7 ms·

All major UK ISPs prepping network-level porn 'n' violence filters

53 points by alan_cx 13y ago

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
andyking 13y ago
So, in order to get around this DNS-based filtering, all a teenager has to do is change the DNS servers on their computer or device to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4? This seems like a move designed to placate rather than provide any real protection - like all such schemes. There's no alternative to supervising young people's internet use. Teenagers will look up porn - it's best to be adult and intelligent about it, and protect them from its worst effects, rather than trying to filter the content itself.
- indeyets 13y ago
  alternate DNS can be blocked, I guess. But something like this will work: http://dnscrypt.org/ http://dnscrypt.org/
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  Teenagers are not kids. Any law or measure that lumps teenagers and kids together is a sabotage. Limiting kids' discovery of porn is a worthy feat, but trying to limit teenagers is poinless and stupid.
  - 46Bit 13y ago
    At what age does someone gain the right to discover Porn?
    - guard-of-terra 13y ago
      I would give away my "right" of spontaneously discovering porn. "Suddently porn" is an annoying issue on many sites in the web that are on the side of shabby. Take torrent trackers for example.
      - makomk 13y ago
        Ironically, one cause of sudden unexpected porn in the UK is apparently content filters on mobile internet access. Like all content filters, they have both false positives and questionable classification decisions, except that some of the mobile providers apparently decided it was a good idea to use the blocked-content page to advertise the hardcore porn you can buy from them.
      - 46Bit 13y ago
        Thanks for the reply - I think more what I was looking for was your viewpoint on why kids accidentally seeing porn is a bad thing? My assumption is that it wouldn't be of interest to them and they'd move on, but that's pure speculation.
        guard-of-terra 13y ago
        I think that human sex life is a pretty fragile thing and letting people to tamper with yours for their fun or their profit is not cool. By sex live I mean the whole mental picture. If you start drawing it from accidental porn, you'll get it distorted. You will get it distorted anyway when you'll seek porn, but now it would be your own decision at least.
      - workbench 13y ago
        Funny you should mention torrents By making it require a work around to view even mild pornography, the work arounds will inevitably lead to areas of the most hardcore right in your face. Say some 12 year old wants to look at naked ladies, what's he gonna be doing? Probably google image search boobs or some soft core pinup girls name, relatively harmless and have his curiosity satisfied. However if the lower levels of that are blocked the work around with inevitably lead to a much bigger source with the violent pornography just a click away from the more regular. Same thing happened with P2P, we used to have services where it was easy to download a single mid quality song, companies put an end to those so we found a much more efficient way to shift much larger amounts of data. Now it's hard to steal a single song but really easy to steal a full 320 album rip.
    - Shorel 13y ago
      I believe 13 years old would be just right.
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  > its worst effects Of which there are none. Nudity and sex are normal, not damaging.
  - andyhmltn 13y ago
    May I ask why this was downvoted? He's absolutely correct. I suppose that's what you get for living in a society that demonizes sex.
    - pyre 13y ago
      Well, if an impressionable youngster's only experiences about sex are from porn, it increases expectations. Take anal sex for example. I've heard that it's increasingly expected of teen girls (by teen boys) due to its prevalence in porn. Not only that, but if you only learned about anal sex from porn, you wouldn't realize that you that 'ass-to-mouth' is probably a bad idea, wearing a condom is probably not optional, lubricant is probably not optional, etc. This isn't to say that porn is inherently a bad thing[1]. The issue is that if the teens aren't getting good information elsewhere (other than the base 'here are some anatomical diagrams of sex organs' teaching), porn becomes a learning tool, which isn't necessarily a good thing. [1] I realize that the production sucks in a lot of people that suffered from abuse, and it's debatable whether or not large 'porn houses' are just exploiting these people.
      - kintamanimatt 13y ago
        If your concern is children's expectations being set to unrealistic levels, Disney should be the first to be go. Magazines and advertising should be banned from using Photoshop, too. Being exposed to a variety of options and ways to have sex isn't bad. Anal sex can be quite fun, and if someone doesn't like it they're quickly going to say no. Rimming has its risks (like everything else) and isn't for everyone (like everything else), but it's pretty common and not horrendously unsafe. If you try to have sex without lube, you're quickly going to discover the problem. I can't speak for straight porn, but most porn that involves penetrative sex features condoms; if you're watching porn that was made in the last 10-20 years, it's really difficult not to see condoms in action. Just about everybody reading this grew up with porn as teens (and possibly before) and we're not broken or messed up. Before the internet, teens got their hands on magazines and those generations aren't damaged by it either. If anything, I'd suspect teens today are better educated (and having better sex) than any generation before. Porn, together with improved sex education, has had a large role to play. Saying that porn is bad because it teaches people different ways to have sex doesn't make sense. However, I will concede that the key here is sex education. If someone isn't receiving sex education they're not going to know about safe sex anyway, and restricting access to porn isn't going to make the situation any better. Porn should be supplemented by a decent sex education, and thankfully an adequate sex education is provided in the vast majority of the developed world. If anything I'm grateful for all the porn I watched as a teen, and I think my sex life today is significantly better because of it. It taught me more than my prudish religious parents would (or could) and combined with my school's sex education classes, I was good to go have fun, figure out what was right for me, and do it without getting diseases along the way!
- retube 13y ago
  Yes it is impossible to completely block the distribution of such content, and yes maybe this is a particularly weak solution. But that doesn't mean that this or simialr efforts should not be made: they will reduce the ease of availability which will cut down exposure to this type of material. I actually believe that all pornography should be behind a paywall, and any which is not is blocked (somehow). And no I am not abdicating responsibily of my children to the state - they still need to be taught responsible online behaviour - as I agree above such material will always be available for those who make the effort to circumvent restrictions. We don't not lock our houses because someone can still break in - but it dramatically cuts down on such attempts (and we still educate our children on why breaking into other peoples homes is a bad thing to do).
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    Why should it all be behind a paywall? And how would one define pornography? If I decide to post some naked pictures of myself online should I have to start processing credit cards and treating it as a business?
  - yarrel 13y ago
    These efforts should not be made because quite apart from being immoral in themselves they are ineffective and have negative side effects.
  - andyhmltn 13y ago
    >I actually believe that all pornography should be behind a paywall That's absurd! Really? Cutting off huge portions of the internet for 'safety' is both wrong and impossible. That's the beauty of the web: Nobody decides 'what gets put up' and what doesn't. Guess what would happen if a country implemented such a thing? People would just use international sites as many do already.
    - retube 13y ago
      You do not justify why it's wrong? And as I said in my OP, yes it is impossible, but some measures will cut exposure.
- tehmaco 13y ago
  I doubt that'll work - the PirateBay is currently blocked in the UK. If you change your DNS settings to use a non-UK server, it still returns the filtered IP address as they're silently intercepting lookups for banned domains and returning a non-authoritative answer. All they'd need to do is add in the 'adult' domains and that'd block the simplest workaround. You could still set up a non-UK VPN and bypass it entirely though ;)
  - workbench 13y ago
    The Pirate Bay blocks actually use CleanFeed IIRC, which is the system originally put in place under the premise to block known child pornography domains. I consider this an abuse of the CleanFeed system.
  - dspillett 13y ago
    > I doubt that'll work - the PirateBay is currently blocked in the UK. If you change your DNS settings to use a non-UK server, it still returns the filtered IP address as they're silently intercepting lookups for banned domains and returning a non-authoritative answer. Not on my ISP (A&A), though that may be the case for the big six. As you say, the VPN option is an easy way around. <hat material="tinfoil">Until the government mandate that ISPs should block anything like that unless you have a license for encrypted traffic, of course.</hat>
weavejester 13y ago
If these filters are opt-in, as the article suggests, what's the problem? They might not be particularly effective, but if they're not active by default, and no-one's forcing them on anyone, this hardly seems like news.
- stfu 13y ago
  Because the foreseeable next step is "hey, these filters are already in place we should at least block out cp". They are building up the infrastructure up to the stage where a transition to the next step is going to be with no cost to providers and immediately doable. It just needs the political opportune climate to push it through. A sort of being ready for the "happy accident".
  - lclarkmichalek 13y ago
    That's already done. There is a nationwide child porn filter that was implemented roughly 10 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys....
    - stfu 13y ago
      Did not know that. But then again the slippery slope argument totally lives up to my expectations: * In the UK the use of Cleanfeed was later extended to block websites that link to (without necessarily themselves hosting) copyrighted material distributed without its owner's authorisation.
- muyuu 13y ago
  I've been put behind opt-out filters (Three mobile). Only found out I had this filter randomly browsing and facing their wall page (it wasn't even porn or anything remotely questionable, just a suspect URL name).
  - kintamanimatt 13y ago
    Me too, and getting the filter removed on pre-pay either costs money by way of an insignificant charge to a British credit (not debit) card which is added to your account (foreign credit cards don't work) or a trip to a store with ID that takes 15-20 minute in which they attempt to upsell you on other products. The only reason I'm with them is because I get truly unlimited data and flawless coverage.
Zariel 13y ago
As long as its opt-in then I am all for giving parents the choice to filter their networks, but as soon as it becomes opt-out I will be very angry about it.
- retube 13y ago
  why?
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Because an ISP should be dumb pipe. They should only provide connectivity and not mess with people connections. Opt in is enabling. Opt out is intrusion.
    - KJBweb 13y ago
      Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute so to ensure they get sent via their own (and often blacklisted) servers, the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating!
      - andyhmltn 13y ago
        >Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute I'm unaware of that, but that's a fair point. >the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating! That's the thing: They aren't. It would only happen if you asked for it. They aren't filtering anything you don't want filtered.
        anExcitedBeast 13y ago
        And you think that's still going to be the case in five years?
        13y ago
philbarr 13y ago
Forgive me for being glib, but at least one good thing out of this is that a lot more teenagers will be inspired to become hackers. "So when did you first get into hacking Mr. Famous Hacker X?" "Well, I remember that, like a lot of the lads in my generation at the time, I was trying to get round my ISPs porn-filters."
- robotmay 13y ago
  This is actually pretty accurate for when I was in school; I learnt a lot about proxies and networking whilst bypassing the school's content filters :D
shocks 13y ago
Hey parents, instead of trying to filter your internet connection to 'protect' your child, why not... Er... Parent? Teach him/her what not to do online, why, and how to stay safe. Filters will always be on step behind.
- lutze 13y ago
  Children shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised, full stop.
  - joosters 13y ago
    Yes, but that's almost impossible, e.g. do you insist that your child can't use their mobile phone unsupervised then?
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    What is "unsupervised"? Children today are given a tablet at the age of three and they tap on it happily. Do you seriously suggest all people with kids to have a full-time job of watching their kids tap on their tablets over the shoulder? Who's going pay the wage?
  - venomsnake 13y ago
    Because the people that are in their late 20-s early 30-s turned out so bad. Actually the internet is much tamer now than in the 90-s. And we survived somehow.
    - pyre 13y ago
      I don't find the Internet tamer now than in the past. Maybe the ratio of non-porn sites to porn sites has increased, but it's trivially easy to find really hardcore porn in video form now with all of the 'tube sites. I've also heard there have been increased expectations of anal sex from teen girls due to its increased prevalence in porn.
  - jiggy2011 13y ago
    That might have worked when most households had 1 or 2 desktop PCs and a 56k modem between them. Now, everything is starting to have internet access in one way or another including games consoles. Whilst very young children might need a lot of supervision regardless, I don't think 12 years olds are going to be too happy with their parents sitting in their bedrooms with them all evening while they play xbox.
pyramidfall 13y ago
I am a teenager, I enjoy watching pornography and I believe it has yet to mentally effect me in a negative way. These filters are just annoying if anything and take significant amounts of pleasure away from my life. As an atheist, I have no religious grounds to forgo frequent masturbation and only partake in content that doesn't cross other laws. (Abuse, Child-Protection etc.) I am able to have sexual intercourse myself and therefore see no reason why I shouldn't be able to watch it.
mortov 13y ago
All UK ISPs have compulsory blocks already - courtesy of the unaccountable CEOPS under the guise of Thinking Of The Children/Child Porn. All sorts of URLs/IPs are blocked (many of which should be blocked because they ARE CP but some are not, just judged by The Powers That Be as being unacceptable [e.g. pirate bay]). There is no way to know what is on the list and no way to find out - anyone inquiring is automatically classed as a CP supporter and subject to investigation. Coupled with the English removal of right to silence (discussed a few days ago), the UK long ago became a scary place for anyone interested in freedom and justice. [Scotland retains the silence right but don't expect that to help you much.] We're just seeing an extension of this as people have been prepared already so it is time to extend the state monitoring and intrusion as everyone now believes it is a Good Thing(tm) because they know deep down that they truly love Big Brother. (edit:spelling, twice. That's embarrassing)
- porker 13y ago
  I can't believe we let the removal of right to silence go. When did it happen? Did I entirely miss it, or was it before my time?
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - mmcnickle 13y ago
    As far as I know, the major change came in the 90s in the form of "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". In other words, the court can draw conclusions about something you initially refused to comment on, but then later answered as part of your defence.
    - timw6n 13y ago
      Actually it was even earlier than that; adverse inferences could be drawn from silence after the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.
antihero 13y ago
I look forward to writing to Virgin and demanding my porn back.
workbench 13y ago
If people can't be responsible for their own children maybe we need to start controlling who has children. What passes as "parenting" in this country is an absolute joke. Just set up broadband in a new house today, this news makes me ecstatic that I didn't go with BT and went with an independent instead.
- Fuxy 13y ago
  Don't most of them rely on the BT pipes anyway? So you're getting filtered regardless.
Fuxy 13y ago
Great another way for them to slip in a couple of websites that are not porn related like say... political parody. Just look at T-Mobile for an example they block "objectionable content" like say... some links that show up on hacker news because they include "hacking". Damn it now i need a VPN to the free internet.

53 points by alan_cx 13y ago

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

So, in order to get around this DNS-based filtering, all a teenager has to do is change the DNS servers on their computer or device to 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4? This seems like a move designed to placate rather than provide any real protection - like all such schemes. There's no alternative to supervising young people's internet use. Teenagers will look up porn - it's best to be adult and intelligent about it, and protect them from its worst effects, rather than trying to filter the content itself.

indeyets 13y ago
alternate DNS can be blocked, I guess. But something like this will work: http://dnscrypt.org/ http://dnscrypt.org/
guard-of-terra 13y ago
Teenagers are not kids. Any law or measure that lumps teenagers and kids together is a sabotage. Limiting kids' discovery of porn is a worthy feat, but trying to limit teenagers is poinless and stupid.
- 46Bit 13y ago
  At what age does someone gain the right to discover Porn?
  - guard-of-terra 13y ago
    I would give away my "right" of spontaneously discovering porn. "Suddently porn" is an annoying issue on many sites in the web that are on the side of shabby. Take torrent trackers for example.
    - makomk 13y ago
      Ironically, one cause of sudden unexpected porn in the UK is apparently content filters on mobile internet access. Like all content filters, they have both false positives and questionable classification decisions, except that some of the mobile providers apparently decided it was a good idea to use the blocked-content page to advertise the hardcore porn you can buy from them.
    - 46Bit 13y ago
      Thanks for the reply - I think more what I was looking for was your viewpoint on why kids accidentally seeing porn is a bad thing? My assumption is that it wouldn't be of interest to them and they'd move on, but that's pure speculation.
      - guard-of-terra 13y ago
        I think that human sex life is a pretty fragile thing and letting people to tamper with yours for their fun or their profit is not cool. By sex live I mean the whole mental picture. If you start drawing it from accidental porn, you'll get it distorted. You will get it distorted anyway when you'll seek porn, but now it would be your own decision at least.
    - workbench 13y ago
      Funny you should mention torrents By making it require a work around to view even mild pornography, the work arounds will inevitably lead to areas of the most hardcore right in your face. Say some 12 year old wants to look at naked ladies, what's he gonna be doing? Probably google image search boobs or some soft core pinup girls name, relatively harmless and have his curiosity satisfied. However if the lower levels of that are blocked the work around with inevitably lead to a much bigger source with the violent pornography just a click away from the more regular. Same thing happened with P2P, we used to have services where it was easy to download a single mid quality song, companies put an end to those so we found a much more efficient way to shift much larger amounts of data. Now it's hard to steal a single song but really easy to steal a full 320 album rip.
  - Shorel 13y ago
    I believe 13 years old would be just right.
kintamanimatt 13y ago
> its worst effects Of which there are none. Nudity and sex are normal, not damaging.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  May I ask why this was downvoted? He's absolutely correct. I suppose that's what you get for living in a society that demonizes sex.
  - pyre 13y ago
    Well, if an impressionable youngster's only experiences about sex are from porn, it increases expectations. Take anal sex for example. I've heard that it's increasingly expected of teen girls (by teen boys) due to its prevalence in porn. Not only that, but if you only learned about anal sex from porn, you wouldn't realize that you that 'ass-to-mouth' is probably a bad idea, wearing a condom is probably not optional, lubricant is probably not optional, etc. This isn't to say that porn is inherently a bad thing[1]. The issue is that if the teens aren't getting good information elsewhere (other than the base 'here are some anatomical diagrams of sex organs' teaching), porn becomes a learning tool, which isn't necessarily a good thing. [1] I realize that the production sucks in a lot of people that suffered from abuse, and it's debatable whether or not large 'porn houses' are just exploiting these people.
    - kintamanimatt 13y ago
      If your concern is children's expectations being set to unrealistic levels, Disney should be the first to be go. Magazines and advertising should be banned from using Photoshop, too. Being exposed to a variety of options and ways to have sex isn't bad. Anal sex can be quite fun, and if someone doesn't like it they're quickly going to say no. Rimming has its risks (like everything else) and isn't for everyone (like everything else), but it's pretty common and not horrendously unsafe. If you try to have sex without lube, you're quickly going to discover the problem. I can't speak for straight porn, but most porn that involves penetrative sex features condoms; if you're watching porn that was made in the last 10-20 years, it's really difficult not to see condoms in action. Just about everybody reading this grew up with porn as teens (and possibly before) and we're not broken or messed up. Before the internet, teens got their hands on magazines and those generations aren't damaged by it either. If anything, I'd suspect teens today are better educated (and having better sex) than any generation before. Porn, together with improved sex education, has had a large role to play. Saying that porn is bad because it teaches people different ways to have sex doesn't make sense. However, I will concede that the key here is sex education. If someone isn't receiving sex education they're not going to know about safe sex anyway, and restricting access to porn isn't going to make the situation any better. Porn should be supplemented by a decent sex education, and thankfully an adequate sex education is provided in the vast majority of the developed world. If anything I'm grateful for all the porn I watched as a teen, and I think my sex life today is significantly better because of it. It taught me more than my prudish religious parents would (or could) and combined with my school's sex education classes, I was good to go have fun, figure out what was right for me, and do it without getting diseases along the way!
retube 13y ago
Yes it is impossible to completely block the distribution of such content, and yes maybe this is a particularly weak solution. But that doesn't mean that this or simialr efforts should not be made: they will reduce the ease of availability which will cut down exposure to this type of material. I actually believe that all pornography should be behind a paywall, and any which is not is blocked (somehow). And no I am not abdicating responsibily of my children to the state - they still need to be taught responsible online behaviour - as I agree above such material will always be available for those who make the effort to circumvent restrictions. We don't not lock our houses because someone can still break in - but it dramatically cuts down on such attempts (and we still educate our children on why breaking into other peoples homes is a bad thing to do).
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  Why should it all be behind a paywall? And how would one define pornography? If I decide to post some naked pictures of myself online should I have to start processing credit cards and treating it as a business?
- yarrel 13y ago
  These efforts should not be made because quite apart from being immoral in themselves they are ineffective and have negative side effects.
- andyhmltn 13y ago
  >I actually believe that all pornography should be behind a paywall That's absurd! Really? Cutting off huge portions of the internet for 'safety' is both wrong and impossible. That's the beauty of the web: Nobody decides 'what gets put up' and what doesn't. Guess what would happen if a country implemented such a thing? People would just use international sites as many do already.
  - retube 13y ago
    You do not justify why it's wrong? And as I said in my OP, yes it is impossible, but some measures will cut exposure.
tehmaco 13y ago
I doubt that'll work - the PirateBay is currently blocked in the UK. If you change your DNS settings to use a non-UK server, it still returns the filtered IP address as they're silently intercepting lookups for banned domains and returning a non-authoritative answer. All they'd need to do is add in the 'adult' domains and that'd block the simplest workaround. You could still set up a non-UK VPN and bypass it entirely though ;)
- workbench 13y ago
  The Pirate Bay blocks actually use CleanFeed IIRC, which is the system originally put in place under the premise to block known child pornography domains. I consider this an abuse of the CleanFeed system.
- dspillett 13y ago
  > I doubt that'll work - the PirateBay is currently blocked in the UK. If you change your DNS settings to use a non-UK server, it still returns the filtered IP address as they're silently intercepting lookups for banned domains and returning a non-authoritative answer. Not on my ISP (A&A), though that may be the case for the big six. As you say, the VPN option is an easy way around. <hat material="tinfoil">Until the government mandate that ISPs should block anything like that unless you have a license for encrypted traffic, of course.</hat>

weavejester 13y ago

If these filters are opt-in, as the article suggests, what's the problem? They might not be particularly effective, but if they're not active by default, and no-one's forcing them on anyone, this hardly seems like news.

stfu 13y ago
Because the foreseeable next step is "hey, these filters are already in place we should at least block out cp". They are building up the infrastructure up to the stage where a transition to the next step is going to be with no cost to providers and immediately doable. It just needs the political opportune climate to push it through. A sort of being ready for the "happy accident".
- lclarkmichalek 13y ago
  That's already done. There is a nationwide child porn filter that was implemented roughly 10 years ago: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys....
  - stfu 13y ago
    Did not know that. But then again the slippery slope argument totally lives up to my expectations: * In the UK the use of Cleanfeed was later extended to block websites that link to (without necessarily themselves hosting) copyrighted material distributed without its owner's authorisation.
muyuu 13y ago
I've been put behind opt-out filters (Three mobile). Only found out I had this filter randomly browsing and facing their wall page (it wasn't even porn or anything remotely questionable, just a suspect URL name).
- kintamanimatt 13y ago
  Me too, and getting the filter removed on pre-pay either costs money by way of an insignificant charge to a British credit (not debit) card which is added to your account (foreign credit cards don't work) or a trip to a store with ID that takes 15-20 minute in which they attempt to upsell you on other products. The only reason I'm with them is because I get truly unlimited data and flawless coverage.

Zariel 13y ago

As long as its opt-in then I am all for giving parents the choice to filter their networks, but as soon as it becomes opt-out I will be very angry about it.

retube 13y ago
why?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Because an ISP should be dumb pipe. They should only provide connectivity and not mess with people connections. Opt in is enabling. Opt out is intrusion.
  - KJBweb 13y ago
    Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute so to ensure they get sent via their own (and often blacklisted) servers, the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating!
    - andyhmltn 13y ago
      >Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute I'm unaware of that, but that's a fair point. >the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating! That's the thing: They aren't. It would only happen if you asked for it. They aren't filtering anything you don't want filtered.
      - anExcitedBeast 13y ago
        And you think that's still going to be the case in five years?
        13y ago

philbarr 13y ago

Forgive me for being glib, but at least one good thing out of this is that a lot more teenagers will be inspired to become hackers. "So when did you first get into hacking Mr. Famous Hacker X?" "Well, I remember that, like a lot of the lads in my generation at the time, I was trying to get round my ISPs porn-filters."

robotmay 13y ago
This is actually pretty accurate for when I was in school; I learnt a lot about proxies and networking whilst bypassing the school's content filters :D

shocks 13y ago

Hey parents, instead of trying to filter your internet connection to 'protect' your child, why not... Er... Parent? Teach him/her what not to do online, why, and how to stay safe. Filters will always be on step behind.

lutze 13y ago
Children shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised, full stop.
- joosters 13y ago
  Yes, but that's almost impossible, e.g. do you insist that your child can't use their mobile phone unsupervised then?
- guard-of-terra 13y ago
  What is "unsupervised"? Children today are given a tablet at the age of three and they tap on it happily. Do you seriously suggest all people with kids to have a full-time job of watching their kids tap on their tablets over the shoulder? Who's going pay the wage?
- venomsnake 13y ago
  Because the people that are in their late 20-s early 30-s turned out so bad. Actually the internet is much tamer now than in the 90-s. And we survived somehow.
  - pyre 13y ago
    I don't find the Internet tamer now than in the past. Maybe the ratio of non-porn sites to porn sites has increased, but it's trivially easy to find really hardcore porn in video form now with all of the 'tube sites. I've also heard there have been increased expectations of anal sex from teen girls due to its increased prevalence in porn.
- jiggy2011 13y ago
  That might have worked when most households had 1 or 2 desktop PCs and a 56k modem between them. Now, everything is starting to have internet access in one way or another including games consoles. Whilst very young children might need a lot of supervision regardless, I don't think 12 years olds are going to be too happy with their parents sitting in their bedrooms with them all evening while they play xbox.

pyramidfall 13y ago

I am a teenager, I enjoy watching pornography and I believe it has yet to mentally effect me in a negative way. These filters are just annoying if anything and take significant amounts of pleasure away from my life. As an atheist, I have no religious grounds to forgo frequent masturbation and only partake in content that doesn't cross other laws. (Abuse, Child-Protection etc.) I am able to have sexual intercourse myself and therefore see no reason why I shouldn't be able to watch it.

mortov 13y ago

All UK ISPs have compulsory blocks already - courtesy of the unaccountable CEOPS under the guise of Thinking Of The Children/Child Porn. All sorts of URLs/IPs are blocked (many of which should be blocked because they ARE CP but some are not, just judged by The Powers That Be as being unacceptable [e.g. pirate bay]). There is no way to know what is on the list and no way to find out - anyone inquiring is automatically classed as a CP supporter and subject to investigation. Coupled with the English removal of right to silence (discussed a few days ago), the UK long ago became a scary place for anyone interested in freedom and justice. [Scotland retains the silence right but don't expect that to help you much.] We're just seeing an extension of this as people have been prepared already so it is time to extend the state monitoring and intrusion as everyone now believes it is a Good Thing(tm) because they know deep down that they truly love Big Brother. (edit:spelling, twice. That's embarrassing)

porker 13y ago
I can't believe we let the removal of right to silence go. When did it happen? Did I entirely miss it, or was it before my time?
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- mmcnickle 13y ago
  As far as I know, the major change came in the 90s in the form of "it may harm your defence if you do not mention when questioned something which you later rely on in court". In other words, the court can draw conclusions about something you initially refused to comment on, but then later answered as part of your defence.
  - timw6n 13y ago
    Actually it was even earlier than that; adverse inferences could be drawn from silence after the passing of the Police and Criminal Evidence Act 1984.

antihero 13y ago

I look forward to writing to Virgin and demanding my porn back.

workbench 13y ago

If people can't be responsible for their own children maybe we need to start controlling who has children. What passes as "parenting" in this country is an absolute joke. Just set up broadband in a new house today, this news makes me ecstatic that I didn't go with BT and went with an independent instead.

Fuxy 13y ago
Don't most of them rely on the BT pipes anyway? So you're getting filtered regardless.

Fuxy 13y ago

Great another way for them to slip in a couple of websites that are not porn related like say... political parody. Just look at T-Mobile for an example they block "objectionable content" like say... some links that show up on hacker news because they include "hacking". Damn it now i need a VPN to the free internet.