UK to Block Porn Sites unless wanted. Good Idea?

[James R]

But there is no open dialog. There is only the tyranny of one particular view of sex - namely the "liberal" view - and everything else is taboo.

I think you'll find that some churches, for example, have quite well-publicised views on sex. I'm not quite seeing the tyranny you speak of.

[Captain Kremmen]

If they are worried about it with an opt in process I don't understand why they are not worried about it as it is currently

One point, which I have just thought of.
If parents opted in, might they not then be charged with neglect if their children were given free access to the material?
A good thing? Would that not be a form of neglect?

Surely opting in, should only allow one person, with a password, to access the material, not a computer or household.

With regard to what you said about holding a record of people's internet browsing history.
Someone else said it was paranoid that this would be held.

At the moment, I believe that your browsing history is held for a few days and that your email history is held for about a year. (UK)
If you are highly suspected in being involved in criminal activity, your browsing history can be demanded to be held for longer.
Not fact, but my impression from reading various sources.
I think that there is not much information on the subject because it is so useful in apprehending Terrorists.
(Shush.... That's for sciforums ears only. I know all you can be trusted.)

In the UK, there is a proposal that browsing history be legally kept on every individual.
That will never happen.
People believing that their forays are always anonymous is too valuable.

[wynn]

Actually no. That is a major concern for most parents.

I said that should be the least of the problems for a good parent.

You will have to provide a legal or other formulation that actually mandates the prevention of any possible harm.
The Law is more realistic than that.

Fish much?

If you want to protect your children from any possible harm, then you shouldn't have children to begin with.

Are you suggesting that parents should just not worry because they have said 'don't do that'?

As if worrying would help.

Responsible parents know that they have a duty to prevent their child from coming into contact with harm as much as they can.

Which is different from trying to protect children from any possible harm -

When your children go online, it is called actual parenting to prevent any possible harm.

How about this. How about when you have a child, you just tell your child 'don't do this' online and walk away and tell me how you go with that?

You're such a drama mama.

Word of the week for you?

Not at all Wynn.

And?

Do you want to know the problem with parenting at the moment and how this "block" won't solve anything?

You're arguing against a stance I never proposed or defended.
And yet you expect me to defend it.

Notice the main problem is lack of parental supervision?

No, the main problem I see there is that both the parents as well as the children have a poor sense of priorities on what to spend money and time on.

Even companies like Microsoft encourage people to monitor and supervise children as they use the internet.

Good call to mention Microsoft: I heard Bill Gates allowed his children only 30 minutes of computer use per day.

A measure like that helps a lot!

[wynn]

One point, which I have just thought of.
If parents opted in, might they not then be charged with neglect if their children were given free access to the material?

Yes, it would be. In a similar manner as having a firearm in the home that is not securely stored.

With regard to what you said about holding a record of people's internet browsing history.
Someone else said it was paranoid that this would be held.

With an opt-in, internet use would be even more easy to track and records thereof stored.

[Captain Kremmen]

I said that should be the least of the problems for a good parent.

You're such a drama mama.

You're arguing against a stance I never proposed or defended.
And yet you expect me to defend it.

Please, neither of you, start a personal argument.
Let's consider the issue without that.

Re
With an opt-in, internet use would be even more easy to track and records thereof stored.

Yes, it is not a simple matter, and should not be left to Politicians.
Computer surveillance is so important it should be subject to a referendum.
Politicians are not to be trusted.

[wynn]

I think you'll find that some churches, for example, have quite well-publicised views on sex. I'm not quite seeing the tyranny you speak of.

In that while there is a lot of talk of sex, there is very little discussion of it.

There are questions about sex that are not supposed to be asked - and this first and foremost of liberals and promoters of sex.

One can get further in the discussion of sex with a religious conservative than with a liberal.
There are, for example, motivations for sex that, as per the liberal view, are not supposed to be questioned.

[wynn]

While mentioning the Gates family - I suggest reading Bill Gates Senior's Showing up for life.

He has some really good ideas on how to spend one's money and time.

[Bells]

I'm afraid you are not making a lot of sense so I will just try and be concise about issues I feel you are skirting around.

1- The opt in process doesn't prohibit or censor anything. Whatever means authorities have to track and trace what a person is viewing are already in place. The opt in process simply defaults the user to bypassing these sites. IOW the service effectively becomes a "If you want it, you got to ask for it" as opposed to the current "Even if you don't want it, its right over here". Its a false argument to suggest that the right to privacy or information is being violated since whatever information about who specifically visits what sites is already in the hands of IP providers.

You don't think adults, having to approach their ISP's and letting them know that they want to watch porn online is not restricting their rights?

Really?

As Sam Gibbs puts it:

I’m all for protecting our kids, but surely an opt-out system would be better for the people who actually have kids, than making the rest of us hold our hands up and opt-in. I simply can’t imagine how awkward that conversation with your ISP is going to be.

[Source]

The main providers in the UK already have in place blocks that parents can choose to have, which would block access to sites such as porn sites. In other words, you can contact your internet provider and have them put it on your account if you so choose. That is a better system instead of a far range block that has the potential to block innocent sites as well and which can be easily bypassed.

2- Regulation does inhibit consumption on a community level. The fact that you have to go out of your way on a friday night to find instances of it not working means potential candidates have to work quite hard to find a suitable time, place and circumstance.

If adults want to look at porn online, they shouldn't have to be calling up their ISP's and saying 'oh yeah, err would you mind allowing me to watch porn now please?'..

These measures will simply drive porn further underground and away from the regulations that currently keep an eye on it.

3- Furthermore regulation of potentially harmful things in society in no way impedes a parent's duties towards their children. If you think it makes a parent lazy it would tend to indicate that the parent is lazy at the onset. In fact you could even say that regulation assists the parent in the performance of their duty. IOW far from playing it as an either/or scenario (or false dichotomy) they are commonly seen as two fields of application that work harmoniously in an attempt to achieve the same end. I mean its not like a parent endeavoring to prevent their children smoking curses retail outlets that are legally not permitted to sell them to minors .... and on the plus side it also makes it a bit more difficult for the kids of parents who don't give two hoots about it.

But parents are lulled into a false sense of security. We see it daily.

This will make it more so. And I can assure you, a 10 year old will probably be able to bypass that block in a matter of minutes, while the parents think it's safe to leave him/her online without supervision because there is that block in place.

What it will do is force the unscrupulous porn companies into finding more clever ways to get their products out there, and bypass the ISP blocks. And the best way to do that is through sites like Facebook, youtube and twitter.. sites that children are known to use and access.

There is currently a system in place whereby parents can opt in to have the blocks put in place on their accounts. That is a better system than censorship which would affect all.

4- Blocking things at an IP provider level, although not foolproof, certainly casts a wider net than what localized security measures can hope to achieve.

But people can already opt in for that now. What they are proposing is trying to force adults who want to watch porn have to contact their ISP provider and actually request to be allowed to view it. A record is then kept that that person actually wants to watch porn. And such blocks do not cast a wider net. Blocks like that are easily bypassed.

5- Internet usage is simply not something one can comprehensively parent until one's children become adults. You may not permit your children to have independent unmonitored access to the internet but you live in a society that does (eg iphones, internet cafes, public libraries etc) . In fact, statistically speaking, there is a good chance that their friends are permitted and that this will increase as they get older. Talking about how the world would be better if society wasn't like that in no way addresses the problem (and given technological trends, such as students being outfitted with laptops for school, doesn't seem even tenable)

You don't get it, do you?

Even companies like Microsoft actively advocate supervising children when they are online and also in the process, educating them about internet safety. Just because it is so widely available does not mean that it is not something that parents should not be controlling. I'll put it this way, I don't know a single good parent with teenage children or younger who do not supervise and/or monitor their children's internet use. That is what good parents do.

[Asguard]

I always find it strange when a government says "we are putting this filter on your system but you can opt out if you want, think of the children). Why would you even think this way in the first place? Every other media the default is unrestricted and you can filter IF YOU CHOSE, that's the way digital tv, foxtel, the game consoles, DVD and Blueray players, iPods, phones and everything else. If your a parent you can set restrictions on these if you chose but the rest of us don't even see them, so why is this any different. Because the people pushing this are prudes who don't think ANYONE should have access and the "think of the children" is just a smoke screen

[Bells]

I said that should be the least of the problems for a good parent.

Good parents lose children too.

If you want to protect your children from any possible harm, then you shouldn't have children to begin with.

Fair call. But you'd do your best to try, wouldn't you?

As if worrying would help.

Every parent worries..

Which is different from trying to protect children from any possible harm -

Was more along the lines that parents will do everything they can to protect their children..

You're such a drama mama.

Really?

You're arguing against a stance I never proposed or defended.
And yet you expect me to defend it.

A bit of this here and that there?

No, the main problem I see there is that both the parents as well as the children have a poor sense of priorities on what to spend money and time on.

Big shiny red letters..

Only serve to annoy and hurt eyes..

But yes. Parents who only want to keep the children quiet and out from underfoot..

Good call to mention Microsoft: I heard Bill Gates allowed his children only 30 minutes of computer use per day.

A measure like that helps a lot!

He is better than me. I allow 15 minutes of game or fun time on the internet if they don't have their Matheletics to do online. Otherwise if they have to do that or want to do that (Matheletics), then it is 20 minutes, with supervision. In fact, my children like maths, so it is something we do together and they enjoy it.

Otherwise they play, or we read together (reading is huge in my house) or we go to the library or we go through the toys they don't play with anymore to give to charity (monthly exercise - 4 toys each).. I have now taken to showing them how to grow vegetables in the stupid hope they will eat them if they have grown them themselves..

As LG points out, the internet is such a big part of our lives and their lives, but I think just leaving them to play online for hours at a time is a bad thing. Maybe that makes me an anal parent that I do supervise their online time so closely and do limit what they can do online, but I have seen what happens when they aren't watched and so I watch them. Plus I'd rather my children play outside...

[Captain Kremmen]

You don't think adults, having to approach their ISP's and letting them know that they want to watch porn online is not restricting their rights?


I'd love to disagree with this on the grounds that the online individuals involved are not always free agents, and that their rights are to be held more importnt than the people who get pleasure from them.

Unfortunately, I can't find any investigation of this $100 Billion industry.
Much of it springing from the US, probably.

Now, while I am personally absolutely certain that this industry is infested by gangsters and criminals, and that there are tens of thousands of victims of it, I can find no proof of that whatsoever.
Therefore I must stay silent on the matter.

If you are a reporter, please note.

[Asguard]

Bells I have a question for you and yes it goes against my own previous comments about the fisherprice iPod doc being a sign of the apocolyps. Kids Learn through play and when these kids grow up they are going to have to be more adapt than us with regard to technology and well more than our parents. Knowing this, is limiting there access to playing with tech limiting them the same way that limiting access to education does

[Bells]

Bells I have a question for you and yes it goes against my own previous comments about the fisherprice iPod doc being a sign of the apocolyps. Kids Learn through play and when these kids grow up they are going to have to be more adapt than us with regard to technology and well more than our parents. Knowing this, is limiting there access to playing with tech limiting them the same way that limiting access to education does

My kids can already find their way around my computer in the blink of an eye. They can rename every single icon on my computer and have done so many times. Sites like Matheletics actually teaches them about computer usage and it allows them to practice their maths and reading and comprehension skills. They also have computer labs in school as part of their curriculum. When they want to play on the computer, they will often go to Lego, which has such play activities safe for kids and they get to do that for 15 minutes per day if they don't want to do their Maths online, which they seem to enjoy more.

I think not letting them actually play with their toys or outside or doing stuff that children should be doing because they might be missing out on "tech" knowledge is more detrimental in the long run.

[Asguard]

I'm not so sure, for me (and I assume you) computers are still an external medium which you seek out. When I was young dad had a PC for us to use (he also at one stage had a "lap top" which if my memory is right was the size of a suitcase but that was for his work) and so that has coloured my view of tech as something you go to to use be it a Playstation, Xbox or computer (and that's inspite of having an iPhone and psp and partne with iPhone, iPod, dsi and 3ds). I don't think it's going to be that way for my children, look at the potential in even the 3ds (and I don't mean the 3D I mean the arugumented reality) and that's primitive compared to the google glasses which will be out soon. This will literally effect the way people see the world with the potential for real time heads up displays all the time. Google are already claiming it will be able to overlay navigation directly onto what your seeing and that's only the start. Then there is the software, Facebook has changed the way people interact, especially kids and I'm not even talking about judging social statice by the number of friends. I don't think it's going to be like us sitting down at a computer OR going outside to play anymore, there interactions will be coloured by th real time Infomation try are being feed WHILE interacting with the world. In one sense I guess they will be the first cyborgs. This is why I question limiting access to it, this is the world they are going to have to live and work in, not limited access where we decide this is computer time, this is my ps3 time and this is my time to go to the gym, they are going to be interacting with this technology WHILE going to the gym, WHILE going to lectures and doing work. Gen z are supposed to be the best multitarskers of all time, they can do there job, email friends, play games and 100 other things all at the same time so imagin what gen zz (or z1 or whatever they are) are going to be like

[Bells]

I'm not so sure, for me (and I assume you) computers are still an external medium which you seek out. When I was young dad had a PC for us to use (he also at one stage had a "lap top" which if my memory is right was the size of a suitcase but that was for his work) and so that has coloured my view of tech as something you go to to use be it a Playstation, Xbox or computer (and that's inspite of having an iPhone and psp and partne with iPhone, iPod, dsi and 3ds). I don't think it's going to be that way for my children, look at the potential in even the 3ds (and I don't mean the 3D I mean the arugumented reality) and that's primitive compared to the google glasses which will be out soon. This will literally effect the way people see the world with the potential for real time heads up displays all the time. Google are already claiming it will be able to overlay navigation directly onto what your seeing and that's only the start. Then there is the software, Facebook has changed the way people interact, especially kids and I'm not even talking about judging social statice by the number of friends. I don't think it's going to be like us sitting down at a computer OR going outside to play anymore, there interactions will be coloured by th real time Infomation try are being feed WHILE interacting with the world. In one sense I guess they will be the first cyborgs. This is why I question limiting access to it, this is the world they are going to have to live and work in, not limited access where we decide this is computer time, this is my ps3 time and this is my time to go to the gym, they are going to be interacting with this technology WHILE going to the gym, WHILE going to lectures and doing work. Gen z are supposed to be the best multitarskers of all time, they can do there job, email friends, play games and 100 other things all at the same time so imagin what gen zz (or z1 or whatever they are) are going to be like

Hmmm..

I don't let my children Facebook. Nor will that rule change anytime soon. I mean I don't Facebook. I think it has diminished the way people should talk to each other and communicate. If my children want to speak to their friends, they call them and actually talk to them and vice versa. They don't need to Facebook.

Everything needs to be in moderation Asguard. Children who are permanently hooked up to their iphones and computers are missing out on being children, just as they are missing out on more valuable learning tools like communication, writing, reading, playing and actually understanding the value of using their hands to do physical things. Children need exercise, they need to actively play (ie run around, build stuff with lego for example, ride their bikes, climb trees and fall out of said trees, play in dirt, etc). Not let them sit in front of a computer for hours on end staring at the pretty colours of computer games because 'computers are the way of the future'..

[lightgigantic]

Please, neither of you, start a personal argument.
Let's consider the issue without that.

Re
With an opt-in, internet use would be even more easy to track and records thereof stored.

Yes, it is not a simple matter, and should not be left to Politicians.
Computer surveillance is so important it should be subject to a referendum.
Politicians are not to be trusted.

I'm not sure what you are talking about.

ISP providers can already determine who views what. That's why they are subject to court orders to assist legal investigations.

What is it precisely that you think changes if providers categorize consumers into "opt ins' and "opt outs"?

[Asguard]

You want to PROVE that in the UK under UK law not the US, for instance in Australia the ISPs recently won quite a victory against copywrite groups wanting them to regulate what there users recive.

[wynn]

What is it precisely that you think changes if providers categorize consumers into "opt ins' and "opt outs"?

I already replied to that. Do you have any comment to my reply?

[lightgigantic]

I already replied to that. Do you have any comment to my reply?

Unless I am mistaken you didn't say anything about the tracking and recording of it but rather a sort of psychological feedback the act of "opting in" installs

[wynn]

He is better than me. I allow 15 minutes of game or fun time on the internet

Why do you think that Gates, allowing 30 minutes of computer use, would be better than you, who allow 15?

Otherwise they play, or we read together (reading is huge in my house) or we go to the library or we go through the toys they don't play with anymore to give to charity (monthly exercise - 4 toys each).. I have now taken to showing them how to grow vegetables in the stupid hope they will eat them if they have grown them themselves..

As for the veggies - note that taste receptors in a child's tongue are different than in an adult, and the reason why children generally don't find vegetables particularly tasty.

As LG points out, the internet is such a big part of our lives and their lives, but I think just leaving them to play online for hours at a time is a bad thing.

Of course.
Sometimes, the worst thing that happens to a child are his parents ...

I am more inclined to think that parental neglect itself is more harmful, esp. in the long run, than anything the child may experience in the course of unsupervised time.

Once the child intuitively realizes that his parents don't really care for him (even though they may buy him all kinds of stuff and let him do whatever he wants), I think that more than anything else leaves deeper scars and sets up the child for numerous problems, that can take decades to heal from, if ever.