bit-tech.net

Porn filters criticised as BT goes opt-out

Porn filters criticised as BT goes opt-out

All BT internet customers are to be contacted regarding their predilection for pornography, with those who wish to continue to view smut being asked to opt-out of its Parental Controls system.

BT has announced that it will be asking all its existing broadband customers to opt out of its filtering system, even as concerns grow that said filters may do more harm than good.

Part of Prime Minister David Cameron's plan to add block-by-default filters to all UK internet connections, announced back in July, BT's revised Parental Controls system is enabled for all new customers who then have to manually opt out of the system. Early next year, however, BT will start to contact existing customers who signed up before the on-by-default filter system was enabled and ask them to explicitly state they want to receive adult content or else have the filter foisted upon them.

'BT takes the issue of online child protection extremely seriously and we are very pleased to be able to launch the whole-home filter to help parents keep their families safe online,' claimed BT's managing director of consumer commercial marketing and digital Pete Oliver. 'It adds to the many tools we already make available for free to our customers. We’ve been focused on the issue of online safety since we developed the world’s first Cleanfeed filter to block child abuse images and made the technology available free to other ISPs across the world a decade ago.'

Even as BT sends the system, previously tested with volunteers from the Mumsnet community, live there are increasing concerns that the filters may do more harm than good. Late last week the Telegraph published a report claiming that the filters were preventing children from viewing educational pages on sexual health and lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender and queer (LGBTQ) matters - including, for some, pages served by the National Health Service (NHS) specifically to address childrens' questions surrounding puberty, alcohol abuse and abstinence support.

'I've said it many times before, and I'll keep saying it. Sexual health is not "adult content"' wrote the Telegraph's Brooke Magnanti in the feature. 'Lumping important (and for many young people, the only) sexual health advice they will have access to in with porn is a mistake. I've always supported voluntary blocks installed by parents on a home by home basis, but phone and internet providers need to understand that doing this for everyone as a default is not their job. More to the point, politicians need to understand that making internet providers do so is not the Government's job.'

The opt-out filter system is designed to run alongside Cleanfeed, a government-mandated and all-encompassing filter system originally introduced to block access to images of child abuse but since expanded to prevent the viewing of selected file-sharing sites and soon extremist political content. While the adult filter system can be switched off by account holders who don't mind making their feelings about such content plain, Cleanfeed cannot be disabled except via the use of encrypted tunnels and virtual private networks with exit points in countries not covered by the system.

These techniques - along with even simpler methods, like the misuse of Google Translate's proxy feature to view supposedly blocked content - can also be used to bypass the out-out adult content filters, of course, raising further questions as to their efficacy in preventing children from viewing unsuitable material online.

108 Comments

Discuss in the forums Reply
forum_user 16th December 2013, 11:19 Quote
I'm all for it, and if/when the filters get it wrong, I will deal with that appropriately.
GeorgeStorm 16th December 2013, 11:22 Quote
Could be the beginning of a rather slippery slope, but only time will tell.
s1n1s 16th December 2013, 11:28 Quote
The internet should not be censored in anyway what so ever, regardless of the intended blocked content.
Tangster 16th December 2013, 11:33 Quote
Sigh. I'd love to vote these nubskulls out of office but alas, it seems like 90%+ of politicians are amongst the least tech literate animals on earth, including of course, single celled protozoa.

If we paid political offices only a stipend and insisted that people in the relevant office had experience with that area (education only staffed by people who have 10+ years as an educator, economics staffed by people who haven't learned all their money smarts from a 30 second glance through the FT, etc) we'd have far fewer of these stupid as *badword* policies getting through the gate.
s1n1s 16th December 2013, 11:36 Quote
If only are political system made any sense. :|
DeX 16th December 2013, 11:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I'm all for it, and if/when the filters get it wrong, I will deal with that appropriately.

How will you deal with it? There is no built in mechanism to appeal the filtering of a particular website. This is why this is such a dangerous path ISPs have begun down.
law99 16th December 2013, 11:59 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I'm all for it, and if/when the filters get it wrong, I will deal with that appropriately.

How will you deal with it? There is no built in mechanism to appeal the filtering of a particular website. This is why this is such a dangerous path ISPs have begun down.

By screaming at the government probably about why he can't get on his Cucumber Coveter Club website because someone who was running it two years ago went to school with someone wrongly accused of commenting on a Ukraine for Russia youtube video one time.
Tangster 16th December 2013, 12:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Charles Chaplin

I remain just one thing, and one thing only, and that is a clown. It places me on a far higher plane than any politician
That sums up my view of politics.
r3loaded 16th December 2013, 12:13 Quote
Any word on whether Plusnet users are part of this as well? I find it funny how they're essentially part of the same company, but BT has torrent site blocks but Plusnet doesn't.
Corky42 16th December 2013, 12:19 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
How will you deal with it? There is no built in mechanism to appeal the filtering of a particular website. This is why this is such a dangerous path ISPs have begun down.

Sadly there is a planned mechanism to deal with mistakes, you either contact your ISP or take the ISP to court in the case of financial harm. Obviously these cost will be passed on to their customers.
Woodspoon 16th December 2013, 12:38 Quote
The long slippery slope downhill has truly begun, this is not a good thing
Cthippo 16th December 2013, 13:38 Quote
Glad I'm not over there.

Touch my porn and I WILL change ISPs!
Corky42 16th December 2013, 14:48 Quote
You cant escape the great firewall of Cameron, all but one UK ISP have committed to filtering content, and if you think your safe in other country's you're not as all major search engines have been nudged by Cameron into blocking 100,000 search terms and issuing warnings on a further 13,000.
lysaer 16th December 2013, 14:54 Quote
Gotta love a government that legalises war but criminalises sex

Sent from my GT-I9505 using Tapatalk
danielg 16th December 2013, 15:38 Quote
In a local coffee shop, I use their WIFI, they use Open DNS and for some reason it blocks Bit-Tech.
dancingbear84 16th December 2013, 16:00 Quote
and rightly so with all this talk of pr0n.

I'm against all this filtering. Freedom of Speech or something...


I saw a great quote the other month about how a Government should be in fear of the people, not the people in fear of the Government. Still May 2015 and there is another election.
Nexxo 16th December 2013, 16:07 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
You cant escape the great firewall of Cameron, all but one UK ISP have committed to filtering content, and if you think your safe in other country's you're not as all major search engines have been nudged by Cameron into blocking 100,000 search terms and issuing warnings on a further 13,000.

Don't worry. As soon as ISPs are starting to lose customers over this, filters will start to become remarkably limited in what they actually filter. It's good family service PR to have one, but it doesn't have to actually do anything.
Dave Lister 16th December 2013, 16:54 Quote
I'd hazard a guess that porn is only the first step in the plan seeing as parents can already get software to prevent kids accessing adult content, there is no need for this at all. s1n1s summed it up perfectly (3rd comment down)
coyi64 16th December 2013, 17:52 Quote
BT is right. Why should we let a bunch of mps that know nothing about the internet and computers meddling in these matters. And we all know about Claire Perry, for she did nothing to reaffirm her understanding of the internet. It is a slippery slope.
Gareth Halfacree 16th December 2013, 17:53 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by coyi64
BT is right. Why should we let a bunch of mps that know nothing about the internet and computers meddling in these matters.
You might want to re-read the article: BT appears to be in favour of the government-mandated filters, not against.
coyi64 16th December 2013, 17:57 Quote
Oops, my bad, in that case - BT is wrong!
Corky42 16th December 2013, 18:25 Quote
As if BT had any choice in the matter, Cameron held a meeting with the major ISP's back in July and told them they either do this on a voluntary basis or he would pass a law to force them to comply. BT is just the first to announce it, expect all ISP's to roll this out in the coming year as they have been told all customer must make this choice before the end of 2014.
erratum1 16th December 2013, 18:28 Quote
You must admit sometimes I think this is a bit ****** up back in the day porn came from your dads stash of vhs tapes and mags.

Now hardcore porn is everywhere I have no problem with making a phone call and saying "yes I want porn please".

No one knows what effect this will have kids growing up never knowing what life was like before the internet.
wolfticket 16th December 2013, 18:41 Quote
As long as normal adult people can as a matter of course* switch it off/toggle it I'm not that bothered about an ISP based porn/adult content filter that defaults to on.

However, "Cleanfeed" is a different kettle of fish.

There are some things on the internet that are and should be illegal. But when the government can decide what that is and remove it at source with little or no transparency, that is a worrying step. Especially when the terms used to describe the sort of content being filtered is so open to interpretation (extremist political content?). It feels horribly open to abuse.


*Whether you want porn or not, I don't see why any but the most oddly sensitive adult would choose to use such a filter on themselves, if only to avoid the inevitable false positives.
Xlog 16th December 2013, 18:42 Quote
So, how does it actually work? Is is simply a DNS filter on their (BT) DNS server or is it something more complex?
Or is this "extremist" content and we can't discuss it?
Nexxo 16th December 2013, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by erratum1
You must admit sometimes I think this is a bit ****** up back in the day porn came from your dads stash of vhs tapes and mags.

Now hardcore porn is everywhere I have no problem with making a phone call and saying "yes I want porn please".

No one knows what effect this will have kids growing up never knowing what life was like before the internet.

You mean unlike the good old days when misogyny was rife and institutionalised?
Corky42 16th December 2013, 19:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfticket
As long as normal adult people can as a matter of course* switch it off/toggle it I'm not that bothered about an ISP based porn/adult content filter that defaults to on.
And who is going to say what is porn and what is not ? playboy centerfolds are considered porn but are pictures of the statue David by Michelangelo, is Aphrodite of Cnidus consider porn, what about The Fall by Hugo van der Goes ?

Who is going to draw the line between sexual education, art and porn ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Xlog
Or is this "extremist" content and we can't discuss it?
No we cant discuss it :D, im waiting for a knock on the door any minute now
wolfticket 16th December 2013, 19:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And who is going to say what is porn and what is not ? playboy centerfolds are considered porn but are pictures of the statue David by Michelangelo, is Aphrodite of Cnidus consider porn, what about The Fall by Hugo van der Goes ?

Who is going to draw the line between sexual education, art and porn ?
...
The parent.

If the filter can be toggled and moderated by the account holder then I don't see how it is particularly different to existing parental control solutions. Defaulting to "on" is debatable, but frankly I don't think it matters that much compared with the filters that that you can't turn off, are less transparent and more open to abuse.
MSHunter 16th December 2013, 20:05 Quote
First they they came for our bank and credit card records, making it jokingly easy to obtain,
Then they reclassified hacking our home PC and not a intrusion so they do not need a search warrant.
Then they decided its OK to hold us in custody for 48 hours without charges.
Now they are trying to control our access to information.

I would say we are already far down the slippery slope of false security.

It has already been proven that they can not protect even the US president from getting a pie to the face. So why should I surrender any of my rights in the name of a false hope for better security?

If I am worried about my security at home I get a guard dog. It would defiantly improve my personal security far more then any of the above mentioned methods but then I am not afraid of some supposed threat that may or may not happen. What really scares me is what we have already allowed the government to get away with.

Baby food and milk taken on the plane does not in any way scare me, what does are all the people who blindly believe that a ban on liquids makes them safer.
theshadow2001 16th December 2013, 21:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by MSHunter

Baby food and milk taken on the plane does not in any way scare me, what does are all the people who blindly believe that a ban on liquids makes them safer.

I'm pretty sure that no one believes the ban makes them safer.

If the threat was to be believed even by those who create and enforce that ban then the confiscators wouldn't spend their shift standing beside what should essentially be a massive bin full of small vials of extremely volatile explosives. With thousands of passengers walking past these dangerous liquids

But they do, because it's not a threat. They know it. We know it. Everyone knows it. But there's seemingly always someone in charge who loves a good farce over a level and reasoned response. Bit like Cameron really.
freshsandwiches 17th December 2013, 02:09 Quote
While I do not condone the implementation of this at all from my perspective, I do appreciate why it is being done.

***tube.com (if you can guess the starred letters you know what I'm talking about).

Seven letters plus a dot com at the end and you open up a web site you could only dream about when you found a porno mag stuck in a hedge.

Many adults do not know/bother to set up a filter, so kids can't see sites such as this.

I hope that opting out of such filters will not have any impact on using the net as we adults do today. I accept that I may be optimistic however.
Corky42 17th December 2013, 09:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by wolfticket
The parent.

If the filter can be toggled and moderated by the account holder then I don't see how it is particularly different to existing parental control solutions. Defaulting to "on" is debatable, but frankly I don't think it matters that much compared with the filters that that you can't turn off, are less transparent and more open to abuse.
And these are the same parents that didn't bother to use the built in parental controls on most OS's these days, or the free software provided by ISP's, or give little Johny or Jan unfettered access to a tablet and run up £1000 bills, or give them unsupervised internet access in their bedroom.
If these parents didn't bother to setup parental controls in the first place what makes you think they will bother to allow LGBT community sites through the filter, or sites telling children that being touched in that way by an uncle isn't OK, or sites explaining how not to catch sexually transmitted diseases ?

And its not like you will even know what sites are on the filter setup by the unelected public servants with no mandate from the people while they get to arbitrarily decide what is dubious material and what isn't, you wont be able to query why a site is on list as it won't be made public.
Quote:
Originally Posted by freshsandwiches
I hope that opting out of such filters will not have any impact on using the net as we adults do today. I accept that I may be optimistic however.
The problem is it will impact the whole country, the cost of broadband will go up to pay for the administration, sites will find they have accidentally been filtered and lose business, children wont be able to get help when they have no one else to turn to, don't forget most abuse happens in the same home that will be controlling the child's access to sites telling them its wrong what is happening to them and they can get help.
And last but not least every site you visit will be logged and checked against a list of unsuitable sites, leaving the door wide open for government to gather information on every web site the public visits. It's the equivalent of having CCTV on every street tracking your every move.
Gareth Halfacree 17th December 2013, 09:25 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
And these are the same parents that didn't bother to use the built in parental controls on most OS's these days, or the free software provided by ISP's, or give little Johny or Jan unfettered access to a tablet and run up £1000 bills, or give them unsupervised internet access in their bedroom. If these parents didn't bother to setup parental controls in the first place what makes you think they will bother to allow LGBT community sites through the filter, or sites telling children that being touched in that way by an uncle isn't OK, or sites explaining how not to catch sexually transmitted diseases ?
This. The absolute best, and only guaranteed, way of moderating your child's behaviour online is transparency. If you think your kid is too young to be looking at online grot, don't rely on a flawed system of reactive filters; simply don't let them use the internet unsupervised.

Let me put it another way. My daughter will be two this month; she's talking, walking, running, in every respect an actual little person. She also loves going out, particularly to the park. Do you think it would be a good idea for me to just wave her off at the entrance to the park and head to the pub to get on with some much-needed drinkin'? You're damn right it wouldn't. Anything could happen: even ignoring the possibility of Bad People, she could fall and hurt herself, pick up broken glass, run into the road, eat a toxic plant, and so on and so forth. The best way of making sure that doesn't happen? Being there with her. I don't have to be hovering over her shoulder, but I should be keeping an eye on what's happening and getting ready to intervene if required.

The internet is no different. At its heart, it's just a really effin' big park. The Bad People are, in many ways, worse and certainly more numerous - but they're also just a power button away from being banished from my house. The glass in this increasingly strained metaphor is malware, the toxic plants obnoxious content - and tripping and falling is viewing something unsuitable by accident, receiving mental scars in place of physical ones.

Telling parents, especially ones who perhaps don't understand or fully commit to their responsibilities or who do not have particularly good technical knowledge, that their ISP now uses a Super Duper Filter System which is on-by-default and uses government-mandated lists to block child-unfriendly content is the equivalent of telling parents that hey, the park now has CCTV so feel free to leave your kid unattended - but forgetting to mention the blackspots, or the fact that nobody has checked whether it's working or reviewed the video since it was installed. No filter system which attempts to let some content through and block other content will ever be 100 per cent effective; it can't be. Some content you would have wanted - sexual education, healthcare information, crisis counselling - will get blocked by mistake; other content that you wouldn't want your child to see - in particular sexually explicit content posted outside of 'known-bad' domains, like when 4chan uploaded hardcore pornography to YouTube using custom thumbnails of children's TV shows - will get through.

That's even supposing that kids aren't actively trying to bypass said filters - which, if they've hit puberty, I can assure you they are. All you have to do is Google "get around website filter" and you'll find everything you need to bypass the filters - including one write-up on Wired.com, for Pete's sake.

Just like you wouldn't let your two-year-old in the park alone, don't let your impressionable tween on the 'net alone. The advice used to be to put the computer in a public area - again, not so you hover over their shoulder all the time but simply so that you can keep an eye out to see if they trip and fall online. Granted, that's harder now that everything is a computer - but it's still worth a try. Most important, however, is to open a dialogue: make sure your kid knows that there are unpleasant and confusing things online, and that if they see anything that makes them uncomfortable - whether through accident or curiosity - they should come to discuss it with you. That, more than a million government-mandated filter systems, will help keep kids safe online.

Here endeth the rant.

TL;DR: If you're a parent start acting like one instead of farming your responsibility off on the government or technology.
dogknees 17th December 2013, 12:29 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Quote:
Originally Posted by DeX
How will you deal with it? There is no built in mechanism to appeal the filtering of a particular website. This is why this is such a dangerous path ISPs have begun down.

Sadly there is a planned mechanism to deal with mistakes, you either contact your ISP or take the ISP to court in the case of financial harm. Obviously these cost will be passed on to their customers.

But, how do you know a site exists that is incorrectly blocked? How do we know what is blocked since we can't see it?

No one but each individual child's parent can determine what is inappropriate for their children. How will the system deal with those who want their children to know what it out there and learn to deal with it in a rational rather than emotional way?
forum_user 17th December 2013, 12:51 Quote
It's all a bit of a drama really.

You either agree to have the filters, or not.

Filtered, or not.
Corky42 17th December 2013, 13:38 Quote
Not that simple im afraid, everyone is going to have higher broadband bills to pay for this system, everyone is going to go through the system filtered or not. BT have already announced an average 6.5% price rise for broadband customers, would it have been this much if they didn't have to pay for new servers, new staff to deal with the filter, costs of possible legal action ?

One thing that shocked me, is even on its lightest setting the BT filter deems dating sites as inappropriate.
http://forums.bit-tech.net/picture.php?albumid=2463&pictureid=35526
forum_user 17th December 2013, 14:40 Quote
Parental controls stopping children from signing up to dating sites, seems reasonable to me.

One thing I certainly concede is that those items listed should all have individual tick boxes to allow the parent to opt-in to a specific need/want. I expect that is currently a logistical nightmare considering how rushed this thing is, therefore when the dust settles and it all speeds up in terms of hardware and programming, I wonder if more detailed parental controls will be offered.
RichCreedy 17th December 2013, 14:53 Quote
I don't need parental filters, my kids are 16 and 17, and don't live with me, they live with their mother.
Corky42 17th December 2013, 15:21 Quote
Sorry if i mislead people there is a customer option as the note at the top says, that enables you to select what of those categories you wish to block, although what sites will be chosen for what category's are anyone's guess.
With the default opt-in being the highest setting i can see a lot of calls to the support dept asking why they no longer have access to Twitter, Facebook, YouTube or even Bit-Tech :'(
CrazyJoe 18th December 2013, 23:55 Quote
The fun begins! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582
Quote:
Among the sites TalkTalk blocked as "pornographic" was BishUK.com, an award-winning British sex education site, which receives more than a million visits each year.

TalkTalk also lists Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre website as "pornographic."
Gareth Halfacree 19th December 2013, 07:13 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
The fun begins! http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582
And remember: TalkTalk is the government's best-practice model for filtering. Mostly 'cos the guy who founded the company is a big Tory donor, and the guy who runs it is school chums with Cameron. Funny, that.
Corky42 19th December 2013, 08:16 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
And remember: TalkTalk is the government's best-practice model for filtering. Mostly 'cos the guy who founded the company is a big Tory donor, and the guy who runs it is school chums with Cameron. Funny, that.

You left out that the government's best-practice model for filtering is also run by the Chinese firm Huawei, that have seen their telecoms equipment banned from America and Australia over concerns that it could be used to spy on domestic communications or for future cyber-attacks.

And lest not forget the government’s own Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) published a report on foreign involvement in the UK’s Critical National Infrastructure, which warns that BT’s deployment of broadband ISP and telecoms equipment supplied by Chinese firm Huawei could have “implications for national security“.
forum_user 19th December 2013, 21:24 Quote
You have to wonder about spooks and tech.....

Conspiracy mode 'on'.

[conspiracy]

Best way to watch the general public is to have dinner with the CEO of BT and make a proposal to combat """"""""terrorism""""""".
Best way to watch people who use proxies is to create quite a few random, seemingly unrelated, proxy service businesses.
Best way to control the black market of the internet is to create a 'special' place called ... the dark net .... DUN DUN DEERRRRRRR!

Does anyone actually believe WE are in control of anything these days?!

We are hobbyists. Geeks and nerds, revelling in all things tech.

The spooks are government funded (millions/billions £'s) experts in everything we wish we knew about. Which explains why Snowden is teaching us about stuff we would never have known about otherwise. Yeah, we can speculate, guess, create a 'conspiracy' about the stuff that we are learning about, but only the spooks can actually prove it to us.

If Snowden is showing us all THIS stuff now ... I wonder what the next spook will be showing in 5+ years time .......

[/conspiracy]

All this bollocks about secret agencies trying to infiltrate the TOR network or any other supposed inaccessible place, they probably already own it. All you need is someone telling you that the spooks can't monitor it and suddenly it looks 'private'. Is it ****.

Not that I care.
Goat porn is my only vice. I wouldn't know where to start with dark nets and TOR ...
Jor1995dan 19th December 2013, 22:13 Quote
I don't actively engage in the consumption of illicit materials online, so I'm not worried about losing access to it. What I am worried about, however, is that it's all being too rushed. Prime example: sex education sites being blocked as 'porn'.

The argument that children shouldn't be subjected to certain materials is a valid one, but let's not kid ourselves, they're going to see such content at some point.

Blocking for the masses with the intention of protecting the minority is just a crazy policy. It is down to us as responsible adults to educate others on what content is acceptable, and what is not.
forum_user 19th December 2013, 22:40 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jor1995dan
I don't actively engage in the consumption of illicit materials online, so I'm not worried about losing access to it. What I am worried about, however, is that it's all being too rushed. Prime example: sex education sites being blocked as 'porn'.

The argument that children shouldn't be subjected to certain materials is a valid one, but let's not kid ourselves, they're going to see such content at some point.

Blocking for the masses with the intention of protecting the minority is just a crazy policy. It is down to us as responsible adults to educate others on what content is acceptable, and what is not.

Then phone the ISP and say "I want my porn goddamit". Be adult about it.

It's up to you.

As for the sex education being blocked - yeah, temporary blip until some adult explains to said ISP "dude wtf, sex education site blocked WTF" ... ISP duly unblocks, end of drama.
CrazyJoe 19th December 2013, 22:46 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Then phone the ISP and say "I want my porn goddamit". Be adult about it.

It's up to you..

Exactly, it's up to me.

Let me decide what to censor on my own internet connection instead of letting the government or ISPs deciding for me. This is all legal content remember.

As for the "wrong" sites being blocked, that was predicted a long long time ago, it's not a blip, it's just a **** filtering system that is never going to work.
forum_user 19th December 2013, 23:23 Quote
Just like word-censoring on forums, but it's still used, yeah?

Hey, why censor words, let the kids learn how to deal with words, yeah? ****ing Hippocrates ;)

Puuuurlease. OPT IN if you want it, or OPT OUT if you don't. Although I expect you aren't filtered anyway due to already having your existing broadband with your ISP???

OPT in

OPT out

Stop making it a drama. It isn't. You aren't in control. Stop dreaming you are.

Yessssss, some innocent defenceless website might ACCIDENTALLY get blocked ... ISP gets told, website gets unblocked if a genuine mistake - admin issue, logistical issue, no drama, move on.

You ... Adult ... Pick up phone ... Say ... "Me want my ****ing porn you evil government controlled ISP" - you get it - what is the problem?!??

IS BISHUK.COM STILL BLOCKED? I'm guessing, no. So, a blip, yeah? How long was it blocked for? Do tell. I expect days, maybe a week or two? Logistics.
forum_user 19th December 2013, 23:47 Quote
Ok, what I find utterly bizarre is you guys focusing on the fact you 'might' need to log in to your ISP's account page and tick a box saying you don't want to be filtered for offensive content etc.

Or worse still, lift your phone handset, dial your ISP and literally have to speak to another human being and say:

"Yes, I'm the bill payer"
"Yes, I'm over the age of 18"
"Yes I want porn, and beheading videos, EV RY TING!"

What scares ME is the fact that at any moment in time, each and every single one of us can be personally destroyed. We are now past that stage where Sandra Bullock lost her identity. That film that was once a bit cool, and a bit unrealistic, is now reality.

And you guys are moaning about having to declare you want unfiltered internet.

Well, I want filtered internet. I don't want MSN's or BT's home pages describing in great detail the second by second events of how Lee Rigby was attacked, to my kids. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If you want it, just tell them. End of story ...........
Sloth 19th December 2013, 23:55 Quote
"Mother, may I?"

A mild inconvenience, until Mother starts saying "no".
Corky42 20th December 2013, 00:23 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Well, I want filtered internet. I don't want MSN's or BT's home pages describing in great detail the second by second events of how Lee Rigby was attacked, to my kids. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If you want it, just tell them. End of story ...........

Then install one of the many free software solutions available, or the parental controls build into most OS's, or don't allow your children to use the internet unsupervised until they are of such an age that they can cope with such material in the same way you don't let them out alone at night until they are old enough to look after them selves.

Just saying if you don't like it opt out is all well and fine until you are not given that choice.
forum_user 20th December 2013, 00:35 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Then install one of the many free software solutions available, or the parental controls build into most OS's, or don't allow your children to use the internet unsupervised until they are of such an age that they can cope with such material in the same way you don't let them out alone at night until they are old enough to look after them selves.

Just saying if you don't like it opt out is all well and fine until you are not given that choice.

When will that be?
Gareth Halfacree 20th December 2013, 08:02 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
When will that be?
Earlier this year, when the government forced ISPs to block access to file-sharing sites as part of the mandatory Cleanfeed project originally introduced to block access to child abuse content? If you have a 'net connection in the UK, you've got Cleanfeed - that isn't opt-out. Add to that the fact that said sites were blocked without due process - nothing is illegal until a judge says it's illegal, before then it's all 'alleged' as we journalists like to cover our asses by saying - and you might see how what you're suggesting is a paranoid delusion to which the government would never stoop has already begun.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sloth
"Mother, may I?"
A mild inconvenience, until Mother starts saying "no".
This guy knows what's up.
Nexxo 20th December 2013, 08:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Ok, what I find utterly bizarre is you guys focusing on the fact you 'might' need to log in to your ISP's account page and tick a box saying you don't want to be filtered for offensive content etc.

Or worse still, lift your phone handset, dial your ISP and literally have to speak to another human being and say:

"Yes, I'm the bill payer"
"Yes, I'm over the age of 18"
"Yes I want porn, and beheading videos, EV RY TING!"

What scares ME is the fact that at any moment in time, each and every single one of us can be personally destroyed. We are now past that stage where Sandra Bullock lost her identity. That film that was once a bit cool, and a bit unrealistic, is now reality.

And you guys are moaning about having to declare you want unfiltered internet.

Well, I want filtered internet. I don't want MSN's or BT's home pages describing in great detail the second by second events of how Lee Rigby was attacked, to my kids. Etc. Etc. Etc.

If you want it, just tell them. End of story ...........

That's all cool. Really. But I have two concerns:

The infrastructure for filtering is in place. This is just the stuff we know gets filtered; the stuff we can choose to opt out of. What is the stuff we won't know gets filtered? I mean, was Hilary Clinton's half-hour diatribe on internet freedom after China instigated (more) internet censorship just political self-promotion, or did she perchance have a point to make?

Many ineffectual parents now think the internet is safe. It's OK honey, we don't have to worry what little Johnny gets up to in his bedroom with his computer, 'cause it's all filtered now. BT's taken care of it. One less reason to actually, like, talk to your kid and take an interest in their activities. Please. Since when do we let politicians and commercial companies decide what is safe for our kids to watch and read?

This is not about the flawed technology or the morality of censorship. This is about ownership of responsibility. Who is the ****ing parent here? Who should be doing the filtering? When parents are incapable, we either teach them to do better, or we take their kids away. We do not give them a live-in nanny to take over for them so they can continue passing out on cheap cider on their settee in front of the Jeremy Kyle Show. If parents are so concerned they can get off their ass and actually engage with their children. Ignorance about technology is no defence, because it isn't about technology. It is about paying your children attention and giving them a healthy mental framework from which to make sense of and cope with the realities of a beautiful, ugly world.
Jor1995dan 20th December 2013, 14:36 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That's all cool. Really. But I have two concerns:

The infrastructure for filtering is in place. This is just the stuff we know gets filtered; the stuff we can choose to opt out of. What is the stuff we won't know gets filtered? I mean, was Hilary Clinton's half-hour diatribe on internet freedom after China instigated (more) internet censorship just political self-promotion, or did she perchance have a point to make?

Many ineffectual parents now think the internet is safe. It's OK honey, we don't have to worry what little Johnny gets up to in his bedroom with his computer, 'cause it's all filtered now. BT's taken care of it. One less reason to actually, like, talk to your kid and take an interest in their activities. Please. Since when do we let politicians and commercial companies decide what is safe for our kids to watch and read?

This is not about the flawed technology or the morality of censorship. This is about ownership of responsibility. Who is the ****ing parent here? Who should be doing the filtering? When parents are incapable, we either teach them to do better, or we take their kids away. We do not give them a live-in nanny to take over for them so they can continue passing out on cheap cider on their settee in front of the Jeremy Kyle Show. If parents are so concerned they can get off their ass and actually engage with their children. Ignorance about technology is no defence, because it isn't about technology. It is about paying your children attention and giving them a healthy mental framework from which to make sense of and cope with the realities of a beautiful, ugly world.

This. Stopping access to sensitive material is fine, but it needs to be enforced by parents - they need to monitor internet activity.

Hence why I grew up only being able to use a communal PC, and as a result of that, I learned to not go searching for ladies and cups and the like.

As in life, kids need to come across the bad things, and see what happens. Being nannied through their entire internet life isn't the best solution.
Corky42 20th December 2013, 16:31 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
IS BISHUK.COM STILL BLOCKED? I'm guessing, no. So, a blip, yeah? How long was it blocked for? Do tell. I expect days, maybe a week or two? Logistics.
BISHUK.COM may now be unblocked, but when a similar thing happened to Wordpress bloggers it took over a week for TalkTalk to unblock it.

The thing im finding annoying is the very people that said an internet filters was a good thing, are now berating the ISP's like BT for blocking vital support sites like Sexual Health Scotland, Doncaster Domestic Abuse Helpline, and Reducing The Risk.

I guess this is what the government wanted, everyone blaming the ISP's for getting it wrong when in fact it was forced on them by the government, although i suppose the people against such a filter are in the minority as the e-petition only has 38,400 signatures.
Corky42 22nd December 2013, 12:16 Quote
We warned you: Big UK internet provider O2 now censors wikileaks.org and wikileaks-press.org in "parental control" filter. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/414502987969478656
CrazyJoe 22nd December 2013, 12:30 Quote
http://www.childline.org.uk is also blocked when parental controls are on.

TOP LOLZ.

http://gyazo.com/ba67882522dae13636dedec8c0e7dfb1.png
erratum1 22nd December 2013, 13:12 Quote
Any teen determined can just download Tor it's pretty fast when not on onion sites.

This will just stop kids from accidently discovering it which i'm for.

I have some torrent sites blocked by isp it doesn't do anything for every 1 blocked there are 50 that are not...waste of time.
forum_user 22nd December 2013, 14:08 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
We warned you: Big UK internet provider O2 now censors wikileaks.org and wikileaks-press.org in "parental control" filter. https://twitter.com/wikileaks/status/414502987969478656

But ... if you turn the filter off ... Wikileaks no longer blocked?
Nexxo 22nd December 2013, 15:36 Quote
Ooh, there's a dilemma for the parent. Information and porn, or no porn and no information? :p

Guess which way the lazy and conservatively inclined parent will vote. Censorship starts with Lady Chatterley's Lover, and ends with Dr. Suess' The Lorax.
forum_user 22nd December 2013, 17:06 Quote
I'm sure if little Johnny needs access to Wikileaks, then Johnny senior will temporarily remove the filter.

Not sure what < 10 year old would need with Wikileaks tbh.
Nexxo 22nd December 2013, 17:15 Quote
QED. :D

And if parents can't be arsed to turn on the filter --judging by the fact that it had to be set up to be on by default-- what makes you think they'll turn it off?
forum_user 22nd December 2013, 17:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
QED. I think you may be one of the conservatively inclined parents. :D

Aaaaaaaaand?
CrazyJoe 22nd December 2013, 17:37 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user

Well, I want filtered internet.

Is there a reason why you won't set up your own filters? Why do you think the government and random 3rd party companies have a better idea than you on what to filter for your particular circumstances?
Corky42 22nd December 2013, 19:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
But ... if you turn the filter off ... Wikileaks no longer blocked?
Or a much simpler solution would be to use one of the many filter circumvention add-ons like “Go Away Cameron” that not only bypass the filter but also the court ordered blocking of copyright infringement sites and possibly even cleanfeed.

Why bother waiting hours for the filter to be disabled or changes to take affect when little Johnny can bypass it, along with the court ordered blocking and cleanfeed within minuets, making the whole idea of a filter an expensive waste of time and actually exposes people to more objectionable content not less.
law99 22nd December 2013, 21:56 Quote
Crikey... the whole thing is a crock.

I don't want to have to turn on or off a filter so that I can visit a site and my child can't. Or so I can visit a site I don't mind my child visiting anyway.

It's just mad that people let kids have free roam on the internet. That is the end of the argument. Filtering shouldn't have even entered the equation. As Nexxo says, we don't send day care nannies in to enable drug addled individuals to look after their kids.

Steps to take as a responsible parent:
  1. Use a shared space for the computer.
  2. Don't let them know the password to the computer.
  3. Supervise their usage. You don't even have to watch all the time. Just be around.

You know, when I was at school, in the late 90s, people brought porn in to school on VHS and in magazines. Some people had VCDs of it. Some people had all sorts of stuff on 1.44MB High Density floppy disks. So you can't exactly stop people from accessing "harmful material" by using some sort of hackneyed opt-in opt-out process cobbled on to a government censoring project.

The interesting things is, you knew it was wrong back then. I have friends that teach and they have come across porn in the classroom via google/bing, whatever, and you know what? It just means that the kids get taught about it. And teacher says "if we catch you looking at that not by mistake, you are in trouble" - ummm... how it should be you might say.

Now, because they aren't incompetent, they search for the terms they use before class and, what do you know? They've effectively taken care of the problem before it happens.

You can't protect people from themselves forever.

All throughout this people scream about methods that can circumvent any filter regardless - because now they need one for visiting a wordpress blog???? Meaning that the whole point of it is completely redundant. Everyone and their Mums will know about the Tor Browser soon and in the end, what will they do to stop this? Block a project the West uses to pretend to have a moral high ground when it comes to freedom of information?

Then someone wades in and says something like: "But only filtered options will disallow Tor."

Nice one... the Tor Browser exe is about 22mb... hardly earth shattering. I have 50 2gb usb sticks I got for free from work. Kids can probably buy USB sticks from the school stationary cupboard nowdays. Should we ban USB sticks just in case? (They do at my new job by the way... they also use a keylogger and lock down your access to... yawn)

Of course the sensible parent need not worry because they supervise their children's internet access and computer time... (now if windows just didn't allow you to install things willy nilly... hmmm)

Nexxo 24th December 2013, 09:29 Quote
Some sites blocked by O2's porn filter:

nspcc.org.uk National charity dedicated to preventing child abuse

childline.org.uk Online version of the NSPCC’s ChildLine helpline for kids in trouble, especially busy at Christmas

samaritans.org Highly regarded charity helpline is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year and also sees its greatest demand at Christmas

gov.uk Portal to a huge range of government websites

parliament.uk Democracy in action (oh, the irony!)

bl.uk British Library, with details of events including latest exhibition, “Georgians Revealed”

claireperry.org.uk Devizes MP Claire Perry, campaigner for tighter controls on internet content (and again...)
mars-bar-man 24th December 2013, 09:47 Quote
This may have already been suggested or spoken about, but instead of blanketing everyone and saying "NO! No boobies for you.", what's wrong exactly with making it opt-in? Having people make the conscious decision to block certain sites.

M'eh, common sense.. Rare as hens teeth apparently.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk
Corky42 24th December 2013, 09:55 Quote
Does anyone think the government will do a U turn on this filter ?
Or that ISP's may be purposely messing things up so they can turn round to the government in a year and say we told you it wouldn't work.
forum_user 24th December 2013, 13:00 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Some sites blocked by O2's porn filter:

nspcc.org.uk National charity dedicated to preventing child abuse

childline.org.uk Online version of the NSPCC’s ChildLine helpline for kids in trouble, especially busy at Christmas

samaritans.org Highly regarded charity helpline is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year and also sees its greatest demand at Christmas

gov.uk Portal to a huge range of government websites

parliament.uk Democracy in action (oh, the irony!)

bl.uk British Library, with details of events including latest exhibition, “Georgians Revealed”

claireperry.org.uk Devizes MP Claire Perry, campaigner for tighter controls on internet content (and again...)

That's it, finally I agree with you. I can't believe these sites are permanently blocked by these filters, with no chance of them being unblocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Does anyone think the government will do a U turn on this filter ?
Or that ISP's may be purposely messing things up so they can turn round to the government in a year and say we told you it wouldn't work.

I would say the risk of being brought before a parliamentary committee and publicly ridiculed would be enough to stop any ISP CEO from thinking about ****ing it up on purpose.
CrazyJoe 24th December 2013, 13:09 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
That's it, finally I agree with you. I can't believe these sites are permanently blocked by these filters, with no chance of them being unblocked.
Quote:
O2 told The Independent on Monday that it was changing its parental control filters to allow access to some of the charities that had been blocked. “As you can appreciate there are millions of sites that exist and sometimes they can fall through the net to be categorised correctly. ChildLine, the NSPCC and the Samaritans have all now been added to the ‘allowed’ list for Parental Control,”
Xlog 24th December 2013, 13:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by mars-bar-man
This may have already been suggested or spoken about, but instead of blanketing everyone and saying "NO! No boobies for you.", what's wrong exactly with making it opt-in? Having people make the conscious decision to block certain sites.

M'eh, common sense.. Rare as hens teeth apparently.

Sent from my C6603 using Tapatalk

The problem is, that it's not only "boobies filter", it also includes other content. Take BT filter for example, "obscene and tasteless" category is obscure at best (whose definition of "tasteless" it is?) and can be abused to extremes.
Lets take another category - Drugs. According to description, it includes "sites that contain information on illegal drugs". So does all anti-drugs, educational (wikipedia, etc), support sites also fall under this?
Finally, what if there are multiple children of different ages in household? To whom you set your internet filters - the youngest, the oldest, switch each time one of them wants to browse? Will you need different internet lines for each age group?

Maybe I'm over-analysing this, seeing as this is simply a dns filter and can be bypassed by anyone in minutes.
Corky42 24th December 2013, 13:41 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I would say the risk of being brought before a parliamentary committee and publicly ridiculed would be enough to stop any ISP CEO from thinking about ****ing it up on purpose.

I'm not sure it would be the ISP that would be ridiculed so much as Cameron and the MP's that strong armed them into implementing it even after all the ISP's and everyone with even a basic understanding told them it was unworkable, would either lead to under or over blocking and be a trivial matter to bypass.
Nexxo 24th December 2013, 23:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
That's it, finally I agree with you. I can't believe these sites are permanently blocked by these filters, with no chance of them being unblocked.
That's just the obvious ones --so obvious it makes you wonder how they could end up getting blocked in the first place. What about the less obvious sites --the ones that do not generate outrage in the newspapers? The ones that deal with disenfranchised issues and people that are not so mediapathic?

It doesn't work. We are having to deal with a token filtering system because parents cannot take ownership of their own parental responsibility. It is pathetic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I would say the risk of being brought before a parliamentary committee and publicly ridiculed would be enough to stop any ISP CEO from thinking about ****ing it up on purpose.
:) That has never stopped politicians ****king things up on purpose.
CrazyJoe 25th December 2013, 00:33 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
so obvious it makes you wonder how they could end up getting blocked in the first place.

The rumours on the internet is that it's a actually a whitelist maintained by an American company so that's why basically everything UK related is blocked.
Nexxo 25th December 2013, 10:04 Quote
That's cool. So the UK government vision is to have our internet access dictated by the US and controlled by the Chinese. :p What could possibly go wrong?
law99 25th December 2013, 10:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
That's cool. So the UK government vision is to have our internet access dictated by the US and controlled by the Chinese. :p What could possibly go wrong?

Nothing. All of those sites you listed above, with particular note to the nspcc, are nothing but poison to our nation's children. Good riddance.

I can now get back to proper parenting. Like punching my children on Christmas morning. The presents they bought me were ****.
Corky42 25th December 2013, 10:57 Quote
To right, you don't want these damn kids reporting you for leaving them in the pub or something.
Quote:
Originally Posted by CrazyJoe
The rumours on the internet is that it's a actually a whitelist maintained by an American company so that's why basically everything UK related is blocked.
Not sure about the whitelist but it seems what my self and others jumped on was in fact the highest setting for parental controls, not the default. http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/technology/willardfoxton2/100011900/calm-down-freedom-squad-camerons-porn-filter-is-hardly-blocking-anything/
Quote:
The reason the O2 "Parental Control" setting is so harsh is it's intended as a way to give a phone to five- to eight-year-olds.
Quote:
To repeat, I oppose government web filtering – but the hysteria of the last few days is nothing to do with it. What's happened is that a few sensationalising idiots have conflated pre-existing filters on one mobile network with Cameron’s porn-blocking plans.

The two things aren't the same. If the campaign against web filters is calling on the likes of Claire Perry to listen to evidence, not ill-informed scaremongering, then we'd better hold ourselves to the same standard.
P.s Happy Christmas all :)
Umbra 25th December 2013, 12:05 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Some sites blocked by O2's porn filter:

nspcc.org.uk National charity dedicated to preventing child abuse

childline.org.uk Online version of the NSPCC’s ChildLine helpline for kids in trouble, especially busy at Christmas

samaritans.org Highly regarded charity helpline is celebrating its 60th anniversary this year and also sees its greatest demand at Christmas

gov.uk Portal to a huge range of government websites

parliament.uk Democracy in action (oh, the irony!)

bl.uk British Library, with details of events including latest exhibition, “Georgians Revealed”

claireperry.org.uk Devizes MP Claire Perry, campaigner for tighter controls on internet content (and again...)

Should be fun if some of the online versions of newspapers and magazines get blocked, especially if they have supported filters :(

The Mail.

Femail The Mail newspapers online female site.

Alltop You can think of Alltop as the “online magazine rack” of the web.

Ananova Technology Media.

Mature Times The voice of the older generation.

Private Eye No explanation needed.

The list goes on and lets not forget all the online children's magazines with names that someone thinks should be filtered, the lawsuits will be flying
Corky42 25th December 2013, 13:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Umbra
The list goes on and lets not forget all the online children's magazines with names that someone thinks should be filtered, the lawsuits will be flying

The O2 filter isn't based on the "unavoidable choice" filter the Cameron "nudged" ISP's into implementing as it was running a long time before Cameron strong armed the ISP's

It is the highest setting on O2 and is meant for children under 12. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/23/o2-filter-blocks-children-from-stonewall-bbc-conservative-and-downing-street-websites/
Quote:
O2 told PinkNews that Stonewall, BBC News and even Parliament’s website do not comply with the following categories of content, deemed suitable and interesting for children:-
Its also worth noting that following complaints, media attention and misunderstandings surrounding O2's URL checker and categories, O2 have switched it off, with no timescale for reinstatement.
What this emphasises is that transparency needs to be of right, and not something that can be withdrawn for commercial or public relations purposes. Websites need to identify that they are blocked, or not. Complaints should not only be dealt with because of Twitter campaigns.
Nexxo 25th December 2013, 13:33 Quote
Quote:
The reason the O2 "Parental Control" setting is so harsh is it's intended as a way to give a phone to five- to eight-year-olds.

Why would you give a phone to a five- to eight-year old in the first place?
RedFlames 25th December 2013, 14:01 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Why would you give a phone to a five- to eight-year old in the first place?

These are the same people who hand their £400+ phone to little timmy, then raged at me over the repair bill when surprise surprise, they dropped it and/or or threw a strop and smashed the screen...

Or allow their loin-spew unsupervised access to their credit card [pretty much] and wonder how and why sprog has run up a 4-figure credit card bill on 'We'll Milk Yo' Wallet Dry Saga'...


Some people should not be allowed to breed...
Corky42 25th December 2013, 16:12 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Why would you give a phone to a five- to eight-year old in the first place?
Yea i kinda share that same puzzlement as you. But recent study's have shown one in ten children have a phone by the time they are 5 years old, and most have a phone by age 11.
And i do understand that parents may want the peace of mind that a phone brings, in case they need to know where they lost them ;)
RichCreedy 26th December 2013, 11:46 Quote
Ill informed Claire Perry should be blocked from the internet, lol
Corky42 3rd January 2014, 12:52 Quote
David Cameron's internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep.
The question of who is allowed access to what data is a defining one of our age – and Edward Snowden has taught us to be wary. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep
Quote:
Cameron's porn filter looks less like an attempt to protect kids than a convenient way to block a lot of content the British government doesn't want its citizens to see, with no public consultation whatsoever.

The worst thing about the porn filter, though, is not that it accidentally blocks a lot of useful information but that it blocks information at all. With minimal argument, a Conservative-led government has given private firms permission to decide what websites we may and may not access. This sets a precedent for state censorship on an enormous scale – all outsourced to the private sector, of course, so that the coalition does not have to hold up its hands to direct responsibility for shutting down freedom of speech.

More worrying still is the inclusion of material relating to "extremism", however the state and its proxies are choosing to define that term. Bearing in mind that simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut have been labelled extremist by some, there is every chance that the categories for what constitutes "inappropriate" online content will be conveniently broad – and there's always room to extend them. The public gets no say over what political content will now be blocked, just as we had no say over whether we wanted such content blocked at all.

Records of opt-in software will, furthermore, make it simpler for national and international surveillance programmes to track who is looking at what sort of website. Just because they can doesn't mean they will, of course, but seven months of revelations about the extent of data capturing by GCHQ and the NSA – including the collection of information on the porn habits of political actors in order to discredit them – does make for reasonable suspicion. Do you still feel comfortable about ticking that box that says you want to see "obscene and tasteless content"? Are you sure?

UK ‘Porn Filter’ Blocks Legitimate File-Sharing Services (And TorrentFreak)
http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-filter-blocks-legitimate-file-sharing-services-and-torrentfreak-140103/
Quote:
Among the blocked sites are BitTorrent.com, who work with Madonna and other artists on a regular basis to release free-to-download content. The same is true for other BitTorrent clients including uTorrent, Transmission and Vuze. Tribler, which is developed at Delft University of Technology with EU taxpayer money, is filtered as well.

Websites which offer perfectly legitimate content via P2P downloads are also filtered by Sky’s default settings. This includes VODO, the distribution platform for indie filmmakers, the download page of the Linux-based Fedora, as well as the download portal Linuxtracker.

Maybe a vision of the future.
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/78m3Npvc0iVc9w1YAxrhcJ/Iran-readies-domestic-Internet-system-blocks-Google.html
Quote:
Iran has one of the biggest Internet filters of any country in the world, preventing normal Iranians from accessing countless sites on the official grounds they are offensive or criminal.
Quote:
Sites expressing views considered anti-government are also routinely blocked.
theshadow2001 3rd January 2014, 20:41 Quote
Are the filters in effect yet?

Edit: Seeing reports of sites being blocked I would think yes.
Corky42 10th January 2014, 12:54 Quote
We may yet be saved from the travesty of a default on internet filter.
Exclusive: Lib Dems risk ‘pro-porn’ label as they oppose internet filters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-lib-dems-risk-proporn-label-as-they-oppose-internet-filters-9050312.html
Quote:
But in the latest sign of potential conflict between the Coalition partners, senior Lib Dems are preparing to commit the party to a policy of demanding that the Government drops opt-out filters.
Quote:
Speaking to The Independent, Mr Farron said there was growing evidence that the filters were ineffectual and doing more harm than good.
Mr Farron described the plans as “misconceived, ineffective and illiberal” and said they were designed to win Mr Cameron headlines, instead of protecting children.
forum_user 10th January 2014, 14:34 Quote
Surely the only evidence since these filters came online, is that a few sites have been temporarily blocked?

Not that they are ineffectual? Where is the evidence that sites that should be blocked are not being correctly blocked as per filter limits?

Side note: I moved recently. Signed up with BT for the slowest broadband I've ever had the displeasure to receive. Every new device that went through my HomeHub router was presented with a web page asking whether it should received filtered internet access or not. So far I do not need the filters, so I declined the kind offer - simple really.
Nexxo 10th January 2014, 17:28 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Surely the only evidence since these filters came online, is that a few sites have been temporarily blocked?

Not that they are ineffectual? Where is the evidence that sites that should be blocked are not being correctly blocked as per filter limits?
That is a bit like arguing for the effectiveness of military drones because they do actually kill bad guys and not just innocent civilians. :p
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Side note: I moved recently. Signed up with BT for the slowest broadband I've ever had the displeasure to receive. Every new device that went through my HomeHub router was presented with a web page asking whether it should received filtered internet access or not. So far I do not need the filters, so I declined the kind offer - simple really.
Totally. But that doesn't stop the BT filtering system from still logging every site you visit. Still, if you got nothing to hide, right?
Corky42 10th January 2014, 18:20 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Surely the only evidence since these filters came online, is that a few sites have been temporarily blocked?
So collateral damage is OK then ?
And how are you going to know if your site has blocked ?
Even if we are only talking about a %1 error rate that's still 1.5 million web sites blocked by accident with no way of knowing they are blocked.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Not that they are ineffectual? Where is the evidence that sites that should be blocked are not being correctly blocked as per filter limits?
A recent Newsnight test found the following. "TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight." on a more positive note "Sky's filter fared much better, blocking 99% of sites, but it did block six porn-addiction sites."

This filter gives a parents a false sense of security and that is more dangerous than not having a filter at all.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall?CMP=twt_gu
Quote:
It's one thing to know that there are risks to your kid from the internet. But parents who rely on the filter are living in bubble of false security. There's nothing more deadly than a false sense of security: If you know your car is having brake problems, you can compensate by driving with extra care, increasing your following distance, and so on. If you falsely believe your brakes to be in good running order, you're liable to find out the hard way that they aren't (if you survive)
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Side note: I moved recently. Signed up with BT for the slowest broadband I've ever had the displeasure to receive. Every new device that went through my HomeHub router was presented with a web page asking whether it should received filtered internet access or not. So far I do not need the filters, so I declined the kind offer - simple really.
That is until the government of the day decides that you shouldn't have that choice.
Or that a record may well be kept now that you have disabled it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep
Quote:
Records of opt-in software will, furthermore, make it simpler for national and international surveillance programmes to track who is looking at what sort of website. Just because they can doesn't mean they will, of course, but seven months of revelations about the extent of data capturing by GCHQ and the NSA – including the collection of information on the porn habits of political actors in order to discredit them – does make for reasonable suspicion. Do you still feel comfortable about ticking that box that says you want to see "obscene and tasteless content"? Are you sure?
Sloth 10th January 2014, 18:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Surely the only evidence since these filters came online, is that a few sites have been temporarily blocked?

Not that they are ineffectual? Where is the evidence that sites that should be blocked are not being correctly blocked as per filter limits?

Side note: I moved recently. Signed up with BT for the slowest broadband I've ever had the displeasure to receive. Every new device that went through my HomeHub router was presented with a web page asking whether it should received filtered internet access or not. So far I do not need the filters, so I declined the kind offer - simple really.
Thank you for choosing BT! Please, enjoy our complimentary Kool-aid.
Gareth Halfacree 10th January 2014, 19:50 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
Totally. But that doesn't stop the BT filtering system from still logging every site you visit. Still, if you got nothing to hide, right?
They don't need a filter to do that: they can just log your DNS queries. If you use someone else's DNS, they can sniff those queries - unless you use encrypted DNS, which is still uncommon. Even then, they can easily do wire-speed deep packet inspection to grab the URLs.

Basically, your ISP can see every site you visit, and log that information. Yes, you could use an encrypted VPN or tunnel - but then you're just shifting the responsibility: instead of trusting that your ISP isn't spying on you, you're trusting that the VPN provider you've chosen isn't spying on you. Depending on your perspective, that may or may not be an improvement.
forum_user 10th January 2014, 21:46 Quote
I am fairly sure (50/50) ..... that ISPs already have to retain data for proper law enforcement. Like when the police get one of those real old fashioned things called warrants, rather than just suspiciously data-rape the world in a spooky way.

Going back 10+ years I vaguely remember the ISPs were not reliably holding on to data needed to prosecute suspects, and I thought a regulation had come in, or something?

As regards the Newsnight data you used Corky - 7% of the 68 porn sites were not blocked? And? Are you frustrated that 5 porn sites made it through the filter? Or that the other 93% didn't? Or are you frustrated that a 7 year old little girl with a heavy porn addiction will not be able to get treated if her parents have Sky broadband and it's filters in place? (Nexxo - I liked your drone reference) If you are using the Newsnight programme data broadly to reinforce your idea that filters won't work, then I would argue that blocking 93% of porn sites from children is better than only blocking 7% ... or none at all.

On the other hand how many hundreds of thousands of porn sites are there?! And Newsnight only used 68? Maybe they used 68 of the most obvious sites? Maybe they used 5 really obscure ones? How did they choose the 68?

We can be sure that Newsnight will have passed the site details of those 5 that made it through the filter to the ISP, so I guess 100% are now blocked! Job done.
Nexxo 10th January 2014, 21:47 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
They don't need a filter to do that: they can just log your DNS queries. If you use someone else's DNS, they can sniff those queries - unless you use encrypted DNS, which is still uncommon. Even then, they can easily do wire-speed deep packet inspection to grab the URLs.

Basically, your ISP can see every site you visit, and log that information. Yes, you could use an encrypted VPN or tunnel - but then you're just shifting the responsibility: instead of trusting that your ISP isn't spying on you, you're trusting that the VPN provider you've chosen isn't spying on you. Depending on your perspective, that may or may not be an improvement.

True, but now they have a dedicated system to do that, and what's more it has a veneer of legitimacy. Just because the NSA and MI6 are screwing us doesn't mean that we have to make it easy on them.
Nexxo 10th January 2014, 22:03 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I am fairly sure (50/50) ..... that ISPs already have to retain data for proper law enforcement. Like when the police get one of those real old fashioned things called warrants, rather than just suspiciously data-rape the world in a spooky way.

Going back 10+ years I vaguely remember the ISPs were not reliably holding on to data needed to prosecute suspects, and I thought a regulation had come in, or something?

As regards the Newsnight data you used Corky - 7% of the 68 porn sites were not blocked? And? Are you frustrated that 5 porn sites made it through the filter? Or that the other 93% didn't? Or are you frustrated that a 7 year old little girl with a heavy porn addiction will not be able to get treated if her parents have Sky broadband and it's filters in place? If you are using the Newsnight programme data broadly to reinforce your idea that filters won't work, then I would argue that blocking 93% of porn sites from children is better than only blocking 7% ... or none at all.

On the other hand how many hundreds of thousands of porn sites are there?! And Newsnight only used 68? Maybe they used 68 of the most obvious sites? Maybe they used 5 really obscure ones? How did they choose the 68?

We can be sure that Newsnight will have passed the site details of those 5 that made it through the filter to the ISP, so I guess 100% are now blocked! Job done.

I think that the argument is one of false sense of security. But you are completely missing the point. The point is (concentrate) that internet filtering abdicates parental responsibility to the government, or worse, commercial companies.

Yeah, you can argue that some parents simply don't have the technical competence to filter the internet at home. But that is bullcrap. All that parents have to do is be present, and take an interest in what their kids get up to. All they have to do is talk to them and foster the sort of relationship where their children want to talk to them. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have children at all, and no amount of ersatz parenting by government or commercial business is going to be a substitute.

You may argue that it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it is one more thing that surreptitiously establishes the societal notion that parenting can be handed to the state; that it's OK for parents to just shrug and pass the buck. I oppose internet filtering on principle, because you, forum_user, should get off your lazy butt and do your own parenting of your own offspring. It's your responsibility. You should be prepared to crawl over burning coal for your kids. Nothing should be too much effort for their wellbeing. So get off your ass and do your job. Don't leave it to some sociopathic politicians or companies.
forum_user 10th January 2014, 22:11 Quote
The argument isn't false sense of security in filters.

That is you guys using that item as a bolster in your argument for not wanting filters. In the same paragraphs in these debates you guys are saying parents should take responsibility and use filtering software.

Honestly though, what you guys are actually saying is NO FILTERS. Software filters are how reliable? The risk of huge embarrassment makes the ISP filters how reliable?
Nexxo 10th January 2014, 22:33 Quote
Technically the idea is impossible to implement reliably, at ISP level or at home, but in the latter case at least responsibility and control stay with the parent. For me it is mainly about power and responsibility. As an intelligent autonomous citizen, do you keep responsibility and control over your own life and that of your children, or do you hand it over to the state and corporate business because it all feels a bit too much like hard work?

If you do parenting right, you don't need filters. You don't need a single scrap of technical knowledge. The problem of children accessing inappropriate material is not a technical problem; it's a parent-child problem. PEBCAK.

There is no technical fix for inadequate parenting.
forum_user 10th January 2014, 23:22 Quote
I agree that filtering wouldn't be needed if kids weren't overly inquisitive, driven by peer pressure, innocent eyes prone to accidentally witnessing bad ****, well-parented and well-educated.
Corky42 11th January 2014, 10:15 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gareth Halfacree
They don't need a filter to do that<snip>
No they wouldnt but a list of what household have opted out of a filter that prevents them from viewing 'extremist' content sure makes the NSA and GCHQ's job a lot easier.
And lest not forget sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices and distribution of software. In other words, filesharing and music downloads. Opt out and you may find your household monitored by the RIAA and MPA.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I am fairly sure (50/50) ..... that ISPs already have to retain data for proper law enforcement. Like when the police get one of those real old fashioned things called warrants, rather than just suspiciously data-rape the world in a spooky way.
Actually the EU passed the Data Retention Directive in 2006 that requires all members states to retain data for between 6 and 24 months. But it has been a very controversial directive challenged many times as being against people privacy rights.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
As regards the Newsnight data you used Corky - 7% of the 68 porn sites were not blocked? And? Are you frustrated that 5 porn sites made it through the filter? Or that the other 93% didn't? Or are you frustrated that a 7 year old little girl with a heavy porn addiction will not be able to get treated if her parents have Sky broadband and it's filters in place? (Nexxo - I liked your drone reference) If you are using the Newsnight programme data broadly to reinforce your idea that filters won't work, then I would argue that blocking 93% of porn sites from children is better than only blocking 7% ... or none at all.
No im frustrated that we are all facing higher bills for a filter that does more harm than good and is only intended to win Cameron votes from frightened parents.

As has been said many times this filter give parents a false sense of security. If you know the internet is a dangerous place you sit with your child while they are online and still small enough that you can perfectly regulate their network usage – not just to ensure that they don't happen on to the bad stuff, but also to instill in them the responsibility, sense and good habits that will help them to steer clear of the bad stuff when they get a little older and you can no longer monitor all their online activity.

But now with the filter parents will be more inclined not to regulate their internet usage, after all this filter that i switch on stops my child from viewing inappropriate material so i have no need to teach my child good internet habits or to monitor them.

But wait the filter doesn't work as shown by Newsnight so now not only are you not teaching your child good internet habits, but your child is still able to accidentally or purposefully view inappropriate material without you there to put it into context for them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
On the other hand how many hundreds of thousands of porn sites are there?! And Newsnight only used 68? Maybe they used 68 of the most obvious sites? Maybe they used 5 really obscure ones? How did they choose the 68?
So does this mean you are starting to see the problem with a filter ?
If Newsnight only tested 68 sites and found some sites not covered by the filter imagine how many sites are not covered when a larger sample size is used like the 1.5 billion web sites out there. Yet parents are being lead to believe that if they turn on this filter their children are safe, when that is far from the truth.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
We can be sure that Newsnight will have passed the site details of those 5 that made it through the filter to the ISP, so I guess 100% are now blocked! Job done.
They probably did but that doesn't mean 100% is now blocked, what about the other 1.5 billion web sites out there? don't forget a margin of error of just 1% means 1.5 million web sites.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
The argument isn't false sense of security in filters.

That is you guys using that item as a bolster in your argument for not wanting filters. In the same paragraphs in these debates you guys are saying parents should take responsibility and use filtering software.
It is a false sense of security in filters, if you are going to have a filter you want to make sure its fit for purpose. If you install a filter at home you have control over the white and black list, you make the decision on how your child accesses the internet, you decide when and on what device they may use it.

When a filter is imposed by your ISP you have no control over the white and black list, you have no way of checking what is and isn't blocked, it effects every customer not just a single household, it potentially gives an abuser control over what the person they are abusing can or cant see and it raises some very serious privacy and security concerns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Honestly though, what you guys are actually saying is NO FILTERS. Software filters are how reliable? The risk of huge embarrassment makes the ISP filters how reliable?
Yes we (i) am saying NO (default on network level) FILTERS for all the reason i have already gone into, its not a matter of embarrassment its that they are fundamentally flawed.
Like it or not parenting is hard, it's scary.
Nexxo 11th January 2014, 10:56 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I agree that filtering wouldn't be needed if kids weren't overly inquisitive, driven by peer pressure, innocent eyes prone to accidentally witnessing bad ****, well-parented and well-educated.

News flash: kids are supposed to be inquisitive. They are supposed to be influenced by peers. Parents need to deal with that. As Corky42 says: like it or not, parenting is hard. You can't park your kid in front of a TV and then expect someone else to monitor what they'll see. You cannot throw your kid the internet and then leave it to someone else to monitor what they'll find. There is no technological fix for parenting.

In His Dark Materials, Philip Pullman explores how society (and in particular religious authorities) deal with the difficult issues of people having thoughts, feelings and desires that cannot be controlled by them. In his fictional parallel universe, on an Earth both very similar and in some ways different from ours, people's spirits exist as separate ethereal beings outside of their physical body; life companions that are connected by an inseparable psychic and metaphysical bond. They manifest as sentient animals, the shape of which says something about the personality of the human. They are called daemons, and they are considered deeply private parts of a human being. One would not touch someone else's daemon any more than one would touch their genitals.

Before puberty a child's daemon is constantly changing and can assume the shape of any animal. During puberty the daemon "settles" into its final shape, illustrating the adult that the child is becoming. A daemon is one's spirit, one's soul, one's source of creativity and passion. To not have a daemon is inconceivable; one would exist more than live; indifferent, soulless, passionless, devoid of free will or empathy. For reasons of their own some authorities would prefer people like that, because it would create a society that is ordered, neat, obedient. To create such a society, the (religious) Authority starts to experiment on children, finding a way to break the psychic and metaphysical bond with their daemon: to "cut their daemon away" from them.
Quote:
I know it's difficult to understand, but it's for their own good. It's just a little cut. Now, you listen. A long long time ago,some of our ancestors made a terrible mistake. They disobeyed the authority and that is what made dust came into the world. And ever since then, we've been sick with it. Been sick with dust. But there is a way out. You see, Dust doesn't settle on little children. It's later when your demon begins to settle. The Dust begins to swarm all around us, working its mixture and that is how children begin to have all sorts of nasty thoughts and unhappy feelings, but there is a way to stop it. It's just a little cut...

Pullman's comparison with the genital mutilation practiced on our world seems inescapable:
Quote:
There are churches there, believe me, that cut their children too, as the people of Bolvangar did — not in the same way, but just as horribly. They cut their sexual organs, yes, both boys and girls; they cut them with knives so that they shan’t feel. That is what the church does, and every church is the same: control, destroy, obliterate every good feeling...

It may seem rather far-fetched to equate internet porn filtering with genital mutilation or the societal oppression practiced by fundamentalist religion. But let's consider what Pullman uses Dust as a metaphor for. Dust largely ignores children, but clings to the pubescent and to adults. Dust is suggested to be the (self-)awareness and knowledge of life that we acquire as we grow up; the knowledge that the 'tree of knowledge' in Adam and Eve's Paradise refers to (note that when they eat the fruit of the tree of knowledge, they are condemned to go through life "crawling in dust", like the snake that tempted them). The stuff we worry about innocent children finding out about too soon, but also the stuff they need to learn about in due time to become functional adults. The stuff that children quite naturally start to become inquisitive about and want to find out more of as a natural part of growing up. The stuff that causes them to ask difficult and awkward questions, and that makes them autonomous (sometimes rebellious) beings in their own right. Many parents would much prefer their children to remain obedient, compliant innocents.

Dust is knowledge. Books are full of Dust, which is why they are frequently subject to censorship, banning and burning. The media is full of Dust. The internet is full of Dust. When we are talking about censorship, we are talking about the control of knowledge; the control of Dust. If you think that the internet is dangerous, you are basically saying that TV is dangerous, radio is dangerous, books are dangerous, knowledge is dangerous. It can be. But it is also life. Knowledge, like life, can be both beautiful and ugly; both protective and dangerous. And as parents we both delight in our children growing up, and fear for them doing so. We want to both raise them to independence and keep them clutched safely at our bosom forever. Parenting is difficult.

You cannot find an engineering fix to this. You cannot shield children from Dust, from knowledge, from life. You can only teach them how to engage with it wisely and delightfully. If you start looking for engineering fixes to the problems of parenting you are effectively trying to cut their daemons from them.
theshadow2001 11th January 2014, 19:52 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
I would argue that blocking 93% of porn sites from children is better than only blocking 7% ... or none at all.

Well, no its not. You still end up with unrestricted access to porn which defeats the purpose of the filter in the first place.


Has anyone started using a vpn because of all this?
Corky42 21st January 2014, 09:02 Quote
UK Anti-Porn Filters Might Screw Up League of Legends Patches.
http://kotaku.com/uk-anti-porn-filters-might-screw-up-league-of-legends-p-1505050867
Quote:
The strict "anti-porn" filtering taking full effect in the U.K. this month might cause problems for some League of Legends users who haven't called their ISPs to opt out of the screening. It seems the patcher is trying to access a couple of URLs with the letters S and E followed by X in them, and that's enough to get a block.
Nexxo 21st January 2014, 09:05 Quote
I can just imagine the tech support call: "Have you tried turning your porn filter off and turning it on again?..." :p
forum_user 21st January 2014, 12:30 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
UK Anti-Porn Filters Might Screw Up League of Legends Patches.
http://kotaku.com/uk-anti-porn-filters-might-screw-up-league-of-legends-p-1505050867

I imagine there may be some League of legends players at the ISPs who will, upon reading this dramatic news, exclude that exact URL from the filters. Or at the very least someone will have by now complained to the ISPs and asked for a comment - as such, ISPs will have excluded that exact URL.

Drama averted!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Nexxo
I can just imagine the tech support call: "Have you tried turning your porn filter off and turning it on again?..." :p

:D

(Added)

Side note. I just had a thought. I know all you guys think the .gov is trying to control your brains, and you may be right ... However, the NSA and GCHQ already have the past data collections, and I expect they are still raping it as we post on forums, but filtering out the worthless stuff must be real hard for them. Therefore, all those who are using the filter to block out everything, can be ignored, and those who turn off the filter will be watched!

Dun dun derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!
Nexxo 21st January 2014, 13:00 Quote
"The man who laughs has not yet been told the terrible news" --Bertold Brecht

You keep focusing on the practical detail, not the principle. China has internet censorship; Iran does, North Korea does. Western politicians hold half-hour long eloquent diatribes on why that is a bad thing. But when we do it, it's OK, 'cause it is to protect delicate suggestible minds from morally objectionable content. Except that's what Iran says, too.

http://i42.photobucket.com/albums/e314/Nexxo00/_images_smell_the_fascism1_1.jpg

The other, to me more relevant point is that it still allows parents to abdicate parental responsibility to a commercial company. After all, when you are concerned about what your kids get exposed to, the best thing to do is trust a remote stranger to look after them, no? It is a way of thinking that the government, and commercial business, would love for parents to embrace. What better way to control what people think than teaching them from the cradle that they are the only true, safe source of information.
Corky42 21st January 2014, 13:04 Quote
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
<Snip>Drama averted!
You mean like all the other mistakes that the automated systems have already made, and all future mistakes. What about all the lesser known web sites that don't even know they have been filtered by mistake ?
Quote:
Originally Posted by forum_user
Side note. I just had a thought. I know all you guys think the .gov is trying to control your brains, and you may be right ... However, the NSA and GCHQ already have the past data collections, and I expect they are still raping it as we post on forums, but filtering out the worthless stuff must be real hard for them. Therefore, all those who are using the filter to block out everything, can be ignored, and those who turn off the filter will be watched!

Dun dun derrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr!!

Yup, already covered
Quote:
Originally Posted by Corky42
Or that a record may well be kept now that you have disabled it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep

Records of opt-in software will, furthermore, make it simpler for national and international surveillance programmes to track who is looking at what sort of website. Just because they can doesn't mean they will, of course, but seven months of revelations about the extent of data capturing by GCHQ and the NSA – including the collection of information on the porn habits of political actors in order to discredit them – does make for reasonable suspicion. Do you still feel comfortable about ticking that box that says you want to see "obscene and tasteless content"? Are you sure?

If you opt-out you may as well place a neon sign outside your house proclaiming you are a miscreant.
forum_user 21st January 2014, 13:22 Quote
I get where you guys come from, and every time a URL is blocked, or might get blocked, I imagine Corky will triumphantly blow his horn and post about it, but I've opted out, and I'm not worried about anything ... Yet.

The issue will be when the suits in charge want the internet to be just like Iran etc. We will need a nine/eleven moment to convince the populace they need it ...
Corky42 21st January 2014, 14:02 Quote
The thing that confuses me is that a recent Ofcom report (warning PDF) that has been summarised on the open right group wiki found that...
Quote:
85% of parents who's children use the internet at home, use a combination of the following techniques to protect their children: talking to their children about staying safe online, using technical tools (such as filters) and supervision rules. Out of the remaining 15%, 9% of them talk to their children about online safety, but less frequently than monthly. Therefore, 6% of parents have not spoken to their children about online safety, used any technical tools or have any supervision rules.

Like i said im confused :?
Is the report saying only %15 of parents use no form of parental controls?
Because if so are these default on internet filters being brought in to cover that %15?
If so it seems a very expensive and problematic solution for only 1 in 8 parents.

I also have a question for the %85 of parents that do use a combination of techniques to protect their children online and that is if the introduction of the default on internet filters has changed the way you keep you child safe online ?

Have any parents uninstalled your existing filtering software instead preferring the network level one ?

Are you talking to your children more often than before the filter or less?

Do you now allow them to access the internet unsupervised or have you relaxed your rules on when and where they may use the internet ?
Log in

You are not logged in, please login with your forum account below. If you don't already have an account please register to start contributing.



Discuss in the forums