>"Well I can tell you today we are changing that. We are closing the loophole - making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape."

>"The coalition government has pledged to prevent abuse of women and girls, so tackling a culture that glorifies abuse is critical for achieving this," she said.

>"Let me be clear to any offender who might think otherwise: there is no such thing as a safe place on the internet to access child abuse material," he said.

>A spokesman for Google said: "We have a zero tolerance attitude to child sexual abuse imagery. Whenever we discover it, we respond quickly to remove and report it

Sounds good. Maybe problematic about what might end up in your webcache.

>Mr Cameron also called for some "horrific" internet search terms to be "blacklisted", meaning they would automatically bring up no results on websites such as Google or Bing.

Only problems maybe I would have if I lived there, would be figuring out people to blacklist. And maybe searches about like, movies where this kinda thing is just mentioned but not played for pandering.

>The filters would apply to all devices linked to the affected home Wi-Fi network and across the public Wi-Fi network "wherever children are likely to be present".

This makes sense.

>In his speech, Mr Cameron said family-friendly filters would be automatically selected for all new customers by the end of the year - although they could choose to switch them off.

>And millions of existing computer users would be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to use or not use "family-friendly filters" to restrict adult material.
Ehmmmm sounds VERY inconvenient. Fucking sickos ended up causing trouble for everyone else to get porn over there.

>Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks

>A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it
Neat apparently.

Between this and that whole "25% of the world's surveillance equipment" thing, no UKfag can ever lecture another 1st world nation on freedom. They have officially begun their Dystopian Era.

It's an opt in/out thing, basically. All you will have to do is untick a checkbox somewhere. It's to stop babbies googling "lady breasts" when their mums are busy cooking dinner or whatever, it's not banning all porn forever for everyone. It won't work anyway, just like the anti-rape porn law (that already in "effect" in Scotland).

>>382056
First it's having to call for your porn, then it's getting a barcode tattoo and being forced to relocate. This is how it starts Tooth.

>>382054
>making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape
Does that only extend to real-life porn (in which case that's wonderful), or does that cover drawn/obviously not real stuff? Because call me a hypocritical feminist, but sometimes I'm in a particularly depraved mood and the only thing that can get me off is some good old tentacle hentai, and I don't think that's worthy of jail time or surveillance so long as it's not CP.

>>382058
The UK has always defaulted to treating drawn and real porn as the same thing.

>>382057
According to everyone outside the UK, it sounds like it.

>>382058
It will include drawn porn at least but like I said, we have the same law North of the border and it changed absolutely nothing. Pic related, breaking the law. It's not going to be implemented and if it is, it will be easy to bypass (like with torrent sites, which are banned on some ISPs here).

>>382058
Is assault by a non-sentient tentacle monster considered rape or just a general animal attack, and if the latter is possession of such considered an expression of bestiality despite not being a depiction of it due to being non-consensual on the part of the fictional human? And is asking silly questions like this at all appropriate for this thread?

Police state gonna police state. Glad I don't live there, tooth and the rest of you should move here when it becomes too unbearable.

>>382059
lol for real?

Um, this sucks on multiple levels. I don't want my internet filtered in any respect, let alone on the Network Level, where there is very little I can do that doesn't make me look illegal to get this stuff.

I'd much prefer the idea of making "http://xxx.*.whatever" a top-level domain, then including white- and black-listing software in individual browsers that parents can control and lock as necessary.

Like, parental controls on DVDs don't really work, what are you expecting here and what are you going to do if there is a deliberate campaign to thwart this system? It's a terrible idea all around for which there are already better solutions that have not been explored as thoroughly.

And why does everybody get retarded-protective of their kids anytime something could possible "corrupt" them comes along? Because it's so stupid and so ignorant on so many levels.

>>382060
>streaming

>>382066
I used to support the idea of a .xxx gTLD (which we now have, I think), but after reading discussion on it I came to understand the idea as flawed. The point of .xxx is that you want to create a section of the internet that is easily walled off from kids; the problem with this is stuff like defining porn, defining legal porn, and then governments making laws that something MUST use .xxx and begin throwing all sorts of stuff they don't like in that list (Marijuana? Nope! .xxx for you!) to make it easier to block access to it for anyone.

Instead of making a black-list like that, which can have false positives or just enemy positives (where someone else doesn't like X and forces you to include it), if the goal is to protect kids then there should be a curated, opt-in white list, like a .kids domain name. Then you make a kid-friendly version or mode of a browser that can only go to .kids domain names (which makes it easier for the kid, too, as they just have to type in "sesame street" or click on a number of included icons that are links to sites.)

This way the helicopter parents and nanny government types can maintain their walled garden of the internet to the level they wish, and we mature adults can use the internet as we like to find donkey shows.

>>382072
Which is unfortunate, though to be clear, the white-lists and black-lists I want would ideally not be government-controlled, but rather like AdBlock, with some public -blacklists and the ability to add and remove sites by browser, not universal rule.

I feel like setting up a "whitezone" for kids just kind of puts a big target on the whole idea. Like, it would be easier for adults to get into the kids zone and do some actual damage before being banned than it would be for parents to control the access to the net proper for their kid via a passworded browser extension.

I hate that notion of "The Government should protect our children". Yeah? Then invest more money in schools and education, cause that's the only thing that's ever really gonna save them. Don't persecute the rest of us for being normal adults (or teenagers).

>>382078
The kids (I'm thinking through 8ish) wouldn't interact with anyone unless someone was reading a story live and the kid could press a button for what would happen next or something. At worst some adult could spam the button, but there would be no uploading of images or chat or anything that they could use get their jollies by scar(r)ing kids.

That's the point of a .kids white-list: it's a locked down zone with rules and guidelines about what can be done on a site, including interaction (if any) with other visitors. The damage a nefarious teen/adult (but mostly teen) could do would be extremely limited.

The problem with bills like this is, who decides what is "horrific". Lucky, at the moment it's an option, but it's still a bit controlling and presumptuous.

And there's stuff like:
>But Ms Perry argued filters would make a difference, saying that the killers of schoolgirls April Jones and Tia Sharp had accessed legal pornography before moving on to images of child abuse.
Which seems to assume that it's just a natural flow, like a "gateway drug" and not the result of an already diseased mind.

A problem like this needs to be solved at the roots with programs for mental wellness during sexual development. (Could still be touchy as who is to determine what's "well").
Simply trying to block the stream will just make it pop up in other places. It's a bandage, not a cure.

What happened
>Camerons kid showed him 2 girls 1 cup
>he flipped out and is overreacting

I'm going to lol when they ban Game of Thrones because it features rape and "child porn".

>>382085
>a bit controlling and presumptuous
>a bit
Yeah, no... this is downright scary. Try to realize just how much effort any elected tard would need to take even this "choice" away from people. About 2 seconds to delete the code for the click box.
Once the infrastructure to block it is in place, it's there to stay, and it will be used to the fullest.

>>382085
>Simply trying to block the stream will just make it pop up in other places. It's a bandage, not a cure.
>A bleeding wound that just opens up somewhere else on your body if you try to bandage it.
I consider this imagery horrific.

>>382097
An oozing pus sore that you can cover up but it keeps leaking and the bandaid simply slips off as the slick pus inactivates the glue on the bandage, and the built up pressure pops it off.

Worst part is, people who voice against it will be labeled perverts, or worse child molesters and rapists.

>>382115
And yet, we all should voice against.

>>382118
Unless you have a child you want to shelter from the world.

>A secure database of banned child pornography images gathered by police across the country will be used to trace illegal content and the paedophiles viewing it

When that doesn't work (they're all on proxies, you idiots), I know exactly where we go from here. Basically, they will have free reign to access the entire contents of your hard drive through your network, scanning it for matches to the CP images in their database. Search warrant? Who needs it?? The internet is free of jurisdiction!

Of course, once they do so, what's to stop them from finding copyrighted movies/music you downloaded? Nothing!

What's to stop them from seeing if you are using any less-than-perfectly-legitimate software? Nothing!

What's to stop them from reading your IM chat logs? Nothing!

And what's to stop them from arresting/prosecuting you for anything they find on there which is suspicious? Again, nothing! If it's for the children (or to stop terrorists), anything goes.


"As long as government is perceived as working for the benefit of children, the people happily will endure almost any curtailment of liberty."
~ Rabbi Daniel Lapin

>>382121
If I had a child, I would make sure I have enough control over online content. I would CERTAINLY limit Internet time for each day, and instal the best parental control possible. Modern parents don't care what their children get exposed to. I will not be like those "parents".

>>382123
The UK government says you'd be a shit parent, fuck you, they'll make the decisions.

>>382123
>>382124
See, this is what I don't get. If the government is so bent on "protecting children" of horrible parents, why not simply expand foster programs to educate and provide for children throughout their entire childhood, and then offer this program to horrible parents.

Leave the rest of the parents (good ones) to raise their kids as they see fit.

>>382126
1. the cost of that system would be enormous
2. foster care is fucking terrible to begin with
3. taking children away from their parents except in cases where their lives are in danger is damaging to everyone involved
4. it's not child abuse/neglect if you don't closely monitor and restrict your child's internet adventures
5. your post was stupid and you should feel bad about it

>>382123
>Modern parents don't care what their children get exposed to.

This is probably no where close to being true.

>>382122
Deep breaths man. Basically all that shit has come true already, just for the American government. FBI already has such a database that they use to try and track this shit, and they already have all that wiretapping noise going on. Tracking down every single person and persecuting (or prosecuting) them because of what's on their hard drive is untenable. Mostly what's stopping them is time, money, and the fact that they can't pay to just go after you unless you're actually doing dirt.

>>382147
>Tracking down every single person and persecuting (or prosecuting) them because of what's on their hard drive is untenable.
That's not the main reason to keep criminal files on populace. Mainly the file isn't used unless a person gets out of hand and starts causing trouble, only then is it used to "legally" slap them down.

This has been the method of suppression in USSR for ages, it's still used in PRC and elsewhere.

Whenever I hear about a government spying, part of me wants to laugh, because 99.9% of stuff people do has nothing to do with government secrets, and the majority of that stuff isn't illegal in other venues. They're wasting a lot of their time just sifting through a lot of irrelevant stuff.

>>382236
99.9% of stuff Adam Lanza did wasn't legal.

>>382240
I'm just saying in general, not specifically to any one case.

>>382241
Read >>382148

NSA and MI5 aren't looking for things to instantly arrest you, but minor stuff that can be filed and used later.

>>382242
Please disregard my original post. I thought I was replying to one thing, and it was really another.

>blah blah 'protecting the innocence of our children'

Goodbye, paheal. But seriously, they will probably include cartoon depictions.

In the modern world I'd be more scared of my kids being sheltered than traumatized.

If I ever reproduce, I'll expose my kids to all kinds of healthy trauma.

>>382260

It's like with the immune system: you have pets in the house with your baby, let them play in the dirt, put stuff in their mouth, and they're less likely to have food/environment allergies, because their little immune systems have been primed to handle all sorts of things. Expose a kid to all sorts of "grownup" ideas and media, and as long as they have a context for interpretting and handling it, they'll be able to deal.

>>382335
...Or be irremediably scarred for life or obsessed, might miss some good childhood fun because he's trying to do behave and think like an adult etc.

At some point he might also realize "damn, my dad is really fucked up".

>>382336
There is that balance, mostly you don't want to be really leading them down serious paths until they're turning 12 or so. After that they'll be much better at handling the complex shit.

But it's about how you lead them and how you take care of them before that that sets the standards of kindness, curiosity and so on for them. Certainly in this day and age that might be a little more necessary than not, though if you're handing a kid a cell phone at like age 8 I'm not really sure what you're doing (even knowing that plenty of kids have cellphones like that).

>>382260
>expose my kids to all kinds of trauma
ok that reads way worse than it sounded in my head.

>>382336
Childs brain is stimulated by situation > child forms a reaction to it > this becomes part of their personality in adulthood. The theory is that this reaction can be edited and modified over and over again by things like talks with parents, or other events that bring it into context. Although the only thing we do know for sure about this stupid pathway is that when we try something like removing stimuli we end up with sheltered children that can't deal with the real world.

Besides I don't see the point in blocking porn but then encouraging your population to send their kids to public school, where things like sex are part of everyday conversation for kids. My nephew knew about 2 girls 1 cup long before I did, and it didn't even fucking faze him. (Or >>382339 give them cell phones and laptops.)

If I had a kid, I'd consider giving them at some point a computer that only supports a command-line interface. I figure text would be generally less harmful (and also less distracting) than graphics because it requires more imagination to really give a visceral sense of anything, so it'd be good to start out with that and gain access to images later. Also, a command line's demands of perfect syntax would help with typing skills. Of course, if I did that I'd make sure to let them use a console for vidya, but then the new consoles all have browsers built into them...

>>382339
>>382342
Look, I grew up in the 80s and 90s. I didn't care much for sex (more like "making love") scenes in movies (or horror movies as a side note), and found the other kids at school annoying trying to pass as grown ups talkig about "hot bitches" and all (well that and regular school kid behavior). Eventually got into hentai, started watching horror movies etc, but it happened naturally as I got older. I figure maybe it's not the perfect way, but it -kinda- worked for my generation, so I know what you're talking about. The internet kinda changed the rules of the game, I suppose, while TV got more and more censored later on.

Blocking all the porn is pretty damn inconvenient, specially when people like being DISCREET about viewing it, and we're talking about english people here, mind you, so that's kind of a big deal. As for the "rape" ban, nothing of value is lost. You can hardly google some cartoons without bumping into porn and sometimes REAL fucked up shit at that, and like >>382060 said it's easy to bypass, so it's more of a control than anything. Kids don't need mind-scarring pics of the characters they like involved in rape, realistic gore or crap like that on their heads when they go to watch a cartoon.

Actually it would be funny if England suddenly became way more productive with less internet porn. I mean, people lived without it pretty well for the longest time, and some of the time spent looking at porn/fapping/resting can probably get other uses too.

>>382350
>Actually it would be funny if England suddenly became way more productive with less internet porn. I mean, people lived without it pretty well for the longest time, and some of the time spent looking at porn/fapping/resting can probably get other uses too.

Nope. If you take away internet porn, people will just resort to what they did back in the day before it was invented. Dirty magazines, DVDs, cable channels, and ogling the ladies in the Victoria's Secret Sears catalog.

>>382372
Still wasn't as constant as internet porn. And hardly sneaked into the work hours as much.

>>382372
>>382391
Well I guess one nice thing from this is that we could get some observations on the subject, even if they won't be very scientific.
...Hmmm. Now I want to set up a bunch of near-identical office rooms with randomly selected workers and give them all identical work, with a randomly selected half getting their internet filtered and the other half not. Unfortunately, I don't have the resources or a background in sociology.