IPB

Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >  
Reply to this topicStart new topic
> The hypocrisy of Cameron’s war on porn
Andy Capp
post Jul 26 2013, 02:32 PM
Post #1


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



While it doesn't necessarily mean that everything Cameron says is pointless, this article does raise some important points, the inference being more political deflection from a feeble prime minister.

"Firstly, it’s a bit rich for a government that last year cut the budget of the police body (CEOP) that investigates online child abuse to point the finger of blame at Google et al for failing to tackle the problem. Especially when it’s that industry that’s funded the Internet Watch Foundation since its formation in 1996, a body that has – according to its About Us page – “virtually eradicated [illegal child abuse images] from UK networks”."

"I’ve been told countless times by experts working in this field over the years: the majority of people seeking child abuse images aren’t discovering them in Google Images. They’re using newsgroups, peer-to-peer networking and other sites hidden in the “deep web”. They’re actively masking these sites from Google, because they don’t wish to be caught. If CEOP could hunt down paedophiles simply by typing keywords into Google, the government would have every right to cut the CEOP’s budget, its job would be much easier."

"where are these concerned parents he claims to speak on behalf of? The government’s own consultation paper on parental controls, published only last December, stated: “There was no great appetite among parents for the introduction of default filtering of the internet by their ISP: only 35 per cent of the parents who responded favoured that approach.” Yet that’s precisely the approach Cameron is today attempting to foist upon ISPs."



http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2013/07/22/th...urce=newsletter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 26 2013, 04:12 PM
Post #2


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



For the purposes of balance, some of the accusations are refuted in this article. It seems, as usual, various offices are in disagreement and suggests a muddying of waters. No change there then.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/383215/pms-chi...urce=newsletter
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 26 2013, 08:39 PM
Post #3


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Makes you wonder if Mr C has ever been near a PC; let alone entered Google. Regrettably its all populist stuff; aimed as far as I can see at the Mum's vote.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Squelchy
post Jul 27 2013, 03:04 PM
Post #4


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 456
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 47



Thin end of the wedge time.

"As well as pornography, users may automatically be opted in to blocks on "violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites" and "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking". But the list doesn't stop there. It even extends to blocking "web forums" and "esoteric material", whatever that is. "Web blocking circumvention tools" is also included, of course."

Now, we already have the situation where children can be removed if the foster parents belong to the 'wrong' political party. How long before they get removed if the foster parents don't subscribe to the Governmental diktats on what you can watch.

Choosing porn as a target will get the Daily Mail vote. You just get a line of men in shabby raincoats up on stage (copy of Razzle in one pocket), with arms like Schwarzenegger on one side and arms like noodles the other. And say, "look - we're going to stop this" loud cheers from everyone. It's an easy target and one behind which you can hide your real intentions.

In fact you should actually get Rushdie up on stage or Aung San Suu Kyi and get them to explain about Government censorship and what it REALLY means.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Andy Capp
post Jul 27 2013, 03:32 PM
Post #5


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 11,902
Joined: 3-September 09
Member No.: 317



Quite agree, the Tory argument is simply incoherent.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Jul 27 2013, 09:50 PM
Post #6


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (Squelchy @ Jul 27 2013, 04:04 PM) *
You just get a line of men in shabby raincoats up on stage (copy of Razzle in one pocket), with arms like Schwarzenegger on one side and arms like noodles the other. And say, "look - we're going to stop this" loud cheers from everyone.

Razzle.... hmmm.... rolleyes.gif How very 80's Squelchy..... Did you have a subscription?

At what level does Big Brother decide that something is 'pornographic' or not....? Anyone watch Series One of Game of Thrones? C'mon, everyone has watched some of Game of Thrones... (well ok, I hadn't until recently..... until my daughter sent me a Youtube link and I wondered what THIS was all about.) blink.gif blink.gif

Series Three has kind of toned down the number of rape scenes and there's not nearly so many bouncy bits of female flesh on display, or swinging bits of male anatomy come to think of it, but I'm sure Series One would have had the modern day Mary Whitehouse's whirling around like some sort of apoplectic Dervish and having to sit on a block of ice for a week... sex, sex and more sex

Yet this is a TV series, with many famous British actors in it, shown on many networks and you can probably buy the boxed set at Tesco (edit: you CAN buy it £22 and 22 clubcard points

Is this 'porn' or is it 'art'? Should this be banned and anyone who watches it be dragged up on stage alongside the muscle-bound raincoat wearers?


Although, as I cogitate over this subject whilst I type, there is a part of me that totally agrees with the 'ban everything' filter... Free and easy access to any sort of depraved sexual practise you care to think of on the interworldwide on your iPhone or any other easy access medium (ie it's no longer confined to the 'family PC in the living room' where parents had proper control) has allowed some youngsters to have a very 'casual' approach to what constitutes 'normal sex' and the vulnerable and young are being cajoled into doing something they think is normal because 'they've seen it on the phone and everyone does that'


In MY day.... well I would go on but it's not that sort of forum.......


...............but in MY day you'd have to subscribe to a magazine in a much thicker brown paper bag than Razzle to get your jollies from that stuff, yet kids of 10 can access it without having to even reach up and steal the magazine from the top shelf....
.
.
.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Jul 27 2013, 10:44 PM
Post #7


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



Who cares if your kids are looking at porn.
What business of it is the GOVERNMENT what they do. That is your business as parents and you should be teaching them about it. It's not something to be ashamed of or that's automatically bad.

What is bad is a global OPT-OUT on such things.
In our house for example we are all over the age of 18. So there are no children. So it's not protecting anyone it's simply pissing us all off it they were to block it.

It's about control and it's nothing to do with saving the children or stopping pedos.
You think that it's as easy as typing "kiddie fiddling" into Google and you get all of the under-age pictures you want? People who are into such things do so far beneath the layer of the web that most of us know and use on a daily basis.
The messageboards that often host things like that are not even indexed by Google or any other search engines. They are unlisted, hidden from the masses and only shared by the few who use them. Most are actually hidden within seemingly perfectly valid web-pages, often requiring special combinations of links to be followed and passwords to be entered before you can even access them.

Blocking porn will have no effect at all on that.

And as for the children? To save them from sexualised imagery? ***** please.
If I want to see some sexualised or explicit imagery I just need to drive into Newbury and go into town, or the local news agents and buy a Newspaper, or look on any of the Newspapers websites, or watch TV for more than 20 seconds, or watch a music video, or simply watch some women out shopping.

Any porn depicting rape is banned, I read somewhere? You know there are some women (and men) who have rape fantasies, I suppose those are banned as well. S&M? Oh no that's probably banned as well. Anything outside of the "shall we do it dear?" - "well I suppose so, countryfile has finished" that Mr Cameron gets is probably far too extreme for grown adults..

It's nothing more than a) to try to win votes with those who are weak-minded and think blocking things automatically fixes everything (normally Mums sorry) and b,) another form of control over our lives, web-habits. First porn and then it will be "unauthorised propoganda pertaining to the UK Government" and then it will be anything that does not "fall in line".

I think ISP-level blocking is a good thing. But it should be strictly opt-IN. New and existing customers are left alone. But BY PHONING UP YOUR ISP AND ASKING THEM, such a block CAN be applied if required.

I do not want the Government telling me what I can and can't look at online in my own time.
I do not want the Government to be attempting to the job of parents - and sorry to say this but there are a number of parents are so spineless it really does worry me. They need to have these conversations with their children from a young age. There is such taboo about it, it's pathetic. Sex is good. Porn is good. We all do it and watch it at some point or another. It's not the schools job or the Governments job. It's up to the parents
I do not want the Government to be so narrow-minded to block online Porn and yet do nothing to prevent or limit the explicit imagery that is all around us in shops.

The internet is, and ultimately always will be, the last place of freedom. No matter how opressed a nation is, there are people in each country on this earth with the brains to ensure that no matter what filters or blocks are put in place we will maintain, as a people, ultimate control of the web.
Ultimately that is how it all started and that is how it will continue.


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 28 2013, 07:04 AM
Post #8


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Quite so.

Perhaps the intention is to try and get this to work, then it can be used on a wider basis. After all, none of us like the idea of people searching for extreme political parties, like the Taliban (sic) or BNP or UKIP.....


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
JeffG
post Jul 28 2013, 09:12 AM
Post #9


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 3,762
Joined: 14-May 09
Member No.: 56



QUOTE (spartacus @ Jul 27 2013, 10:50 PM) *
Anyone watch Series One of Game of Thrones? C'mon, everyone has watched some of Game of Thrones...

I haven't. Not everyone is prepared to pay through the nose for Sky.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
spartacus
post Jul 28 2013, 12:37 PM
Post #10


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,840
Joined: 24-July 09
Member No.: 221



QUOTE (JeffG @ Jul 28 2013, 10:12 AM) *
I haven't. Not everyone is prepared to pay through the nose for Sky.

I don't have Sky either... never have, but it hasn't stopped me being able to watch their programmes when I want to. (taps nose) wink.gif wink.gif

It's all out there if you know where to look... I'm currently watching the Hungarian Grand Prix live online. A few weeks ago I was watching the British Lions live online in HD quality.

Y'see there's another form of online naughtiness (aside from porn) that is having pressure brought onto it to get it banned and that's the online streaming sites. I feel very naughty when I do it, but that doesn't last for long.... Sky can afford it as there's plenty of mugs out there who ARE still prepared to pay through the nose for it....
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
x2lls
post Jul 28 2013, 01:54 PM
Post #11


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,605
Joined: 25-November 09
Member No.: 511



QUOTE (spartacus @ Jul 28 2013, 01:37 PM) *
I don't have Sky either... never have, but it hasn't stopped me being able to watch their programmes when I want to. (taps nose) wink.gif wink.gif

It's all out there if you know where to look... I'm currently watching the Hungarian Grand Prix live online. A few weeks ago I was watching the British Lions live online in HD quality.

Y'see there's another form of online naughtiness (aside from porn) that is having pressure brought onto it to get it banned and that's the online streaming sites. I feel very naughty when I do it, but that doesn't last for long.... Sky can afford it as there's plenty of mugs out there who ARE still prepared to pay through the nose for it....



Nail on head!!!

Which is why Cameroons plan will NEVER work.



--------------------
There their, loose loser!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Darren
post Jul 28 2013, 03:22 PM
Post #12


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,251
Joined: 15-May 09
Member No.: 61



What annoys me is the lack of understanding from politicians and the media over the difference between the Internet and Google.

The Internet is not Google.
Google is not the Internet.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
Berkshirelad
post Jul 28 2013, 08:04 PM
Post #13


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 810
Joined: 13-August 09
Member No.: 271



QUOTE (Darren @ Jul 28 2013, 04:22 PM) *
What annoys me is the lack of understanding from politicians and the media over the difference between the Internet and Google.

The Internet is not Google.
Google is not the Internet.


What annoys me is the number of people who cannot distinguish between the internet and the world wise web....

WWW is not the internet the internet is not the WWW
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
motormad
post Jul 28 2013, 10:26 PM
Post #14


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 1,970
Joined: 29-December 09
From: Dogging in a car park somewhere
Member No.: 592



huh.gif


--------------------
:p
Grammar: the difference between knowing your poop and knowing you're poop.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jul 29 2013, 07:21 AM
Post #15


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (motormad @ Jul 27 2013, 11:44 PM) *
Who cares if your kids are looking at porn.
What business of it is the GOVERNMENT what they do. That is your business as parents and you should be teaching them about it. It's not something to be ashamed of or that's automatically bad.

What is bad is a global OPT-OUT on such things.
In our house for example we are all over the age of 18. So there are no children. So it's not protecting anyone it's simply pissing us all off it they were to block it.

It's about control and it's nothing to do with saving the children or stopping pedos.
You think that it's as easy as typing "kiddie fiddling" into Google and you get all of the under-age pictures you want? People who are into such things do so far beneath the layer of the web that most of us know and use on a daily basis.
The messageboards that often host things like that are not even indexed by Google or any other search engines. They are unlisted, hidden from the masses and only shared by the few who use them. Most are actually hidden within seemingly perfectly valid web-pages, often requiring special combinations of links to be followed and passwords to be entered before you can even access them.

Blocking porn will have no effect at all on that.

And as for the children? To save them from sexualised imagery? ***** please.
If I want to see some sexualised or explicit imagery I just need to drive into Newbury and go into town, or the local news agents and buy a Newspaper, or look on any of the Newspapers websites, or watch TV for more than 20 seconds, or watch a music video, or simply watch some women out shopping.

Any porn depicting rape is banned, I read somewhere? You know there are some women (and men) who have rape fantasies, I suppose those are banned as well. S&M? Oh no that's probably banned as well. Anything outside of the "shall we do it dear?" - "well I suppose so, countryfile has finished" that Mr Cameron gets is probably far too extreme for grown adults..

It's nothing more than a) to try to win votes with those who are weak-minded and think blocking things automatically fixes everything (normally Mums sorry) and b,) another form of control over our lives, web-habits. First porn and then it will be "unauthorised propoganda pertaining to the UK Government" and then it will be anything that does not "fall in line".

I think ISP-level blocking is a good thing. But it should be strictly opt-IN. New and existing customers are left alone. But BY PHONING UP YOUR ISP AND ASKING THEM, such a block CAN be applied if required.

I do not want the Government telling me what I can and can't look at online in my own time.
I do not want the Government to be attempting to the job of parents - and sorry to say this but there are a number of parents are so spineless it really does worry me. They need to have these conversations with their children from a young age. There is such taboo about it, it's pathetic. Sex is good. Porn is good. We all do it and watch it at some point or another. It's not the schools job or the Governments job. It's up to the parents
I do not want the Government to be so narrow-minded to block online Porn and yet do nothing to prevent or limit the explicit imagery that is all around us in shops.

The internet is, and ultimately always will be, the last place of freedom. No matter how opressed a nation is, there are people in each country on this earth with the brains to ensure that no matter what filters or blocks are put in place we will maintain, as a people, ultimate control of the web.
Ultimately that is how it all started and that is how it will continue.

don't worry - so long as you ask to have the filter turned off, you & your flat mates will be able to beat each other off with content from asianwhore.com all day long.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 29 2013, 07:33 AM
Post #16


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jul 29 2013, 08:21 AM) *
don't worry - so long as you ask to have the filter turned off, you & your flat mates will be able to beat each other off with content from asianwhore.com all day long.


Good job too. We won't be able to buy the lads mags. any more either, according to emerging news reports this morning. Come back Mr Censor - all is forgiven.

And we dare criticise the Chinese for stopping their citizens access!


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jul 29 2013, 07:36 AM
Post #17


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 29 2013, 08:33 AM) *
Good job too. We won't be able to buy the lads mags. any more either, according to emerging news reports this morning. Come back Mr Censor - all is forgiven.

And we dare criticise the Chinese for stopping their citizens access!

I think the Co-op just wants images of womens breasts to be covered by the publishers. You can still buy the magazines.
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 29 2013, 09:41 AM
Post #18


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



QUOTE (dannyboy @ Jul 29 2013, 08:36 AM) *
I think the Co-op just wants images of womens breasts to be covered by the publishers. You can still buy the magazines.


Step, by step.....

The Fabians are alive and well. Fishing mags next! If they really did want to stop harm to their customers, why are they still selling fags and booze. Far more deaths and far more abuse to women can be attributed to these products.

No, simply censorship by stealth.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
dannyboy
post Jul 29 2013, 09:44 AM
Post #19


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 6,056
Joined: 14-May 09
From: Bouvetøya
Member No.: 51



QUOTE (On the edge @ Jul 29 2013, 10:41 AM) *
Step, by step.....

The Fabians are alive and well. Fishing mags next! If they really did want to stop harm to their customers, why are they still selling fags and booze. Far more deaths and far more abuse to women can be attributed to these products.

No, simply censorship by stealth.

Hardly by stealth.

Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post
On the edge
post Jul 29 2013, 09:47 AM
Post #20


Advanced Member
***

Group: Members
Posts: 7,847
Joined: 23-May 09
From: Newbury
Member No.: 98



Stealth simply because the policy wonks don't think anyone will actually notice what they are actually doing. After all, the media haven't really picked this up, or the base issue with the recent car parking court case. Both are far far greater threats to our democracy and freedoms than any single terrorist.


--------------------
Know your place!
Go to the top of the page
 
+Quote Post

3 Pages V   1 2 3 >
Reply to this topicStart new topic
1 User(s) are reading this topic (1 Guests and 0 Anonymous Users)
0 Members:

 

Lo-Fi Version Time is now: 29th March 2024 - 11:49 AM