View Poll Results: Should ISPs make you opt-in to adult material?
Yes, think of the children!
18
20.45%
No, it's down to parents to raise their children, not ISPs - this is not China.
70
79.55%
Voters: 88. You may not vote on this poll
Cameron's Porn Opt-in
23 July 2013, 04:45 PM
#31
I'm not looking no argument with no member on here I just say it how I see it I don't know how pedo's communicated before the Internet and I don't want to know all I know is they all need killing and since the Internet has been around it makes these types of scum interact more freely and easily.SJ.
It's this sort of hard of thinking that Cameron is playing up to. Well done.
23 July 2013, 04:54 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Fraserburgh
Posts: 848
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
i like how the countrys financial situation is, BUT yet they still waste money on stupid ideas like this, he's just not happy because his wife has the child filter on his laptop 
23 July 2013, 05:07 PM
#34
Scooby Regular
it should be up to the parent's to police their children's internet activity and not the ISP's to block it dead, perhaps they could offer blocking software free so that it can be installed per device and per user, if it was blocked altogether I would have to go to bed early 
If it weren't for **** on the internet secure internet shopping would not be as advanced as it is, neither would such things as video streaming etc.
windyboy
If it weren't for **** on the internet secure internet shopping would not be as advanced as it is, neither would such things as video streaming etc.
windyboy
23 July 2013, 05:14 PM
#36
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: 535D M-Sport Touring
Posts: 3,190
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm not looking no argument with no member on here I just say it how I see it I don't know how pedo's communicated before the Internet and I don't want to know all I know is they all need killing and since the Internet has been around it makes these types of scum interact more freely and easily.SJ.
I'm not in any way saying I condone paedophiles but some (not all) of those who do such stuff are mentally ill. I'm not sure that sentencing someone to death because they have a brain disease or defect is morally right. Better if they can be treated either chemically, through therapy, or a combination and in addition to this have a better system in place to identify and help such individuals in the first place. Of course if all else fails then sectioning the deviant may perhaps be the only answer.
23 July 2013, 06:16 PM
#38
it should be up to the parent's to police their children's internet activity and not the ISP's to block it dead, perhaps they could offer blocking software free so that it can be installed per device and per user, if it was blocked altogether I would have to go to bed early
windyboy
windyboy
Versions available for PC, Mac, Iphone/IPad and Android.
23 July 2013, 06:18 PM
#39
www.k9webprotection.com - consistently reviewed as one of the best filtering softwares available anywhere, and still completely free.
Versions available for PC, Mac, Iphone/IPad and Android.
Versions available for PC, Mac, Iphone/IPad and Android.
23 July 2013, 07:53 PM
#42
I think some people on this thread are confused...
This proposal is not about banning child pornography, it is about disabling ALL forms of pornography unless you opt-in. So arguing that this will help against paedophiles is a bit straw-man, we could ban computers and that would help too. Plus, pedophiles can just opt-in! So, this is NOT about pedophiles.
And then there's another thing; who decides what is pornography and what is not? Is page3 acceptable in The Sun, but not on-line? If not, why not?
This proposal is not about banning child pornography, it is about disabling ALL forms of pornography unless you opt-in. So arguing that this will help against paedophiles is a bit straw-man, we could ban computers and that would help too. Plus, pedophiles can just opt-in! So, this is NOT about pedophiles.
And then there's another thing; who decides what is pornography and what is not? Is page3 acceptable in The Sun, but not on-line? If not, why not?
Last edited by ReallyReallyGoodMeat; 23 July 2013 at 07:58 PM.
23 July 2013, 08:23 PM
#43
What is **** anyway ?
Child **** or anything else that is abusive, non consensual or violent needs eradicating but really, where does it end, I dont think your average bloke stranded in a hotel should be denied a bit of fun, life is short, if its fun and doesnt hurt anyone else, then just get on with it.
Child **** or anything else that is abusive, non consensual or violent needs eradicating but really, where does it end, I dont think your average bloke stranded in a hotel should be denied a bit of fun, life is short, if its fun and doesnt hurt anyone else, then just get on with it.
23 July 2013, 09:09 PM
#44
There is an inference that this approach will have a positive impact on children's safety on the internet. This is clearly a diversion. while adult pornography is not illegal, there may be some moral questions around its use, but it is perfectly legal to download and view it by the terabyte if you so wish, but this policy if fully implemented will do nothing to deter those who share illegal pornography across the internet.
As Government is driving this, I suspect there will be a funding stream to ISP's to put in place the necessary technical measures to facilitate this. Dave would be better committing funding to those organisations and agencies who are in a position to track down the children in the images, identify their abusers and place them before the courts. For the thousands of images which are created and circulated the detection rate for those making or distributing them is incredibly low. I would predict that with such a small percentage of the web's content being hosted in the UK, the hosting company's are outside the influence of Dave and his cabinet.
As Government is driving this, I suspect there will be a funding stream to ISP's to put in place the necessary technical measures to facilitate this. Dave would be better committing funding to those organisations and agencies who are in a position to track down the children in the images, identify their abusers and place them before the courts. For the thousands of images which are created and circulated the detection rate for those making or distributing them is incredibly low. I would predict that with such a small percentage of the web's content being hosted in the UK, the hosting company's are outside the influence of Dave and his cabinet.
23 July 2013, 10:08 PM
#45
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
There is an inference that this approach will have a positive impact on children's safety on the internet. This is clearly a diversion. while adult pornography is not illegal, there may be some moral questions around its use, but it is perfectly legal to download and view it by the terabyte if you so wish, but this policy if fully implemented will do nothing to deter those who share illegal pornography across the internet.
As Government is driving this, I suspect there will be a funding stream to ISP's to put in place the necessary technical measures to facilitate this. Dave would be better committing funding to those organisations and agencies who are in a position to track down the children in the images, identify their abusers and place them before the courts. For the thousands of images which are created and circulated the detection rate for those making or distributing them is incredibly low. I would predict that with such a small percentage of the web's content being hosted in the UK, the hosting company's are outside the influence of Dave and his cabinet.
As Government is driving this, I suspect there will be a funding stream to ISP's to put in place the necessary technical measures to facilitate this. Dave would be better committing funding to those organisations and agencies who are in a position to track down the children in the images, identify their abusers and place them before the courts. For the thousands of images which are created and circulated the detection rate for those making or distributing them is incredibly low. I would predict that with such a small percentage of the web's content being hosted in the UK, the hosting company's are outside the influence of Dave and his cabinet.
23 July 2013, 10:29 PM
#46
I hope when they do the filters you can just it to block the rubbsh stuff. The ones where the woman is moaning yet nothing is going on. Or the guy thinking he is a stud but he cant keep the camara still!
Oh and i want a double click on the very hardcore section
Oh and i want a double click on the very hardcore section
23 July 2013, 10:47 PM
#47
Scooby Senior
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: West Midlands
Posts: 5,763
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
mb
24 July 2013, 03:06 PM
#48
Scooby Regular
24 July 2013, 05:07 PM
#51
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Warrington
Posts: 4,554
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I am against, because in all these scenarios there are too many false positives. We have a swear filter enabled on e-mails received at work. Every so often it objects to an e-mail and you get notified that it has been quarantined. You contact HR and they look and can see nothing wrong with a perfectly normal business e-mail.
I think that sometimes it is just a random combination of characters in a drawing file for example that happens to spell a rude word. But you can never tell.
So once you have not opted in, suddenly the B&Q website refuses to load because someone has mistakenly mistyped a word, or 'flange' is now a pornographic word, and you have no idea why you cannot access it. Then your internet banking goes off line, etc. Would be a nightmare.
I think that sometimes it is just a random combination of characters in a drawing file for example that happens to spell a rude word. But you can never tell.
So once you have not opted in, suddenly the B&Q website refuses to load because someone has mistakenly mistyped a word, or 'flange' is now a pornographic word, and you have no idea why you cannot access it. Then your internet banking goes off line, etc. Would be a nightmare.
24 July 2013, 06:45 PM
#53
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Lincolnshire
Posts: 15,623
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 July 2013, 09:58 PM
#58
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Logged Out
Posts: 10,221
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
24 July 2013, 11:22 PM
#59
Moderator
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: The Terry Crews of moderation. P P P P P P POWER!!
Posts: 18,687
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Does anyone know about the state of funding for the agencies that investigate the activity of paedophiles on the internet since the latest government came into power?
24 July 2013, 11:52 PM
#60
Scooby Regular
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: .
Posts: 20,035
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Theresa May specifically cut their funding in the wave of austerity measures last year and the shortfall is now partly being made up by the likes of the NSPCC.
Cameron and MP Claire Perry both claimed separately this week that staffing levels at CEOPC had increased by 50%. This is basically a lie as they are haemorrhaging people out of door as fast as others are coming in as they find it increasingly difficult to do the job with the funding cuts and subsequent lack of morale in a job that must already be hugely stressful.
This is what makes a mockery of Cameron's claim all this is for the good of the nation's children. It's bollocks basically, no surprise given his performances over the last 3 years!