4 ms·

I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in. No reason this cant be a tick box in the route

by alan_cx 13y ago

I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in. No reason this cant be a tick box in the router. Just an option for parents if they want it. I have 6 kids. My two daughters have suffered grooming attempts online. No one can stop grooming online. I would never filter. No point. Camoron is pandering to the anti gay marriage lobby and the Daily Wail nut jobs, while distracting from his disastrous policies of austerity.

untog 13y ago
I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in But we already have that in the form of installable software that blocks online smut. It baffles me that the government thinks they have a place to get involved here.
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Sure, but mucking around with software, on each machine, is a lot harder and more daunting than a simple tick box at the router. Harder to manage too. Easier for the kids to get round or just destroy. Most concerned families are not geeks. They need it simple. If the gov want a simple tick box opt in on the routers, I cant possibly see a problem with that. Note: I am uber liberal on this. I would never tick the box. But I only speak for me, I understand the net and have my own views on porn etc. How ever, I dont seek to impose my liberal views on others. I simply want us all to have a reasonable choice, that we make our selves. I want "wet" parents to have their option, so that I can have mine. Their freedom to chose is as important as mine.
  - untog 13y ago
    Will all parents have the same views on what "porn" is? Will they agree with the government? I'm normally very far from a Libertarian but I get very hesitant whenever the government weighs in on issues of personal taste. They can't get it right by definition, because there is no consensus on what is "right". For example, see the debate over the ".xxx" domain name, which failed because no-one could agree on what belonged on there.
    - alan_cx 13y ago
      Well, they are your parents and its their house, and you have to obey their rules. So, um, tough. When you are grown up, have your own place, set your own rules. And lets see in 20 years how you parent your own kids.... I know what you are saying. I was a kid once too. My mum stopped me doing all sorts of things. Apparently, that is parenting. Also, you miss understand my point. I am not saying the government can say what should be allowed or not. I am saying there should be a base level filter that parent can use if wanted. If the government start telling me, an adult, what I can and cannot see, I'd be very much against that. All I am saying is make it possible for parents to chose. As I said, I would chose to NOT filter.
  - carlio 13y ago
    If it's truly a market demand, why not an ISP which provides such things as a USP?
    - rentnorove 13y ago
      FYI, talktalk have actually been doing that for the last couple of years: https://www.talktalk.co.uk/security/homesafe-demo.html https://www.talktalk.co.uk/security/homesafe-demo.html
  - Amadou 13y ago
    I think it is worth looking at the results of a similar option in the US - the V-Chip. In theory, a v-chip ought to result in the lifting of basically all broadcast restrictions since parents are now able to exercise their own control over what their kids see on their TVs. The v-chip has been mandatory in the US since January 2000 - and since analog broadcasts were ended every functioning tv receiver now has a v-chip in it. It is basically impossible to watch broadcast television without a v-chip in the loop. So what happened? Nothing. We still have basically the same levels of FCC censorship as we did before the v-chip. I think this fact speaks to the reason for the censorship in the first place - it is not about shielding the children of parents who want their children shielded. It is about restricting the access of everyone, imposing one group's morality on everyone. I think you'll find that should the UK censorship system be created that it will only embolden the efforts of the pro-censorship crowd. They will be champing at the bit to switch it from opt-in to opt-out and maybe even further, like only time-limited opt-outs where you have to periodically re-affirm your wish to opt-out all for the kids sake of course.
  - tjoff 13y ago
    Aren't there routers where you can just enable it? If there had been any demand for this it would have at least.
14113 13y ago
The problem isn't the blocking - I'd be happy for Cameron to enforce blocking at the personal router level. The problem for me is that it's at the ISP level. It requires deep packet inspection, and starts a slippery slope to them being able to block anything for any reason.

by alan_cx 13y ago

untog 13y ago

I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in But we already have that in the form of installable software that blocks online smut. It baffles me that the government thinks they have a place to get involved here.

alan_cx 13y ago
Sure, but mucking around with software, on each machine, is a lot harder and more daunting than a simple tick box at the router. Harder to manage too. Easier for the kids to get round or just destroy. Most concerned families are not geeks. They need it simple. If the gov want a simple tick box opt in on the routers, I cant possibly see a problem with that. Note: I am uber liberal on this. I would never tick the box. But I only speak for me, I understand the net and have my own views on porn etc. How ever, I dont seek to impose my liberal views on others. I simply want us all to have a reasonable choice, that we make our selves. I want "wet" parents to have their option, so that I can have mine. Their freedom to chose is as important as mine.
- untog 13y ago
  Will all parents have the same views on what "porn" is? Will they agree with the government? I'm normally very far from a Libertarian but I get very hesitant whenever the government weighs in on issues of personal taste. They can't get it right by definition, because there is no consensus on what is "right". For example, see the debate over the ".xxx" domain name, which failed because no-one could agree on what belonged on there.
  - alan_cx 13y ago
    Well, they are your parents and its their house, and you have to obey their rules. So, um, tough. When you are grown up, have your own place, set your own rules. And lets see in 20 years how you parent your own kids.... I know what you are saying. I was a kid once too. My mum stopped me doing all sorts of things. Apparently, that is parenting. Also, you miss understand my point. I am not saying the government can say what should be allowed or not. I am saying there should be a base level filter that parent can use if wanted. If the government start telling me, an adult, what I can and cannot see, I'd be very much against that. All I am saying is make it possible for parents to chose. As I said, I would chose to NOT filter.
- carlio 13y ago
  If it's truly a market demand, why not an ISP which provides such things as a USP?
  - rentnorove 13y ago
    FYI, talktalk have actually been doing that for the last couple of years: https://www.talktalk.co.uk/security/homesafe-demo.html https://www.talktalk.co.uk/security/homesafe-demo.html
- Amadou 13y ago
  I think it is worth looking at the results of a similar option in the US - the V-Chip. In theory, a v-chip ought to result in the lifting of basically all broadcast restrictions since parents are now able to exercise their own control over what their kids see on their TVs. The v-chip has been mandatory in the US since January 2000 - and since analog broadcasts were ended every functioning tv receiver now has a v-chip in it. It is basically impossible to watch broadcast television without a v-chip in the loop. So what happened? Nothing. We still have basically the same levels of FCC censorship as we did before the v-chip. I think this fact speaks to the reason for the censorship in the first place - it is not about shielding the children of parents who want their children shielded. It is about restricting the access of everyone, imposing one group's morality on everyone. I think you'll find that should the UK censorship system be created that it will only embolden the efforts of the pro-censorship crowd. They will be champing at the bit to switch it from opt-in to opt-out and maybe even further, like only time-limited opt-outs where you have to periodically re-affirm your wish to opt-out all for the kids sake of course.
- tjoff 13y ago
  Aren't there routers where you can just enable it? If there had been any demand for this it would have at least.

14113 13y ago

The problem isn't the blocking - I'd be happy for Cameron to enforce blocking at the personal router level. The problem for me is that it's at the ISP level. It requires deep packet inspection, and starts a slippery slope to them being able to block anything for any reason.