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

221–230 of 232 posts

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#221

Post by 6t6t6t6 »

pmlnr wrote: post #111
Kenji wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It doesn't matter which sites are targeted. What worries me is the authoritarian mindset. That the state becomes the nanny of all the people. That responsibility for oneself and one's children is no longer the norm, but discouraged and deferred to the state. And the justification for these forceful invasions into our lives is relentless moralizing akin to that of extremist religious people. That is the conclusion I d…

In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously against regulation like this because the line of what counts as (porn|extreme|violent|whatever) is too blurry and is too easy to be used to censor whatever the state declares unhealthy, and this is not good. /going rather offtopic afterwards What's also not good is how ugly the internet be…

> In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while.

This not a really good analysis.

In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this does not jeopardize the former. It's for a reason that laws about same sex marriage, soft drug legalization, etc. are passed in Europe decades before than in the US.

In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#222

Post by pmyteh »

nsgi wrote: post #210
pmyteh wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Because it's a sexual activity, illegal if done with pictures of under 18s (but not generally considered in the public interest to prosecute by the CPS if the pics are of the perpetrators themselves and it was consensual - so no "revenge porn" setting or whatever).

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#223

Post by nightspirit »

godDLL wrote: post #218
nightspirit wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

VPN hosting country, these are drones. Drones, meet the VPN host country... Or heck, just strong-arm them into adopting think-of-the-children laws one way or another.

So, drones meet China? How many would you send?

The Great Firewall blocks porn so China probably isn't the country parent would use.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#224

Post by icebraining »

DanBC wrote: post #198
cloakandswagger wrote: post #183

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you understand how selfish you sound, or has the magic of parenthood vaporized all of your self-awareness? You made the choice to have a child. You made the choice to entertain them with YouTube. The possibility of them seeing an advertisement for alcohol (my goodness! Your son will turn into a tattooed hooligan in a week!) is not sufficient reason for handing the internet over to state censorship. In short, stop…

You don't seem to understand the context: In the UK internet advertising is already censored, and has been for some years. In the UK advertisers are forbidden from advertising alcohol to children. Here's the regulators page for adverts aimed at children: https://www.asa.org.uk/News-resources/Hot-Topics/Children-an... Here's their page for adverts about alcohol (note that some of those ads were online): https://www.as…

I can't help but find amusing their statistic that "30% of young people have been bothered by an ad in the last 12 months". I don't know about the UK, but at least here down south, the really disturbing ads are the official ones, particularly the safe driving campaigns. The Spanish ads in particular are often very graphic and gut-wrenching.

I do agree that apps (or videos) directed at children shouldn't show non-child-safe ads. I just don't see what does that have to do with the proposal under discussion.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#225

Post by scottmf »

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…

Really? Then what's the role of the parent?

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#226

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#227

Post by pbhjpbhj »

tw04 wrote: post #177
pbhjpbhj wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How were you planning on preventing your child from picking up a piece of paper on a street corner with NSFL images? // Picking it up first and putting it in the bin? I've done this with porn and with images on cigarette cartons. Not always possible, but just because there are problems with "real" life doesn't mean we shouldn't remove problems from online life. Online life magnifies niches that in the offline world…

I stumbled upon porn when walking to the park as a 7 year old. I guess if I had a helicopter parent it's POSSIBLE they would've run to grab it from me before I could see it. Of course I would've hated my parents if they had been helicopter parents, and I'd probably be a worse adult as a result. Are you planning on hovering over your children 24/7 for the rest of their lives? Because you can't protect them. And ruinin…

>And ruining all of society in order to delay exposing your child to difficult things for, at best, a couple of years, is ridiculous. //

As an adult I've seen things that have screwed me up, for more than just a few days. As a child I see those things either passing one by or being far more severe; both options are open depending on the particular nature of the content.

> If you don't want your children seeing NSFL things on a computer, don't let them use a computer. //

So people should only use computers if they want their children to see NSFL things?

There are alternatives top that position.

Personally with my [pre-teen] children I allow them to use computers with whitelist settings or with direct oversight - this in response to access to porn with our eldest child.

In physical daily life people would laugh at you for claiming that I'm a helicopter parent - I've been "told off" in public a couple of times for letting kids "too much freedom", but once they're wise to roads, sensible with new people, aware they can be injured then they're pretty safe around the general population as a group. Online you don't have the public available to help, children don't have their normal senses of danger and wariness that they build up from bumps, scrapes and bruises.

For sure, as teenagers they'll chase after "interesting" content both of a sexual and gore-ish (and ...) nature out of curiosity, but I'm not going to abandon them to that in the same way I'm not going to drop them off to play in a crack house.

The attempt to equivalise published porn that you saw as a child I'm guessing >15 years ago [?] with the crudest of online content available now is damaging. I too saw porn as a child of a similar age, softcore images of airbrushed men/women, and wouldn't shirk at my kids seeing the same; it's not like they don't know what naked people look like. NSFL content available online, both porn/gore/other, is an entirely different category and warrants a completely different approach to 'normal' sexual imagery IMO.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#228

Post by Grishnakh »

6t6t6t6 wrote: post #221
pmlnr wrote: post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. Don't get me wrong, I'm seriously against regulation like this because the line of what counts as (porn|extreme|violent|whatever) is too blurry and is too easy to be used to censor whatever the state declares unhealthy, and this is not good. /going rather offtopic afterwards What's also not good is how ugly the internet be…

> In Europe, the state _is_ responsible for their people; this is how it's been for a long while. This not a really good analysis. In Europe, the state is responsible of guaranteeing that the basic Human Rights are protected for all of its citizens. Than includes the right to education, health care, proper nutrition, shelter, security, etc. In general, the state does not intervene in private matters as far as this do…

>In this case, with its puritanism, UK is closer to the US than to West Europe.

No, it's not. What are you talking about?

The US is more like Western Europe, in fact the US is probably even more liberal than Western Europe, when it comes to porn. The UK is puritanical all by itself, and closer to, say, Saudi Arabia.

Here in the US, we produce all kinds of porn. California (LA mainly) used to be the hub for it, but it's spread out from there and now it's being made all over; you can find people looking for porn performers on any city's Craigslist now. We don't have any kind of "great firewall" to protect us from porn. We don't have proposals to make citizens get "ID cards" to view porn online. We don't have weird anti-porn laws against things like "face-sitting" (remember the flap in Britain a few years ago about that? They had women sitting on men's faces in front of government buildings to protest the ruling), or any other regulation on what kinds of positions are allowed to be shown in porn. It's pretty much totally unregulated over here. The industry does some internal self-regulation, but it's not government-imposed, and there's lots of small, independent producers (basically anyone with a camera) who aren't part of that.

Don't lump us Americans in with British prudery. We have some prudishness problems in parts of our society in "meatspace", but on the internet, it's the Wild West.

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#229

Post by selimthegrim »

Retric wrote: post #151
Freak_NL wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously doubting that there are peer reviewed articles that assert that there are things on the internet that can harm a child's development and well-being? Have a look at Google Scholar for a plethora of papers about cyber-bullying, grooming, self-esteem issues (mental and physical), pro-anorexia blogs, etcetera. You can combine the keywords "internet" and "children" with any of the above to get an extensi…

Pick 3 that don't A) bias the result by only looking at negative outcomes and B) don't bias the result by their funding or researches massive bias. EX: Cyber-bullying has many positive outcomes preparing sheltered children to the kind of people that live in the real world. Just look at what happened to the US hikers captured by Iran for an idea of what a sheltered upbringing results in.

You mean their being captured or how they reacted to their jailers' attempts to screw with them during their incarceration?

Re: UK Government proposes porn-viewing ID

#230

Post by Grishnakh »

nightspirit wrote: post #200
dintech wrote: post #96

Government, this is VPN. VPN, meet government. You guys aren't going to get along but I thought you should know about each other.

VPN hosting country, these are drones. Drones, meet the VPN host country... Or heck, just strong-arm them into adopting think-of-the-children laws one way or another.

Here in the USA, we don't block internet sites. We have no "great firewall" here. (We do have to worry about our IP addresses being associated with torrenting copyrighted content and getting sued however.)

So if you're in the UK and you want to use a VPN to access adult content (but you don't want to distribute copyrighted movies and music), the USA is an excellent VPN host country to use.

If the UK uses drones on the USA, the results will not be pretty for the UK. The UK will be squashed like the little bug that it is to us.

And given our near-religious devotion to freedom of speech, we're not going to be "strong-armed" into adopting such blocking either.

Post reply on HN