David Cameron looks to have stumped all paedophilles then!

Pure politics and nothing whatever to do with actually making a difference

I completely agree. Except if a paedophial causes harm to a child they should still be punished & receive trestment because a very small minority have no remorse formtheir actions and treatment alone simply won't do.
do you agree?

Its probably to do with making a difference on the government getting their fingers into regulation of the internet. Controlling what people can and cannot view, its a slippery slope before a once free domain is then heavily regulated by governments across the world. Large internet companies getting into bed with Government hasn't been good news of late either. Protecting children is always a great way to get people to lose all rationality and happy to agree to such proposals. How can you disagree with protecting children?

Its clearly useless at fulfilling its actual intent, but its a long way to go to make a statement, I would look at what other uses it could have. Setting a precedent for Google regulating their search terms based on what the UK thinks is appropriate.

A good analysis. National control of what comes back in response to different search terms may well be the true objective here - they will claim next that they need to do it to restrict the activities of terrorists - after that will come a range of issues such as 'copyright infringement' and whatever else the corporate clients of the Prime Minister's confidential PR advisor require of him.

One solution would be for the EU to establish a common framework for the rights and responsibilities of internet providers and content publishers, but of course this would also open huge scope for corporate and security state lobbyists to ensure it goes their way.

The legal definition is stupider than I hope you can imagine.

See the Brass Eye programme on 'nonce sense', with the former head of the Met's vice squad being asked about various images. It's gotten sillier since then.

But how do you identify them then?

I don't have that answer.

But, if the social stigma attached to this was removed and we stopped treating people with what is actually a mental disorder as if they were criminals (and the lowest tier of criminals toboot) then many of them might be willing to self identify and seek treatment.

Paedophilia is really nothing more than a sexual preference. It shouldn't be a crime per se. Most never even consider turning fantasy into reality, let alone act on it to horrendous effect. For every monster that we read about in the newspapers there are presumabky tens of thousands who simply live with their dark fantasies. Those people need help, not criminal prosecution.

But, until we stop automatically tarring them all with the same brush there will be a continual risk that a very few of those left alone with their fantasies will cross the line.

Support groups and counselling may help but who is going to sign up the "Pedophiles Anonymous" in the current stigmatised environment?

Maybe, and I admit it is just a maybe, Mark Bridger would never have tipped into the abyss had he been able to come forward, self-identify, and seek professional psychiatric, medical treatment, and counselling. We will never know whether April Jones could have been saved had society taken a more mature approach to this issue.

The number of times people put meatspin up on school computers was fairly substantial. Unless you lock the screen, a jackass friend will start doing dodgy searches on your behalf. Sick? Perhaps. That doesn't mean it's not a widespread occurrence.



This is a very slippery slope and the methods they are using are so naive. Pretty much all my university buddies have software installed to get around internet filters, so what good is it going to do to add more of them? Even citizens in China can access banned websites, so how do the government believe they can suddenly stop it now?

The additional regulations (filters by default, bans on certain types of porn, etc) are either subjective or promoting a lazy culture. Parents are naive to believe this will stop little Jimmy from finding porn - I doubt it will be long before school kids start setting up Dropbox accounts and selling access to porn they downloaded. Sharing data is far too easy and will lead to a "worse" culture than there already is. What do they think they are solving? You don't even need the internet to share data... Most kids have a smartphone, so they'll just send the files over that or share USB sticks or email it to each other. The getarounds are ridiculously simple.


Regarding child abuse, that absolutely must stop, but these proposals are aimed in entirely the wrong direction. It has taken us decades to uncover some child abuse cases because those who do it are trying not to be found! Spend the money on getting more police to hunt down the real criminals and to do proper investigative work. Who do they think is going to Google search for highly illegal porn anyway?

Subjectively blocking porn is a dangerous business as well. The definitions will only get broader. There are plenty of artistic nude photographers out there who may suffer and plenty of people who are likely to get in trouble because the government were over-zealous in choosing who can view what.

I wouldn't be surprised if they get a visit from "Anonymous" and I really hope the EU steps in to support the citizens on this one.

Couple of point here.

First of all, I know it sounds a silly question but what qualifies as child porn? Isn't porn different things to different people? So where would Cameron draw the line?

Secondly, since Pedopholia is a recognized mental abnormality, rather than spend millions hunting down and prosecuting people who type the words "child porn" into google perhaps that money could be better spent on healthcare for these people.

As someone who is completely computer illiterate, how do you get around filters etc?

I'm sure this is far from a technically correct answer, but here goes:

You can use things such as proxies which re-route data and works as an intermediate server between you, the ISP and the information you want... But because the proxy itself is not blocked, it can send you the data and not be recognised as a "blocked" sites. You can google for sites which let you enter a web address.

There is also software called "Hotspot Shield" (it is well worth looking for alternative software, but that's an example of it) which will do similar, but it sits on your computer and will create a proxy connection. You can also ask it to mimic your country... So you could tell a website that you're from a different country or just generally get around blocks.


It's really not very complicated stuff at all, and takes seconds to set up or use. It's not some mad hacker skills thing, even teenagers use it in schools to get around blocks.