Internet porn to be blocked in UK

[scaramanga]

Are you talking about actual rapes or simulated rape? Of course theres no argument that any images/video of actual rapes should be treated in the same category as child abuse images.

On the topic of simulated rape, I'm not so sure. First, the evidence is inconclusive as to whether it actually has an effect on human behaviour, secondly I do wonder where the threshold between kinky/hardcore/bdsm sex and "rape simulation" lies (very much a grey area that seems impossible to police IMO), and thirdly if we go down that route why stop with rape videos? How about we ban all violent video games to stop gun and knife crime? How about music which normalises self harm?

I assume they're going to ban the movie Irreversible too? If not, why can film companies do what porn producers can't?

If they do ban it, they should prepare for being pelted with couscous at demonstrations by art film fans.

 

[Richie]

As it stands, I'm guessing your average paedo doesn't know how to encrypt disks, access tor, etc. Once the government brings in this law it will force the software into the mainstream and all the people they could previously convict quite easily will now have double-encrypted disks and non-existent ISP logs. The police will spend weeks of their time and millions of our Pounds trying to crack what they won't be able to crack, probably followed by weeks of the CPS's time spending loads more of our money trying to get a conviction they can no longer get.

I think this is very poignant and something I was also considering. Predators typing searches in to Google is the ideal scenario for a police force to crack down.

Since the Snowdon revelations I've been considering encrypting all my data and internet usage. I think within the next few years more user friendly technologies will come about to achieve this and I for one will consider using it.

 

[Richie]

I assume they're going to ban the movie Irreversible too? If not, why can film companies do what porn producers can't?

If they do ban it, they should prepare for being pelted with couscous at demonstrations by art film fans.

How about 50 Shades of Grey? It was a worldwide best seller but if it were made in to a porno on the internet I don't see why it wouldn't come under this kind of censorship.

In fact, I think the reason it became so popular is because it is actually a popular fantasy for women. According to a Psychology Today article, an analysis of 9 studies from 1973 to 2008 showed around 40% of women have experienced rape fantasies, and of those that do 25% have them at least once a month.

Of course there is a clear and obvious distinction between women having (or acting out) a rape fantasy with a partner they trust in which they have some control and actually wanting to be raped, but it seems to be a perfectly normal sexual fantasy for both men and women.

 

[Superhudd]

Does this include Cam sites?.. me and the Mrs enjoy cam sites.

I do understand the fact that something needs to be done with kids being able to from a young age search for tits, ****, pussy etc akin to my days of finding a porno in the street and showing my school friends with us all crowded round it all in awe with what we were looking at. There is a reason that stuff was top shelf stuff, for me personally I am happy that something is happening to restrict this. Thing is, not sure that this is the best way to go about this tbh. I think parents should be the ones that take responsibility and should OPT IN, not ban everyone and force people to OPT OUT.

 

[Seedy Ron]

Will the Vice Den mean that GG is also blocked by default?

 

[Baleforce]

I have 2 kids, I think its 100% my responsibility to make sure they don't get to inappropriate content

 

[Richie]

Will the Vice Den mean that GG is also blocked by default?

Perfect example of how this sort of censorship won't work

 

[SpursLodge]

I don't know why the government can't maintain a database of dodgy urls/IP addresses and then make a law that all broadband routers sold in the UK have to have a tick box that blocks anything on the government list, that way the parents can turn it on or off with ease and people don't have to draw attention to themselves by opting out.

 

[Baleforce]

you don't even need to do that on the router, that can all be handled at the DNS level

 

[scaramanga]

I don't know why the government can't maintain a database of dodgy urls/IP addresses and then make a law that all broadband routers sold in the UK have to have a tick box that blocks anything on the government list, that way the parents can turn it on or off with ease and people don't have to draw attention to themselves by opting out.

Because the government could never keep up with the changing URLs/IP addresses - that's why they're passing the responsibility to Google et al.

 

[scaramanga]

you don't even need to do that on the router, that can all be handled at the DNS level

Like the pirate bay? :ross:

 

[Baleforce]

Like the pirate bay? :ross:

theoretically

 

[Richie]

I don't know why the government can't maintain a database of dodgy urls/IP addresses and then make a law that all broadband routers sold in the UK have to have a tick box that blocks anything on the government list, that way the parents can turn it on or off with ease and people don't have to draw attention to themselves by opting out.

Thats not far off what they are trying to do. Unfortunately anyone with any knowledge of how the internet works knows this is trivial to counter with a proxy.

Use a 3rd party (a "proxy") in another country

User <---> Proxy <---> Banned Website

My ISP thinks I'm requesting a web page from the proxy server, but in fact I am sending it a request for it to obtain a web page from the banned IP address. The proxy will respond to my request with the banned web page and my ISP will assume it is just the proxy server responding as a normal server would.

This brick just doesn't work. Whatever the government come up with, it will be cracked before it is even implemented.

 

[Baleforce]

yes there would be ways around it, and its a terrible idea imo, but don't make the mistake of assuming that all people will want to crack it, some people will think this is a great idea

 

[Richie]

yes there would be ways around it, and its a terrible idea imo, but don't make the mistake of assuming that all people will want to crack it, some people will think this is a great idea

Well I do think all teenage boys (and most girls) will want to crack it, and that is the only logical assumption. It's what teenagers do.

Again, I think it will expose kids to more extreme pornography. In trying to get around the blocks on the major websites where the most extreme content is filtered, they will start looking in the less regulated corners of the internet like p2p networks where it is much easier to stumble upon child pornography for example.

 

[SpursLodge]

Thats not far off what they are trying to do. Unfortunately anyone with any knowledge of how the internet works knows this is trivial to counter with a proxy.

Use a 3rd party (a "proxy") in another country

User <---> Proxy <---> Banned Website

My ISP thinks I'm requesting a web page from the proxy server, but in fact I am sending it a request for it to obtain a web page from the banned IP address. The proxy will respond to my request with the banned web page and my ISP will assume it is just the proxy server responding as a normal server would.

This brick just doesn't work. Whatever the government come up with, it will be cracked before it is even implemented.

I agree that it's going to be cracked within seconds of it going live, I can and I assume all of you lot can also get on piratebay and other torrent sites that have been blocked with a simple proxy, if I can do it then the modern teenager will have no trouble doing it.

All I was suggesting is why not make it so that the users own router is what implements the blocking, they could set up a department for internet safety, rank websites from 1 (safe) to 5 (unsafe) and then you can have a setting on the router where you select what level of safety you want. This would mean that nobody complains about the nanny state whilst giving non techy parents the chance to block the kids from accessing unsafe material (although we all know it wont).

The problem I have with this is on those lonely nights when Mrs Lodge is out, I want access to pornhub without having to mess about with proxies, and why should I have to go to my ISP and say, hello I'm a dirty bugger and would like the porn restrictions removed please. Let people decide for themselves what level of restrictions they want and what they want to apply to their kids.

 

[Richie]

All I was suggesting is why not make it so that the users own router is what implements the blocking, they could set up a department for internet safety, rank websites from 1 (safe) to 5 (unsafe) and then you can have a setting on the router where you select what level of safety you want. This would mean that nobody complains about the nanny state whilst giving non techy parents the chance to block the kids from accessing unsafe material (although we all know it wont)

These sorts of things are already available. There is plenty out there for parents, they just cant be bothered to educate themselves. Most 11 year olds are more tech savvy than their parents, and that is pathetic.

In the end though no system will trump adult supervision. Parents need it drilled in to them that the only way to keep kids away from this stuff is for them to be supervised. Complacency that any system is sufficient on its own (especially one as weak as that proposed by the government) is the worst possible scenario.

 

[Danishfurniturelover]

Even if the are ways round it i applaud the government for trying to do the right thing on this issue. Sexually speaking i am very liberal, the only time i would ever describe myself as liberal.

Anyone who watches child porn or women or men for that matter being strangled and gets kicks from it should be in a secure prison. I used to live in Brighton and had a friend in the same street as that sicko guitar guy that strangled the woman, saying that porn inspired him to do it. I enjoy porn but it is all woman/men stuff. Im very partial to Indian ladies and it is to my eternal regreat i have never had one.

People often say nanny state and will knock what im going to say next but as is the same with CCTV im not doing anything wrong so i do not care. All this talk of doom and big brother is a load of crap by people with to much time on their hands. Im glad the government are protecting the vunerable "children" the may still be ways round it like some of you are saying, but at least they are trying to make things better.

Im not a fan of this government to liberal for me on the whole but on this issue they have done the right thing.

 

[7percent]

I'm on Giffgaff (mobile provider), and as I've never authenticated my age my 3G is filtered. If I try to access certain sites I get a page saying 'Sorry, this site is for over 18s' I'm not that bothered, I don't want to look at porn on the go, but I feel some sites shouldn't be restricted;

Lovehoney - it's a sex shop, doesn't feature any pornographic images but I can buy condoms from there. I think under 18s should be able to buy condoms online too (though admittedly there are better/free places they can shop. Also, buying a vibrator or a kinky outfit isn't really the same as watching someone get raped.

Sh! womenstore as above but they host poetry evenings, book readings and sex classes.

the griffin strip club/ Browns Shoreditch etc I just want to know when my favourite girls are on so I can go and get a dance!

It would just be frustrating if I had to 'opt in' to the filthy pervert list just to legally do things that aren't that filthy or pervy.

 

[Richie]

AI used to live in Brighton and had a friend in the same street as that sicko guitar guy that strangled the woman, saying that porn inspired him to do it. I enjoy porn but it is all woman/men stuff.

So should we all violent video games too?