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

David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

guardian.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 369 posts

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#211

Post by Zakharov »

jackschultz wrote: post #11

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.

This particular law is hurting people far more than it's protecting them, but in general, laws are framed as trying to protect people because the purpose of laws in general is to protect people.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#212

Post by netcan »

The news here is not the moral sentiments of the legislators. Porn (and sex generally) has been banned or restricted in pretty much every time and place. Think of TV. Different countries have different standards of what is allowable but the internet's median porn sites' contents would not be allowed anywhere near television.

The news here is more subtle. What the internet is, was, how it works and how its changing. It no longer feels like an anarchy that no one can control. We can argue about the why and how but I don't think we can dispute that the internet is no longer unregulatable, anonymous anarchy. That is the news here.

Governments, large corporations and other traditional power sources feel they can exercise influence and control over the internet. It's within their jurisdiction and physical capabilities.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#214

Post by andygates »

goggles99 wrote: post #199

OK, here is the difference. I know, I know - censorship generally is bad. What will they (the government) consider "harmful" next? information right? political opinion, it's book burning, this is a slippery slope ETC. The aforementioned things do not have the consensus of psychologists and other professionals in the world agreeing that the content in question can cause psychological harm to a certain percent of socie…

It's not (only) to keep them out of the hands of kids; it's to embarrass the pornhound into reaching for it in public.

I had to activate grown-up mode on my giffgaff data (to buy swimmies, which were bogusly blocked by a bad filter). Even though I'm a sleazebag, I still felt a little squeamish asking for porn mode.

...now if that comes in on the monthly bills, "Data mode: Adult", then you have to explain it to your partner...

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#215

Post by bigiain »

marshray wrote: post #173
bigiain wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure - blocking access to https://www.google.com is not a significant tech problem. I somehow don't think they're planning on that though. Blocking access to https://www.google.com/?q=nasty+goat+sex while not blocking access to https://www.google.com/?q=how+to+vote+conservative+in+the+UK requires some technical chops that while not impossible, would put the UK right up there with enlightened democracies such as China…

It is not possible for anyone to block access to https://www.google.com/?q=specific+thing over a long period of time without either custom modifications to every affected client or help from Google itself. Google's long rocky experience with China proves exactly that.

Not at a 100% level, but we know the Chinese government (and I suspect the UK government) are capable of deploying faked google.com SSL certs which'll pass unnoticed by just about anyone who's not using a certificate-pinning version of Chrome. And China(/Iran/Egypt) clearly has national-border level firewalls capable of using such faked SSL certs to MITM and deep packet inspect entire countries worth of internet traffic on the fly.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#216

Post by ollysb »

According to the guardian's article at [1] it appears the system will actually be opt-in. From a leaked letter sent from the Department of Education to the ISPs:

"Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions [as] 'default-on'"

active-choice+ is a set of filters that may be enabled on request.

[1] http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-ca...

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#217

Post by nthj »

jsmeaton wrote: post #176
orblivion wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Might be a good countermeasure. If people are bold enough in numbers, everybody put the evil words into Google search, rendering the data useless. Though it'd have to be done on a regular basis, which is not going to work out.

That's how I think we should combat things like PRISM. If there was a mass protest every week, by millions of individuals, all searching/texting/emailing "kill president" "home made bomb" "chemical explosion", that data would become really really heavy. They might have to cut back on drag-netting everything and focus on specific targets.

Meh. I'm sure it's fairly easy to turn off their indexer for a specific period of time, say, the 3 hours the protest is going on.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#219

Post by pyre »

EarthLaunch wrote: post #153
pyre wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 e…

If you wanted to have a serious conversation about journalistic integrity, you would not begin with sarcasm and continue with condescension. That's why you didn't deserve a serious reply, and still don't. The entire thread you started is also off-topic and as worthwhile as your thoughts in it.

In your original post, you stated that it was the reader's responsibility to do the critical thinking necessary to realize that the censorship controls could be used for 'evil.' This view implies that people without the requisite critical thinking skills are irresponsible, and therefore deserve what they get[1].

[1] Couldn't think of a better way of putting it. I'm not saying that you're stating that sentiment directly.

Post reply on HN