Smut oglers told to opt in to keep web filth flowing Grubby smut gazers will be forced to "opt in" to view porn under government-backed restrictions to be imposed on ISPs. PM David Cameron will propose a raft of measures today at a Downing Street meeting with Christian charity group Mothers' Union. The restrictions are designed to protect children from sexualised content. A …
Well its going to work a bit differently then reported.
First off this is for NEW customers. When you sign up you will be offered to filter adult content. Its not a default on system. Its an option that will be presented to you when you sign up.
Existing customers will not be "opted in" automatically. But they will (at least BT saying they will, guessing the other will follow) offer a method to opt in if you wish.
And remember Talk-Talk offer this service already. and Vermin Media have "OpenDNS" style DNS system inplace already inorder to get some ad cash from mistyped domains, so it won't take much to offer these services.
I agree with a network level filter even if its a service like OpenDNS and a config change on your router (if its open enough to do so) to send DNS requests though its own settings not the device's choices. Some people want to keep there kids away from porn or other content they don't want there kids to see. But it shouldn't be a UK wide opt out system.
From what I've read and watched its not the end of porn as we know it, but a method to better educate subscribers about the options they have available to them
Its not the end of porn as we know it...
All knives are now to be sold blunt (to prevent childred hurting themselves); if you want them sharp, you will have to ask extra for that.
All cars will now be supplied with the wheels welded fixed so no children hurt themselves with them (teenagers too :)
All children must be strapped into straight jackets and chained to the floor to stop them moving around and falling over (or perhaps the Mothers of god-botherers instead).
I have another idea. Anybody who is not responsible enough to be a parent should not be one. If they end up one by accident, take away the children and give them to someone responsible instead.
Some of these breeder terms are being waved around almost like insults.
As a father of three children who is rather pleased I have more than the average as it improves the gene pool.
Children are a choice, you may not want them, but some of us do - it is natural.
As to overpopulation, why should I as an intelligent person not have children, yet some chav have many just for the money?
And finally to internet censorship - that is my job as a parent to supervise internet usage. That said I would imagine the boys would think it funny and my daughter very yucky.
You are clearly a good parent. The negative comments I'd say are aimed at those chavs and those who I prefer to call "cattle" (brainless fodder who gain their entire knowledge of the world and all of their opinions from the Daily Mirror / Daily Mail / Sun / BBC news).
Please have more kids and tell your equally good friends to do so as well :)
And have a pint - that's not banned to save the children (yet).
And I agree about the cattle as you call them.
As to children - sorry don't want a people carrier, big saloon carries 5 people.
And the last child was a BOGOF, identical twins.
All are working hard at school, we are strict but not cruel, and we do insist on knowing where they are,
No TVs#, games or computers@ in their rooms. Got 2 PCs available and they seem to like watching TV with us. Both child bedrooms though have HiFis.
However rules can change.
Games are easy to manage - we can't afford lots of the same.
# Cost part of it - more money for main TV
@ would they give up their P4 or the Q8200 for a cheap PC?
Slippery slope and all that.
But seriously, any idiot can see this won't work. Why doesn't the Mother's Union (even their organisation's name makes me want to throttle someone) set up their own damn ISP with all this nasty censorship so people so-inclined can cotton-swab their own kids and leave everyone elses' alone. Opt in, you only surrender your privacy if you want to, and it might actually achieve their aims of "protecting" their kids from naughty pictures.
Oh except their aims are actually to enforce their own opinions on everyone else. Silly me, better stick to the original plan then.
This is the side of "Conservative" I dislike the most - the fighting against supposed "moral decay". Idiots is too kind a word.
how are they going carry out this censorship?
I have to say I have an almost complete disinterest in porn, not due to any prudishness, it's just it's such a pail reflection of the real thing, that in reality it wouldn't make much difference to me (but I reserve the right to look without having to be on some sort of register)
When they decide to block porn sites they will inevitably get it wrong and block other sites.
When they are blocked, will be be notified as such or will they simply fail to load?
If that happens is there a method of resolving this or do I have to phone my ISP and state that I would like to be on the wankers list?
It's not as if ISPs can effectively censor content anyway, other than for those too technically ignorant to get around it. The most they are likely to be able to do is provide a restricted DNS resolver e.g. OpenDNS as standard. Opt out by their procedure and they will provide a less restricted DNS resolver by default. Anyone with the ability to find and follow a simple howto will install their own DNS resolver or change their router's default DNS settings or work around it in any of a dozen other ways I can think of, regardless of any setting the ISP provides.
So what's the problem ? That those too ignorant to change their DNS settings or use BitTorrent and who are too embarrassed to phone their ISPs to opt out get treated for the fools they clearly are ? Or is it just annoyance that yet another politician who doesn't understand the net is allowed the illusion that he is doing something ?
FFS. Once again the god bothering asshats can't be bothered being proper parents (apart from instilling that wonderful christian guilt complex into their children which can cause emotional and psychological damage) and actually invest some time into making sure that they are properly filtering the web content their kids view. Any chance they will stop reading the bible to their kids due to the graphic and brutal adult content contained therein, or does skyfairy woo get a free pass again?
they can't be bothered being proper parents to. I'm pretty sure their kids will be suitably restricted to Christian friendly, fun free activities. It's the kids of everyone else they're bothered about. They don't think you're bothering to look after your kids properly and so they want the government to do it for you.
Seems a lot of people are missing this, what with all the 'ffs parents should take responsibility and stop relying on the government' type comments. It's not about some lazy parents wanting the government to take responsibility for their kids (although some would be more than happy for them to), it's the Mother's Union wanting the government to take responsibility for everyone else's kids, because they don't trust them to parent them responsibly.
Would only notice if Facebook was down.
We had arguments about this - she was posting complete rubbish so threatened to ban her, she then get very funny about it so we got her pass word and showed her we could get in.
She changed it so I asked her why she called me that.
Never take on a dad who is an IT professional at computers
I don't buy it ... I'm convinced each passing generation is getting tamer and more prudish.
Try (not to) think about say, your parents, or people their age (say mid 60s) swinging in the 60s when "the pill" was invented... or your nan banging away with some American servicemen posted over here in WWII - the Victorians were overtly prudish and yet what were some of the very earliest uses they put the camera to when it was invented? Yup, porn. Apparently prostitution was rife too.
... and keep going back ... now try reading The Canterbury Tales.
I'm beginning to suspect Demolition Man may prove to be strangely prophetic.
I seem to remember that the "hedgeporn" that I found as a child (early teens) was really rather different to the stuff that is available on the internet today. It was basically just naked women, even the stuff that you could get in sex shops - which obviously I couldn't at the time - was much, much tamer that that which is available on the Internet, free and easily today.
Better find out first what exactly is being proposed.
According to BBC this morning this whole thing will be a requirement for ISPs to offer an ISP-level parental filtering to all new customers, accompanied by a disclaimer that filtering is not a precise science and may let some things through while blocking some other things unnecessarily. The customers will then be able to opt out by unticking the check box on the sign-on page.
If that is indeed the case, then all this is just a tactical move by the Govt to shut up the moralisers while essentially preserving the status quo and there is no need for a panic.
I don't think that box will even be ticked by default but more like a page displaying something like
"ADULT CONTENT.
As a responsible ISP and in partnership with the government we are please to offer you an household wide option to filter out adult content. This filter will work on all devices in your home that connect though our service, including Ipods, Ipads, tablets and some mobile phones connecting via wi-fi. There is no software to install as we do the hardwork for you.
If you wish to filter this content please confirm this by ticking the box below then clicking next. You will be able to opt-out anytime by using our members portal or by calling customer services."
Something that will give the subscriber more info, makes it sound simple and gives them a clear choice.
Either way. Its a system for new customers and existing customers will be able to opt-in (Well thats BT's idea and i'm guessing the others will follow suite). Remember that these ISP's don't want to upset or offend there customer base. When I got a new mobile contract last year in which they knew I was 18 I got a text message stating that because they knew I was 18 access to adult content had been enabled on my account and if I wished to switch the filter on all I had to do was call customer services. Mobile networks are supposed to put the filter on everyone then remove it when customers provide proof of age.
It doesn't matter if the box you click to be allowed access to adult material is marked "Censor me" and already has a tick in, or if it is marked "Do not censor me" and starts out empty. You will still be censored unless you take action and click on the box.
It's quite obvious to me that the Mothers Union (whoever the fuck they are) are trying to get a full opt in ban but it will fail as the ISPs are heading this off with an opt out strategy. It's no coincidence that these opt out plans are popping up all over the place the very day this meeting takes place.
If there's an opt out solution in place and widely available for the religiously deluded then there will never be any regulation enforced on the much larger general masses.
I do fully endorse the idea of censoring religious information from children until they are educated enough to make up their own minds. Someone should start a campaign about this.
It's also quite obvious that the vast majority of commentators here have heard:
"Mothers"
"Christian"
"Porn"
"Ban"
"Government"
and have had their knees jeark rather violently presuming that they are trying to get all porn banned for all people and that you're going to have to ring up your ISP to beg for the right to see nuddy wimmin, also that your ISP will probably put you on some sort of list, just for doing so.
Any person who needs a filtered feed can join a "cloud" to run a filter system. All they need do is install filtering software on their PC/Mac/Linux box, there are free versions like K9, and as part of this "cloud", when ever they are on the Internet they will be "Protected" by a guaranteed 1:1 ratio of filter systems. Guaranteed 100% uptime, when you are online so is your part of the cloud.
All I need now is to be able to filter all the [re|fcuk]tards|politicians|religians|general numpties out of my life.
While I'm on about it, why can all these people seem to be able to manage, in pseudo order of difficulty, walking, talking, reading, driving a car|bike|cycle|truck, making a passable attempt at life, but be incapable simply of installing a bit of software in their PC???
"I don't understand computers" is not an option, they are not going away, deal with it!!!
A massive quango trawling all the smut they can find and building up a blacklist!
Actually given the spirit in which this appears to be being approached, that would be intolerable as it would expose those workers to porn. Instead there'll be a whitelist of what we can access, and sites will have to pay to be on vetted in order to be allowed to be on it.
I have also found that they (Vodaphone) are blocking sites that discuss the politics of the day, especially religious politics, if the site does not agree with the politically correct views to which we should all subscribe.
Funnily enough, I don't think that will change, and that perhaps Vodaphone have been put up as the leaders on this, to see how much they can get away with.
I'd suggest that the Mothers Union is acting like a fake charity, and merely doing its master's (government's) bidding.
Erm, no content which is legal should be blocked full stop. it is censorship and nothing more or else.
We already have a line, and it is called the law. No group, Christian, Mothers or otherwise should be allowed to get a second line drawn forward of the law, no matter what it is for.
Will stuff like Viz's Profanisourous also be deemed offensive and be banned? Or will it just be pictures of naked people enjoying themselves. Once we start sliding down this slope, then it'll be very hard to stop!
I find a lot of the religious material to be offensive. Can we ban that too?
Please take this as notice that if at any time you set up an opt-in filter that would otherwise censor the content that I can access, I wish to opt in and continue to be able to receive it, because I am perfectly capable of making my own decisions.
Please confirm receipt of this letter and each time you set up a filter, inform me in writing that you have done so and confirm that I continue to have access to the filtered material.
Yours sincerely....
etc
Didn't previous systems that were implemented on mobiles have a track record of blocking stuff that was not even porn related. This would be the reason I would leave it unblocked.
I have a big enough problem as it is, with the Internet Watch Foundation screwing up downloads from file locker sites like rapidshare, etc. And no, I am not trying to get at anything the IWF are quite rightly blocking. I just get screwed by the way their list is blocked by most ISP's so even non infringing downloads stop working....
These systems just create too much collateral damage, and most of the time don't even get the effect it was implemented for.
I heard on the BBC news that a BT 'insider' was quoted as saying that this would mean that a Wikipedia search for Al Qaeda would fall foul of the filter.
To quote the article, "The restrictions are designed to protect children from sexualised content?" OK, so - if the BT source I mentioned is in fact correct - can someone explain to me how an Al Qaeda shoe bomber, for example, is deemed 'sexualised content'?
First point then: It's [apparently] not just about porn or sexualised content as some, including Dave the Dick, seem to suggest. Its about inappropriate content. This is a very important distinction to draw IMO. Who is it that is deciding what this 'inappropriate' content is? The ISPs, the government, some useless quango, or a combination of these 3?
I am therefore a little intrigued. If the BT source is correct - surely news broadcasts showing graphic scenes of violence will be filtered? If not, then the rules are not constant and - in my mind - the system becomes suspect. If news reports depicting violence are censored, then the filter will be deeming 'real life' inappropriate :)
Second point: The system is opt in. You have to declare your intentions to view what someone else deems as inappropriate for you. Inappropriate != illegal, if it were I would not take too much of an issue, but it is not. Why should anyone have to declare their intention to view legal matarial that some zealot deems inappropriate?
A preliminary set of questions I would like answered includes:
1) Who will have direct access to the list of those opted in?
2) Will the list be shared, if so, with who and how?
3) Will requests for blocked or filtered content be logged?
Now consider the 4 ISPs involved: BT, TalkTalk, Virgin and Sky and put on your tin-foil hat... Remember Phorm? Recall the then Governments failure to act on the 'illegal' BT/Phorm trials? Could it be that successive Governments simply want backdoor, grass roots surveillance?
Further consider - with your tin-foil hat - that Phorm was opt-out. This is opt in.
In reality I do not wear a tin-fol hat, but I am a cynic and I am beginning to see a pattern.
I spent some time developing anti-porn software (sorry) and can say full well it doesn't work. Most of the methods in place are frankly pathetic. Especially the ones where they block a domain name, simple, open another site. There's so much movement in the porn industry that blacklisting does not work. And white listing? That's a level of censorship that should never be seen in this country.
Will start like this, spread to include other 'undesirable things', eventually to full blown censorship... probably not even a matter of months.
When will governments learn? They won't - they are too stupid. Even when I was a kid it was perfectly possible to get porn - and then it was printed not 'on line' - and most of my friends did manage it (as did I). These 'pressure groups' just seem to have megaphones and a soft unquestioning media to spout forth to. Prove to me that showing an adolecent boy a picture of some knockers on the screen and I will prove that letting him watch football encourages antisocial behaviour, spitting on the ground, greed, unpleasant rudeness and arrogance. I will also prove that modern pop music is worse than either and afflicts male and female kids.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
