All major UK ISPs prepping network-level porn 'n' violence filters TalkTalk - it would seem - has blazed an unlikely trail for Britain's big name ISPs by being the first telco to switch on network level filtering of web content. Now, after many months resisting the urge to apply such controls to their services, the other major providers - BSkyB, Virgin Media and BT - have all decided to follow …
I believe the technical term for this is Claire Perry , who it seems has suffered some recent marital misfortune.
"About as qualified as a large swathe of the population then."
True but she was really worried about this (although not enough apparently to figure out how to turn parental filtering on her browser on. I suspect the helldesk of her ISP might have some stories to tell)
And she organized a debate of "concerned MP's" which got almost 7 attendees.
So "sort of" qualified (by Call Me Dave's standard).
Tor/VPN is a bit overkill for this and who actually wants to surf the web via a VPN anyway. My ISP murders VPN connections (along with SSH and other "business" technologies)
Realistically, it seems that a simple work around is to choose another DNS provider, such as, Google Public DNS or OpenDNS, which I suspect will eventually be blocked.
Just for info:
Changing the DNS on a Sky router is actually a pain or at least it was last time I looked. They like to lock everything down, so the only way to do this I think would be to extract the main admin password and settings and configure on a new router. As this would be running non Sky firmware it has always been possible for them to block it. I know I could change ISP, evil Murdoch blah blah, etc, but this would be an effective method of filtering for most of their customers.
How does the ISP know who is accessing the service?
Short answer, it doesn't, so it blocks by default...
This is not an ISP issue; it's a parental issue. If they don't want their kids to see porn (apparently it's OK to see people being blown to bits, but that's another argument) then *they* need to take the responsibility to stop it.
Where you have a single browsing device associated with a particular person - for example, a phone - which has access beyond a home network, it's reasonable to tell the supplier 'turn the porn off' if that's what you want to do. But where multiple devices share a single NAT service, and can access other networks simply by moving down the road, it's impossible.
It can only be managed within the house, and it needs a multi-level approach:
- block junior's device at the NAT
- ensure junior can't use any other device
- teach junior that there are some things he might like to consider in a year or two, and that if he sees them, to talk to you about it
And even then, you won't stop little Johnny at school emailing him pictures, jokes, and the like; you won't stop the social networks posting things you don't want him to see...
One external possibility is an externally managed ID which does *not* ID anyone other than to say 'this person is over eighteen years old'. However, it's not a solution unless it's worldwide; it's not a solution if it's a single-factor test, and it's not a solution unless the providers use it automatically. It might work at an ISP level if the ISP is blocking by IP, but it *still* won't stop email and other message methods with unsavoury content.
But given that around 50% of UK parents these days seem to expect the gubbmint to raise their children for them while they flop on the sofa watching jeremy kyle with 40 B&H and a six pack of carling I fear the only reasonable recourse is to win the lotto and emigrate.
As they say ... good luck with that :o/
Heartily agree - it would be nice if we could set the DNS entries on a user-account basis in whichever OS we were using, though. Obviously the more technically aware kids can get around this, but it would be a good start for the little 'uns (and mine have to use the computer in a public space in the house so supervision can take place).
Well that'll make the Daily Mail happy.
At least for five minutes - until a case comes along when it's revealed the perpetrator was within half a mile of a sleeping computer that *could* easily have been hacked by Eastern European migrants to display non-Associated Newspapers approved titillation - and then they'll be off again.
> Well that'll make the Daily Mail happy.
Surely their website will be for the chop.
They regularly feature photos of scantily clad ladies.
They regularly have articles talking about sex. Some of them don't even follow the line of "All sex it terrible and dirty and should be banned immediately" Won't someone think of the children.
I'm surprised we have gone this far without filtering to be honest. You pretty much get pr0n and violence thrown in your face if you venture outside the comfy confines of the major websites such as eBay, Amazon and Facebook. So let's protect folks as a first step.
Now for those that feel their freedom and liberties have been trampled on there are VPNs and there is a multitude of privacy enhancing packages that you can use if you want to bypass filtering.
The proposal was for filtering the worst sites - we're not going to go down the road of tracking down those that choose to use alternative connection methods.
>>The proposal was for filtering the worst sites - we're not going to go down the road of tracking down those that choose to use alternative connection methods.
YET
>>You pretty much get pr0n and violence thrown in your face if you venture outside the comfy confines of the major websites
Can I have your search strings please?
I don't know what Chris is searching for but try....
"naked ladies being beaten" and I'm sure something would turn up... personally I've never accidentally found porn (have found it deliberately). Nor - as I guess have you - have I had porn or violence thrust at me while searching for various things to help work, travel, holiday, helping the kids with homework or other non-porn style activities.
If you are a parent you are supposed to be responsible and limit their access to the web by actually keeping an eye on what they do.
Putting a TV in their room means they see things on TV they're not supposed to see and giving them a smartphone or tablet without monitoring what they are doing is also stupid.
"You pretty much get pr0n and violence thrown in your face if you venture outside the comfy confines of the major websites such as eBay, Amazon and Facebook. So let's protect folks as a first step." [citation needed]
I've been using the internet for about 16 years now, and I could count on one hand (fnarr, fnarr) the amount of times I found porn when I wasn't looking for it.
So who will get to see the block list to verify it is only for pr0n?
Who will compensate any business incorrectly blocked?
How much do you want to bet it will just be for pr0n, as clearly sex is bad, but not for violence?
You are stupidly naive if you don't believe this will be abused for Gov policy, and business reasons by the ISPs.
not whether the filters are going to be on or off, but WHO will be able to access the information about what default people chose.
...
hell, I already know the answer. And the default for the filters will be "on", so that it'll be easier to trawl through the database of those paedo-terrorists, who were foolish enough to request the filters off. Yes, some leftist-misguided-media-trash will raise hell, but hey, the great British summer's conveniently round the corner and is the great British public gonna listen when the safety of our children's at stake? Plus, there's an already well-established practice of burying the bad news, so it's all gonna be ok...
Yup, the British public are basically as thick as two planks and will accept this with open arms.
Just as they did with CRB checks and all the associated bullshit to protect their kids, and 'elf and safety' to ensure they are in no danger.
And look what they've achieved...
Sports clubs that no longer have clubs for kids because it is too much of a PITA
Youth clubs closed
Pervs STILL getting into schools and the remaining places with access to kids because they have enough interest to go through the hoops and aggravations the rest of us can't be arsed with
Then if you do take your kids somewhere they can't actually touch anything, climb 6" to see something, sit on your shoulders, stand on something that might move, not be seat belted in... and consequently they get no excitement out of it - when I was a kid I used to go to the GWR depot, wander about among the oily waste and help people clean rust off the engines, cut bits of metal, shovel the coal on while the train was moving, pull the whistle etc etc etc (as early as 9 years old).
And the expense... first I had to have seatbelts in the back of the car for kids, then a car seat, now it has to be a rear facing seat, then when they are 6 months a new forward facing seat (yup, used to have one that could go either way but you can't get them now), then a seat for larger kids then a booster seat (both of these ugly and massive constructions only achieving an uncomfortable version of an adult seat and almost as safe as the seatbelt clip I used to use to make the adult seatbelt fit correctly). This makes a mint for the 3 car seat manufacturers but has saved how many kids from injury? Probably none if truth is told.
99.9% of adult males or more probably. It is an impulse the only men who are not "perv's" are people who lack that impulse for whatever reason.
(e.g on really strong opiates or anti psychotics. Or perhaps they are just not bothered due to naturally not having the impulse).
" This makes a mint for the 3 car seat manufacturers but has saved how many kids from injury? Probably none if truth is told."
Yes, and think of how much money you could save if you didn't even bother about the back seat, but just sat them on the roof, after all they can hold on to the roof rails...
So is this just on or off?
Ideally I would be very happy to have real-life violence, hate sites, bomb specs, child porn, etc blocked.
It would be nice to have a list of 20 (or so) categories and you can pick which ones offend you or are unsuitable for your household.
The best solution is to have it all off by default and you are reminded once a year that blocks are available.
No-one has to sign up to get porn but everyone would then be fully aware that blocking was available.
Even better if there was a web ui to switch them on and off (no Partridge calls "Can you turn the porn back on please")
Why should you have the blocks - why not try using your judgement - don't search for 'child porn' or 'beheadings' and don't look at websites with names like www.choppingheadsofchildren.com or whatever
You know, there are plenty of books and magazines out there that I don't want or approve of. Yet I don't call for the shops to be divided and split up lest they should be there in front of me and offend me. There are plenty of people who offend me, and certainly lots of dress styles that do, no one offers to filter them out for me (unless google glass will start doing that).
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
