Live data from Hacker News

David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

Post reply on HN

Print view View original

341–350 of 369 posts

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#341

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 3:24 PM UTC

nthj wrote: post #217

jsmeaton wrote: post #176

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Not only that, the real problem isn't being noticed today. The real problem is how much shit they have on you when they do eventually notice you. After they pull the string on a US Attorney's back and point her in your direction, she will use every scrap of data available to make as ridiculously overblown case a case against you as she can. Which problem these sorts of protests seem to make worse.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#342

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 3:39 PM UTC

toble wrote: post #289

Sven7 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they have taken a good step in the right direction. Kids are exposed to too much crap these days. Kids growing up with involved parents and teachers turn out alright, but there are a whole lot of kids who aren't that lucky.

Can I just point out, there's some irony here. HN users are attempting to censor this comment by making it difficult to read because they don't agree with the opinion.

HN filtering is not about "censorship". It's about elevating interesting material and hiding braindead crap. Which is what it's doing in this case. "Won't somebody PLEASE think of the children!" Really?

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#343

Post by jessaustin » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 3:42 PM UTC

dclowd9901 wrote: post #336

gojomo wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Spitzer prosecuted people for both prostitution and the same kind of 'structuring' of large cash transactions that he himself did. He deserves his place on the above 'moral crusaders who turned out to be hypocrites' list, even if you happen to like some of his other crusades.

Fair points, but on the flip side, it's one thing to prosecute because it's your job, and another to persecute simply because it's your political ideology or fundamental belief. For all we know, Spitzer felt like prostitution laws were stupid, which really wouldn't make him a hypocrite at all.

Yeah sure, doing evil because it's your job to do evil is very normal, very human. The practice still merits criticism.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#344

Post by sukuriant » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 4:57 PM UTC

Hellenion wrote: post #306

Tichy wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are there any studies at all on the dangers of child exposure to porn?

I remember an article posted here on HN a while back about how researchers tried to conduct such a study but could not find a control group of people who hadn't been exposed.

Citation please? I want a good laugh to the irony.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#345

Post by mdda » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:01 PM UTC

Gonzih wrote: post #177

Sweet, list of people interested in pornography. And that information will be stored inside government infrastructure. Leaks are coming, public shaming is coming.

Idea : Create a 'pictures of cats' site, and voluntarily put it on the ISPs' 'must be blocked' list.

Then, people that want uncensored internet access can simply state that they liked to get to the innocuous cat pictures site - and that porn access wasn't part of their opt-in reasoning. Minimal-plausible deniability...

Of course, if someone is attacking this plausible deniability thing, then the question is "What do you gain from knowing I dislike censorship?".

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#346

Post by rmc » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:19 PM UTC

andyhmltn wrote: post #283

rmc wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are people who don't like sex. They don't think it's right for people to like sex, they think sex should only be used for procreation. I call them sex-orexics, like anarexics, they have a similar attitude towards sex that anarexics have towards food. It's just not healthy.

Indeed it's not. You often find that the people that have their sex life suppressed and made to feel disgusting are the ones with the weirdest bedroom habits.

Well, yes there is some hypocracy with some ardent (say) anti-gay politicians who are caught with a rent boy. However there are some people who are anti-sex publicly and privately.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#347

Post by vidarh » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:23 PM UTC

lazyjones wrote: post #314

vidarh wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you think is easier for Cameron: To fix the above, or to push through moralistic laws that will keep the media busy and get positive treatment in papers like Daily Mail to draw attention away from the problems?

He will do the latter and prevent larger problems (protests, growing opposition) with his new censorship infrastructure. Which, in my opinion, is his main motivation.

I have no doubt he'll do the latter. But I don't think he'll dare use it to prevent protest - if he does, he will face much larger opposition. Heck, I'll take to the streets if that happens, and the only demonstration I've taken part in in the last 15 years or so was a single anti-Iraq war demonstration that happened to take place across the street from me...

If we get that far, I'll also throw 10k towards darknet infrastructure if someone comes up with a viable project.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#348

Post by rmc » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:28 PM UTC

petercooper wrote: post #311

rmc wrote: post #259

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> So fisting ... already illegal. Actually there was a case in 2012 of someone tried under this law for having fisting videos. They weren't convicted. This is strong evidence (and precedent) that fisting per se would not fall under this law.

I read a story like that and it seems to be the usual British approach of actual convictions coming down heavily on judges and juries' sense of what's wrong and right rather than what the law says or suggests. (A good thing IMHO!) :-) That it even made it to court meant there was a case to answer but the actual outcomes seem to be more sane and based on the context than the law itself.

Well that law, like lots of laws, is open to interpretation by judges/the legal system/etc. That's how laws and judges and trials are mostly supposed to work. The judges/jury didn't ignore the law, they merely had to interpret the law and see if the facts of the case fit it or not.

I believe the crux was that the law said it was illegal to have porn that showed damage to the anus, so does fisting fall into that category or not? The outcome was no, fisting doesn't count as damage to the anus. The "stupid law" wasn't ignored, it wasn't a case of "people using their own moral compasses", it was a jury & judge interpreting a law, like normal.

That it even made it to court meant there was a case to answer

The cynic is me notices that the accused was a lawyer who helped prosecute corrupt police officers.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#349

Post by brokenparser » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

shanelja wrote: post #7

This is a move to shame those who watch pornography, that you have to ring someone up and say "Yeah, I'm trying to jack off here but for some reason pornhub won't load... Yeah... Uh... I'd like you to remove the porn filter please?"

I would not have a problem with this, I pay for the pipe so it's their job to deliver that service. It sucks not to have full Internet access. The proposed legislation is hard to swallow but I'll openly resist it, no biggie.

Re: David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

#350

Post by lttlrck » Mon, Jul 22, 2013, 5:45 PM UTC

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.

You started the conversation with statement that arguably defends shoddy journalism. Instead of backing it up, you claim the response to your comment is off-topic and proclaim offense at sarcasm and condescension (both useful devices for eliciting emotional responses in debate...). How about taking the high road?

Post reply on HN