Porn Filters - Will it work

Recently in England David Cameron has made some public announcement about his plans on "Porn Filters" Here's some of what has been written;

"David Cameron is facing serious questions over how his plan for automatic internet “porn filters” in every British home would work - after he suggested that topless images such as those used on The Sun’s page three would be still be accessible online.

The Prime Minister used a major speech to set out a raft of reforms to protect children from “poisonous” pornography websites which, he said, were “corroding childhood”. He announced that internet service providers had agreed to introduce family-friendly filters that automatically block pornography unless customers chose to opt out.

But his proposals were criticised by anti-censorship groups, who warned that sites about sexual health and sexuality could inadvertently get caught up in the ban.

Significantly, Mr Cameron admitted there would be “problems down the line” with the system – and appeared to rule out “soft” or written pornography from the scheme entirely.

Separately, the former head of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection centre (CEOP), Jim Gamble, said Mr Cameron’s plan to tackle child abuse images by removing results from search engines like Google would be “laughed at” by paedophiles.

“There are 50,000 predators...downloading abusive images on peer-to-peer, not from Google,” he said. “Yet from CEOP intelligence only 192 were arrested last year. That’s simply not good enough.

Read more in: David Cameron's fight against Internet Porn

So what do you think? will this work? what are the consequences of such action if such actions were to be put in place?

Banning porn entirely, at least for underage people, seems excessive. I think it was John Waters who said something like «If your kid is old enough to know about it, he's old enough to watch it». I guess his point, if it was even his, is clear to you but don't hold me to it, I don't think that is the exact quote.

If the idea behind this is to attack child pornography than, I suppose could be worth trying but, from what I've learned from Law & Order SVU, pedophiles will most likely know their way around it.

I'm only know the basics of this kind of stuff so I'm not sure at all but I guess they could block certain websites but blocking all porn? Doubt it. Besides, it would be a step towards Islamic rule which, now that I think about it, could make a lot of sense, considering England's predicament.

I can't really see this going the extra mile but, assuming it is put forth and it does work, I think the only consequence would be having to read loads of comments by Brits saying: Man, I miss [porn site here]. I sure hope they don't block out Fak... (And then their computer screen would read: The site you tried to access was blocked to prevent your eyes from falling off)

I was a huge David Cameron fan before this incident. I really liked his way of thinking and his platform. His ability to work together with both parties was quite amazing and good for the future of England. Now however he'll have to prove himself to me again.

I do however think that having to opt in for something like this proves that although David Cameron is indeed considered a rightest politician he does, like most of Europe, respect leftist values of a larger government with more control. I would love to see a large backlash to this but he timed it almost perfectly with the royal baby and it is entirely possible that this will not get the media coverage it needs.

Simple answer? No. David Cameron's attempt to block kids getting to porn is like most things he does: Laughable. If a kid wants to watch porn, the kid's gonna watch their damn porn. Unless David Cameron is going to crush freedom of the internet, all the kid would have to do is Google: "how to bypass porn restriction", and boom, they know about proxies and are free to watch their porn.

Also the whole kiddie porn thing is ridiculous. He seriously thinks that peadophiles google "9 year old sluts" or something like that? Peadophiles know thier shit and a google blacklist isn't going to do anything to stop them.

It's failed, Ultra-Conservative policy that tries to deal with problems that aren't there in the first place.

How can we say it's not a problem? It may not be a prevalent problem, but it is a problem if there are those who sexually assault children. There's a difference between prevalence and relevance. The problem's very real, it's very relevant and there are some common sense approaches that we can take.

This, however isn't one of them. The youth are always going to have sexual access(I know I did back in 1998. 19 freaking 98. I was about 6/7 years old when I was first exposed to it. Pay Per view was easy, and I didn't know shit about shit so an adult program was like "Hey, interesting.")

It's actually more important for the youth to be sexually educated, to be aware of sex. I'm a huge proponent of sex education. With education becomes awareness, and if a child's aware that he/she's being violated, we can preemptively stop predators who are otherwise able to silence helpless victims.

In addition, I think that mental screening is probably a good thing. Not only from a lawful standpoint, but from an individual's standpoint. If I knew I needed help, then I'd be able to go and get help and become a part of the community.

As "sick" as we may find it, as immoral as we know it to be, these people are humans too and for whatever god knows what reason, they're honestly attracted to children. If we can help them through that process, and rehabilitate them.

Surprise? Less pedos on the street.

The difficulty though, is to honestly have that conversation. The conversation itself is taboo. Not just mental sexual health but mental health as a whole is one big taboo.

Albeit a noble cause, it doesn't seem like something that would be able to be done easily. Even if they try to block porn nation wide, it seems like it would be something that could be hacked fairly easily. Either the porn sites change, and the blockers stop working, or someone just figures out a way past the blockers. It seems like it's a problem with a solution that is not going to be solved without massive costs.

He has the right idea, just has the wrong way of going about it. Banning porn hasn't stopped anyone from getting it. After all, wasn't it like a big thing for kids a while back to get an issue of Hustler or Playboy even though they weren't old enough to buy it themselves?

Same with this. I found ways to get around my parents internet filter back in High School, and I know some middle schoolers who know how to work proxies or find passwords.

As for the pedophile thing, he's a little too optimistic. Nobody uses Google to search for illegal things.

Porn: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement.

So porn is in other words sex, a natural human activity, which is made for money and to cause arousal.....I don't see the problem. Humans have been doing this for thousands of years. See below:

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

Just like parental controls, I don't think it will work. If it does, it will not run smoothly as proposed.

The more you seclude a person from porn, the more promiscuous he gets once he experience or see it in action.

Ugh, leave the porn alone. When kids get to a certain age sexual needs must be satisfied no matter what. Would rather prefer a kid satisfy themselves with porn than actually doing the deed when they don't understand whats going on yet.

And you can't control the internet, the internet is chaos.

Whoever is trying to sell their "fool-proof" filter or filtering service is peddling snake oil. No it can't work, the Internet is simply too big.





There's no way to stop children viewing porn in Starbucks