ConDms - the move to a police state continues
 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/technolog...overnment.html

As I have said before, same sh1t, different government.

No doubt those who opt in will be placed on a potential sex offenders register :Whatever_

I do not see the issue:luxhello:

torrents and other illegal file shares are next on the agenda.

The issue is that parents are quite capable of restricting what their kids can and cannot do on the net. We dont need the government to blanket ban something for us and of course the opt in records would never be used against an individual would they now?

Just one step further towards a fully regulated internet. At least we can tell our grandkids years from now what it was like in the good old days of the nineties and 00s with freedom of information.

These people don't stop to think for a second that perhaps this might be an issue for personal responsibility. Like maybe, just maybe parents should be responsible for what their kids can look at in their house - in pretty much the same fashion they stop them playing with knives, touching the inside of the cooker, etc.

It's just the usual bright sparks coming up with a plan to get ahead in the popularity stakes, no matter the cost in the long run or to civil liberties.

Nice one guys, keep up the good work. :thumb:

Way to cut the financial drain on the NHS
Kids or Porn?
Kids or Porn?



It literally becomes a toss up.

Check out craigfromnewcastle's comment. What a complete gimp! :lol1:

Awww, someone needs to stick up for poor, confused and vulnerable people like oor Craig; Cue the nanny state to the rescue to save us from ourselves.

Edited to say - I'm sorry, I learned the word 'gimp' from internet pornography, I just can't help it. :cry: This is the long-term mental trauma that results from being free to look at these kinds of despicable acts. :cry:

I love it :mad:

I was just commenting to wifey last night as we searched yet again for a SINGLE programme worth watching on our 100+ channel Virgin cable TV, and found no less than NINE porn channels and one gay porn channel.

Why, oh why, are THEY attached to what is supposed to be a family pack?

*Who* decides what is *pornographic* is the issue. Thin end of the wedge!

Dave

Because they show people repeatedly trying to start a family?

:D

whats the problem .. blocked at source so what just log on to hide my ass .com first. aint that what kids do at school so they can go on facebook msn etc

Damn, its my thread that got the lovely fragrant ladies of Scoobynet to admit watching porn and acts of self pollution.

Now I am all for clamping down on dodgy, illegal stuff but surely pictures of ladies of a certain age with no clothes on is not exactly going to cause moral depravity, I read about a video doing the rounds on the net that shows two Ukranian teenagers battering a bloke to death with a hammer, now I do not want my boys to see that but if they get their jollies looking at some tits and arse then so be it, I am sure limiting it will cause more problems than it solves.

Porn and Masturbation isn't evil, it isn't the Victorian era, this isn't China.

They will probably find a way to tax it, that me buggered, I would be a high rate taxpayer :D along with most of SN by the sound of it.

sex is allready taxed if you use durex , isnt it i thought there was vat on them . and any other way of wooing a bird is taxed drink chocs flowers cinema etc , with global warming ime suprised they havnt taxed farting , the eu were thinking of taxing dairy farmers because cows produce so much methane

I bet even if anarchists were in charge people would still claim we're heading for a police state :D

old news (and excellent comments).

mb

Yep. The first one sums it up - no need to read further down the comment list ...

"... It is called 'parenting' Some might have heard of it. We have some moral lobbyists who will play in to the hands of all sorts of other censorship issues. If parents were concerned, would they not take steps to stop it? You know, maybe like talking to their children about the issue? Or keeping the PC in the living room? ..."


Dave

So do you think it is a good idea then?

Why are people compalining about this?

It automatically stops Porn being viewed in a home with children. Why is this bad?

`If` you do want access to when you have children, you can `Opt-in` and get access.

Don't see a problem myself.

And your unhappy with this?

Jeez, that would have made my fecking night! :luxhello:

IT WILL NOT STOP PORN! IT WILL NOT STOP KIDDIES SEEING STUFF THEY SHOULDN'T AT *THEIR AGE*! Some company may be able to convince some stupid government minister that his filter will safeguard all the icle wickle lickle kiddies from seeing, gosh, naked wimmins, but in reality any self-respecting 4 year old will bypass it in about 10 minutes. And the *company* will be walking off into the sunset with a great fat cheque! It is NO concern of the governments what people look at on the internet. As a parent I have a vastly greater knowledge of my kid than any government minister, and vastly greater knowledge of how the internet works.

Tell me, *who* will categorise all the many millions of websites out there? Who will sift through every word/picture to give each site a *12a* or *18* rating? How many millions of OUR money will be wasted by these imbeciles for NO GAIN WHATSOEVER on any metric that makes sense???

Dave

PS: sorry for shouting but this hacks me off .....

Opt-in, sounds fair enough to me. Its not really affecting my internet activities, as its not like they are doing what China does with internet censorship. Even if it was blocked, there are always proxies (which half of China uses to get round their censorship), so its not really workable.


What I'd prefer instead is the resources being spent on clamping down on internet fraudsters and ebay traders who don't pay their tax-dues on their earnings.

Firstly it's state censorship and snooping at its worst as you can rest assured the opt in list will be recorded nicely for the government's use under anti-terrorism laws no doubt :Whatever_

Secondly it's yet another thing that parents think they don't have to do. Kids can surf the net all day and all night as its completely safe now... the government said so. My ar5e it is!!!

Thirdly it's unworkable for all the reaosns Dave has written above. It's just posturing.

Agree with your last paragraph though!

I never said it was workable (although China does it with parital success )- Like I said, I would rather the money be spent of policing internet fraud and tax evasion.

Parents lets their kid loose on computers as it is now. Short of social services clipping the Parent around the ears for being idiots their is little else that can be done.

Snooping, don't you think that happens already? Your ISP know exactly where you've been and probably can trace activity back for years. A warrant or court order is all thats needed for that to be divulged.

I have a few questions.

1/ how does this differ from being premium member and giving not only your name, but address and credit card details to a register of sorts?

2/ other than removing the "democratic right" to free and sneaky porn, what difference does it really make?

3/ do we all really believe all parents out there are both responsible enough and capable of protecting our children from porn and other such content on the web?

I'm not saying I agree or disagree, not read the full plan yet, but I really don't think its as bad as it's being made out to be.

Not sure which is worse, a government who could not care less what kids are exposed to, or one that maybe goes ott trying to do something about it.

But it won't stop at *pron* though will it? Sure as eggs are eggs it'll get *extended* to include things that are *embarrassing* to the government or, as we've seen lately, things that are embarrassing to people with money (cf those 'superinjunctions' that celebs have taken out). As I said, thin end of the wedge!

Like the *anti terrorist* laws used to stop that 80 year old heckling at the labour conference.

Dave

Or maybe it's all just being blown out of proportion. Just like the hot topic on the other thread, static anpr, which everyone was so sure was going to be used to catch everyone and their mother for speeding....... But never has.

Whats pron :D

Have a read of this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/120200...medium=twitter

There should be protection for 17 year olds as well apparently.

I don't understand why people think that the internet should be regulated or people protected from it. It is no different from telling children (young adults) not to take sweets from dirty old men, wander off into a car with someone or talk to strangers.

Spot on post Sir!!! Absolutely what I am talking about.

Surely the Government have more important things to worry about, other than what folks are doing in their own homes :wonder:

Most parents are responsible about what their kids see, but hey, if they want to look they will find a way, no matter what anyone does or says. It's nature to be curious.

I am taking this with a pinch of salt. Nosey buggers :D