PM writes ISPs' web filter ads for them - and it must say 'default on' Britain's four biggest telcos are under pressure from the Prime Minister to describe their forthcoming network-level internet filters as "default on" by 22 July, The Register understands. A well-placed industry source told us today that Tory leader David Cameron will make an announcement about the web content controls next …
They can knobble this as well. All they have to do is block TCP and UDP to port 53 on any systems other than their DNS servers in either the router they supply to you, or within their infrastructure.
Would be hugely unpopular with most of the readers of this site, but would make no difference to the majority of their customers.
> All they have to do is block TCP and UDP to port 53 o
and in no time at all a bunch of dodgy DNS servers will appear using a port other than 53, which will appear to solve the problem but in fact will direct the juicier porn site names to virus-laden scam sites.
This is just DRM all over again, it won't stop the people who know what they're doing, and will just make life unnecessarily difficult for ordinary users.
Yup - last couple of generations of BT Homehub haven't had DNS as a user-available option, even under 'Advanced' settings, for at least 2 years:
"With regard to the way we work with DNS, for security reasons the Home Hub will not allow its DNS gateway address to be changed" - BTCare Community Mod (dated June 2011)
http://community.bt.com/t5/Other-BB-Queries/Changing-default-DNS-Server/td-p/191215/page/3
The "Internet Watch Foundation" produce the list, they are a charity so they are independant of government (snigger) but also don't have any official oversight - they ban what they want and you have no appeal.
you also have no idea who their backers are, who is funding them or what their political/economic/religious motives are - but you can't possibly have a problem with this because they are protecting the children
If this is blocking violent sites then I am all in favour, no more problems with facebook having beheading videos as facebook will be blocked for showing violence, and Youtube will be blocked for showing body part carnage on Russian roads..........
What do you mean it doesn't work like that, oh it's only the sites that Dave and the Daily Mail don't like, well I never.
Hmm, well the protect-the-kiddies content filter that came on my wife's phone (and was on by default) also blocked alcohol-related sites. So her first attempt when on holiday to locate a good pub for a meal was singularly unsuccessful.
Never mind, I'm sure the government don't have a thing about alcohol.
Oh, hang on...
Dear ISP,
cc Government of the Day.
I 'the upvoter below' do not want.
If you should implement such a system I will take my business else where.
If all of you should implement such a system I will encrypt my traffic via an offshore thirdparty.
That'll screw you over either way, wont it now? Either no business, or no ability to traffic shape the protocols you dont like.
Ie what should be on it ? Will the list grow to contain things that are, by some, deemed ''bad'' ?
I assume that it will contain sex sites, but what about other things that can damage young minds, eg: violence, astrology, suicide, anorexic encouraging, religion ??
I could add: BNP, taliban & facebook since some would regard those as damaging ?
Daily Mail readers will never agree with Guardian readers, so best to leave it down to the individual household and what they see as right for their kids -- ie their prejudices.
Screw the porn, block pop music. I have a choice over whether I watch porn or not and I'm actively aware it's pornographic. I don't want to walk down the street however and hear every radio blurting out profane rubbish about how a girl wants to be touched in her special place and used like a piece of meat.
Moreso, I actually hate (and this part isn't being sarcastic) when you walk down the street and there's a little girl like, 5-6 years old singing their favourite song about how they want to get fucked. (back to sarcasm) Before going after the stuff that can be ignored conciously we need to ban the smut on the radio.
(slightly sarcastic again) and how about banning newspapers. I'm tired of buying the daily fail or the sun and finding nipples everywhere. And these aren't even out of reach of children. I demand that all newspapers stop posting nip slips and camera clunge this instant, it's abhorent and it is warping the young children who read them (going by the quality of writing in the sun, I assume it's aimed at 10 year olds)
If it's anything like O2's current mobile network blocker, it'll restrict a lot of sites without a trace of p0rn on them as well. Even a nun (was going to say priest, but bad example) would need to ask for the block to be taken down for the full browsing experience.
Of course, once the filters are in place you'll have tabloid headlines of "TV personality/school teacher gets dirty internet [sic]", taken from the inevitable leaked lists.
Far more worryingly, there's a very good chance that prosecutors would seek to have how a defendant's internet filter is set up put entered as evidence and an even greater one that the police would see an opt-out as grounds for suspicion. "He's gets teh p0rn, he must be a bad 'un!"
And all because our politicians are too gutless to tell Joe Public and the Daily Fail that, if someone's too stupid to be able to tick a box and opt in to the blocking if they want it, then they probably can't be trusted with the magic box powered by sparks that gives them the internet in the first place.
A lot of people (mainly Mumsnet, the Daily Mail crowd, etc.) seem to forget that their six-year-old or whatever will eventually grow up. (CHILDREN DO THAT!?)
I wonder how fucked up they'll end up being unable to look at porn when they're 16 or whatever, and how many of them will end up becoming rapists, murderers or sex offenders.
This would mean that say most of the results from a "big boobies" image search on Google would be filtered.
But what about Facebook and Twitter, for example would the EvilPostman (NSFW!) on twitter be filtered, or some of the Facebook groups which can also be very raw.
We are probably better teaching the kids to filter themselves and keep safe.
I'd love to see the system they can implement that would survive five minutes in front of a 15 year old wanting grumble flicks or facebook or whatever it is you try and block.
Be the easiest QA/testing job in the universe.
Plonk a 15 year old male in front of it and say "bet you can't find any porn" and see how long it takes.
*five years into the project*
V124.2 - Failed (10 minutes)
Please submit V125.0 by the end of the month. Thanks.
If your school had a proxy server when you "were a lad", then you clearly still are!
Eee, youngsters today, thinking that schools had access to t'web. I remember the joys of ascii porn being passed around on fanfold paper round back of t'bikesheds.
You were lucky! We had to get our porn on punchcards, line them up and then project light through them onto t' darkened walls of coal celler where we 'ad our lessons...
The only reassurance I need from Tory nanny is that they'll collectively be departing on the soon-to-be-built Golgafrincham B Ark along with the staff of the Mail, its readers and frankly a good sixty percent of the rest of the population, particularly those who think "family friendly" should be obligaTory for the happily childless too.
I had thought that the scariest bit of political debate I ever witnessed was three local councillors waiting at a childrens home one wet Sunday afternoon for a grip 'n' grin with Ronald McDonald. To fill the time, they discussed - seriously (no, really) - whether there was only one extremely busy "Ronald McDonald" constantly criss crossing the Atlantic, or a number of actors attending events while the genuine Ronald McDonald remained at HQ.
The Westminster crowd are quite their equal in cluelessness, but much, much more dangerous.
Because there won't be an official regulated government list created by sane (or at least accountable ) people - that would be Big Brother.
There will be an order to "use a list" but the ISPs are free to pick any "unaccountable opaque censorship restriction" list they choose.
then they are at liberty to change and update the terms of the filtering without asking, because you have already agreed to it. a bit like when your bank changes its terms and conditions
what about folks without children? surely they dont need parental controls? surely its instulting to be assumed to be a parent? what about folks who *can't* have kids?
that said, they can and will filter whatever they choose. they don't have to tell us - the reason they do, is to win political brownie points
theres a lot they don't tell us though, because its 'in the nations best interest' not to. internet censoring is no different.
you can't miss what you don't know about afterall!
A quick search tells me my ISP is only number 8 in the list.
Perhaps this will be a self-selecting measure if only those who use BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk-Talk will be affected. If you care enough about it you will change to a smaller (and almost certainly better) ISP.
The majority will be "protected" and the rest of us can carry on taking responsibilty for our own lives (and those of our children).
Did you not notice BT, Virgin, Sky and Talk Talk bought all the decent ISPs already? Yeah, it's fine, I'll go with PlusNet - no, its really BT? ok, BlueYonder - oh they gone too? - BeThere - gah, fuck Sky. Ok, I've been saving this choice for real disasters - Pipex. Wait, TalkTalk did what to Pipex??
Yes; I used to be with Nildram before they got swallowed by Pipex and then as you say...
Pipex. Wait, TalkTalk did what to Pipex??
I have been very happy with Zen for several years now and they still look strong, my main worry is that the politicians may eventually see past the top 4.
I'm already against this. Just by gut feel and instinct I'm against this.
But I've just had a look at the statistics. The 'top 4 uk ISPs' account for something like 19mil subscribers.
The census said there were something like 22mil households.
Assuming a household has one subscriber.
Assuming 'most' households have some sort of ISP provided connection.
By brow beating just those 4 ISPs into applying the Government flavourite filter, they can block whatever content they dont like from at least 86% of the population.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
