6 ms·
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from the ISPs. I bet they've already had anti-CSAM blocklists mandated by law in place for a long time.
by anilakar 4y ago
Sounds like a knee-jerk reaction from the ISPs. I bet they've already had anti-CSAM blocklists mandated by law in place for a long time.
- dathinab 4y ago> I bet they've already had anti-CSAM blocklists mandated by law Not just anti-CSAM, the UK has a mandatory "adult content" ISP filter since years (of which you can opt out, through doing so is annoying). (Which also was used many times already in a inappropriate way by "accidentally" placing websites which are are not adult-only content but politically unpleasant on them because many don't opt out because "it's just for porn/violence right".) EDIT: Just to be clear the law formulation seems to be over the top/vague and a extremely strict interpretation could imply that ISPs somehow have to block users access to sides even if the user uses an ISP or Tor, so wtf.
- denton-scratch 4y agoThe article quotes one of the principals of Andrews & Arnold ISP, which has for a long time traded on providing "real" internet - i.e. unfiltered. Their response to the legal requirement to provide a "filtered" option was a "I want filtering" button on the sign-up page that took you to the results of a Google search for UK ISPs. As far as I'm aware, complying with this legislation could force A&A to impose filtering on all their users for the first time. Would certain mailservers become out-of-bounds? Presumably it would remain possible to ping any IP address, because that doesn't depend on URLs, and the explanatory note seems to say that URL blocking would be sufficient. Anyway: this kind of nonsense is why I run an Unbound recursive resolver.
- deleted 4y ago[deleted]
- elij 4y agothey're also dealing with the restrictions on switching fabrics (that were shoe horned in with the 5G hardware restrictions)