+- The UK Babe Channels Forum (https://www.babeshows.co.uk)
+-- Forum: Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=8)
+--- Forum: UK Babe Channels (/forumdisplay.php?fid=9)
+---- Forum: Broadcasting Regulations (/forumdisplay.php?fid=138)
+---- Thread: Porn Filters (/showthread.php?tid=45765)
RE: [split] Ban Lads Mags - eccles - 29-08-2013 23:01
(28-08-2013 10:01 )Tintin Wrote: Check this out http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/looking-rape-porn-become-new-2073954
Is this really the most important thing in David Camerons calendar? Shouldn't he be focussing on Syria?
Daily Mirror Wrote:Looking at rape porn will become a new crime says David Cameron
Publishing the vile material is already a criminal offence but a legal loophole means people who look at it online are not breaking any law
Viewing porn that simulates rape is to be outlawed, David Cameron will announce today.
Publishing the vile material is already a criminal offence but a legal loophole means people who look at it online are not breaking any law.
The Prime Minister says this will change as a part of a major crackdown that he hopes will stem the tidal wave of filth on the internet.
He will reveal today: “We are closing the loophole, making it a criminal offence to possess internet pornography that depicts rape.”
“Possess” will be defined to include viewing the sick material in a web browser and the law will include explicit acts of rape staged by porn actors.
Other kinds of pornography so extreme that it cannot be bought in adult shops will also be outlawed online, the PM vows.
“Put simply, what you can’t get in a shop, you will no longer be able to get online,” he says.
Mr Cameron’s speech follows mounting concern about the effects of sick internet porn. The killers of Tia Sharp, 12, and April Jones, five, had both viewed rape porn and child porn online before enacting their vile fantasies with innocent little girls as the targets.
And experts warn that boys and young men are having their views of what is normal skewed by the extreme pictures and films they see online.The PM has threatened internet firms with fresh laws if they do not do more to stop perverts accessing and sharing child abuse images.
He also wants them to blacklist offensive search terms so that keying in words or phrases that relate to abuse brings up only blank pages.
The anti-porn measures also include setting up a single database of child abuse images to make it easier for police to catch the people who make and distribute them. And the existing Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, will get greater powers when it becomes part of the new National Crime Agency to be launched in October, already known as Britain’s FBI.
The new database will help crack down on the “hidden internet”, where perverts can share illegal images and videos.
The PM says: “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 warns Google, Yahoo, Bing and other web giants: “You have a duty to act on this – and it is a moral duty. I have called for a progress report in Downing Street in October. If the progress is slow or non-existent then we are already looking at the legislative options to force action.
“Set your greatest brains to work on this. You are not separate from our society – you are part of our society and you must play a responsible role in it.
“This is quit simply about obliterating this disgusting material from the net – and we will do whatever it takes.”
Simulated rape? Don't get me wrong, rape is vile and I wonder about anyone who gets off watching it, but care needs to be taken before banning actors pretending to do something.
Does that mean Straw Dogs would be banned? Or In The Cut with Meg Ryan?
What about S&M material that that shows a woman in apparent distress apparently being hurt, but which is not actually sexually explicit?
And why just rape? What about other material that could be said to encourage an unhealthy interest in illegal or self destructive activities? Any BBFC rated film showing a frustrated cop or citizen taking the law into their own hands? Any BBFC rated film showing junkies shooting up? Trainspotting?
Joy riding?
What about BBC series Hustle depicting systematic theft with positive outcomes?
Robin Hood? A band of criminals on the run use potentially lethal weapons to perpetuate their lifestyle and run rings around the authorities, particularly when bows & arrows or BB guns are easily available, even for impressionable teens.
"Other kinds of pornography so extreme that it cannot be bought in adult shops will also be outlawed online"
Does this mean anything that would not get a UK BBFC R18 certificate, or just extreme porn?
To give two examples, squirting and fisting are banned in R18 but legal in almost every country, including respected partner nations like the USA, France and Germany.
"part of a major crackdown that he hopes will stem the tidal wave of filth on the internet"
Only 30% of parents want or bother to use ISP filters that they already have.
That means 70% are not bothered or exercise proper parental control.
Is this a personal moral crusade against the wishes of 70% or more of the population?
And look around. There is less porn in the shops than ever before. Hedge porn is a thing of the past. Ban porn on the internet for many and porn mags and DVDs will return, and shopkeepers will do what they always did and sell it to 15 year olds.
RE: Porn Filters - The Silent Majority - 04-09-2013 10:37
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23954447
RE: Porn Filters - SOCATOA - 04-09-2013 10:58
(04-09-2013 10:37 )The Silent Majority Wrote:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-23954447
Think we all know they are a bunch of wankers
RE: Porn Filters - munch1917 - 04-09-2013 18:39
^^^ No doubt they'll use the Pete Townsend defence, "I was doing it for research"
RE: Porn Filters - mido - 06-09-2013 08:14
(29-08-2013 23:01 )eccles Wrote: Is this really the most important thing in David Camerons calendar? Shouldn't he be focussing on Syria?
I find this comment very hypocritical from someone who launched a (low scale) petition wanting big DC to set aside some priority time for discussing allowing more freedom for watching babeshows when really his calendar should have been filled with sorting out a number of issues we had and still have within the UK economy.
Is it ok for him to devote this time when it gets you something that you want, but not when it takes something away?
RE: [split] Ban Lads Mags - Captain Vimes - 06-09-2013 17:27
(29-08-2013 23:01 )eccles Wrote: And look around. There is less porn in the shops than ever before. Hedge porn is a thing of the past.
To be fair, Hedge porn should be banned.
Look at this sick individual stroking his hedge and getting off on it while his friend watches. Sick, sick, sick!
![[Image: trimmingHedges.jpg]](http://www.gardensandlandscapes.co.uk/images/trimmingHedges.jpg)
These people who do this sort of stuff need locking up.
RE: Porn Filters - eccles - 06-09-2013 21:38
(06-09-2013 08:14 )mido Wrote:(29-08-2013 23:01 )eccles Wrote: Is this really the most important thing in David Camerons calendar? Shouldn't he be focussing on Syria?
I find this comment very hypocritical from someone who launched a (low scale) petition wanting big DC to set aside some priority time for discussing allowing more freedom for watching babeshows when really his calendar should have been filled with sorting out a number of issues we had and still have within the UK economy.
Is it ok for him to devote this time when it gets you something that you want, but not when it takes something away?
Erm, I don't recall asking the Government to drop everything immediately and ignore a crisis where lives are being lost daily, and the Government consists of more than just the PM - the Media Culture & Secretary would probably not be devoting their time to international affairs.
The Government is now demanding "voluntary" adult filters on all internet access, and it has now emerged that this will also apply to VPNs (Virtual Private Networks used for secure communication between company sites, or for people working at home or remote sites). This could mean that confidential communications between senior designers or executives at, say BAE, could be at risk of interception by the foreign companies running the adult filters, potentially resulting in contract bids being beaten or World beating designs being copied. Like Concorde. At best that means loss of British jobs.
It also creates a risk of communications by social workers working from home being intercepted or blocked and paedophile rings being tipped off. What should be 1-2-1 communications become open to others, and there are regular reports of people in positions of trust selling details to newspapers, detective agencies and big business, so it would be quite possible for a few people running these systems to leak or sell details.
Because the internet adult filters will be "voluntary" it will not be possible to challenge them in court.
Adult filters will be operated by experts in the field, effectively unaccountable private companies or charities, staffed by people willing to spend all day categorising porn and other material in order to keep children safe. Their lists will not be open for public inspection, their rules will be secret (to prevent pornographers bypassing them).
The filters will apply to ANY material that might not be suitable for children, of any age, in the opinion of someone, somewhere. Gambling websites will be banned, including the National Lottery, and possibly newspaper pages with Bridge advice. Extremist websites will be banned, which might include sites labelled extremist by MPs. EDL? Fathers For Justice? The Muslim Brotherhood? Militant Tendency?
Gambling, extremism, religion, lads mags, cults, smoking, gore, violence, drink, political reform, libellous content, corruption allegations, challenging family court secrecy, revealing war crimes in Iraq, all these and more could be blocked by default.
But don't worry, long term loss of privacy and freedom does not warrant any Parliamentary discussion by junior ministers. Apparently.
RE: Porn Filters - Scottishbloke - 24-09-2013 19:01
As most of you will have noticed I have a link to the petition against ISP porn filtering, however the number signing it seems to have slowed down in recent weeks. So far the total is sitting at 37,429 which is still a pretty credible figure, the problem with it having to gain more than 100,000 for the issue to be discussed in parliament is that it's near impossible. Closing date mind you is 18/06/2014, so perhaps still time for a late surge.
Most people who are opposed to the move surprisingly will not sign it out of fear that the list of names will somehow be published. Thats the problem with this issue and all such petitions, its such a sensitive and taboo subject that most are just giving this the body swerve.
I think a lot of people are missing the point of the petition, its not about porn, it's about the right as citizens of a democratic nation to be allowed to make their own choices. We live in a free society and if Cameron thinks this move is going to make him popular with the voters then he is very much mistaken. Not only will the Tories gets defeated at the next General Election, they will be crushed bigger than they suffered in 1997.
Without going into any kind of political speech I think the nanny state that has been created is going to make for very interesting choices as I strongly suspect that the election results might just break away from the traditional 2 horse race
RE: Porn Filters - eccles - 27-09-2013 02:00
Porn Filters - The Shocking Truth
Not only do most not filter out 100%, the false positive rate is up to 80%
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2430691/Children-ARENT-safe-internet-porn-Tests-reveal-80-parental-controls-FAIL-filter-explicit-content.html
RE: Porn Filters - eccles - 27-09-2013 02:20
PORN FILTERS DONT WORK
Shocking Flaws In Talk Talk Porn Filter
(June 2012 - could have changed since)
Blocks porn sites but photos and few seconds of video can be seen in search engines. Reddit was not banned. The nude section of photography site 500px was not banned.
Dreadful.
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/375553/exposed-the-shocking-flaws-in-talktalks-porn-filter
Facebook Porn Filter Blocks Statue, Bans ACLU, Appeals Dont Work
An American artist created a bronze statue of a topless woman.
US anti porn tried to get the statue declared obscene.
The American Civil Liberties Union posted a link to it on Facebook.
Facebooks antiporn filter deleted the post and banned the ACLU from accessing its Facebook page for 24 hours.
This is despite a Facebook example saying nude statues are not blocked.
The ACLU filled out an appeals form but it was still blocked.
Only threatening the PR department worked.
So, the filter got it wrong. Facebook did not follow their own rules. The appeal system did not work. A major public organisation was blocked. Only threatening to go public worked, and possibly only then because the ACLU is large, well known and respected.
Imagine if the Tate, the Guardian or Channel 4 was blocked in similar circumstances.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-switch/wp/2013/09/25/facebooks-porn-filter-has-trouble-distinguishing-real-breasts-from-bronze-ones/