Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Wireless Networking Your Rights Online

No Porn From Public WiFi Hotspots In the UK Proposed 390

Posted by samzenpus
from the waiting-for-the-bus dept.
whoever57 writes "Prime Minister David Cameron is proposing that porn should not be available through WiFi hotspots in public areas. Exactly how this will be implemented has not been identified, even to the extent of whether the ISP or the hotspot operator should implement the blocking. From the article: ' The Prime Minister said: “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.” His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.'"
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

No Porn From Public WiFi Hotspots In the UK Proposed

Comments Filter:
  • by mozumder (178398) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:09AM (#43543721)

    Like People Magazine and fashion sites?

    • by Joce640k (829181) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @06:25AM (#43544617) Homepage

      It'll be much simpler just to ban children from cafes.

      They've got no business drinking coffee at their age anyway.

      • by Fluffeh (1273756) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @07:21AM (#43544919)

        Seriously, this belongs in the "clueless idiots want to control something they have no right to control..." basket.

        Sometimes I think that the world has a chance of evolving in the right direction when insightful or intelligent laws are passed, but for each of those moments, I seem to have at least a dozen facepalm or forehead-table moments.

        If a cafe owner finds that many of his/her customers are turning away to other cafes because there are too many folks holding coffee in one hand and their other hand is under the table - shouldn't it be up to them to install some sort of blocklist/filtering software? Why the fuck does it have to be a government mandated, nay regulated, nay again, state policed offence to NOT have this set up?

        I am all for libertarianism, but with a touch of ethics and morals thrown in - I want people to be able to do whatever they want, and sincerly hopethat they will do the right thing - but if they choose to have effectively a red-light-district cafe, then they should be able to - hopefully ina red light district part of town. There MUST be some point where common sense kicks in with capitalism surely. You have a cafe, in the center of three primary schools, politely ask folks watching porn to move on as they are disrupting your normal business of soccer moms. Oh, you don't want a dingey establishment in the first place, okay, ask anyone watching risque content to move on if anyone notices. And if no-one does, who the fuck is it harming?

        I really want to beat some common sense into idiot meddling politicians trying to force their public policies down the throats of others with a really big hard, solid, heavy stick - with nails in the end of it. There is a difference between making laws that prohibit unsafe buildings, or fire hazzards or man-eating-star-wars-type-desert-creatures and trying to ban anything that the politician doesn't want to admit to or show that he/her is doing in public from being an offence.

        • by Yakasha (42321) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @10:51AM (#43546731) Homepage

          I really want to beat some

          You already said what I wanted to say, so I'll just take a quote out of context and giggle a bit.

        • by Ian Alexander (997430) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @01:30PM (#43548353)
          Is this even a thing? People jerking it in coffee shops? I've been using the Internet in public spaces all around the world for many years now and I've never ever seen it. If you don't have Internet access that's one thing but it would seem to me that if I was in that situation and I was that desperate I'd use a public access point to _download_ porn but not view it in the goddamn coffee shop. Obviously, the world is a large place and people do all sorts of strange things, but I'm hard-pressed to believe that this is actually common enough of a problem anywhere that there needs to be a response by ISP's or government or cafe owners or whatever to stop these dedicated cadres of cafe wankers from leaving unsanitary stains in coffeeshops across the country.
      • by Baki (72515)

        Or ban children alltogether. It could replace many other prohibitions with a single one.

  • by loufoque (1400831) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:12AM (#43543731)

    You definitely shouldn't see it!
    We, the British government, will protect you from this bane.

    • by John Allsup (987) <s...chalisque@@@gmail...com> on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:24AM (#43543779) Homepage Journal

      The what happens is that people move their porn to Linux, take a file like, say 'manandwoman.mov' and do:

      split -b 10M manandwoman.mov $HARMLESSFILE
      for s in $HARMLESSFILE*; do
      $ENCRYPT -password "${HARMLESSFILE}MrFlibble$HARMLESSFILE" $s -o $s.bin
      done
      # copy the files to multiple free cloud storage facilities and post links to friends, passing instructions for reassembly
      # via other means (sneakernet?)
      # do this for many innocent files too, so that if someone catches you, you may deduce how they did it before
      # you do and realise that they have been cheating at the Game of Life, or else have supernatural powers.
      # In case you need to buy yourself out of jail, present evidence in completion of a certain challenge.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      That's where the whole notion of sex/porn being "dirty" and "bad" comes from. Churches and mental illness.

      Imagine they'd try the same for other basic human things like... for instance.. eating.
      - I bet you like the smell of a freshly cooked meal... Perv!
      - Of course food sites and cooking shows should be forbidden!
      - A glass of milk being shown on national television? Moogate!!! Chaos!!
      - You eat by yourself? Ewww, you perv! Don't you know you will go blind?
      - You had dinner in public? Off to jail with you!
      - A m

      • by Yoda222 (943886)
        UK and catholic ? Really ?
      • by cbiltcliffe (186293) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @05:31AM (#43544413) Homepage Journal

        Sex is not a sin.
        Oppression is.

        As a Christian, I agree with this 100%.
        Many sins have been committed in the name of God, and calling sex a sin is one of them.
        I mean, think about it: assuming you believe in God, then you also probably believe people were designed and created by God. In that case, sex was also designed by God, so how could it possibly be a sin?

        • by mjr167 (2477430)

          I agree with you, but find your logic flawed. Sex is an action. If it was created by god and is therefore good, murder is also an action that was created by god...

          Your reasoning falls into the "all natural things (like arsenic) are good and all man-made things (like computers) are evil" bucket.

      • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

        by Anonymous Coward

        That's where the whole notion of sex/porn being "dirty" and "bad" comes from. Churches and mental illness.

        It always comes up, this, in discussions about porn. Sex is normal and healthy. What could be wrong about looking at depictions of a couple engaging in this healthy, normal act.

        And if that's what porn was about, I'd agree. But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes. Rape fantasies are common. The notion that "no means yes" is common. The notion that all women turn into sluts when you scratch the surface. Getting pleasure from spitting, slapping and insulting someone (or I gues

        • by cheekyjohnson (1873388) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @09:05AM (#43545717)

          But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes. Rape fantasies are common. The notion that "no means yes" is common. The notion that all women turn into sluts when you scratch the surface. Getting pleasure from spitting, slapping and insulting someone (or I guess from being subjected to that). And of course, body parts of abnormal size.

          And how do you know this?

          In any case, even if that were true, I believe banning it (even just in certain places) would be morally wrong.

          But children find it more difficult.

          Interestingly enough, I don't see children running around raping and murdering random people very often, so I highly doubt it's a widespread problem even assuming it actually happens.

          But neither am I dumb enough to say that porn is harmless.

          Porn is most likely harmless to a grand majority of people. There.

        • by shoemilk (1008173) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @10:16AM (#43546379) Journal
          Prude much? Or just ignorant of ummm culture? Or just dumb?

          It always comes up, this, in discussions about porn. Sex is normal and healthy. What could be wrong about looking at depictions of a couple engaging in this healthy, normal act.

          And if that's what porn was about, I'd agree. But a great deal of porn is about transgressive acts, and nasty attitudes.

          A great deal of people talking is about transgressive acts and nasty attitudes. Should we ban talking from places? Seriously how is "Pizza's here - open the box to my cock - fucking" worse than two frat boys talking about beating the shit out of someone else or wanting to? Or two girls trash talking another?

          Rape fantasies are common. The notion that "no means yes" is common.

          define "common". If you mean it to be more than 50% umm, then I'd like to see some citation. 30% isn't common. Even then this needs a big fat [citation needed]

          The notion that all women turn into sluts when you scratch the surface.

          Wait, I thought porn was about rape? Which is it?

          Getting pleasure from spitting, slapping and insulting someone (or I guess from being subjected to that).

          People don't need porn for this. People insult other people on a daily basis, if not more. I've seen 5,000 times more slapping on run of the mill TV shows than I have in all the porn I've seen. If you're that offended by spitting, do yourself a favor and never ever go to China. Or hang out near prepubescent boys.

          And of course, body parts of abnormal size.

          Fuck you and your holier-than-thou attitude on how people should look. So some people like fat porn. Oh, wait, you're talking about 18 inch cocks? So what am I not supposed to go outside anymore? Or are you talking about girls with big fake tits? If so, don't watch any sort of South American TV.

          Most adults can tell the difference between fantasy and reality (although, possibly, fewer than you'd hope -- especially when there's the 'gonzo' genre that masquerades as amateur). But children find it more difficult.

          You're so right. We need to get on banning Harry Potter before more children think they're wizards. Non-fiction is hereby banned because kidz iz dumbz.

          So we have boys growing up with these unpleasant ideas about what it's OK to do to women, and girls growing up with these harmful ideas of what society expects of them.

          From porn?! Men beat their wives because they watch PORN?! Girls have weight issues because they watched PORN?! You're dumb and so are the retards that modded you insightful.

          (I'm talking about hetero porn, because that's what experience I have).

          I have experience with it all and well, I can tell you 95% doesn't have any of the shit you've been spouting in it. Except for that German stuff. Freaky~!

          Sure, there *is* porn in which two people are mutually attracted and have mutually enjoyable, considerate sex.

          You mean like most of it?

          But it's not all that common,

          Inconceivable! You keep using that word, but I don't think it means what you think it means.

          and consumers tend to shift up to something more interesting (i.e. more extreme and transgressive).

          Umm, you're full of it. I've got over 20+ years of pron watching experience and I'm not into BDSM, skat, snuff, beast, or anything more than guy-meets-girl guy-fucks-girl. Hell, I'm not even fond of anal. People like what they like. They don't start liking shit because they're bored. Again, you are stupid.

          I don't know the answer. I'm opposed to censorship. But neither am I dumb enough to say that porn is harmless.

          No, you're just dumb. I'm surprised you didn't say anything in there about going blind or hairy hands. The rest of the drivel you spouted sounds just the same.

    • by telchine (719345) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @04:18AM (#43544205)

      We, the British government, will protect you from this bane.

      The British Government can go suck my **** !

      (just so long as they don't watch the recording over public wi-fi)

  • Wrong question (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ruir (2709173) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:18AM (#43543757) Homepage
    Who exactly is paying/or promoting this? This seems to be a shady manoeuvre to put out free competitions to ISP.
    • I could see a few groups who would enjoy to make sure you cannot access certain content. The idea is mostly that porn is dirty and bad and everyone who is against filtering it must be a pervert. Then, if it is installed, a certain group comes in and says that if you can filter porn out, you can certainly filter other content, too.

    • by samjam (256347)

      Darn right. This is the way to close free wifi hotspots.

      Providers will not be able to pay for "approved" filtering, so one dodgy site slipping through would be grounds for prosecution; and so all free hotspot vanish.

    • by jonbryce (703250)

      I'm guessing the mobile phone companies. Porn is already banned on mobile internet, so they have the infrastructure to do it. At the moment if I am on O2, porn is illegal (unless I prove I'm over 18 and opt in to receiving it) over the 2.1GHz 3G network, but if I go 0.3GHz up the dial to their public wifi network, which my phone will do any time it is at a train station, pub, McDonalds etc that has O2 wifi, then I can get all the porn I want.

    • by xelah (176252)
      This isn't the US. Far more likely to be a political maneuvre than some sort of corruption or lobbying. It isn't hard to imagine the Conservatives seeing it as a way to pander to their core voters (just before the local elections), and to make life hard for the Liberal Democrat half of the coalition, who are generally keener on civil liberties. The Conservatives are also even more under threat from UKIP (the UK Independence Party, anti-EU and more conservative than the Conservatives), especially in things l
  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:21AM (#43543767)

    In general, you shouldn't try to solve social problems with technical solutions.

    And in this case, it's not even possible unless you also forbid encryped sessions, which would mean people can't access their VPNs. And nobody in his right mind would surf from a public hotspot without a VPN or at least an SSL/TLS encrpyted session.

    And as if that's not enough proof for you: a determined person can still use steganography to embed an encrypted stream inside a regular port 80 HTTP session. Therefore you cannot prevent people from accessing porn over public wifi. All you can do is make it more inconvenient for everyone to browse securely.

    Conclusion: You can't stop it, so don't even try.

    • In general, you shouldn't try to solve social non-problems with technical solutions.

      Conclusion: You should't stop it, so don't even try.

    • Technically illiterate people shouldn't make policy decisions regarding technology.

    • by Geeky (90998) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @04:32AM (#43544255)

      And nobody in his right mind would surf from a public hotspot without a VPN or at least an SSL/TLS encrpyted session.

      Yeah, when I'm reading the BBC news website in Starbucks it's vital that it's over a VPN or SSL. Not.

      Public wi-fi should be fine to use. Most email now uses encrypted connections, and beyond that just teach people the rule of thumb that if you don't know what you're doing (i.e. can't confirm it's secure), it's best to avoid using sites that you log on to when using public wi-fi.

      And no, you can't stop it, but that's because it's impossible to identify. Do you block google image search? Only have whitelisted sites? Other than that, it's impossible to block, but can be made hard enough that most people won't bother.

    • Although everything you said is true, it is all irrelevant. David Cameron does not care whether you can stop accessing pornography through public hot spots. He just needs to prove to his voters that he is doing his best.
  • by gweihir (88907) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:21AM (#43543771)

    There is really no other way he could claim something as stupid as this otherwise. Just your average clueless control-freak politician. I do not even find the strength to despise him, this has gotten far, far too common.

    • by tonywestonuk (261622) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:36AM (#43543811)

      I dont think they care, about VPN or proxies. If you have these, then you're obviously old and wise enough to be able to look at whatever you want, whenever you want.

      This is about minors, kids, who end up getting porn on there phones/tablets by accident, while looking for something innocent.

      • Hate to burst your bubble, but there are more 15 year olds out there who could set up a VPN network than 50 year olds...

      • by Inda (580031)
        I disagree. This is about Cameron getting his photo opportunity and creating soundbites for the media. He's so shallow. He'll u-turn this when it's found to be unworkable too.

        Who the hell stumbles on porn by accident? In my 15 years of internet use, I have never ever hit a porn site by accident. I have seen too many adverts for porn though; perhaps he should start there.

        I do visit a site with funny pictures, and they have a sub-section where lovely ladies like to show their tits. Would that be on the list t
      • This is about minors, kids, who end up getting porn on there phones/tablets by accident, while looking for something innocent.

        I don't think it's anything to do with "accident". Yes, occasionally, some idiot posts some disguised link and managed to get people to click on it (I've been caught out a couple of times in slashdot posts before they started putting the domain after the link)

        But mostly I suspect it's 13+ year olds going looking for porn. Which we all did. Back in my day though it was all still photo

        • by Ardyvee (2447206)

          Let us all remember that since we are on the Internet, some kind of guide is bound to appear and be searchable through google. Such guide will show you how to bypass the filter (bypassing localhost filters anyone?) and with enough word of mouth teenagers will be all over them. I mean, in my high school, facebook was blocked (or at least they tried to). My classmates found a way around it, and a rather simple one (I believe they used google cache and exploited the lack of blanket filter on facebook.com/*). W

      • by Kentari (1265084)
        After surfing around for 15 years I can say: Anyone claiming the porn got there by accident is lying. Certainly if it's 15yo kids.
      • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

        Google is pretty good at filtering porn from its results. I don't know about Bing and Yahoo but I would imagine they are too. That is where the filtering needs to be - in search results.

    • by tehcyder (746570)
      99% of peope have never heard of VPN or proxies.

      If the average user can't access porn easily, they won't be able to access porn full stop.

      Anyway, what is the big deal? Who wants to view porn in a McDonald's anyway? I just don't see the terrible infringement on liberty here. You're not allowed to pull down your trousers and start wanking off to a printed porn mag in your local coffee shop anyway.

      The idea that you should be able to do whatever you want wherever you are because it's on the internet is

    • by dkf (304284)

      Just your average clueless control-freak politician.

      He's not just a politician, he's a world leader!

      So, slightly more objectionable and clueless than average for a politician, but within normal variation. Of course, this is an uncosted kite that he's flying, so who knows whether it will manage to get implemented. (Mind you, it's a stupid policy that I'd bet is driven by the latest moral panic in the Daily Fail, so it's got far more legs than it actually merits. Oh well.)

    • So:

      The smart kids will successfully circumvent this by setting up VPNs, and if they prevent encryption, possibly using steganography.

      The stupid kids will not get their daily fix of digital porn and will start looking for the real thing, and procreate.

      Sounds like a brilliant plan!

  • by Chrisq (894406) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:27AM (#43543791)
    Cue all the problems that AOL had when they tried to censor the internet for their UK subscribers: Blocking of breast cancer awareness sites, Penistone council websites, and so on.
    • I remember trying to research into prehistoric music at college and I couldn't get on any sites that had the word homo in, ie Homo-sapiens, homo-erectus etc. Truly sad. Also in response to the person who suggested it would be helpful to stop children accidentally watching porn, it doesn't really happen, sure it probably happens on rare occasions, but not enough to be worthy of a sensational headline in the Daily Mail, let alone legislation.
    • by Rufty (37223)
      Penistone, Scunthorpe and Clitheroe. But Milton Keynes was OK???!?
    • by AmiMoJo (196126) *

      Maybe instead of blocking the whole of Sussex we should be educating children to be sensible online and deal with the real world that is full of borderline pornographic images on TV and in advertising anyway.

  • OpenDNS (Score:4, Interesting)

    by troon (724114) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:28AM (#43543795)

    Of course a complete block would be impossible. What's needed is something like OpenDNS [opendns.com]. I use it for my home network, with (in)appropriate categories blocked. This means it's far less likely the kids will stumble across (in a few years' time, read "successfully search for") anything we'd rather they didn't see.

    The router acts as a DNS forwarder for OpenDNS's servers, and it blocks outgoing port 53 requests from machines on the LAN. This stops anyone configuring their own DNS server to get around my block.

    This is by no means infallible: a proxy, a DNS server not on port 53, an external online IP address lookup - all of these will get around it. My intent is to reduce the likelihood of inappropriate material making it onto the LAN.

  • by PhamNguyen (2695929) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:32AM (#43543801)

    His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.

    Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.

    • by tg123 (1409503)

      His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from children’s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks.

      Because when I donate money to a children's charity, that's exactly what I'm hoping the money will be spent on. Think of all the children saved by these campaigns.

      But did you donate money to censor what people can view ?

      Um What are these kids parents your trying to save from viewing porn doing?

      Its a case who's watching Big Brother ?

      What happens when someone viewing (a hypothetical headline ) on "free" WiFi, British troops massacre Afghan civilians becomes unacceptable ? or horror of horrors Prince Harry mistaking kills an Afghan tribal chef in his role as Gunner on a Gunship ?

      Is it considered war porn and therefor banned ?

  • by auric_dude (610172) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @02:35AM (#43543807)
    FTA; "His intervention comes after a long-running campaign from childrenâ(TM)s charities to ensure a blanket ban on unacceptable sites on public WiFi networks." It would be good to see the full list of sites that are banned because you never know some non porn sites may be slipped in at the behest of political, business, religious or assorted pressure / lobby groups.
    • I too would like to see this list... for investigative purposes of course!
    • by wvmarle (1070040)

      Wow, dozens of comments and then finally this. It was the first thought of mine: "unacceptable sites" sounds very political, and reeks of plain old censorship.

      And while I know the sentiments against porn as such, there is a lot more perversion on the internet - and definitely far worse stuff than a beautiful naked lady.

  • The top trump rallying cry of those with no regard for anyone else's freedom. While I support the prevention of children accessing porn, I have greater support for maintaining cultural freedom for the majority adult population.

    Imposing access controls (administered by who?) differentiated between two groups (on what criteria, exactly?) across all public networks (enforced by what means and deterrents?) will have huge costs (economic, cultural and social) that a technically and morally ignorant special inter

  • Not that I have noticed. I will not pretend that I deliberately look at what is on other people's screens, but I have not seen anything. So if someone is looking at smut in public, but no one knows, what harm is being done ?

    Is Cameron going to announce that people must not read playboy in a public place ? What would be the point, it is not a problem, so why fix it ? Oh: I see, this will appeal to those Torygraph & Daily Fail readers who have not yet come to terms with their own sexuality or have their m

  • by lightknight (213164) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @05:09AM (#43544369) Homepage

    I can see that he's this generation's Marie Antoinette. "Derp, derp, no pr0n from wifi hotspot, do it because I'm a political bigwig!" "My lord, it's impossible to censor anything without whitelisting..." "Just do it, DERP!" 10 weeks later. "OMG, I can't get anywhere on these hotpots, WTF did you guys do?" "Only what you asked us to." "I didn't ask you to do this! Fix it!" "I shall have the elves get to work on it right away sire, but it may require one of the Crown Jewels..." "Umm...what?" "Nothing" 10 weeks later. "OMG, people can get to pr0n sites!" "Umm, h@x0ors?" "Ah."

  • by Stu101 (1031686) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @06:20AM (#43544605) Homepage

    From my point of view (and it is only that!) I don't see what is so wrong with banning it from public wifi spots. Two things occur to me:

    Firstly, it means less issues with people who don't know better browsing for it in Starbucks for example.

    Secondly, if you want it, go home and download or if you are really stuck, just buy a personal hotspot thingy from your provider.

    Lastly (ok that makes 3) it probably reduces your susceptibility to lawsuits (Oh my little johnny say a nipple and is now traumatised, show me the money) as the providers have made a reasonable effort to keep it clean.

  • by poofmeisterp (650750) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @07:18AM (#43544903) Journal

    Exactly how this will be implemented has not been identified, even to the extent of whether the ISP or the hotspot operator should implement the blocking.

    Just ask China.

  • by MSBob (307239) on Thursday April 25, 2013 @07:34AM (#43544999)
    the prime minister can tend to more urgent issues like porn at Starbucks. Got it.

3500 Calories = 1 Food Pound

Working...