U.K. Coalitions upcoming ban on porn!

[rocco]

I understand, as I hope many of you do, the reason behind this ban. Which I believe comes into force in September. And I support the Government's fight against "child pornography". Its filth and ANYONE involved in such practices should bear the full front of the law!

However, because of these parasites, the government has decided to attack all porn that could be deemed to include such things as; rape, torture and general goings on with the BDSM Scene! How is this going to effect YOU! (U.K. Residents) even though, were adults and "consent" to involving ourselves in this form of life style.

Well, here it is!

All internet windows, i.e. Google, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc, etc, will now block any attempt to search for any thing related to BDSM. Unless you "disable" the search! But what happens when we do? Does this disabling act, and your i.p. address get sent into some kind of data base, where we're then spied on by our government?

Will they then monitor our internet searches, no matter what we look for. Perhaps they'll then do profiles on us, regarding these searches? Who knows?
I understand in other countries, similar bans are in place. But, this will be new to us as a country, so wonders what will happen, and what kind of ban are they heading for? It does worry me somewhat, that I could be spied on for coming here for example, or watching a bondage movie, then tarnished as some danger to society!!!

What does anyone else think? Or if your more clued up on this forth coming act, reassure me?

Thanks,
rocco.

[gagged_Louise]

I think it's a deplorable and dishonest idea. The ploy is, of course, to pick a target of a kind that nobody would ever want to defend, and yet the real range of material that would be either blocked or land in a grey zone is much wider than actual kid porn or hardcore rape depictions that "are promoting r/l rape" (in Cameron's mind, any violent scene with sex or D/s fantasy is likely "inciting to r/l rape"). The way Cameron and his backers (esp. the Daily Mail) phrased what they are fighting, anything that even touches on too overt depictions of sex, particularly non-vanilla sex, could get blocked at some time. Youtube has masses of film trailers and pop videos that would land over the red line, the same with pictures on many blogs or at Wikipedia. And any kind of forum or picture sharing site such as this one, Instagram, Flickr or various role play/games related sites would be blocked too. Not to mention, lots of sites set up to provide information, counsel and help around sex habits, STDs, trafficking and so on.

That kind of filtering is something I would unconditonally want to handle myself, it's not the business of any government, church or ISP.

[IAN 2411]

I also wonder how this will effect e books. I write Fem/Dom and there are books on Amazon Smashwords, I pad cobo, etc, the list goes on. Will these outlets stop selling the stories? We had this sort of crap a few years ago with the card companies, but it was got around. Is there now going to be another fight for the personal liberties and freedom to read and watch what you like within the law. The Brit PM should get his ass in gear and sort out the immigration problem and the EU, and stop farting about on things to take these two subjects out of the limelight.

Be well Ian

[gagged_Louise]

Femdom stories (or any kind of s/m related material) would be a complete no-no. And what Cameron won't want to discuss, though he'll have to know it: this kind of filter only operates by blocking a site, the whole site, as soon as some "indecent" images or texts have been identified there and they refuse to take them down. It doesn't simply filter out a couple dreary photos, it filters off the whole site and it won't even be the citizen's own choice whether he wants to know of that site, unless he or she opts out of the scheme. Any newspaper or information site, any site on films that doesn't filter out controversial or adult titles, and lots of news outlets, would get blocked unless they reverted to a U.S.-style model with a rigid PG-14 model for anything they show or sell. Sorry, I don't want PG-14 as a default thing at the point of selling, broadcast (on tv or online) or advertising any and every thing.

I'm relieved this program doesn't hit me directly, but worried about what it would do to the UK and about the long-term impact.

[gagged_Louise]

Jimmy Wales, founder/head of Wikipedia called the proposed program "absolutely ridiculous". Now, WP has some silliness of its own to handle, but I think he's right on the money here. It *is* a horseshit move, and political grandstanding designed to take people's eyes off other things.

[fetishdj]

The trouble is that the people behind this initiative have absolutely no idea how the internet works. They think there is a magic button that Google can press to make this all happen but really there is no real, 100% certain way to block anything on the internet other than to turn it off...

Child porn... well, here's a thing... as far as I am aware there are no child porn websites that advertise themselves as such. A potential paedophile, who will be aware that what they want is already illegal, would be unlikely to go to google and type in 'child porn'. That is a very quick way for you to get caught and any sites they did find on such a search would likely come under scrutiny themselves (though I suspect most sites you found with such a search term would actually be those discussing this issue and similar ones...).

No, only a truly stupid person would look up something illegal on google and only a really stupid person would set up a website that claimed to be able to offer genuine child porn and actually advertise it publically as such. Child porn rings work through blacknets - invite only forums and message boards with fake covers, sending stuff only through private email or in person. Difficult to detect and even harder to block. The only stuff that a policy like this will actually affect is the legal stuff - the sites that take pains to make sure they follow the laws, ensure IDs of all models and that they are overage, get consent and so on. The government know this because the police know this.

So, really this has absolutely nothing to do with child porn or rape. It has everything to do with appeasing the Daily Mail and other tabloid reading Middle Englanders - making it look as if the government is doing something about 'all this awful pornography that is out there' while leaving space for page three to continue to exist (it is 'just harmless fun'...) and for the tabloids to carry on trying to get good wholesome photos of Kate Middleton naked on the beach somewhere tropical (because a naked woman is 'human interest' if she is a member of the Royal family). You know, the usual tabloid hypocrisy bullshit which basically says 'Porn is fine if it is only us doing it'.

In the meantime, like all government IT projects, they'll spend less money on it than is needed to make sure it is up to date with the technology from 10 years ago and then either complain when it fails or quietly brush it under the carpet and hope no one notices that there is still just as much porn on the internet and the Child Porn rings seem to be still out there...

[IAN 2411]

I have to agree with you on that post, fetishdj. the thing that I have found amazing is the fact that all the media outlets in the UK say you need keywords. They say, if you type this key word into the http then up comes your child porn. Q1/ How did they find this out, do they have a computer freak trying out these words or codes all day? Three news outlets gave the key words out, yahoo news was one. Q2/ how did they know?

the government has been told by google that sites can be lost on the internet. One thing that was in the news was, this reporter went onto a perfectly normal and respectable site. in the search he wrote a key word. he was then into child porn. I believe the site has been closed down. the only people that know of these key words are the peado's, so google or HM Gov UK have not got a hope in hell of policing the world wide web.

Be well Ian

Welcome back, fetishdj, its been a long time.

[gagged_Louise]

Cameron - or the Daily Mail - clearly thinks the internet works like a school library, where you can check any individual book for itself, leaf through it and make sure it's clean - or if it's problematic, put it in a special locker or just suppress it. There's no recognition that sites change over time, the content of any one site grows as it's used, and that links are part of the lifeblood of the web. If all links to let's say IMDB or Youtube suddenly went blank on most pc's, phones and devices in the UK because a small fraction of the material these sites host isn't 'family friendly' and they had refused to remove it, quite rightfully refused, then many other spots that linked to those sites, but not to the "dangerous content" at all, will lose value, or even become impossible to understand.

[fetishdj]

Hi Ian! Yes, it is good to be back :)

Yeah, I have no idea how they find these things out (or even if they just make it up... or create the sites themselves so they can 'find them' and 'prove' the internet is full of child porn - I know how the media 'researches' even normal news, they sometimes pay people to say stuff they want to report). The major issue is that such a move would in fact move child porn even deeper underground making it even harder to police than it is now...

Louise, definitely. You cannot police it effectively at all, especially when you have to consider that the internet is worldwide, most of the sites they are talking about are international, and there is no current international best practise or legal framework to cover the internet. Which means what is legal in some countries is illegal in others and that creates all sorts of issues... and the issue of 'banning a link because there is possibly a possibility of a vague hint of maybe some rape or illegal porn in it' leads to other issues of censorship. Don't like a site's opinion on the current government? Oh look, there seems to be a link to a site which once had some child porn on it. What do you mean its a photo of the writer's kids on the beach 20 years ago? Pah, that's child porn... blocked.

Seriously, I have heard tales of museums who have been asked to take down photos of children in Victorian bathing costumes because they were 'child porn'. Bearing in mind these bathing costumes were more substantial than most kids wear in winter these days and the 'children' in question are currently either long dead or well past their century in age... it is ludicrous.

[gagged_Louise]

Yes, it's not as if child porn, or underage erotic pics, is something crystal clearly defined when it's handled legally. Pictures of somebody's children on the beach are a prime example. Or what about drawings? Even drawn sketches of kids that look like they could be of school age, maybe ten to twelve years olf, but which aren't realistic and not high on anything obviously sexual, can get filed as kid porn.

And public perception has grown harder over time, at least in the mainstream. No major record company today would want to touch this cover art, though it presented no problems in the mid-seventies.

http://www.discogs.com/viewimages?release=800548

http://www.peterice.com/YesLP_Yesterdays.jpg

(The bluish, languid figure on the front cover is clearly an underage girl, resting with her belly upwards; the black butterfly is near the point where her modesty would be. The boys on the rear cover are pretty incriminating by today's standards for commercial artwork too)

[rocco]

I completely agree with what your saying, and thank you all! I feel disgusted towards our gov, as recently another reason for this so called witch hunt on everything "they" consider illegal porn is because after the horrendous spates of kidnap and deaths of children, they discovered that these monsters had images of not only child porn on their comps, but also others depicting sadism and violence. So obviously those of us who enjoy a life style of bondage, role play and general BDSM, are likely to become "Serial Killing Ogres!"

And what about the whiter than white, I can hold my linen out as I've done nothing wrong politicians, themselves caught up in "perverted acts of role playing?" Mind you, with the elections on the horizon, I suppose this coalition is clutching at random straws aimed solely at the conservative mindless idiots who live boring and grey lives!!!!

When the ban comes in and I've deactivated the no go button, I'll let you know what happens after the Gestapo has paid me a visit and turned my house upside down!
Next they'll close down sex shops and finally bull doze Soho in London, and possibly put a ban on companies that advertise nappy products on T.V.!!!!!

Best wishes,
rocco.

[js207]

Jimmy Wales, founder/head of Wikipedia called the proposed program "absolutely ridiculous". Now, WP has some silliness of its own to handle, but I think he's right on the money here. It *is* a horseshit move, and political grandstanding designed to take people's eyes off other things.

Wikipedia is an important example in itself, in fact - even the existing CleanFeed system (which has filtered out all known child pornography since 2003, and Cameron seems to have overlooked) managed to filter Wikipedia by mistake recently, due to a single image (the cover of an album, as it happens).

That's a system designed just to block specific images - rare* ones, which the relevant law enforcement body is actively searching for and cataloguing with millions of pounds of funding. Now try broadening that to block "adult" content, which is not rare and not catalogued by law enforcement.

Worse, Three (one of the four mobile networks in the UK) admitted their "adult content" filter blocks customer access to political content, not just pornographic. If you don't want the boobs, you can't have the blogs either. They aren't alone in this: at least one library filter blocked out articles disputing Cameron's agenda.

The whole crazy crusade was set in motion by an MP named Claire Perry, who claims she was inspired to do this by a Google Image search which turned up results she didn't like. She doesn't seem to have taken on board that (a) Google Image searches are already filtered by Google Safesearch by default (so, either the filters she advocate had failed, or she had turned them off anyway), (b) Google searches can go over HTTPS, which is not accessible to the network filters she advocates anyway - and (c) the search she describes doesn't turn up the results she describes, filters or no filters.

She did hold some "hearings" about this, but invited a tabloid agony aunt and the vendors of two filtering products to contribute. The preliminary research showed parents are perfectly well aware of filtering options and have made informed decisions if and how to use them, but apparently this isn't enough for her or her vendor friends.

(* - they find just over one image per week in the UK, from the figures the agency's boss posted recently. How many 'adult' images do you think the UK alone generates in a week?)

[Mrs-Sett {Kuve}]

More on the David Cameron’s plan to install an "opt-in" switch to allow users to view porn, which Claire Perry calls a "comprehensive and pragmatic approach to tackling the key issues which threaten the safety of our children online."

Quoted ‘ Mr Cameron stated when asked if the opt-in system would mean a husband having to confess to his partner if he wanted to look at porn, Mr Cameron told Radio 5 Live: ‘If an adult wants to get rid of the filter on their computer, that’s up to them.’ Pressed on the issue, the Prime Minister eventually conceded: ‘Yes, it does.’

But in his defence *rofl* Cameron admits there ‘maybe’ problems down the line. He notes (sorry not sure of the source now) for example, that the erotic novel Fifty Shades of Grey, would likely still be accessible online. But of course unless the filter is ‘deactivated or declined’ reading ‘such’ material will lead where? But not to worry, filters will be activated but can be defaulted off. So hey, even more reassuring that freedom prevails.

So what will occur? Notification to the local police station, to your employer? Your knicker size? The newspapers frequently have topless pictures will there be a ‘do not look nipples alert added?

In the UK Claire Perry, the Tory MP who has led the campaign to launch the "porn filter" has had her website hacked with porn images. Of course she knew exactly who was to blame for this, or at least she thinks she does. Paul Staines founder of the Guido Fawkes blog isn’t too pleased at this allegation and plans to sue. Of course Perry just had to comment further on this, via her twitter account apologising for anyone affected by the hacking of her account. The report does mention that she mistook a screengrab with a link. I also read somewhere that she then continued to mention its time to cook tea now. Now that’s dedication.

Nicci Talbot interesting asks can Iceland ban internet porn? http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/nicci-talbot/iceland-ban-internet-porn_b_2741403.html

She notes ‘We are a progressive, liberal society when it comes to nudity, to sexual relations, so our approach is not anti-sex but anti-violence. This is about children and gender equality, not about limiting free speech".

The ban will aim to censor 'violent' and 'hateful' porn that demeans women - a great idea in principle but who will decide what constitutes 'violent' and 'hateful' porn? Where does it leave non-vanilla sex - BDSM and other alternative genres? The US website Gawker quotes Justice Potter Stewart who said of hardcore pornography in a Supreme Court obscenity case: "I know it when I see it.”

So it seems some poor person will be locked away in a ‘private’ room to ‘research’ *cough* away. Can’t wait to see this employment offer go up for grabs.

One comment I did find really relevant, from a response to one of the articles along the lines ‘if you don’t want your children to look at porn, educate the parents’ totally agree.

Regards Sett

[rocco]

Claire Perry needs a check up from the neck up then! I mean talk about confusion within this stupid party! Actually I heard Cameron being interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show, radio 2 and he was stumped on numerous occasions when Jeremy asked him similar questions!

Another U-turn, hopefully. And then they can concentrate on targeting the scum that ruins internet usage for everyone else!

Lol, on top gear, they were also talking about this. And that filter is apparently very sensitive, so for example. If you googled "Volvo" then it would be blocked, thinking you meant "Vulva!" and so forth!!!!!!

[rocco]

Claire Perry needs a check up from the neck up then! I mean talk about confusion within this stupid party! Actually I heard Cameron being interviewed on the Jeremy Vine show, radio 2 and he was stumped on numerous occasions when Jeremy asked him similar questions!

Another U-turn, hopefully. And then they can concentrate on targeting the scum that ruins internet usage for everyone else!

Lol, on top gear, they were also talking about this. And that filter is apparently very sensitive, so for example. If you googled "Volvo" then it would be blocked, thinking you meant "Vulva!" and so forth!!!!!!

[js207]

It's a moronic policy and almost literally backwards: someone leaked the fact Perry and No 10 sent ISPs a copy of the press release they had written, then asked ISPs to deliver an agreement close enough to render the press release's claims plausible. They don't care about fixing problems, they wanted to make their press release come true!

Somebody recently sent a batch of "adult" DVDs to random addresses down in England; it seems there was a premium rate number to phone to pay and unlock the content, or to unsubscribe. Of course, by Perry's logic Royal Mail should now be required to open all our mail to filter such things out, unless we ask them not to! Sadly, she still seems to think the Internet is like a TV channel, that ISPs make a decision about what the content is - and of course the less scrupulous filter vendors she asked to market their products to her little show-panel were happy to oblige.

[thir]

However, because of these parasites, the government has decided to attack all porn that could be deemed to include such things as; rape, torture and general goings on with the BDSM Scene! How is this going to effect YOU! (U.K. Residents) even though, were adults and "consent" to involving ourselves in this form of life style.

Well, here it is!

All internet windows, i.e. Google, Firefox, Internet Explorer, etc, etc, will now block any attempt to search for any thing related to BDSM. Unless you "disable" the search! But what happens when we do? Does this disabling act, and your i.p. address get sent into some kind of data base, where we're then spied on by our government?

Will they then monitor our internet searches, no matter what we look for. Perhaps they'll then do profiles on us, regarding these searches? Who knows?
I understand in other countries, similar bans are in place. But, this will be new to us as a country, so wonders what will happen, and what kind of ban are they heading for? It does worry me somewhat, that I could be spied on for coming here for example, or watching a bondage movie, then tarnished as some danger to society!!!

What does anyone else think? Or if your more clued up on this forth coming act, reassure me?

Thanks,
rocco.

I thought this law did not go through???
I think we are all under surveillance already, but possibly anything bdsm related will be treated as 'marks' and will attract attention.

I also think this is part of a larger idea to control the net.

[Blue Sicx]

It's all a horrible state of affairs.

We all know that there's a "problem" with the world. But governments have always changed their minds on what it is. I'm talking from the 50's. Obviously child porn should be stopped. But as most of you have said this won't do it. It just might be a way of the gov look like they're doing something over that just making the rich richer.

[jinx]

Could be worse. Australia outlawed small breasts!

(in advertising and adult entertainment I think).

[Mrs-Sett {Kuve}]

Well interesting, the freedom of information act reveals in the UK that oodles of parliamentary staff spend time accessing porn websites, urm more than ‘once’ *cough*.

Apparently less so from April to May, interesting coinciding with anything I wonder?

Of course the current stance of ‘opt in’ of an Internet ‘security’ system as suggested, one would wonder if this would actually extend as far as the House of Commons.

But I’m not to worry, of course they are merely ‘pop’ ups that appear. So funny, at least I am reassured how taxpayers money (mine) is spent, feel much better now, I now know they are awake. http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/09/03/parliament-porn-websites_n_3859837.html?utm_hp_ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false

Sett

[Brianwilliach]

It's a horrible state of affairs.
Basically they pass a bill but user who want to look at porn will find a way to do so.
Using a proxy server you can do that and daily more and more porn site come up, what then??
Just look at a directory here - The Porn Dude - Top Porn Sites List! (http://theporndude.com)
This directory alone have 750+ sites and if you see they are quites good sites and daily hundreds of these site come up.

[slaveboy 6]

I am sure there are members of U.S. Congress who also watch porn.