Pornography to be blocked by Default in the UK

[GGG]

I don't mind this legislation.

Its a lot like googles Image search. It defaults to no adult content. You just get it turned on and you are done.

I do agree that the future impact of actually filtering and banning content is a potential problem but I hate not doing things because of slippery slope arguments.

The overall inconvenience to people is low (one Phone call) and giving people a tool to restrict what comes into their home at the provider level is a good thing.

[OffsideSpecialist]

If this type of legislation exists, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Let the concerned parents call mommy and daddy in London to help protect them from their own computers.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

I don't mind this legislation.

Its a lot like googles Image search. It defaults to no adult content. You just get it turned on and you are done.

I do agree that the future impact of actually filtering and banning content is a potential problem but I hate not doing things because of slippery slope arguments.

The overall inconvenience to people is low (one Phone call) and giving people a tool to restrict what comes into their home at the provider level is a good thing.

I haven't decided where I am on the argument, but why have it turned on by default?

Why not make it off by default but rather legislate that users have the option to turn it on with one phone call?

EDIT: Beaten

[Rathji]

Originally Posted by OffsideSpecialist

If this type of legislation exists, it should be opt-in rather than opt-out. Let the concerned parents call mommy and daddy in London to help protect them from their own computers.

I think having an ISP offer this service would be great, have it be opt-in or opt-out, whatever the market decides that it prefers. I don't know that I think the government should be involved, except for mandating certain things that get blocked, like child porn.

[Daradon]

I think like a lot of ideas, it's good (and noble) in purpose, but a huge problem in practice.

As mentioned there are many problems, the first being, who decides if it is porn, and what falls into that category. That is a huge free speech concern people should be concerned about.

Secondly, more to further the point, the state should not be acting as morality police. That is a huge slippery slope. Again, in theory it sounds great. I wouldn't want my kids exposed to things like that at an early age, but once you get into teen years things get murky. I knew some parents that bought their sons magazines ala that scene in American Pie. Parents should be responsible for their kids, not the state. And of course, that only considers this one case. Once you get the state involved in policing morality, bad things happen.

Three, it probably will turn into a pay for service model as many people have mentioned, whichI guess isn't a horrible thing, but it's been proven that people push against it against when it comes to the internet, and even that it doesn't really work on the internet. There's always work arounds, companies and customers ready to fill a vacuum etc.

I love the idea above me by Offside Specialist. Instead of a default setting, have an opt in service. No charge.

[troutman]

Originally Posted by Bobblehead

Who decides what is porn? Is it just video or pictures too? How about stories? And how will they filter it - will there be a huge ministry doing nothing beyond checking out sites to see if they are porn? What if a non-porn forum has a user that posts something deemed pornographic - does the whole site get blocked? Can the ruling be challenged?

This is set to be a massive boondoggle. It may sound good but the practical application will be problematic at best.

Calling it "Erotica" makes it OK.

[Azure]

Originally Posted by Locke

Why do people think government legislation is the answer?

"Porn is bad for our kids.....hopefully the Government can do something about it!!"

Thats the craziest logic I've ever heard. This is going to be ridiculous to legislate.

Not to mention that the UK government has a history of wrongful legislation. We are talking about the same government that came up with false evidence in order to invade Iraq. Why should anyone trust them now?

[GGG]

Originally Posted by Daradon

I think like a lot of ideas, it's good (and noble) in purpose, but a huge problem in practice.

As mentioned there are many problems, the first being, who decides if it is porn, and what falls into that category. That is a huge free speech concern people should be concerned about.

Secondly, more to further the point, the state should not be acting as morality police. That is a huge slippery slope. Again, in theory it sounds great. I wouldn't want my kids exposed to things like that at an early age, but once you get into teen years things get murky. I knew some parents that bought their sons magazines ala that scene in American Pie. Parents should be responsible for their kids, not the state. And of course, that only considers this one case. Once you get the state involved in policing morality, bad things happen.

Three, it probably will turn into a pay for service model as many people have mentioned, whichI guess isn't a horrible thing, but it's been proven that people push against it against when it comes to the internet, and even that it doesn't really work on the internet. There's always work arounds, companies and customers ready to fill a vacuum etc.

I love the idea above me by Offside Specialist. Instead of a default setting, have an opt in service. No charge.

I dont really care if it is opt out or opt in. I think legislation that the IP has to provide a no cost option (or hidden costs shared over all users) is a good idea.

To those against this do you have an issue with the google image search settings? They are on by default and require the user to turn them off and if they wanted to tey could try to monitize the feature.

[SebC]

Originally Posted by GGG

I dont really care if it is opt out or opt in. I think legislation that the IP has to provide a no cost option (or hidden costs shared over all users) is a good idea.

To those against this do you have an issue with the google image search settings? They are on by default and require the user to turn them off and if they wanted to tey could try to monitize the feature.

- What makes you think it'll be no cost? It will cost the ISPs to implement it and that cost will affect consumers.

- GIS is a bit different because you can turn it off anonymously. You can't make an anonymous call to your ISP and ask them to turn on your porn.

[gargamel]

Originally Posted by GGG

To those against this do you have an issue with the google image search settings? They are on by default and require the user to turn them off and if they wanted to tey could try to monitize the feature.

Google is a business that can be as restrictive as they want to be. If they decided to stop giving me porn, I'd just Ask Jeeves for it. When it's the government that is making value judgments about content, it's much more objectionable.

[jofillips]

very very weird of Cameron - Britain has been a nanny state since Blair got in power in '97, though this has the added morality of the conservatives at their (we know better than you) worst...

My guess is political - being seen as a family man will probably help him in the long run get rid of the liberal coalition in the next election.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by gargamel

Google is a business that can be as restrictive as they want to be. If they decided to stop giving me porn, I'd just Ask Jeeves for it. When it's the government that is making value judgments about content, it's much more objectionable.

But they arent making a value judgment for you. They are forcing ISPs to provide a choice. Really this is no different then the government saying you need to be 18 to buy beer. They force you to go to a special store to buy it, make a value judgement on how alcohol is consumed, and the purpose of it is to restrict access from children.

[PsYcNeT]

Originally Posted by GGG

But they arent making a value judgment for you. They are forcing ISPs to provide a choice. Really this is no different then the government saying you need to be 18 to buy beer. They force you to go to a special store to buy it, make a value judgement on how alcohol is consumed, and the purpose of it is to restrict access from children.

Except it won't cost hundreds of millions in infrastructure upgrades to facilitate a minimum age limit for a physical product, just education of vendors and a few hundred thousand in POS displays.

It's not very conservative to suggest that the internet can be treated like a light switch, or a faucet. Disabling a list of content over the entire internet is no small task, not to mention the costs of establishing a dept to oversee and continuously monitor the effort.

[GGG]

Originally Posted by PsYcNeT

Except it won't cost hundreds of millions in infrastructure upgrades to facilitate a minimum age limit for a physical product, just education of vendors and a few hundred thousand in POS displays.

It's not very conservative to suggest that the internet can be treated like a light switch, or a faucet. Disabling a list of content over the entire internet is no small task, not to mention the costs of establishing a dept to oversee and continuously monitor the effort.

Establishing liquor stores created crown corps in several provinces and created a whole industry in alberta so it definately was costly. Pornograpgy is also restricted in physical stores so its not like this restriction on morality doesnt exist.

If your arguement is a cost thing then its a valid arguement but the main arguement has been against the government deciding morality. The government has always done this and does this with the exact type of media outside of the internet. So I think the arguement that his is a new intrusion by the government is false.

[Bill Bumface]

Seems right for a country littered with photo radar and average speed cameras (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SPECS_(speed_camera)).

[Barnet Flame]

Originally Posted by jofillips

very very weird of Cameron - Britain has been a nanny state since Blair got in power in '97, though this has the added morality of the conservatives at their (we know better than you) worst...

My guess is political - being seen as a family man will probably help him in the long run get rid of the liberal coalition in the next election.

I laugh when people accuse the Centre-left of creating a nanny state when it always seems to be the Right that intrudes on how I live my life.

[OffsideSpecialist]

Looks like at least one Canadian Conservative MP is on the bandwagon:

http://www.thestar.com/news/world/20...porn_bock.html

[FlameOn]

Hm... it looks like BBC has been doing some sleuthing and discovered that the pornography filter is developed by Huawei; a company linked to the management of China's internet filtering/censorship system. Great Firewall of UK anyone?
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23452097

[Rathji]

Makes sense, that's really the only techinical solution that would work (kind of).

[jofillips]

I love how this argument goes from no pornography to the KGB/gestapo/the man seemingly about to take control of Britain....
You do know the RCMP has the best call/cell phone monitoring systems in the world right? That other countries (including the UK) are begging to use....