ISP to block porn

Dave666 · July 22nd, 2013, 09:24 AM

Well it looks like it's going to happen. The Daily Mail readership & the moral minority seem to have got their way. So a return to the days of video nasties and "violent" video games.

As usual instead of being able to accept that some members of society are sick and evil and will perform these sickening acts on society we get a convenient just block acess reaction. Parents should be checking what their children are up to, I did. Perhaps giving children electronic devices asnd tvs and DVD players in their bedrooms should be examined.

I do also have concerns as to exactly what these filters will block out as well. Access to political and media sites that don't fit the views of Big Brother. So whilst I fully support a internet wide ban on child pornographer I do have doubts about the overall affect on sites in a wide range of subjects suddenly not being accessible. These days if I want to check on a news story I tend to trawl the internet to get the full picture. The BBC for example is certainly biassed in the way it presents several stories without giving the whole picture.

KieferRhys · July 22nd, 2013, 09:38 AM

I have my concerns with the "What about the Children?" bleeding hearters, but some of the concerns have some backbone to them, eg Googling almost any girls name leads to a porn site.
That aside, my concern is that I predict that once you opt in to receive porn, I'm gonna start getting targeted by every sex related site out there jamming up my inbox. Things have been pretty good lately, it's been ages since I've seen any mention of Viagra, and more importantly, dialers seem to have died a death. Stuff that's just as insidious and annoying awaits us when we say "Yes I stand up to receive Porn!"

**exfarmer** · July 22nd, 2013, 10:50 AM

As far as I'm aware this blocking is to remove access to underage porn and not all porn, that is a good thing. Any and all porn featuring minors should be blocked/removed and by any means necessary.

Pepe26 · July 22nd, 2013, 02:22 PM

Hey exfarmer as I understand it, it is also to block illegal IP all together.
It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff) unless you opt in.

No one would argue with the first part, but it seems our internet freedoms are being needlessly (further?) eroded with the second part?

MaxJoker · July 22nd, 2013, 02:49 PM

Nothings going to happen , it`s more talk talk squawk so that sanctimonious chinless cnut can promote himself.

He`s about as genuine as easy cheese from a can

How about tracking down and turning into mulch all those that make such twisted sights huh.

Not like they couldn`t do it if the will was there. Especially as by all accounts for the last decade everything any of us has ever written , up/down loaded or even sent by phone has been copied and salted away for future reference.

So why not hunt and literally burn all creators ,producers and backers of such sickening destructive imagery

Or could it be that`ll never happen because our "Elites" enjoy seeing the young treated in such a deployable manner and get off on it.

Hey somebody protected Jimmy Savile and his "Parties" for years

Yeah old Davey boy cares about the children, he cares about an ending to suffering.

Cares so much he spends five billion on a fleet of new indiscriminate killing drones, while cutting the disability budget by two billion

**BigBucket** · July 22nd, 2013, 02:58 PM

What I want to know is, what has Chinless Camerongot to hide. Isnt that the political norm, sweep rotten news under less rotten news.

What is he trying to hide.

**exfarmer** · July 22nd, 2013, 03:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pepe26

Hey exfarmer as I understand it, it is also to block illegal IP all together.
It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff) unless you opt in.

No one would argue with the first part, but it seems our internet freedoms are being needlessly (further?) eroded with the second part?

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your post. What is illegal IP?

"It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff)" surely that means blocking the whole internet?

"unless you opt in" so opt in, this is all about blocking the sick underage stuff so only people viewing that really have anything to fear.

**BigBucket** · July 22nd, 2013, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exfarmer

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your post. What is illegal IP?

"It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff)" surely that means blocking the whole internet?

"unless you opt in" so opt in, this is all about blocking the sick underage stuff so only people viewing that really have anything to fear.

Thats not the issue, the issue is that this is the thin edge of the wedge, how long will it be until news sites are blocked or any other sites that the government deems 'a threat'

I fear this move to block child porn sites as laudable as it is will be used to drive in a thousand other restrictions via the back door.

China/ Iran / UK anyone?

Pepe26 · July 22nd, 2013, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by exfarmer

I'm sorry, but I really don't understand your post. What is illegal IP?

"It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff)" surely that means blocking the whole internet?

"unless you opt in" so opt in, this is all about blocking the sick underage stuff so only people viewing that really have anything to fear.

Sorry I meant that it will block illegal porn featuring children or rape. Which I think we would all back.

But it will also mean that all legal porn will be blocked unless you opt in. It's this second part that gets me? Why should access to legal porn be restricted?? I do think it's the thin edge of the wedge.

Just think of the increased police powers to stop and search which were introduced to counter terror then ended up being routinely used by the police to target whoever they liked.

Pepe26 · July 22nd, 2013, 03:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BigBucket

What I want to know is, what has Chinless Camerongot to hide. Isnt that the political norm, sweep rotten news under less rotten news.

What is he trying to hide.

Lets see now trying to hide:

1.) Privitisation of the NHS (anyone remember his pre-election pledge of no top down reorganisation of the NHS). If you want to see what privatisation will look like just look the the USA where they have by far the most expensive system but a system that is nothing like the best when compared to other health care systems around the world. Or if you want an example closer to home look at the privitisation of the railways in this country which has been a disaster for the consumer.
2.) Economy in the dumps as he let that imbecile Osborne loose on the economy. Go back and read where George Osborne originally forecast we would be and where we are now. It would be funny if it were not so depressing.
3.) They want to invite foreign companies to take our natural resources and pay no tax.

There are many others but if that doesn't piss you of nothing will.

July 22nd, 2013, 09:24 AM	#1
Dave666 Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 29 Thanks: 2,382 Thanked 356 Times in 28 Posts	ISP to block porn Well it looks like it's going to happen. The Daily Mail readership & the moral minority seem to have got their way. So a return to the days of video nasties and "violent" video games. As usual instead of being able to accept that some members of society are sick and evil and will perform these sickening acts on society we get a convenient just block acess reaction. Parents should be checking what their children are up to, I did. Perhaps giving children electronic devices asnd tvs and DVD players in their bedrooms should be examined. I do also have concerns as to exactly what these filters will block out as well. Access to political and media sites that don't fit the views of Big Brother. So whilst I fully support a internet wide ban on child pornographer I do have doubts about the overall affect on sites in a wide range of subjects suddenly not being accessible. These days if I want to check on a news story I tend to trawl the internet to get the full picture. The BBC for example is certainly biassed in the way it presents several stories without giving the whole picture.

July 22nd, 2013, 10:50 AM	#3
exfarmer avvie pic by Estreeter Join Date: Jan 2009 Location: Essex, England Posts: 13,737 Thanks: 109,422 Thanked 182,656 Times in 13,045 Posts	As far as I'm aware this blocking is to remove access to underage porn and not all porn, that is a good thing. Any and all porn featuring minors should be blocked/removed and by any means necessary. __________________ I no longer have time to upload videos, sorry.

July 22nd, 2013, 02:49 PM	#5
MaxJoker Beloved Brother Join Date: Mar 2008 Location: Cemetery Gardens_Arterial Blood Lane_Rampton Secure Unit_Extra Violent F Wing_Cell 19 Posts: 69,106 Thanks: 372,713 Thanked 987,560 Times in 69,067 Posts	Nothings going to happen , it`s more talk talk squawk so that sanctimonious chinless cnut can promote himself. He`s about as genuine as easy cheese from a can How about tracking down and turning into mulch all those that make such twisted sights huh. Not like they couldn`t do it if the will was there. Especially as by all accounts for the last decade everything any of us has ever written , up/down loaded or even sent by phone has been copied and salted away for future reference. So why not hunt and literally burn all creators ,producers and backers of such sickening destructive imagery Or could it be that`ll never happen because our "Elites" enjoy seeing the young treated in such a deployable manner and get off on it. Hey somebody protected Jimmy Savile and his "Parties" for years Yeah old Davey boy cares about the children, he cares about an ending to suffering. Cares so much he spends five billion on a fleet of new indiscriminate killing drones, while cutting the disability budget by two billion __________________ My hypocrisy only goes so To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 0 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

July 22nd, 2013, 09:38 AM	#2
KieferRhys Member Join Date: Oct 2010 Posts: 10 Thanks: 281 Thanked 99 Times in 10 Posts	I have my concerns with the "What about the Children?" bleeding hearters, but some of the concerns have some backbone to them, eg Googling almost any girls name leads to a porn site. That aside, my concern is that I predict that once you opt in to receive porn, I'm gonna start getting targeted by every sex related site out there jamming up my inbox. Things have been pretty good lately, it's been ages since I've seen any mention of Viagra, and more importantly, dialers seem to have died a death. Stuff that's just as insidious and annoying awaits us when we say "Yes I stand up to receive Porn!"

July 22nd, 2013, 02:22 PM	#4
Pepe26 Member Join Date: Feb 2008 Posts: 31 Thanks: 2,975 Thanked 226 Times in 26 Posts	Hey exfarmer as I understand it, it is also to block illegal IP all together. It is also to block all IP (including the legal stuff) unless you opt in. No one would argue with the first part, but it seems our internet freedoms are being needlessly (further?) eroded with the second part?

July 22nd, 2013, 02:58 PM	#6
BigBucket Vintage Member Join Date: Jun 2007 Location: The United Kingdom of Oppressed Peoples. Posts: 783 Thanks: 5,453 Thanked 11,405 Times in 770 Posts	What I want to know is, what has Chinless Camerongot to hide. Isnt that the political norm, sweep rotten news under less rotten news. What is he trying to hide.