UK Government censorship

[sudayev 27]

You need to have that discussion with Vilas, Sudayev and Qazdar..........wasn't me that raised it or continued to defend the homophobic comments. I never thought it had any relevance in the 1st place. Shows you obviously havn't read the thread or are simply trolling.

Tell you what...

I haven't said anything offensive towards homosexuals, to be honest they don't bothers me - what bother me is this sick homoterror and gheypropaganda sponsored by the Brussels, moreover I didn't start this talk about equality of straight and homosexual couples - you started it with all the homosexual line of defense.

I mentioned heterosexual marriages and woman giving birth to children, children raised in normal homes where there is mother and father - if you can't handle it and call it homophobia - PISS OFF and go promote your progressive views somewhere in the gay corner of the internet.

Edited July 30, 2013 by Sudayev

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Tell you what...

I haven't said anything offensive towards homosexuals, to be honest they don't bothers me - what bother me is this sick homoterror and gheypropaganda sponsored by the Brussels, moreover I didn't start this talk about equality of straight and homosexual couples - you started it with all the homosexual line of defense.

I mentioned heterosexual marriages and woman giving birth to children, children raised in normal homes where there is mother and father - if you can't handle it and call it homophobia - PISS OFF and go promote your progressive views somewhere in the gay corner of the internet.

Page 1?

Porn today, so what's next? This is really unconstitutional to limit people from viewing certain and legal content :/ but knowing the British government they will probably leave homosexual porn accessible haha

page 7?

David Cameron: 'I want to export gay marriage around the world'

Double standards prevail! He wants to fight pornography, while on the other hand he promotes sexual deviations with all negative things related with homosexualism and desires them to spread around the globe. What kind of conservative politician he is? Why they are not promoting man+woman marriage and encourage people having children like mankind used to do since the beginning, what the fuck is wrong with this world?

So you didn't start it and didn't say anything homophobic? Memory problems? I actually ignored you twice, pg1 and the 'buttsex' comment pg8 If you are going to lie successfully you need a good memory ROFL ........ PS I'm sure if asked, gay people wouldn't be comfortable with being described as 'sexually deviant' (it's a form of mental illness) and equal rights being described as 'sick homoterror'? I just checked and that is universally described as a homophobic statement.

My 1st response is on page 8:

It's a question of equality, to have equality you have to allow both straight and gay couples the right of marriage. If you don't allow gay people to marry, you have partial equality, which doesn't make sense, does it? You might not like it, but if you think the principle of equality is correct, it's the only logical way forward. The UK was also signed up to various treaties on human rights which play a factor in this.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[spooky lynx 73]

See post #95 plus previous pages it isn't working because of numerous internet capable devices per household, phones/tablets/PC's etc. Please read the thread before posting.

Eh... I have the same antivirus at PC, laptop and smartphone, so it's not impossible to configure it. So it's only about time you need to spend on it. Oh and don't forget that it's not mandatory to provide your child with internet-capable device. I'd say children until 14-15 y.o. have nothing to do there. "Don't let the children surf the web, it becomed more stupid because of them"©

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Eh... I have the same antivirus at PC, laptop and smartphone,

Antivirus is not a webfilter, I can't find many true cross platform options and where there is one such as OpenDNS it involves installing new firmware on the router which isn't possible on the new fibre optic network in the UK (DNS settings are locked), ADSL is becoming obsolete unless you live in rural areas. In that case you either have to install new firmware /buy a new router.

The other option is to install separate web filters on each device which don't work on phones connecting to the home wi-fi and take much time to set up and monitor. There is also the problem of unfiltered public wi-fi provided by ISP's. Using the internet for research is a part of the national curriculum so you wouldn't be able to complete your education without it, therefore banning all children till the age of 15 isn't feasible.

That is why offering an optional network filter seemed to be the best option, it's already exists with some ISP's and there are few problems, the experts have looked into this, what you suggest was attempted over the past 5 years and didn't work, the average parent doesn't have the time or the knowledge to do the above. Already said this many, many times here.

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[spooky lynx 73]

Well if the parents do not have the time or especially the knowledge to take care of the children then they shouldn't have them. I may configure the web access in such way that my child will access only trusted sites at home. As for outside... There are many other nice things to do rather than surfing the web, so no smartphone with wi-fi/tablet/laptop - no problem of controlling the child.

[mrcash2009 0]

Children are being used as a scapegoat tool from this just like "the taxpayer" for us adults in the physical world. As mentioned before, bodies are set to report to (fund them more), software is abound with filtering options right up to router level for all. Needling ISP's with a guilt trip argument to spoon feed solutions is just a trojan for more ISP level filtering measures and business opportunities.

http://www.bcs.org/upload/pdf/about-wcit.pdf

These experts should be watched carefully.

It will be expanded and will continue, think of it like a Xbox on-line compared to a PC currently, if that's the avenue people want to go down ISP level then be very careful what you wish for on the basis of things needed to be spoon fed for the masses on your behalf, becuase getting back to the point of this thread, that is what it boils down too.

Seems you have an 'idee fixe' about Huawei?

Its important to note the links and infrastructure than just the simple front end and soft sell arguments. Affiliations, and business links are very interesting within all this. I also thought its links to the "east" might raise an eyebrow as you throw it around enough with you arguments, but it seems on this occasion its fine.

So far Mattar you have pushed for the case of what's needed and why, then at the same time shown how its easy to switch off and how its "optional" .. so I always ask, if its for protecting children (As i mentioned previous the media like to lump this into the entire paedophile/child killer on-line debate too) then what is the point of this ISP level when we have all this already local.

There is no porn ban, it's an optional filter, you can turn it off. You also don't know how it works ROFL, key words don't work like that.

So what on earth is the real point of it, who really does benefit with it being implemented. Install it ISP level (open to expand on a reaction and "needed" debate & request) based on something so far seems like a crappy filter you can turn off anyway and parents can and also children who have knowledge & access (seeing as the argument is about parents that know nothing and the children must do to be sniffing out porn online).

I understand businesses and college and so on, but they have their own servers/networks to do the exact thing anyway, also Wifi hotspots, cafe's and the like.

Its either a very convienience busniess deal, a poilitcal move to be seen to do something, a trojan horse idea for later expansion, or all of the above. For such a media debate about this and all the entire subject of children's safety online, it boils down to a crappy filter we have already.

Edited July 31, 2013 by mrcash2009
225

[spooky lynx 73]

3G modem I use for web access has some built-in filters. So it's up to me to decide what sites can be accessed via this modem.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Well if the parents do not have the time or especially the knowledge to take care of the children then they shouldn't have them. I may configure the web access in such way that my child will access only trusted sites at home. As for outside... There are many other nice things to do rather than surfing the web, so no smartphone with wi-fi/tablet/laptop - no problem of controlling the child.

So you would limit basic human rights and Article12 of the European Convention on Human Rights to people who can pass a computer literacy course? Can I ask what punishment you would judge fitting for those who get pregnant without passing your test? Let me guess your opposition to this is also based on a human rights argument, seems to be conflicing logic at work here? As for the rest too late, technology is already established in classrooms, there are millions of free public wi-fi access points, children will beg, borrow, steal devices. Some form of filter on public access and optional home filters is the most practicable method.

I'm not sure you realise that every BT router in the UK has public access wi-fi on it? This is legislation for the UK, you have to look at the circumstances in the UK. 99% don't access the web via a 3G dongle.

@MrCash - too funny, let me guess you think there is some sort of Freemasonry going on at the The Chartered Institute for IT? Please stop reading the David Icke info before you go completely nuts. There are hundreds of Chartered Institutes in the UK and I can promise you they are not involved in any grand conspiracy and to the best of my knowledge there are no 'lizard men' ROFL. That terminology is standard under a Royal Charter, it's a bit of historical pageantry:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Charter

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[mrcash2009 0]

@MrCash - too funny, let me guess

Should have ended your cliché waffle at this point, utterly off topic and not even remotely relevant.

Edited July 31, 2013 by mrcash2009
225

[spooky lynx 73]

So I would leave this stuff to parents. Either they control their children's access to web fully or let the children surf freely. Other regulations and filters hitting everybody won't be useful.

[mrcash2009 0]

So I would leave this stuff to parents. Either they control their children's access to web fully or let the children surf freely. Other regulations and filters hitting everybody won't be useful.

In a nutshell I agree completely.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

So I would leave this stuff to parents. Either they control their children's access to web fully or let the children surf freely. Other regulations and filters hitting everybody won't be useful.

It is being left to parents, it can be enabled/disabled by them and the content adjusted by them, the acount holder can turn it off so it isn't hitting everybody. I don't think you understand how it works.

If you want the full reasoning and some detail is here:

https://www.gov.uk/government/speeches/the-internet-and-pornography-prime-minister-calls-for-action

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[spooky lynx 73]

I'd repeat, you can already make your own filters with both hardware and software methods, it's only a matter of will and some time. So there's no need for any extra filters at ISP level.

[mrcash2009 0]

It is being left to parents,

No its not becuase if it was it wouldn't be required.

it can be enabled/disabled by them and the content adjusted by them

It can already with features that exist currently without ISP level introduction.

the acount holder can turn it off so it isn't hitting everybody.

The account holder can "opt out" but it shows its on first (nudge nudge) and it does hit everybody in this case becuase its at ISP level and not local.

If you want the full reasoning and some detail is here:

Camerons speech doesn't answer the questions people have, it started it.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

I'd repeat, you can already make your own filters with both hardware and software methods, it's only a matter of will and some time. So there's no need for any extra filters at ISP level.

I'd repeat what I already told you, that might be the case in Russia, with fibreoptic broadband using specialised routers with locked DNS it isn't actually possible, do keep up.

The software method is easily overridden by resetting the device or reinstalling the OS.

Most of the routers supplied by ISP's will not allow you to change the DNS settings, and changing them on each device is not always possible, and is easily overridden.

You also need to use a router with a firewall that can block port 53 requests, otherwise people can bypass OpenDNS by changing the DNS settings on their device.

So no..........the easiest method is a web filter where you can controll all the devices in your home from your ISP acount page.

Do you also think that ISP filters don't exist yet? Nearly all phone networks provide them and a 1/3rd of ISP's already have them. There is no major change here apart from the default being 'on' when you buy the service. You just have to turn it off. You really need to know what you are talking about here.......

[batto 17]

Why is Justin Brieber considered safe for children. It's obvious he's not safe for maturing children?

In all seriousness why is porn considered unsafe for children? (I'm serious)

Why is access to information about drugs considered unsafe for children?

[mrcash2009 0]

There is no major change here apart from the default being 'on' when you buy the service. You just have to turn it off.

Nudge, nudge.

There is, the push for the debate and government side involvement and the media's push to envelope this thing into the complete child killers online angle, and they are not the same. We are not the ones blurring such lines and mixing the debate or exaggerating as can be seen when you switch the TV on. And again a one size fits all approach isn't the best way and is a rocky road to continue down when the next set of filters get added due to some other society issue and debate pushed forward for people to "react" too and accept.

I say it again, for something so simple to remove then why bother as thats no safety. Its about acceptance of the installation at this stage.

Edited July 31, 2013 by mrcash2009
225

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Why is Justin Brieber considered safe for children. It's obvious he's not safe for maturing children?

You have my full support there, I hope the little brat gets filtered lol. Step on Bieber campaign:

http://sports.yahoo.com/blogs/nhl-puck-daddy/justin-bieber-revenge-blackhawks-fans-step-singer-face-234024433.html

Edited July 31, 2013 by Mattar_Tharkari

[batto 17]

... You just have to turn it off ...

Why not turn it ON instead?

Which'll probably bring us to:

Why is porn considered unsafe for children?

Why is access to information about drugs considered unsafe for children?

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Trolls working in shifts now?

[batto 17]

Trolls working in shifts now?

That's really lame way to evade answer. I'm dead serious.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

That's really lame way to evade answer. I'm dead serious.

There is much scientific literature on the internet about why looking at porn is bad for kids, start there 1st. It's not drug advice sites that are filtered it's sites promoting drug use and sales.

[batto 17]

There is much scientific literature on the internet about why looking at porn is bad for kids, start there 1st.

Redirecting me to scientific literature is not enough. I don't have time to read it anyway. A lot of my friends including me grew up on porn and we're no rapists, murderers, ... Why is it such big issue now? Is it really so serious that something needs to be done with it?

It is a strange dichotomy we have about sex and violence.

In Denmark they rate movies according to the violent content but not the sex.

In the US we rate movies just the opposite.

A movie has to be over-the-top violent before we think twice about letting small children see it. We allow children to play very violent video games. Yet, with even the most mild pornography, we recoil in horror that a minor should glance at it.

We have a rather dumb, Spartan like attitude, in that exposing children to violence somehow builds character while exposure to sexuality brings weakness.

---------- Post added at 10:55 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:41 PM ----------

So you turn something that's NOT issue into issue and then refer other to "scientific material" (where?) to verify that it's really issue?

[Brain 12]

. A lot of my friends including me grew up on porn and we're no rapists, murderers, ... Why is it such big issue now?

Me and nearly all my friends, too. I do not know one girl/boy that grew up with porn and went pregnant/father underage. However I know 3 girls from strict households that grew up with no porn and believing that the earth is 5,000 years old and dinosaur bones were put into the ground to test our faith that went pregnant with 16 and 17, before finishing school.

[Mattar_Tharkari 10]

Me and nearly all my friends, too. I do not know one girl/boy that grew up with porn and went pregnant/father underage. However I know 3 girls from strict households that grew up with no porn and believing that the earth is 5,000 years old and dinosaur bones were put into the ground to test our faith that went pregnant with 16 and 17, before finishing school.

That's nothing to do with porn - it's the parenting. Unaffectionate or authoritative parenting can create an emotional void, particularly in women. It's very damaging and can last and last. It's very sad when you think about it.