Could this affect nude photography?

nope it could stay what would happen is in the uk if you aint chosen to disable the filter would come up with your isp page saying

Sorry, the web page you have requested is not available through "insert isp".

"isp" has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this content

or something similar to that its all complitly pointless as its so simple to bypass the filters with proxy servers
as is done with torrents sights in the uk
 
Last edited:
jonneymendoza said:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

Thoughts? whats stopping ISP from blocking any nude related content be in a porn video or a nude photo?

Would forums such as this have to remove the nude section?
Click to expand...

all that will happen is a pop up asking whether you want to view or not view porn - tick yes and you'll be able to view it BFD :shrug:
,
and the N&G forum here wouldnt be effected because its not porn anyway
 
hollis_f said:
Says who?
Click to expand...

This^

Isn't NSFW a fair filter word if I'm a Daily Mail reader wanting to protect my kids?

Once you let the loonies start dictating what's 'porn' you'll end up in a right mess. Don't get me started on how the MailOnline is reporting this as some kind of 'moral victory' on a page where the entire right hand column is full of pictures of young girls in bikinis. And where all women are either sex objects or frumpy old dears or liberal lesbians.:bat:
 
Phil V said:
This^

Isn't NSFW a fair filter word if I'm a Daily Mail reader wanting to protect my kids?

Once you let the loonies start dictating what's 'porn' you'll end up in a right mess. Don't get me started on how the MailOnline is reporting this as some kind of 'moral victory' on a page where the entire right hand column is full of pictures of young girls in bikinis. And where all women are either sex objects or frumpy old dears or liberal lesbians.:bat:
Click to expand...

This... :bat:
 
Thing is though pornography is already defined in law and always has been

It's what makes magazines like FHM , Nuts etc different from Playboy, Penthouse and what have you

The definition is pretty much the same as the one the 3 wise monkeys men have applied to our N&G board

. However, we will still not tolerate any graphically sexual images, nor any that focus attention on genitalia. This includes, but is not limited to, genitalia closeups.
Click to expand...

the criminal justice and immigration act 2008 sect 63 defines pornography as

an image "of such a nature that it must reasonably be assumed to have been produced solely or principally for the purpose of sexual arousal
Click to expand...

and extreme (and thus illegal) pornography as

any such image which is "grossly offensive, disgusting or otherwise of an obscene character" and portrays "in an explicit and realistic way" any of the following:
An act threatening a person's life
An act which results (or is likely to result) in serious injury to a person's anus, breasts or genitals
An act which involves (or appears to involve) sexual interference with a human corpse
A person performing (or appearing to perform) an act of intercourse (or oral sex) with an animal (whether dead or alive)

where a reasonable person looking at the image would think that any such person (or animal) was real.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited:
I'd be prepared to bet you're wrong Pete.

You might have a firm view that Penthouse is Porn and FHM isn't. But plenty of retailers, customer groups and lobbyists have a different view.
 
Phil V said:
I'd be prepared to bet you're wrong Pete.

You might have a firm view that Penthouse is Porn and FHM isn't. But plenty of retailers, customer groups and lobbyists have a different view.
Click to expand...

But as per the edit above the law is with me on this one - I couldn't give a damn what lobbyists etc think, its the legal definition that matters.

(which is why there are looser restrictions on FHM etc than on the soft porn mags)
 
But the Internet doesn't have those brand names? They're going to have to re-legislate for the equivalent of everything from student magazines to snuff movies. Where those lines are drawn is anyone's guess. The current pornography laws are already creaking under the weight of Internet porn and are clearly unfit for their current purpose, let alone what might be coming. (Pun intended)
 
They clearly aren't going to do that , they are just going to legislate that IPs have to make Porn an elective choice of the subscriber , thus making it harder for kids to view (pun intended) , unless Mum n Dad select to allow it (or the little brats know about proxy servers etc :lol: )

And the IPs will probably just do that on the basis of how the site describes itself - as the TP N&G forum clearly states "no pornography" I can't see it being effected, but even if it were you would still be able to elect to view it if you wished

BFD

This is a total non story blown up by people and papers who want to spin it either as a moral victory or as an attack on their civil liberties *

*edit : this wasn't intended to imply that people posting here fall into either of those camps , I was referring to the various DM/Granuiad chest beating
 
Last edited:
Whatever the intentions of the proposed legislation, I'd bet my hat that it'll be abused within a single term of parliament.
It is in the nature of politicians to seek control through any means they can.
 
All I can say is that I wish the Internet was around when I was a teenager...
 
They can't feasibly sift through all websites and categorise them, legally, as porn or not porn. Instead they use filters which identify proxy material that may be indicative of pornographic content.

Therefore it doesn't really matter what the legal definition of porn is.

The result will be thousands of perfectly innocuous websites (and borderline cases) being blocked by default because they feature text that some panel of software designers feel may be associated with porn. My work employs such a filter and it blocks this entire forum (I guess because of the N&G subforum). It also, ironically, blocked some news stories about this very subject. And it blocks perfectly inoffensive websites offering advice on sexual health, family planning, and the like.

So I wouldn't rest on the "legal definition" of porn. It's not how this stuff works.

That said, it should be easy to opt in. You'll just end up on a de facto list of people who have opted in to view pornography (or, at least, that's how it will be viewed) which will inevitably be leaked at some point down the line. Or you could just browse through a proxy.

Stupid, pointless law.
 
Last edited:
big soft moose said:
as the TP N&G forum clearly states "no pornography" I can't see it being effected
Click to expand...



And there in lies the problem, that word pornography could end up getting the whole forum blocked and not just the N&G section.

The filters are not as sophisticated as some would like to think, they can not differentiate between what is a legitimate use of the word pornography and what is not, same as someone using the search term breast feeding might have legitimate sites blocked to them because they used the word breast.

This whole thing is nothing but a big fat red herring just to make the government look like they are doing something - The truth is is does nothing and will solve nothing

They need to stop wasting money on this silly exercise and instead spend it on going after the people behind the "porn" in the first place.

Also this so called "filter" will not just be about blocking porn, it will cover stuff like suicide and self harm, and whilst I do not agree with pro suicide or pro self harm websites there are a lot of legitimate support sites for people with suicidal ideation or who struggle with self harm - these people who rely on these sites as part of there support network could well find them blocked by this so called filter

And as for watching films or playing online games with just a bit to much gore and violence.... well yes that will be covered by this "filter" as well
 
ghoti said:
They can't feasibly sift through all websites and categorise them, legally, as porn or not porn. Instead they use filters which identify proxy material that may be indicative of pornographic content.

Therefore it doesn't really matter what the legal definition of porn is.

The result will be thousands of perfectly innocuous websites (and borderline cases) being blocked by default because they feature text that some panel of software designers feel may be associated with porn. My work employs such a filter and it blocks this entire forum (I guess because of the N&G subforum). It also, ironically, blocked some news stories about this very subject. And it blocks perfectly inoffensive websites offering advice on sexual health, family planning, and the like.

So I wouldn't rest on the "legal definition" of porn. It's not how this stuff works.

That said, it should be easy to opt in. You'll just end up on a de facto list of people who have opted in to view pornography (or, at least, that's how it will be viewed) which will inevitably be leaked at some point down the line. Or you could just browse through a proxy.

Stupid, pointless law.
Click to expand...

This is pretty much how I see it too, it wont have anything to do with the actual legal definition and someone checking every website - lets face it, the internet is simply too big to operate that way.
The pressure on companies like Google is nothing more then vote grabbing - it would be a very naive paedophile [oh and ghoti, sorry, typing that word probably added another black mark in your works filter for this forum] that ever used a search engine such as google to look for their kicks, these things are well hidden via proxy's, peer to peer networks and so on.
So basically, there are no children under 18 in my house, so I have no reason to opt into any kind of child safe filter system - so there you go daily mail, we are obviously a dirty nasty little house that wants to spend 12 hours a day looking at pornography of the most depraved variety... *rolleyes*
 
Last edited:
ghoti said:
They can't feasibly sift through all websites and categorise them, legally, as porn or not porn. Instead they use filters which identify proxy material that may be indicative of pornographic content.

Therefore it doesn't really matter what the legal definition of porn is.

The result will be thousands of perfectly innocuous websites (and borderline cases) being blocked by default because they feature text that some panel of software designers feel may be associated with porn. My work employs such a filter and it blocks this entire forum (I guess because of the N&G subforum). It also, ironically, blocked some news stories about this very subject. And it blocks perfectly inoffensive websites offering advice on sexual health, family planning, and the like.

So I wouldn't rest on the "legal definition" of porn. It's not how this stuff works.

That said, it should be easy to opt in. You'll just end up on a de facto list of people who have opted in to view pornography (or, at least, that's how it will be viewed) which will inevitably be leaked at some point down the line. Or you could just browse through a proxy.

Stupid, pointless law.
Click to expand...

:plusone: :agree:
 
Yv said:
we are obviously a dirty nasty little house that wants to spend 12 hours a day looking at pornography of the most depraved variety...
Click to expand...

ahh hobbit porn







Sorry :coat:
 
I wonder how many people will 'opt in' on principle - especially those like me that have no kids and feel strongly about having the choice of what material I choose to view - not have some half baked legislation deciding for me.
 
Cameron's already back pedalling, maybe the idea was to announce it for the Daily Mail readers with an eye in the next election, and then bury the back peddle in the avalanche of baby news. The Independent has still run the change of mind story on the front page though.

It's an unworkable idea, it seems no one asked "who is going to check each website and make a decision on suitability?"
 
Don't even need a proxy to bypass government blocks these days, even with all the high profile torrent site takedowns etc... all you need to do is use the Opera web browser and enable Opera Turbo, many browsers allow you to automatically bypass blocks of all kinds, hence censorship on the internet will never truly exist, there are always far more skilled people willing to go that extra mile to keep the internet uncensored than there are guys at GCHQ or NSA.
 
Yv said:
...so there you go daily mail, we are obviously a dirty nasty little house that wants to spend 12 hours a day looking at pornography of the most depraved variety... *rolleyes*
Click to expand...


You say that like it's a bad thing? :thinking:
 
next law will be to force companies like currys/pc world to sell compters and laptops from a high up shelf, just to be in line with porn mags in shops :p I can just imagine it now, some creapy guy with a moushtache taking a load of stuff to the counter,

'yeh, i'll have the dyson, 3d sony widescreen, this hifi, new beats headfones, and erm...'

then the guy looks around to make sure no-ones looking 'i'll take this hp netbook too... it's not for me'
 
Fish says it right ;
ghoti said:
... they use filters which identify proxy material that may be indicative of pornographic content.
...
So I wouldn't rest on the "legal definition" of porn. It's not how this stuff works.
Click to expand...
 
I assume the fact it blocks based on standard filters is why they're called adult content blockers, not porn blockers.

I had to opt in on my mobile as it filtered a couple of photography sites. And a forum that the only thing I can imagine caused the block was that somewhere in the rules it had the standard forum rules of no swearing, no pornography etc. It was a bit over zealous.
 
I had to confirm my age to Vodafone to allow 'adult content' so that I could read wine reviews. Which oddly I do when faced with new choices at the supermarket.

So now presumably anyone that picks up my phone is a potential pervert?
 
Phil V said:
So now presumably anyone that picks up my phone is a potential pervert?
Click to expand...

Yes. So you should destroy your phone immediately - think of the children! :D
 
ernesto said:
All I can say is that I wish the Internet was around when I was a teenager...
Click to expand...


Ha ha!!! yep I agree, would have made it a whole lot easier than getting caught reading dads mags lol.

There are choices all over the internet, you either click or you do not so this is just another option for people that do not want to click.
 
This will also mean an end to Middlesex, Sussex and Essex. And the Countess of Wessex.
 
hollis_f said:
Prepare for some wonderful examples of the Scunthorpe Effect -LINK
Click to expand...

Which is precisely why many of us perfectly normal non-pervs will probably be forced to 'opt in' and then no doubt get ourselves labelled.

I have a website about WW1 Naval aviation which will probably get filtered as it contains images of men in Camels, Pups, Kittens and Babies (which were aircraft!) :bat:
 
Last edited:
Im against all form of internet censorship especially government mandated or body "elected" by a said government. Sadly this includes all the "touchy" subjects like pedophilia etc. Theirs no way to "ban" a particular topic legal or not online and neither should it be down to the ISPs or the government to cherry pick what it feels I can and can't get access to based on some fuzzy matching by a bit of software which blanket bans sites for no good reason other than a keword.

We had blocks at school and still managed to find online pornography relatively easily when I was a sprog and it's down to parents to monitor what their kids are doing online not some internet watchdog. The trouble with this approach is parents simply plonk their kids down in front of the computer (just like they did with the TV) and assume it's safe because the government is blocking all the porn.

Internet Blocking as proved by decades is completely pointless and counter productive as the amount of content doubles on a daily basis. It's a bit like dealing with a rat infestation by taking pot shots and them with a 12 bore. As the UK don't have jurisdiction in other country's these illicit and illegal sites simply host themselves elsewhere or get another IP and or domain.

The "Think of the Children" method is sadly a slippery slope to get a method of blocking introduced with full public backing and taxpayer funding and anyone who objects is clearly a perve. It's then a slippery slope to ANY sites or a subject being blocked that the government don't like for political or legal reasons. You start seeing sites blocked from the *yes highly illegal) so petty things such as "how to I get out of a speeding fine" it's no different to censoring the press.

Once the wheels are in motion these taboo subjects get pushed further underground just like piracy where such activities become harder if not impossible to detect while average joe then has to then phone his ISP and has for his porn back just to view sites that have been incorrectly categorised.
 
Last edited:
So how would this work, would it just be adult search words blocked? How about if you simply typed in the URL of a known adult site, would you still be connected? As in theory you did not search for it, as you already knew the full URL :thinking: Well I am sure lots of people will not need to search, as they will already know the web address!
 
Last edited:
jonbeeza said:
So how would this work, would it just be adult search words blocked? How about if you simply tyed in the URL of a known adult site, would you still be connected? As in theory you did not search for it, as you already knew the full URL :thinking: Well I am sure lots of people will not need to search, as they will already know the web address!
Click to expand...
There are two separate proposals.
One would prevent searches for certain "depraved and disgusting" keywords (whatever they are), linked to illegal content, and would work at the search engine level. Cameron wants google et al to flash up a warning page if anyone inputs these terms. This is stupid for numerous reasons. Not least of which is that people looking for seriously illegal content will be using darknet applications like TOR and whatnot.
In the absence of any other filtering then, yes, you could get around this by simply inputting the URL.

But he also proposes a general default blocking of *legal* pornography, which would have to use filtering software at the ISP side. This would block all access to sites that the software flagged as pornographic (e.g. they might contain the words "breast" or "scunthorpe"*) unless you opted in. In this case, knowing the URL wouldn't help.

*different filters from different designers will have different parameters; not all will block embedded terms like "Scunthorpe", but some do
 
Last edited:
Whilst I find myself completely irritated at the nanny state telling me what I can and can't view... I do agree with the founding idea that certain material (children/abuse) should be blocked. Not via the ISP (where it can be circumvented), but at source, with removal of the offending articles and prison time for the individuals hosting.

What we have here is a good idea, badly implemented and with little thought to the results. The result will, if it becomes as wide and all encompassing as the daily wail readers suggest, not last long IMO... How many times a minute will an ISP be happy to take a phone call because joe blogs wants to see some artwork, amongst their already busy days of calls before they just turn off the filter?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top