Digital Economy Bill: MPs to greenlight ISP porn blocking plan

"Twitter, Facebook-based porn is much tougher technical nut to crack," admits minister.

Read the whole story

 

[Hornedrat]

As always this will be as ineffective as blocking will be bypassed and will prove yet another burden on isp's that will pass all additional costs on to subscribers but at least we thought of the children.

 

[shav]

the risks and dangers of online porn

What exactly are those?

But Hancock claimed that news reports had "misread the bill," adding that it was "neither our intention nor our understanding of the working of these amendments."

Neither your intention nor your understanding mater. What's important is how the courts interpret the language.

 

[Akemi]

Why is it always a group of people nobody would ever want to have sex with that seem so determined to battle the 'evils of porn'?

 

[Kane2207]

Trying to block porn on the internet is going to be like trying to remove piss from a swimming pool.

What a bunch of muppets.

 

[AnteatersYellow]

It sounds like they've spent a lot of time and effort on this, and it'll be totally ineffective for the target audience.

I'm fed up of this incompetence.


Firstly they see a problem and come up with a questionable solution. Ie, censor vs educate. Cheap and cheerful vs costly and multi-effective.

Then the censorship they apply is costly and impacts freedom and privacy for all, and ineffective for the target audience.


So once again I ask, incompetence or malice?

They're both reason for sackings and public outrage, yet the great unwashed seem oblivious.


I've never been so ashamed to tell people I'm from the UK, the home of politics that bring us such things as blind eyes been turned to paedo rings on one hand, yet blanket censorship to protect children on the other. Face palm.

 

[TommyGuns]

AnteatersYellow[/url]":13u5reom]It sounds like they've spent a lot of time and effort on this, and it'll be totally ineffective for the target audience.

I'm fed up of this incompetence.


Firstly they see a problem and come up with a questionable solution. Ie, censor vs educate. Cheap and cheerful vs costly and multi-effective.

Then the censorship they apply is costly and impacts freedom and privacy for all, and ineffective for the target audience.


So once again I ask, incompetence or malice?

They're both reason for sackings and public outrage, yet the great unwashed seem oblivious.


I've never been so ashamed to tell people I'm from the UK, the home of politics that bring us such things as blind eyes been turned to paedo rings on one hand, yet blanket censorship to protect children on the other. Face palm.

Hit the nail on the head.

 

[Riddler876]

I'm continually gobsmacked that they don't object to buying games that involve drone strikes, war and generally beating the sit out of each other (which is an activity no one should ever partake in IRL).

Yet watching two people have sex (an activity most people will partake in IRL), well that's just fucking unacceptable.

edit: IMHO the sooner we rid ourselves of the outdated societal view that sex and related matters are taboo and must be suppressed the better off we will be. It's irrational views like that which made (and make still in some places) it difficult for children to get any sex related education - without which they wont learn to approach such situations responsibly.

 

[TommyGuns]

Riddler876[/url]":27jhxvlk]I'm continually gobsmacked that they don't object to buying games that involve drone strikes, war and generally beating the sit out of each other (which is an activity no one should ever partake in IRL).

Yet watching two people have sex (an activity most people will partake in IRL), well that just fucking unacceptable.

The point of the bill is to protect Children. The protection of children from the purchase of violent video games comes at the point of retail.

This bill is daft, but let's be clear what it's supposedly for.

 

[Riddler876]

TommyGuns[/url]":zisa823c]

Riddler876[/url]":zisa823c]I'm continually gobsmacked that they don't object to buying games that involve drone strikes, war and generally beating the sit out of each other (which is an activity no one should ever partake in IRL).

Yet watching two people have sex (an activity most people will partake in IRL), well that just fucking unacceptable.

The point of the bill is to protect Children. The protection of children from the purchase of violent video games comes at the point of retail.

This bill is daft, but let's be clear what it's supposedly for.

I see your point about them being protected from that at POS. My argument would more be that whats seen as acceptable, and can legally be sold to children IMO doesn't compare to watching two people have sex.

Content rating for (15):

Films under this category can contain adult themes, hard drugs, (frequent) strong language, strong violence and strong sex references, and nudity without graphic detail. Sexual activity may be portrayed but without any strong detail. Sexual violence may be shown if discreet and justified by context. Use of very strong language may be permitted based on frequency and how they are used, as well as contextual justification.

In my opinion (and it is down to personal opinion) I'd rather my children watched "sexual scenes" instead of "hard drugs, (frequent) strong language, strong violence".

I just can't wrap my head around why sex is the bad guy in that list that must be tackled in this way instead of the others. I've seen some pretty horrific violence related videos on the BBC over the years from war zones etc., which they're not mandating this kind of age verification too see. Why isn't that addressed the same way in this bill?

 

[shattered_monarchy]

Riddler876[/url]":2z8d582x]

TommyGuns[/url]":2z8d582x]

Riddler876[/url]":2z8d582x]I've seen some pretty horrific violence related videos on the BBC over the years from war zones etc., which they're not mandating this kind of age verification too see. Why isn't that addressed the same way in this bill?

The onus would be placed on a non-government funded body to think of a thrilling way to block porn. I suspect someone realised that taxing the BBC with age verification is unrealistic. Given that BBC iPlayer's budget was already whittled away on futile VPN blocks.

 

[passivesmoking]

Who voted for these morons? I didn't.

 

[Thunderforge8]

In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

 

[Chris1215]

Blocking sites wont work because many will find ways around (VPNs anyone and a Ban on them would not work and would cause backlash) but they know that.

At best they are trying to score political points and at worse they want to censor more then porn at a later date... let hope we can stop this because I know many dont want this and it will just make everything worse and this type of blocking may not even be legal under EU net neutrality rules (and before you say we are leaving the EU just remember Brexit is a mess and the Torys are getting cold feet over it)

 

[Kebba]

passivesmoking[/url]":3cz6vr8b]Who voted for these morons? I didn't.

37 % of the population, and yet 100% of the control. Almost makes the electoral collage seem fair. I guess your British, so I am not trying to educate you, but other might find this educating

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=r9rGX91rq5I

 

[alors]

shav[/url]":1s8ydopm]

the risks and dangers of online porn

What exactly are those?

But Hancock claimed that news reports had "misread the bill," adding that it was "neither our intention nor our understanding of the working of these amendments."

Neither your intention nor your understanding mater. What's important is how the courts interpret the language.

Technically, in the event that a law as written is ambiguous, one of the things a common-law court can take into account when interpreting it is the stated intent of the legislators who pushed it through. Of course, when the law clearly says "pi is equal to four", a legislator pleading on the record that they have no intention to make teaching mathematics impossible isn't going to make much difference.

 

[AxMi-24]

Stop calling them incompetent. They are anything but incompetent just that the final goal has nothing to do with blocking porn but with introduction of full state controlled censorship. This is just a small step in that direction and it's efficiency is not based on technical means but on psychology of the citizens who are little bit at the time convinced that censorship is there to protect them just like when "think of the children" or "think of the terrorists" is used.

It would be great if politicians were incompetent as they would be much worse at selling us all out to rich but sadly that's not the case.

 

[Riddler876]

Thunderforge8[/url]":1spr49ek]In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

Short of some extraordinarily detailed long term studies, I give that link as much initial likelihood as video games turning people into serial killers. I'd say it is far more likely just a way for them to try to rationalize the fact they are a terrible person.

 

[Cat Killer]

Thanks, Tory voters.

 

[I'm not you]

Thunderforge8[/url]":w00uj212]There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

I'll never understand why this isn't laughed at by everyone. The man was a liar, a sociopath, and a serial killer, and he used a filthy rich Christian charlatan with zero morals to gain one last glob of fame for himself.

There is no evidence of a link between rape and murder and pornography. If there was, once the Internet became popular, rape and murder would have exploded exponentially, and yet they simply did not. Ted Bundy and James Dobson wanted fame and glory and the more this silly idea of porn=violence is repeated the more they succeeded with their disgusting stunt.

 

[Violated]

If only the Government would realise that the Internet is an adult world where beyond a few small walled gardens kids can totally sod off. Problem solved no kids on the Internet.

More realistically any kids visitation should be adult supervised where since kids are by definition minors then them straying into bad areas (not unlike lakes or heavy machinery) makes the adult responsibe for the harm they face under negligence.

So all the Government is saying here is like they want all vehicles child proof so your preteens can't joyride across the country and if no child locks then they just take everyone's car away.

I can only wonder if the Government already knows that they have long been barking up the wrong tree? What society needs is not censorship and regulation luring parents into a false sense of security but good old fashioned good parenting of keeping one eye on their offspring.

 

[pmds25]

If you're going to block porn in such a way that I (16 years old) can't get round it (highly unlikely, VPN, thanks) then I'll just engage in actual sex with other people instead. Own goal.

 

[greyviking]

RTA Labels. http://www.rtalabel.org/

This would need buy-in from the browser authors and the websites that wanted to display adult content.

Too simple for our MPs though.

 

[mrsilver]

Cat Killer[/url]":3fq4osxy]Thanks, Tory voters.

Don't forgot to thank Labour too, who were their usual shambling incompetent self in failing to put up any kind of decent opposition.

A more cynical person might think that they actually wanted the bill to go through.

 

[small_furry_spider]

I'm not you[/url]":1zlgjh5l]

There is no evidence of a link between rape and murder and pornography. If there was, once the Internet became popular, rape and murder would have exploded exponentially, and yet they simply did not. Ted Bundy and James Dobson wanted fame and glory and the more this silly idea of porn=violence is repeated the more they succeeded with their disgusting stunt.

Well, there is evidence that early use of online porn does give children unrealistic ideas of what "normal" sex is and this can be damaging for both partners and this is a growing problem (sorry, can't search for the link now as at work :/ but I have seen several articles on this). However, I suspect better education would certainly help here, and this solution won't.

As usual, the politicians are wasting my time/money.

 

[timje]

Thunderforge8[/url]":3cljcasg]In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

I'm not you[/url]":3cljcasg]
There is no evidence of a link between rape and murder and pornography....

http://www.yapaka.be/sites/yapaka.be/fi ... ternet.pdf

Here's a fun study that concludes that the arrival of the internet across the US is correlated with a reduction in rapes, without affecting other crimes.

Using this data one could argue that restricting access to pornography would have the opposite effect from the one you have suggested.

 

[yrvafhom]

The amendment is not about access to porn, it is about banning VPNs.

"The steps .. may .. include steps or arrangements that will.. have the effect of preventing persons in the United Kingdom from being able to access material other than the offending material ..."

 

[Recip]

Thunderforge8[/url]":3hc9vi3s]In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

First of all, linking porn (or any) addiction as a causality to murder (especially on your 1 person sampling) is utterly a ridiculous argument to even entertain. It will always be possible not ever likely consistently probable that an addict will murder just the same as non-addicts. It is more likely that the sexual pleasure that he derived from thinking about serial killing women lead to a porn addiction. Heck, if he loved porn that much, maybe he should have made it his occupation instead but nothing justifies his desire to kill the women so he was obviously in denial and simply making excuses for his demented actions and thoughts.

As far as lowering sexual assault, this idea goes against all logic. Why would anyone think that sexually mature males deprived of an outlet for their testosterone release would ever lower sexual assault cases? In fact, you will probably ironically get an increase with seeking deprivation of the experience. The only boys that I've ever noticed to be "not balanced" mentally were the ones from highly religious families that made sexual thoughts or masturbation a taboo consideration. Maybe you should look into Ted Bundy's religious background as you might find your answer there.

 

[otaviokzuk]

In my humble opinion it all looks just too useful as both a political platform and smoke screen. A lot of energy, time and commotion happen around something quite unimportant while other matters get by silently.

AnteatersYellow[/url]":1pgto8jc]It sounds like they've spent a lot of time and effort on this, and it'll be totally ineffective for the target audience.

I'm fed up of this incompetence.


Firstly they see a problem and come up with a questionable solution. Ie, censor vs educate. Cheap and cheerful vs costly and multi-effective.

Then the censorship they apply is costly and impacts freedom and privacy for all, and ineffective for the target audience.


So once again I ask, incompetence or malice?

They're both reason for sackings and public outrage, yet the great unwashed seem oblivious.


I've never been so ashamed to tell people I'm from the UK, the home of politics that bring us such things as blind eyes been turned to paedo rings on one hand, yet blanket censorship to protect children on the other. Face palm.

 

[Korios]

"In other news Tor Browser and Opera* downloads saw a very sharp rise in the first quarter of 2017 in the UK".

*(Opera 40+ includes a free VPN client with, as of yet, unlimited data)

 

[Overlord_Dave]

i need to share this good news,i was scammed of $13000, i had to consult this hacker ... to help me wire my money back, incase you need a hacker, contact him, he can do alot of stuffs.

Best spam I've seen on Ars in a while

Next time I need alot of stuffs done I'll be in touch

 

[Korios]

Thunderforge8[/url]":yxua3oeg]In the United States, there has been a lot of discussion about the increasing problem of sexual assault and rape, and pornography is something that is often considered as a possible link. There's certainly been high profile cases, like serial killer rapist Ted Bundy calling an interview hours before his execution to say that his addiction to pornography, and the constant craving for more that came from it, was what he believed ultimately led him to his reprehensible behaviors.

While the plural of anecdote is not data (and not all who view pornography will become serial rapists), I do understand the desire to keep kids from viewing pornography at an early age and in such great quantities if there is even a slight chance that it will lower sexual assault in society as a whole. I'm not qualified to say whether or not this sort of bill would be effective in doing so, but I can definitely understand the desire to have it passed.

In (largely Muslim) countries where pornography is illegal sexual assaults and rapes are much more frequent. Some psychiatrists speculate that one of porn's functions is to cool out the libido. So, regardless of what Ted Buddy says (who would naturally say anything in support of his defense, probably under his attorney's advice - I've known quite a few people who have committed ritual murders that blame.. black metal for it) your argument is not supported by any evidence.

 

[DameonK]

This is obviously just a stepping stone to what these people actually want, full censorship of the Internet.

It would be nice if law-makers were required to present actual evidence regarding the laws they want to pass....

 

[EloquentRose]

this is just so f'ing depressing. Seriously what the hell happened to this country....... think ill go cry now.

 

[ricmsmith]

DameonK[/url]":h1ms5f7s]This is obviously just a stepping stone to what these people actually want, full censorship of the Internet.

It would be nice if law-makers were required to present actual evidence regarding the laws they want to pass....

Brexit already established that we're sick of experts in this country. And in any case our PM has form for ignoring government research and going with her gut instead. It's a brave new post truth/no truth world. And if you disagree you're probably a terrorist or something. The whole thing makes me sick.

 

[mrsilver]

Kebba[/url]":2kmrh5to]

passivesmoking[/url]":2kmrh5to]Who voted for these morons? I didn't.

37 % of the population, and yet 100% of the control.

Unless you make voting a legal requirement, you're never going to have a situation where you can get the majority of people engaged enough to actually bother voting.

Bear in mind that 33.9% of the electorate basically said "ehhh, fuck it, I'll go with whatever you lot all decide to vote for". So whether they like it or not, they basically voted for the Conservatives (as they were the party that won).

If they didn't like that outcome, they should have voted.

 

[arkhanist]

shav[/url]":3sjfu6lm]

the risks and dangers of online porn

What exactly are those?

Many schools already teach about online porn in PHSE lessons. The 'danger' is that boys think porn is what their sex-life should be like, which is pretty unrealistic. Online porn is very often anal sex now, and increasingly violent, domination style in everything. Now there's nowt wrong with either acts between two consenting adults of course, but BDSM is actually about mutual respect and trust, which isn't what you get in pornhub et al. And maybe I'm an old square, but anal is not exactly everyone's cup of tea.

Girls too - and we're talking under 10's these days, who see this stuff - get a lot of body pressure from porn; boys expect all girls to be shaved, for example, as they always are in porn. Nor are they expected to enjoy sex, just perform for the guys.

If we want our kids to grow up into well-rounded adults, including fulfilling sex lives, then they need to be aware that most porn is about as real as a Michael Bay film; particularly the pre-teens.

Trying to block it via ISPs though, man what a waste of time and money. Without going after VPNs and proxies it's pointless; which is actually what scares me.

What better way to stop people avoiding the universal monitoring in the snoopers charter than banning commercial VPN services because 'children use them to watch porn' at some future point.