London calling for Porn Clampdown

[GostHacked]

Yes, there is a slippery slope to government regulation/censorship limiting free speech, etc... and as a guideline it should be avoided, but this does not mean we should not do it at all.

As an adult, I should have the free ability to look at any legal content I desire. The illegal stuff, by all means crack down on it, no issues with that at all.

But in the end parents need to be parents. The government always likes to use the bit about 'protecting the children' in order for more restrictions on the media we use.

Porn is so pervasive on the Internet, clamping down on it would be a very daunting task. But can be done.

For example, are you in favour of:

- the ban on cigarette advertizing, or even having the product visible in stores?

- rules against false claims on packaging or false advertizing?

- the ban on easily accessible pornography on TV, libraries, newsstands?

The ban on cigarette advertising kind of makes sense to me. But since alcohol is not treated the same way, in the end I do not really think it is a good idea. We know the smokes are there, and the tobacco companies are not hurting at all from an advertising ban. The addiction keeps them coming back.

False claims and false advertising should be banned. If one needs need to lie to me in order for me to buy their product, I'll have to question the integrity of the company .. and the product.

Banning it on TV does not make sense either. However much easier to control the content on TV than on the Internet.

Libraries are public spaces, and well not viewing porn at the library seems to just make sense. Do it at home in private. And for newsstands, the porn mags are high up and out of reach of kids. I've been kicked out of a small corner store one time being underage and lookin at the mags, store owner did the right thing.

and should have limited/restricted access to:

- weapons like knives, sling shots, bb guns

- spray paint

- mild violence and pornography

- too much advertizing

Weapons can kill. Can pornography?

Spray pain has very hazardous chemicals. Don't be a fool, read the label.

Mild violence? Ever watch TV these days? Getting more that just a little violent.

Advertizing ... we are BOMBARDED with it. I quit cable TV mainly because of advertising.

In principle, I am in favour of this move. Will it be perfect? No, similar to the current restrictions. But it will be an improvement. Parents cannot be expected to monitor kids 24/7 and need help from the state – for example, without this measure, how would you restrict access to pornography over public Wi-fi?

Depends if you are paying to access the public wifi. If not, then one cannot bitch about what content is blocked. And yes kids cannot be monitored 24/7 but if you are not going to at least talk to your children about this then why even bother being a parent?

It starts with the parent. Nothing the government can do will replace that, regardless of how hard the state really wants to be the parent. We can get into the child kidnapping that the UK government is facilitating through entities like child protection services.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2128987/Children-stolen-state.html

Evidence is accumulating on all sides to show that far too many children are now being removed from their parents wholly unnecessarily, often for laughably inadequate, even absurd, reasons.

No one could object if the rise in the number of families being torn apart was simply due to the increased determination of our social workers to intervene in situations likely to lead to another Baby P tragedy.

But the fact is, happy children are today being snatched from loving parents for reasons they cannot begin to fathom, leaving all concerned in a state of utter misery. And this can constitute a tragedy in its own way scarcely less heart-rending than those where a child has been genuinely abused.

So when the government says they want to protect the children, please forgive me if I don't believe them.

[dre]

Yes, you can block at home. OK, how about public Wi-fi, perhaps I am wrong but there is no way to stop someone from using a tablet to view porn? How about on kid in a group that has easy access and sharing downloaded porn with peers? How about downloading "cracks" and bypasses for the content filters?

I am not hung-up on boobies. If anything, perhaps we should give easier access of erotica/boobies to teenagers. It is 9-17 year olds viewing people getting ganged up on, humiliated, tortured and abused. Don't you see this as a problem?

Children will be able to share files regardless of any filter, and they would be able to use proxies to circumvent them completely as well.

It is 9-17 year olds viewing people getting ganged up on, humiliated, tortured and abused. Don't you see this as a problem?

I think the wierd hangups that adults have about kids and sex is really more a problem with adults. Im a father of two, and I use a basic blacklist to control internet access, so no... its not a problem.

What WOULD be a problem is my ISP arbitrarily blocking large swaths of the internet in violation of my contract with them.

Like I said... this is a bad idea that should go nowhere at all.

[The_Squid]

As an adult, I should have the free ability to look at any legal content I desire.

Needing to opt in with the ISP wouldn't change the fact that you can do this. No different than now, if you opt in. Which shouldn't be such a big deal.

[GostHacked]

Needing to opt in with the ISP wouldn't change the fact that you can do this. No different than now, if you opt in. Which shouldn't be such a big deal.

No. I want the ability to opt OUT if I chose. I don't need anyone else deciding what I want to view. I should also not need to ask my ISP if I can get the sexy stuff. What else would they want to filter out, then asking me to opt in?

[The_Squid]

I don't need anyone else deciding what I want to view.

No one is doing that. Stop the needless exaggeration of what is being proposed.

[Bryan]

I wonder if the concern can be dealt with in a more privacy respecting manner by simply legislating that computers have to be shipped in "safe search mode", and that the owner must use his/her admin password to change it like you would any other security setting?

[dre]

Needing to opt in with the ISP wouldn't change the fact that you can do this. No different than now, if you opt in. Which shouldn't be such a big deal.

Then it shouldnt be a big deal for people that WANT this new service to phone and order it.

This whole way of thinking is ass backwards. A new service is being proposed that only a few people would be interested in... that is... people with kids under the age of about 15, that allow their children to have unsupervised internet access. The rest of us already HAVE contracts with our ISP that allows us to access the internet... If somebody wants their connection to include filters that block most of the content out there then THEY should order that service, and THEY should bear the cost of filtering out petabytes of content, and keep tracking of zillions of sites that have so much as a jpeg that might offend their poor kids.

[GostHacked]

No one is doing that. Stop the needless exaggeration of what is being proposed.

Not really an exaggeration. Someone else does not want to view the material, so that means by default I (along with millions of others) who have to call in to opt in.

For the few that would be affected by this, you have to ask what the parenting the parents are doing. A small number want this service, but the majority will be affected. That's not exactly fair.

[carepov]

OK, I am somewhat convinced that that the current home internet service is not a problem, and the status quo should be OK where parents can block.

What about public Wi-fi? Can anyone sit outside a McDonald's with a tablet and view anything or should there be restrictions public Wi-fi?

[Boges]

What about public Wi-fi? Can anyone sit outside a McDonald's with a tablet and view anything or should there be restrictions public Wi-fi?

Don't you think Public Wifi at businesses don't already have porn firewalls? I'm sure the last thing businesses want is to have people viewing porn while sipping a coffee at their establishment.

It was news recently that the Tim Hortons Wifi had to apologize for blocking a Gay News website. I doubt it was malicious homophobia. It was likely just due to an overzealous firewall.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/07/19/tim_hortons_blocks_customers_wifi_access_to_gay_news_website.html

Which also begs the question, if you try to block all porn sites, how many legitimate sites might get blocked due to some risky, non-porn, content?

Edited July 29, 2013 by Boges

[GostHacked]

Don't you think Public Wifi at businesses don't already have porn firewalls? I'm sure the last thing businesses want is to have people viewing porn while sipping a coffee at their establishment.

It was news recently that the Tim Hortons Wifi had to apologize for blocking a Gay News website. I doubt it was malicious homophobia. It was likely just due to an overzealous firewall.

http://www.thestar.com/news/gta/2013/07/19/tim_hortons_blocks_customers_wifi_access_to_gay_news_website.html

Which also begs the question, if you try to block all porn sites, how many legitimate sites might get blocked due to some risky, non-porn, content?

IF you are using some public wifi from a place like Tim Horton's, in my view there is no reason to complain about porn being filtered out. It is a business and a private place open to the public. The owner of that internet connection can do what they want and block what they want. If you are getting free wifi, there should be no complaints about what is and what is not blocked. However in a place like a hotel where you are paying for the service (in most cases part of renting the room), then nothing should be blocked.

Public wifi, well I guess that depends on who is paying for it. Tax dollars paying for it? Then nothing should be blocked.

Your home connection should only have items blocked if YOU ask to have them blocked.

[guyser]

However in a place like a hotel where you are paying for the service (in most cases part of renting the room), then nothing should be blocked.

I know your point but reality is the hotel would/does (?) want to block any porn sites to satisfy their supplier, not sure if it is AT&T or not, but however it is, amybe TIME WARNER are the biggest purveyors of porn on this continent.

So a hotel has a vested interest to block plenty so they can reap the profits. Edited July 29, 2013 by Guyser2

[carepov]

Don't you think Public Wifi at businesses don't already have porn firewalls? I'm sure the last thing businesses want is to have people viewing porn while sipping a coffee at their establishment.

I don't know, I suppose that some businesses would restrict and some would not.

Is Shaw Open Wi-fi restricted?

Which also begs the question, if you try to block all porn sites, how many legitimate sites might get blocked due to some risky, non-porn, content?

I'm sure this happens at the library or universities already.

Isn't it like restricting alcohol/cig sales to minors? How many 18-30 year olds forget their ID and get refused their purchase? Should we then allow liquor sales to children because it's the parent's job to parent? It's same with spray paint (in order to reduce graffiti).

Edited July 29, 2013 by carepov

[Boges]

Isn't it like restricting alcohol/cig sales to minors? How many 18-30 year olds forget their ID and get refused their purchase? Should we then allow liquor sales to children because it's the parent's job to parent? It's same with spray paint (in order to reduce graffiti).

You can't compare someone trying to buy alcohol but forgets their ID to a legit "non porn" website being blocked by a porn filter. Well you can but it's not an equal comparison.

There are many Wifi hotspots for cable providers but you have to prove that you subscribe to that service.

[GostHacked]

I know your point but reality is the hotel would/does (?) want to block any porn sites to satisfy their supplier, not sure if it is AT&T or not, but however it is, amybe TIME WARNER are the biggest purveyors of porn on this continent.

Satisfy their supplier? The hotel pays for the access, the hotel would set up restrictions if it warrants it. If you are satisfying the ISP by restricting content, I'd switch providers.

Time Warner is not purveyor of porn. IF you are looking at hosting, and it's on the Time Warner network, then YOU are the purveyor of porn and not TW.

So a hotel has a vested interest to block plenty so they can reap the profits.

How does a hotel reap a profit by blocking material that is free in many cases and user-subscribed for many others? The hotel makes nothing off the connection aside from either charging you a daily access fee.

[Boges]

How does a hotel reap a profit by blocking material that is free in many cases and user-subscribed for many others? The hotel makes nothing off the connection aside from either charging you a daily access fee.

Because, I guess, they want people to use their pay-per-view porn.

Not one hotel I've been to in the past several years has ever made their pay-per-view services a big deal.

It's much more important to have free wifi. I actually probably wouldn't stay at a hotel that doesn't have free wifi.

[GostHacked]

Because, I guess, they want people to use their pay-per-view porn.

I completely forgot about that. I think I used that service maybe twice in my life!

Not one hotel I've been to in the past several years has ever made their pay-per-view services a big deal.

Not something that is usually part of their advertisements. Come to our hotel where the porn is GOOD!!!

It's much more important to have free wifi. I actually probably wouldn't stay at a hotel that doesn't have free wifi.

True, although in the majority of cases for me, I am traveling for business. Just needs to be expensed!

[carepov]

There are many Wifi hotspots for cable providers but you have to prove that you subscribe to that service.

Let's say: I subscribe to the service, my child has an e-mail account, and we block porn at home. Can my kid take a tablet and surf porn at a wifi hotspot?

[Boges]

Let's say: I subscribe to the service, my child has an e-mail account, and we block porn at home. Can my kid take a tablet and surf porn at a wifi hotspot?

I would imagine you would have to have a password to access it. There's one safeguard. If you're worried about your child viewing porn you could put a firewall on the device. There's a second.

Also for free wifi from big corporations, you usually have to sign up and click on a waiver. So somewhere in there, I'm sure, it deals with "inappropriate" content.

[GostHacked]

Let's say: I subscribe to the service, my child has an e-mail account, and we block porn at home. Can my kid take a tablet and surf porn at a wifi hotspot?

You'd have to set up the device to block the material. When using public wifi the restrictions will not be the same as you have them set up at home.

[guyser]

Satisfy their supplier?

Sure, but the point was they all want to make some cash. Porn, which at one point was 85% of all entertainment options via the small screen in hotel rooms was/is a huge cash cow.

Time Warner is not purveyor of porn.

It may be them or some other well known company that most people never aligned porn with, however, purveyor is the correct term.

How does a hotel reap a profit by blocking material that is free in many cases and user-subscribed for many others? The hotel makes nothing off the connection aside from either charging you a daily access fee.

The daily access fee isnt as much as one $14 porn film....not to mention the guy may want another one in oh say....maybe 10 minutes?

Mitt Romney resigned from the board of Marriott due in part to the porn films they had available.

Hundreds and hundreds of millions of dollars have been made by hotels renting porn movies.

Some of this may be old news, it appears JW Marriott have dropped the porn films, but they make up for it on the wi fi charge

[guyser]

Can my kid take a tablet and surf porn at a wifi hotspot?

If he goes to a strip club, probably not...but then why would they have wi fi.

Ok so maybe if he goes somewhere shady I guess he could.

[carepov]

You'd have to set up the device to block the material. When using public wifi the restrictions will not be the same as you have them set up at home.

It is easy to restrict the device?

Is it easy for the child to get around the device restrictions?

[carepov]

If he goes to a strip club, probably not...but then why would they have wi fi.

This inspired me to make another good point.

Why do we restrict access to strippers for children? Surely watching strippers are harmless relative to most internet pornography?

[Boges]

This inspired me to make another good point.

Why do we restrict access to strippers for children? Surely watching strippers are harmless relative to most internet pornography?

Alcohol consumption being one reason. Why do Dance Clubs minimum ages?

Most of these sites have a button saying you have to be 18 to view their content. Of course there's absolutely no way to prove or disprove your age so that's just a legal thing.

The internet is a whole new world when it comes to access to content. There are ways to view gruesome violence that'd you'd have to be 18 plus to see in a movie on the internet if you really want to see it.

Hate Speech is illegal in Canada but I'm sure you can find hate speech anytime you want on the interwebs.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Boges