| 3:20 pm on Jul 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@BeeDeeDubbleU, how would opt-in filtering help with that? All it would need is for some parents to opt-out, or for some kids to work out how to bypass the filters, and they could still download and show it do their friends.
They could also rip a DVD and put in on their phone, or scan photos and put them on their phones.
The only way to guarantee kids never see #*$! would be to ban it altogether, in any medium, not just the internet, and enforce the bad rigorously.
As far as the bookshops go, the last time I saw de Sade in a bookshop it was an ordinary high street bookshop and on the general fiction shelves to which children had access.
| 3:23 pm on Jul 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@brotherhood of LAN, yes that was Claire Perry. She also accused him of linking to #*$! because he took a screen shot of her site.
A Labour MSP (Member of the Scottish Parliament) has been calling for an internet "watershed" like the broadcasting one. (British TV does not show certain types of material before a certain time in the evening). Completely clueless.
| 8:37 pm on Jul 25, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@BeeDeeDubbleU, in fact the only time when I was a minor that a bookshop showed the slightest sign of preventing me from browsing books was when, at Foyles, I was driven away from a shelf of physics testbooks that they decided were to advanced for me.
| 8:20 am on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This is not about bookshops. They don't normally have a problem with minors seeking out p0rn because they know that there are adults around. The Internet is a different matter.
And let's be serious here, the Internet provides a much easier and threat free route to dangerous and criminal p0rn than most bookshops.
| 8:44 am on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This is not about "dangerous and criminal p0rn", it is about any #*$!. The filters will block #*$!, discussions about #*$!, stuff that it looks like it may be #*$! (see my example above).
The UK already has a filtering system for illegal material (which has already become much wider than it is supposed to be - e.g. blocking online versions of images legally on sale in paper form). This is an additional filter which will block all #*$! (and a lot of false positives).
| 8:55 am on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
If you want to see it you can opt in.
|The filters will block #*$!, discussions about #*$!, stuff that it looks like it may be #*$! (see my example above). |
| 5:33 pm on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|Kids, being kids, do look for it and they know how to find it. |
That's true but *kids* have to be prevented from having access to smut. Similarly they need to be kept away from sharp objects, plastic bags that could suffocate them (for infants) and from fire. Should you be applying these standards to everyone irrespective of their age?
| 5:44 pm on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Now, it looks like there's another row developing.
|The #*$!ography filtering system praised by David Cameron is controlled by the controversial Chinese company Huawei, the BBC has learned. |
UK-based employees at the firm are able to decide which sites TalkTalk's net filtering service blocks.Chinese firm Huawei controls net filter praised by PM [bbc.co.uk]
|On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011. |
TalkTalk told the BBC it was comfortable with its relationship with Huawei, and that the service was very popular.
Homesafe is a voluntary scheme which allows subscribers to select categories - including social media, gambling and #*$!ography - that they want blocked.
Customers who do not want filtering still have their traffic routed through the system, but matches to Huawei's database are dismissed rather than acted upon.
| 9:14 pm on Jul 26, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@graeme_p Thank you I was going to write a longer reply but you said it for me. I hear Foyles is all neat and tidy these days, rather than the piles of books stuck on the floor !
@BeeDeeDubbleU I don't know how old you are ,but I am old ! I remember being about 7 and being shown certain magazines ! It's not new , kids are , quite rightly, curious, and the more naughty the better.
Watch out for what Huawei build into their equipment ;)
@graeme_p the lady who used to run Foyles , bless her soul, used to interview all the new staff up in her flat above the shop - my daughter was one of the many students who worked there and said she was charming.
| 6:32 am on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
This is the whole point of the exercise. Adults can opt in if they chose. What's wrong with that?
|Should you be applying these standards to everyone irrespective of their age? |
| 6:42 am on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Yes, that's precisely the point I am making. You have to put barriers in their way to the bad stuff.
|@BeeDeeDubbleU I don't know how old you are ,but I am old ! I remember being about 7 and being shown certain magazines ! It's not new , kids are , quite rightly, curious, and the more naughty the better. |
(And at going on 65 years of age I am old enough to remember when "Health and Efficiency " mag was seen as the outer limits.) ;)
| 8:24 am on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
1) given the popularity of online #*$! (and the nuisance of false positives) it means a high proportion of households will opt out
2) this means that children from those households will be able to show their friends #*$!
3) that invalidates your strongest argument (that parents cannot control what others show their kids).
| 11:33 am on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
And at going on 65 years of age I am old enough to remember when "Health and Efficiency " mag was seen as the outer limits
Brings it all back, a group of 12 years olds on the school field clustered around a copy of Parade.
| 2:23 pm on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
|This is the whole point of the exercise. Adults can opt in if they chose. What's wrong with that? |
They are applying a filter to everyone's internet traffic while giving them the option to opt out. This is like deciding for them. Users should be asked to opt into filtering, not opt out of filtering.
| 5:16 pm on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Cameron also wants to block specific search terms.
A former employer of mine had a similar idea to stop hate and extremist political sites being accessed on their computers. It also had the effect of blocking half the BBC news site and preventing the public affairs department from looking up anything to do with government or opposition policy.
| 6:24 pm on Jul 27, 2013 (gmt 0)|
That is a matter of opinion.
|Users should be asked to opt into filtering, not opt out of filtering. |
| 1:02 am on Jul 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
It is political simple: ban it, but allow opt in, and the honchos will then know where to look. (Not necessarily pervs but can be labeled as same since they spoke up and opted IN). If you don't agree, vote those out of office seeking to impose same.
| 5:17 am on Jul 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Its now been revealed that its not only #*$! that will be blocked:
@piatkow, a former employer filtered out alcohol and tobaccos websites, as my job at the time was (among other things) to analyse alcohol and tobacco companies.
@vik_c, very few people would opt-in. Those who want filtering can already use filtering software or services, and probably already are.
[edited by: lawman at 10:12 am (utc) on Jul 28, 2013]
| 10:44 am on Jul 28, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Actually nothing has been revealed. That article is just speculation.
| 12:23 am on Jul 29, 2013 (gmt 0)|
ahh I remember that !
|clustered around a copy of Parade |
Serious note : it's all down to parents - I'm fed up with people/organisations/lobby groups telling me ( and my child ) what we can see and do.
Disclaimer - child (now grown up ) was a 'govermental relations officer' = lobby person - took her 2 years to agree that was what she did !
aside - and one of the biggest industries in the USA ? yep it's p*rn. USA is so hypercritical , no no we don't want it , sales say - oh yes we do !
| 2:57 am on Jul 29, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Hey johnhh - this thread is about UK policy, not U.S.
| 6:35 am on Jul 29, 2013 (gmt 0)|
@BeeDeeDubbleU, the first para of the article says it is based on conversations with ISPs - so it is not just speculation.
Incidentally, MPs are also having parliamentary connections filtered following this:
| 11:09 pm on Jul 30, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Nope we had Parade here in the UK as well , all my comments relate to the UK, a third world country which is where I reside ! We also had *** Housewifes !
Lobby groups in the UK are getting more and more powerful. So less than 100 people can change Goverment policy, ignoring the 56million others ! We used to cal it the silent majority.
Whatever is done in the USA seems to reach us in some form or another then taken to extreme, we are your extra State ! Which actually was my point !
I actually had a chat with a railway worker in a Scottish city a few months ago he agreed - whatever is done is just taken the extreme, whether it's EU regulations ( completely ignored by most other EU countries ), health and safety, or anti-you name it !
Been reading about a few over the top filtering - hope you not bird watching for a blue t*t, or even live in Ess*x !
| 12:47 am on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Sorry johnnh, I missed your point. Sometimes I have a problem understanding English. :)
| 8:42 am on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
hope you not bird watching for a blue t*t, or even live in Ess*x !
I ran a site for a community arts group in Ess*x once. Google flagged the photo pages as "adult" back in 2001.
| 9:32 am on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
I would like to think that we are wee bit more clever nowadays. ;)
| 2:08 pm on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
No, no more clever at all. One ISP was blocking the Open Rights Group discussion on the #*$! filter proposal - because it had words like #*$! in it.
| 2:31 pm on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
| 4:19 pm on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Depends which one. A rough count of recent hits showed a couple of major ISPs each accounting for over 10% of my traffic.
One of course should be blocked from the search engines - anybody looking for v*rg*n is clearly after p*rn!
| 10:59 pm on Jul 31, 2013 (gmt 0)|
The point is a small number of people using lobby groups and journalist friends ( especially from the Sunday Times ) can start campaigns. Oddly they all in London as most UK media are all London based. ( any where else in the UK is called 'in the sticks' a place to go for a weekend away ) and if it's a slow news day everything is up for grabs !
99% of people in the Uk don't care, and it is basically down to parental guidance.
@piatkow bit of a shame if you are religious or like art !
I am a firm supporter of UK freedom of speech and expression., and of the right of comedians to make jokes. Dave Allen lives on!
[edited by: lawman at 12:51 am (utc) on Aug 1, 2013]
[edit reason] Fix Link [/edit]
| 10:02 am on Aug 3, 2013 (gmt 0)|
Jimmy Wales's opinion [bbc.co.uk...]
| This 70 message thread spans 3 pages: < < 70 ( 1  3 ) > > |