no?"

hope they tell me how to angle the mirror in the bathroom.:hmm:
 
salem said:
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.
Click to expand...

And of course if anyone challenges it in the european court, then that's another reason we have to leave it. :facepalm:
 
weltweit said:
This simulated rape thing.

Are people really more likely to actually rape or do sexual violence because they have watched simulated rape?
.
Click to expand...
Because there wasn't such a thing as rape or child abuse before the Internet.

Because treating women and children as people in their own right, not as chattels or property, has nothing to do with education, women's rights, etc. the only way to stop people from wanting to rape is is by telling them that they might lose their jobs.
 
Puddy_Tat said:
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.
Click to expand...

this is exactly whats happened you only need look at what happened when Yahoo! Banned! Porn! From! Tumblr! Rendering! It! Useless!

http://www.thegloss.com/2013/07/22/...estroys-tumblr-ban-gay-lesbian-bisexual-tags/

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/07/19/smut_lovers_in_dirty_protest_over_tumblr_pornageddon/

thus ruining all sex blogs on it, or gay blogs or around 50% of their content...
 
weltweit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Lots. It will in effect criminalise perfectly legal activities between consenting adults.

weltweit said:
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.
Click to expand...

Again lots already been many convictions for it even when all parties confirmed consent.

weltweit said:
Why, surely gay porn has little to do with rape?
Click to expand...

No more than child porn and real porn...
 
BBC R4 on the news just said :

"David Cameron has announced plans to restrict online pornography unless people specifically request it"

What a strange thing to say. I never just happen across online pornography, if I want to see it I have to specifically go looking for it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

Jeff Robinson
Thread to document institutional animal abuse
2
Replies
52
Views
2K
bcuster
bcuster
Humberto
David Cameron is a walking disaster. And war criminal.
Replies
12
Views
753
Mation
Mation
Kid_Eternity
David Lammy’s time is up
Replies
11
Views
686
Whagwan
Whagwan
Pickman's model
david cameron's time is up again
3 4 5 6 7
Replies
190
Views
10K
brogdale
brogdale
PTK
Fire in Tower Block in Dagenham, London, Monday 26 August 2024.
Replies
27
Views
1K
moochedit
moochedit
Back
Top Bottom