Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

boingboing.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

201–210 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#201

Post by marketanarchist »

pbhjpbhj wrote: post #176
marketanarchist wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to shelter your child from certain sites or content, that is your problem. Take responsibility for your own family, don't ask the entire world to change and give away our freedoms because of your laziness/ineptitude.

Do you realise that children become adults and that ignoring problems faced by other people's children means your ignoring what will become the whole world's problems. If the internet fucks up everyone's kids except your own then your own kids still have to live in that world. The idea that future generations are individual families private problems is an insidious wrong. We're in the world together and where possess…

> We're in the world together and where possessible should share that responsibility.

No, I have no obligation or responsibility to your child. You can ask me for my voluntary help, but that's it.

I generally don't believe in limiting freedoms because people abuse and/or misuse something. There are exceptions of course, but this is clearly not one of them. Should we limit the amount of chocolate sold in stores because obese people lack self-discipline or because parents cannot control their children?

Take responsibility for your family or don't have one at all.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#202

Post by the_mitsuhiko »

pmlnr wrote: post #113
MrSourz wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The telecoms already have that type of data that could be leaked to an extent. In 2013 British Telecom enabled porn filtering [1] that was on by default, so when setting up your account you'd have to opt out. [1] http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/internet-security/1052...

This was present on mobile networks for a long while. The honest and real reason I had it disabled was when it listed the ThinkPad knowledge collector http://thinkwiki.org/ as adult site... ( I'm not joking. ) - this is probably also a prime example lists like this are complete and utter jokes.

Opting out was such a humiliating experience. I had to spend 30 minutes on phone with a woman to explain why I needed it disabled and why I don't have a british driving license.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#203

Post by Torgo »

Freak_NL wrote: post #60
vertex-four wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The thing is, if you want to prevent your children from accessing sites you'd prefer them not to without accompanying them in the future... there's been commercial solutions to that almost since the first porn site existed. Net Nanny's been around almost as long as I've been alive. Combine that with ensuring that your child's computer is in a public place, not their bedroom. Frankly, if people are going to be exposed…

> Frankly, if people are going to be exposed to said imagery at some point, they probably need to be educated about it. That's what this is all about isn't it? There is lots of stuff on the internet that may hurt a child's development, and I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences. Kids are growing up watching popular peers give them beauty and fashion tips or perform dangerous stunts and pranks on ex…

>I honestly doubt porn is one of the bigger bad influences.

haha oh wow

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#204

Post by darkhorn »

pmlnr wrote: post #42

> "all the porn sites operating in Britain" So... only .co.uk, or full 3/4 of the internet, including Tumblr? This is, of course, is a question for what counts as "operating in Britain". A site that is running on servers in Britain? A site that is owned by a British company? A site that happens to be available on the greater internet? Gosh, countries and borders became relics when the internet got spread wide enough.

I'm afraid that sites that do not cooperate with UK will be blocked. Error 451

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#205

Post by darklajid »

DanBC wrote: post #195
darklajid wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait, but is that related to the proposal? Not my native language and all, but I thought this is basically age-gating .. porn sites. If you have a random app (unrelated, not a porn site) showing ads (unrelated unless a porn site) of alcohol services (not sure what that is, but .. unrelated/not porn), how does this apply? How would you age-gate ads? Wouldn't that require a new X-KID-PRESENT: 1 http header so that each…

> How would you age-gate ads? They currently are age-gated. The age gating clearly isn't working. Advertisers in the UK are not allowed to target children with alcohol or gambling ads. I don't care how it happens, but showing alcohol ads to children in apps for children because the parent has a credit card and owns the phone is sub-optimal.

Maybe, yeah. But is it neglect on the part of the developer (What are the consequences? You installed the app, no?), on the part of the parent not supervising (I'm kinda defending this position in this thread) or a reason to fix this with a generic law?

I'm not trying to be difficult, I really think that it's the parents' responsibility. And if ads are considered harmful in your household, don't use ad based apps / use an ad blocker? That should solve the problem on a local level.

Edit: It just came to my mind that ad supported apps are often/usually free.. Is that the case here? Because I seriously dislike the idea of blaming a developer of a free application for different ideas about morality or a bad choice ('copy/paste some ad integration code' - stupidity vs malice?) in implementing a way to make some money.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#206

Post by zerognowl »

Zenst wrote: post #162
abdias wrote: post #156

Why don't UK government leave that responsibility to the parents which are to decide what their children are allowed to watch or not. In the old Soviet the communists very much wanted government to replace both parents and God - seems like that idea has gotten new fuel in the UK.

Indeed the move to remove accountability from parents and burden everybody else is lamentable. Be that the sugar tax on soft drinks coming about just as a way to cut obese children as well as many other measures. Perish the thought they made the parents accountable. But certainly a trend and perhaps an excuse to tax and track people more. Still without such laws we would not of got a beer like this: https://www.brewd…

+1 for the Nanny State reference. In typical UK surveillance state fashion they pander to base fears and unforgivably overlook how bad censorship is in places like China. Where it not for censorship I think the thrill of surfing the Open Web would be dampened, just like when drugs instantly become more exciting when they are outlawed and regulated.

I am certain outlawing base primal urges, like the right to ingest what one desires into one's own body makes such primal urges even more favorable, often to the point of detriment to the State who then have to feverishly invent something inverse to people's actual needs like Alcohol, or bromides like Sugar to pacify their citizenry.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#207

Post by nthcolumn »

mobiuscog wrote: post #2

Something has to be done. It's not just about porn or violence of NSFL etc... but there is a serious problem on the internet, that is always lambasted with the "Won't somebody think of the children" memes. When society has reached a point that anybody with internet access can, simply by 'accidentally' going to the wrong website, be exposed to imagery that really is not going to help them be well-adjusted in life, wit…

Self-regulation and announce that from a certain date internet histories will be made public. :P

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#208

Post by nightspirit »

DanBC wrote: post #199
nightspirit wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The less you talk about drinking the more he'll hide it from you. Ditto with gambling and sex. My parents talked about everything besides sex and I never drank or gambled in excess. And I'll leave this post at that.

Have you ever spoke to someone dependent on alcohol? Because the vast majority of those people say that they were brought up around alcohol. I'm not trying to say that it causes alcoholism. I'm just responding to someone dumping a useless anecdote.

I guess my original post wasn't very constructive. I wanted to say that seeing ads probably doesn't cause alcoholism, but OTOH, being unable to handle the thought that your precious snowflake could get to know about X too early is a sure way to lose his trust if he does get to know. And the OP indeed seemed a bit paranoid.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#209

Post by ahartman00 »

Unbeliever69 wrote: post #152
viraptor wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you want to filter traffic at home, I don't think it's that hard. There's a whole industry trying to solve that problem. Google "internet family filter" and choose one. Your ISP probably provides one as well (my last 3 ISPs did) I'll likely use one as well when I have kids. But I'm absolutely against any government program to enforce the same. But my experience is much different. Apart from sexualised models adver…

It is SO easy to break NetNanny an the like. They don't work. Any 12 year old determined kid can figure it out. MAYBE if you combined a family friendly ISP with a parental controlled fire wall, AND several layers of software/browser based filtering this could be accomplished. Putting this aside, no matter how much you protect your children at home, you can't protect them away from home.

"It is SO easy to break NetNanny an the like"

IIRC, people in china have no problem using a vpn or whatever to bypass the great firewall? Why would government purchases blocking software be more effective than parent purchased blocking software?

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#210

Post by nsgi »

pmyteh wrote: post #62
Accacin wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> (Once it's tracked and officially acted on, it's going to be a sex offender case like sexting became, right?) I'm not 100%, but I think recent guidelines in the UK advised that is an underage person is caught "sexting" with another underage person of the same age, they'll be no criminal repurcusions.

That's right. The Crown Prosecution Service (the national body which prosecutes essentially all criminal cases on behalf of the state) takes the view that charging under-18s for genuinely consensual sexual activity is generally not in the public interest. This policy (and guidance on essentially all other charging decisions) is helpfully published online as part of the CPS legal manual. It's still a matter of prosecu…

What does that have to do with sexting?
Post reply on HN