David Cameron cracks down on online pornography

&gt; Every household in Britain connected to the internet will be obliged to declare whether they want to maintain access to online pornography<p>These declarations will only be used to shame public figures once the list is leaked.<p>&gt; The possession of &quot;extreme pornography&quot;, which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed.<p>Video footage of two consenting adults, acting out a scene, will be illegal to own. With this on the books, it seems a short hop to outlaw videos of simulated murder.<p>&gt; The Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) is to draw up a blacklist of &quot;abhorrent&quot; internet search terms to identify and prevent paedophiles searching for illegal material.<p>A single search can now land you on a government list of accused pedophiles.<p>Yikes.

`The government today has made a significant step forward in preventing rapists using rape pornography to legitimise and strategise their crimes and, more broadly, in challenging the eroticisation of violence against women and girls`<p>What? In what world would 90% of ANY porn be legitimate?! I want rapists using strategies found in the fake garbage you can find online, at least then they will be less effective than they could be.<p>`And, in a really big step forward, all the ISPs have rewired their technology so that once your filters are installed, they will cover any device connected to your home internet account. No more hassle of downloading filters for every device, just one-click protection. One click to protect your whole home and keep your children safe.`<p>That&#x27;s fucking censorship and I THOUGHT WE ALL AGREED THAT IS A SIGN OF FASCISM. Seriously, how many bloody times can someone use `FOR THE CHILDREN` as an a valid excuse? I hope this fellow gets put out of office with no pension. He is committing widespread censorship of an entire nation. And the people appreciate that. People also appreciated that Hitler brought Austria and Germany together in anschluss as well as the fact that he returned them from 40% unemployment. Funny how short sighted the people are.<p>`You&#x27;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`<p>I see, you want the people who have been working for their entire lives to better the human race to take their valued time and put that towards your endeavors of censoring anything that could potentially offend the parents of children? I&#x27;m sorry, you are what&#x27;s wrong with the world.<p>I say we should build systems designed specifically to undermine these authoritarian measures.

Meh.<p>I doubt the Tories have a clean house in this regard. Every time some politician or other &#x27;moral leader&#x27; starts pontificating about moral panic, I get suspicious that they&#x27;re just trying to ban their vice. Clearly if they&#x27;re so vocally opposed to it, they mustn&#x27;t be partaking, right?<p><pre><code> Glenn Loury and cocaine. Mark Foley and the exploitation of children. Eliot Spitzer and prostitution. John Ensign and &#x27;family values&#x27;. Larry Craig, Ted Haggard, countless others and homosexuality. The Conservative Party and Back to Basics.</code></pre> The list of hypocrites goes on and on and on.

It&#x27;s amazing how politicians keep conflating these 4 things:<p>(a) Voluntary acts between adults<p>(b) Fantasy<p>(c) Preventing the use of porn by adolescents<p>(d) Protecting children (and others) from horrific crimes<p>In my view, the reason for that &quot;mix up&quot; is simply old fashioned prudery and religious fanaticism. (d) is the only thing that governments should care about.

Are there any real studies on the &quot;corrosive influence&quot; of porn on children? I&#x27;m pretty sure every young teen boy has seen porn these days. The only actual studies I&#x27;m aware of say that porn reduces actually violent sex crimes. It acts as a substitute.

Considering my mobile ISP (GiffGaff) thinks that the ThinkPad wiki is pornographic, I genuinely can say all this is going to do is break the internet.<p>The last thing we need is a broken Internet here. The economy is fucked enough already.<p>Add to that the whole is censorship right debate (it&#x27;s not unless it&#x27;s opt-in), the pre-crime list this generates and we&#x27;re right into blatant fascism.<p>Where do we even start at fixing all this? I think we&#x27;re helpless.

&gt; The possession of &quot;extreme pornography&quot;, which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed.<p>Certain scenes in Game of Thrones might trip this rule. More interestingly, the show is partly filmed in the UK.<p>I guess Martin, Benioff, and Weiss are all a bunch of criminals. But all those scenes of people stabbing, slashing, and killing each other with all kinds of blades are not a major THREAT TO CHILDREN in a country with a knife-crime problem.

<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;en.wikipedia.org&#x2F;wiki&#x2F;Think_of_the_children</a><p>can&#x27;t believe that people still fall for this shtick

There is an awful lot of populist policies coming out of the UK for the last couple of years. Is the current state of the economy really that bad?<p>Usually that&#x27;s when politicians concentrate on less demanding, more emotional issues.<p>Also, nice power-grab right there - cause you never know!<p>&quot;Sorry Angela, I can&#x27;t open that WikiLeaks link you told me about.&quot; &quot;Nigel, could it be that you forgot to let your porn filter be lifted?&quot;<p>This is bad and as always not only for UK citizens because politicians like to look at other countries for inspiration and validation. Clearly in Austria some pundits will applaud this.

Same tactics everywhere,<p>Mandatory internet Filters on every ISP as a precaution against pornography or child pornography. Same crippled laws as Turkey. Nobody is prevented reaching porn. But most of the time filters are used against so called &quot;piracy&quot;, &quot;extremist&quot; political or &quot;regional&quot; views and these kinds of political agendas. Currently websites pro-evolution are struggling censorship.

Why are people so afraid of pornography? A healthy society is one that promotes sex. Not one that censors its citizens for &#x27;the children.&#x27;<p>Don&#x27;t get me wrong: People that look at children and the like should be caught and prosecuted. But really, the way to go about that isn&#x27;t to ban ALL of pornography. Are we to ban butter knifes incase someone goes on a rampage with one? No, we identify the issues that <i>cause</i> someone to do that and go after them.<p>I don&#x27;t see the point in spending millions of pounds blocking search engines when those millions could be spent on the core issue. If someone wants to look at illegal illicit images, I can <i>guarantee you</i> the majority aren&#x27;t going to search for it on google using their home internet connection.

This is a move to shame those who watch pornography, that you have to ring someone up and say &quot;Yeah, I&#x27;m trying to jack off here but for some reason pornhub won&#x27;t load... Yeah... Uh... I&#x27;d like you to remove the porn filter please?&quot;

&gt; &quot;I have a very clear message for Google, Bing, Yahoo and the rest. You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don&#x27;t just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.<p>&gt;&quot;You&#x27;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.&quot;<p>Yeah, come on clever technical people. Get it sorted. We&#x27;ve decided you need to uninvent nuclear weapons as well please. Immediately.<p>What embarrassing ignorance from a major public figure.

If you want to try and do something about this, donate to the UK equivalent to the EFF, the Open Rights Group[1]. See their rather sane and well thought out views on this here[2]<p>[1] - <a href="http://www.openrightsgroup.org/" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.openrightsgroup.org&#x2F;</a><p>[2] - <a href="https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/cameron-demands-action-on-child-abuse-images" rel="nofollow">https:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.openrightsgroup.org&#x2F;blog&#x2F;2013&#x2F;cameron-demands-ac...</a>

Personally speaking I would be glad to have this filter, but I wouldn&#x27;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&#x27;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 have root.<p>Are there any arguments against an opt-in filter? The legislation is for an opt-out filter.

&gt; challenging the eroticisation of violence against women and girls<p>I wonder what the legal tests for that are here? Non-consensual fantasies are very popular among women who don&#x27;t actually want to be victims of crimes. Will they ban romance novels?<p>Then next they could go after the female fandoms for Loki from the Avengers movie, yandere characters, and those girls who write love letters to serial killers. Okay, maybe the last ones could use some help.

First off, I hate it how they always try to frame new laws as trying to &quot;protect&quot; people. The same with airline searches and the whole PRISM deal.<p>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 &quot;get their fix.&quot; I can&#x27;t remember where I read this so I can&#x27;t provide a source, but it seems to make sense.

Submited title was: &quot;Every household in England obliged to declare whether they want to access porn&quot;.

This stinks. I don&#x27;t want a great firewall of Britain filtering my access to the net China-style, site by site. We let this trend advance and they&#x27;ll be whitelisting in no time. And when you complain about the extreme surveillance you will be branded a paedophile and a rapist.

The news here is <i>not</i> 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&#x27;s median porn sites&#x27; contents would not be allowed anywhere near television.<p>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&#x27;t think we can dispute that the internet is no longer unregulatable, anonymous anarchy. <i>That</i> is the news here.<p>Governments, large corporations and other traditional power sources feel they can exercise influence and control over the internet. It&#x27;s within their jurisdiction and physical capabilities.

TL;DR - &quot;Yea I guess, but...&quot;<p>Personally I don&#x27;t have huge a problem with the default filtering; most households (with or without kids) don&#x27;t have the knowledge to effectively enable filtering for all their devices - giving them &#x27;protection&#x27; by default, and allowing the option to have full access is currently what most - maybe all - mobile phone operators do in the UK anyway in 3G&#x2F;GSM connections.<p>However, its important that the opt-out is incredibly straight forward - an online form for example (ideally during signup with a new provider) - no need for &#x27;humiliating&#x27; phone calls where you have to explain why you want to see Super Army of Boob 2, for example.<p>I do wonder what this will mean when accessing sites like The Pirate Bay - which often have boobs-a-plenty in the sidebar ads. Does it mean that people who visit sites that happen to have &#x27;pornographic&#x27; ads ALSO need the filtering off.<p>My bigger concern here is that these measures will very likely do nothing to stem child pornography (and I would hazard a guess sexual abuse in general); my reasoning is that I don&#x27;t imagine your average paedophile just opens their vanilla browser in the morning and Googles for &#x27;[child related sex terms]&#x27; - surely this kind of activity hides behind systems such as Tor?<p>One other thing that springs to mind; presumably, unless there is explicit legislation against this, ISPs can now sell your filter preferences for marketing purposes; perhaps putting you in some &#x27;boxes&#x27; you wouldn&#x27;t want to be in.

I&#x27;m consistently astounded at England&#x27;s ability in the last couple of decades to move towards the fictional UK societies we see in <i>1984</i> and <i>V for Vendetta</i>. It&#x27;s almost like the people have come to the exact opposite conclusion that the authors were trying to impress upon their audiences.<p>&gt; <i>&quot;Wow, censorship, totalitarianism and mass surveillance are great ideas. We really should implement them.&quot;</i><p>Secondly, it is impossible to filter information within a society that doesn&#x27;t have North Korea like tendencies. As soon as this filter goes up, people will just rent servers overseas, and get their internet via encrypted lines that aren&#x27;t subject to censorship.<p>Banning porn is like trying ban alcohol. Everyone knows that it&#x27;s a vice, everyone still does it (isn&#x27;t 20% of global internet bandwidth porn?), and banning it just puts money into the hands of organized crime.<p>Thirdly, won&#x27;t a bunch of mainstream award-winning films that come out every single year become illegal under this act? Games too for that matter. Say good bye to crime shows and violent film in the UK.<p>Finally, this is just one step away the <i>Great Firewall of China</i>. The argument that we need to protect children from the &quot;corrosive&quot; aspects of society might expand to other political parties, or ideas that aren&#x27;t in the interests of those already in power.<p>The thing with censorship is that as soon as a you do a little, it&#x27;s funny how quickly that becomes a lot. You just have to think of the children now then don&#x27;t you?

As a kid, my parents tried using parental control software on my computer to block porn and other inappropriate content. This turned out to be helpful because it motivated me to learn how to exploit the software. I applaud Mr. Cameron&#x27;s inadvertent efforts to enhance the computer skills of his nation&#x27;s youth.

In other news, VPN usage in the UK skyrockets. Strict measures to be taken to reduce sexcrime.

My Israeli ISP has a default porn filter. I had to call and cancel it because the proxy broke svn. No, honestly, it did.

The fact that they&#x27;re bringing it up now, while half the country is on holiday and the land is in the grips of the best weather for almost a decade, is worrying. It means they might actually be serious about it.<p>And serious they might be indeed, considering they need some cheap win after years of economic mismanagement. The economy keeps stalling and the 2015 General Election is getting closer; considering bureaucratic timescales, if you want anything to actually be <i>done</i> by then, you need to start now.<p>Sigh. I guess it&#x27;ll be a win for Swedish VPN providers.

&gt; <i>All police forces will work with a single secure database of illegal images of children to help &quot;close the net on paedophiles&quot;.</i><p>Let me guess, David Cameron is going to appoint himself to head some special committee to dole out who gets to access to said database…<p>This is going go down well in history…

I doubt this will have much effect on English youth as they also have the earliest self reported loss of virginity in the civilized world!<p>See <a href="http://www.nuigalway.ie/hbsc/documents/godeau_2008_contraceptive_use_apam_1621_6673.pdf" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nuigalway.ie&#x2F;hbsc&#x2F;documents&#x2F;godeau_2008_contracep...</a>

Should crack down on Facebook instead. Here in Australia at least, I have read of more people being murdered by someone they met via Facebook that through a pornography site.

This is because it&#x27;s very difficult to argue with &quot;think of the children&quot;.<p>However, when we were kids, we traded pornography on floppy disks, so this solves nothing.

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

Great another excuse to ban millions of sites under the disguise of protecting children from porn or catching child rapists.<p>Let&#x27;s talk about what this really is. It&#x27;s just the governments way of telling us what porn we should watch and banning anything they think is &quot;not normal&quot;.<p>And if some legitimate sites get mixed up in this this filter we&#x27;re suppose to believe it&#x27;s an honest mistake right?<p>Stay away from my porn Cameron or I&#x27;ll fuck you up.

Isn&#x27;t this policy electoral suicide? Sure, there&#x27;s a vocal minority who want to &#x27;think of the children&#x27; and are backing Cameron&#x27;s plan. But I&#x27;d imagine the vast majority of the population want to view pornography without putting their name on a smut-list. These people aren&#x27;t going to form campaign groups but will be happy to express their view in the anonymous confines of a polling booth.

Its going to be against the rules to look up offensive terms like, say, &quot;child abuse imagery&quot;.<p>Which presumably means that the legislation will have to use the term &quot;child abuse imagery&quot;. Which means that it will be impossible to look up the legislation using a search engine. One has to wonder how we are expected to know whether or not we are complying with it given that we shan&#x27;t be legally allowed to search for it.

How are they enacting the filter? Would switching DNS from the cable company bypass it?

We should all applaud David Cameron for supporting small businesses. Escort services have been in the dump lately due to the proliferation of free&#x2F;cheap filth; this will finally give much needed boost to the local economy.<p>&#x2F;sarc<p>I&#x27;m wondering if a sizable number of the public is brave enough to get their names into the opt-in as a virtual &quot;I am Spartacus&quot; and two fingers to Cameron.

&gt; The possession of &quot;extreme pornography&quot;, which includes scenes of simulated rape, is to be outlawed.<p>Irreversible?<p>The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo?<p>Once Upon a Time in the West?<p>A Clockwork Orange?<p>Titus Andronicus?<p>Remember when RIPA was only supposed to be for terrorism?<p><a href="http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/dorset/7341179.stm" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;news.bbc.co.uk&#x2F;1&#x2F;hi&#x2F;england&#x2F;dorset&#x2F;7341179.stm</a>

I think society as a whole is a bit too hard on pedophiles. Even rapists have an outlet to relieve their sexual frustration and can go to counseling without still being called a monster.<p>Pedophilia is just like any other sexual orientation. It is not something you just turn off, pedophiles need counseling and ways to relieve their sexual frustration. Things like CG porn and Lolicon for example should be legal. It is just not realistic to tell pedophiles to just stop and then put them in prison for the rest of their lives when they act on their desires, they will most likely be stabbed because even among criminals pedophilia is the worst of the worst and you are more likely to be stabbed if you raped a 15 year old than a 16 year old.<p>And this whole argument that watching fake rape porn will turn you into a rapist is bullshit. It is just like the argument that violent video games turn you into a violent person.

Mr Cameron tells us that he&#x27;s terrified of what his children can access online. You&#x27;d think with access to some of the UK&#x27;s most intelligent brains he&#x27;d be able to master parental guidance of internet usage without legislating it.<p>Isn&#x27;t this just telling parents that the internet will suddenly be safe, a government sanctioned message to that effect is quite a bit stronger than your ISPs salesperson. Of course, the filter will either resemble China or have holes so assuming the latter any responsible parent will still want to monitor their children&#x27;s usage.<p>The effect of this law seems to be constrained to making David Cameron (and other not-very-technically-knowledgeable parents) feel that he&#x27;s a responsible parent, but to be honest I&#x27;d rather taxpayers pay for a nanny for him than for this ridiculous law - cheaper and much more effective.

How about he does something productive and bans 50 shades of grey.

How is this going to work if people https to sites outside the UK?

And like usual, we&#x27;ll find the public figures responsible for pushing such regulations on morality will be those most likely to be the biggest offenders.<p>But this isn&#x27;t about &quot;protecting the children&quot; from porn, is it?<p>I&#x27;m on the wrong side of 40, and I&#x27;ve been online for 28 years. Professionally involved in the software and bitplumbing of &quot;the web&quot; for all of my adult life. I saw jwz&#x27;s camo cube and montulli&#x27;s fish tank with my own eyes, and years before that, wrote software alongside visionaries guided by the promise of building online communities and the freedom of information.<p>It wasn&#x27;t supposed to turn out like this.<p>The people making these rules are incapable of building the surveillance apparatus without our involvement. Take this opportunity to look hard at what you&#x27;re creating, and examine the motives of the people you&#x27;re building it for.

Trying to garner popularity because: a) This is something most people hate, and he is taking a stance they will sympathize with<p>b) He singles out Google as needing to do more. Google has received a lot of bad press recently due to tax avoidance. Therefore, criticizing Google will go down well with a lot of people.

&gt;&gt; If there are technical obstacles to acting on [search engines], don&#x27;t just stand by and say nothing can be done; use your great brains to help overcome them.<p>&gt;&gt; &quot;You&#x27;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.&quot;<p>Do I read this right? So they don&#x27;t care how expensive or hard the problem is to solve they just demand it to be solved. And even if the solution is bad or expensive, both customers and taxpayers must still pay to have it implemented. Got it.

This is, stupidly, in direct opposition to the trend towards a popular understanding of &quot;power exchange&quot; relationships.<p><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2012/04/03/books/fifty-shades-of-grey-s-and-m-cinderella.html" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.nytimes.com&#x2F;2012&#x2F;04&#x2F;03&#x2F;books&#x2F;fifty-shades-of-grey...</a> (not even a new idea)<p><a href="http://www.goodreads.com/book/show/493829.SM_101" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.goodreads.com&#x2F;book&#x2F;show&#x2F;493829.SM_101</a><p>Dear Mr. Cameron, you just saw how the gay marriage issue went and you where quick to jump on board. You really want to be on the wrong side of this issue?<p>Beware the Red Menace--er I mean child pornography (insert fear of the moment mongering here).

This honestly makes more sense as an opt out for parents to utilize for their children...

A comment today on Nicky Cambell&#x27;s bbc phone in:<p>&gt; I&#x27;m a social worker, and once this goes into force, I will know that any household where the kids have access to porn has come from a parent making a conscious choice to let it happen.

I guess we would live in a wonderful world if there was no children and terrorists.

We&#x27;ve had similar attempts in several countries before, mostly argued for with the fight against child pornography. This has nothing to do with pornography, Cameron wants a censorship infrastructure so he can prevent access to sensitive &quot;leaks&quot; and other content that his regime might find dangerous.<p>Just don&#x27;t get dragged into a for&#x2F;against pornography discussion, it&#x27;s pointless in this context. Even if you&#x27;re naive enough to believe Cameron is actually trying to censor pornography, ask yourself whether such an infrastructure <i>can</i> and consequently <i>will</i> be abused.

According to the guardian&#x27;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:<p>&quot;Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions [as] &#x27;default-on&#x27;&quot;<p>active-choice+ is a set of filters that may be enabled on request.<p>[1] <a href="http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.guardian.co.uk&#x2F;commentisfree&#x2F;2013&#x2F;jul&#x2F;21&#x2F;david-ca...</a>

I think it is great that David Cameron is trying to protect his country.<p>But, I think the implementation of anything that restricts the internet before content gets to the client will take things down a bad road, which is why similar efforts keep getting struck down in the U.S. When you give the power of restricting communication to the government or even to a contractor for the government, how will that not be abused? You may as well let them open every bit of mail and every parcel and check to see what you are wearing each morning to ensure it is appropriate.

There is a more fundamental problem here than the law itself. People who fail to understand any aspect of the internet, should not be allowed to legislate against it in any way. It&#x27;s madness.

&gt;Once those filters are installed, it should not be the case that technically literate children can just flick the filters off at the click of a mouse without anyone knowing.<p>BAHAHAHA.<p>Ouch. My sides.

The one hope in all of this is the inability of ISPs to filter accurately, especially with innocuous false positives. A lot of mobile providers in the UK already have opt-out adult filters on their 3G services. They frequently block things such as websites about bars &amp; pubs.<p>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 &quot;watches porn list&quot;.

I commend David Cameron and his party for doing more than anyone else this week in promoting privacy-preserving technologies such as Tor, VPNs, HTTPS, etc.

It&#x27;s almost as if the US and the UK are trying to one-up each other in the race to fully implement a fascist police-state.<p>Seems like the UK has just taken the lead.

It seems it would be better to have an opt-in list instead of forcing everyone into it by default and making a list of those that didn&#x27;t want it.

He does this for &quot;moral&quot; reasons yet recently vetoed the minimum alcohol price proposal:<p>&gt; “We do not yet have enough concrete evidence that its introduction would be effective in reducing harms associated with problem drinking, without penalising people who drink responsibly.<p>Where&#x27;s the &quot;concrete evidence&quot; for this new stuff?<p>Not something anyone can challenge either without putting their reputation on the line.

I can&#x27;t wait until David Cameron learns that you can anonymously buy drugs on the Internet and have them shipped directly to your house.

Actually that would make Zeffirelli&#x27;s production of &quot;The Taming of the Shrew&quot; borderline illegal.<p>Along with many other respected works of art and culture.<p>The Anglo Saxon penchant for pruderish grandstanding combined with the British desire for an overbearing nanny state is a truly disturbing combination.<p>Unfortunately there are a lot of sheep on the British isles (as everywhere)

This law only shows the kind of filthy, dirty, sleazebags our politicians have become. The whole idea is to create a database of people who are happy to view porn on their internet connections. The concept is so outrageous that it simple boggles the mind. What kind grubby vote seeking laws are politicians going to come up with next?

Best get one of those: <a href="http://www.streetshirts.co.uk/sites/streetshirts.co.uk/content/fb.aspx?designkey=PFC[4Ve969n6eJwFgmK1895F11F0canNQ6]" rel="nofollow">http:&#x2F;&#x2F;www.streetshirts.co.uk&#x2F;sites&#x2F;streetshirts.co.uk&#x2F;conte...</a><p>Disclaimer: No I do not get money for this.

This would be a good segue into blocking anonymising proxies as well. For the kids of course.

Wait, this just went through parliament without any problems? I may have lived under a rock, but this is the first time I ever hear about this. Is this just a proposition from the English government, or is the new legislation already accepted?

It&#x27;s baffling how many times the &quot;think of the children&quot; excuse gets used to, actually, treat everyone as children. Won&#x27;t somebody please think of the adults?

Translation: &quot;I’m not making this speech because I want to moralise or scaremonger&quot; -&gt; &quot;I’m making this speech because I want to moralise and scaremonger&quot;

It&#x27;s scary just how idiotic he sounds when talking about this.<p>He did an interview with the BBC Radio Four programme &quot;Woman&#x27;s Hour&quot;. He sounds computer illiterate.

Wrong for too many reasons - especially linking child pornography with pornography - the former actually being child abuse, and later being consenting adults.

So, what stops a technically literate teenage boy from opening an encrypted VPN connection to a VM and tunneling traffic through that?

I wonder if this will actually be able filter SSL sites. Even if it can, it&#x27;s not going protect from people using Tor or VPNs.

This has nothing to do with porn.<p>Porn is just a good justification for getting a &quot;Great Firewall of China&quot; system implemented in the UK.

upvote if you think this is just a cover story to increase internet surveillance and put internet in government control. USA does it to protect itself from &#x27;terroeists&#x27; we all know how well that turned out. but since theres going to be no public outrage over freedom to watch porn, this trickster will fool his public this way.

Just curious... So depictions of violence against men are still going to be okay?<p>And we think we&#x27;ve come so far with gender equality...

You know it&#x27;s time for an election when politicians start talking about morals. When will they ever learn?

Anything done in response to a campaign by the Daily Mail can only be a bad idea ...

Good way to be able to implement &quot;D-notices&quot; on the web. Sigh.

Weasel generates easy headlines without doing anything useful. FTFY.

Yeah, porn should be at the fingertips of every man woman and child. Porn leads to healthy lifestyles and healthy sex lives, cultures and communities.<p>Just look at life before porn existed. Never any healthy societies or sexual relationships then - they did not even exist. What harm could porn possibly cause anyone? Putting into someones mind a fantasy of how sex really can and should be? How could that ever cause any future sexual relationship to suffer in any way?<p>How could putting sexual assault video or images into any 10 year old&#x27;s mind - images that they will never come out, how could that ever cause any potential problems with their natural sexual development? Inconceivable.<p>People in a truly free country should be able to get their free porn on YouTube whilst buying their methamphetamine (legally) outside (or even inside) of the local welfare office. Now that it the country that I want to live in...

OK, here is the difference. I know, I know - censorship generally is bad. What will they (the government) consider &quot;harmful&quot; next? information right? political opinion, it&#x27;s book burning, this is a slippery slope ETC.<p>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 society (particularly children).<p>That is the difference. The legal guardians of those who know that the potential is higher that their children may be affected negatively by pornography should be able to have the ability to make it harder for them to access it.<p>I see a lot of posts here talking about parents putting filtering software on their computer. Well, there is always easy ways around those. How many kids have iPhones today with unfettered internet access? how many kids use a public library? how many kids know computers better than their parents or grandparents and can get around any filtering software that may be installed on their home computer?<p>I remember the uproar at the proposition that porn content be delivered over an .xxx domain. Why was there such an uproar? How was it censorship to classify content that could be dangerous to some? Are movie ratings censorship? Are 8 year old kids legally allowed to buy tickets to NC-17 movies? It seems like the precedent had already been set.<p>It was all about money of course. The porn industry knows that the younger a person watches porn for the first time, the more likely they are to continue watching&#x2F;purchasing porn indefinitely. The porn industry WANTS minors to view the porn. They do everything they possibly can to entice them at the earliest age possible. Does anyone think that the porn industry is high on the ethical and moral hill and would never take advantage of children to make more money?<p>Why should anyone outside the home have the power to do this? Why do parents have such little power and so little and ineffective tools to limit their child&#x27;s exposure to pornographic material?<p>This is no more censorship than current laws requiring that porn mags be put on shelves a certain distance from the ground in retail stores so that 8 year old kids generally cannot reach them.