UK seriously considering opt in policy for online pornography.

[drater]

www.dailydot.com/news/uk-internet-opt-in-porn/

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? I hate the way that public figures are trying to make out that the Internet should be child safe. It's an adult place, with adult content, and if you want your kids to venture into it, you make them safe by using Netnanny or similar tools or by, and here's a radical idea, supervising them. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) go shopping in an adult store and expect to take your kid in there with you and have them cover everything so little timmy doesn't see some tittays, so don't let your kid meander round the Internet without some form of supervision.

Shouldn't it be a parents job to survey their children's internet use rather than a nanny government limiting it for everyone?

No it's not rocket science but still a lot of people are scared and have actively avoided learning because they feel stupid that they don't know this stuff already - they're not going to suddenly come forward to learn if they are told they are 'half wits' or 'piss poor'.

In a way it's easier for the 'silver surfers' because they're not expected to know any of it.

the thing is tho (generalisation alert) is that these peopele are the ones whose children are falling asleep in the classroom because the children are up till 2/3 in the am playing Pegi18 games.
It is impossible to force them to learn and altho I like the idea of schools teaching parents its just going to be another way to abdicate responsiblity

Totally in favour of an opt in for porn. We make all kinds of laws in recogniton that not all parents are responsible. For example, making it legal that you have to use child car seats. Logically shouldnt be necessary as all parents would want to use them. But yes in reality it is necessary.

And I suspect some men wont want an opt in for porn as then they will have to explain to partners that yes they do use porn.

EatBrainsAndLeaves

I'm with you.

eatsbrainsandleaves that's all very well but it's not physically possible to do.

I love your name

Its a bad idea thought up by a bunch of people who really don't fully understand the issues it throws up in the first place.

Why?

Because what else would you filter out in the process? Censorship isn't good. With regard to the mobile phone ban, its frustrating. I don't have a phone which has internet access. There have been occasions when he's tried to access perfectly normal websites and he hasn't been able to (including shops selling bras!).

By its nature, porn websites would always look for ways to get around rules/firewalls etc anyway. And there would be certain groups who would actually take great delight and have fun with the idea of making the "poor little children see the p0rnz" (The humour of certain online communities is well known to be sick). Good luck with having a very cumbersome government controlled and run filter keep up with that on a daily basis.

Is porn the only problem for child protection? No? There are lots of others, like grooming. Is it going to lull parents into a false sense of security? Of course. Better you keep an eye on all the websites your kid accesses rather than rely on the technology.

Its make it more attractive to kids and a game to get round the controls.

EatsBrainsAndLeaves Opting in will not stop anyone looking at porn. Seriously, it will be ridiculously easy to get around. And as Hmm says, many people (including curious teenagers and men who like to look at porn) would actually enjoy the 'challenge' of doing so.

An opt-in would simply mean huge amounts of time and money being wasted on something that will not work, just to make some parents feel more secure. It would be far more sensible to spend that money on educating parents about the hows and whys of protecting their children themselves.

EatsBrainsAndLeavesSat 01-Sep-12 11:46:44
"And I suspect some men wont want an opt in for porn as then they will have to explain to partners that yes they do use porn."

The strawman enters the arguement. Really not relevent.

The idea is just not viable.

Surely that argument is just one to make the technology that screens out porn more spohisticated. Not an argument against an opt in altogether.

And thanks ItsAllGoingtobeFine :)

EatsBrainsAndLeavesSat 01-Sep-12 12:42:35
"Surely that argument is just one to make the technology that screens out porn more spohisticated"

I don't disagree with that. but as it stands at the moment the technology is not there, we would be looking at the same problems that blocked scunthorpe from being searched for in schools.

but still the "some men" point is irrelevant and a cheap shot.

The some men point is I am sure accurate. Many women do not think their male partners look at porn. The stats show that most do. I understand those men wanting to hide their porn use from their female partners, so yes they would be against an opt in.

now is it relevent to the discussion about the technology being ready to block porn?

EatsBrainsAndLeaves, DH is a programmer. A very very good one.

I just asked him about making the technology more sophisticated. He laughed. Hard.

Someone would always get round it and would always develop quicker than a government institution would as they wouldn't invest in it enough in the system or employ good enough programmers to do the job.

To have any chance whatsoever would be to employ the very best world leaders in programming - the level employed by the military in defence systems. As much as this is an issue there certainly isn't that level of political will to go to those lengths and there wouldn't be public support to put the level of money needed in.

The last attempt he knows of to do this was a programme that detected a certain amount of pink... anyone spot the obvious problem with the system? It sounds like a joke but it shows the calibre of people looking into this 'solution'.

*how not now

"To have any chance whatsoever would be to employ the very best world leaders in programming - the level employed by the military in defence systems."

Do it then I say. Lets impove the technology whatever it takes and initiate laws to safeguard all children. Adults who want to view porn opt-in.

"The some men point is I am sure accurate. Many women do not think their male partners look at porn. The stats show that most do. I understand those men wanting to hide their porn use from their female partners, so yes they would be against an opt in. "

Whether they would be against it or not is irrelevant because it's not currently possible to create a universal system that will block porn (and only porn) and which can not be bypassed. Other countries have tried this, but the citizens of those countries routinely bypass the block.

"Do it then I say. Lets impove the technology whatever it takes and initiate laws to safeguard all children. Adults who want to view porn opt-in."

Why? Surely it would make more sense for parents to use the filters which are already available instead of spending huge amounts of money on something that is not needed, and that will be 'beaten' pretty quickly. Personally, I would not vote for any politician who wasted money on a project like while our economy is in the pitiful state it currently is.

Do it then I say. Lets impove the technology whatever it takes and initiate laws to safeguard all children. Adults who want to view porn opt-in.

Why? Surely it would make more sense for parents to use the filters which are already available instead of spending huge amounts of money on something that is not needed, and that will be 'beaten' pretty quickly. Personally, I would not vote for any politician who wasted money on a project like while our economy is in the pitiful state it currently is.

I rest my case.

You also have something of an issue where the very best programmers generally are anti-censorship and ideologically support the idea of the internet being free from censorship, which would make recruiting people even harder. Whereas military programmes have a certain status and are regarded as needed, censorship programmes don't have the same value and aren't regarded as being essential.

If you were good enough to work in the defence industry, why would you choose to work for censorship - you could get a visa to work pretty much anywhere in the world. Its not like you don't have the luxury of choice and that the wages aren't there.

You aren't understanding the issues...

First of all there needs to be laws prohibiting children watching porn. I would vote for this, I think safeguarding ALL children is important enough.

Laws would need policing and technology improved - and so I'm for opt-ins.

In the meantime it's good we have filters.

Animation
"First of all there needs to be laws prohibiting children watching porn."
how would you enforce these laws?
and
who would you make responsible for the computer in the home?

Have we even got a working description of "what porn is", so that a computer could recognise the difference between a pornographic picture of a breast, and a picture of a breast made for educational purposes?

No, didn't think so.

And that, at it's simplest, is why this kind of opt-in shite simply cannot work.

Laws prohibiting children watching porn?!

Are you on drugs? How exactly do you intend to make sure this is enforced and catch these children watching porn? Put a camera into every laptop so that you read the retina of the user at all times, and decide whether its a child or an adult? How do you legislate for a hormone filled 14 year old who has no respect for his parents anyway and would quite happily like to get them into trouble?

Honestly, if you are going to come up with ideas, engage your brain cells and think how it would actually work, rather than pull ridiculous suggestions out of your backside.

In terms of child protection, laws already exist to stop children being abused. That is sufficient.

There are laws to stop children accessing porn - although I think they could be tightened up to include certain lads mags. However, it is difficult to apply them to the internet because it's a global thing, what happens in the UK has little to no effect on the rest of the planet. Which brings us back to parents being responsible, using filters and monitoring what their children do online.

"In the meantime it's good we have filters."

Filters are a better solution that this opt-in idea. Really! I used them with my sons, but I would not trust a universal opt-in system. For one thing, this system is only aimed at porn, filtering software gives you the option of blocking all sorts of other nasty stuff - sites which show beheadings or torture for example.

BoneyBackJefferson

I don't know. It would all need figuring out.

Does it mean we don't make laws because they're too hard to enforce?