Hard Light Productions Forums
Off-Topic Discussion => General Discussion => Topic started by: MP-Ryan on July 23, 2013, 09:51:37 am
-
AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
*ahem*
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
So, free speech concerns aside, does the UK government have any idea just how long it will take for any moderately tech-savvy person to skip the ISP-enable process and simply use freely-available privacy and encryption tools to bypass these filters? Does it realize at all that such a filter system is bound to make the populace more generally tech-savvy and reduce the ability of the government to spy on its citizenry?
A good op-ed on the subject: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/digital-culture/why-britains-anti-porn-mega-filter-is-great-no-really/article13344645/
Dear Mr. Cameron. I'd like to introduce you to a very interesting fellow who's been causing headaches for people like you for many, many years. He's most commonly known as Murphy, but you might know him by his more formal title: The Law of Unintended Consequences.
-
(http://behance.vo.llnwd.net/profiles/56920/projects/1218781/b5ee469ba6490ebd8e418aca5bfd5281.png)
-
Starslayer gets 1 point for making a good reference (Although the Rule 34 squad in the book was more concerned with people getting killed or otherwise grievously harmed, not with people wanking to video streams).
But yeah, this is an astonishing piece of comedy.
-
Starslayer gets 1 point for making a good reference
I don't know what it means.
-
My understanding was that it was a case of opt out by default, requiring anyone seriously dependant on porn to call the isp (in a similar fashion to mobile network providers like T-Mobile or O2) and say, I'm over 18, content lock off yo yo yooooo.
Srsly, you kids, in my day you had to pool pocket money then nominate the oldest looking friend in the group to go to the local newsagent :lol:
-
Uh . . . is this seriously going to happen? That seems a little less than funny. Yes it would be difficult to enforce, but significant penalties for what would amount to completely random people would count as not good in my book.
-
Does it realize at all that such a filter system is bound to make the populace more generally tech-savvy and reduce the ability of the government to spy on its citizenry?
I can see the headlines already: "Britain blacklists porn" In other news, "HideMyAss and Tor replace Facebook as the most popular web service among British teenagers"
:lol:
-
Lots of mobile providers already operate on an opt-in principle already. Talktalk and T-Mobile I think. It's not a hardship.
-
i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong. there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters. you just tell them you don't want them applied to you. this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content. it's just filters. it's a morality thing. an easy and automatic parental block if you will. i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it.
-
i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong. there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters. you just tell them you don't want them applied to you. this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content. it's just filters. it's a morality thing. an easy and automatic parental block if you will. i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it.
"I want to be able to access HotSweetTrapFeet.com please? And could I also get access to Analbananna.me?"
-
the way i saw it a simple "i don't want the filters turned on for me" will suffice. some article i read even made mention of yes or no checkboxes, and a no response was counted as a yes.
-
i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong. there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters. you just tell them you don't want them applied to you. this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content. it's just filters. it's a morality thing. an easy and automatic parental block if you will. i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it.
I think you're missing that quite a number of people will not want to phone their ISP to disable content blocks (which they never wanted in the first place), and are thus more inclined to give their ISP and government a gigantic "F U" and use privacy tools instead - which in turns harms government espionage efforts generally.... all of which was the point of the OP.
If ISPs provided an adult filter as an opt-in then I see no problem; few people will opt-in, and those that do know what they're getting into. Making this opt-out is just a great way to educate people about government interference with the internet and invasion of privacy, and therefore get them to use privacy tools.
Given the success of programs like PRISM, though, I somehow doubt that governments in general want their citizenry to adopt better privacy protections. A number of these programs explicitly rely on a certain level of user obliviousness as to the capabilities of certain agencies that gather information.
-
I don't know how it is out there. But over here calling your ISP to get something fixed is about a useful, fulfilling, and pleasant as waking up one morning to discover a tattoo of a phallus on your forehead.
I would imagine that plenty of people will choose the easier option of learning data security measures. [/is serious]
-
I thought the point of it was to stop your 11-year-old kids from accidentally stumbling over porn while searching for warez or something on the internet and prematurely being exposed to adult content at a fragile and impressionable young age.
As was my case.
-
What's so wrong with porn?
-
What's so wrong with porn?
Nothing. Obviously the PM just wants to shake things up; there's clearly no motivating factor in this outside of boredom.
-
What's so wrong with porn?
Nothing at all if you also don't think that there's anything wrong with exposing it to a young child.
-
My main gripe with this is that if you select the option that does not filter the internet then most likely your account details are going into a list. That list WILL then be used for other things.
Lets just say for example HLP accidentally gets put on the block list (which will most likely be confidential with practically no way to get removed from). Well thats no problem because I'l have filtering turned off. Now a major sexual child abuse incident occurs in my local area and the police are looking for suspects, "I know, lets get those lists the ISPs have of all accounts with filters turned off and see who is in the local area oh and while we are at it lets get some search warrants made up just to be safe...". Better hide those Strike witches complete collections eh?
The filtering will just break the internet, if places like Youtube and Facebook aren't blocked by the filters initially, a few well timed hardecoredesguisedaskiddiesstuff invasions will soon sort that. Or even worse, Site A dosn't like Site B so arranges to get it flooded with inappropriate content and then reports it. Site B getd blocked without parole and dies (exaggeration I know.
The final biscuit will be when people are unable to search for good tourist activities in S****horpe and Penistone... (I should have expected the first one to fall the the forum's built in word censor :banghead:)
-
Okay, right now, it's porn. But I think a lot of people are concerned because there's potential later on to expand the filters to include other things. Hilariously ineffective for anyone who actually knows how to use the internet, but it still isn't a thing that governments (or ISPs, or anyone for that matter) need to be doing.
-
guys seriously can we at least use a reputable UK news source, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23403068
also can we take not of things such as
What happens if a customer wants to change what is blocked?
Again, it varies by ISP.
For those that use installed software, the blocking can be turned off or customised on each machine as required.
Most ISPs that operate network level blocking let customers turn it on and off as needed via their account settings page on the web. In some cases customers might occasionally need to call a customer support line to adjust the filter settings.
Some ISPs operate a time-based system that lets parents restrict access to certain sites at certain times. Many people choose to block access to social networks in the early evening when they want their offspring to be getting on with their homework.
because when we do we find little bits of info like what is in bold. seriously several ISPs in the UK already have this service built into the basic package so its a non news event beyond demonstrating that yet again the UK government is behind the times.
-
What's so wrong with porn?
Nothing at all if you also don't think that there's anything wrong with exposing it to a young child.
Ohnoes, a young child watches porn
That's when it becomes the parents job to teach their child about sex earlier, and how real world differs from not so real world
"Young Sir, simply becoming the milk man does NOT get you laid just like that"
"Damn"
-
You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.
-
Traumatized from what, telling them where babies come from? :wtf:
-
You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.
Show me the evidence good sir
-
You're talking to it.
Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.
-
You obviously do not understand the permanent psychological and therapy-inducing damage that results from "rushing" a child's development in such a traumatizing fasion.
Parent's responsibility.
This is less about porn and more about the state getting involved where it doesn't have a place.
The only thing this law does is allow parents to blame their inattentiveness on their child's development on their big bad ISP rather then taking responsibility for their actions or as the case may be, inaction.
-
oh FFS. i really can't believe some of you guys. ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.
-
oh FFS. i really can't believe some of you guys. ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.
No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.
The amount of data that is collated, quantified, and then used to define everything about you, from your liklihood to vote, to who you'll vote for, to what type of organic food policy will buy your vote is used. And my party is behind the curve on this stuff. Corporations and more informed political movements have been on this for a long time, and this kind of data is bought and sold with very high speed.
Don't get me wrong. I tell most of the anonymous folks and other conspiracy theorists to take their tin foil hats off and go pound sand on a semi-regular basis, but I also know exactly what this kind of data is used for and how readily available that data is.
This is like an automatic opt out to buy alcohol. No restriction to opt in, except now your name is on a list somewhere saying that you opted in. One more data point to evaluate your attitudes. Where will you vacation? What will you buy? How best to market to you? Etc etc.
The ISP's themselves will almost certainly use this list to tailor service to groups of people, and I find it highly unlikely that won't metastasize quickly.
That's even before you get into the nuts and bolts of implementation.
What is porn? Who set's that bar? Is it just sites who state they are for porn? Is it sites where that content can be downloaded? What about ones that provide instructions to acquire?
What about some jackass who posts a revealing photo on facebook? Facebook now offline? Implementation will be a nightmare, without the above data gathering issues. Most notably, this will likely expand if it isn't nipped in the bud.
In this case they have dressed it up as child protection, but again, even with admirable goals, this is the role for the parent, not the state.
-
Something tells me that it's just another move to distract people from the more important issues. There will be an uproar in the media, people will complain and protest this, the issue would be all over the news. Finally, it will be repealed with an apology. And in the meantime, nobody will talk about lower-profile, unpopular stuff that will pass without anyone noticing, and which would've cause a stir if tried on a calmer time. That's an old, proven tactic for passing unpopular measures.
-
You're talking to it.
Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.
Perhaps it had a very bad effect on you, but not everybody would react the same way.
-
You're talking to it.
Discredit me all you want, I'm just putting in my bit.
I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old. I had a lot of fairly traumatic things happen to me as a child. That was not one of them.
This does not mean that applies to everyone. Insufficient sample. Similarly, your stumbling across porn as a child traumatizing you doesn't mean it is a global destructive force across all young experiences. If it was much of society would not exist. For a long time children slept in the same single-room houses as their parents for the winter and certainly would have witnessed their siblings being conceived.
But lets say porn really is bad for young minds. Is it the government's responsibility to protect them? Does the government also prevent them from running out into the road, or falling into a fire? At some point, the responsibility is on the guardian of the child to do things like introduce them to sex responsibly - the best the government can do is give resources and education to the guardian in question.
-
British attempting that? I think if you look to the east, there are many attempts at that already. In fact, the governments often learn the hard way that the harder they block, the harder the people will try to look for new sites.
-
The problem here is that there is a certain level of responsibility that should be a parent's duty to uphold, not the government's. In this case, a parent that is worried about what such imagery does to a child should keep an eye on what they are watching. I could understand if this involved truly damaging content like racism, or worse. But even then, there is simply too much content (http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/) for a government to categorize by itself.
-
Something tells me that it's just another move to distract people from the more important issues. There will be an uproar in the media, people will complain and protest this, the issue would be all over the news. Finally, it will be repealed with an apology. And in the meantime, nobody will talk about lower-profile, unpopular stuff that will pass without anyone noticing, and which would've cause a stir if tried on a calmer time. That's an old, proven tactic for passing unpopular measures.
not sure, I have only heard about it a couple of times and in both cases it was in written sources.
oh FFS. i really can't believe some of you guys. ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.
No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.
errr what???? as far as I am aware we are talking about some filters which are voluntarily enforced by the end user.
The amount of data that is collated, quantified, and then used to define everything about you, from your liklihood to vote, to who you'll vote for, to what type of organic food policy will buy your vote is used. And my party is behind the curve on this stuff. Corporations and more informed political movements have been on this for a long time, and this kind of data is bought and sold with very high speed.
Don't get me wrong. I tell most of the anonymous folks and other conspiracy theorists to take their tin foil hats off and go pound sand on a semi-regular basis, but I also know exactly what this kind of data is used for and how readily available that data is.
This is like an automatic opt out to buy alcohol. No restriction to opt in, except now your name is on a list somewhere saying that you opted in. One more data point to evaluate your attitudes. Where will you vacation? What will you buy? How best to market to you? Etc etc.
The ISP's themselves will almost certainly use this list to tailor service to groups of people, and I find it highly unlikely that won't metastasize quickly.
ok this is reading like a conspiracy theory
That's even before you get into the nuts and bolts of implementation.
What is porn? Who set's that bar? Is it just sites who state they are for porn? Is it sites where that content can be downloaded? What about ones that provide instructions to acquire?
I have found the filters operated by Talk Talk for a while now to be about right so far
What about some jackass who posts a revealing photo on facebook? Facebook now offline? Implementation will be a nightmare, without the above data gathering issues. Most notably, this will likely expand if it isn't nipped in the bud.
if the filters are posing a problem just disable them and you are back to where you were before the option had to be there by law
In this case they have dressed it up as child protection, but again, even with admirable goals, this is the role for the parent, not the state.
errr true but parents but as a parent to a 13 year old with a mobile phone, xbox 360 and access to a PC i can tell you it is a tall order and often you end up being reactionary rather than proactive due to the child's attempts to get around what ever rules you have in place so I welcome a tool like this.
-
The problem here is that there is a certain level of responsibility that should be a parent's duty to uphold, not the government's. In this case, a parent that is worried about what such imagery does to a child should keep an eye on what they are watching. I could understand if this involved truly damaging content like racism, or worse. But even then, there is simply too much content (http://www.worldwidewebsize.com/) for a government to categorize by itself.
That I agree. Here, some in the government and many of those so called 'religious groups', or so they wish to be called, tried to block things like pornography and even tried to ban alcoholic drinks. What they failed to realize is that they tried to block using oppressive means, not bothering with teaching children about them and making them understand. For some, talking about sexuality within a family is still strongly considered a taboo. They should know that just actively blocking websites will not get them anywhere without proper education. Come on, some government officials have been caught watching porn on their tablets while in a government meeting.
-
No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.
errr what???? as far as I am aware we are talking about some filters which are voluntarily enforced by the end user.
Come 2014 every internet access account holder in the UK will be forced to make the decision with the default option being "filter and break my internets please". Also I bet with a fair certainty that this legislation will include a clause (hidden by some form of NDA so us peons won't even knows it exists until it leaks by somebody) that requires that all ISPs collect the details of those accounts that opted to have unfiltered and not broken internets and as I have mentioned earlier it wont be much more of a step for that information to be used for purposes other than just filtering the internet.
Lets just take my hypothetical HLP gets blocked scenario. Perfect Father A wants to access HLP, theres no porn here right? It doesn't matter, his ISP account is still going to be flagged in some peoples eyes as somebody who wants to look at porn. The wife finds out but after a little chat understands that the filters are breaking the internet and are blocking legitimate sites. Now suppose the account holders ISP gets hacked and the list that holds the unfiltered account details gets leaked and perfect father A's employer sees it and sees the perfect father A's details. I can see this happening:
Employer: As you understand here at XYZ inc. we pride ourselves on our strict moral ethics and it has come to my attention that you have been taking part in activities which may tarnish those ethics in the eyes of our clients.
Father: Sir? I can't imagine what those could be.
Employer: It comes to my attention that you regularly view explicit imagery on the internet.
Father: I do no such thing.
Employer: I have evidence to the contrary. This evidence has been examined by the board and I am sorry to say that their decision is final. I am afraid we are going to have to let you go.
A extreme possibility but a possibility non the less. Its all about the abuse of information and how it can potentially tar too many of the wrong people with the porn-viewer brush.
-
You're going very far down a slippery slope. Too far, in fact. Please dial back the paranoia.
Legislation like this is problematic, yes, but not for those reasons. It is problematic because it's completely ineffective. It's problematic because it confuses prohibition with education.
-
You're going very far down a slippery slope. Too far, in fact. Please dial back the paranoia.
Legislation like this is problematic, yes, but not for those reasons. It is problematic because it's completely ineffective. It's problematic because it confuses prohibition with education.
And because it's just unnecessarily intrusive for no good reason.
But yeah, that example is rather unlikely, mainly because few bosses would be that stupid.
It'll probably backfire in all the ways the OP's link suggested.
-
I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old.
How is that even possible, neither of you should have even started puberty.
-
I don't think we need the details.
-
I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old.
How is that even possible, neither of you should have even started puberty.
So what, prepubescent kids are not asexual. They only cannot ejaculate/get pregnant. Many kids "play doctor" and sometimes it goes from that to full blown sex and stuff. And I doubt it is likely to be harmful if it is consentual.
-
Can we not continue on this tangent, please?
-
I had my first sexual experience when I was six, with an eight year old.
How is that even possible, neither of you should have even started puberty.
So what, prepubescent kids are not asexual. They only cannot ejaculate/get pregnant. Many kids "play doctor" and sometimes it goes from that to full blown sex and stuff. And I doubt it is likely to be harmful if it is consentual.
That's like "Whaaaaat... :confused:" to me. I was, I had no sexual attraction to girls whatsoever, in fact I was repulsed by kissing and stuff right up until I hit puberty at around twelve and a half.
The E, I can appreciate your concerns, but really, this is like blowing my mind here.
-
Whelp, there goes my grand ambition of staying off of a watch list for two consecutive weeks. :nono:
-
What's so surprising? Many people actually start doing those 'sexual' things, when they were still children, much younger than you think, oh and alone of course. I myself discovered that experience through some 'body experiment', long before I was ever attracted to girls at all. At least I was glad that I never had the need for porn because of it. Oh what am I saying, nevermind.
-
What's so surprising?
It's surprising because of what happened to me, and that I've never heard of such a thing. I've always thought people to be completely innocent until puberty begins because I was.
-
What's so surprising?
It's surprising because of what happened to me, and that I've never heard of such a thing. I've always thought people to be completely innocent until puberty begins because I was.
Most children begin to "discover" their bodies as early as age 1. Curiosity about their physical traits and the opposite sex usually begins at 2-4, and young children will often play or experiment with their bodies (and those of their friends) at a young age. It's perfectly normal and is more common than the opposite. Western society in general is quite prudish about sexuality in children, but its only in the past couple hundred years that sex and sexuality have been separated from children in family life; if we could go back and talk to any child around age 4 or 5 in the 1600s, you'd find they know a great deal more about anatomy, sex, and childbearing than most teenagers today.
True sexual attraction and sex drive don't typically show up until puberty; however, people who claim children are inherently sexual beings (e.g. pedophiles) are off their rockers.
Also, there is virtually no evidence that exposure to pornography causes harm, even among children, though certainly I have no doubt that certain kinds of pornography would be confusing or disturbing to children (and certainly once my kids get old enough to use the computer I'm going to be hunting for ways to lock them out of the darker corners of the Internet in general, restrictions which I'll relax as they get into their teens).
-
What's so surprising?
It's surprising because of what happened to me, and that I've never heard of such a thing. I've always thought people to be completely innocent until puberty begins because I was.
Most children begin to "discover" their bodies as early as age 1. Curiosity about their physical traits and the opposite sex usually begins at 2-4, and young children will often play or experiment with their bodies (and those of their friends) at a young age. It's perfectly normal and is more common than the opposite. Western society in general is quite prudish about sexuality in children, but its only in the past couple hundred years that sex and sexuality have been separated from children in family life; if we could go back and talk to any child around age 4 or 5 in the 1600s, you'd find they know a great deal more about anatomy, sex, and childbearing than most teenagers today.
True sexual attraction and sex drive don't typically show up until puberty; however, people who claim children are inherently sexual beings (e.g. pedophiles) are off their rockers.
Also, there is virtually no evidence that exposure to pornography causes harm, even among children, though certainly I have no doubt that certain kinds of pornography would be confusing or disturbing to children (and certainly once my kids get old enough to use the computer I'm going to be hunting for ways to lock them out of the darker corners of the Internet in general, restrictions which I'll relax as they get into their teens).
Interesting. Is it more of an "innocent" thing then? They don't feel aroused or anything? Just simple curiosity?
I've always believed in early sex education. Even more so now.
-
The idea that we should ban porn (or implement a next-to-impossible "filter" of porn) because parents can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes explaining to their kids what they should nevertheless explain anyways is awesomely stupid.
That is all.
-
Yeah, sex education needs to be started early. That the children are somehow harmed by this knowledge is a superstition, and a dangerous one at that. In fact, it's the lack of sexual knowledge that does harm. Sex is an entirely natural act, and there's nothing "immoral" or "wrong" about human sexual organs, nor is there any "higher" reason to hide them (of course, sometimes it's a good idea to do so for hygiene and comfort, but that's it). To a properly educated child, porn isn't a threat and probably wouldn't even be interesting.
-
You know it's ****ing interesting that porn gets so much damned coverage in this "let's protect the kids from" bull**** shenanigans, but no words for the extreme violence even in kids' channels and cartoons. Games, etc. Wow, killing people all fine, but let's protect children from the traumatic event of sex.
I don't doubt it, it's a traumatic thing, but the obsession of our puritan culture over this is amazing.
-
You know what I think is more damaging? The anthropomorphizing of animals done by Disney, Warner Bros., et al.
We should ban the crap out of Animaniacs.
-
-snip-
(and certainly once my kids get old enough to use the computer I'm going to be hunting for ways to lock them out of the darker corners of the Internet in general, restrictions which I'll relax as they get into their teens).
You mean 4chan and Reddit?
-
oh FFS. i really can't believe some of you guys. ALL this is doing is presenting a damn OPTION to people to use isp-provided porn flitering.
No, it sets up a surveillance and tracking infrastructure that can be expanded at will without warning. I spend most of my spare time working for a political party, and one that is behind the curve on data campaigning.
errr what???? as far as I am aware we are talking about some filters which are voluntarily enforced by the end user.
The amount of data that is collated, quantified, and then used to define everything about you, from your liklihood to vote, to who you'll vote for, to what type of organic food policy will buy your vote is used. And my party is behind the curve on this stuff. Corporations and more informed political movements have been on this for a long time, and this kind of data is bought and sold with very high speed.
Don't get me wrong. I tell most of the anonymous folks and other conspiracy theorists to take their tin foil hats off and go pound sand on a semi-regular basis, but I also know exactly what this kind of data is used for and how readily available that data is.
This is like an automatic opt out to buy alcohol. No restriction to opt in, except now your name is on a list somewhere saying that you opted in. One more data point to evaluate your attitudes. Where will you vacation? What will you buy? How best to market to you? Etc etc.
The ISP's themselves will almost certainly use this list to tailor service to groups of people, and I find it highly unlikely that won't metastasize quickly.
ok this is reading like a conspiracy theory
That's even before you get into the nuts and bolts of implementation.
What is porn? Who set's that bar? Is it just sites who state they are for porn? Is it sites where that content can be downloaded? What about ones that provide instructions to acquire?
I have found the filters operated by Talk Talk for a while now to be about right so far
In this case they have dressed it up as child protection, but again, even with admirable goals, this is the role for the parent, not the state.
errr true but parents but as a parent to a 13 year old with a mobile phone, xbox 360 and access to a PC i can tell you it is a tall order and often you end up being reactionary rather than proactive due to the child's attempts to get around what ever rules you have in place so I welcome a tool like this.
Point 1: You're setting up a political precedent for blacklisting of sections of the internet that can only be solved on an opt in basis. The tools and the precedent have been approved by government. How long before some bill blocks some other piece of content unless you opt in as well? Precedent can be just as dangerous as action.
Point 2: I know it reads like a conspiracy theory, but it's not, and I promise you that; because where I live for example, there are literally no laws governing the use of personal data by political parties. In fact they are exempt from some laws on the matter that regulate corporations. Do a quick google of what the Conservative Party of Canada uses as a database (it's called CIMS), and you'll find some reports of the data that they collect and guard. My own party (The Liberal Party of Canada) uses the same software as the Obama campaign, just reskinned and rechristened as 'Liberalist'.
To give you an idea, when I walk up to a door to canvass, the tablet in my hand will tell me the following information:
-The names and ages of each person in that home
-Their phone numbers
-Whether or not they have voted in any given previous election
-Their likelihood to vote Liberal. <---- This is calculated as a percentage based on any number of data points we can acquire about them. This is called micro targeting, and is highly effective at predicting voting behavior
-Any and all key interest points that we have gathered on these individuals. Survey response, what links they've clicked. As such, going up to any given door a well organized political party is likely to know that this particular voter will respond well to healthcare and education campaigning, but doesn't care as much about say, law and order related campaign points.
Now I know this is getting kind of divergent but everything i have mentioned is an end product that the average street volunteer who just walks into our office to help out will see. These data points (particularly the percentage of liklihood to vote for us) are calculated based on every scrap of data that can be acquired about the person,, all of which is collected and quantified in our database. An opt-in list for viewing content would most certainly be used for that purpose. Also, as I said. My party i behind the curve on this material. Thinking that other political parties and private companies don't preform this level of data-mining for marketing purposes is naive at best and ludicrous at worst.
Point 3:
Handing your child a hunting rifle does not void you of the responsibility to make sure they use it safely and for its intended purpose. Neither does giving a child a mobile phone, xbox, PC, or any other device void you of the responsibility to make sure they use it safely.
If they are impossible to police, don't give them those items. My parents certainly never had any issues policing the use of the many PC's and laptops in our household, nor my phone, gaming consoles, television use, etc.
-
The idea that we should ban porn (or implement a next-to-impossible "filter" of porn) because parents can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes explaining to their kids what they should nevertheless explain anyways is awesomely stupid.
That is all.
come back when you are a parent please, seriously any world where kids listen to their parent just because they say somthing is not the real world, between hormones, general curiosity and peer pressure means it dosnt happen. having installed monitoring software on my stepson's PC so I could see his activity from my PC, explicitly warning him that it was on there and catching him out with it didnt stop him looking for more on numerous occasions. not to mention the times we have caught him out on his phone.
Point 1: You're setting up a political precedent for blacklisting of sections of the internet that can only be solved on an opt in basis. The tools and the precedent have been approved by government. How long before some bill blocks some other piece of content unless you opt in as well? Precedent can be just as dangerous as action.
you are aware the UK already has filtering in place for pedophilia?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom
Point 2: I know it reads like a conspiracy theory, but it's not, and I promise you that; because where I live for example, there are literally no laws governing the use of personal data by political parties. In fact they are exempt from some laws on the matter that regulate corporations. Do a quick google of what the Conservative Party of Canada uses as a database (it's called CIMS), and you'll find some reports of the data that they collect and guard. My own party (The Liberal Party of Canada) uses the same software as the Obama campaign, just reskinned and rechristened as 'Liberalist'.
To give you an idea, when I walk up to a door to canvass, the tablet in my hand will tell me the following information:
-The names and ages of each person in that home
-Their phone numbers
-Whether or not they have voted in any given previous election
-Their likelihood to vote Liberal. <---- This is calculated as a percentage based on any number of data points we can acquire about them. This is called micro targeting, and is highly effective at predicting voting behavior
-Any and all key interest points that we have gathered on these individuals. Survey response, what links they've clicked. As such, going up to any given door a well organized political party is likely to know that this particular voter will respond well to healthcare and education campaigning, but doesn't care as much about say, law and order related campaign points.
Now I know this is getting kind of divergent but everything i have mentioned is an end product that the average street volunteer who just walks into our office to help out will see. These data points (particularly the percentage of liklihood to vote for us) are calculated based on every scrap of data that can be acquired about the person,, all of which is collected and quantified in our database. An opt-in list for viewing content would most certainly be used for that purpose. Also, as I said. My party i behind the curve on this material. Thinking that other political parties and private companies don't preform this level of data-mining for marketing purposes is naive at best and ludicrous at worst.
fair enough but then the electoral roll is lawfully sold to companies by most local authorities in the UK so a lot of that is already in private hands, though again there is an opt out on this.
Point 3:
Handing your child a hunting rifle does not void you of the responsibility to make sure they use it safely and for its intended purpose. Neither does giving a child a mobile phone, xbox, PC, or any other device void you of the responsibility to make sure they use it safely.
If they are impossible to police, don't give them those items. My parents certainly never had any issues policing the use of the many PC's and laptops in our household, nor my phone, gaming consoles, television use, etc.
see my comments to Luis Dias, even the best behaved kids will could easily look at some point, I was also successful in sneeking underaged looks at porn and my dad was no slouch when it came to computers.
any parent who thinks they have that level of control is unduly confident because kids and teenagers are not programmable robots, they have minds of their own with an abundance of curiosity and some will look.
-
The idea that we should ban porn (or implement a next-to-impossible "filter" of porn) because parents can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes explaining to their kids what they should nevertheless explain anyways is awesomely stupid.
That is all.
come back when you are a parent please
I have three kids of my own, so according to you I can just declare "victory" in this discussion right? Ok then.
I was also successful in sneeking underaged looks at porn and my dad was no slouch when it came to computers.
any parent who thinks they have that level of control is unduly confident because kids and teenagers are not programmable robots, they have minds of their own with an abundance of curiosity and some will look.
So what the hell is the point of even trying to make this stoopid filter anyway? To create an adventure for the kids trying to rebel against the filters? These guys are clueless.
-
The idea that we should ban porn (or implement a next-to-impossible "filter" of porn) because parents can't be bothered to spend 5 minutes explaining to their kids what they should nevertheless explain anyways is awesomely stupid.
That is all.
come back when you are a parent please
I have three kids of my own, so according to you I can just declare "victory" in this discussion right? Ok then.
congratulations then if you have reached a stage where you can completely trust your kids.
I was also successful in sneeking underaged looks at porn and my dad was no slouch when it came to computers.
any parent who thinks they have that level of control is unduly confident because kids and teenagers are not programmable robots, they have minds of their own with an abundance of curiosity and some will look.
So what the hell is the point of even trying to make this stoopid filter anyway? To create an adventure for the kids trying to rebel against the filters? These guys are clueless.
some will always find a way that is true but having this in place is one more tool I have at my disposal
-
Most companies already had an opt-in system that blocked these sites, the main change is that now it is opt-out. Protection for parents was only ever a phone call from them to the ISP away, but now everyone else is expected to do that job for them.
Not Impressed.
-
Why must I "completely trust" my kids in a discussion about filters of pornography? I trust that they will discover it. I trust that they will see it when I am not around them. I do try to educate them the best I can in order to make the porn discussion somewhat irrelevant and generally uninteresting. To make it a taboo is the worst kind of thing to ever do with a kid (it will only ensure their rebellion, etc), so I won't even try.
To be a parent is to learn a valuable lesson: that you just cannot control everything about them - they have a life of their own and they will have to learn to cope with everything about life, including porn, eventually by themselves. The best I can do is to teach them what is important and what is not important about sex and those general matters.
This control freak ideology really gets up my nerves, and when professed by governments, I really get sick on my stomach on the amount of deranged puritanism and outright fascistic mindset.
-
put it like this, I fully agree with the minimum age limit on printed pornography and I see no distinction between that and internet filters for porn
-
except these don't work unless you're gonna wreck the entire internet. that's the ****ing point.
-
except these don't work unless you're gonna wreck the entire internet. that's the ****ing point.
how the hell did we get from porn filters to destroying the internet?
-
put it like this, I fully agree with the minimum age limit on printed pornography and I see no distinction between that and internet filters for porn
So it's now everyone elses job to opt out to prevent lazy parents from just calling the ISP for the filter?
-
Look, I started looking at hentai when I was twelve and I'm perfectly normal.
Teenagers are going to be teenagers and they should look at pornographic material at their discretion, not someone else's. They're gonna find out about it sooner or later and I'd rather it be sooner than later. Besides, the only thing out there that could really be considered traumatizing is goatse. And boy do I regret wanting to find out what that is. :shivers:
-
I wouldn't want to let children see sex in public. Not my job to stop people shagging on the checkout in tescos.
-
I knew one day Britain would suffer its richly deserved punishment for coining the term "fap" :(
Stiff upper lip time.
-
You know, I don't really see the point of making (non-****ed up) porn illegal for people under eighteen. It would seem impossible to enforce in any sort of reasonable manner, because the child is not doing anything harmful to anybody else and the parents may be almost entirely free of responsibility.
-
I always love that sort of ~women's group~ that cheers on right-wing moral hysteria whenever it turns its eye toward porn.
-
Their euphoria will last until some cock sure conservative says something inescapably misogynistic. Again.
Truth to tell, I don't think watching porn is a proper substitute for actual sex ed, but I'm opposed to a ban without any evidence that abuse or coercion were used during the creation of a pornographic film.
-
Like I said before, right here it is already destroying things. Even some otherwise 'innocent' sites gets blocked because of some troll posting some random pornographic stuff and causing an outrage from the religious groups. Don't they even have the idea how many porn sites out there exists with new ones popping up here and there every day and it will be nigh unpossible to block all of them. I don't think you can block torrents either.
-
http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php/topic,33461.0.html
This could easily get HLP blacklisted.
-
Woah, here I was getting worried! You post that and then the site goes down... :P
-
This discussion really reminds me of the book Brave New World by Aldous Huxley in terms of how sexuality was described in that book as well as it's effect on people.
Secondarily it's a rather silly topic that the UK would want to ban porn - Surely if they were serious they'd call the GCHQ to prosecute/arrest/force shutdown all of these providers in the UK or even internationally as they don't appear to show much respect for international law or rights anyway.. :P
From a more serious perspective, I see it more as a smokescreen as part of the entire surveillance-police state system of trying to normalize the idea of further policing the internet or to give some seemingly acceptable reason to incrementally go after any website that posts unsanctioned or unapproved information, in the future.
As such I don't see porn websites of any kind, perhaps except those that perhaps would compete with 'chosen' or 'preferred' suppliers, being censored or forced to shut down. It is very likely that planted/mild porn content on said unapproved information outlets would be used to shut them down.