UK to Block Porn Sites unless wanted. Good Idea?

[lightgigantic]

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.

my point is simply that ISP providers already have the information - interpretation of law simply provides situations where they are obliged to divulge it to the relevant authorities.

IOW whether one opts in or out has absolutely no impact on what is recorded of people's browsing tendency and history

[wynn]

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

Captain Kremmen was quoting me -
In post 64 I said -

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

While all internet use may be tracked, without an opt-in, one can still argue that "my teenage son's friends were visiting and using the computer" or some such.

But with an opt-in with a user-specific password, all the responsibility is inescapably placed on that one user.

[Asguard]

Umm no actually it make a huge difference, if the law has no requirement to keep that Infomation and actually has privacy laws which FOBID keeping that Infomation then it's not recorded, if the law is that they have to keep it then they do. For instance tere is no requirement to have GPS tracking so there isn't any in Australian phones. Some people use programmes to put it onto some of the high end phones so that they can find it when it's lost but the cops definitely have no access to this (know thi for a fact because they couldn't even track someone who was threatening suicide by there phone and that wasn't a legal issue so there were no ethical issues if they couldn't legally do it but could do it under the table)

[lightgigantic]

Umm no actually it make a huge difference, if the law has no requirement to keep that Infomation and actually has privacy laws which FOBID keeping that Infomation then it's not recorded, if the law is that they have to keep it then they do. For instance tere is no requirement to have GPS tracking so there isn't any in Australian phones. Some people use programmes to put it onto some of the high end phones so that they can find it when it's lost but the cops definitely have no access to this (know thi for a fact because they couldn't even track someone who was threatening suicide by there phone and that wasn't a legal issue so there were no ethical issues if they couldn't legally do it but could do it under the table)

So if a person opts in, what is it precisely they have to (hugely ... since you said it makes a huge difference) worry about (pending interception warrants of course) ?

On the strength of opting in, precisely what is the candidate legally opening themselves up to (that they aren't already open up to under current procedures)?

[lightgigantic]

Captain Kremmen was quoting me -
In post 64 I said -

While all internet use may be tracked, without an opt-in, one can still argue that "my teenage son's friends were visiting and using the computer" or some such.

But with an opt-in with a user-specific password, all the responsibility is inescapably placed on that one user.

I am pretty sure that that is the first plea offered by anyone charged on account of the evidence of their browsing history

[wynn]

I'm not sure whether you're kidding or not.

But yes, as long as there is reason to believe that several people, some of whom may be unknown, have used the computer, it's hard to make any reasonable charges against the owner of the computer.

So the home situation may be much like in some libraries where computer use is free, no identification required. While these computers have some filters installed, there is still access to quite a bit of the internet.


Come to think of it, ISPs monitoring online use also brings along monitoring the legality of the software. Possibly quite a percentage of all computers in use, esp. those in homes, have only semi-legal OS's and other software, or entirely illegal. People often buy a computer with the Windows OS and MS Office already uploaded, from a computer middleman. (Many people who own a PC with Windows don't know how very expensive a computer actually is!) Companies that produce software and their subsidiaries lose a lot of revenue that way, and the state loses in taxes.

[lightgigantic]

I'm not sure whether you're kidding or not.

But yes, as long as there is reason to believe that several people, some of whom may be unknown, have used the computer, it's hard to make any reasonable charges against the owner of the computer.

So the home situation may be much like in some libraries where computer use is free, no identification required. While these computers have some filters installed, there is still access to quite a bit of the internet.


Come to think of it, ISPs monitoring online use also brings along monitoring the legality of the software. Possibly quite a percentage of all computers in use, esp. those in homes, have only semi-legal OS's and other software, or entirely illegal. People often buy a computer with the Windows OS and MS Office already uploaded, from a computer middleman. (Many people who own a PC with Windows don't know how very expensive a computer actually is!) Companies that produce software and their subsidiaries lose a lot of revenue that way, and the state loses in taxes.

On the side, I recall a failed kidnapping/extortion attempt that was traced from an email sent from a public library computer (which resulted in their charge and extradition from a foreign country)

My point is simply that if a crime is serious enough and it warrants the expenditure to apprehend a suspect, limp wristed excuses probably won't avail one.

[Captain Kremmen]

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"?

OK, I'm not 100% certain of the following, and am willing to be corrected, but the following is my understanding of current UK law,as follows:

It's the length of time they are committed by law to store records.
Memory is very cheap these days, but it still costs Shillings and pence.
An ISP at this time will hold your browsing history for a few days, then it is erased to make more room.

They would also clear out the email history, but in the UK they are currently obligated to store that, for a year I think.

If you are under criminal investigation, all your PC records can be kept for as long as desired.

[wynn]

On the side, I recall a failed kidnapping/extortion attempt that was traced from an email sent from a public library computer (which resulted in their charge and extradition from a foreign country)

In IT terms, tracing emails is probably different from tracing browsing history.

My point is simply that if a crime is serious enough and it warrants the expenditure to apprehend a suspect, limp wristed excuses probably won't avail one.

Agreed.


We are still awaiting Asguard (and possibly others) to explain what is so bad about the opt-in and what the "huge difference" is between the free-for-all and the opt-in.

[Asguard]

Bells has already pointed it out to you, why would I waste the time rehashing her post. You two are just ignoring what doesn't suit you and as I said this push is just comming from the prude brigade.

[wynn]

A clear conscience is like permanent Christmas - and you know it!

[Asguard]

As I said, the prude squad

[wynn]

You'll need to explain how the desire for a clear conscience is something bad, undesirable.

[Asguard]

Who said that porn leads to a bad Conscience? Stealing, hurting people, disappointing people, yes sex no. Sex is good and natural, it binds people together, improves sleep, improves mental health, improves cardiovascular health, leads to stable kids (through binding there parents together), leads to ALL kids, is the only excercise a lot of people get, improves quality of life. Basically EXCEPT causes bad conscience

[Captain Kremmen]

As I said, the prude squad

Is opposition to a world view which denigrates and abuses others Prudish?

Prudishness, historically, was epitomised by the twee Victorian dressing of pianos with curtains which covered the legs. As if that was corrupting. It coincided with the most comprehensive and gross abuse of people until the present day.

Are we approaching the degeneracy of those times, or have we surpassed them?

[Asguard]

Evidence please, since you think that all porn is abuse prove that MAINSTREEM porn (not child porn which is already illegal) is abusive and anymore abusive than any other work. You could start with this organisation

http://www.sexparty.org.au/

They actually advocate for sex workers so they would be the first to come out against it if it was abusive right?

[lightgigantic]

Bells has already pointed it out to you, why would I waste the time rehashing her post. You two are just ignoring what doesn't suit you and as I said this push is just comming from the prude brigade.

well no she didn't - I don't think the system works by having to personally speak to someone every time one wants to view porn and I don't think the ISP providers would be required to trace and store web browsing history any more than what they do anyway.

Thats why i asked you what is it precisely that is "hugely" different

[wynn]

Who said that porn leads to a bad Conscience? Stealing, hurting people, disappointing people, yes sex no. Sex is good and natural, it binds people together, improves sleep, improves mental health, improves cardiovascular health, leads to stable kids (through binding there parents together), leads to ALL kids, is the only excercise a lot of people get, improves quality of life. Basically EXCEPT causes bad conscience

See, it's impossible to discuss sex with some people ...

[wynn]

well no she didn't - I don't think the system works by having to personally speak to someone every time one wants to view porn and I don't think the ISP providers would be required to trace and store web browsing history any more than what they do anyway.

Thats why i asked you what is it precisely that is "hugely" different

Seconded.

[Fraggle Rocker]

A clear conscience is like permanent Christmas - and you know it!

Really? I'm glad you warned me. Christmas gets rather trite and boring after a few weeks.

Now I'm sure you're not an American. Our commercial sector has tried to stretch Christmas out. It didn't work.