Nanny State: State Nanny David Cameron ‘orders new curbs on internet porn’ – Telegraph

If only there were an 14th-Amendment-alike Equal Protection clause in the UK, we could use this as an argument for state-provided free pornography.

Alas.

The new measures will mean that in future anyone buying a new computer or signing up with a new internet service provider (ISP) will be asked, when they log on for the first time, whether they have children.

If the answer is “yes”, the parent will be taken through the process of installing anti-pornography filters, as well as a series of questions on how stringent they wish the restrictions to be, according to a newspaper.

The options include allowing parents to impose timed access limits on explicit material, or preventing children from viewing social networking sites such as Facebook during particular hours of the day.

Ministers will also tell ISPs to impose “appropriate measures” to make sure that those setting the controls are over 18, according to the Daily Mail.

They will also be told to prompt existing customers to install the technology to block pornography.

via David Cameron ‘orders new curbs on internet porn’ – Telegraph.

3 thoughts on “Nanny State: State Nanny David Cameron ‘orders new curbs on internet porn’ – Telegraph

  1. Dave Walker

    While I consider this proposal to be the height of stupidity for a number of reasons unconnected with its technical feasibility, I wonder if anyone connected with this proposal has thought hard about how it might be achieved…

    Is HM Govt going to try to persuade / compel Apple, Microsoft and Google to incorporate this question into their product installers / configurators?

    What is required to happen when computers change hands?

    How are “computers” defined in this context – are tablets, smartphones etc to be included? What about servers – must the creators of Solaris, AIX etc also somehow be persuaded to include this question? What about the various Linuxes and BSDs?

    How is “pornography” defined in this context, and who is going to attempt to “categorise the whole of the Internet” in these terms?

    When considering the balance of risk of pornography being accessible, is functionality which might act to obfuscate content identification in the face of whitelisting and blacklisting, (such as access to caches and search engines) to be disabled by these “filters”?

    Reply
  2. Dave Walker

    More to the point, by what means is a user’s age supposed to be verified? AFAIK this is a problem which hasn’t been cracked yet, even though it’s been worked on since approximately 1994…

    Reply
  3. Stephen Usher

    Dave, indeed, all these are good questions. But, of course, this is all about the headline.

    Politicians hate people to spoil their story with devilish detail about how unworkable their latest popularist policy is.

    The big question is, what would be the penalty of lying about not having children. Sex Offender’s Register maybe?

    The problem is that it will take at least one or two lives to be destroyed by being taken through the courts until a judgement is made which strikes the law down. By then, the politicians who created it will be long gone and there’s always another paedophile witch hunt which can be started.

    “There’s no smoke without fire.” *cough* “Think of the children!” *cough*

    Reply

Leave a Reply