

Thanks, David Cameron. No, Really. - b0ing
http://b0ing.me/thanks-david-cameron-no-really/

======
_mulder_
I'm annoyed that all the attention is now directed at Cameron as if this whole
thing was his idea. It isn't!

The Daily Mail have been running a very vocal anti-porn campaign for the last
2 years (at least). Forget child-porn, the Daily Mail have taken it upon
themselves to rid the country of every sort of porn imaginable and have
proceeded to flood the public concious with their weekly anti-porn propaganda.

The funny thing is, when they first started doing this, nobody took a blind
bit of notice, the tone of comments on their earlier articles met the subject
with bemusement. What's even more surprising however, is that still nobody
cares! Read the comments on the most recent DM anti-porn articles and it's
clear they're not fooling anybody. So why are they pushing ahead with this
agenda?

The blocking of porn (opt-in or opt-out) is not the issue here. It's that
we're letting our laws and policies be dictated to us by the gutter press! And
that it's working!!

[http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/search.html?searchPhrase=por...](http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/search.html?searchPhrase=porn&channelshortname=news&channelshortname=femail)

~~~
harrytuttle
This is the same daily mail which regularly features almost pornographic
images of children as well right next to their "kill all pedo's" articles.

The reason the DM is like it is stems from the fact that this country is full
of vile moronic excuses for humans that will mindlessly buy and promote the
shite that spews out of the mouths of that paper's writers (if you can call
them that).

The politicians like these sort of people a they're easy to manipulate into
voting for them.

Edit: apparently there was a nazi equivalent!
[http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer](http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Der_St%C3%BCrmer)

~~~
_mulder_
More 'laugh at Daily Mail readers' fodder:
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xPlEIryW8zA)

~~~
harrytuttle
Good find. Charlie Brooker is the only public voice of reason I've seen in the
UK media. His work is hilarious and thought provoking and nothing in between.

~~~
nicktelford
Also responsible for some of the best television of the year so far (related):
[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSc2nTYUGI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WTSc2nTYUGI)

~~~
harrytuttle
Agreed! Definitely one of the best things I've seen for a long time.

------
throwaway_87234
> I’m completely behind David Cameron being vehement about keeping children
> and rape out of pornography, by the way. I don’t think anyone on earth is
> arguing “pro” for that one.

I'm "pro" both of those. I believe that people that have a liking for these
things will seek to satisfy their desires, and I think it's preferable they do
it through porn to them doing that in real life. In other words, I would
prefer that perverts jerk off using images of kids, not actual kids.

I also see no reason why that kind of porn would not be digitally generated
(except for the fact that it's illegal).

Also, due to the online surveillance and the general political atmosphere, I
feel uncomfortable posting this using my real account.

~~~
b0ing
Uhhh, but what are the images of? Abused children who probably didn't want to
be in pornography at the age of (not 18).

~~~
clicks
One possibility is having it be CG. Under current law that is illegal.

------
Permit
What will be extremely interesting is when one of these databases of people
who have opted in to receive pornography is leaked. Especially if it contains
the names of politicians and other high profile individuals.

I believe that's when the issue of privacy will start to be publicly debated
and taken seriously.

~~~
Tichy
Shouldn't politicians have extra ISPs that are not being monitored? I think
politicians deal with so much sensitive information that they should be exempt
from monitoring. Also, how are they supposed to form new policies on porn if
they can't check it out unchecked?

~~~
AnthonBerg
Hahahahahah

Yes, and they should be given the right to judge and execute people, because
they are in this special uncorruptable position that has the most information
so it is best for society that they be able to weed out predators and
parasites. They were voted for by the public majority, the voters have chosen!
It's only natural!

------
beaker52
People may find these links interesting:

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Antisexualism)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_repression](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_repression)

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido_(Psychoanalysis)](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Libido_\(Psychoanalysis\))

"It is this need to conform to society and control the libido that leads to
tension and disturbance in the individual, prompting the use of ego defenses
to dissipate the psychic energy of these unmet and mostly unconscious needs
into other forms."

Say... consuming material goods?

------
Tichy
It's not a given that people will revolt against that. There are lots of
countries where people just became submissive to escalating moral terror. Now
they have to run around veiled and are never allowed to strangers and stuff
like that (simplified - just saying, our relatively free western culture is
not normal and not something we can take for granted).

------
some_guy_there
I hope it leads to more use of VPN and like. The added advantage would be that
your ISP and GCHQ can not easily tap into your online activities, and you'll
always have plausible cover of using VPN to hide your pornographic habit.

~~~
erikstarck
It is of course only a matter of time before the use of VPN becomes a
regulated service, maybe similar to gun control. If you can prove that you
need it professionally you will be added to a government registry and allowed
to use a VPN. Otherwise, no.

~~~
vidarh
There is not a single network protocol in existence that allows a signal (
_any_ data under control of the sender) that can't be used to run VPN over.

DNS. "Yes, I do lots of lookups for [long hex string].some.com", and my
preferred DNS server is "[vpn provider in country which won't cooperate].com",
what of it?

SMTP. IMAP. HTTP.

Pretty much any protocol allows realtime transmission of large chunks of
encoded data sufficient to pass IP datagrams back and forth without much
difficulty (by controlling both endpoints, so the servers might be "fake"
servers - e.g. an smtp server that doesn't send messages, but accepts messages
and returns overly verbose errors, or a DNS server where you constantly does
"queries" that embed packets, and get responses that contains inbound packets
whenever there are any.

If they were to go one further and require all traffic to pass through
government proxy servers (including forcing us to knowingly accept them
MITM'ing our SSL connections), then it'd be a _bit_ more difficult, but not
much: The IP datagrams would just need to be hidden in somewhat plausible
looking requests and responses.

It might be slow, but it's impossible to stop because all we need is a way to
pass data that they don't know to look for or can't stop. Ever read the April
1st RFC on "IP over Avian Carriers"? It's been "implemented": Print out
packets as hex, strap it to a pigeon, have someone on the receiving end type
in the hex digits. Obviously that is impractical, but it serves as a good
reminder of just how hard it is to stop communication.

Before the internet, pirates exchanged pirated software by mailing floppies or
tapes (and not just proper backup tapes - old audio tapes for home computer
tape decks). That's how I got my first pirated software, 30 years ago. It got
efficient enough that even before BBS's were common, pirated software could
make it to pretty much every corner of the developed world in a couple of
days, often beating the distributors of the real releases.

It'd also cause a surge in darknets. They keep getting surges in interests
after each new attempt at restricting our freedom, and then it dies back but
each time the base level of activity is a bit higher than last time.

Here's a network topology map of Hyperboria, an experimental "darknet" that
exists as an encrypted network of tunnels over the existing internet, but
using a new routing daemon that does encryption by default:
[http://norlin.ru/st/map.png](http://norlin.ru/st/map.png) \- it's of course
miniscule, but it's also grown from nothing to that size is a fraction of the
time it took the ARPAnet.

For my part, I'm seriously contemplating experimenting with "dropping" solar
cell powered wifi repeaters at a couple of spots along my commute to my local
train station. I don't even have any nefarious purposes with it, nor any
secrets I'm concerned about. I'd like to try it just because I'm annoyed with
the quality of my mobile cell data connection, and because it'd be fun to see
how long they survived, and tiny little suitable access points are getting so
cheap that it's becoming viable to do just for the fun of it.

The only things stopping me are time, effort of finding suitable hardware, and
that it'd need some work to be inconspicuous enough to not get some scared
neighbour call out the bomb squad or something.

But we're on the verge of a situation where people can get a few grand
together and get devices enough to cover a small town that are small enough
and self contained enough to be "dumped" all over the place with the
expectation that a high percentage of them will die or get removed every year.

The combination of more and more restrictions, and lower and lower costs
brings us closer and closer to a situation where it becomes attractive _and_
possible for small groups of people to simply start deploying their own
darknets coupled with whatever tunnelling mechanisms are needed at the edges
to get data to suitable exit points.

------
mstrem
Regardless of if you opt in or out, the ISP already knows if you watch adult
content or not, I don't this makes much of a difference in that regard.

------
touristtam
The filter on a well known website for popular file sharing from the main UK
ISP is a complete joke: only lesser gifted users are blocked by from getting
their daily dose of freebies. Drawing from this experience, one can predict
that circumventing this new filter will be a kid's play. If one can be a bit
paranoid, one would think this in only a way to expand and investigate the
practicality to check the UK population habits on the interweb in order to
later on, "direct it".

------
basicallydan
Regardless of whether this is the prime minister's idea or the Daily Mail's
idea, it's a slippery slope that we're being placed on here.

If we treat pornography as something inherently wrong (morally) and something
which people should be shamed for, sooner or later we'll end up with a society
which names and shames people who, quite rightly, exercise their right to view
pornographic material, even the most 'softcore' of it.

------
Mordor
Wouldn't it be simpler to ban children from the internet?

------
lcedp
I can't read text of this font and colors.

~~~
anonymous
It's almost the exact same scheme as Turbo C.

~~~
marshray
Oh you're right. Wow, that's a blast from the past.

Time to go reconfigure my terminal windows. I know what my next website is
gonna look like heh heh :-)

