UK Gov't Considering Requiring A 'Porn License' If You Want To Look At Porn Online

from the seriously? dept

Mon, May 7th 2012 11:22am — Mike Masnick

We hear this idea pop up every now and again, and I'd thought by now it had been shown to be pointless enough times that no one would seriously consider it again. Apparently, I was wrong. UK Prime Minister David Cameron is considering requiring adults who want to see porn online to "opt-in" by getting what is effectively a "porn license" to surf the sites deemed naughty by the government. Those in the UK government who actually think this is a smart idea might want to talk to their friends Down Under. Australia has toyed with similar ideas in the past, and they've all gone down in embarrassing flames. There was the filter that blocked educational sites, but left plenty of porn available. And there was the filter that took a teenager all of a half hour to crack.

Both of these highlight the key problems with the plan. Once you go down the path of censoring the internet, suddenly very, very big questions are raised about what gets put on the censorship list. It's easy to say "oh, well, porn is blocked," but something countless people (including judges) have struggled with over the years is how to precisely define porn. It's not nearly as easy as many people think. In nearly every case with filters we see a pattern: perfectly legitimate content that almost no one would consider to be porn gets blocked. And tons and tons of "porn" isn't blocked. Second, people will very, very, very quickly figure out how to get around such blocks.

The other issue, which doesn't come up as often, is the sheer ridiculousness of requiring people to effectively announce to the government that they want to view porn. They describe it as an "opt-in," but as I've said in the past, it's really more of a "porn license." People may have all sorts of reasons for looking at porn, but having to tell your government that you want to look at porn seems like a clear attempt to humiliate people for no reason other than that some in the government don't like the fact that others like porn.

If there's concern about kids viewing porn -- often the "think of the children!" justification that we hear -- there's nothing stopping parents from putting in place their own filters (which are likely to be as effective as any national filters). Why go further and try to block things for everyone?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: australia, censorship, filtering, porn, uk

71 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

STStone, 7 May 2012 @ 11:30am

Why go further and try to block things for everyone?

Control of the citizenry's minds, for starters.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
:Lobo Santo (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:31am

Business Opportunity
On the other hand, those who want porn but not to tell the gov will have to go thru a third-party of some sort--unless proxies count as porn too.

On the gripping hand, to be effective, they'll have to block/monitor bittorrent (good luck), irq, ftp, every chat channel which can accommodate file transfers, and the good'ol sneakernet. Hell of a goal they've set.

I'd wish them luck, but there's not a snowball's chance in hell they will succeed.

Unless they put a little paper hat on their snowball, in which case the snowball will last a long time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- :Lobo Santo (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:32am
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  irq should be irc -- been doing hardware dev all morning, sorry.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dark Helmet (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:53am
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  "On the other hand, those who want porn but not to tell the gov will have to go thru a third-party of some sort--unless proxies count as porn too."
  
  The paranoid part of me thinks that proxies are the actual target in all of this. Between porn, copyright legislation, attempts to put in backdoors for government, etc. etc. etc., it's almost as if authorities all over the world are attempting to foster proxies being primarily used for all the things they've made illegal. Once that's done, they can legislate against the proxies, perhaps the whole point the entire time.
  
  But then I remember: Nah, that's tinfoil hat craziness. Governments wouldn't setup false flag operations like that, and surely there was no Reichstagg Fire....
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:05pm
    
    Re: Re: Business Opportunity
    So...
    
    1) get everyone to use proxies
    2) arrest proxy end points and charge providers for all crimes on network
    3)
    4) profit
    
    ??
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Dark Helmet (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Business Opportunity
      Well, step three is already completed. That's the "make sure we're all in bed with the prison-industrial complex" step....
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Marcel de Jong (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 3:07pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Business Opportunity
        Make the internet into a panopticon, and you control the world.
        
        I guess, it's time to go off the grid.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2012 @ 12:15am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Business Opportunity
      profit?!?
      
      This is government - they have no need of profit (hence the current debt levels)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:56am
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  On the gripping hand
  
  Lay off the porn, buddy.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - :Lobo Santo (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:01pm
    
    Re: Re: Business Opportunity
    _le sigh_ It's a book reference.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:42am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Business Opportunity
      And +1 to you for that!
      
      Although you could call it porn, if you consider classic age-style 'hard' Sci-fi to be pr0n for techies...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The eejit (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:47pm
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  Hrm...that give me a new idea for licensed porn...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Lauriel (profile), 9 May 2012 @ 12:19am
    
    Re: Re: Business Opportunity
    Hrm...that give me a new idea for licensed porn...
    
    Does it involve two "police officers" and a pool cleaner?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 2:06pm
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  on the gripping hand...lol
  
  intentional or happpy accident?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - christine conner, 7 May 2012 @ 8:58pm
    
    Re: Re: Business Opportunity
    haha "happy accident"
    are you trying to perpetuate the dirty puns, or is it unintentional?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 7 May 2012 @ 8:50pm
  
  Re: Business Opportunity
  those little paper hats are considered military grade weaponry, so only people who intend on breaking the law want them
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Krish (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:39am

BBC Porn
A "Porn License"? Does that mean the BBC will start making porn? That's the point of the TV license in the UK. Debbie Does the Doctor? I could see it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 11:43am
  
  Re: BBC Porn
  I'd watch that.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - weneedhelp (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:51am
    
    Re: Re: BBC Porn
    Only if Billie Piper gets to be Debbie. ;)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - btr1701 (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 11:59am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
      > Only if Billie Piper gets to be Debbie. ;)
      
      Billie's fine, but if I get to choose someone to go hardcore with the Doctor, I'm opting for Amy Pond.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 1:12pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
        You both are crazy, Martha all the way.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Marcel de Jong (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 3:11pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
        Why not a two Doctors story?
        
        Number Ten with the DoctorDonna. *runs away cackling madly*
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:44am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
        I'd go for Number 10 (clone) with Rose...
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 5:39pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
        Definitely Martha.
        If there are licenses, does that also means that you can get a learner's permit but you have to view it with one of your parents ?
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:50am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
        Yum...
        
        ...and euuuuuwww!
        Why should it have to be a parent? How about someone a bit more... experienced? :)
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Marcel de Jong (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 3:09pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
      We already had Secret Diary of a Call Girl.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Niall (profile), 25 May 2012 @ 4:44am
      
      Re: Re: Re: BBC Porn
      Didn't she already snog two of the Doctors? (Ok, one was in another show, but... :)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 11:46am

if anything/everything has been tried anywhere/everywhere by anyone/everyone and proven to be an abject failure, you can bet your arse the thick fuckers in the UK government will come along afterwards and not only want to but will implement it. when it fails, like it has everywhere else, they cant understand why. how dim can you get?? but i suppose when you have people in government like Perry that thinks that a TV that is limited to between 5 and 500 channels can have it's rules work on a communication platform that has infinite 'channels', what do you expect?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
izzitme101, 7 May 2012 @ 11:50am

This is hardly a suprise, this dictator is no different to the two that recently left/got kicked out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 11:52am

I'm sure these pron licenses will never ever ever be brought up in court or during a police interrogation. Never ever...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:02pm

It really is simple
If parents don't want children viewing porn online they should take responsibility and block it themselves instead of calling on ISPs to block it. It's not bloody difficult for Christ's sake.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:08pm
  
  Re: It really is simple
  make parents responsible for raising their children? Outrageous! This is why we invented tv and the internet so we could stick the kids in their rooms and they will leave us the fuck alone. Spend time with and pay attention to my children! The nerve!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Torg (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:17pm
  
  Re: It really is simple
  How to bypass parental blocks:
  
  Step 1: Install keylogger on computer.
  Step 2: Find blocked legitimate site.
  Step 3: Request that parent bypass block for legitimate site.
  Step 4: Retrieve password from keylogger.
  
  I'm sure there are other ways to get around them too, but that was how my first day with my own laptop went.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:44pm
    
    Re: Re: It really is simple
    How many children would know how to install a key logger?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - David (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It really is simple
      Most of them. You're talking about a generation who grew up with those new fangled computer thingies...
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 1:05pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: It really is simple
        I honestly don't know whether to be alarmed or impressed.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
        
        monkyyy, 7 May 2012 @ 8:53pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: It really is simple
        neither its like children who were the first ones to be able to read could get a ton of smut
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Torg (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 3:46pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: It really is simple
      I didn't before I started trying to figure out how to hack my computer. As it turns out all that's required is downloading one off of Sourceforge and running the program. Other things I learned during that process included what a keylogger is, what Sourceforge is, and what freeware is. A determined child with a specific objective can learn a lot very quickly when armed with Google.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous, 7 May 2012 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re: It really is simple
  simple yes, but getting around the block is not that hard
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- anonymous, 7 May 2012 @ 8:48pm
  
  Re: It really is simple
  simple yes, but getting around the block is not that hard
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JayTee (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:12pm

As with all these idiotic "Think of the children!" moral panics if less time were spent focusing on the censorship and more time spent on proper parenting skills then this issue would resolve itself fairly quickly.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rikuo (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:24pm

Okay, back to the question of who decides what is porn and what is not...what about the heavy Muslim population in the UK? Last I heard, Muslims believe in full body covering for women (hijabs and niqabs). So will fundamentalist Muslims be deciding that any video showing an uncovered woman is pornography and therefore need a licence to view?

For the record, I mean no offense against Muslims.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- JarHead, 7 May 2012 @ 10:44pm
  
  Re:
  [quote][i]So will fundamentalist Muslims be deciding that any video showing an uncovered woman is pornography and therefore need a licence to view?[/i][/quote]
  
  OMG Noooooooo!!!!
  And I'm saying that as a Muslim!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 12:33pm

Best way to "think of the children" is to educate parents to be real parents. And that includes having minimum knowledge of computers/internet and actually spending time with the kid (as in monitor personally the time kids spend online being there when they are accessing the web).

Nothing else will protect children online. Children learn very quickly how to circumvent filters and blocks.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:47pm

If porn is really so bad and evil, then why not take it a step farther? Why aren't we outlawing real life 'porn', like you know, consensual sex, and letting someone else see you naked.

Sex and nakedness are what most porn is all about after all. So if one is harmful to everyone involved (online porn) then surely the other (consensual sex and nakedness) is just as harmful to everyone involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Capitalist Lion Tamer (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 1:42pm
  
  Re:
  Exactly. And a followup question:
  
  If said porn license is required to view actual porn, will a separate license be required to watch non-porn sexual activity? What if I want to log in to Chatroulette and view random penises? Is that covered or do I need to be licensed as a "Manhandler Class C" or something?
  
  Followup to the followup:
  
  Is there anything out there that prevents Chatroulette from being nothing but wall-to-wall penises? If so, I have a friend who's very interested in knowing the details...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:50pm

Fixing the wrong problem
I think that requiring a porn license to "think of the children" is treating the problem too little too late. Instead let's require "child-bearing" licenses. Yeah, that's a GREAT idea.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Amber, 7 May 2012 @ 12:53pm

And once you have in place the means to block websites, all kinds of things could end up on that list if you know the right people and grease the right palms. I can see why the politicians want it. How wonderful to "protect children". They could even put a few real porn sites on there to make it look legit.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:54pm

I was once a 14 year old male and let me say...anything and everything can be porn if you try.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 2:21am
  
  Re:
  And often even if you don't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 12:58pm

I would demand more porn with more tentacles and fisting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Rich Kulawiec, 7 May 2012 @ 1:05pm

New rule
Whenever a politician says "we must do this for the children!", they really mean "we must do this...for me."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 1:30pm

James Bond, superspy with a license to fap.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
anonymous coward, 7 May 2012 @ 1:58pm

Stupid is as stupid does.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous, 7 May 2012 @ 2:40pm

Sounds like Audrey Barnhart, the Iron Ayatollah of the Texas County Library system, has now declared herself Queen.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 7 May 2012 @ 2:44pm
  
  Re:
  Well, actually, she'd probably just ban porn altogether.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 3:53pm

Hmm... Grandstanding on a moral issue? Providing a "solution" that doesn't actually solve anything? Why does this sound so familiar...?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A Guy (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 4:31pm

...cannot tell if politicians are trolling
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- monkyyy, 7 May 2012 @ 8:58pm
  
  Re:
  or bloodsucking rats?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - That One Guy (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 2:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    Hey, I will not stand for you slandering the good name of rats, by putting them in the same group as politicians!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 May 2012 @ 7:36pm

China?
I live in China and have heard this excuse more times than I can count. So how do I get on websites that are blocked? Kids are not stupid and are way more technically savvy than in my generation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
fuck, 7 May 2012 @ 8:47pm

Why does my country suck so hard recently. Seriously, England is getting real queer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
techflaws.org (profile), 7 May 2012 @ 10:13pm

Mandatory Scrubs reference
Dr. Cox: "I'm fairly sure if they took porn off the internet, there'd be only one website left. And it'd be called 'Bring back the porn!'"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That One Guy (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 2:43am

Well this isn't going to help TD...
Eesh, an article that mentions porn not once but twice in the title! And then goes on to mention it several more times in the article...

This is certainly not going to help convince the german moral police(otherwise known as the German Media Control Authority) that TD isn't filled the to digital rafters with smut.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 8 May 2012 @ 7:22am

This is the coalitions re-launch!
It's their new ideas to get the voters back on their side! This is definitely going to work.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TerraHertz, 8 May 2012 @ 8:18am

Licence the legislators
Can we please implement a license system for people who want to make up rules to restrict what other people can do?

It would need some kind of basic intelligence and technology awareness test, with a yearly re-test. Also a psych test, to exclude psychopaths, megalomaniacs and other lunatics.

A person would need to have this license before standing for election, or taking any powerful civil service position.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
droozilla (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 10:06am

Just start jerking off on pictures of the Queen. Then sandwich Kate's picture on top and leave the mess outside for discovery. We'll see how they feel about internet porn then.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- The Infamous Joe (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 10:25am
  
  Re:
  What do you mean start?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - droozilla (profile), 8 May 2012 @ 11:06am
    
    Re: Re:
    Good point. And good luck.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
suatana (profile), 18 Jun 2012 @ 12:32am

Backfire
If enough people opted in, this might have the opposite effect. Porn becomes socially acceptable to watch/talk/share/etc. I'd vote for this. If porn was not deemed evil, maybe it would even stop human trafficking and such.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ryan, 20 Apr 2019 @ 9:26am

Wasting Money, Wasting time.. wasting life
What a joke, I think the biggest problem with this is these people are payed by us.

The world has bigger problems..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]