dslreports logo
site
spacer

spacer
 
   
spc
story category
New UK Rules: If You Offer Wi-Fi, You Must Block Porn
Because Filters Always Work So Very Well
by Karl Bode 06:39PM Wednesday May 01 2013
UK Prime Minister David Cameron this week is taking the wraps off a new set of rules that require that anyone who offers Wi-Fi in a public place -- must also be responsible for blocking pornography over that connection. "We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn't," declared the Prime Minister. Granted as we've seen for years, filters are costly, usually wind up accidentally filtering legitimate content, and are easily dodged by those with any interest in getting around them. Such efforts wind up being far more expensive and futile than...just watching your children to ensure they don't browse pornography in the middle of a McDonalds.

view:
topics flat nest 

JMHO42

@verizon.net

Well, OK...

that's one way to cut down on the number of people trying to use your wifi... by what? ...50%?

IowaCowboy
Iowa native
Premium
join:2010-10-16
Springfield, MA
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Verizon Broadban..
·Comcast

Good

I don't care to see porn on your computer while I take the family for dinner at McDonald's.

If you have a desire to watch/view porn, please do so in the privacy of your own home and not in the presence of children.

One way to bypass the filters is with a mobile broadband card or mobile hotspot.
--
I've experienced ImOn (when they were McLeod USA), Mediacom, Comcast, and Time Warner and I currently have DirecTV. They are much better than broadcast TV.

I have not and will not cut the cord.
ChrisDG74

join:2010-05-27
Cincinnati, OH

Re: Good

As opposed to seeing the morbidly obese people, with arm fat flapping about and bodily fluid stains on their clothes, gulping down a double quarter-pounder, large fry and 44-oz Diet Coke.

I get what you're saying. But, wi-fi porn is not the only undesirable thing to worry about.

MountainMan

@qwest.net
Or tor/proxy.
While browsing porn at McDonalds is a bad idea, eating there is a worse idea.
That's the problem with nanny state government: it never nannies the real evils.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

1 edit
Real pervs would of course have porn stored locally on their computer. And in any case feeding your kids at McDonald's is worse for them than anything they can see. Shame on you

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

said by IowaCowboy:

I don't care to see porn on your computer while I take the family for dinner at McDonald's.

Then stop looking over my shoulder...Which would be pretty hard to do when I'm against a wall to begin with.

Gork
Ou812ic

join:2001-10-06
Bountiful, UT
said by IowaCowboy:

I don't care to see porn on your computer while I take the family for dinner at McDonald's.

If a business offers services you don't want your children around I have a great idea for you. DON'T TAKE THEM THERE! I don't like nude bars. Guess what I do about that? I don't support them!

And how exactly is someone using a mobile broadband card or mobile hotspot on their computer to view porn while sitting at McDonalds a better plan to you?

If you must rely on the government to protect YOUR KIDS then perhaps you should turn them over to the government. I, for one, want to keep as many of my freedoms as possible.

JMHO42

@verizon.net
Hmmm... what I wouldn't give for 2 original QuarterPounders w/o cheese from back in the '70s ...they were the perfect burger... and fries--cooked in animal fat! Oh, yeah!!! (Porn optional)

intok

join:2012-03-15
obese people going to a fast food joint is far more distasteful then the hardest of hardcore porn.

pende_tim
Premium
join:2004-01-04
Andover, NJ
kudos:1
Reviews:
·Comcast

Who Decides..

Who decides what is "porn".

Yea, I know the famous remark made by one of the Supreme Court Judges " I will know it when I see it" but how does that translate to a filter rule?
--
The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits.

WHT

join:2010-03-26
Rosston, TX
kudos:5

1 recommendation

Re: Who Decides..

said by pende_tim:

Who decides what is "porn".

How fast can you guess these words?

1. BOO_S
2. _ _ NDOM
3. F_ _K
4. P_N_S
5. PU_ S_
6. S_ X

Answers: 1. BOOKS, 2. RANDOM, 3. FORK, 3. PANTS, 4. PULSE, 6. SIX
You got all six wrong...you dirty minded freak! STOP LOOKING OVER MY SHOULDER!
ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

Re: Who Decides..

I got 5 wrong correctly, didn't get the second one, thought it was kingdom, for some reason. (:

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net
Had to laugh on this one. May I use your retort???

GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS
I view porn as infinitely less harmful to "young minds" than the puritanical behavior of holier-than-thou people such as this minister who view sex and porn as "dirty" as opposed to simply being a natural part of life and learning about life. Porn won't actually hurt anyone, unlike the warped behavior of such people as this minister.
dra6o0n

join:2011-08-15
Mississauga, ON
Reviews:
·ITalkBB

Re: Who Decides..

I find that porn is less harmful to the general youth over a gun culture that gives their 5 year old kids rifles, just because- "2nd constitution".

Granted, rape would mostly mean that you'd live, but have to live your entire life haunted by the incident, but the latter would mean a chance to be shot and not make it anyhow.

GlennAllen
Sunny with highs in the 80s
Premium
join:2002-11-17
Richmond, VA
Reviews:
·Comcast
·Verizon FiOS

Re: Who Decides..

Porn--as well as sex--has nothing to do with violence--which includes rape--and only morons (aka legislators and/or puritans) associate the two. Children should learn how to use, and not use, guns. In point of fact, everyone should; that's what a "well-ordered militia" is all about: protecting oneself and one's loved ones from violence. Sadly, so many people are quite stupid and also equate "violence" with "force". This world is still about survival. And those who would [gladly] initiate violence--just for the fun of it or to get what they want in any way possible--still exist (thanks to our society which, in fact, creates them); these people need to be put in the ground... simple as that... because normal people cherish life, and because those who don't should never be allowed to take someone else's simply because it suits them to do so.
Wilsdom

join:2009-08-06

1 recommendation

Socialist dictator

Notice the language "we [the government] are promoting good, clean, WiFi...to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi", which makes it seem like the government is providing these connections, when what is really happening is the government appropriation of privately owned infrastructure via state censorship.
ConstantineM

join:2011-09-02
San Jose, CA

Is David Cameron common-sense illiterate, or what?!

Is he mad, or what?

It's one thing to ensure that there is no porn on public-access computers, which indeed may be a problem due to viruses etc, and inadvertent exposure.

But it's completely ridiculous to require that porn is blocked on WiFi. What business does he have of what sites I'm watching on my iPod touch whilst enjoying a free WiFi? What an idiot politician.

Besides, the only thing such a notion could do is limit our ability to use any WiFi at all in a public place.
w1ve
Premium
join:2007-12-28
Hancock, NH

Well Duh,

People will just use a VPN. If they block VPNs, that will ruin a lot of "legit" use. Another case of government not understanding technology.

Twaddle

@sbcglobal.net

god what a self-centered idiot

Who is this guy who thinks he and his government lackeys are the the morals guardians and dictate what is and isn't to be seen. Shall they block "porn" yet allow the latest bombings on the news links to be shown? People turn to alternate sources of entertainment for various reasons and Downton Abbey can be just as pornographic in some aspects as is any XXX site . What is worse, murder or a human body (still in one piece?). Britain believes that since it taxes the hell out of each and every citizen to support their flogged and dying economy yet still supports the ridiculous notion(IMO) of royalty, surely it is also the sole judge on what its subjects are permitted to see, hear, taste, smell and touch, after all the government is GOD's representative to "The Commonwealth". If you object to something someone else is viewing then maybe just maybe you are too damn close to their laptop screen or just a tad too damned nosy.

AntBee
Premium
join:2002-12-06
Moncton, NB

Get Out!

It's no wonder that people are leaving England/Great Britain as fast as they can, in droves. They have to be the biggest nanny state on the planet.
--
-Poor little Tink Tink-
Kat Williams