UK govt to make porn "opt-in"

[ninwa]

THE UK Government is to combat the early sexualization of children by blocking internet pornography unless parents request it, it was revealed today.

The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites.

The biggest broadband providers, including BT, Virgin Media and TalkTalk, are being called to a meeting next month by Ed Vaizey, the communications minister, and will be asked to change how pornography gets into homes.

Instead of using parental controls to stop access to pornography - so-called "opting out" - the tap will be turned off at source. Adults will then have to "opt in."

http://www.news.com.au/breaking-news/world/all-internet-porn-will-be-blocked-to-protect-children-under-uk-government-plan/story-e6frfkui-1225973481287

[burbs]

Surely kids could get around this easily though? The want for porn can give even the dumbest child computer knowledge.

[dcc]

UK GOVERNMENT MASTER PLAN - ruin childhood.

step 1: prevent the easy consumption of scrumptious porn.
step 2: see step 1

[lexitu]

How f###ing stupid. The sexualisation of children comes from more subtle things that are far from hardcore pornography. If you want to avert this, ban people from dressing up sexily and ads encouraging children to prostitute themselves so they can attract a mate. But I'm not suggesting this because you obviously can't do it and it's wrong anyway. Better is to throw this issue into the public domain so that people are at least aware of it and can keep companies/people accountable. Or something else, I haven't thought too long about this but this strategy is one of the most risible I've heard of.

[Russ]

Let's be honest though, I can't see how banning X rated material to under-18s is a bad idea (how successful a filter is is another matter)

[Cianyx]

Banning adult material for children is quite a reasonable idea but the problem is that it is an opt-out filter. They've got it the wrong way round. Parents who want to stop their children jerkin the gherkin should be opting in to filters. I believe this is one of the same problems we Aussies had with our nanny shield.

[EvangelionZeta]

How f###ing stupid. The sexualisation of children comes from more subtle things that are far from hardcore pornography. If you want to avert this, ban people from dressing up sexily and ads encouraging children to prostitute themselves so they can attract a mate. But I'm not suggesting this because you obviously can't do it and it's wrong anyway. Better is to throw this issue into the public domain so that people are at least aware of it and can keep companies/people accountable. Or something else, I haven't thought too long about this but this strategy is one of the most risible I've heard of.

"The move is intended to ensure that children are not exposed to sex as a routine by-product of the internet. It follows warnings about the hidden damage being done to children by sex sites."

Children's notions of sex are still distinct from their notions of how to present themselves.  Whilst the contemporary obsession with appearing "sexy" is definitely a problem for younger children, there is still a larger problem in sex being seen as a sort of internet commodity.

Banning adult material for children is quite a reasonable idea but the problem is that it is an opt-out filter. They've got it the wrong way round. Parents who want to stop their children jerkin the gherkin should be opting in to filters. I believe this is one of the same problems we Aussies had with our nanny shield.

Why should it be opt-in?  Chances are, if they do it that way, a lot of parents won't have any idea.  This way, it protects more people, and still doesn't affect those who actually care.

[/0]

Some problems
-What do you define as porn?
-They'll know who looks at porn.

[Cianyx]

Banning adult material for children is quite a reasonable idea but the problem is that it is an opt-out filter. They've got it the wrong way round. Parents who want to stop their children jerkin the gherkin should be opting in to filters. I believe this is one of the same problems we Aussies had with our nanny shield.

Why should it be opt-in?  Chances are, if they do it that way, a lot of parents won't have any idea.  This way, it protects more people, and still doesn't affect those who actually care.

Mostly privacy concerns. A lot of people (myself included) do not enjoy reporting to the government about their porno schedule and routine. Frankly, it is none of the state's concern what I (or we) do legally. Well, if parents don't know about the opt-in program, it doesn't mean to program is ineffective, rather the problem lies in its implementation.

To expand on /0's first point. I see an opt-in system to be far more cost effective. If an opt-out system were implemented, there would need to be constant checks and assessments on what is classified as ' U, 12 or 18' material (which in itself, is a next to impossible task). If we were to look at the opt-in system, X-rated material could be pigeon-holed with little backlash (as parents would probably have wanted that anyway). Plus, if Australia is anything to go by, I believe most families who volunteered for some sort of porno filter did choose to opt out at the end of the trial.

[EvangelionZeta]

Banning adult material for children is quite a reasonable idea but the problem is that it is an opt-out filter. They've got it the wrong way round. Parents who want to stop their children jerkin the gherkin should be opting in to filters. I believe this is one of the same problems we Aussies had with our nanny shield.

Why should it be opt-in?  Chances are, if they do it that way, a lot of parents won't have any idea.  This way, it protects more people, and still doesn't affect those who actually care.

Mostly privacy concerns. A lot of people (myself included) do not enjoy reporting to the government about their porno schedule and routine. Frankly, it is none of the state's concern what I (or we) do legally. Well, if parents don't know about the opt-in program, it doesn't mean to program is ineffective, rather the problem lies in its implementation.

To expand on /0's first point. I see an opt-in system to be far more cost effective. If an opt-out system were implemented, there would need to be constant checks and assessments on what is classified as ' U, 12 or 18' material (which in itself, is a next to impossible task). If we were to look at the opt-in system, X-rated material could be pigeon-holed with little backlash (as parents would probably have wanted that anyway). Plus, if Australia is anything to go by, I believe most families who volunteered for some sort of porno filter did choose to opt out at the end of the trial.

@ #1, what if they were to just install something into the national internet system that meant you could manually disable the firewall yourself at home?  I don't know enough about computers to know the logistics behind this, but it sounds like problem solved.

@ #2, not entirely sure what you mean by "could be pigeon-holed with little backlash" - could you elaborate?

[Cianyx]

1. It's a filter at an ISP level. The system they propose, I believe, can only be modified by the ISP's or governments themselves. I may be wrong on this, but the government may have proposed this idea with the idea that kids may be able to bypass the filter. Hence why they choose to implement a system at an ISP level, one which is inaccessible to kids. Giving families the power to choose at a user level may undermine the system.

2. Poor choice of words on my part. Apologies. What I meant to say is that if parents were the ones who chose the filter, I doubt they would worry what constitutes porn (eg. is softcore too explicit). However, if you were to aim this filter at the entire population, I can see this problem being a lot more frequent.

[echenzi]

This was interestingly, essentially what was also proposed under our internet filtering.

[rustic_metal]

Trap to catch men overstaying their visas.

[echenzi]

Trap to catch men overstaying their visas.

lmao.

[lexitu]

This was interestingly, essentially what was also proposed under our internet filtering.

Not really... Our filter proposes the blocking of illegal pornography; child porn.