5 ms·
UK’s porn filter plans are just an illusion
- aspratley 14y agoAh the irony. Filtering the Internet but you can buy porn through the same companies eg Sky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Sky:_Adult http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Sky:_Adult
- cheez 14y agoThat's not irony, it's a business plan.
- cheez 14y agoI'm so tired of this game. The Internet as the Wild West is what contributed to its success, both as an economic powerhouse and as a tool for connecting people. Leave it alone. It starts at censoring porn and will end at censoring dissenting thought.
- nkoren 14y agoMy UK mobile provider (O2) requires you to opt-in (with a credit card) to "adult content" for their mobile web service. I haven't done this, because I really don't need porn on my mobile, and also because I don't have a UK credit card. Anyhow, during the revolution in Egypt, I discovered that one of the most prominent and important Egyptian bloggers -- "Sandmonkey" -- had for some reason been blocked by O2's adult figure. So although I doubt that this was their actual intention, vital dissenting thought is already being censored by these filters.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoWhen I was with O2, I remember having to opt in to "adult content" so that I could read a tech news site it was incorrectly blocking. I think it was theregister.co.uk, but it was quite a while ago so I could be wrong, or they could have unblocked it for everyone by now?
- lucian1900 14y agoWith 3 you can try to disable the filtering, but they won't do it. All opt-in in adult content does is let you buy porn from 3. Downright insulting, especially when I just want to read a news website.
- CWuestefeld 14y agovital dissenting thought is already being censored by these filters Years ago when my dog was a small puppy, I had a webcam set up in the laundry room so I could check throughout the day that he was OK. That worked great until WebSense, the filtering system that my company uses, decided to classify my puppy-cam as "adult content". When I complained to WebSense, they did change the designation in their next update. But still, it makes me wonder just how they go about setting these classifications.
- nsns 14y agoWhile errors will always happen, the main concern, IMO, is that slowly it will become intentional and accepted. This hasn't happened yet outside certain countries. For example, we could still access Wikileaks, despite the US government's visible wrath. Let's hope it doesn't happen, although the technology probably already exists to set up "private" internet services, e.g. onion routing.
- UnoriginalGuy 14y agoI'm with Orange (UK) and their "adult filter" seems to block a lot of stuff that has nothing at all to do with porn/adult content. I turned it off after less than a week because web-sites like Reddit became impossible to browse as half the links were blocked. I think they just block entire domains after a single link is flagged as adult.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- mibbitier 14y agoNever put things down to malice, which are more likely to be incompetence. Vodafone have a similar stupid filter, which blocks random websites. You can just call them up and remove it though.
- daeken 14y ago> “It filters out 35 categories of content, including porn, adult, suicide, anorexia etc,” What? Ok, I don't agree with filtering out porn but I can at least understand it. But why would you filter out sites about suicide, anorexia, "etc"? Way to increase the stigma around already difficult issues, block people from useful pieces of information, and make it harder for people to actually get help in the way they want it? I really, really dislike that.
- EdiX 14y agoI think that with 'anorexia' they are referring to pro-ana websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia). Maybe websites promoting suicide also exist? I don't know.
- daeken 14y agoEven if they are (which is quite possible), this sort of filtering is just not that good. No matter the intention, this will limit access to valid information and almost certainly cause harm.
- EdiX 14y agoAgreed.
- vilhelm_s 14y agoIndeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm
- tomjen3 14y agoA simple search seems to reveal a bunch of websites which shows different methods for committing suicide, but I can't directly see any that actually advocate suicide.
- DanI-S 14y agoIt's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themselves about the safe use of substances that are encountered on a daily basis in the UK. Whilst the 'slippery slope' argument is generally a weak one, it seems to be inevitable once this machinery is put into place. First porn, then drugs, then suicide and eating disorders, then sites that are used for piracy, then sites that advocate civil disobedience, then fringe political groups like Occupy Wall Street or Stop the War Coalition. You can disable it at any time, but what parent is going to remove the filter that protects their children from seeing porn? Having to 'opt in' to 'risky content' is tantamount to public shaming.
- tudorw 14y agoWhat do parents do at the moment? I am one but they are so youung it's not an issue (yet...)
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- rahoulb 14y agoFor me, I talk to my children all the time, so they know the standards I expect and I know if something's bothering them. If they do want to look at something I disapprove of, they can and will, so I don't try to stop them directly - as that will just make them do it in secret and never tell me if they find something that really upsets them. However, I don't think this kind of legislation is aimed at that kind of parenting.
- tomjen3 14y agoThat sounds like too much effort. I want a free instant fix dammit.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoPresumably the good ones deploy, "parenting". Talking to their children, etc.
- EvilTerran 14y agoThey whine to the government because they want to use the internet as a childcare machine but it's got bad stuff on it. In response, the government produces something utterly ineffective and bad for liberty, that nonetheless assuages their fear that their precious little snowflake might see a nipple. -OR- They take responsibility for their own damn kids, and put the computer in a family room, facing into the room so they can supervise. Being a way of monitoring and/or limiting what your children view online that actually, y'know, works.
- tudorw 14y agoI like the family computer in a shared space, I think that encourages responsible use, it's the only thing I could come up with that did not over censor.
- Monotoko 14y agoJust leave the Internet alone. I'm not against filtering inappropriate content (although suicide 'etc' should not be blocked) but the next generation of parents will be more aware of the issues online and put their own filtering software in place if needed. Government mandated filtering is a really bad idea
- theorique 14y agoBut what kind of content is deemed "inappropriate"? Who are the ones who make that distinction? I certainly don't want either government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats making that distinction for me.
- Monotoko 14y agoThere are plenty of open source blacklists out there that are far more reliable than the corporations, a lot of us already apply some kind of filtering anyway - think AdBlocker. Of course, if you can educate your kid about the internet and feel that they are responsible enough not to need the software (maybe just keep the PC downstairs?) then that would be the better way to do it.
- tomjen3 14y agoIt would be reasonable to me that the parents may designate certain things as inappropriate. That said, I don't think they should be allowed to block e.g information on politics and religion (just as you can't cause bodily harm to your child).
- theorique 14y agoParents doing this for their own children = good idea Some entity of government / society doing this for its citizens = bad idea Neither government nor corporations are our parent, and we are not their children.
- mike-cardwell 14y agoThere will always be politicians trying to ban things on the Internet. They will slowly chip away at it until all sorts of things become banned. I really think we need technical solutions to make it impossible or much more difficult.
- deleted 14y ago[deleted]
- guard-of-terra 14y ago"So even if you think the mandatory filters are a good idea, the question has to be whether these filters are worthwhile" People who think the mandatory filters are a good idea don't really "think" in the common sense of this word. They move on. Yesterday they were furiously pro-filters when asked by media, but today they moved on. They don't remember a thing about the idea. They don't care. You can ever persuade them that filtering in this shape is bad. But: they'll move on again. And tomorrow they won't remember a word of your explanations. The media baited them once more and once again they will vote "with their hearts". They aren't exactly the caring-about-the-end-result kind.