Not sure if anyone has covered this already so I apologise if they have, but saw on the news the other day that the government is looking at changing the porn law. Under the new law it would now be the case that internet porn would be blocked automatically and only released by service providers to those who requested it.
This is to stop children accessing porn. Allegedly.
Now I'm all for protecting the kids but this seams a little more disturbing than measures previously announced. I for one would not like my name to be on any list of someone wanting to watch porn. Governments and companies have a tendancy to let such lists out into the public domain for one reason or another. How long before such a list become standard government practise for police forces to use as a pelimanary list before the sex offenders register for example, or for companies to release to other companies in sales and marketing.
Also porn is a nice soft easy target, but how long until other thing are then limited on the net, such as extreme violence, or discussions about extreme violence for the safety of the country. This then easily leads into anything that would lead to protecting secrets, or the safety of government agents. ie Wikileaks, or any news item that offends the government of the day.
For me it's a move that is the thin end of the wedge, it is the creation of the wedge. My problem is that these types of incursions on privacy never get rolled back. Also it seams to be hitting another soft target, if the government wants to stop the sexualisation of children, how about stopping the sexual content of adverts before 10pm, how about reinstating a proper watershed, with regards to swearing, sex and violence. With the internet, the government can quite easily use current regulation to make all computers be sold with internet settings set at high in terms of sexual content.
It would then require a user to manually overhaul this and make a consious decision to remove the protection. But without the need to make public who is watching or doing what.
From my limited knowledge sexual preditors tend not to approach youngsters through porn but more through facebook, and other social networking sites.
I find it hard to believe liberal democrates and Conservatives would promote such a draconian measure. Tuition fees ok you can argue that's liberalising the education market, but this is just an open attempt to restrict access to the internet in my opinion and if passed it will be the first of many measures. I certainly will not be asking to have access to swinging heaven and the like just to be put on someone's list of undesirables (in their opinion).
Rant over!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
 |
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
It will never be implemented as it's not realistically possible.
* Blocking sites, so ok who keeps the blacklist up-to-date when it takes 10 mins and £10 to register a domain name and point it to your server.
* https, you know when you pay online you will see this, it means the isp cannot do deep packet inspection (which they shouldn't anyhow but that is another story), meaning porn sites will just use that with an innocent domain name.
* How do you manage people who opt in? Specifically from the ISPs point of view there is one IP address to your house, but there could be many computing devices behind the router. So little Johnny could be connected looking at some school site and so could dad looking at big-uns. ISP has no real way of knowing.
Also one reason why deep packet inspection should never be allowed, Phorm/BT wanted to modify website content sent to you by what you where browsing (adding adverts etc). But if you are browsing for viagra/cancer treatments, any computer in the house could get the adverts. Grrr. Stupid people in government who have no idea about IT!
Even the industry says it's bollox:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063 |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago
North of The Wall - youll need your vest |
"It will never be implemented as it's not realistically possible.
* Blocking sites, so ok who keeps the blacklist up-to-date when it takes 10 mins and £10 to register a domain name and point it to your server.
* https, you know when you pay online you will see this, it means the isp cannot do deep packet inspection (which they shouldn't anyhow but that is another story), meaning porn sites will just use that with an innocent domain name.
* How do you manage people who opt in? Specifically from the ISPs point of view there is one IP address to your house, but there could be many computing devices behind the router. So little Johnny could be connected looking at some school site and so could dad looking at big-uns. ISP has no real way of knowing.
Also one reason why deep packet inspection should never be allowed, Phorm/BT wanted to modify website content sent to you by what you where browsing (adding adverts etc). But if you are browsing for viagra/cancer treatments, any computer in the house could get the adverts. Grrr. Stupid people in government who have no idea about IT!
Even the industry says it's bollox:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063"
Im sure all that is true - only wish I could understand it...  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I'm glad that it's technically difficult but it's not going to be the minor sites that will get targeted, it will be sites like these that are specifically aimed at concenting adults. Sites can already be blocked by ISP's so it's not impossible. But I'm not so certain they will let it lye, if they can block something they may take it as a small victory even though the more dangerous out there sites continue.
But I'm no tech expert just a person with limited knowledge. I'll glady take other people word for it. But if China can ban sites, then I see no reason why the UK government can't. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
is pornography used by a lot of ppl?
i mean they say there are a million plus sites and more get added each day
all this smut to a very small group of ppl
doesn't make sense
they don't try and stop the dangers of drink and smoking to restrict that on teens and younger - cos it means they would go withut drink themselves...
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
Hears hoping but I'm not sure what human right it would impact on.
The thing is it's not the kinda thing that will bring people out on marches or street protests. Or even to challenge it in the courts would take someone with no problem about other people and their family knowing their sexual activities. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"It will never be implemented as it's not realistically possible.
* Blocking sites, so ok who keeps the blacklist up-to-date when it takes 10 mins and £10 to register a domain name and point it to your server.
* https, you know when you pay online you will see this, it means the isp cannot do deep packet inspection (which they shouldn't anyhow but that is another story), meaning porn sites will just use that with an innocent domain name.
* How do you manage people who opt in? Specifically from the ISPs point of view there is one IP address to your house, but there could be many computing devices behind the router. So little Johnny could be connected looking at some school site and so could dad looking at big-uns. ISP has no real way of knowing.
Also one reason why deep packet inspection should never be allowed, Phorm/BT wanted to modify website content sent to you by what you where browsing (adding adverts etc). But if you are browsing for viagra/cancer treatments, any computer in the house could get the adverts. Grrr. Stupid people in government who have no idea about IT!
Even the industry says it's bollox:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063
Im sure all that is true - only wish I could understand it... "
PMSL!!! Don't feel bad: waaaaaay outside my understanding too!  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Heh, sorry I get carried away.
But basically an IP address is just like a unique telephone number. You ISP gives you one when your modem connects to the internet.
However you can have many computers inside the house, a bit like extensions in a phone switchboard.
So the ISP know stuff is going to and from your house for your phone number but not which extension and who is talking on it.
the Phorm/BT deep packet inspection using the same analogy is basically the ISP listening in to your phone calls and putting in advertising words "buy more shoes at shoe mart", because they hear the word I need to buy some new shoes.
But the inserted advert can go to anyone in the house (any all phone extensions) because they just see it all as one.
On a side line they are actually infringing on copyright when they do that, since they have not obtained permission from the website provider to modify their content.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Oh and on the domain name stuff.
fabswingers.com is a domain name, you could register a new one fluffykittens.com quite quickly and point it to the exact same website.
It's just an alias name really. (we have a webserver with multiple ip addresses and 20 or so websites on it, easy to do).
https:// makes the whole site as it goes down the wire to your computer "gobbly gook" as it is encrypted so ISPs cannot see what is going on.
Normal http:// traffic is sent in the clear meaning if someone (like your isp) sat watching your data traffic they would see all the sites and content of those sites you are browsing, and the info you are sending to them.
Hope that helps!
ta
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
"Oh and on the domain name stuff.
fabswingers.com is a domain name, you could register a new one fluffykittens.com quite quickly and point it to the exact same website.
It's just an alias name really. (we have a webserver with multiple ip addresses and 20 or so websites on it, easy to do).
But wouldn't all the users have to switch everytime too, to the new address, also legit sites would not want to be seen to be trying to by pass the laws of the land. The owners would not want to be arrested for trying to bypass the porn ban. But like I said hopefully it won't happen, I just fear it may. China in the UK here we come.
https:// makes the whole site as it goes down the wire to your computer "gobbly gook" as it is encrypted so ISPs cannot see what is going on.
Normal http:// traffic is sent in the clear meaning if someone (like your isp) sat watching your data traffic they would see all the sites and content of those sites you are browsing, and the info you are sending to them.
Hope that helps!
ta
"
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *ezebelWoman
over a year ago
North of The Wall - youll need your vest |
"Oh and on the domain name stuff.
fabswingers.com is a domain name, you could register a new one fluffykittens.com quite quickly and point it to the exact same website.
It's just an alias name really. (we have a webserver with multiple ip addresses and 20 or so websites on it, easy to do).
https:// makes the whole site as it goes down the wire to your computer "gobbly gook" as it is encrypted so ISPs cannot see what is going on.
Normal http:// traffic is sent in the clear meaning if someone (like your isp) sat watching your data traffic they would see all the sites and content of those sites you are browsing, and the info you are sending to them.
Hope that helps!
ta
"
well why didnt you just say that?? 
jeeeez  |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
This as been on the cards for a while. It is to monitor sites that people visit in case of terrorist activity. So visiting porn sites would come to light. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
We can never be bothered watching porn on the net, we dont need to we have a great sex life.
If they block it then it will drive it back underground, the advantage of the fact that some of the vile stuff can be easily accessed it that it has brought the 'people' ( if you can class them as that) who get a buzz out of child abuse, simulated rape, violent sex etc, out in the open...making it far easier to catch them.
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
"Oh and on the domain name stuff.
fabswingers.com is a domain name, you could register a new one fluffykittens.com quite quickly and point it to the exact same website.
It's just an alias name really. (we have a webserver with multiple ip addresses and 20 or so websites on it, easy to do).
https:// makes the whole site as it goes down the wire to your computer "gobbly gook" as it is encrypted so ISPs cannot see what is going on.
Normal http:// traffic is sent in the clear meaning if someone (like your isp) sat watching your data traffic they would see all the sites and content of those sites you are browsing, and the info you are sending to them.
Hope that helps!
"
Now plain English wasn't so hard was it?!!   |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *-and-KCouple
over a year ago
Back of Beyond |
I have to laugh at how cynical this government is.
They have been shouting from the housetops about how China censores any incoming web content it dislikes-BBC, Google et al. Then proposes something very similar itself.
In fact what they propose is far more draconian than China. In the case of China they just block content that disagrees with their political point. Our government wants to block a whole swathe of content. At the last estimation 83% of internet traffic was made up of various forms of porn. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
There is also the liability issue, as soon as ISPs become "responsible" for filtering content, any dodgy stuff that gets through you can sue them for, music companies suing them etc.
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/10/12/21/0527229/British-ISPs-Respond-On-Filtering |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By (user no longer on site)
over a year ago
|
Do watersheds and keeping children ignorant keep them safe?
Does anyone feel that knowledge has helped youngsters understand to a degree what is going on and make attempts to keep themselves safe ?
Next people will be trying to make us believe that sexual abuse of children is a modern phenomenon. It's simply aired more openly.
If porn is okay for adults why would anyone object to ordering it ?
|
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
I think any kind of government censorship is dangerous.Do they expect us to have any trust in them after the elusive weapons of mass destruction.
My question is have they exhausted all other options before they take another little piece of our civil liberty. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *obletonMan
over a year ago
A Home Among The Woodland Creatures |
well let's be under no illusion that the "freedom of choice" espoused by the current lot we have in power has never meant anything more than "you have the freedom to choose what we tell you to" |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
|
By *andcCouple
over a year ago
London and Cheshire |
"It will never be implemented as it's not realistically possible.
* Blocking sites, so ok who keeps the blacklist up-to-date when it takes 10 mins and £10 to register a domain name and point it to your server.
"
Yes you can register a domain name has you stated but, you don't block the domain name you block the IP address of the server. The domain name is just an easy way to point to a domain name using DNS, i.e it's easy to remember www.google.com but not 173.194.37.104 which is the actual IP address of google if you put that IP address in your browser with http:// before it, you will be taken to google. To keep changing your IP address would be more difficult, has you have to tell the DNS service this and this can take up to 24 hours to circulate to all DNS services so the site can appear has down, not something a website owner would wish. This type of blocking is already in use in countries such has China, they do block sites for a limited time , such has the BBC, when they are covering news items they don't want to be shown to the Chinese people.
But that is the reason I cannot see this ever coming into effect, politically it would be seen has very draconian.
Finally, all that said it is more difficult(but not impossible)to block only some computers on say a home network, the Chinese example blocks content to everyone, so some sort of encryption software would have to be used so that only certain computers could access the content on a family network. |
Reply privately, Reply in forum +quote
or View forums list | |
» Add a new message to this topic
