News - Government supports porn block

[HEXUS]

ISPs urged to block sex sites in bid to protect kids.

Read more.

[spoon_]

Not very clever at all, Microsoft should pull finger out of their a*** and add proper parental control to Windows as opposed to time limit and blocking apps.

You can use Parental Controls to set limits on the hours that children can use the computer, the types of games they can play, and the programs they can run.

and the rest, literally 1min read:

http://windows.microsoft.com/en-us/w...ental-Controls

[miniyazz]

60 percent of 9-19 year-olds have found porn on the net

Lol, wide range much? From pre-pubescent to full adulthood? It's like saying 40% of 9-19yos have had sex. At one end of the spectrum >90% have had sex, at the other end practically none. It's meaningless unless it's broken down.

Also, that would leave all those people who want porn but don't want their partners to know out in the cold. I don't think it's gonna be popular somehow..

[Fraz]

Totally agree about that 9-19 year old thing. Utterly pointless statistic.

[bear jesus]

With the amount of adult males that i know who have accessed internet porn (100%) i would have thought it would make more sense for it to be an op-in to get porn blocked, but of course that would make it harder for parents who don't want any part in raising their kids to just rely on the government to raise them.

I wonder what the government intends to do to stop males between 9 and 19 thinking sexual thoughts? obviously they are immoral and wrong and teenagers need protecting from themselves.....

[aidanjt]

Wow, way to cripple half the internet's use.

[sadbuttrue]

Just one more step towards full government control of the internet for special interests and "copyright infringement". Anyone that thinks this measure has anything to-do with "protecting the children" is seriously deluded.

[aidanjt]

Just one more step towards full government control of the internet for special interests and "copyright infringement". Anyone that thinks this measure has anything to-do with "protecting the children" is seriously deluded.

Naw, there really is a non-trivial percentage of incompetent (conservative element) parents who truly believe their children will go straight to hell for touching their peepee and it's their role to control everything they think. Gaining more power over internet governance is just icing on the cake.

[crossy]

Just one more step towards full government control of the internet for special interests and "copyright infringement". Anyone that thinks this measure has anything to-do with "protecting the children" is seriously deluded.

Couldn't agree more - reminds me of that bit in Yes Minister where Sir H said that politicians are simple folk and use the logic "we need to do something about X; This is something; Therefore we need to do this". As you say, once the controls are in place it's going to be easy to (quietly!) extend them to cover terrorism next (also easy to justify) and then keep going until they get bored.

With the amount of adult males that i know who have accessed internet porn (100%) i would have thought it would make more sense for it to be an op-in to get porn blocked, but of course that would make it harder for parents who don't want any part in raising their kids to just rely on the government to raise them.

As a parent myself (x2) I agree with what you're saying - opt-in is probably the least objectional way to put this in to pander for those useless ****s who want the someone else to protect their kids from all the bad things out there. That said, I'd be interested to here how they'd work this - presumably you'd need something (user account?) to be able to identify whether it was dad who was browsing the swingers sites, rather than junior. In which case doesn't that mean that dad is then (easily?) uniquely identifiable? Cue privacy - or lack thereof - debate...

From a personal point of view, I can't see certain advertisers being that happy about a block - I've certainly bought stuff from a (reputable!) company who I first saw advertised in the sidebar of a pr0n site - which I came across by accident of course (that's my story and I'm sticking to it)

Of course, the smut-hungry teenies will always find a way around any restriction - like using newsgroups instead (until they get blocked).

[Zadock]

It strikes me that the government seems to like devolving more and more responsibility away from parents! Its actually quite insulting if you think about because it implies that we aren't capable of looking after our own children, like none of us can be trusted. Thats just how I see it.

[Andeh13]

Learnt everything I needed to know from porn! They did miss out the bit about children coming from it though, you never see that in the films! . Me being proactive though....figured it out for myself!

[Agent]

Not very clever at all, Microsoft should pull finger out of their a*** and add proper parental control to Windows as opposed to time limit and blocking apps.

IE has had parental controls...well...forever, with ICRA support.

This isn't an OS issue. There is no way for Microsoft to vet all sites you visit, but the controls built into IE are pretty good.

I think the more serious question here is why in hell are 9 year olds on the web unsupervised? It's back to the entire "I can blame someone else for not looking after my kids" mentality. It's not Microsoft or anyone elses responsibility to look after kids on the web, it's their parents.

[hermano pequeño]

The reason we have so much nanny state ("thou shalt", as opposed to the normal "thou shalt not" laws) is that floating voters tend to be elderly or young mothers. These are some of the more "moral" and the later would justify any pushiness by the fact that they have offspring. For this reason the electorate is wooed with "be good (by our definition) or else" policies.
What these daft zealots don't realise is that while one day you are taking away someone's liberty "for their own good", the next day it will be you and your very "special" child. Wake up you ego-centric simpletons.

[Arthran]

I mean really, who DOESNT want a state controlled internet?

erm...

if this goes through, we all know the cost of our broadband will go up, as the ISP's wont just take the cost of filtering their end, oh no!

On top of that, we again get the question of, who controls the list? If you let the government control it, its open to abuse, if you let "concerned parent's" control it, its open to abuse, If you let the ISP's control it, its open to abuse. We've already seen in the past where pictures on wikipedia have been blocked as "child porn".

Now i'm not denying or confirming that i have looked at internet porn, but only the other day I followed a link from a facebook friend to somebody's tumblr blog, only to find a fair few adult pics there. Does that make tumblr a porn site that needs blocking? Where will the line be drawn.

Oh Net neutrality, how i miss thee!

[Zadock]

IE has had parental controls...well...forever, with ICRA support.

This isn't an OS issue. There is no way for Microsoft to vet all sites you visit, but the controls built into IE are pretty good.

I think the more serious question here is why in hell are 9 year olds on the web unsupervised? It's back to the entire "I can blame someone else for not looking after my kids" mentality. It's not Microsoft or anyone elses responsibility to look after kids on the web, it's their parents.

Nail. On. Head.

Its that dailymail attitude taken to the "strategic level". I don't think that the early sexualisation of children is as much to do with the internet as implied, there are many other contributory factors... how kids parents approach the subject of sex for example? TV? Magazines? arguably some of these things are a much greater influence in fact some of these places are where kids get the idea of what to google for in the first place? that and the playground

[crossy]

This isn't an OS issue. There is no way for Microsoft to vet all sites you visit, but the controls built into IE are pretty good.

But that does nothing for the Apple-pickers or Penguin-herders - or is the idea that the UK internet become Windows only? Although - as a colleague just said - it does give a chance for MS to issue another version of Windows8 - the "PC" or "Porn Collector" edition!

Another point to ponder is "what exactly is porn"? Does it have to involve a sexual act, or is merely unclothed pictures in provocative poses enough? Then you get into the dichotomy of that a unclothed body on a computer screen = porn (bad) whereas unclothed body given by the medium of oil on canvas in the National Gallery = art (good).

As many have said already, this is an area where Cammoron etc should just butt out and leave parents to do what they're supposed to be doing. Okay, if the govt wants to offer an advice line then fine, otherwise shut-up. It's more to do with pleasing the right-wing press than delivering "value" imho.

One final point - if the govt are that bothered about the impact of porn on the kids then why in the name of Gladstone's ghost are they phasing out CEOPS in favour of some nebulous "National Crime Agency" which bundles in a whole load of other duties?