London calling for Porn Clampdown

[GostHacked]

It is easy to restrict the device?

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

That would depend on the device. An item like a laptop running a Windows or MAC OS, sure, but that becomes a lot tougher when dealing with mobile devices like smartphones. I am sure it can be done, but it may take some learning on the parent to understand the technology being used.

Many kids these days are born with the tech in their hands. And I think it's a half/half situation. Some will know how to get around the restrictions and some will be to dumb to even figure it out.

[carepov]

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.

Sure, we will never stop access - but I am in favour of reasonable measures that will significantly reduce the amount of pornography that children view without significantly inconveniencing adults.

[The_Squid]

Sure, we will never stop access - but I am in favour of reasonable measures that will significantly reduce the amount of pornography that children view without significantly inconveniencing adults.

Well said. And this is exactly what these new guidelines for ISPs will do. It is no inconvenience at all.

It is not censorship...

It allows full access as ever...

It will help parents who do not know how to set up firewalls on their kids' smart phones, tablets, etc.

It is not a government program... unlike some paranoia, the government would have no more information on people than they already do. There is no government "porn watcher" database, unlike what some of the tinfoil-wearing people might claim.

It is no different than TV services where access to adult channels is restricted until you ask for it. That is a completely reasonable format to follow.

[GostHacked]

Well said. And this is exactly what these new guidelines for ISPs will do. It is no inconvenience at all.

It is not censorship...

I view it as a form of censorship if I need to opt in.

It allows full access as ever...

As long as I opt in.

It will help parents who do not know how to set up firewalls on their kids' smart phones, tablets, etc.

Then those parents need to learn about the technology they are using. If you want to block the porn, learn the tech and block it yourself. And with some of the newer technology the interfaces are easy to use so even a novice can accomplish the task.

If you don't want the porn, you are better off to talk to your ISP and have it done. And I know this is harsh, but if people suck at the Internet, then they should not be using it.

It is not a government program... unlike some paranoia, the government would have no more information on people than they already do. There is no government "porn watcher" database, unlike what some of the tinfoil-wearing people might claim.

It would be a government program because the government is implementing a law that would tell ISPs to block legal content then you have the 'opt in'.

It is no different than TV services where access to adult channels is restricted until you ask for it. That is a completely reasonable format to follow.

It is easier with cable TV and that has already had a long standing regulation. And even on that, you can set up a code on certain channels with your cable box to block adult content so the kids cannot view it. No different here with the Internet, you just need to educate yourself on how to use the technology to accomplish this task.

I do not want to be inconvenienced because someone is computer illiterate. Be a parent and do the right thing.

And it would still be practically impossible to block all the porn content even from the ISP level. Maybe lawsuits can happen if a kid is traumatized by looking at some porn that should have been blocked.

This is getting into a moral as well as a legal issue. The state is not the parent.

[The_Squid]

I view it as a form of censorship if I need to opt in.

OK... but it's not. The material is still there and you can have full access to it. Your definition does not fit the reality.

Then those parents need to learn about the technology they are using.

Not necessarily... Effective government regulation and control at the ISP level could be used, like they use in TV.

It would be a government program because the government is implementing a law...

Correct... they are implementing a law that ISPs will have to follow. That is not the same as instituting a government program where individuals go to the government for their porn access.

Again, you are redefining terms to suit your argument.

It is easier with cable TV and that has already had a long standing regulation.

This is not an argument against a new regulation that relates to the internet. Nor is the rest of your arguments against. Just because you find it inconvenient does not mean that it should not be done. I find speed limits inconvenient, but I realize the necessity that many people won't drive safely without them.

Because it is impossible to block everything is not an argument against doing something that will be mostly effective.

If lawsuits can happen in the future, then they can happen now... again, the slippery slope is not an argument against these new regulations.

Your stance is so full of logical fallacies that it is difficult to know where to start lining them up and shooting them down!

[GostHacked]

Your stance is so full of logical fallacies that it is difficult to know where to start lining them up and shooting them down!

Well start at the beginning and we shall take it from there. Challenge accepted.

[dre]

OK... but it's not. The material is still there and you can have full access to it. Your definition does not fit the reality.

Not necessarily... Effective government regulation and control at the ISP level could be used, like they use in TV.

Correct... they are implementing a law that ISPs will have to follow. That is not the same as instituting a government program where individuals go to the government for their porn access.

Again, you are redefining terms to suit your argument.

This is not an argument against a new regulation that relates to the internet. Nor is the rest of your arguments against. Just because you find it inconvenient does not mean that it should not be done. I find speed limits inconvenient, but I realize the necessity that many people won't drive safely without them.

Because it is impossible to block everything is not an argument against doing something that will be mostly effective.

If lawsuits can happen in the future, then they can happen now... again, the slippery slope is not an argument against these new regulations.

Your stance is so full of logical fallacies that it is difficult to know where to start lining them up and shooting them down!

Once again... why not have the relatively small number of households that would want this service OPT IN, instead of forcing everyone else to opt out. Its your position thats full of holes that why you keep refusing to answer these questions.

It is no different than TV services where access to adult channels is restricted until you ask for it. That is a completely reasonable format to follow.

Actually it couldnt be more different. TV is a structured offering thats completely locked down, and has a very small number of channels. The internet is a network with content coming from hundreds of millions of unlicensed peers.

The fact that TV is so locked down, and the content is so controlled is exactly WHY this is a totally unreasonable format to follow.

And again... this is just completely unnecessary. People who want this service can already go and buy it. And such software should be installed at the home network level where only people who want content blocking will take the performance hit, and the cost hit.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dre

[The_Squid]

Once again... why not have the relatively small number of households that would want this service OPT IN, instead of forcing everyone else to opt out. Its your position thats full of holes that why you keep refusing to answer these questions.

That's what will happen... do you have me confused with GH?

[Boges]

I can compare this to negative billings that got Canadian cable companies in trouble over a decade ago.

The difference is that it doesn't cost money, we'll upfront anyway. I'd imagine the cost of setting up a secure firewall and maintaining a list of those opting out will be passed onto the consumer somehow.

Edited July 29, 2013 by Boges

[The_Squid]

Well start at the beginning and we shall take it from there. Challenge accepted.

Already done....

[The_Squid]

I can compare this to negative billings that got Canadian cable companies in trouble over a decade ago.

The difference is that it doesn't cost money, we'll upfront anyway. I'd imagine the cost of setting up a secure firewall and maintaining a list of those opting out will be past onto the consumer somehow.

You can compare it to negative billing.... but it doesn't cost money! LOL So this is nothing like negative billing....

It certainly will cost something...

[Boges]

You can compare it to negative billing.... but it doesn't cost money! LOL So this is nothing like negative billing....

It certainly will cost something...

Negative billing was something you got without requesting, and the onus was on the consumer to opt out of the service. How hard is it to cancel cable channels? About as hard as it would be to cancel a firewall. People still fiercely objected to having to do it. Edited July 29, 2013 by Boges

[dre]

That's what will happen... do you have me confused with GH?

No it isnt. Whats been talked about is by default limiting the access of subscribers to a subset of the internet, and making people that want to access the entire thing to call and opt out.

Why would you do this? Why not take the minority of households and people that would want the net to filtered, and have THEM call and subscribe to it.

But even THAT is a stupid idea. It makes absolutely no sense to check incoming requests at the ISP level against a MASSIVE blacklist... and theres no reason to do it! Parents that are concerned about this can ALREADY PURCHASE THIS SOLUTION, and millions do including myself.

Whats being proposed here is a REALLY stupid way to tackle this problem.

[dre]

You can compare it to negative billing.... but it doesn't cost money! LOL So this is nothing like negative billing....

It certainly will cost something...

The costs will actually be huge... in order to do this in a comprehensive way you would need an army of human editors perpetually maintaining a gigantic blacklist, and subscribers would take a substancial hit from looking up every http request against this list. You would also need systems for sites that are incorrectly blacklisted to appeal the decisions etc.

Thats why IF an ISP wants to offer this as a service then people who want it should phone up, subscribe to it, and pay for it.

But again... its really stupid to tackle this at the ISP level at all. This is what happens when people who dont understand the internet and computer networks try to make laws regarding them.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dre

[dre]

Another reason this is so stupid, is because it focuses such a large endeavor on what is only one small part of the problem. It will stop stupid children that dont know what a proxy is from using pornography... thats IT.

A bigger danger for children online are forums with adult content where sexual predators lurk, hate sites etc.

Something like this.... http://www.netnanny.com/features/porn-blocking?pid=3&gclid=CPDrifvY1bgCFYETpAodsA4AbQ Makes a lot more sense.

It costs $40. So one has to wonder why we are even having this discussion.

Net Nanny^® is known worldwide as the leader in pornography blocking.

By using real-time web content filtering, Net Nanny^® scans a website for pornography and other mature content and blocks it or warns you about it, according to your preferences.

• Prevent accidental exposure to inappropriate images
  • Blocking pornography is important to prevent accidental exposure to inappropriate images. Net Nanny^® protects families, not just children.
  • Net Nanny^® gives you peace of mind knowing you are protecting your family with the best Internet safety tools available. In addition to pornography, Net Nanny detects hate sites, questionable chat rooms, and other dangers on the Internet.

[The_Squid]

Negative billing was something you got without requesting, and the onus was on the consumer to opt out of the service. How hard is it to cancel cable channels? About as hard as it would be to cancel a firewall. People still fiercely objected to having to do it.

You got charged for services that you never ordered! And this would be a service that you do opt in to... it's not even remotely the same! LOL

[dre]

You got charged for services that you never ordered! And this would be a service that you do opt in to... it's not even remotely the same! LOL

Theres already hundreds of ways for consumers to "opt in" to filtering services. If some parents wont spend 40 dollars and two clicks to protect their children by installing one of the many adult content filters out there, what makes you think they would call their ISP and purchase it from them?

Edited July 29, 2013 by dre

[The_Squid]

Theres already hundreds of ways for consumers to "opt in" to filtering services. If some parents wont spend 40 dollars and two clicks to protect their children by installing one of the many adult content filters out there, what makes you think they would call their ISP and purchase it from them?

Exactly... which is why, if you are interested in receiving adult content, it is a very simple process for you to opt in to that service. Just like TV.

[dre]

Exactly... which is why, if you are interested in receiving adult content, it is a very simple process for you to opt in to that service. Just like TV.

Adult content is not the service... content filtering is the costly service being proposed here... Adult content is just a part of the web.

Its people that want the new costly filtering service that should need to subscribe to it... and they are the ones that should bear the costs.

The rest of us already have a contract with our ISP's that includes access to all this material.

Its people who want a DIFFERENT service than what they have NOW, that should have to pick up the phone. Not people happy with the access they already have, and have paid for.

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dre

[The_Squid]

Not sure why this is so hard to understand.

It's not... but I disagree... the service is access to adult sites that will now be filtered at the ISP level. And this makes perfect sense to me.

You want things to stay as is... but porn is so pervasive on the web that it is a good idea to filter it out before it gets to a computer. Like porn on TV.

[dre]

It's not... but I disagree... the service is access to adult sites that will now be filtered at the ISP level. And this makes perfect sense to me.

You want things to stay as is... but porn is so pervasive on the web that it is a good idea to filter it out before it gets to a computer. Like porn on TV.

Its not a good idea its really bad idea that makes no technological sense, conceived of by people with "12:00" flashing on their VCR's.

The new service here is clear the filtering... buy it if you like. Adult content is just part of the web.

But like I said... consumers that want the filtering can already get it for forty bucks and its more effective at protecting children than this stupid idea.

An intelligent solution is not do this at the ISP but at the individual computer. That way parents can access adult content, adolescents can access content appropriate for them, and small children can only access sites designed for them. This makes a lot of sense, and is already available. Nothing more is required.

Edited July 29, 2013 by dre

[The_Squid]

Adult content is just part of the web.

Of course it is... but it shouldn't have to be part of everyone's internet use...

An intelligent solution is not do this at the ISP but at the individual computer.

Either way is intelligent. I think it makes sense to do it at the ISP level for reasons already stated. The reasons not to are mostly hyperbole, slippery slope arguments, claims of government databases monitoring people, and phoney censorship arguments...

And arguing that if parents can't work a computer then they are bad parents is silly. Not everyone will know how to use filtering software for smart phones, tablets, Ipads, etc. so this makes a lot of sense.

Edited July 29, 2013 by The_Squid

[GostHacked]

Adult content is not the service... content filtering is the costly service being proposed here... Adult content is just a part of the web.

Good clarification. The big thing here is content filtering. Is the Great Firewall of China a good idea? That is a perfect example of content filtering to the extreme. Facilitated by ISPs in China along with Microsoft and Google helping them with the means to filter.

We are talking about a very small minority of people that actually would benefit from this service. And here I thought in Democratic nations that the majority rules.

If you allow them to filter this, then you allow further filtering. Draw the line now so you don't have to fight to even have a piece of chalk later.

[GostHacked]

Of course it is... but it shouldn't have to be part of everyone's internet use...

Then do something to not make it part of yours. Don't screw with mine.

Either way is intelligent. I think it makes sense to do it at the ISP level for reasons already stated. The reasons not to are mostly hyperbole, slippery slope arguments, claims of government databases monitoring people, and phoney censorship arguments...

If you understood the tech, you would not be saying this. And all that hyperbole in the wake of the NSA says you are wrong.

And arguing that if parents can't work a computer then they are bad parents is silly. Not everyone will know how to use filtering software for smart phones, tablets, Ipads, etc. so this makes a lot of sense.

Then educate yourself on it. Claiming ignorance is no freakin excuse and does not set a good example for your children.

Edited July 29, 2013 by GostHacked

[dre]

Good clarification. The big thing here is content filtering. Is the Great Firewall of China a good idea? That is a perfect example of content filtering to the extreme. Facilitated by ISPs in China along with Microsoft and Google helping them with the means to filter.

We are talking about a very small minority of people that actually would benefit from this service. And here I thought in Democratic nations that the majority rules.

If you allow them to filter this, then you allow further filtering. Draw the line now so you don't have to fight to even have a piece of chalk later.

The supporters of this measure just havent thought it through and dont understand the concepts involved.

Filtering is a good idea... it just makes no sense to do it at the ISP level.

A way better idea would be to help parents understand and access the tools that are already out there. Maybe the government could subsidize them so that these tools are automatically included with an internet connection... They are way better than whats being proposed here.

Again... this is what happens when "12:00" flashers get involved with writing technology laws.