Jump to content


Rugby League World Issue 400 - Out Now!

RUGBY LEAGUE WORLD MAGAZINE - ISSUE 400 - OUT NOW!
84 pages, 38 years of history from Open Rugby to the present day.
Click here for the digital edition to read online via smartphone, tablet and desktop devices including iPhone, iPad, Android & Kindle HD.
Click here to order a copy for delivery by post. Annual subscriptions also available worldwide.
Find out what's inside Issue 400
/ View a Gallery of all 400 covers / WH Smith Branches stocking Issue 400
Read Jamie Jones-Buchanan's Top 5 RLW Interviews including Marwan Koukash, Lee Briers, Gareth Thomas, Steve Ganson & Matt King OBE


League Express

Podcast

Photo
- - - - -

Ban it, block it, censor it


  • Please log in to reply
42 replies to this topic

#1 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:04 AM

Is it just me being daft here but what's the point in the frothy-mouthed "the internet is evil" stuff we're seeing this week in the news?  Were there never paedophiles, sex addicts or people with badly deluded opinions of women before the internet?  I'm even fairly confident in saying that the incidences of those really nasty things are less now than in the 70s due to societal changes.  The internet is a convenient scapegoat for those who just want to "do something!" about some genuinely nasty situations rather than really put their minds into root causes and better solutions.  I'm completely convinced that the nasty sexual criminals would still be nasty sexual criminals even if the internet never existed, spending time on the internet looking at even the most extreme porn isn't going to rewire an already damaged mind, it's a symptom and a big red flag that calls for intervention but not the root cause.

 

So... the government's plan is to put a block on porn on the internet.  That's not going to work.  If I really wanted to I could get to any banned content on the internet in seconds, as could any teenager, never mind having to be technically astute when it comes to interweb things.  If my ISP, say, blocked access to a file sharing website, it would take me a few clicks of the mouse to get around that block.  Even if the government went beyond the excesses of the Chinese government and implemented a "white list" of safe sites that you could access and nothing else then you'd get around it with IP addresses.  Restrict it to UK addresses only?  Piggy-backed proxies on the global commercial backbones.  The internet genie is out the bottle, it can't be put back in, surely it's far better to address the root cause of a problem rather than a symptom?

 

All this will do is defer yet again proper analysis of root causes along with better detection procedures.  Put the "ban" in place and the government gets a free ride on it for a year or two after having "done something".


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#2 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:09 AM

Agree...though I doubt the free ride would last  even a year as the realities of modern comms technology must eventually become obvious even to our senior civil servants, govt officials, politicians of all persuasions and media reporters. 



#3 Wolford6

Wolford6
  • Coach
  • 9,570 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:15 AM

That bloke from the Co-op Bank lives in the local authority ward where he was a Labour Councillor.  He was also a Methodist minister. He apparently was under extreme pressure at work and turned to porn and taking drugs, just like a lot of the people in his ward would have done under the same circumstances.

 

He must have some positive qualities or he wouldn't have achieved those positions. He must have been wealthy but chose to carry on working for the Church and to live in a poor borough.

 

He is being pilloried by all sides ... the press, Labour, the Bank and his Church are ganging up to disparage him so they look good in the media. As yet, he has not been found guilty of any crime.

 

If he stood again as an Independent in my ward, I'd be tempted to vote for him.


Under Scrutiny by the Right-On Thought Police


#4 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:20 AM

I think we're back to "If a solution doesn't solve the problem 100% then we shouldn't try it since an 80% solution isn't worth anything".

 

CKN might know various ways of getting around filters but I don't and I'm hardly alone.

 

You can't "solve" paedophilia but you can't solve drink driving or murder either, but you can reduce it.



#5 JohnM

JohnM
  • Coach
  • 19,632 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:28 AM

its not an 80% solution, though, in my view. its probably not even an 8% solution.



#6 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:33 AM

its not an 80% solution, though, in my view. its probably not even an 8% solution.

Not as yet. The government are trying to do something that is "out there" in terms of the technology. But more and more things that seemed impossible are becoming "do-able".



#7 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:34 AM

I think we're back to "If a solution doesn't solve the problem 100% then we shouldn't try it since an 80% solution isn't worth anything".

 

CKN might know various ways of getting around filters but I don't and I'm hardly alone.

 

You can't "solve" paedophilia but you can't solve drink driving or murder either, but you can reduce it.

It's not a solution though, it's hiding a symptom of a damaged mind.  I can't even see it solving a trivial bit of the problem, never mind 80%.

 

Also, did you know that we're more effective now than ever at catching dangerous predators of children because of the internet?  These truly deranged people take more risks than average people including going to websites that traffic this nasty stuff, the police around the world record those who visit and occasionally skim off those that they can positively identify.  Some of these nasty people are stupid enough to even use their credit cards to buy access to police controlled honey-trap sites.  Yes, I really, really don't want this stuff on the internet but it's genuinely working in catching some nasty scumbags before they can turn their fantasies into reality.

Look at the paedophile rings of the past, before the internet.  How did these people get to know each other?  How did they get their victims?  How difficult was it to the police to get into these circles?  It was massively difficult for the police to break them down as it's very hard to pretend to like child sex offences enough to get into the circle to get evidence to capture more than one or two outsiders.  The internet does make it easier to get to some obscene material but it also makes it much easier to catch people.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#8 Bedford Roughyed

Bedford Roughyed
  • Moderator
  • 5,109 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:39 AM

There are issues with access on the internet, especially by children.  However, a 'global' filter is not what is needed.  Parents need to either put filters on themselves or get smart with what their kids are doing.


With the best, thats a good bit of PR, though I would say the Bedford team, theres, like, you know, 13 blokes who can get together at the weekend to have a game together, which doesnt point to expansion of the game. Point, yeah go on!

#9 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:41 AM

It's not a solution though, it's hiding a symptom of a damaged mind.  I can't even see it solving a trivial bit of the problem, never mind 80%.

 

Also, did you know that we're more effective now than ever at catching dangerous predators of children because of the internet?  These truly deranged people take more risks than average people including going to websites that traffic this nasty stuff, the police around the world record those who visit and occasionally skim off those that they can positively identify.  Some of these nasty people are stupid enough to even use their credit cards to buy access to police controlled honey-trap sites.  Yes, I really, really don't want this stuff on the internet but it's genuinely working in catching some nasty scumbags before they can turn their fantasies into reality.

Look at the paedophile rings of the past, before the internet.  How did these people get to know each other?  How did they get their victims?  How difficult was it to the police to get into these circles?  It was massively difficult for the police to break them down as it's very hard to pretend to like child sex offences enough to get into the circle to get evidence to capture more than one or two outsiders.  The internet does make it easier to get to some obscene material but it also makes it much easier to catch people.

This the exact same "guns don't kill people; people kill people" arguments that the gun lobby in the US trot out. The obvious point is that guns are one of the most efficient ways of killing people and thus restricting them would lower the murder rate.  Similarly the Internet is the most efficient way of communicating and distributing images of abuse.

 

I don't need to use the Internet to talk to people about RL but it's a hell of a lot easier to do it online than in a city where very few people are interested. If I wanted to meet paedos then it would be a million times easier online than in real life where people are likely to react violently.

 

Added to which the Internet has created a market for images of abused children that did not really exist before. Oh I'm sure that some people peddled such stuff but it's like comparing a cottage industry to a global conglomerate.



#10 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:49 AM

This the exact same "guns don't kill people; people kill people" arguments that the gun lobby in the US trot out. The obvious point is that guns are one of the most efficient ways of killing people and thus restricting them would lower the murder rate.  Similarly the Internet is the most efficient way of communicating and distributing images of abuse.

 

I don't need to use the Internet to talk to people about RL but it's a hell of a lot easier to do it online than in a city where very few people are interested. If I wanted to meet paedos then it would be a million times easier online than in real life where people are likely to react violently.

 

Added to which the Internet has created a market for images of abused children that did not really exist before. Oh I'm sure that some people peddled such stuff but it's like comparing a cottage industry to a global conglomerate.

Not really.  Much like all of these things, black and white answers just aren't at all useful.  Much of the censorship and control that we've had imposed over the years for everything from anti-terrorism to paedophilia do nothing but inconvenience the innocent while not even slightly stopping the bad guys.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#11 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 11:55 AM

Not really.  Much like all of these things, black and white answers just aren't at all useful.  Much of the censorship and control that we've had imposed over the years for everything from anti-terrorism to paedophilia do nothing but inconvenience the innocent while not even slightly stopping the bad guys.

Nonsense.

 

Exactly how have these laws affected the innocent?

 

I really can't see how there is any kind of right to view the sexual abuse of children. And if your tastes are to "normal porn" featuring teenagers (18-19) then there isn't any shortage of that freely available.

 

edit: and let's not shift this to terrorism. that's OT.


Edited by Northern Sol, 20 November 2013 - 12:01 PM.


#12 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 12:00 PM

That bloke from the Co-op Bank lives in the local authority ward where he was a Labour Councillor.  He was also a Methodist minister. He apparently was under extreme pressure at work and turned to porn and taking drugs, just like a lot of the people in his ward would have done under the same circumstances.

 

He must have some positive qualities or he wouldn't have achieved those positions. He must have been wealthy but chose to carry on working for the Church and to live in a poor borough.

 

He is being pilloried by all sides ... the press, Labour, the Bank and his Church are ganging up to disparage him so they look good in the media. As yet, he has not been found guilty of any crime.

 

If he stood again as an Independent in my ward, I'd be tempted to vote for him.

 

 

Ok, who's the funny guy and hacked Wolford6's account and come out with a rational, measured and empathetic post?

 

Edit, I'm not sure that the church (forgive and forget), labour and the bank are doing what they're doing to look good. More to avoid being accused by the press of refusing to condemn him which in the eyes of the press is tantamount to endorsing his shortcomings.


Edited by Larry the Leit, 20 November 2013 - 02:08 PM.


#13 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,622 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:24 PM

I don't have a problem with it. The inconvenience someone might face in accessing pornography is far outweighed by children not being exposed to it.

I don't see it as censorship but common sense.
One worry though, I did read that paedophiles have started to use code words now instead of obvious terms. Broccoli is one of these terms apparently, so I hope people aren't hauled in whilst ordering their veg online.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#14 Larry the Leit

Larry the Leit
  • Coach
  • 2,275 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:29 PM

 

So... the government's plan is to put a block on porn on the internet.  That's not going to work.  If I really wanted to I could get to any banned content on the internet in seconds, as could any teenager, never mind having to be technically astute when it comes to interweb things.  

 

Some kids can get round anything.

 

All a ban on this kind of thing will lead to is a return to hedgerows lined with grot mags.


Edited by Larry the Leit, 20 November 2013 - 02:30 PM.


#15 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,622 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:34 PM

Some kids can get round anything.

All a ban on this kind of thing will lead to is a return to hedgerows lined with grot mags.

What's wrong with that? Anything that makes porn harder to access is ok with me.

And I say that not as a puritan but someone who us worried about the availability of porn today.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#16 ckn

ckn
  • Admin
  • 16,562 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 02:51 PM

I don't have a problem with it. The inconvenience someone might face in accessing pornography is far outweighed by children not being exposed to it.

I don't see it as censorship but common sense.
One worry though, I did read that paedophiles have started to use code words now instead of obvious terms. Broccoli is one of these terms apparently, so I hope people aren't hauled in whilst ordering their veg online.

That's the problem though.  Unless you ban people from the internet entirely and shut down all the ISPs then you're not going to stop it.  I can guarantee you that the first time you put a block out there at ISP level that your kids will be told by their friends at school about proxies, VPNs and darknet/ToR, with many of them utterly untrackable except in the most extreme circumstances, and even then it's not guaranteed.

 

Those are the things that are used now by people from those just paranoid about their privacy through to the most extreme edge of criminality out there.  They know it's safe and almost unbreakable.

 

For those things the ISP will ban, how will they do it?  Based on website addresses?  It takes seconds to set up a new one.  Who says a website goes on the list?  What if a politician decides that the BNP website is unsafe for kids?  Block that too?  What if then the next step is to completely ban these things for everyone?

 

Look at China, it's paranoid to the extreme about what its citizens can see on the internet but they've all bar given up trying to censor things because the availability of the bypass technologies are so ubiquitous that anyone who needs to use them can get them.  It's not rocket science to get around virtually any ISP level blocking tools.

 

That's why I'm quite happy with things as they stand.  It puts responsibility on the parents to monitor their kids' internet usage.  What kid would go to his friends and tell them that his mummy and daddy had put child protection software on their computers?  If you can afford to buy a computer then you can afford to buy this software and learn how to use it.

 

My friend allows his daughter unrestricted access to whatever she wants on the internet but has the computer configured so she can't delete browsing history, he tells her he reads this once a week and checks her emails at the same time.  He has her messenger set up to verbosely duplicate messages received or sent on her iPhone on his computer.  She grumbled about how unfair it was but was bluntly told that it was her choice if she didn't want to use them.  He told me he actually randomly scans her browser history once a month or so when he remembers but the threat of it alone is enough to bluntly force good behaviour.  Also, as he has the computer locked down he can see any bypass tools she'd install or such websites visited, he also has the privacy mode disabled on the computer's browsers.


Arguing with the forum trolls is like playing chess with a pigeon.  No matter how good you are, the bird will **** on the board and strut around like it won anyway


#17 hindle xiii

hindle xiii
  • Coach
  • 20,973 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:02 PM

I steer clear from all of it. I know that sounds holier than thou but looking at pics or vids that may or may not be illegal isn't for me.

 

I wouldn't even know what is or isn't illegal in the rudey-dudey world of the internet!


2826856.jpg?type=articleLandscape

 

On Odsal Top baht 'at.


#18 Johnoco

Johnoco
  • Coach
  • 19,622 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 03:18 PM

Of course you won't eliminate it and those so inclined will find a way round it. But that doesn't mean there is anything wrong with trying to restrict it and reduce the number of people exposed to it.
You won't stop people burgling houses but it doesn't mean we don't lock our doors.

No I don't care if you're if you're into different bands

No cause for so much hatred, I'm just a different man

Pull off that cover, I will too, and learn to understand

With music deep inside we'll make world unity our plan

 

7 Seconds -Walk Together, Rock Together


#19 Tiny Tim

Tiny Tim
  • Coach
  • 6,881 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:29 PM

CKN might know various ways of getting around filters but I don't and I'm hardly alone.

 

 

Me neither, but I am sure 10 minutes on Google could probably enlighten you.


28m391z.jpg


#20 Northern Sol

Northern Sol
  • Moderator
  • 16,929 posts

Posted 20 November 2013 - 04:38 PM

Me neither, but I am sure 10 minutes on Google could probably enlighten you.

It probably would but then most people don't have the literacy / ICT skills to be able to follow this kind of "tip". If they did then nobody would earn a living fixing computers. 






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users