15 3 mins 9 yrs

This is the thin end of the wedge in my view and to viewed with alarm by anyone who values the freedom of the internet.

Every household in the UK is to have pornography blocked by their internet provider unless they choose to receive it, David Cameron is to announce. In addition, the prime minister will say possessing online pornography depicting rape will be illegal. In a speech, Mr Cameron will warn that access to online pornography is “corroding childhood”. Search engines will be given until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content. Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop) will be given enhanced powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks.

Let’s deal with the basics.

OF COURSE child abuse imagery is wrong and those who both produce it and seek it out should be prosecuted and put behind bars. I support the work that Ceop does and think giving them more power is a good idea. But since WHEN do politicians get to tell us what we can lawfully see on-line?

Making pornography an “opt-in” choice for millions of people SOUNDS ok but what will be next? Do we set the precedent that politicians can make OTHER topics also “opt in” lest it offend their precious sensibilities? How many people does Cameron seek to criminalise for simply choosing what they want to see online. Pornography is as old as the hills and this instance of Nannyism, brought to you by an allegedly “Conservative” prime minister, will do nothing to assuage appetites  for such. But from my point of view it raises the spectre of politicians making something which is lawful a crime and that then makes me wonder where they stop next? Shall we ensure “opt in” for certain genres of music? How about books? How about websites? I don’t TRUST politicians and in this case, whilst the intent seems fair enough to a degree, I seriously wonder what else lies behind it? my live in the era of neo-puritanism where the freedoms of the net are being closely examined by a political class which itself is as big a menace as anything a search engine will produce.

Click to rate this post!
[Total: 0 Average: 0]

15 thoughts on “NANNY CAMERON AND THE WEB…

  1. Cameron and the Tories are toast.

    Why, even the Duchess of Cambridge is now in Labour.

  2. Does everyone here agree that child pornography should be banned?

    That it should be a crime to sell it, to buy it, to download it?

    And that measures should be taken to prevent it from existing on any servers etc.?

    Does anyone have any problem with that?

  3. It’s banned already.

    Cameron’s demonstrated before that he has no idea about the web. All that nasty stuff is in the deep web anyway. It’s already beyond the reach of google and ISPs.

    I heard on BBC 5 Live this morning that this idea of Cameron’s includes a proposal to create a government database of people who opt in to allow porn in searches. The result will be other solutions. The web is too free wheeling and innovative for clunky old government to get to grips with.

  4. Does everyone here agree that child pornography should be banned?

    I do

    That it should be a crime to sell it, to buy it,

    yes

    to download it?

    Not sure as I have been that if you have it on your screen it means you have downloaded it. That can happen by accident. (Of course appropriate law enforcement should be excluded). If you go hunting for it specifically then that is another matter.

    And that measures should be taken to prevent it from existing on any servers etc.?

    If possible that seems to me to be the best solution.

  5. It would be possible to download it by accident, but it would be very unlikely to download it by accident repeatedly.

    Pete do you agree with the ban on buying / selling / trading / keeping of such material ? I see this as an inherently evil wrong product whose existence can never be justified on any free speech or any other grounds.

  6. This is an utterly pointless endeavour, and will be a waste of time and money.

    The internet is already uncontrollable, and content stored on cloud servers is untouchable.

    No matter what filters any ISP may apply, something as simple as a free proxy server will bypass it.

  7. Phantom
    I would agree a repeated pattern is unlikely to be innocent. Although I suppose there are sites which deal in young people only just legal and people looking for them could bring up other stuff – not “innocent” but not intent to break the law.

    Much as I wish it weren’t so, I suspect Sarah is right.

  8. Once again Politian’s show a level of ignorance about technology and the internet that even the average five year old could put these morons to shame. Search engines are just that, search engines. They don’t control access to content, they just find it. Most of the worst stuff out there is not found using a search engine, it’s shared via underground sites by sick groups with a common interest. Also ISP’s can only block DNS name resolution, all these people will do is use ip addresses to access their extreme material.

    As usual they have a wishy-washy definition of what’s illegal. Will the films A clockwork orange and Hostel 2 be getting banned to name just two?

  9. Phantom –

    “Pete do you agree with the ban on buying / selling / trading / keeping of such material ?”

    No.

    I agree with everyone here on the nature of that stuff, but government always proves that it will impinge on our liberties in trying to demonstrate it is the only solution to today’s evil.

    A clampdown on online child abuse is technically impossible, but we’ll end up with a mandatory licencing scheme for women who want to flash their tits online.

  10. The perfect should never be the enemy of the good. As is often stated, the ancient laws against murder haven’t stopped new murders from being committed, yet murder does remain illegal, and should.

    The fact that 100% of the internet is ” uncontrollable ” does not mean that it should not be a major crime to buy, sell or keep images which cannot be separated from the grave crimes that are at the heart of the enterprise.

    I endorse such laws, and I endorse the use of our public resources to track down and lock up those who traffic in this abuse.

  11. But it’s already illegal to any of that. Search engines and ISPs already filter that stuff out. This is just today’s evil. Tomorrow government will find something else to save us from.

  12. If it were not a crime to offer the images then someone would creat ” NAMBLA Image ISP ”

    That is an advantage of the law being there – this is prevented, and a certain number of perverts or trafficers are prosecuted.

  13. Phantom:

    I endorse such laws, and I endorse the use of our public resources to track down and lock up those who traffic in this abuse.

    These laws already exist Phantom and have been used many times.

  14. I am quite aware of that.

    I have asked if he thought that the laws should exist.

    There are super duper libertarians who think that such laws should not exist, if you can possibly believe that.

Comments are closed.