back to article World+dog: Network level filters block LEGIT sex ed sites. Ofcom: Meh

Inevitably, as network-level filters are switched on by Britain's biggest telcos, reports are suggesting that the systems are wrongly blocking sex education websites. BSkyB, BT and TalkTalk have each said publicly and repeatedly that the technology is not perfect and relies on interaction from parents who want to protect their …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Elmer Phud

    Drain cleaner

    " for example, when a website has been wrongly categorised and added to a blacklist"

    If you tell them a site needs to be unblocked is there any process that compels them to unblock?

    1. Roo

      Re: Drain cleaner

      "If you tell them a site needs to be unblocked is there any process that compels them to unblock?"

      There's no point in any such process if the punters access via filtered connections exclusively (quite likely if they are on by default), because they will never be able to see the filtered sites to know that they exist *and* they are wrongly blacklisted in the first place...

      For those people that *do* have access to unfiltered connections my guess is that most people would simply access them via their unfiltered connection rather than waste time fighting bureaucrats...

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: Drain cleaner

        The question is more about what you can do if your site is blocked and as a result, people can't visit it. We already have the same situation with sites being blocked from mobile networks, so we know how mobile telcos respond to complaints about sites being wrongfully blocked.

        1. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Drain cleaner

          "We already have the same situation with sites being blocked from mobile networks, so we know how mobile telcos respond to complaints about sites being wrongfully blocked."

          IN summary: They don't.

          Tmobile is STILL blocking the Saracens Rugby Club website 5 years after I reported it as a false positive.

          1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

            Re: Saracens Rugby Club

            Any idea why it is banned?

            Religous hate speech?

            They think scrums are gay porn?

            Or just because Union should be banned anyway

            1. Anonymous Coward
              Anonymous Coward

              Re: Saracens Rugby Club

              I think the clue is in the name

      2. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

        Re: Drain cleaner @Roo

        You've missed the point.

        There may be some parents who want to have a filtered connection, but would like sites specifically set up for teenage sexual-health issues to be allowed, because giving a reliable source of good advice is much better than learning in the playground/behind the bike shed (or wherever teenagers hang out now).

        From the article, it is these sites that have been incorrectly blocked, so parents with that mindset would not just turn the filters off because it would allow much worse through.

        Quite often, sources of good information are publicised in doctors surgeries, libraries, and sex education classes at school. That is how the sites get known. Whether the blocks are spotted depends entirely on whether they are blocked silently, or whether it banners a message You've been spotted trying to access a filthy site. Desist, or tremble in your shoes while we tell the account owner!

        Fortunately for me, the last minor in the house turns 18 in January, so I will just turn the block off when I get told how, not that I was overly worried in the first place.

        1. Roo

          Re: Drain cleaner @Roo

          "You've missed the point."

          No, I don't think I did because I am quite well aware of the issues you raise and I don't feel the need to dip my oar in on those points already well made by the article. My facetious post was pointing out that quite often users (and indeed sites) could be completely unaware that filtering was going on in the first place.

        2. Alan Brown Silver badge

          Re: Drain cleaner @Roo

          I think YOU miss the point.

          There is NO substiute for parental supervision. Fullstop, end of story.

          Filters miss stuff, which is going to upset little 6yo Johnny when he sees porn.

          Filters are easily subverted, which is going to delight him and give him a nice game to play 5 years later when he starts wanting to go Beaverhunting.

          And filters won't help one iota in defending against nasty icky Jimmy Saville types performing online grooming of little Johnny when he's 8 years old.

          In fact I'd argue that these filters play into the hands of predators, by fooling parents into being less vigilant.

          Things people don't like to think/talk about:

          1: About 1/3 of sexual offenders are under 18

          2: At least 3/4 of offending against children happens within the family or immediate circle of family friends

          3: Roughly half of all sexual offences against children are committed by women.

          4: Very few children will tell their parents about such activities because they feel they won't be believed and the older they get the less likely they are to speak up about it.

          Think about that next time your grandkids are snuggling in grandma's lap and see if you still feel comfortable about letting your 14yo niece babysit your 7yo son.

          One could argue that the agenda behind these filters is the enablement of further child abuse by engendering a false sense of security amongst the sheeple.

          1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

            Re: Drain cleaner @Alan Brown

            I don't believe in filters as a substitute for responsible parenting. Our household has been connected for over a decade with wireless, and computers that the kids use exclusively (i.e. I don't) for much of that time. For the last 5 years or so, everyone in the house has had their own system that they control. (except my wife. She wants someone else to fix hers when it is apparently broken).

            What I do have is a firewall that logs all the URLs that are visited. I told my kids when they were younger that I was not going to put any filters, blocks or parental controls on what came into the house. But I did say that I could see most of what they were doing if I had cause to, although I would not under normal circumstances. As far as I can tell (and I have looked for signs of them using proxy or anonymising services) they have never attempted to hide what they are doing.

            We (my wife and I) also have an open policy that if there is anything they are worried about, be it viruses, health issues or inappropriate material, that they could always talk to us to discuss it without any recriminations. And of course, they can talk to each other about similar issues. It has not always worked, I believe that my oldest son was the recipient of non-physical bullying, which he said nothing to us about at the time. But we try.

            I hope that my kids are well adjusted, and have acquired a knowledge of where to draw the line about what is appropriate.

            That is my attitude, and my responsibility. I know that there are others out there who welcome the additional controls. That is their decision, and I accept that there are valid reasons why they may want that. And having a filtered internet feed does have a place for people who cannot ensure that their systems are suitably protected. It's just another (justified, in their eyes) brick in the wall. It really is the case that even quite knowledgeable people can't be totally sure that the systems in their house are protected to the degree that they would like. Computers are just too complicated for anybody but the most technically able to protect, especially the 'sheeple' you are talking about.

            This means that I agree that parents need to take responsibility. But I'm not going to suggest that kids should only use computers under adult supervision, at least not once they reach an age where the parents would trust them to be out on their own, for example. That way leads to young people who will go to extraordinary lengths to get out from what they will see as over-controlling parents. Trust is important.

            Your arguments risk descending into the realms of wrapping kids up in cotton wool that results not in well-adjusted members of society, but into a world where these kids, when grown up, do not want to take their own decisions. I've seen the results of over-protective parenting, and it often leads to behaviour as bad or worse than kids given free reign..

            It's a complex and difficult area that will always have winners and losers, fans and critics, whatever is done. There is no winning solution, just a choice between less-bad ones.

          2. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Drain cleaner @Roo

            You're missing a whole load of [citation needed] labels in that post. If you're going to make up stats, at least deliver them with conviction; "about", "at least", "roughly", "very few" all set off my BS alarm.

      3. almagpie

        Re: Drain cleaner

        That's nonsensical. If I use a website regularly, or follow links from a trusted website to another site, then suddenly I can't get at it because of the filter, *of course* I know the site exists and will need to ask it to be unblocked.

        Incidentally I have much experience of such things having a filtered connection at work, and legitimate reasons for occasionally requesting an unblock. So the original question is a good one, and I'd like to know the answer.

        1. jonathanb Silver badge

          Re: Drain cleaner

          http://www.charitycommission.gov.uk/ was a hate / violence site at a place where I used to work.

        2. Roo

          Re: Drain cleaner

          "That's nonsensical."

          "If I use a website regularly, or follow links from a trusted website to another site, then suddenly I can't get at it because of the filter, *of course* I know the site exists and will need to ask it to be unblocked."

          In this example you have a-priori knowledge that the site exists and what kind of content it has, so you have enough knowledge and experience to file a complaint/request to unblock the site in question.

          Now consider the case where you are trying to get to a brand new site you've never heard of before and the site has been black-hole routed by the BOFH implementing the filters. For all you know the site is down/offline, and in those cases I suspect the majority of Joe Public out there will shrug their shoulders and move on to something else that isn't on the wrong end of a black hole route.

          "Incidentally I have much experience of such things having a filtered connection at work, and legitimate reasons for occasionally requesting an unblock. So the original question is a good one, and I'd like to know the answer."

          Same here on both of those points.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Drain cleaner

      Yes. The courts. Take the ISP and OfCom to court siting Restraint of trade especially if your organistation is in receipt of Government Funding. There are also a good few EU rules that these filters break.

      You should be able to get an interim judgement unblocking your site pretty easily.

      Any legal and legit business must be able to get redress from the courts. At least the UK seems to obey EU rulings unlike les Froggies who ignore pretty well every judgment that goes against them with a Gallic Shrug/Meh!

  2. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. theModge

      Re: Ineffectually slipping through the odd boob

      Oh it is: Generally we elect 1 or 2% of MPs who ARE NOT complete tits, quite the other way round...

      1. Tom 38

        Re: Ineffectually slipping through the odd boob

        Generally we elect 1 or 2% of MPs who ARE NOT complete tits

        I think this is 1% is of each MP - probably their pinky toe.

        1. This post has been deleted by its author

  3. Paul_Murphy

    So..

    >BT, for example, has told us that it uses its system to block access to sites promoting proxies

    >and anonymisers.

    So already it's being used for blocking other sites which have nothing to do with 'protecting the children' and I wonder how many other sites will be included.

    1. almagpie

      Anonymisers defeat the filter so this is legit

      To be fair to BT, this is arguably a reasonable control to prevent the filter from being bypassed, so it is still "protecting the children". And the bottom line is - it's still optional and you can opt out if you don't like it, so it's not strictly censorship. NB. It still sucks big time.

      1. Tom 35

        Re: Anonymisers defeat the filter so this is legit

        There are lots of things that can be used the same way. Translation sites, wayback machine...

        Are you going to block a site about brest feeding babies? or cancer info site? If they want moms to tell them what to block, what mom gets to pick? Is it going to be a vote?

        The filters are very blunt tools.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: So..

      > So already it's being used for blocking other sites which have nothing to do with 'protecting the children' and I wonder how many other sites will be included.

      Currently if a big media company wants to shut down a torrent site they have to slog through the courts to gain a pretty worthless blocking order.

      The torrent site can now be classified and blocked as "objectionable" with a quick call to the ISP.

      This makes things much quicker and transfers all the risk and costs to the ISP and their customers; it's up to the site operator to take the ISP to court in order to get unblocked.

      Cunning eh?

  4. Necronomnomnomicon

    Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

    That'll get the filters switched off quickly enough.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

      'noncebait sidebar of shame'

      Thank you, I've been struggling to find the right words to describe it, that's perfect

      1. monkeyfish

        Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

        If we all use the system to tell the ISPs that the dailyfail website is smut that should be blocked, it might well happen. Then you would face the awkward decision to prevent your kids from accessing such a mind altering and harmful website, or allow them an unfiltered connection.

        1. Tony Green

          Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

          I'm assuming that as well as a mechanism for telling them that they've wrongly blocked a site, there should be one for telling them there's one they've missed?

          Maybe with enough complaints about the filth that the Mail Online publishes whilst hypocritically railing against much less pernicious stuff might get it blocked.

    2. ACx

      Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

      "noncebait sidebar of shame"

      Phrase of the year.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

        Whilst I love the term "noncebait sidebar of shame", I am proud to admit I have no idea what is being referred to. There is nothing that would make me visit that site at all, this side of a personality-changing brain tumour.

    3. Mark Allen

      Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

      At least Porn is honest about what it is. The Daily Mail and its nonceing sidebar is stunning for the way it can have a "Think Of The Children" article on the page with its nonceing links on the side bar. Certainly need it added to the banned list. Along with Mumsnet as there are plenty of threads in their forums of an extreme sexual nature.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Hopefully it'll block the Daily Mail and their noncebait sidebar of shame

        To be fair, much as I hate it, cognitive dissonance is not unique to the Daily Mail. The Guardian is capable of having an article about global warming on P3, long haul travel porn in its travel section, articles about the plight of sweatshop workers in the main section and lashings of women's clothes advertorial in the Weekend.

        The only newspapers I know of which are internally consistent are Liberation and the Morning Star.

  5. Richard 22

    How does the choice work?

    So how are these filters switched on/off? Is there just a switch on the account pages on the website? Or do you have to phone them up and ask them to turn it on/off. If it's the latter I can't see myself agreeing to have it enabled when Virgin Media bring theirs in. If it's easily switchable on the website then it might have some uses - even better if you could have your own whitelist of sites which they block by default but which you'd like to allow.

    1. Mike Bell

      Re: How does the choice work?

      I spent half an hour looking on the BT website last night and couldn't find any settings anywhere. When they get around in a few months to asking my preference on filters (as a long-standing customer), perhaps there will be an obvious way to TURN THE FECKING THING OFF.

    2. almagpie

      Re: How does the choice work?

      On Sky it's on the "MySky" web account management pages, a basic filter with 3 categories "PG" (no porn, social media, hate speech, drugs etc.), "13" (same but allows Social media) and "18" (no filtering)

      There's no need to phone an operator and do a Partridge impression: "Can you get porn on my telly please?" :)

      1. Tom 260

        Re: How does the choice work?

        Actually with Sky you have to turn it on in order to see the option to completely disable it, suggesting that "18" isn't unfiltered.

    3. phuzz Silver badge

      Re: How does the choice work?

      If you use OpenDNS (208.67.222.222 from memory) then you can choose to have them not resolve certain categories of sites for your connection, or give it a blacklist. This is probably the road I'd go down if I ever had kids in the house that needed blocking, it's pretty flexible, with the only downside that you'll have to decided what to block/allow yourself rather than letting the government decide what your kids should be allowed to look at.

      That said, there's no way on the Virgin hub to change the default DNS, so you'd have to use it in modem mode and use a separate router, or set the DNS on each device individually.

      1. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: How does the choice work?

        Filtering by *site*???

        Ok, that's the British Museum (boobs!), the BBC (news about boobs!) and Wikipedia (reference material about boobs!) down the tubes then.

  6. codejunky Silver badge

    Bad times for freedom

    And worse times for the population. Including the kiddies

  7. Smarty Pants

    Where is the list of these banned sites

    Where can I check this list to see if a site is 'incorrectly' labelled because my ISP don't like it. Want to access Talk Talk from a Virgin connection - oops we thought it was porn. Or as is expected would we have to attempt to access a site with the ensuing flashing lights and horns because some idiot didn't realise www.big'n'bouncy.org is a trampolining website.

    1. Anonymous IV

      Re: Where is the list of these banned sites

      PC Pro magazine, in mid 2012, did an article on the effectiveness or otherwise of various web filtering packages on various classes of potentially contentious material, and by far the longest list (provided as a downloadable file on their website) was that of porn sites. Unexpected, that...

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Where is the list of these banned sites

      I bet someone put a rule in the filters that automatically blocks any domain with the word "cunt" in it.

      Unfortunately that would mean Scunthorpe gets wiped off the UK internet...

      1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Where is the list of these banned sites

        ...and penistone!

        1. Ben Rosenthal

          Re: Where is the list of these banned sites

          and now you'll have to go all the way to Orkney if you want to see some Twatt.

  8. Mtech25
    Devil

    Why Don't we

    Just ban sex should keep middle england happy and in a couple of years their would be no kiddies for mumsnet to worry about?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Why Don't we

      It's not middle England thats causing the problem, it's those weary beardy, sandal wearing lefties who call themselves "Liberal". When I were a lad telling people what to think and do was called fascism.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why Don't we

        Really, you simply couldn't be more wrong on this.

        1. Old Handle

          Re: Why Don't we

          I must disagree. He could be more wrong. I mean, he is wrong, but unfortunately the Left has been pretty quick to jump on anti-porn and save-the-children bandwagons too at times. So he's certainly not as wrong as he possibly could be.

  9. Steve Brooks

    You just wait you lot, luckily we got ours thrown out (Australia), but when the time comes for ofcom to make their report, and it turns out that only 20 or so percent of households actually have it turned on , there will be a hue and cry from the "think of the children" brigade along the lines of, "it's not effectively protecting the children because so many irresponsible parents have turned it off, so it MUST be made compulsory".

    Popcorn and pepsi waiting for the show!

    1. cracked

      I think it would go the other way?

      If 80% of people have made the active decision to switch OFF the filter, it is extremely unlikely that Cameron (or whoever) would want to upset that many voters by trying to force people to accept it.

      If it was 50:50, then there would be more chance of legislation ("to force the few remaining"). And the worse the ratio, the greater the chance.

      People should opt-out. I reckon the more that do, the less chance of it going any further

      The same could be said if 80% of people left a filtered ISP for a non-filtered ISP.

      (though you are right, I think; there will be some upset lobbyists and activates crying and wailing if there was a mass opt-out ... which would be a shame, obviously)

      1. Nigel Whitfield.

        @cracked

        I wonder if there's a way people could be encouraged to opt out and also sign up on a website to indicate that they have opted out as a matter of principle, and wish the government to butt out of their lives.

        Perhaps by creating such a list using the e-petitions site so handily provided by the Government...

      2. Fibbles

        "If 80% of people have made the active decision to switch OFF the filter, it is extremely unlikely that Cameron (or whoever) would want to upset that many voters by trying to force people to accept it.

        If it was 50:50, then there would be more chance of legislation ("to force the few remaining"). And the worse the ratio, the greater the chance."

        The thing about modern politicians is that they usually don't base their decisions on numbers but on who shouts the loudest. It's difficult to get people to speak out about network level filtering if they think they're going to get themselves branded as a pervert. This unfortunately means that, regardless of the actual numbers supporting filtering, the 'something must be done' brigade are going to seem very loud indeed.

        With our main political parties being very homogeneous they'll likely all respond in the same way to this noise; legislation mandating compulsory network level filtering for everyone. At that point it won't matter who you vote for, the outcome will be the same.

        1. cracked

          @Fibbles and @nigel

          @Fibbles:

          I know where you are coming from; but they do base (almost) every soft decision they make on numbers. This filtering is not life and death ... If it was Dave would have already legislated. So he will look at the numbers - he already is, or he would have legislated - before he has to go hang himself out on a limb.

          And, the closer an election is, the more they look at numbers.

          What must be remembered, about all such similar campaigns, is that they never start with a big stick. They start by trying to persuade (phase 1) and then step up the pressure (using 3rd parties, instead of going out on a limb themselves) to get more of the job done (phase 2). Before finally - if necessary - legislating in Phase 3.

          Seat Belts in Cars and the Smoking Ban. Both started, long before they were enacted, with a drip-drip-drip "nannying" persuassion campaign (all those Stop Smoking Ads you saw, over the years and years and years). That is usually followed by pressure being applied to involved third parties to assist with the campaign (Car makers fitting seat belts in the rear passenger seats). And then, when the country is softened up and a good number are already complying, the legislation is introduced.

          So, the trick to stopping such a campaign is to get at it before it goes from stage-2 - where this is currently at, pressuring the big ISPs to offer suitable systems - to stage 3. Once enacted, getting rid of legislation is very difficult, especially after a change of government (unless the former opposition could have been persuaded to use it as a "vote winner").

          And - as you wrote, Fibbles - in this instance, I doubt that would happen (too sensitive for a political campaign).

          Do you agree that keeping children safe from harm is a good idea? <--- Never forget, almost no public-facing entity is going to publically disagree with that statement.

          And @ Nigel:

          A "public list" to demonstrate to .gov who has opted-out ... I understand what you are driving at (any mass opt-out may not be publicised, and so not as effective as it could be). The issue is, I think, that the peer-pressure to be on such a public list might be the straw that stopped some people opting-out.

          The "invite to go on the list", would need to be carefully worded, so the above didn't happen.

          And there would also be the issue of the "list" getting rubbished by opponents. I can see no way of "proving" everyone on it did actually opt-out. It may bring as much trouble as it brings good.

          I do hate the "twee tag", but really - to be successful - this is Tea Party stuff. This is banging on every door in your street, explaining the Opt-Out Campaign and offering to assist with setting up a "better" filtering system (especially those neighbours with children ... especially them).

          And in no way do I intend that to sound as easy as it was to type. In no way at all.

          But if you want to beat this, it must be beaten quickly, comprehensively and in a way that can be shown to still be thinking of the children.

        2. Tom 35

          'something must be done' brigade

          Don't forget that if the politicians can get a universal filter, and blame the public for it.

          No we didn't want to censor the internet, but the public demanded it.

          Now where is that list of stuff I don't like that Google refused to remove...

    2. Nigel Whitfield.

      I do tend to the view that, once it's realised that this isn't very effective, the 'something must be done' brigade will certain demand that there must be something more.

      We've already had the blathering of Cameron about "Good clean wifi" echoing the loathsome way in which people on some dating sites refer to not having had a positive HIV test as being "clean"), and it just betrays an utter cluelessness about technology and the sort of lives that some people lead.

      We believe such bizarre rubbish about sex in this country; but I can say with a pretty high degree of certainty to parents that their censoring of what I'm allowed to see in my own home will not make a single bit of difference to the safety of their children.

      One of my comments on the WiFi thing: http://gonedigital.net/2013/04/24/the-chilling-idiocy-of-camerons-good-clean-wifi/

    3. Tom 38

      Ours is "on by default" for new connections, which will gradually ensure that the majority will not disable it.

    4. Naughtyhorse

      fingers crossed...

      That will be after the election and dave will be looking for a job, and the internet filter will be his project so the filteristas can go fuck themselves.

  10. Nigel Whitfield.

    There needs to be an open approval/appeal process

    One of the sites that I manage is, while principally for gay and bisexual men with an interest in specific gear, not porn; as we don't allow nudity, or explicit photos. We don't even permit bare chests (not out of prudishness, but because the gear is the thing). The site's a (free) member's only site, and there are very few photos visible via the landing page, other than, for example a collection of photos from the Pride Parade and similar public events.

    But it won't surprise me at all to discover that it's blocked, because in the minds of many people, gay = filth. Back in the 1990s, when the Met's OPS wanted to block newsgroups "because kiddie porn" the list of groups that they were asking ISPs to bar included many that were simply gay groups, or those related to other consensual but less mainstream sexual practices.

    There needs to be a way for organisations and companies to easily determine whether or not their site is listed (and some of those, of course, may not even be in the UK), and to appeal if appropriate. But if Ofcom is rolling over and saying "we don't really care, you know?" then this really is going to end up inconveniencing a lot of people, either community groups like mine, or businesses that might be selling some products, and suddenly find many of their UK customers cut off, as well as useful sites with information about safety and health.

    We're actually thinking of setting up a non-profit company to manage the site on a more formal footing; frankly, the feeling I get at the moment is that we're just not welcome in the UK, so we may as well establish it in a more enlightened country.

    1. Old Handle

      Re: There needs to be an open approval/appeal process

      See, this is where the evil genius of Cameron's plan really reveals itself. See, if the government had directly implemented the filters or even forced ISPs to do it there would HAVE to be an appeals process, and when something was blocked incorrectly it would become a civil liberty issue that courts might take seriously. Now because they coerced ISPs into doing it "voluntarily", the it becomes just a product. Now it seems, the ISPs too have seen the wisdom of this and outsourced the creation of the list itself to yet another party. Any criticism can easily be turned aside with "hey, nothing's perfect" or "It's optional, so no worries".

  11. Michael Habel

    Thank goodness I live in a Country where its still up to the individual to look out for themselves....

    Question is for how long. I wouldn't be surprised if you lot tried to press this crap off on the rest of Europe.

    Personally you're welcome to keep it!

  12. bigtimehustler

    I dont know why someone doesn't report them to the EU data commissioner, it actually breaks current EU data protection to actively opt someone into anything. So i doubt it will be around too long...

    1. Anthony Hulse

      Possibly exactly what they're hoping for...

      ...another way to bash the EU and blame the Human Rights Act for everything. Plays right into their scummy little agenda with their anti-EU narrative and allows them to further promote the aims of the already privileged over the plebs.

      I'm a genuinely tolerant and easy-going guy, yet I am beginning to actually despise this government. Repulsive, the lot of them.

      1. Nigel Whitfield.

        Re: Possibly exactly what they're hoping for...

        What a ghastly prospect, but exactly the sort of thing some of the anti-EU brigade would love: "first the meddling EU protected the terrorists, now it's protecting the paedos. This is why we need to get rid of all your rights now"

    2. Fibbles

      AFAIK you aren't opted in by default. You're presented with a choice where the default selected option is to opt in to filtering. That's not technically the same thing since you're actively given a choice. I'll admit I don't know if that's still against EU rules though.

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        @Fibbles

        As I understand it, all new accounts are opted in by default. Existing accounts do, however, work the way you say.

  13. ACx

    I have 6 children. 4 boys, 2 girls. Oldest, 20, youngest 2. Only one website has provided continuing drip drip of misery, harassment and nastiness: Facebook. When will that social hate site be blocked?

    The most graphic disturbing site I have encountered are news sites, including the BBC. The most distress caused to my children has been from news sites. Will those be blocked too?

    Finally, why is the human body being censored, while BT pay billions to broadcast sexism, homophobia and racism in the form of football?

    This cuntry and its vile moral control freak minority make me sick.

    1. El Presidente

      Wot they said ^^^^

      "Only one website has provided continuing drip drip of misery, harassment and nastiness: Facebook. When will that social hate site be blocked?"

      and

      "This cuntry and its vile moral control freak minority make me sick."

      Polite round of applause. I despair.

      Why is government so inept as to choose the wrong option almost every time?

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @ACx

      All very well, but it's the 21st century, we're gradually achieving an exit from patriarchal societies that subjugate and humiliate women, so why are we continuing to use the name of that rather delightful bit of equipment they have that gives so much pleasure to so many people, as an insult?

      I agree with everything else you say, but assuming the last line wasn't simply a misprint, it rather runs counter to the tendency of your post.

  14. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Why block porn?

    I don't understand why blocking porn will suddenly save the kiddies. When I discovered porn (back before the internet was common place in peoples homes so it was first a tatty jazz mag in a bush near school) It was an enlightening experience for my 11 year old mind and was in no way detrimental to either my view of women or how angry I was at the world.

    With the availability of the internet all it means is that you don't have to run the risk of being mentally scared by finding a well used mag from the dad archives with the pages stuck together, or having to kneel in front of the tv whilst it was on mute playing a top loaded VHS in the full knowledge that mum may burst in at any moment (you'd usually have enough time to raise your shorts, and switch the channel but turning the sound up became the forgotten function, so you then had to explain to a smug looking parent why you were watching ITV Nightscreen on mute, 2 foot from the telly when you should be in bed).

    If they want to save the children from serious harm, rather than relying on the ISPs to do their parenting for them then they should ban the sites that have been the source for the majority of internet related suicides among children....that would be Facebook and Twitter then.

    1. Nigel Whitfield.

      Re: Why block porn?

      Unfortunately, there is a general dislike of sex in this country it seems. There's a massive desire to look the other way and distract people from talking about real problems. And there's a near deification of non-experts who happen to have had bad things happen to their relatives.

      All of these combine to provide a veritable shitstorm of ill-conceived anti-sex ideas, which arguably cause more harm than anything else, without actually doing anything to protect people properly. To do that would require a level of introspection that is not welcome.

      For example, following the Bulger murder, much was made of the presence of a film that there was no evidence the kids had seen. Some papers even urged that copies of it be destroyed, because it was evil. But where was the soul searching, the questioning why people saw a child in distress, yet didn't intervene. Perhaps they were scared of being labelled a paedo by readers of the same papers...

      After the unfortunate death of a teacher due to strangulation/suffocation games, we were treated to the sight of bereaved family members being co-opted to talk about how that sort of porn should be banned; there's no evidence that it would have helped, but again, the heart strings are tugged, and we end up with things like the Extreme Porn law that can see lives destroyed, and people dragged through the courts, for possession of images of acts that are themselves perfectly legal. (In the Simon Walsh case of 2012, the police actually considered, though the prosecution didn't proceed with it, that the possession of a picture of a person in a gas mask might constitute extreme porn, because of the control over breathing; on that basis, I've recently submitted 'Extreme Porn' to a photo competition in Italy. Whoops...)

      And when it comes to child porn, the police, the media and the CPS collude in charging almost everyone with the offence of "making" indecent images; it lets them get a longer sentence, which is probably a good thing, but when you hear talk in the media of someone being charged with "making" remember that they almost certainly weren't standing with a camera, as a child was really being abused. Their computer copied an already existing image onto the hard disk. Pursuing the charge of "making" seems to me almost a political issue - it makes it sound to the casual reader as if the real abusers are being caught; in that regard, it's dishonest, but serves the needs of the police and CPS well. (Honesty, in this case, I think would be for them to ask for a change in the law, to increase sentences for possession, and charge people with making images when they are actually doing so).

      But the focus there is again not on the real issue; it's the headlines, the fancy dawn raids with TV cameras in attendance, the extra sentences they can get, even though the people often aren't actually physically abusing children. Because, as almost everyone accepts, the vast majority of abuse is carried out by someone known to the child.

      Talking about that, and really doing something about it, of course, is much harder than shouting at people who protest against censorship "if you really cared about the kiddies, you wouldn't have a problem with this"

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Re: Why block porn?

        "And there's a near deification of non-experts who happen to have had bad things happen to their relatives."

        Haven't even read the rest of your post yet but you've an instant upvote for that sentence alone. I'd upvote it a hundred times if I could.

      2. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

        Re: Why block porn?

        "Pursuing the charge of "making" seems to me almost a political issue"

        No, it's a psychological ploy in an attempt to make sure the jury convicts and the judge hands down a bigger sentence.

        Charge a person with theft and the jury think "well, all he did was steal something, that's not so big a deal"

        Two or more people working together, and the charge becomes Conspiracy to Steal. To some, that might be a couple of people just planning a burglary, not actually carrying it out, unlike the actual "theft" charge, even though they did actually steal something. But in the minds of a jury, "conspiracy" is far worse than "just" plain old theft. It also carries a higher maximum sentence.

        This why "making" rather than "possession" is used when charging for extreme porn pics.

        1. Nigel Whitfield.

          Re: Why block porn?

          That's why I labelled it political; it's a deliberate attempt to get longer sentences, and look tougher.

          But once again (as with the whole filtering issue, of course), avoiding the obvious issue of getting politicians to pass a law to get the results. Increase the penalty for possession, and amend sentencing guidelines appropriately. That would be the sensible decision, and then use charge people with "making" only when that's exactly what they have done.

          The current option is a lazy option that bypasses all that, while at the same time applying the subtle pressure you mention to get the results that are wanted. It needs no parliamentary time, no law change, and makes people think they're actually doing better than they really are. It's hard to see that as anything other than politicking, in my view.

  15. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I agree with BT's statement 100%

    "Parents need the knowledge and the tools to help them keep their children safe online."

    Which is exactly why parents should install the own blasted network filters, on their own blasted kit, monitor their own blasted offspring and generally TAKE SOME FUCKING RESPONSIBILITY FOR ONCE!

    But no - not in the UK.

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: I agree with BT's statement 100%

      I don't disagree, especially with the parental responsibility, but it's becoming increasingly impossible to install filters on all the devices, unless you only have a small number of internet capable device in the house. This is especially true if parents choose to buy smart-phones or tablets for their children which are allowed to connect to the Internet.

      It won't be long before all TV's and other devices will contain some form of internet connectivity, and trying to put parental filters on those could prove to be a challenge for a technically able person, let alone the average Joe Bloggs. I have well over 30 internet capable devices in my house, and I do not know how to impose filters on Xboxes, Wiis and PS/3s, or even my daughters Mac.

      More boundary protection (making the routers act more like a firewall as long as you could select the degree of protection) would help, but that would not be significantly different from the ISP filtering in their network, especially if they maintain the block-list.

      Even if you do put some form of parental filter on the individual systems, you are at the mercy of the organisation maintaining the block-list as to what is allowed through just as much as if the ISP does the filtering. I fail to see ant real distinction.

    2. Santa from Exeter
      Childcatcher

      Re: I agree with BT's statement 100%

      Sorry, but I had to downvote your post.

      Stop shouting at me! I am a parent and I did 'Take some fucking responsibility' with my daughter. Not by installing filters or blocks, or constantly monitoring her; but by being open, honest and frank about any and every subject, including sex.

      As a result, I had no worries when, at 14, she was using the 'pute in the back room when I was watching telly in the front room; nor when she was in her room with her own laptop on 'tinternet at the age of 16.

      I realise that some people like to pidgeon hole, but for bogs sake don't fall into the gubbmints trap of thinking that all parents are either 'moral upstanding upper middle church goers who support this' or 'low life mouth breathers with no parenting skills whose kiddies need protecting'.

      Icon because I did 'think of the child'

  16. Tony Green

    Good reasons to move to AAISP

    "The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

    Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or

    Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.

    If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.

    Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?"

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: Good reasons to move to AAISP

      Unfortunately, the reason they have chosen not to install filters at great cost to themselves and are not being put under pressure to do so is because they are small. If too many people move to AAISP then eventually they will reach "critical mass" and huge govt., political and media pressure will be brought to bear on them.

      Also, any small ISP which suddenly starts showing large growth in customer base immediately becomes ripe for a buyout by one of the "big boys".

      1. Steven Roper

        Re: Good reasons to move to AAISP

        " If too many people move to AAISP then eventually they will reach "critical mass" ... any small ISP which suddenly starts showing large growth in customer base immediately becomes ripe for a buyout by one of the "big boys"."

        Actually, this is where the so-called "sheeple syndrome" may work in the favour of those of us who prefer freedom over safety and thus patronise small ISPs. Most people either won't know about the filter, won't care, or will actively appreciate that Something Is Actually Being Done. After all, the only reason we've lost most of the civil liberties we took for granted in the 20th century is because the majority don't have a problem with throwing human rights out the window if it keeps the kiddies safe and the terrorists at bay.

        Which implies that the relative few of us who do migrate to smaller ISPs with no filtering won't make them big enough to attract undue attention from "the big boys".

        A greater danger is actually of one of Murdoch's outfits discovering that one paedophile has been using Small ISP XYZ to access child porn and thus having a huge front-page blowup branding that ISP as a paedophile-enabler and all its customers as suspected paedophiles themselves.

  17. Creamy-G00dness

    Can anybody hear that??

    Ahhh yes the sound of a million or so IT bod's screaming "WE TOLD YOU SO CAMERON, YOU UTTER NOB END!!"

    2 more years of this Gummint, wonder how many more things they can mess up by then. In fact I'm sure that the lib dems got a share in power too?? anyone heard anything from Nick Clegg recently?

    Nope, its too hard for him to speak with Cameron's meat wand jammed down his throat.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: Can anybody hear that??

      Our Lib Dem MP has been sacked as a Minister and has suddenly remembered that he's a Liberal. Odd that.

    2. earl grey
      Trollface

      Re: Can anybody hear that??

      That's MR. "YOU UTTER NOB END!"

  18. CAPS LOCK

    What I expect to happen..

    ... is that the next child killer will be found to have child abuse images on his (or her !?) computer obtained in spite of these 'filters'. The press will falsely conclude that the child involved would have been all right if not for the internet, and our leaders will conclude that 'something must be done' . They will try stricter censorship, which will later also be deemed to have failed, leaving the way open for an official white-list of sites we are allowed to see. A small charge will be brought in to get on the list. In due course this charge will rise inexorably.

  19. Don Jefe

    I Don't Understand

    Are specific sites blocked based, effectively, on 'votes' from the public? If enough people 'downvote' a site for its content then it's no longer accessible? That there's no non-court based mechanism for unblocking a site?

    Maybe I'm not grasping something. But if that's the way the system works that's lunacy. Every democracy has mechanisms for undoing bad decisions, any person put in office can be recalled through a defined process. If major 'voting' decisions can be undone in an organized fashion it's craziness that something so simple as unblocking a site can't be done. Or, like I say, maybe I'm missing something.

    1. Nigel Whitfield.

      Re: I Don't Understand

      Part of the stupidness of this system is that there is no clear idea of what sites are banned. There are no clear criteria beyond "protect the kiddies"

      At least the Internet Watch Foundation has a remit, and a specific area, even if it has on occasion resulted in collateral damage.

      However, when it comes to filtering, we actually have a complete pigs ear, and in many ways we have the ISPs to thank for this, just as much as the government. The government has made vague noises about blocking "extremist" material, but failed to really define that. "Extreme pornography" will be blocked, and "simulated rape" which are apparently deemed beyond the pale, though I'm not aware of any peer reviewed research (and also, much of the focus is solely on straight material, though clearly gay stuff will be affected; when anti-porn campaigners talk about the abuse inherent in porn, they usually do so from a feminist viewpoint, which completely omits not-hetero material).

      I digress; I would imagine that in terms of reporting stuff you think should be banned you will be able to continue to report it to the IWF. Whether they - or anyone else - will accept reports of other material is not clear. Nor is the exact decision making process involved, or who exactly is making the decisions.

      At least part of this is because, just as Cameron is frightened of the Mail and Mumsnet, so too are the ISPs. Rather than having the balls to say "No. We're not going to do this" when Cameron told them they should or he'd legislate, they've rolled over and done it.

      So, now we have filtering or censorship of the internet, which is driven by the demands of a politician (albeit responding to whipped up hysteria), but with no political oversight. Because this has not been mandated by law, politicians have not had to stand in the Commons and argue over evidence, or what reasonable procedures there should be for reporting material, or for companies and organisations wrongly blacklisted to appeal, or even who should be performing classification.

      Instead, we have a privately operated system, where large companies are making decisions on your behalf. They may get some data from groups like the IWF. They may get some of it from elsewhere. Perhaps the Met or GCHQ has a quiet word when it comes to "extremist" content.

      We don't know. And they don't have to tell you.

      David Cameron still gets to pretend he's not really censoring the internet, and ponce about the world lecturing people on human rights, without appearing quite such a hypocrite, and the Mail/Mumsnet crowd get to pretend their children are safe, because that block screen will surely protect them from the weirdo uncle doing the babysitting.

      Don't worry about not understanding. The private sector has this all covered. You're not expected to do anything other than carry on paying your bills.

      1. Suricou Raven

        Re: I Don't Understand

        The mutterings on simulate rape so far from MPs and feminist groups suggest that when the term is defined, it'll likely be based around the ability of either party to withdraw consent throughout - ie, if one of them is tied up, it'll be considered rape even if they consent onscreen beforehand to their kinky activities. Basically, everything BDSM will be considered 'simulated rape' and liable to get anyone posessing it locked up for many years.

        1. Intractable Potsherd

          Re: I Don't Understand @Suricou Raven

          Sadly true. The (appallingly wrong) precedent set in R v Brown is almost certainly going to be extended into this area. The court can decide what harm you can consent to, and sado-masochism and BDSM isn't on the list. Everyone must always be able to withdraw consent at any moment, and you can't consent to revoke that right. Every sexual contact is only a "No" (no matter how quiet, or what it refers to) from being a sexual offence.

          Our society in ten years time will make Cromwellian England look like a rave ...

      2. J.G.Harston Silver badge

        Re: I Don't Understand

        How is any of this going to stop people like Adebolajo and Adebowale choosing to turn off the filter to seek out extremist hate sites and killing an off-duty soldier?

        1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

          Re: I Don't Understand

          Or stop people accessing the boxing day movie on iPlayer and going out and blowing up German dams

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: I Don't Understand

      Don,

      What part of "Art imitating Life" do you not grasp?

      This weekend, please rent "V for Vendetta" and "Brazil".

      Watch them with the mindset that these are Documentaries about the workings of past, present and future British Government and the way the British People just roll over so they can be "protected against the big bad Internet". Throw in a little Farhenheit 451, Brave New World, Animal Farm etc.

      Wrap it up in a little Martin Niemoeller and apply the resulting roadmap to Mayor Bloomberg of NYC, Chuck Schumer, our fine honest upstanding President Oblama and all the other bleeding heart, nanny state liberals that want to do the same thing in the US.

      Now that's a good basis for a new revolution! One that needs to be applied worldwide.

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

  20. Boris the Cockroach Silver badge
    Facepalm

    And then remember

    that the next sicko to be had up for child abuse will have this little titbit of info added

    "Mr Sicko asked to have his internet filter turned off just so he could download his sick perverted filth"

    Of course that labels everyone who asks for no filtering a child abusing sicko, give the police reason to raid anyone's computers/tablets/phones even if all they were nicked for was speeding "hes a serial speeder, and he asked for no filtering on his internet inspector" "Right , raid his house and nick all his computer gear"

    And finally gives the twats in government more ammunition for their compulsary filtering and no option to turn it off "Mr Sicko got his sick stuff because he turned his filtering off..... so nobody can turn it off now to stop people like Mr Sicko getting his filth"

    And as a postscript to the trial of Mr Sicko, it turns out he used IRC channels to contact other abusers and FTP to get the images......

    1. John Brown (no body) Silver badge

      Re: And then remember

      "Of course that labels everyone who asks for no filtering a child abusing sicko,"

      ...and the lack of filters becomes an additional bit of data on your CRB/eCRB certificate.

  21. Graham Marsden
    Facepalm

    What's the betting...

    ... that a site like the following (which gives excellent advice to parents and children about the importance of consent) will get blocked...?

    http://goodmenproject.com/families/the-healthy-sex-talk-teaching-kids-consent-ages-1-21/

    This isn't just "don't get raped", it's "don't rape", full stop. Learn that "no" means "NO" and respect the rights of others. But it's about (gasp!) sex and we can't have impressionable minds seeing that sort of thing!!

  22. Big_Boomer Silver badge

    Lazy Parents

    So who is asking for these filters? It's lazy parents, you know, the ones who are too busy organising everyone else's life to be able to take the time to manage or supervise their own children's on-line time. So whilst they are blocking porn and trying to protect their poor babies from the world as it is, the little darlings are getting their girl/boyfriends to sext them and are learning how to circumvent web filters. Having worked in the web filtering business I have seen the lengths that some kids will go to, to circumvent any web filter. So, these lazy parents inconvenience the rest of us because they are too lazy to manage their own children. They will undoubtedly claim to be busy with other things and not to have enough time. Well, perhaps they should have thought of that before becoming parents. Take responsibility for your offspring and stop messing things up for the rest of us. Either that or tie a knot in it!

    1. Peter Gathercole Silver badge

      Re: Lazy Parents @Big_Boomer

      "perhaps they should have thought of that before becoming parents"

      Don't take this the wrong way, but do you think people foresaw these problems 10 or 15 years ago when those who are currently looking after tween/teenagers made their decision to become parents? (although I think that the nature of sex often forces parenthood onto a lot of people unplanned, especially if they were not able to get good contraception advice because of a lack of good sources of information)

      Nobody really knows what it is like trying to look after children before they have them. Don't you remember the increasingly hollow and worried feeling as the birth of your first child approached? I know I was petrified!

      I'm sure that good parenting classes aimed at new parents from 10 years ago did not even mention the perceived hazards that the internet now has. For goodness sake, most households would not even have had internet capable computers before the dawn of this century, let alone devices carried in their pockets that could access it.

      Things change, as do responsibilities, and the world of the Internet and what it can enable far outstrips what most non-IT literate people realise, both good and bad! This is why they want someone else to take the responsibility of protecting their children. They just don't know how and cannot understand the process to get the required knowledge.

    2. teebie

      Re: Lazy Parents

      If lazy awful parents were saddept at thinking of the consequences of their actions before they took them then they wouldn't be lazy awful parents.

  23. g7rpo

    Parental involvement

    Surely if parents got involved and knew a little more then these filters wouldn't be deemed necessary

    1. Santa from Exeter

      Re: Parental involvement

      What you seem to have missed is that this is *not* really about parental responsibility. This is about a group of loud-mouthed 'we know best' rabble rousers. If it was about parental responsibility the parents would have been asked if they thought this was a good idea; with a clear explanation of exactly what was being proposed and what this entailed

      1. Intractable Potsherd

        Re: Parental involvement

        This is Puritanism, pure and simple. I don't remember where I first saw it, but the definition of Puritanism as being "that sneaking feeling that somebody, somewhere, just MIGHT be having a good time" seems to describe the lackwits behind all this.

        Any society that elevates the rights of children above those of adults is on the steep slope to failure.

  24. Jedit Silver badge

    Something you all seem to have missed...

    A number of LGBT support sites have been blocked by the filter, including the website of the LGBT Liberal Democrat group who were involved in the push for marriage equality. So in addition to everything else, the Tories are using the filter to bash gays.

    1. Nigel Whitfield.

      Re: Something you all seem to have missed...

      Gays, and also plenty of other groups, too.

      For those seeking information about coming out, or sexual health information, this will make it really difficult. The demands to filter public wifi will put a lot of this material beyond the reach of many of those who need it most.

      In that regard, I think that what Cameron is doing is, to a degree, a digital version of Section 28.

  25. earl grey
    Unhappy

    slipping through the odd boob

    i'm guessing too many have already slipped into government positions...

This topic is closed for new posts.

Other stories you might like