Crap Here we go...

[Chilly]

I think it is all moot and Cameron is promising something the ISP can't deliver. There's no way they can stop all porn. They can't stop all kiddie porn let alone the ocean of what's out there of non niche stuff

Seriously niche: http://www.reddit.com/r/powerwashingporn

 

[Tom]

Your naivety with the security of data is astounding. I thought you had been using the internet for some time? Shit is constantly leaked either by idiocy or by subterfuge. All it needs is the list to go public and you have a lynching at the local primary school.

And this is different to television channels who take payments for porn....how?

 

[Tom]

Not so, its ISP data so its covered by RIPA. The government can have the data; unlike your satellite TV example.

I would like a citation for that. I do not see how the government can demand such data based purely on a suspicion that an individual is engaged in legal activity. There would have to be some criminal element involved.

 

[DaGaffer]

I would like a citation for that. I do not see how the government can demand such data based purely on a suspicion that an individual is engaged in legal activity. There would have to be some criminal element involved.

RIPA is massively broad in its scope. Effectively it can be used for the following:

In the interests of national security, for the purpose of preventing or detecting crime or of preventing disorder, in the interests of the economic well-being of the United Kingdom, in the interests of public safety, for the purpose of protecting public health, for the purpose of assessing or collecting any tax, duty, levy or other imposition, contribution or charge payable to a government department and for the purpose, in an emergency, of preventing death or injury or any damage to a person’s physical or mental health, or of mitigating any injury or damage to a person’s physical or mental health.

"Preventing Disorder", "Protecting Public Health" "Preventing damage...mental health" etc. The potential for RIPA is whatever the authorities want it to be; that's why it was drafted that way.

 

[Tom]

But in the cases I've read of, where councils et al have abused these powers, they have done so on the basis that the person being investigated is engaged in illegal activity. There is nothing illegal about watching pornography, so how would they ever be able to convince a court to force an ISP to give over such details?

 

[DaGaffer]

But in the cases I've read of, where councils et al have abused these powers, they have done so on the basis that the person being investigated is engaged in illegal activity. There is nothing illegal about watching pornography, so how would they ever be able to convince a court to force an ISP to give over such details?

But it doesn't have to be "illegal activity" to trigger a RIPA request. Here's an example; parents split up, mother says father was an irresponsible parent, CSA use father's porn switch-on request as "evidence" he's an unfit father. This is trivially easy, and would be done under the excuse of potential damage to a person's mental well-being, in this case the child's, and is exactly the kind of thing that's likely to happen. The range of agencies who can make a RIPA request is incredibly broad and oversight incredibly lax.

 

[Chilly]

But it doesn't have to be "illegal activity" to trigger a RIPA request. Here's an example; parents split up, mother says father was an irresponsible parent, CSA use father's porn switch-on request as "evidence" he's an unfit father. This is trivially easy, and would be done under the excuse of potential damage to a person's mental well-being, in this case the child's, and is exactly the kind of thing that's likely to happen. The range of agencies who can make a RIPA request is incredibly broad and oversight incredibly lax.

God, that's depressing, isn't it?

 

[Olgaline]

/meh

 

[Tom]

But it doesn't have to be "illegal activity" to trigger a RIPA request. Here's an example; parents split up, mother says father was an irresponsible parent, CSA use father's porn switch-on request as "evidence" he's an unfit father. This is trivially easy, and would be done under the excuse of potential damage to a person's mental well-being, in this case the child's, and is exactly the kind of thing that's likely to happen. The range of agencies who can make a RIPA request is incredibly broad and oversight incredibly lax.

Has there ever been a case of the CSA, using powers granted under RIPA, investigating such things? Because as far as I'm aware, the CSA is tasked only with getting money from absent parents and can only investigate on that basis (for instance, investigating fraud, etc). It has no power to enquire about parent suitability.

 

[DaGaffer]

Has there ever been a case of the CSA, using powers granted under RIPA, investigating such things? Because as far as I'm aware, the CSA is tasked only with getting money from absent parents and can only investigate on that basis (for instance, investigating fraud, etc). It has no power to enquire about parent suitability.

I misspoke, not the CSA, the Family Court. At the moment there's no mechanism for a RIPA request because what would they investigate? But if someone hands them a "porn-opt-in" on a plate, it will get used. After all, the Government are basically saying you're a perv for wanting to opt-in in the first place, so its no great stretch to see it being used against you if you opt-in in a household with children present (even if you're a responsible parent who can do a better job blocking your kids from seeing porn than some stupid DNS filters that a teenager will be able to get around in about 10 seconds).

 

[Tom]

It seems as though you're taking a slightly hysterical line on this. Family courts hear all kinds of details but I see nothing wrong with giving these magistrates this kind of information. In fact, when it comes to family courts, I'd much rather those in charge had access to all the truth, not just part of it.

 

[DaGaffer]

It seems as though you're taking a slightly hysterical line on this. Family courts hear all kinds of details but I see nothing wrong with giving these magistrates this kind of information. In fact, when it comes to family courts, I'd much rather those in charge had access to all the truth, not just part of it.

What "truth"? You've just pretty much identified the whole problem. Its not "truth", its information.

 

[Tom]

Exactly, information which the court can use to make an informed decision. What's wrong with that?

 

[chipper]

its a mute point tbh its been going on for far too long ppl have it on there phones DVDs USB sticks etc so even if they do block access to it there's still plenty out there. and what about news groups torrents etc how they gonna censor those?

what they should do is get some top programmers on some government payroll to develop FREE child protection software for parents to install on there kids laptops/pc's etc there is plenty of this software available but ppl are either not aware or don't care to pay for it.

this way the adults still get to watch porn and the kids are protected via software.

what worries me most tho is the censorship act of this. this is Pandora's box if they go ahead with this its merely the start and it will never stop. eventually there will actually be the internet police who come and lock you up for having a voice etc.
parents need to educate there children i do my best to but the playground tends to beat me to it when i try to tell them something, they already know probably more than they should.

 

[MYstIC G]

what they should do is get some top programmers on some government payroll to develop FREE child protection software for parents to install on there kids laptops/pc's etc there is plenty of this software available but ppl are either not aware or don't care to pay for it

Not really, they should force the ISPs to allow people to "Opt-In" to their internet being filtered, i.e. provide a simple checkbox for parents to tick that says "Protect my child from as much nastyness as you can please"

 

[DaGaffer]

Exactly, information which the court can use to make an informed decision. What's wrong with that?

How is it an "informed decision"? In what universe would this information be used against a father except in a negative way? Even if it has nothing to do with his qualities as a father in the slightest?

 

[eksdee]

Because if you watch porn you're a bad person, obviously. Are you thick or just a Muslim Paedo TAKING OUR JOBS AS WELL AS THE VERY MORAL FABRIC OF OUR SOCIETY?

JEEEEZ

 

[chipper]

i cant help but think of this episode of south park http://southpark.wikia.com/wiki/Child_Abduction_is_Not_Funny with this bit of news and how it could potentially cause mass paranoia.

its pretty obvious this is the first step to re-demonising the porn and sex industry. my only problem with porn is that if a young person is watching porn and no doubt there are plenty they grow up with the expectations that this is what sex is. with no experience how else can they possibly take it. and thats when the parents MUST step up and explain the difference between the act of love and sex for fun and that nearly all porn is acting very bad acting but acting none the less.

 

[Access Denied]

Everybody watches porn. I do and it has absolutely no impact on my skills as a parent. There would simply be no justification for the CSA or family court to obtain or use that information. With one exception. That being if the parent was looking at child porn.

Tbh this is going to be completely impossible to implement. If someone wants to find porn they will do so because there are simply too many ways round any blocks the Government can put in place. Torrents, proxies, Tor etc.

Even education for parents on how to set up controls on their kids computers can only do so much. I've locked down my daughters user account so the filters are in place and she can't turn them off but there's nothing stopping her from accessing porn through a proxy server if she so chooses. Of course she's 4 so the chances of that happening are zilch for the forseeable future.

 

[DaGaffer]

Everybody watches porn. I do and it has absolutely no impact on my skills as a parent. There would simply be no justification for the CSA or family court to obtain or use that information. With one exception. That being if the parent was looking at child porn.

Tbh this is going to be completely impossible to implement. If someone wants to find porn they will do so because there are simply too many ways round any blocks the Government can put in place. Torrents, proxies, Tor etc.

Even education for parents on how to set up controls on their kids computers can only do so much. I've locked down my daughters user account so the filters are in place and she can't turn them off but there's nothing stopping her from accessing porn through a proxy server if she so chooses. Of course she's 4 so the chances of that happening are zilch for the forseeable future.

There would be no justification at the moment. But Imagine the scenario; mother doesn't want the father to have access to the kids (because...bitch, or a.n.other reason that has nothing to do with the father's competency. We all know couples who've gone down that road), so she says "he's a bad Dad because he asked for the porn filters to be switched off, so my children's tiny little minds have broken". There's no criminality involved, but the Government has already created the conditions to say this is unacceptable in a home with children in it (not illegal, unacceptable). Its nothing to do with criminality; its a moral judgement, and in family court cases, this would undoubtedly be a strike against. This is the point I'm trying to make. At the moment watching porn is a passive act; no-one could justify a RIPA request to go looking into what's going on at your IP address (unless there were accusations of stuff that's already illegal), but by having to opt-in, watching porn has turned into an active behaviour, that's been logged, and the justification for a RIPA request becomes much more justifiable because the simple act of opt-in can be used as evidence against your "character".

 

[ECA]

Everybody watches porn. I do and it has absolutely no impact on my skills as a parent. There would simply be no justification for the CSA or family court to obtain or use that information. With one exception. That being if the parent was looking at child porn.

Imagine you look at a bit of bondage.

Lawyer in court "look at this extreme, violence promoting misogynistic porn - obviously depraved with violent tendancies - THINK OF THE CHILDREN".

 

[Tom]

How is it an "informed decision"? In what universe would this information be used against a father except in a negative way? Even if it has nothing to do with his qualities as a father in the slightest?

It's for the judge to decide what qualities a parent brings, not you. I don't understand why you would be against a court being able to hear evidence; unless, that is, you don't believe that such a person would be capable of thinking for themselves.

 

[Gwadien]

Then again, it'd be good for the British Porn Industry I suppose.

 

[Scouse]

It seems as though you're taking a slightly hysterical line on this.

Yet, on all sorts of matters, the people taking the "hysterical" lines tend to be borne out as correct.

It's for the judge to decide what qualities a parent brings, not you.

So the judiciary are now the correct people to direct morality?

That used to be the self-appointed job of the church and that turned out extremely well, eh?

 

[eksdee]

It's for the judge to decide what qualities a parent brings, not you. I don't understand why you would be against a court being able to hear evidence; unless, that is, you don't believe that such a person would be capable of thinking for themselves.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but are you saying you believe whether someone watches porn or not should(/could) be used to define their character in court?

 

[DaGaffer]

It's for the judge to decide what qualities a parent brings, not you. I don't understand why you would be against a court being able to hear evidence; unless, that is, you don't believe that such a person would be capable of thinking for themselves.

My contention would be it shouldn't be regarded as "evidence" in the first place. Evidence of what exactly?

 

[Raven]

I am also a bit confused, what has the fact someone watches a bit of porn got to do with their ability to be a parent? Or teacher? Or social worker? Or anything?

Like I said, its a load of bollocks and an opt out option (which already exists) would be a whole lot easier and less open to abuse.

 

[Scouse]

Tom is demonstrating precisely what is wrong with this situation.

This. 100%.

 

[Raven]

I edited it out but yeah, it still stands I suppose!

 

[Scouse]

We should all move ISP's to this one