131–140 of 369 posts
If the filters are this poor and the blocked page banner tells you how to, a large percentage of people will opt out making this an ineffective "watches porn list".
> 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…
Which includes pretty much every action movie these days. Maybe the irony will be that Hollywood will step up with a campaign to fight this, because they see it as an eventual threat to their bottom line.
>"You're the people who have worked out how to map almost every inch of the Earth from space; who have developed algorithms that make sense of vast quantities of information. Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society, you are part of our society, and you must play a responsible role in it."
Yeah, come on clever technical people. Get it sorted. We've decided you need to uninvent nuclear weapons as well please. Immediately.
What embarrassing ignorance from a major public figure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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?
Are there any real studies on the "corrosive influence" of porn on children? I'm pretty sure every young teen boy has seen porn these days. The only actual studies I'm aware of say that porn reduces actually violent sex crimes. It acts as a substitute.
It's extremely difficult to quantify negative impacts or get people to accurately recall what they may or may not have seen. It's almost as difficult to approve studies on children. This study: http://online.liebertpub.com/doi/abs/10.1089/cpb.2005.8.473 Showed a correlation between children who seek out porn on the internet and delinquency. However, there's no indication of causation.
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…
Even a opt-in filter on an infrastructure level would imply DPI, and therefore would enable the ability for traffic analysis. And besides it creates a national 'watches porn' list.
First off, I hate it how they always try to frame new laws as trying to "protect" people. The same with airline searches and the whole PRISM deal. Also, I read somewhere on the subject of child pornography that allowing those people to look at images cuts down on the act because they seem to "get their fix." I can't remember where I read this so I can't provide a source, but it seems to make sense.
Yep. Or it's for "national security purposes". One of many beautiful euphemisms they employ. This is completely absurd. Do people believe in a free and open Internet, or do they not? Government asking us to make "declarations" over the content we want access to or what we may or may not search for is an absurdly dangerous precedent. IMO, imposing morality typically tends to make whatever problem worse.
Not really. They want a special kind of freedom where censorship is not allowed... unless the stuff that's getting censored is the kind of stuff that they don't like. Lots of people would enthusiastically support their moral standards being written into law.