The "Freeola Customer Forum" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Like Goatboy I don’t have a problem with pornography (as found out from one of his earlier posts). But I don’t like it when it forced upon me like it’s a religion (that bugs me to but that’s a different matter). Everyone is initialled to their opinion but I don’t think that there is any sane person that should think that it is ok to use children for pornography purposes. Adults are able to make their own decisions on what to do with their life, but most of the time it isn’t the children that choose to do it. Someone make that choice for them.
When you are searching the Internet, all you need to do is enter the wrong word to be a few clicks away from child pornography pictures. And no doubt in your email box you will find an email from a teenage temptress. Spend a few minuets in a chat room and you will properly be given a link to a porn site or be approached by someone who wants to chat ‘sexually’.
When we, or even worse our kids come across things such as this what do we do, close the page, delete the email or leave the chat room and continue as we accept this is the way of the internet.
The people who create the indecent material can hide behind a cloak of anonymity that the Internet provides; this is a widely held myth. Our computers leave an electronic trail every time we go online, which with some high-tech help can lead police to the paedophiles doorsteps.
While it would be stupid to think that we could ever eliminate online pornography, but there are measures that everyday users, governments and the Internet industry as a whole could take to curb the Internets seedier side.
The first excuse the government gives when they are asked why they are not cracking down on this problem, is “its not in our backyard”. Most of the material is hosted in foreign countries far beyond the jurisdiction of our own legal force. So why has the government not made a concentrated effort on an international level?
There have been a few high-profile swoops on gangs of online paedophiles in which several police forces have linked up on an ad hoc basis, but apart from this there has been no world-wide effort to tackle the problem.
The government has spent months in checking the content for the new digital channel BBC3, so why isn’t it taking a leading role in dealing with content on the Internet in which millions more people will surf than watch BBC3.
Earlier in the year the EU didn’t help the matter by doing something that no doubt bugs most people (I know it does me) and that was rejecting legislation that would stop companies sending you junk emails (including porn) unless you request it. Instead the EU went for the option where you can ask each individual company to remove you from their mailing lists. And properly from your experience as of mine, half the time the links to stop the junk coming don’t work. So the interests of big businesses where put before the interest of consumers, giving pornographers a free rein. In the past year junk email has increased five folds, and I’ve noticed it, as I’m sure you have.
Search sites could also do there bit more than they are doing now. They could easily remove hundreds of links to pornographic material. One of the main search sites also has a ‘picture search’ that in seconds can produce dozens of pictures of young girls engaged in sexual acts.
A lot of the time you don’t need to go looking for it, it will just pounce on you when you aren’t expecting it. All you need to do is type .com instead of .org behind the name of one of America’s most famous political buildings to find yourself staring at a porn site. Porn sites have even taken over sites using the names of town names, so when you expect to find a site about the town you want you find a porn site instead. All of this is perfectly legal as well.
The real question is why do web address registrars allow such abuse to the system. Surely if they got companies to submit the purpose and content of their site before being granted the right to buy an address. Then if they change the content of their site to indecent content then they could be stripped of their address.
ICAAN, the organisation responsible for allocating web addresses rejected a proposal that would of made identifying porn sites extremely easy, thus almost removing the accidental stumbling into a porn site. Also making it easier for parents to block access to their children preventing them surfing these sites behind their backs. The proposal was similar to replacing web addresses with .xxx instead of .com or .org, with a little government and industry pressure surely they could force it to reconsider.
But its not just these companies to blame, it is also partly the surfing public. We just turn a blind eye to it, instead of reporting these illegal web sites to independent watchdogs such as Internet Watch Foundation (www.iwf.org.uk). The IWF works with police and Internet providers to ensure that sites that host child pornography are removed and where possible prosecuting those responsible for the running of the site. If we thought our neighbours where abusing children we would call the police but why is this not on the Internet?
Surely more could be done to sort the problem out. Really there is no excuse why the government, industry and the public to just shrug shoulders and pretend we didn’t see it. I mean its harder to get hold of non-pornographic videos because they are considered too sexual. So how can parents complain about something such as the idea of sexual activity, which isn’t actually shown in a video. But then say nothing when it is shown in many different forms easily accessible to their children on the Internet?
When you are searching the Internet, all you need to do is enter the wrong word to be a few clicks away from child pornography pictures. And no doubt in your email box you will find an email from a teenage temptress. Spend a few minuets in a chat room and you will properly be given a link to a porn site or be approached by someone who wants to chat ‘sexually’.
When we, or even worse our kids come across things such as this what do we do, close the page, delete the email or leave the chat room and continue as we accept this is the way of the internet.
The people who create the indecent material can hide behind a cloak of anonymity that the Internet provides; this is a widely held myth. Our computers leave an electronic trail every time we go online, which with some high-tech help can lead police to the paedophiles doorsteps.
While it would be stupid to think that we could ever eliminate online pornography, but there are measures that everyday users, governments and the Internet industry as a whole could take to curb the Internets seedier side.
The first excuse the government gives when they are asked why they are not cracking down on this problem, is “its not in our backyard”. Most of the material is hosted in foreign countries far beyond the jurisdiction of our own legal force. So why has the government not made a concentrated effort on an international level?
There have been a few high-profile swoops on gangs of online paedophiles in which several police forces have linked up on an ad hoc basis, but apart from this there has been no world-wide effort to tackle the problem.
The government has spent months in checking the content for the new digital channel BBC3, so why isn’t it taking a leading role in dealing with content on the Internet in which millions more people will surf than watch BBC3.
Earlier in the year the EU didn’t help the matter by doing something that no doubt bugs most people (I know it does me) and that was rejecting legislation that would stop companies sending you junk emails (including porn) unless you request it. Instead the EU went for the option where you can ask each individual company to remove you from their mailing lists. And properly from your experience as of mine, half the time the links to stop the junk coming don’t work. So the interests of big businesses where put before the interest of consumers, giving pornographers a free rein. In the past year junk email has increased five folds, and I’ve noticed it, as I’m sure you have.
Search sites could also do there bit more than they are doing now. They could easily remove hundreds of links to pornographic material. One of the main search sites also has a ‘picture search’ that in seconds can produce dozens of pictures of young girls engaged in sexual acts.
A lot of the time you don’t need to go looking for it, it will just pounce on you when you aren’t expecting it. All you need to do is type .com instead of .org behind the name of one of America’s most famous political buildings to find yourself staring at a porn site. Porn sites have even taken over sites using the names of town names, so when you expect to find a site about the town you want you find a porn site instead. All of this is perfectly legal as well.
The real question is why do web address registrars allow such abuse to the system. Surely if they got companies to submit the purpose and content of their site before being granted the right to buy an address. Then if they change the content of their site to indecent content then they could be stripped of their address.
ICAAN, the organisation responsible for allocating web addresses rejected a proposal that would of made identifying porn sites extremely easy, thus almost removing the accidental stumbling into a porn site. Also making it easier for parents to block access to their children preventing them surfing these sites behind their backs. The proposal was similar to replacing web addresses with .xxx instead of .com or .org, with a little government and industry pressure surely they could force it to reconsider.
But its not just these companies to blame, it is also partly the surfing public. We just turn a blind eye to it, instead of reporting these illegal web sites to independent watchdogs such as Internet Watch Foundation (www.iwf.org.uk). The IWF works with police and Internet providers to ensure that sites that host child pornography are removed and where possible prosecuting those responsible for the running of the site. If we thought our neighbours where abusing children we would call the police but why is this not on the Internet?
Surely more could be done to sort the problem out. Really there is no excuse why the government, industry and the public to just shrug shoulders and pretend we didn’t see it. I mean its harder to get hold of non-pornographic videos because they are considered too sexual. So how can parents complain about something such as the idea of sexual activity, which isn’t actually shown in a video. But then say nothing when it is shown in many different forms easily accessible to their children on the Internet?
Goatboy wrote:
> I think it's the whole Bluebeard's Wife thing about porno. Same with
> most "illegal" or immoral acts, remove the illicit thrill
> and, more often than not, the appeal sinks. Once I was old enough to
> drink in pubs, it lost the edge. Once I could buy fags, that had faded
> (leaving me with only a crippling addiction before you non-smokers
> start - go pick on the alcoholics instead, I can't kill you because
> I've smoked 9 fags before driving home).
> But porn still has that hur-hur factor that makes it appealing for
> reasons other than biological.
>
> Remove that and, I think, a lot of the interest fades.
I disagree. Porn will always have the "hur-hur" factor. This is more because of the attempted storylines and cheesy soundtracks than the intended content though.
> I think it's the whole Bluebeard's Wife thing about porno. Same with
> most "illegal" or immoral acts, remove the illicit thrill
> and, more often than not, the appeal sinks. Once I was old enough to
> drink in pubs, it lost the edge. Once I could buy fags, that had faded
> (leaving me with only a crippling addiction before you non-smokers
> start - go pick on the alcoholics instead, I can't kill you because
> I've smoked 9 fags before driving home).
> But porn still has that hur-hur factor that makes it appealing for
> reasons other than biological.
>
> Remove that and, I think, a lot of the interest fades.
I disagree. Porn will always have the "hur-hur" factor. This is more because of the attempted storylines and cheesy soundtracks than the intended content though.
Goatboy wrote:
. Sure there are times when I do, and if you say you dont then
> you're a liar or extremely religious - even then I'll bet money you've
> "accidentally" found it.
Guilty as charged your honour !!
I agree with alot of the points raised here. I remember when we first got the net at work about 5 years ago. I went into one of the search engines - can't remember which one now and typed in "playstation" the fourth item on the results returned was for a porn site - this caused much discussion in the office as to how easy kids can find porn sites.
. Sure there are times when I do, and if you say you dont then
> you're a liar or extremely religious - even then I'll bet money you've
> "accidentally" found it.
Guilty as charged your honour !!
I agree with alot of the points raised here. I remember when we first got the net at work about 5 years ago. I went into one of the search engines - can't remember which one now and typed in "playstation" the fourth item on the results returned was for a porn site - this caused much discussion in the office as to how easy kids can find porn sites.
Indeed this whole business about how easy is it to stumble onto a porno site really is nonsense. You have to actually type the words into a search engine to get that sort of stuff. Although i did stumble upon one by accident, i was looking for the official whitehouse website, i hasten to say my guess at the web address was wrong.
>
> Lastly, kids finding these sites. Problem here is parents take no
> responsibility for kids internet use.
Some parents don't seen to want any responisiblilty for their children. How often is the fact that children don't know how to read, how to behave etc. blamed on Teachers. These are the things that Parents should be teaching their children.
It seems that everyone wants to blame someone else and no one wants to take responsibilty anymore.
> Lastly, kids finding these sites. Problem here is parents take no
> responsibility for kids internet use.
Some parents don't seen to want any responisiblilty for their children. How often is the fact that children don't know how to read, how to behave etc. blamed on Teachers. These are the things that Parents should be teaching their children.
It seems that everyone wants to blame someone else and no one wants to take responsibilty anymore.
Sniggering into hands aside, I agree with points made by both the original and Belldandy.
Personally I see nothing wrong with internet-porn (Insert usual disclaimer about child-abuse because that goes without saying).
What I think would be a major factor in "solving" this problem is looking at how you view porno (in a moral sense).
I found a bag full of mags when I was about 13, took 'em home and stashed them in my room. Mum found them and I thought "Oh christ..."
Her reaction? "Do what you want" and left me to it. Imagine the thrill of actually being allowed to look at porno mags! At home! Ok, so it wasn't at-the-table kind of thing but still, no need to hide in the bog.
My mates were envious and thought that was the coolest.
But the weirdest thing happened, after a couple of weeks I threw them out. Because they were boring. Not because they weren't erotic or anything, but the whole element of "Hur hur, porno" had been removed by me being allowed to look at them.
Same with the internet, 9/10 I just can't be bothered to search for porn. Because, at the end of the day, it's the same thing over and over. Sure there are times when I do, and if you say you dont then you're a liar or extremely religious - even then I'll bet money you've "accidentally" found it.
And that's the other thing, despite repeated "Tsk Tsk" pieces in The Daily Mail, I've only ever once stumbled across a porno site by mistake. The rest of the time you have to actively search them, and good luck trying to find a non-pay site with any pics on display.
I think it's the whole Bluebeard's Wife thing about porno. Same with most "illegal" or immoral acts, remove the illicit thrill and, more often than not, the appeal sinks. Once I was old enough to drink in pubs, it lost the edge. Once I could buy fags, that had faded (leaving me with only a crippling addiction before you non-smokers start - go pick on the alcoholics instead, I can't kill you because I've smoked 9 fags before driving home).
But porn still has that hur-hur factor that makes it appealing for reasons other than biological.
Remove that and, I think, a lot of the interest fades.
Personally I see nothing wrong with internet-porn (Insert usual disclaimer about child-abuse because that goes without saying).
What I think would be a major factor in "solving" this problem is looking at how you view porno (in a moral sense).
I found a bag full of mags when I was about 13, took 'em home and stashed them in my room. Mum found them and I thought "Oh christ..."
Her reaction? "Do what you want" and left me to it. Imagine the thrill of actually being allowed to look at porno mags! At home! Ok, so it wasn't at-the-table kind of thing but still, no need to hide in the bog.
My mates were envious and thought that was the coolest.
But the weirdest thing happened, after a couple of weeks I threw them out. Because they were boring. Not because they weren't erotic or anything, but the whole element of "Hur hur, porno" had been removed by me being allowed to look at them.
Same with the internet, 9/10 I just can't be bothered to search for porn. Because, at the end of the day, it's the same thing over and over. Sure there are times when I do, and if you say you dont then you're a liar or extremely religious - even then I'll bet money you've "accidentally" found it.
And that's the other thing, despite repeated "Tsk Tsk" pieces in The Daily Mail, I've only ever once stumbled across a porno site by mistake. The rest of the time you have to actively search them, and good luck trying to find a non-pay site with any pics on display.
I think it's the whole Bluebeard's Wife thing about porno. Same with most "illegal" or immoral acts, remove the illicit thrill and, more often than not, the appeal sinks. Once I was old enough to drink in pubs, it lost the edge. Once I could buy fags, that had faded (leaving me with only a crippling addiction before you non-smokers start - go pick on the alcoholics instead, I can't kill you because I've smoked 9 fags before driving home).
But porn still has that hur-hur factor that makes it appealing for reasons other than biological.
Remove that and, I think, a lot of the interest fades.
A great post on a difficult subject.
Child pornography is blatantly wrong and rightfully illegal - I doubt anyone here would argue otherwise. In my opinion a lot of legal porn is pushing the boundaries somewhat, but then anyone who says that is branded old fashioned.
Just wanted to pick up on a few things;
Firstly, the so called electronic trail PCs leave. Yes, someone who has not got knowledge enough to hide their tracks will leave a trail, but there are a variety of programs with legal uses - such as Evidence Eliminator - designed to wipe all traces of internet and files from a hard disk, to the point that not even forensic analysis of the hard disk would be able to recover anything. Programs such as Norton Firewall can hide IP's and prevent tracers, and block cookies. Many ISP's do not record the IP numbers used by members to use the internet, and een within those who do it is easy to falsify a membership or use a service that requires no checkabl details.
Law enforcement, it's okay saying that governments are dodging the issue with arguments of jurisdiction. But in reality, if the FBI find they want to arrest someone in India, then they cannot just charge in and grab them, nor would the UK tolerate Chinese police swooping into the UK unannounced. The real problem is that internet users have created a demand for this material, and no one checked that demand or tried to stop it in the early days of the net.
Web Site names; again, you can argue that ISPs shouldn't allow people to register certain web addresses, but that violates all sorts of freedoms which we have, many may not like the idea of a web site name, but if it doesn't breach copyright or be racist then the grounds for objection are very much moral - that opens up the ideas of whose morals you base law on, which further bogs down the whole issue.
Lastly, kids finding these sites. Problem here is parents take no responsibility for kids internet use. Parents need to do something here, not ISPs or anyone else. I've used the net 6 years now, and never ended up at a porn site by mistake, or been sent any of the email described here. My address is known to loads of people, on loads of mailing lists e.t.c I suspect many kids actually look for porn, an use the old "honest, it just went there by itself" when caught......
~~Belldandy~~
Child pornography is blatantly wrong and rightfully illegal - I doubt anyone here would argue otherwise. In my opinion a lot of legal porn is pushing the boundaries somewhat, but then anyone who says that is branded old fashioned.
Just wanted to pick up on a few things;
Firstly, the so called electronic trail PCs leave. Yes, someone who has not got knowledge enough to hide their tracks will leave a trail, but there are a variety of programs with legal uses - such as Evidence Eliminator - designed to wipe all traces of internet and files from a hard disk, to the point that not even forensic analysis of the hard disk would be able to recover anything. Programs such as Norton Firewall can hide IP's and prevent tracers, and block cookies. Many ISP's do not record the IP numbers used by members to use the internet, and een within those who do it is easy to falsify a membership or use a service that requires no checkabl details.
Law enforcement, it's okay saying that governments are dodging the issue with arguments of jurisdiction. But in reality, if the FBI find they want to arrest someone in India, then they cannot just charge in and grab them, nor would the UK tolerate Chinese police swooping into the UK unannounced. The real problem is that internet users have created a demand for this material, and no one checked that demand or tried to stop it in the early days of the net.
Web Site names; again, you can argue that ISPs shouldn't allow people to register certain web addresses, but that violates all sorts of freedoms which we have, many may not like the idea of a web site name, but if it doesn't breach copyright or be racist then the grounds for objection are very much moral - that opens up the ideas of whose morals you base law on, which further bogs down the whole issue.
Lastly, kids finding these sites. Problem here is parents take no responsibility for kids internet use. Parents need to do something here, not ISPs or anyone else. I've used the net 6 years now, and never ended up at a porn site by mistake, or been sent any of the email described here. My address is known to loads of people, on loads of mailing lists e.t.c I suspect many kids actually look for porn, an use the old "honest, it just went there by itself" when caught......
~~Belldandy~~
I am a 15 year old and I know exactly what you mean. While I was surfing today I came across 4 porn sites by accident in 5 mins, and worse yet 3 more Casino sites. It anooys me alot.
Like Goatboy I don’t have a problem with pornography (as found out from one of his earlier posts). But I don’t like it when it forced upon me like it’s a religion (that bugs me to but that’s a different matter). Everyone is initialled to their opinion but I don’t think that there is any sane person that should think that it is ok to use children for pornography purposes. Adults are able to make their own decisions on what to do with their life, but most of the time it isn’t the children that choose to do it. Someone make that choice for them.
When you are searching the Internet, all you need to do is enter the wrong word to be a few clicks away from child pornography pictures. And no doubt in your email box you will find an email from a teenage temptress. Spend a few minuets in a chat room and you will properly be given a link to a porn site or be approached by someone who wants to chat ‘sexually’.
When we, or even worse our kids come across things such as this what do we do, close the page, delete the email or leave the chat room and continue as we accept this is the way of the internet.
The people who create the indecent material can hide behind a cloak of anonymity that the Internet provides; this is a widely held myth. Our computers leave an electronic trail every time we go online, which with some high-tech help can lead police to the paedophiles doorsteps.
While it would be stupid to think that we could ever eliminate online pornography, but there are measures that everyday users, governments and the Internet industry as a whole could take to curb the Internets seedier side.
The first excuse the government gives when they are asked why they are not cracking down on this problem, is “its not in our backyard”. Most of the material is hosted in foreign countries far beyond the jurisdiction of our own legal force. So why has the government not made a concentrated effort on an international level?
There have been a few high-profile swoops on gangs of online paedophiles in which several police forces have linked up on an ad hoc basis, but apart from this there has been no world-wide effort to tackle the problem.
The government has spent months in checking the content for the new digital channel BBC3, so why isn’t it taking a leading role in dealing with content on the Internet in which millions more people will surf than watch BBC3.
Earlier in the year the EU didn’t help the matter by doing something that no doubt bugs most people (I know it does me) and that was rejecting legislation that would stop companies sending you junk emails (including porn) unless you request it. Instead the EU went for the option where you can ask each individual company to remove you from their mailing lists. And properly from your experience as of mine, half the time the links to stop the junk coming don’t work. So the interests of big businesses where put before the interest of consumers, giving pornographers a free rein. In the past year junk email has increased five folds, and I’ve noticed it, as I’m sure you have.
Search sites could also do there bit more than they are doing now. They could easily remove hundreds of links to pornographic material. One of the main search sites also has a ‘picture search’ that in seconds can produce dozens of pictures of young girls engaged in sexual acts.
A lot of the time you don’t need to go looking for it, it will just pounce on you when you aren’t expecting it. All you need to do is type .com instead of .org behind the name of one of America’s most famous political buildings to find yourself staring at a porn site. Porn sites have even taken over sites using the names of town names, so when you expect to find a site about the town you want you find a porn site instead. All of this is perfectly legal as well.
The real question is why do web address registrars allow such abuse to the system. Surely if they got companies to submit the purpose and content of their site before being granted the right to buy an address. Then if they change the content of their site to indecent content then they could be stripped of their address.
ICAAN, the organisation responsible for allocating web addresses rejected a proposal that would of made identifying porn sites extremely easy, thus almost removing the accidental stumbling into a porn site. Also making it easier for parents to block access to their children preventing them surfing these sites behind their backs. The proposal was similar to replacing web addresses with .xxx instead of .com or .org, with a little government and industry pressure surely they could force it to reconsider.
But its not just these companies to blame, it is also partly the surfing public. We just turn a blind eye to it, instead of reporting these illegal web sites to independent watchdogs such as Internet Watch Foundation (www.iwf.org.uk). The IWF works with police and Internet providers to ensure that sites that host child pornography are removed and where possible prosecuting those responsible for the running of the site. If we thought our neighbours where abusing children we would call the police but why is this not on the Internet?
Surely more could be done to sort the problem out. Really there is no excuse why the government, industry and the public to just shrug shoulders and pretend we didn’t see it. I mean its harder to get hold of non-pornographic videos because they are considered too sexual. So how can parents complain about something such as the idea of sexual activity, which isn’t actually shown in a video. But then say nothing when it is shown in many different forms easily accessible to their children on the Internet?
When you are searching the Internet, all you need to do is enter the wrong word to be a few clicks away from child pornography pictures. And no doubt in your email box you will find an email from a teenage temptress. Spend a few minuets in a chat room and you will properly be given a link to a porn site or be approached by someone who wants to chat ‘sexually’.
When we, or even worse our kids come across things such as this what do we do, close the page, delete the email or leave the chat room and continue as we accept this is the way of the internet.
The people who create the indecent material can hide behind a cloak of anonymity that the Internet provides; this is a widely held myth. Our computers leave an electronic trail every time we go online, which with some high-tech help can lead police to the paedophiles doorsteps.
While it would be stupid to think that we could ever eliminate online pornography, but there are measures that everyday users, governments and the Internet industry as a whole could take to curb the Internets seedier side.
The first excuse the government gives when they are asked why they are not cracking down on this problem, is “its not in our backyard”. Most of the material is hosted in foreign countries far beyond the jurisdiction of our own legal force. So why has the government not made a concentrated effort on an international level?
There have been a few high-profile swoops on gangs of online paedophiles in which several police forces have linked up on an ad hoc basis, but apart from this there has been no world-wide effort to tackle the problem.
The government has spent months in checking the content for the new digital channel BBC3, so why isn’t it taking a leading role in dealing with content on the Internet in which millions more people will surf than watch BBC3.
Earlier in the year the EU didn’t help the matter by doing something that no doubt bugs most people (I know it does me) and that was rejecting legislation that would stop companies sending you junk emails (including porn) unless you request it. Instead the EU went for the option where you can ask each individual company to remove you from their mailing lists. And properly from your experience as of mine, half the time the links to stop the junk coming don’t work. So the interests of big businesses where put before the interest of consumers, giving pornographers a free rein. In the past year junk email has increased five folds, and I’ve noticed it, as I’m sure you have.
Search sites could also do there bit more than they are doing now. They could easily remove hundreds of links to pornographic material. One of the main search sites also has a ‘picture search’ that in seconds can produce dozens of pictures of young girls engaged in sexual acts.
A lot of the time you don’t need to go looking for it, it will just pounce on you when you aren’t expecting it. All you need to do is type .com instead of .org behind the name of one of America’s most famous political buildings to find yourself staring at a porn site. Porn sites have even taken over sites using the names of town names, so when you expect to find a site about the town you want you find a porn site instead. All of this is perfectly legal as well.
The real question is why do web address registrars allow such abuse to the system. Surely if they got companies to submit the purpose and content of their site before being granted the right to buy an address. Then if they change the content of their site to indecent content then they could be stripped of their address.
ICAAN, the organisation responsible for allocating web addresses rejected a proposal that would of made identifying porn sites extremely easy, thus almost removing the accidental stumbling into a porn site. Also making it easier for parents to block access to their children preventing them surfing these sites behind their backs. The proposal was similar to replacing web addresses with .xxx instead of .com or .org, with a little government and industry pressure surely they could force it to reconsider.
But its not just these companies to blame, it is also partly the surfing public. We just turn a blind eye to it, instead of reporting these illegal web sites to independent watchdogs such as Internet Watch Foundation (www.iwf.org.uk). The IWF works with police and Internet providers to ensure that sites that host child pornography are removed and where possible prosecuting those responsible for the running of the site. If we thought our neighbours where abusing children we would call the police but why is this not on the Internet?
Surely more could be done to sort the problem out. Really there is no excuse why the government, industry and the public to just shrug shoulders and pretend we didn’t see it. I mean its harder to get hold of non-pornographic videos because they are considered too sexual. So how can parents complain about something such as the idea of sexual activity, which isn’t actually shown in a video. But then say nothing when it is shown in many different forms easily accessible to their children on the Internet?