4 ms·

Wait, is there already a government-imposed web filter on mobile phones in the UK? And you can't opt out? When did this happen? What were the justifications giv

Wait, is there already a government-imposed web filter on mobile phones in the UK? And you can't opt out? When did this happen? What were the justifications given when it was put into place? Does it also apply to GSM tablets and devices tethered to your mobile?

JackWebbHeller 13y ago
I'm not sure if it affects all carriers or not. But you can opt-out, you just have to go through an age-verification process - usually providing a credit card number to confirm you are over 18.
Nursie 13y ago
Nah, it's not government imposed and you can opt out. I think all the operators have one though. Opting out usually requires you to call the operator, though sometimes you can do it through their web portal if you have a credit card (they'll charge and then refund it). I assume it blocks stuff through tethered devices too. Dunno really. Justifications? Most likely "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". On which subject - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE
DanBC 13y ago
There is filtering on most mobile phone data contracts in the UK. YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. Justifications: "Children have too easy access to very hard core porn. Provide filtering, or we'll regulate you".
- Karunamon 13y ago
  >YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.
  - gknoy 13y ago
    Does opt-in vs opt-out make a difference, though, once they have enough data? If oppression or data misuse is the goal, it seems like reversing the set selection criteria would be a trivial way of getting the list of people who like their ${badstuff}, even if they did not opt out of a filter": # obviously not real sql select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list) What am I missing?
    - Karunamon 13y ago
      Probably the fact that only a minority will actually opt in. Requiring positive action almost ensures that miniscule amounts of people will change from the default. (defaultsetting_users) > (nondefaultsetting_users) ..regardless of how desirable the non default setting is. This, for instance, is why Windows Update got a lot more forceful in its later incarnations. People will not update, even when it's good for them, unless you make it hard to not update.
      - hfsktr 13y ago
        Another example: IE being installed on Windows by default. How many people still think IE == internet...
        drdaeman 13y ago
        Way too many. I work as an engineer in a small ISP compaly, and for some time had very closely contacted with phone support (sometimes helping them) and heard many conversations with clients. I'd say there are quite a few people who can't distinguish between Internet, browser and VKontakte (Russian analog for Facebook). Didn't counted them or did any real statistics, though.
    - pyrocat 13y ago
      Human behavior. If you've got a population and you tell them to do X or they'll be labeled a criminal, you'll still have huge swaths of people who won't do X because of laziness, apathy, and/or ignorance. That's why opt-in vs. opt-out makes a such a big difference. Making this opt-in by default makes it extremely easy to target those who opt-out (and make judgements based on that action), but impossible to say anything remotely accurate about those who took no action.
iamben 13y ago
It's been in place a while (but I'm not sure it's government imposed). I've moaned about it a bunch - I have no idea why O2 feel the need to block http://www.whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/ http://www.whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/ for instance. Is it because there's a 'fuck' in the URL? Ridiculous.

JackWebbHeller 13y ago

I'm not sure if it affects all carriers or not. But you can opt-out, you just have to go through an age-verification process - usually providing a credit card number to confirm you are over 18.

Nursie 13y ago

Nah, it's not government imposed and you can opt out. I think all the operators have one though. Opting out usually requires you to call the operator, though sometimes you can do it through their web portal if you have a credit card (they'll charge and then refund it). I assume it blocks stuff through tethered devices too. Dunno really. Justifications? Most likely "OMG THINK OF THE CHILDREN!". On which subject - http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gTeENEQkBKE

DanBC 13y ago

There is filtering on most mobile phone data contracts in the UK. YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. Justifications: "Children have too easy access to very hard core porn. Provide filtering, or we'll regulate you".

Karunamon 13y ago
>YOU CAN OPT OUT. YOU WILL BE ABLE TO OPT OUT OF THE PROPOSED FILTERS TOO. ..Thereby putting your name on a list of people who like to look at $blocked_thing. Why this is problematic is left as an exercise for the reader. Any such filtering should be OPT IN by default. Not the other way around. Further, what data children have the ability to access is the concern of their parents, not the government.
- gknoy 13y ago
  Does opt-in vs opt-out make a difference, though, once they have enough data? If oppression or data misuse is the goal, it seems like reversing the set selection criteria would be a trivial way of getting the list of people who like their ${badstuff}, even if they did not opt out of a filter": # obviously not real sql select * from citizens where (citizen.id not in opt_in_list) What am I missing?
  - Karunamon 13y ago
    Probably the fact that only a minority will actually opt in. Requiring positive action almost ensures that miniscule amounts of people will change from the default. (defaultsetting_users) > (nondefaultsetting_users) ..regardless of how desirable the non default setting is. This, for instance, is why Windows Update got a lot more forceful in its later incarnations. People will not update, even when it's good for them, unless you make it hard to not update.
    - hfsktr 13y ago
      Another example: IE being installed on Windows by default. How many people still think IE == internet...
      - drdaeman 13y ago
        Way too many. I work as an engineer in a small ISP compaly, and for some time had very closely contacted with phone support (sometimes helping them) and heard many conversations with clients. I'd say there are quite a few people who can't distinguish between Internet, browser and VKontakte (Russian analog for Facebook). Didn't counted them or did any real statistics, though.
  - pyrocat 13y ago
    Human behavior. If you've got a population and you tell them to do X or they'll be labeled a criminal, you'll still have huge swaths of people who won't do X because of laziness, apathy, and/or ignorance. That's why opt-in vs. opt-out makes a such a big difference. Making this opt-in by default makes it extremely easy to target those who opt-out (and make judgements based on that action), but impossible to say anything remotely accurate about those who took no action.

iamben 13y ago

It's been in place a while (but I'm not sure it's government imposed). I've moaned about it a bunch - I have no idea why O2 feel the need to block http://www.whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/ http://www.whatthefuckshouldimakefordinner.com/ for instance. Is it because there's a 'fuck' in the URL? Ridiculous.