

Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense - ollysb
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn

======
transfire
> "We – children and adults alike – need to learn about the damaging
> psychological, social and physical effects of online porn."

Let me tell you where the real damage comes form... Parents and holier-than-
though leaders traumatizing children by constantly telling them to be ashamed
of their bodies and sexuality. Children aren't generally interested in porn.
They see it, say "eeewww" and move on. There are no "effects" until the adult
in the room freaks out.

~~~
nemof
whilst I strongly disagree with the filtering, it's utter bs, it's also untrue
that porn isn't having an affect on younger generations.

The real thing that needs to be happening is an honest and frank discussion
about sex and sexuality, which is a pretty tall ask in the UK as we're quite
prudish in some respects. We'd rather legislate against smut then talk about
it.

As to the affect that I alluded to. When children get their sex education from
porn, you get teenage boys thinking that anal's the norm. This isn't just a
theoretical, this is something I know teacher friends have had to deal with in
school, getting approached for help by teenage girls having to cope with this
kind of thing.

Also, I've no idea where you get the idea that children aren't interested in
porn. Perhaps not when they're 7, but when they're 12 or 14 they definitely
are.

~~~
jeswin
Most 14 year old boys would have watched porn. Some of them might regularly
watch porn. Amongst my friends I can't think of anyone negatively influenced
or affected by this. No big deal.

~~~
untog
How old are you? I'm 29, and also recall that when I was in my teenage years
we all saw various bits of pornography- magazines, a few extremely slow
loading web pages, but nothing like what is available today.

As nemof described, a lot of porn today is much more extreme than that, and
could give teenagers a very skewed sense of "normal" sex. I'm not advocating
filtering internet content, but I think it's at least worth discussing what
effect this might be having on teenagers today, and not just dismissing it
with "my [entirely different] situation was fine".

~~~
MisterWebz
And movies give a skewed sense of how the real world works. And advertisements
tell you you're ugly and need to buy products to become prettier. These things
affect children too, probably way more than porn. Should we ban those too or
at least be able to opt out of those?

~~~
untog
_Should we ban those too or at least be able to opt out of those?_

Sigh. Stop being hyperbolic. I said in my post that I am not advocating
blocking them, but having a conversation about the effects they have.

So, to answer you, yes- I think we should talk to our teenagers about
advertising and movies too. Thing is, we already often do that, but sexual
stuff tends to be discussed a lot less.

~~~
Dylan16807
Hyperbole? I would _love_ the ability to opt out of advertising. Or maybe bans
on advertising in public.

------
alan_cx
I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and
any blocks and filters are opt in. No reason this cant be a tick box in the
router. Just an option for parents if they want it.

I have 6 kids. My two daughters have suffered grooming attempts online. No one
can stop grooming online. I would never filter. No point.

Camoron is pandering to the anti gay marriage lobby and the Daily Wail nut
jobs, while distracting from his disastrous policies of austerity.

~~~
untog
_I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered,
and any blocks and filters are opt in_

But we already have that in the form of installable software that blocks
online smut. It baffles me that the government thinks they have a place to get
involved here.

~~~
alan_cx
Sure, but mucking around with software, on each machine, is a lot harder and
more daunting than a simple tick box at the router. Harder to manage too.
Easier for the kids to get round or just destroy. Most concerned families are
not geeks. They need it simple.

If the gov want a simple tick box opt in on the routers, I cant possibly see a
problem with that.

Note: I am uber liberal on this. I would never tick the box. But I only speak
for me, I understand the net and have my own views on porn etc. How ever, I
dont seek to impose my liberal views on others. I simply want us all to have a
reasonable choice, that we make our selves. I want "wet" parents to have their
option, so that I can have mine. Their freedom to chose is as important as
mine.

~~~
untog
Will all parents have the same views on what "porn" is? Will they agree with
the government?

I'm normally very far from a Libertarian but I get very hesitant whenever the
government weighs in on issues of personal taste. They can't get it right by
definition, because there is no consensus on what is "right". For example, see
the debate over the ".xxx" domain name, which failed because no-one could
agree on what belonged on there.

~~~
alan_cx
Well, they are your parents and its their house, and you have to obey their
rules. So, um, tough. When you are grown up, have your own place, set your own
rules. And lets see in 20 years how you parent your own kids....

I know what you are saying. I was a kid once too. My mum stopped me doing all
sorts of things. Apparently, that is parenting.

Also, you miss understand my point. I am not saying the government can say
what should be allowed or not. I am saying there should be a base level filter
that parent can use if wanted.

If the government start telling me, an adult, what I can and cannot see, I'd
be very much against that. All I am saying is make it possible for parents to
chose. As I said, I would chose to NOT filter.

------
benjamincburns
> the war on online porn

Is there a version of Godwin's law that applies to declaring war on things?
Something like "by declaring war on something that is not a country or other
similar political enemy, the delcaree and his/her organization automatically
loses said war?"

------
tomelders
Tor. This whole thing is pointless because of Tor.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think this will work, not even that
smug faced fop in downing street who somehow managed to luck his way into
running my country.

So in reality, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get people's names onto
a list to be used against them at a later date.

I think we should brace ourselves for an avalanche of this Neo-Puritan
fuckwittery.

~~~
borplk
Tor is the last resort. Things like this should not be happening in the first
place. Just accepting whatever they do and moving on to some work-around is
not a battle you can sustain and why should you have to?

Not to mention 99% of population can't be bothered or get their head around
things like Tor. We are blinded by our hacker skills and constantly over-
estimate the ability of the general population and under-estimate their
unwillingness of learning technical things and their fear of technology.

~~~
haakon
If things like Tor were the only way to get porn online, I truly believe that
a large portion of the population would bother. (And then the Tor network
would collapse under the load)

~~~
likeclockwork
What a great way to raise awareness and to motivate young people to take an
interest in their network technology and privacy!

------
nicholassmith
Nice way to try and Jedi mind trick it. It's a ridiculous idea that has so
many flaws that'll cause it to fall apart in large exposure, add on the fact
that ISPs will require a new set of processes and administration and kick the
cost back onto customers, which always helps drive internet usage when people
who can barely afford it now won't be able to afford it at all.

Anyone vaguely intelligent enough to search 'hide connection' will be able to
find out how to setup a VPN pretty damn quickly, thus rendering it moot.
Unless using a VPN becomes an act of suspicion and puts you under monitoring,
because surely you must have something to hide then. Next up, a war on
curtains.

~~~
kenthorvath
I suspect this is a distraction to direct the public's attention away from
PRISM and the NSA controversy.

~~~
astrange
Your comment makes it difficult to tell whether or not you realize the UK and
USA are different countries.

------
RossM
This isn't the impression that the campaign website[0] gives - see the "Our
Plans" section. It sounds as if new customers will be opted in by default, and
existing customers will be enabled, and then have to disable the filter.

[0]:
[http://protectingourchildren.co.uk/](http://protectingourchildren.co.uk/)

~~~
kristofferR
Aw, that's cute. Just 65 tweets and 7 Facebook likes, not exactly the most
successful social media campaign...

------
transfire
Soon you will be required to have a title, register your computer annually and
be insured against liabilities just to surf the net.

~~~
alan_cx
Oh man. Never thought about that before. I think you might have a point. Like
a TV licence for a MAC address. What a revenue earner. Evil, but logical, and
possible.

FFS, keep this idea quiet.

------
moocowduckquack
"Dear All,

I am emailing to ask for some specific action which the prime minister plans
to announce shortly. This follows a meeting yesterday at No 10 yesterday to
discuss a range of child internet safety issues including parental controls
and filters. The prime minister would like to make some further specific
requests of industry and his office have asked us to ask you when you could
deliver the following actions.

1\. Implementing browser intercept

I understand that Talk Talk will be trialling a "browser intercept" to force
existing customers to choose either to proceed with parental controls (pre-
ticked), choose their own settings or turn them off completely. The prime
minister wants to announce that by the end of the year, every household with a
broadband internet connection will have had to make a decision to "opt-out" of
installing filters. Will the other three ISPs consider making a commitment to
adopting this approach - even before it has been trialled?

2\. Age-verification systems/closed-loop

The prime minister expects customers to be required to prove their
age/identity before any changes to the filters are made. I understand that you
will all be implementing "closed-loop" systems which will notify account
holders of any changes that are made to the filters and that you have robust
systems in place but please could you all confirm the precise information that
is required to enable customer to access, set-up and change their filters?

3\. Awareness campaign for parents

I understand that it was agreed at Claire Perry's meeting a few weeks ago that
Talk Talk, BT and others would undertake some further research to establish
what the focus of the campaign should be. The prime minister would like to be
able to announce a collective financial commitment from industry to fund this
campaign. I know that it will be challenging for you to commit to an unknown
campaign but please can you indicate what sum you will pledge to this work
that the PM can announce.

4\. Using the phrase "default-on" instead of "active-choice +"

The prime minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to
improve how we communicate the current position on parental internet controls
and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the
public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-
choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions
are "default-on" as people will have to make a choice not to have the filters
(by unticking the box). Can you consider how to include this language (or
similar) in the screens that begin the set-up process? For example, "this
connection includes family-friendly filters as default [or as standard] - if
you do not want to install this protection please un-tick the box" (obviously
not intended to be drafting). Would you be able to commit to including
"default-on" or similar language both in the set-up screen and public
messaging?

We are all aware of the really excellent work that you are doing and but there
are a number of specific areas that the prime minister thinks need further
immediate action. You are likely to receive a further message from colleagues
in DCMS and the Home Office regarding tackling illegal images but given the
short deadline for this work we thought it better to give you some time to
work on these issues in the meantime. I need to report back to No 10 by the
end of the week on these points so I would be grateful if you could consider
this request as a matter of urgency and respond by midday Friday.

Apologies for the very tight deadline and grateful for your help with this
work."

They should have signed it "Sir Humphrey Appleby".

~~~
user24
I had to check that that was a real letter.

~~~
moocowduckquack
According to the BBC news it is, at least that's where I copied it from. It
does read like satire though - Jim Hacker News, perhaps.

~~~
noir_lord
You think it was a co-incidence that a previous prime ministers (Margaret
Thatcher) favourite show was "Yes, Minister"?

------
gesman
David Cameron just reignited the new wave of interest to online porn of all
sorts. Way to go!

