2
It does not make sense !
The duplicity of life today is all around us. The internet is a breeding ground for it. We are told to follow a certain path but are inundated with ways to deviate from it.
We know it is wrong to sit with a huge tub of ice cream and eat it all but that is what the advertisers persuade us to do.
So who controls this? Is there any control? When did you last hear a debate in Parliament on porn or on social networking, or are they all too busy twittering?
Does anyone in power take notice of the lies being perpetrated in false claims by advertisers?
Why when the Government spends a fortune on telling people to drink sensibly do I find that when I walk into a local pub chain in Neath I have to pay approximately £1.80 for half a pint of coke or lemonade but can get a shot of Jack Daniels in it for 40-50 pence. Is that how to encourage people to drink sensibly or to go for the soft option? I think not, people love a bargain. So why is this duplicity tolerated?
I should imagine that most people today in this country abhor pornographic material of all forms and want to protect their children from it. However it appears that far from working towards protecting your children those in power are actively working to protect themselves from invasive search engines such as the mighty Google.
Here again the duplicity of media, advertisers and those in power is blatantly apparent. While ordinary people seek to protect their children those in power seek to protect themselves.
Why has this happened?
Many good and decent people are not afraid of new technology. If you are not breaking the law then surely you have nothing to fear. As we have touched on earlier, our every movement is taped on CCTV cameras wherever we go; we are mapped every time we use a computer through a search engine and every time we use a bank card to pay for goods or services. So why, when this information, while invasive, is there to protect us from those who choose to cheat the system are we afraid of it?
Or are some more afraid than others?
Look at the following news reports re privacy taken from "guardian.co.uk" :-
“Google could face fines from six European countries' privacy regulators, including the UK and Germany, after refusing to reverse changes to its privacy policies made in March 2012…………………………..
……………The search company has infuriated the regulators by declining to respond to their demands made over multiple months – even as research shows that user concerns about online privacy are high………………..”
Here once again we have research companies giving results of surveys and telling us (the consumer) that we (as a body) have concerns about online privacy which are high. Did they ask you what you thought? Did they ask me? Not only did they not ask me but having on many occasions filled in survey forms of magnificent complexity I have noticed that the way the questions are weighted or asked does not give you cart blanche for your own views but leads you down the path of having to give an answer by default. In this way figures can be manipulated to show anything they require. We see once again that duplicity; people being used for someone else’s purpose.
“ …………..France's privacy body, CNIL, together with its counterparts in the UK, Netherlands, German, Spain and Italy, said on Tuesday they will take joint legal action involving an investigation and possible fines. The UK's information commissioner's office (ICO) can levy fines of up to £500,000 for breaches of the Data Protection Act. A decision is expected by summer 2013. CNIL could fine it up to €300,000 (£255,000).
“………….As the latest moves were announced on Tuesday, Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: "Google has repeatedly put profit ahead of user privacy and the way that the company ignored concerns from regulators around the world when it changed its privacy policy showed just how little regard it has for the law. Just because Google is a big business does not put it above the law. The company has ignored the authorities and refused to make any meaningful changes to how it collects and uses people's data……………."
“……….Pickles said: "Consumers are increasingly concerned about how their data is being used, and it is essential that those breaking the law are properly punished. It is essential regulators find a sanction that is not just a slap on the wrists and will make Google's think twice before it ignores consumer rights again."
"No one is against Google's objective of simplicity. It's legitimate. But it needs to be accompanied by transparence for consumers and the ability to say yes or no," Isabelle Falque-Pierrotin, head of CNIL, said recently. "[But] consumers have the right to know how the information is being used and what's being done with it……………………………."
We have organizations like ‘Big Brother Watch’ which speaks out about the invasive nature of the internet but who is speaking out about the invasion of internet porn into everyone’s lives, even our children’s?
Look at this extract taken from the news report above :-
“Nick Pickles, director of Big Brother Watch, said: "Google has repeatedly put profit ahead of user privacy……….”
We are in no man’s land with the internet at the moment. No man’s land is a huge chunk where anything goes. It appears porn is free, porn is accessible and porn should not be tracked otherwise your data protection is being invaded.
What about the invasion of the minds of children by addictive games and pornographic material?
Big Brother Watch accuses Google of going too far while people like myself believe that Google and similar search engines should go a step further and be able to log the activity of every person on the internet, for the purpose of weeding out those who profit from or use obscene material and who profit from false advertising.
Take for example the free dating site Plenty Of Fish, or POF as it is known, the biggest free dating site on the internet. Horror stories abound amongst internet socialites and many reports of disastrous liaisons can be found on internet search pages. Anyone using facilities such as this site should always read all the reviews they can find prior to meeting people from them.
However while Plenty of Fish is an incongruous sounding name they advertise other dating sites on their main page which show a very different side to internet dating.
Some examples :-
“C-Date - Effortless Encounters – Casual Dates - Spice up your partnership with a casual date or make the most of singledom with no-strings encounters.
Local slags - Over 3 million filthy flirty singles looking for casual hook ups - Meet girls who like to enjoy themselves. Join FREE and start viewing profiles today.
Naughty 123 – Millions of UK members – Find Hookups fast – it’s a hook up site.
Shagaholic – Naughty singles community – provides free sex search to find partners – A place where everybody has the same goals and nobody will take dating too seriously. Go explore and have some fun!
BeNaughty – Users who are looking for dating, relationships, fun and intimate encounters – search for singles men and women who match your personal tastes, ideals and preferences – Benaughty offers a unique dating experience to all singles and all people who are interested in online dating.
Adult friend finder – 30 million members worldwide – Quick and easy search to find hookups – The worlds largest sex dating site & swinger personals community.
SaucyOrSweet - whether you prefer your ladies sugary sweet or with a little bit of spice, SaucyOrSweet has something that is just your taste - From hot honeys looking for some fun to real sweethearts. The girls on sweet and saucy can satisfy whatever you are craving – Indulge your sweet tooth tonight on Saucy or Sweet.”
Is this what our children see as dating? Surely not all innocence must be lost in the face of profit?
I for one do not condone sites such as these being openly available to children and young people and have chosen to speak out on behalf of many in asking that perhaps more control is needed not less and should those Tsars in Europe be fighting search engines such as Google, re privacy laws, or should they be actively working with them to sort out this no mans land where anything goes and perhaps make the internet the place it was intended to be.
