David Cameron cracks down on online pornography • Hacker News Board

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#121

Post by chmodd » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:39 AM UTC

Yver wrote: post #102

conroy wrote: post #12

> Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked. > The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed. Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With t…

> A single search can now land you on a government list of accused pedophiles. The other day I used Google to find info about a movie called "How to Make Money Selling Drugs"[1]. As I typed the words, I thought to myself "I hope that doesn't get me on a government list." I can't imagine having to think twice before Googling "Lolita"[2]. [1]: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1276962/reference [2]: http://www.imdb.com/title…

I now do searches like this using Tor Browser. Just in case.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#122

Post by bandushrew » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:40 AM UTC

Sven7 wrote: post #47

adamnemecek wrote: post #13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children can't believe that people still fall for this shtick

Do you have kids?

I have 4 children.

I fear a world where my children cannot express themselves freely FAR more I do a world where I have to explain to my children that some people are just kind of weird...

Censorship of the internet is NOT ok.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#123

Post by Raticide » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

conroy wrote: post #104

yk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on top of this, they want to create a database of all of child porn. ( What could possibly go wrong?)

If the database just contains hashes of offending images, I don't see the harm. Similar databases exist for copyrighted movies, television shows, and music. Edit: The harm is combining such a database with broad internet surveillance. Also, since the database is only hashes, false positives are likely. YouTube, who probably has the best content matching algorithms, can't even get it right all the time.

And that database never has false positives?

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#124

Post by harrytuttle » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

pyre wrote: post #115

harrytuttle wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The land which the politicians don't want. They're not ignorant to the outcome here - it's exactly what they want and has been planned that way. This is a serious fucking power grab.

> This is a serious fucking power grab. Better explanations: * They realize it could be used for bad in the future, but they have delusions of, "bad things couldn't happen here." [ Sort of like the idea in America that, "Fascism could never happen here." ] * They are more comfortable with creating said power because they are currently in control of it, and are short-sighted enough to not realize that this won't alway…

I don't think they're that stupid. They know the endgame is censorship and control.

The next step will be court sanctioned page blocks against the terrorists followed by the usual propaganda in the shite rags...

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#125

Post by gjm11 » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:42 AM UTC

Sven7 wrote: post #47

adamnemecek wrote: post #13

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children can't believe that people still fall for this shtick

Do you have kids?

I have a young daughter and I live in the UK. I think this legislation is bloody stupid.

Yes, some people might reasonably not want their children to run across pornographic material on the internet. Here are some other things some people might reasonably not want their children to run across on the internet: Anti-religious material. Religious material. Depictions of violence. Any mention of prejudice against racial minorities, women, etc. Websites offering do-my-homework-for-me services. News about upsetting things like tens of thousands of children starving to death every day in poor parts of Africa.

I hope it's clear that the internet would not be improved by having opt-out filters for all those things. I think it's clear, in fact, that the internet would not be improved by having opt-out filters for any of those things.

Yes, I hope my daughter will learn about sex in better ways than by stumbling across porn on the internet. And I hope she'll learn about those other things in better ways than by stumbling across them on the internet, too. It is not the government's, or my ISP's, job to make that happen by making things harder to find online; it probably won't work, and it will probably break other things (as such filters always have in the past), and it's the wrong way to solve the "problem" anyway.

And I also hope that if in the fullness of time our daughter wants to find porn on the internet, she will be able to, and she won't be (or feel) obliged to disclose the fact to her parents, and doing so without telling us won't require her to seek out dubious illegal channels which are likely to be full of stuff much "worse" than she'd easily have found without all the censorship.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#126

Post by harrytuttle » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:43 AM UTC

gojomo wrote: post #108

cinquemb wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or 0x0 iframes injected into well trafficked of sites/forums.

Play nice! Only inject the IFRAME when you detect a visit from a government IP address.

Good plan. Perhaps it's time we started blacklisting government addresses?

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#127

Post by yk » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:43 AM UTC

conroy wrote: post #104

yk wrote: post #83

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And on top of this, they want to create a database of all of child porn. ( What could possibly go wrong?)

If the database just contains hashes of offending images, I don't see the harm. Similar databases exist for copyrighted movies, television shows, and music. Edit: The harm is combining such a database with broad internet surveillance. Also, since the database is only hashes, false positives are likely. YouTube, who probably has the best content matching algorithms, can't even get it right all the time.

The problem is, that they have then equipment to monitor web traffic at the content level. And it is nowhere clear, if the hashes are actually offending images, either maliciously or because the database is just on a similar quality level as the various databases for copyright violations. [1]

[1]https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20120806/11053019945/curio...

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#128

Post by _mulder_ » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:43 AM UTC

foobarbazqux wrote: post #20

Personally speaking I would be glad to have this filter, but I wouldn't want to force it on other people. So if people got a choice about enabling the filter I would be okay with it, i.e. if it was opt-in. In that case it's providing a service to people who need a human barrier to help them stop looking at porn if they have a problem. Any preventative mechanism that you set up for your own sake is pointless when you…

The arguments against an opt-in seem to focus on giving all kids an equal opportunity to use the internet without exposure to adult content, even when the engagement of their parents may differ (i.e; the kids of parents who don't take as much interest in their development as they perhaps should can still benefit).

However, one of arguments for an opt-in model suggests that removing the necessity for parents to make this 'active choice' about what material their kids could be subject to online, just ignores the problem and, if anything, makes it worse because parents don't ever need to think about it. (Should I talk to my kids about the dangers of the internet/world? Oh, I don't care about that now, because the Government has decided for me)

Personally, I agree with you, I think it's a good idea to have an extra layer of filtering like this (not every parent is tech savvy enough to install and manage local filtering) but it has to be Opt-In. How hard is it to ask the question when you sign up with an ISP? (Sir, if you have young children in the household we suggest you choose our network level filtering)

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#129

Post by pyre » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:44 AM UTC

EarthLaunch wrote: post #111

pyre wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So the reporter has no responsibility to uphold journalistic ideals? Good to know.

I'm glad I was able to educate you without either of us resorting to sarcasm.

The problem with this thread is that it's entirely possible to read it as both my post and your reply are sarcastic, or they both aren't.

If you really require me to be explicit, I can spell it out for you:

* Each person has an individual responsibility to realize such things for their self via critical thinking.

* A reporter has no legal responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

* A reporter should have an ethical responsibility to uphold journalistic principals.

This, to me, is the equivalent of victim-blaming:

  You walk past a dark alley and see someone being
  assaulted. You are under no legal obligation to
  help the person, therefore you do not help the
  person. The person has no right to be angry at
  you because they should have been responsible
  for *their own* safety and shouldn't rely on
  anyone else. The person being assaulted is the
  person that is *really* at fault because they
  failed to protect their own personal safety.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#130

Post by sliverstorm » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 6:44 AM UTC

cskau wrote: post #39

conroy wrote: post #12

> Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked. > The possession of "extreme pornography", which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed. Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With t…

> > The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is to draw up a blacklist of "abhorrent" internet search terms to identify and prevent paedophiles searching for illegal material. > A single search can now land you on a government list of accused pedophiles. Also, I foresee a sudden rise in rickrolling along the line of: Funny Cat Video!

Is it still called rickrolling when the "surprise" is agents at your door?