Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

We are sorry to see you leave - Beta is different and we value the time you took to try it out. Before you decide to go, please take a look at some value-adds for Beta and learn more about it. Thank you for reading Slashdot, and for making the site better!

In UK, Search Engines Urged To Block More Online Porn Sites

timothy posted about a year and a half ago | from the they'll-know-it-when-they-see-it dept.

Censorship 186

An anonymous reader writes "Search engines such as Google should do more to restrict access to online pornography, a government adviser on child internet safety has said. John Carr said increasing the number of sites automatically blocked by search engines would make it more difficult for paedophiles to get images of abuse. It comes after Mark Bridger was found guilty of the abduction and murder of five-year-old April Jones in Powys." It sounds like a continuation of the blocked-by-default porn white-listing plan that's been going around in the UK for a few years now.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Think of the children blah blah (4, Insightful)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881605)

How about parents doing more to restrict their kids from getting into age-inappropriate things on the internet.

Is England turning Islamic ? (-1, Troll)

Taco Cowboy (5327) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881633)

A lot of Islamic nations are up in arms with online porn

And now England joins in

Is England turning Islamic ??

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (2)

Cenan (1892902) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881719)

Why yes, yes it is - run kitten, run.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881757)

Ooh yes the 5% of the population who are Muslim are tooootally dominating English culture and online pron is a concern exclusive to Islam. They have imams in the House of Lords, oh wait, no they Bishops from an Established Church (WTF) the Church of England in the House of Lords and the head of state is also the head of that church.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881945)

That have influence considerably greater than their % of the population would suggest, because our (mostly) white neoliberal politicians bend over backwards to avoid "offending" them, e.g. madrassas teaching extreme ideology are publicly funded and huge gangs raping young white girls go completely unpunished for a decade.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882039)

Dammn that Jimmy Saville and the neoliberal politicians who protected him because of is faith for five decades.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (5, Insightful)

xelah (176252) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881853)

This seems to be being pushed by rather conservative types, not by the UK population or government coalition as a whole. Bear in mind that the Conservative party here is feeling under pressure from the even more conservative anti-EU UKIP, and have a lot of unhappy backbenchers currently busy being revolting over gay marriage. Also bear in mind that there's quite a big generational attitude difference to things like this, with younger people being a lot more liberal but not well represented politically. There's been a lot of conflation of child abuse, child porn and adult porn in debate and reporting, which only makes me think even more that this is as much about older generations dislike of younger generations sexual attitudes as it is about child porn or online 'safety'.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (1)

PolygamousRanchKid (1290638) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881883)

Usually, politicians play the anti-child-porn card when they want to distract the general public from some other failing, scandal or downright incompetence that the government has recently shown.

Has anything happened recently in the UK that fits this mold . . . ?

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (1)

mrbester (200927) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881983)

You ask like this is a relatively rare occurrence that needs an occasional distraction. You'd be wrong. It's every day.

Re:Is England turning Islamic ? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882309)

I totally concur with the "It's the Parent's responsibility to monitor their child's internet usage!" x 5000.

If you are a parent, put down the XBox controller, and watch what your child is doing.

If the Islams don't want to look at porn, then they shouldn't look at it.

That's between them and their whatever - they don't get to force it on the rest of the world.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (4, Insightful)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881647)

How about parents doing more to restrict their kids from getting into age-inappropriate things on the internet.

How do you imagine it? Sitting next to the kid and watching over her/his shoulder?

How about we grow up as a society and rely on education instead of prohibition? How about explaining to a child what porn is and how it relates to sex and leave her/him make decisions.

But no, it could be awkward, stressful and demand something like actual parenting. Forget it, censor this shit off my internets!

Re:Think of the children blah blah (5, Funny)

MysteriousPreacher (702266) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881727)

How do you imagine it? Sitting next to the kid and watching over her/his shoulder?

How about we grow up as a society and rely on education instead of prohibition? How about explaining to a child what porn is and how it relates to sex and leave her/him make decisions.

But no, it could be awkward, stressful and demand something like actual parenting. Forget it, censor this shit off my internets!

The child can learn about sex on their wedding night. Prior to that no-one really has much of an interest anyway and certainly won't be finding ways to slake that curiosity.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882889)

Fairly sure sex stops after marriage.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881733)

You bring up a good point, often it seems that those that claim they are gay were raised around strict rules, and taboos those taboos being sex, and parents not explaining to them or about it. You see it in strict religious countries, where there are more gays then countries where sex isn't taboo.

And you can buy software, all tho I do not know if it actually works, to block out or limit access to key searches, and or sites. What made me laugh out loud was how the UK thinks banning all porn will stop paedophiles!!

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881753)

Subtle trolling from an AC hinting that being gay is somehow abnormal? How original...

And I would be the first one to show my kid how to circumvent such software.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882545)

Being exclusively homosexual is absolutely abnormal. It is not wrong but if it was normal to be exclusively homosexual then you and I would not be here having this conversation.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882671)

And you would be the first parent who had their child removed from their house when the child shows no common sense, no sense of self-respect, no sense of other-respect, no sense of the difference between right and wrong. Enjoy visiting your child in prison fucktard.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882027)

You dumb AC, your sexual preference is not a choice or cultural thing, it's the way your brain and body function.

Of course there is a great cultural influence in how freely you express your sexual orientation and that's something we need to break down, stop the suffering about something you had from birth.

--
Teun

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882761)

Speaking of dumb AC's - your sexual preference is set within the first two years of life. That goes for gay and straight, yes your biology plays a role, but so does environment. Most homosexuals are not genetically homosexual. Still doesn't make us worth any less that we are influenced by our environment.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

sl4shd0rk (755837) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881793)

How do you imagine it? Sitting next to the kid and watching over her/his shoulder?

That's the whole point. That task of monitoring what your kid surfs around on is left to the people complaining about the porn in the first place.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882325)

Educating your child is the parent's responsibility.
Exactly...

Teaching your child the difference between right and wrong.
Teaching your child what is acceptable behavior and what isn't.
Teaching your child to listen and obey your instructions.
Monitoring your child's behavior to be sure the first 3 stick, and distribute appropriate punishment (including corporal) accordingly when they fail to do so.

Those are all 100% the parent's responsibility.

If you want the community to educate your child, then you give up the right to complain when someone else beats your child's ass (or worse) when they threaten an old lady with a baseball bat.

Do your fucking job as a parent - quit being a lazy fucktard that should have had their reproductive organs removed at birth.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

thegarbz (1787294) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882363)

You're right. While you're at it tell your 5 year old that there's no such thing as Santa, the Easter bunny, or the Tooth Fairy and watch how well that goes down.

Education does not imply all information is appropriate for people of all ages. Sure my kid will learn about sex before his wedding night, but that doesn't mean I'm going to sit him down at age 8 in front of 4chan and let him go his hardest, (poor choice of words really in this case).

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

alendit (1454311) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882591)

Wait, are you saying we should censor all sources where kids can find out that there is no Santa? (kidding, of course)

But seriously, you know not every kid believes in this bull, don't you? And they don't grow up depressed because of it or anything. And you don't have to believe the stories to enjoy them, or else there wouldn't be any fantasy fans.Give children some credit, they are young, not retarded.

And nobody is suggesting sitting anyone before anything. But if my kid, by chance, would find 4chan, I would try my best to explain what it is and sure as hell not forbid him to visit it ever again (image how that would work out).

tl;dr: censorship is not the solution.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882793)

Yes they are retarded, kids brains are not done developing, this means that they are missing some of the faculties that an adult enjoys. This is why treating a child as a miniature and inexperienced adult is a recipe for failure.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (4, Interesting)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881685)

How about parents doing more to restrict their kids from getting into age-inappropriate things on the internet.

Yes, but there should be tools helping the parents in doing so.

The suggestion in the summary is mixing up two completely unrelated issues. Those issues must be addressed separately, otherwise we are going to end up with the wrong solution.

There may be people who do not want to see porn online and wish to be protected from that. That is fine, but it should be a voluntary decision. Unless the person is a minor, in which case it is the parents' decision. But in order to do this, you need to have the content classified. Now it boils down to who has to pay for maintaining this classification. You cannot just require the sites themselves to do that, because some of them will be outside your jurisdiction, and some of them may not have an interest in being correctly classified. Once you have the classification, getting it applied to the right set of people is not all that hard. But don't force it upon grown ups, who do not want it.

The other issue, which is completely unrelated, and should be treated as such, is the issue of child pornography. Many people are acting as if the main problem to be solved is that of people looking at such pictures. And as long as we can prevent anybody from looking at those pictures, then the problem has been solved. That is not true. All which has been achieved by that is hiding the real problem. The real problem is, that what is depicted took place in the first place. That pictures were taken of it and that somebody saw them did not make the abuse itself any worse for the kid, but in some cases it does help reveal that the abuse is taking place, which can help stopping it.

Current laws may actually do more to destroy evidence of crimes rather than stopping the crimes themselves. How would things change if possession and distribution of child pornography was legalized, but manufacturing and trading it remained illegal? Instead of interest organizations building up censorship, which is ultimately going to hurt more, when it is used for other purposes, those interest organizations could collect child pornography and perform data mining on it, and as soon as they have identified individuals in the images, they can hand that over to authorities. I believe that would do more to stop abuse of children, than the current laws.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881697)

Yes, but there should be tools helping the parents in doing so.

Why?

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1, Troll)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881929)

Yes, but there should be tools helping the parents in doing so.

Why?

Because nobody has time to go over every webpage themselves to find out which of them has porn, that they don't want their kids to watch.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

tomxor (2379126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882253)

No one in their right mind would attempt to create a black list, you create a white list... read my post above.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882451)

No one in their right mind would attempt to create a black list, you create a white list.

Things that has already been tried include:

  • Blacklist
  • Whitelist
  • Heuristic
  • Voluntary marking of content
  • Reputation based systems.

And because of that people keep coming up with new ideas, which are mostly mixtures of the above ideas. You can get pretty decent results by such a mix. But it is not efficient to have everybody do it on their own, which means there is a legitimate need for somebody to collect the necessary data to do the filtering and make it available.

What is important is, that the parents get to choose which provider the filtering algorithm and data from. Forcing one particular source on them is no good.

We can also discuss who should pay for it. But I find that part of the discussion less important than ensuring that filters are not forced upon adults, who should be allowed to make their own decisions.

You can install a guardian whitelist yourself. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882327)

Rather than have it all done by Google, Bing, Yahoo, BangBangDuck or whatever, you can install your guardian software on your PC where you can control which ones it lets through and which ones it bans, and use the list available to ensure you don't have to visit them all yourself.

Or does nobody have the time to install software on their kiddies' PC?

Re:You can install a guardian whitelist yourself. (2)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882401)

Rather than have it all done by Google, Bing, Yahoo, BangBangDuck or whatever, you can install your guardian software on your PC where you can control which ones it lets through and which ones it bans, and use the list available to ensure you don't have to visit them all yourself.

Or does nobody have the time to install software on their kiddies' PC?

I did not say anything about where it should be done, because my comment was focusing more on the policy aspect than the actual technical implementation. Having it done by search engines is obviously not the best place to do it. But on the kids own device is not the best solution either, as even a kid can learn how to bypass that. Putting the filter on a middlebox between the device the kid is using and the internet is a good start. A bit of cooperation from the device the kid is using would help, for example that would allow a mitm on all https connections. A bit of cooperation from search engines would also help, that way you can avoid allowing access to the content through Google cache or Google Images. You could even avoid having the blocked pages show up in search results in the first place.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881787)

Yeah, the more serious concern with cp is that the events depicted took place at all. However, there is another serious (thought not AS serious) concern. If you stealthily filmed adult couples having sex and published those videos, all without getting consent for the filming, then clearly that's not legal. The child in cp has that same right not to have videos circulated as any adult would have. I suppose you could wait until the child becomes an adult and then buy the rights to the videos from the now adult person. That's all academic, though, since most voters are never going to think so calmly about cp that they could calm down long enough to comprehend such a line of reasoning.

Another topic is, does looking at cp make pedophiles more likely to molest children? Does it make them less likely to do so? I don't know. I suspect you don't either. If people believe the former, even animated cp whose production involved no children at all is not going to be legal.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881809)

I would suspect its neithet. The issue is more about impulse control and whether or not the paedophile understands that molesting is bad no matter how horny it makes him. It is the same as people who get off raping women. The victim is just a bit more horrifying to sensibilities

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881919)

However, there is another serious (thought not AS serious) concern. If you stealthily filmed adult couples having sex and published those videos, all without getting consent for the filming, then clearly that's not legal. The child in cp has that same right not to have videos circulated as any adult would have.

You are right. I should have expressed myself more clearly. I of course did not want the distribution to be legal under circumstances, where it would have been illegal even if the depicted persons were adults. But in those cases I think violations should be treated the same regardless of the age of the person depicted.

I suppose you could wait until the child becomes an adult and then buy the rights to the videos from the now adult person. That's all academic, though, since most voters are never going to think so calmly about cp that they could calm down long enough to comprehend such a line of reasoning.

That lack of rational thinking on the matter is so widespread that overall it might actually cause more harm than the abuse itself, which isn't widespread (or at least so we have been lead to believe).

Another topic is, does looking at cp make pedophiles more likely to molest children? Does it make them less likely to do so? I don't know. I suspect you don't either.

Claims have been made both ways. And probably there both exist cases where looking at child pornography stopped somebody from doing itself as well as cases, where looking at it made somebody do it. I think nobody knows if one or the other is true. The rational response to this, would be to do a scientific study to find out if the net effect is positive or negative. But I don't see this happening before a large majority of people start thinking rational about the issue. Currently we are doing things, which for all we know, might make the problem worse.

If people believe the former, even animated cp whose production involved no children at all is not going to be legal.

You could apply the same reasoning to movies where consenting adults are acting out a rape scene. Or movies with no sexual content, but violent scenes played by stuntmen. Those have not been outlawed in spite of some people believing they are making out society more violent.

I am not even convinced the people who want such animated child pornography to be outlawed even have considered whether it has any influence on how many children are actually abused. Many want it outlawed, just because they think it is distasteful. One has to stop and think about why people want child pornography to be illegal. Some do because they believe children are being helped by child pornography being illegal. Others want it to be illegal simply because they despise people of different sexual orientation from themselves.

Despising people because of their sexual orientation is no longer politically correct in large parts of the world. In what we usually think of as the civilised world, it is not illegal to be homosexual, and it is not considered socially acceptable to go and beat up a person for being homosexual. But if you despise people being sexually attracted to children, you can hide between a think-of-the-children defence. And justify whatever you want to do to such people, with "I'm just protecting the children".

There are differences in what means you would want to apply depending on which of the two reasons you have for wanting child pornography to be illegal. Whether you want people to be punished for looking at animated child pornography involving no real children, is one difference. If you despise the people simply for their sexual orientation, you want them to be punished in that case, even if no child is being harmed by it.

Consider the following two scenarios:

First a man who is sexually attracted to a woman of his own age. But the woman does not want to have sex with that man. If this man had sex with the woman anyway, it would be rape. But he refrains from doing so, because he know it would be wrong to do so. Should this man be punished? Should we take away some of this man's freedoms because we are afraid he might do something illegal?

Secondly a man who is sexually attracted to a child. If this man had six with that child, it would be illegal regardless of whether the child wanted it or not. The man refrains form having sex with that child, because he know it would be wrong to do so. Should this man be punished? Should we take away some of this man's freedoms because we are afraid he might do something illegal?

Those two situations are practically identical. In both cases the man has done nothing wrong. But the majority of people would want take away some of the man's freedoms in the later case.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882135)

I think all men should have their penises been cut off. That would have solved the problem altogether. It possibly would solve the problem of global wOrming too....

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882031)

"Another topic is, does looking at cp make pedophiles more likely to molest children? Does it make them less likely to do so?"

That's what I think too. If they can't get videos of the stuff, they have to do it themselves.

Just as when there's no dealer where you can easily get it, you have to grow your pot yourself.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882923)

Anime porn is illegal in the UK because of that.

That and the fact the British are retarded, and can't tell a drawing from an actual, living, breathing child.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881817)

Why would kids look at online porn with a computer, at their parents home with parental controls, when their smartphones have an unlimited data plan and they can watch anywhere? Kid have an inherent ability to join cliques of like minded peers, adults too for that matter, and it only takes one to say "hey check this out", and the search engine becomes irrelavent.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881951)

Why would kids look at online porn with a computer, at their parents home with parental controls, when their smartphones have an unlimited data plan and they can watch anywhere?

This is an opportunity for the telecompanies. They need to introduce phone subscriptions intended for kids, where the parents can apply limitations. I guess they sort of exists already with limitations on phone calls. For example the kid may be allowed to make an unlimited number of calls to certain numbers white listed by the parent, for other numbers they could be limited to for example 1$ of usage per week. It would be very natural to extend that kind of subscriptions with limitations on internet traffic. The parent should be able to login on a webpage where they can both configure limitations on phone calls as well as which filters are applied to the internet traffic.

A similar product might also be interesting for some business, who want to limit what their employees can do on a phone paid by the employer.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

gmack (197796) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882213)

Well you know the old saying "Anything is easy if you don't know what you are talking about".

I have yet to see any filter that does more than block a bunch of known sites and both kids and adults have a knack for finding sites that should have been on the block list but are not.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (0)

kasperd (592156) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882505)

I have yet to see any filter that does more than block a bunch of known sites and both kids and adults have a knack for finding sites that should have been on the block list but are not.

Finding out exactly what content to block is the hard part. Actually blocking it once it is identified is the easier part. The telecompany could contract with one of those many companies, who already specialized in the first part. Then they can install that software on a bunch of servers, and sell it as a service to parents wishing to prevent their kids from watching porn on their cellphone.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

gmack (197796) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882643)

Every one of those companies has an extremely flawed list for exactly the reasons I just mentioned.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882035)

"Why would kids look at online porn with a computer, at their parents home with parental controls, when their smartphones have an unlimited data plan and they can watch anywhere?"

Watching Monstercocks on tiny screens is awful.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

tomxor (2379126) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882247)

There may be people who do not want to see porn online and wish to be protected from that. That is fine, but it should be a voluntary decision. Unless the person is a minor, in which case it is the parents' decision.

Precisely, every corner of the world, a country, even a neighbourhood, is not necessarily safe or appropriate for children, the internet is an extension of that world in terms of information. It is however a lot more accessible than the real world.

But in order to do this, you need to have the content classified. Now it boils down to who has to pay for maintaining this classification. You cannot just require the sites themselves to do that, because some of them will be outside your jurisdiction, and some of them may not have an interest in being correctly classified. Once you have the classification, getting it applied to the right set of people is not all that hard. But don't force it upon grown ups, who do not want it.

Im' sure many different forms of this concept exist already and i'm pretty sure i've seen it advertised on various "internet security" packages, I think OS X has some kind of built in parental mode, whether or not that extends to the web i don't know.

Anyway, the solution: A white list is maintained.... The web is too vast to make a blacklist practical, so a white list upholds the restriction of undesirable content at the sacrifice of lagging additions to the list and vast omissions. However so long as the white list has a specific target audience (i.e. kids) then the list should be easier to satisfy with desirable content.

How that list is maintained is the hard part, but the most sensible would be collaboratively by the end users (i.e. parents), that way the list can grow according to demand (yes kids have to ask permission if they find something that's not on the list). Implementation doesn't really matter... make a White list first, make a way to collaboratively maintain the list, secondary (and subjectively) is the placement of that list... if you want it for your whole house then stick it on the router, if your kid has their own devices that move to various access points then put it on their devices and disallow them root access (if your kid knows enough to circumvent this then they are probably old enough for porn not to irreversibly rot their brain anyway, not that such a thing ever happened). Even putting it at the ISP as an opt in is plausible.... what is not ok is subjecting the whole world to it by forcing search engines to implement it, it's also futile because it would just create dammand for less restricted search engines that would inevitably spawn in places that *your country* government does not have jurisdiction over.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

aj50 (789101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881701)

Just for a change, the article isn't about that at all. It's about paedophiles advertising through easily searched for codewords on porn sites.

Seems to miss the point that such adverts could easily made to look innocuous and placed elsewhere.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (2)

Kjella (173770) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882259)

They probably already seem innocuous in context, because it seems to me all legally operating porn sites are extremely paranoid of being associated in any way with underage content. The suggestions are quite frankly bizarre and counterproductive, a registration requirement for being allowed to search for porn? With the implication that this'll be a huge red flag on you since the border between legal and illegal sexual images is nothing but a thin red line rather than the difference between a healthy, fun and common recreational activity between consenting adults and child abuse. What it in practice will do is make more people use the unofficial and anonymous channels, drowning out any signal to noise ratio of the really illegal material.

One of the greatest challenges of any system is the stigma of running it, sure downloading Justin Bieber and Game of Thrones via torrents isn't exactly legal but nobody really bats an eye at that anymore than admitting you were speeding on the interstate. And every male teen will understand why you'd want to torrent Asa Akira or Jenna Haze too, if you can't find them on Google. But if you start talking about things like BitCoin and TOR more will start wondering if you're involved with drugs, money laundering, terrorism, kiddie porn or you're a tinfoil hat nutter. Like, what does any "normal" person need it for and by that I don't mean law abiding. Drive porn underground and being underground will become socially accepted.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (4, Informative)

arkhan_jg (618674) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881765)

It's nothing to do with kids getting age-appropriate material (this time). Their contention is that adult pedophiles first see pictures of children being abused (or anime versions, which are no different according to them) which then encourages them to go out, abduct, rape and murder children.

The obvious solution for the censor brigade is the same setup that mobile phone networks have largely switched to - heavy filtering by default (in this particular example, they want maximum google safe search as default on for everyone) so adult men can't find pictures or anime of naked children, and thus, will never go on to rape and murder real children. Tada! In order to see any sites that are otherwise filtered - such as legal porn, medical sites, art sites, any site to do with the town of scunthorpe - you have to register yourself as a dirty porn watching perv, which list presumably the police will be watching closely in case you start desiring to go on a child abduction and murdering rampage, and will explicitly discourage people from doing, thus keeping their minds clear of unpure thoughts in good Christian fashion.

That it achieves one of their other goals, the appearance of a kiddy-friendly internet with no adult-only activity ever, is just a happy co-incidence.

In a separate but parallel move, the Home Secretary is trying to revive the Snooper's charter - i.e. ISPs, webhosts, service providers such as google and facebook would have to keep extensive logs of what emails and websites UK users visit, which the police and security services can troll through at their leisure, looking for Islamic terrorists planning on chopping down passersby in the street with machetes. And probably now porn-viewing adults, in case they turn out to be child murdering pedo's.

It is the usual 'ban this filth, won't someone think of the children' attempts to whitelist the internet, but this time it's to protect the children from the men who murder them because they saw porn on the internet and decided to get the real thing. That child porn is ALREADY blacklisted by the list run by the IWF, and subscribed to by most ISPs, and he was getting stuff that wasn't on the blacklist, and thus filtering wasn't actually even doing the job they wanted it to when running as intended is being conveniently ignored.

That they and the home secretary don't have a damn clue about how the tech, ISPs or the internet work is a given. They see it as one giant branch of WH Smiths, and it's just like banning the sale of dirty magazines, and will obviously solve the problem once and for all, and anyone that tries to point out the flaws is in league with the terrorists and the pedo child murderers, and heaven forbid anyone express concerns about the Big Brother or Free Speech aspects.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881781)

The *actual* problem is that becauso religious fundamentalist social conditioning, you think a kid watching porn would be something bad or even "harmful". ... while *insane* psychopathic bood-baths and religious schizophrenic brainwashing on public TV is somehow completely OK.

Either the kid is too young, and by himself goes to another site because he doesn't like it, or he's curious because he didn't know it existed... or heâ(TM)s in or past puberty, and liking porn is something utterly normal and natural.

In any case, the only ill people here, are the so-called grown-ups and their religious schizophrenic delusions with which they terrorize their children and their society.

I wonder what you would think about that tribe where every social event includes sex just as it would include alcohol here, and children run around the outside of the orgy, playfully imitating the grown-ups with each other.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

digitig (1056110) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882597)

Mark Bridger is 47. I doubt he would have taken much notice of his parents telling him not to surf porn.

This isn't about preventing children watching porn, this is about preventing everyone watching (certain) porn. If we could be confident that it would only be child porn that would be blocked then I'd be content with that (I don't want to stumble on that stuff by accident), But I don't think we can be confident.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

mrmeval (662166) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882611)

How about their parents giving their kids a long assed info dump on human sexuality ala Monty Python with examples, charts diagrams and pictures. Suck all the life out of it. Make it ordinary and they'll go play "Pretty Pink Ponytail Pony Princess" with their frands.

At least till the hormones hit. Unfortunately Britainians can't have dad cleaning a quantity of guns on the kitchen table while a young cock monger visits his daughter.

Re:Think of the children blah blah (1)

firex726 (1188453) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882903)

Also how many pedphiles do a general search via Google for CP?
I assume they would have their own set of sites that would try and NOT be easily found by a random person or law enforcement. The Abuse team at an old company of mine would get reports of CP, and often times the server Admins would not know, as the server was compromised.

www.bring-back-the-porn.co.uk (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881607)

The only British website left!

Slippery slope (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881613)

Think of the children!

Only God knows what they would demand to block once infrastructure would be on place. Many things, facts and lies that annoy or disturb powers-that-be come to my mind, though.

porn or violence (5, Insightful)

Ubi_NL (313657) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881623)

it never ceases to amaze me that legislators are paranoid over even the slightest form of nudity while it took a massive public outcry to get a facebook movie removed in which a woman was decapitated with a kitchen knife.

I rather have my kids accidentally stumble upon some extreme acts of intercourse than extreme acts of violence.

Re:porn or violence (1)

Impy the Impiuos Imp (442658) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881649)

Well, the US does get its perverse puritan sexual values from England, not continental Europe, where women don't even own bikini tops.

Re:porn or violence (1)

__Paul__ (1570) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881835)

That'll be an England of several hundred years ago. Anyone who has been to England in the last thirty years will know that the general population is far from puritan.

Re:porn or violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882141)

only if under influence. Other than that they are as puritan as they used to be.

Re:porn or violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882965)

>Anyone who has been to England in the last thirty years will know that the general population is far from puritan.

Wishful thinking.

Re:porn or violence (4, Insightful)

rduke15 (721841) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881663)

I agree. And I also noticed that children tend to go sites for children because that is where they find what they want.
The "pornography" they might stumble upon accidentally is soft, and they don't even notice it because it's not intersting
Once they start finding pornography interesting, you cannot prevent them from finding it, and why would you anyway.
As teenagers, before the Internet, we had some pornographic magazines which someone would have found and which we would look at in a far away corner of the school yard. It hasn't traumatized me.

In short, my children who are now almost adult always had access to the Internet, and I have never noticed a problem with pornography.

Re:porn or violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882345)

I agree. And I also noticed that children tend to go sites for children because that is where they find what they want.
The "pornography" they might stumble upon accidentally is soft, and they don't even notice it because it's not intersting
Once they start finding pornography interesting, you cannot prevent them from finding it, and why would you anyway.
As teenagers, before the Internet, we had some pornographic magazines which someone would have found and which we would look at in a far away corner of the school yard. It hasn't traumatized me.

In short, my children who are now almost adult always had access to the Internet, and I have never noticed a problem with pornography.

I dunno, maybe because it gets boys thinking that girls are just sex objects and not people. By the way, the "magazines" you got your hands on when you were a kid is NOTHING like the horrific crap on the Internet. And I am CONSTANTLY reading in the news about boys gang-raping girls, and drugging and raping them, and I am pretty sure they don't get these ideas from PBS or NickKids web sites.

It was one thing looking at Playboy, and yet a whole other thing with the Internet, where double and triple penetration is considered lightweight.

If you can't SEE the problem, you ARE the problem.

Re:porn or violence (1)

Kielistic (1273232) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882735)

And I am CONSTANTLY reading in the news about boys gang-raping girls, and drugging and raping them

That definitely never happened in the past. The days before pornography were rape-free utopias where women were considered completely equal to men.

maybe because it gets boys thinking that girls are just sex objects and not people

And the show Will and Grace makes boys gay too, right?

Re:porn or violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882751)

You act like guys being treated like objects in porn isn't a thing. If you really, honestly think that, then you live a very sheltered life.

Re:porn or violence (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881665)

They don't actually care. Well, not more or less than any other normal person cares about child porn or people being decapitated. They just want to secure means of control, since that's "their job" so to speak. That means that they need to convince people using arguments they think will work. In this case, "think of the children".
  It's like all those hilariously bad commercials and advertising out there - they're annoying, but they work as intended. And that's all that matters.

Nudity is sinful. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881641)

Pornography was created by Satan to lure innocent victims into an eternity in HELL.

Re:Nudity is sinful. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881699)

Clearly, you haven't read Song of Solomon.

Re:Nudity is sinful. (2)

budgenator (254554) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881843)

I'm intreged by this pagan concept call HELL.

Nope. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881643)

Stuff like this is just an artifact of a system where politicans and advisors just view any way to persuade the public as means to an end. Just a strategic move in order to secure more control of the internet by any means possible. But of course, we can't tell people that can we? No trust or transparency. It's not *quite* as bad in my native Sweden as it seems to be in the UK/US - but maybe it's just the fact that I can interpret the codes of my native culture better.

Pedo Panic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881657)

Your kids *definitely* will be kidnapped and murdered by pedos. Jimmy Saville *definitely* molested kids, and his ghost is probably in their room right now diddling! Do *not* attempt to get a grip on the real world, because the real world outside your door is scary which is why we installed CCTV everywhere and watch you online. Be afraid, if not for yourself, for your kids. And give the police whatever sweeping powers they demand.

For the children.

Re:Pedo Panic (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881705)

But the police is children, too! Why does nobody think of the children in uniform?

Re:Pedo Panic (2)

lxs (131946) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881749)

Come to think of it, it's a small miracle that bbc.co.uk hasn't been blocked yet. Judging by the news the BBC appears to be the largest pedo ring in the world.

Re:Pedo Panic (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882177)

The Catholic Church is a lot larger than the BBC...

Play spot the fallacy/error (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881711)

I'm not sure exactly what it is Carr wants blocked? He seems to be calling for all sexual imagery to be blocked, and to justify this he cites behaviour related to pretty fucking horrendous child porn. It's like banning all metals because sodium reacts pretty explosively on contact with water.

Mr Carr said there was "no question" that some men who look at child sex abuse images go on to carry out abuse.

Earlier, speaking to BBC Radio 5 live he said: "There is enough evidence to suggest that if we can put more barriers towards guys getting to child abuse images, fewer of them will do it and more children will be safe."

He said between 15 and 50 per cent of men who previously had no involvement with child abuse images would go on to physically harm children once they accessed them.

This rate seems very high. I'm assuming he's referring to the kinds of images that most people wouldn't really want to be seeing, in which case these are deviants who have self-selected themselves. The impression he's giving is that up to 50% of normal otherwise sexually healthy people will driven quite mad by porn.
To put it another way, 40% of people who enjoy lettuce in some part of their diet are obese, therefore we should restrict lettuce if we wish to reduce obesity.

His comment on increasing barriers to porn being an effective way to reduce child abuse is pretty fucking telling. The same logic can be used to ban or restrict pretty much anything. Let's say that 10% of people who steal cars will use them in bank robberies, therefore introducing a levy on car purchases will decrease purchases, reducing car availability, thus decreasing bank robberies. Whether its the journalist or him, I don't know, but the tack keeps shifting. I agree that restricting access to images of child abuse is sensible, but is that all he wants? Earlier he seems to be going after legal porn sites as well. I get the impression he's happy to drive a bulldozer through a house in order to crack a walnut.

It has been suggested that some internet companies are reluctant to change their search settings as it would drive users to sites unwilling to change their policy and put them at a competitive disadvantage.

And the same would be true if Carr was asking Google to censor all search results depicting black people. They'd have no good reason to do so, and it would indeed gimp their service and drive customers away.

But he said one of the "key routes" paedophiles used to find content was through adverts containing "code words" that are placed on legal hardcore pornography sites.

So paedos have their secret code words anyway for locating their child porn - what's the fucking point in using Google then? Also, what he's getting at here is that legal porn sites are providing super secret access to child porn, so the solution is to remove all porn sites (legal or not) from search results? Website operators found complicit in the distribution of illegal images should be dealt with by the law - not everyone blocked because Carr claims there are some bad apples. Certainly people caught browsing such sites should be hearing from Plod.

Re:Play spot the fallacy/error (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881761)

He knows that. You couldn't possibly be such an idiot and wind up in a position like that. I'm not a lawyer or LEO but I assume that truly dealing with the child abuse problem would involve spending money and resources on intelligence gathering and investigation combined with cooperation across national boundaries. This can't be interpreted as anything other than a power grab, making himself useful to his friends. Or perhaps more nuanced, a way of dealing with the problem and making a power grab at the same time. There are previous examples of whitelisting and control being used to, for example, silence political opponents even in western countries.

Do forgive me for sounding like a pirate party conspiracy nut, but I think the thing to keep in mind is that the internet is still not integrated into society. An island appears off the coast? Great, we send in troops to control it, make it part of the country. It's contested? Why, there are ages-old ways to resolve that.
 
Not so for the internet, which is why politicians and our other "dear leaders" need to improvise to gain control in this sphere. And the resulting confusion breeds stupidity.

Terrible summary (1)

aj50 (789101) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881721)

Though it would have a similar result, this is entirely unrelated to the calls to block porn by default in order to protect children using the internet.

The stated goal here is to make it harder for paedophiles find child-porn by searching for codewords in adverts on legal porn websites.

This still seems pretty short-sighted to me, if we're aware of these secret code-words, shouldn't we be attacking the source of the problem? If porn sites were blocked from search engines, wouldn't these disguised adverts just be placed elsewhere?

The Internet isn't a nanny (2)

SpaghettiPattern (609814) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881751)

The Internet isn't a nanny. You should prepare your kids to use it instead of sticking them behind a screen so that you can sod off to do secondary and pathetic things. Raising kids can't be automated. It takes a great deal of effort. Expecting search engines to filter all bad and thinking your kids will never watch questionable content is very naive and bloody daft. I don't expect everyone to be perfect and I understand "cheating" by, for instance, putting the screen in the living room.

Ridiculous (5, Interesting)

X10 (186866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881773)

Both John Carr and I have been involved in the foundation of Inhope.org. But ever since hotlines and online child protection came into fashion, there's been differences in policies in various countries in Europe. In the Netherlands, policy makers, service providers and volunteers have always had their focus on preventing and fighting (pictures of) online child abuse (aka "child pornography"). In the UK, the focus has been on protecting childrens poor souls from seeing things that policy makers think children should not see. Hence, they block the obvious porn sites, leaving only the more hidden and nasty sites for children to visit. Even the EU in the early 90's quickly switched from preventing online child abuse to blocking porn. There was plenty of subsidy from the EU to local hotlines (of which Meldpunt was the first and the Internet Watch Foundation second), but as the focus shifted, Meldpunt was party left out from the subsidies, because it kept its focus where it should be: preventing and fighting child sexual abuse.

Sex is part of life. Educating children about sex makes them better prepared for life as an adult. You can easily see that by comparing stats for porn intolerance and teen pregnancies. Holland has a very low teen pregnancy number. And if parents don't want their kids to see online sex, why can't we just leave that to parents?

Governments should spend tons of money catching the guys who sexually abuse children. They should not interfere with sexual education, let alone censor the internet.

Re:Ridiculous (2)

X10 (186866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881777)

Oh, and as for blocking child porn sites: blocking those sites makes them unavailable to the general public. They will remain available for pedophiles, one way or another. But if they're not visible for most people, no one will urge their members of parliament to spend more money on catching pedophiles. As a founder of Meldpunt.org, I know for a fact that if the stuff is visible, papers and blogs write about it, and the government (parliament and police) take action. If child porn had been blocked from the start, it would have still been there, the same number of kids would have been sexually molested, but there would have been no Internet Watch Foundation or Meldpunt, or Missingkids for that matter.

Re:Ridiculous (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881875)

More power to you for actually trying to improve the world. But do you know this man? What's his character? If you don't want to stick your head out, that's fine, but it'd add to the story if one'd have a better insight in the mans worldview.

Re:Ridiculous (1)

X10 (186866) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882627)

I know the man, although when I last saw him was in the '90's. He's actually a nice man. But I don't think he knows a lot about the internet, like, the bigger picture of it. The founders of Meldpunt all ran (and still run) their own linux servers, while in most of the other hotlines, let alone in the advisory councils, there were suits and police officers whith entirely different backgrounds.

confused meddler (4, Insightful)

Cederic (9623) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881791)

His statements seem to be very confused. He wants Google and others to do more to block material depicting child abuse. Well that's already blocked in the UK, and it's done at the ISP level with no need for Google to be involved.

He wants Google to use 'safe search' as their default search setting. I thought they already did?

He seems to think people will have to register to be able to search for porn. Register where? Search how? And register for what? This is where I'm utterly confused by what he's assuming, what he's proposing and how he thinks it will work.

The only certainty is that it wont.

Mark Bridger viewed non-pornographic images of April Jones from Facebook. So does Carr want Facebook banned? Does he want images of five year olds banned from Facebook? Does he want it to be impossible to search for images on Facebook?

Mark Bridger had a collection of images of child abuse. Those images are already illegal. Access to them is blocked when possible already within the UK. There's not a whole lot Google can do about that, not least because anybody finding any material via Google can already notify the Internet Watch Foundation and let them know about it.

The good news is that in another ten years or so the politicians will start to be replaced by people that grew up with the Internet, that understand it better and that will at least have a grasp of the pragmatic realities involved.

Re:confused meddler (1)

Dan1701 (1563427) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882061)

What is going on is politicians trying to sound as though they are "getting tough" on paedophiles whilst not actually understanding how the internet works. For instance, some years ago I read an article by a self-confessed paedophile on how internet access to this illegal material is actually managed. As I am sure nobody here will be surprised, the serving system is via encrypted filesystem virtual servers, hosted off-shore, working entirely over https, where the web address is usually a plain IP address or dynamic address changed frequently. The payment gateways into these systems are publicly visible; the actual systems need a username and password to get in and even see anything other than a login screen.

Actually tracking one of these vhost servers down is difficult, and as the illegal pornographers will, on being discovered, simply delete the machine and its encrypted filesystem and start afresh elsewhere, it is mostly a futile exercise. Similarly the internet Watch Foundation is mostly a waste of time, save for performing back-door censorship of web sites. It catches some paedophillic sites, but the vast majority are not detected or filtered.

The way to actually hurt paedophile websites is to follow the money, and attack the revenue stream. Hosting illegal material is only worth it if the hoster is getting paid, and paid extremely well for the risk. Going after the punters paying for the material is mostly just an exercise in identifying and recording potential paedophiles (all of whom then need to be carefully screened and assessed); it provides nice headlines for tabloid papers and pleases police chiefs, but it doesn't actually hurt the suppliers. Locating the payment systems and heavily fining them for being complicit in the supply of illegal materials is the way to go (or at least until everything switches to Bitcoins).

Re:confused meddler (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882065)

The good news is that in another ten years or so the politicians will start to be replaced by people that grew up with the Internet, that understand it better and that will at least have a grasp of the pragmatic realities involved.

I wouldn't rely on internet dwellers to have a sense of perspective. Soon we'll probably be able to call 911 to have police dispatched when we read a mean facebook comment.

Re:confused meddler (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882167)

come to think of it banning FB would not be such a bad idea after all. It would be probably for the wrong reasons but still better for the wrong reasons than never.

There's some material that should be blocked. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43881849)

The problem is how do you do that without restricting everyone elses freedom to look at ordinary bare naked women/men, as their fancy takes them?

In the main, the fuss is being generated by "Think of the Children" agitatiors and their allies, the "family" tabloid press. Its a typical knee-jerk response to a tragic incident, similar to those calls for all dogs with teeth to be put down because their owners are feckless layabouts who allow them to chew up small children and pensioners.

No doubt, an "Aprils Law" will rear its ugly head to pacify the swivel-eyed loons demanding it. In the end, it won't have any more effect than a Badger cull.

HOWTO argue against Internet censorship (1)

rysiek (1328591) | about a year and a half ago | (#43881985)

That's censorship, plain and simple. How about we all read the HOWTO: Effectively argue against Internet censorship ideas [rys.io] (tested already in Poland and Iceland; pure text version available [rys.io] ) and use it to beat politicians into submission on this issue? Carr's motivation is purely political (yes, thank you Capt. Obvious), and he should be called out on it.

Re:HOWTO argue against Internet censorship (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882315)

indeed - interesting read. I think reading the howto makes some at least aware that the censorship is not such a good idea. Then again - you cannot really win that war - you can only continue fighting.

The logical path (1)

drolli (522659) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882013)

Would not to block all porn sites but to demand that all porn-sites are paywalled, with an bank account in the country of the customer, and make a law that the transaton data (i.e. the customers) will remain anonymous and may only be asked for in the "give me infromation for name x" in case of a legal trial.

A paywalled porn-site has no interest at all to get that account seized, since it would do direct economic damage. The customers would be happy not to get trojans or have 100 windows popping up.

At the same time this eliminates the problem of age verification, will get taxes, and, may give some handles to set minimum standards of production (i.e. safer sex only), which may be of interests for the porn industry in the country itself.

What we have seen from other things which were considered illegal some time ago (software downloads, music downloads, movie downloads), if you gove the legal and stigma-free option to do it, the market will immediatly segment into a very legal and profitable part and the rest. The rest will still exist, but under much bigger financial pressure and the legal part will have the bests interests not be associated with the illegal part.

Conflation (3, Interesting)

Admiral Burrito (11807) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882043)

It's amazing how quickly they leap from "porn" to "paedophiles". Just two paragraphs in, and both of them very short.

It used to be "gays == paedophiles" but they can no longer get away with that.

Re:Conflation (-1)

DNS-and-BIND (461968) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882333)

Which brings to mind an interesting point: 40 years ago gays and pedophiles were both considered bad. Today, one is untouchable while the other is, if anything, worse off. Why is that?

In the 70s attempts were made by progressives to change society's attitude and achieve the sexual liberation of children. Unfortunately they failed and we as a culture are still stuck with attitudes that are centuries old.

i could save many more lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882093)

by putting speed limiters in cars, and banning what are effectivly 'race' cars/bikes from the road. there is no legitimate reason to have a vehical that will do 0-60 in under 12 seconds. you want to piss about in a one 1.5 death machine? take it to a track. over 2000 people a year die on the roads here in the uk.

then i'd save even more lives by putting doctors on a rota system so weekends are properly covered, or dare i say, the hospitals work 7 days a week. as it stands, you really don't want to have an operation at the end of the week if you get complications.

'More than 3,000 people could be saved every year if weekend hospital cover and access to key medical facilities was as good as during the working week, a major analysis indicates.'

neither of these things will happen because they will be massively unpopular. but they are the right thing to do.

mind you, effectively banning porn could cause *more* deaths, considering medical advice seems to suggest that us blokes need to ejaculate (via sex or masturbation) every other day to help protect against prostate cancer...

Re:i could save many more lives (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882113)

*1.5 tonne death machine

sorry. i',m brutally hung over lol

0-60 in under 12 seconds is a 'race' car? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882225)

What planet do you live on?

My perfectly bloody ordinary Skoda Yeti is capable (evidently) of doing 0-60 in 8 seconds or so. Have I ever thrashed it to that extent? Nope. Acceleration isn't the problem, nor is maximum speed. The skill and attitude of the driver is a more important consideration. Rather than hobble cars to slower than 12 seconds 0-60, you could save a lot more lives by chucking hoodies in jail to stop 'em stealing cars and killing themselves and innocent bystanders while escaping from the police. Texting, using a mobile phone and watching movies while driving are also bigger death inducing problems. Cut down on these and a knock on effect would be that we wouldn't need any more coverage in A&E due to the reduction in RT fatalities.

Soooo the right thing to do would really be to deprive morons of their right to steal and drive vehicles. :-)

Re:i could save many more lives (1)

rossdee (243626) | about a year and a half ago | (#43883029)

"by putting speed limiters in cars, and banning what are effectivly 'race' cars/bikes from the road. there is no legitimate reason to have a vehical that will do 0-60 in under 12 seconds. "

I agree there should be limits on speed - but not on acceleration. If your speed limit is 70 (I presume we are talking miles per hour here) then it doesn't matter how quick your vehicle gets up to that speed.

No joined up thinking here. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882179)

Lets say that this works, just for the sake of argument.

Will this stop child porn being made?

Nope.

But now you can't just google to find those indulging in viewing it, you can't find them any more to prosecute.

OK, this may be one way to reduce the crime figures, but surely if that were all that was required, they could just ignore the problem and get the same result with no effort.

Got it.... (1)

TheCarp (96830) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882371)

> a government adviser on child internet safety

A what? Sounds like that's their problem right there.

politicians need educating (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882583)

They should all be forced to watch the Brass Eye "Paedogeddon" episode, and write a report on what it has taught them. Chris Morris should of course Mark the papers.

Seriously.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882807)

I do like some porn.. put mildly. But did any of you witness the late tendencies and extent of porn on the internet. And that it has reached worrying levels, an almost critical mass? Did any of you witness the degenerateness of recent porn and the frequency it shows on the net? It must be clear that the mind/brain uses a filter on a everyday basis...... and that some kind of filter must be applied to porn occurrence on the net too. There should be an accessible archive for porn on the net, some kind of database. That can be accessed via sftp/ssh or whatever.. something with logins/passwords. So that minors etc, are spared for the time being. Since it is unarguable that an all too early exposure of porn to minors and to the developing minds of young adults will most certainly cause irreversible damages to the later development of perhaps sexual or social life. I mean, exposing true "minors" to the kind of filth you see on the net today? Can anyone who is in his senses would advocate for this kind of exposure we have today? I'm all for an open net, but if we're honest, there are always filters, on multiple layers. Everywhere and also on the net. Period. Cheers.

Re:Seriously.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year and a half ago | (#43882835)

-would

How about.. (1)

GigaBurglar (2465952) | about a year and a half ago | (#43882809)

An opt-in clause from the ISP?

But whatever.. Then you couldn't obfuscate your secret Web blocking plans..

Foot in the door - everyone's at it. Once the proverbial salesman's foot is in he can pitch his sale. This planet is fucking full of slimeballs.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?