5 ms·

Majority of Web Sites Blocked by O2 Parental Controls?

49 points by alexcason 13y ago

robinhouston 13y ago
The O2 Parental controls feature is designed to limit access to a whitelist of “sites that have been classifed as suitable and interesting for children under 12”. It must be explicitly enabled for each device by the account holder. There has been a surge of Twitter outrage about it this weekend, though many of the outraged appear to misunderstand what the feature is designed to do.
- octo_t 13y ago
  there is literally zero reason to block sites such as the NSPCC and Childline. Zero. Parents being fundamentally able to block these sites is wrong.
  - perlpimp 13y ago
    yeah it is somewhat similar to having all outgoing calls being blocked even 911 unless enabled by the parent. I mean who is even allowed to block outgoing 911 on their cellphone? it works even without a sim card!
    - acallaghan 13y ago
      It'd be like blocking a special number, say 1111 (which is the UK landline Childline number), which kids could use to only get advice on bullying, stress, self-harm and abuse. It's extremely sad that parents can be given the option to block these sites from potentially at-risk kids with abusive parents.
jerf 13y ago
As I write this, the title is "Majority of Web Sites Blocked by O2 Parental Controls". How does the link in question justify that title? It links to a lookup tool. (Straight question; if there's an answer to that I'm just not seeing, great! I'd love to hear it.)
- krallin 13y ago
  If you e.g. try "gmail.com", it's blocked. Same for nytimes.com, or stackoverflow.com. I think this has to be the point. Now, of course, this doesn't prove the "majority" of the internet is blocked.
  - naich 13y ago
    I haven't found one that isn't blocked yet. Even o2.co.uk is blocked as "Technology and Telecommunication" u12 service. "http://www.bbc.co.uk/" http://www.bbc.co.uk/" is blocked under two categories, so the poor u12s can't even watch Cbeebies online.
- mhurron 13y ago
  > How does the link in question justify that title? Spot check some sites. slashdot.org Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked news.ycombinator.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked news.yahoo.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - jerf 13y ago
    I'd expect a "parental filter" to work on a whitelisting principle, which will inevitably look like this. Anything else is snake oil.
- TheSilentMan 13y ago
  While I had the same thought, I did a few searches and haven't been able to find a site(trying everything from facebook and google to this site and disney) that doesn't have 'blocked' in the 'Parental Control' row in at least one of the boxes that appears. It's to the point that I think I must be interpreting the results incorrectly.
  - desas 13y ago
timw6n 13y ago
It looks like the middle "Default Safety" row is the normal mode however, and that doesn't seem particularly onerously restrictive. It seems to only be blocking actually NSFW sites, plus selected pages on Reddit, Tumblr etc. The bottom row appears to be an (properly) opt-in service for much younger kids that must be whitelisting only a few destinations, which is not the same thing at all as the filters that Cameron et al are pushing for.
- indlebe 13y ago
  >The bottom row appears to be an (properly) opt-in service for much younger kids Having grown up in a southern baptist family I think you're being idealistic here. I could easily see this filter being imposed on me by my previous parent/guardian until I moved out of the house, thus vastly restricting my knowledge of the world. Any alternative news site is blocked, so it's basically the mainstream conservative fun-filter.
  - desas 13y ago
    It blocks mainstream news too...
Moocat87 13y ago
It may be a whitelist filter. Inevitably, isn't that the result of every whitelist-based filter?
CallbackJockey 13y ago
Well at least http://www.conservatives.com/ http://www.conservatives.com/ is blocked too.
- morgante 13y ago
  So is http://foxnews.com http://foxnews.com. Good riddance.
vfclists 13y ago
It is the result of the government allowing providers to fudge what the concept of what the 'Internet' is. All your service provider does is to allow a process running on your computer to make contact with another computer over the TCP/IP protocol. If they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract. The use of the word 'Internet' should be strictly defined. If by 'Internet' they mean going through restricted gateways in accord with their criteria, that is fine, but if they mean allowing processes to connect as described above they are in breach. The public needs to understand that. There was a case some time ago when BT wanted to cut of the phone lines to prostitutes who had their ads plastered in phone booths and the courts stopped them from doing this. Restrictions should be done with customers informed consent or at least they should be notified when the subscribe to the service
- yohanbachk 13y ago
  "if they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract." Which clause of the O2 service contract are they in breach of? You said 'technically', so you must think they really are in breach rather than just morally in breach.
  - vfclists 13y ago
    It depends on what the 'Internet' means to customers. The man in the street considers being able to get Email, Facebook and Google as being connected to the Internet, and doesn't understand that the provider doesn't even have the right to obstruct or interfere with their connectivity for any reason, whilst a tech guy considers it to be the ability to connect to a port on an IP address. They are morally in breach if you are inclined to see it that way, based on promoting a restricted concept of what an Internet is.
- desas 13y ago
  These restrictions are only done with the customers informed consent. The only blocks without consent is for child porn and other specific court mandated content - such as pirate bay
greglindahl 13y ago
Huh. blekko's search engine has more blocking than google's, so I pushed the "If you think this website needs a different policy, click here" button to give them feedback... and the response is: > Your reclassification request has been received. Please come back soon to check the reclassification results. No way to specify what I think ought to be changed. Thanks, O2, for giving everyone a great way to report problems! (edit: Bing is more blocked than google!)
- Yver 13y ago
  Don't worry, your reclassification request has been duly archived to /dev/null for later review. They are probably going to receive tens of thousands of requests so I wouldn't expect them to be read by a human. If that's the case they'll just prioritize by frequency of report. Obviously it's all conjecture on my part.
acd 13y ago
If its a dns based control, one can dnswalk/iterate over the censored dns ipv4 space for example 1.1.1.1, then lookup the same ip in a public dns server such as opendns or google dns. By comparing the dns results from the censored and public dns you get the list of what censorship authority was trying to block. You can then publish the list of the address on for example Pastebin :)
sdfjkl 13y ago
Hm, Github is blocked, Python.org too. Microsoft.com is permitted though. Wikipedia is permitted, including pages about coprophilia, tentacle erotica (illustrations) and decapitation (photographs). Sorry parents, censorship is still no alternative to actual parenting and may just get in the way of your kid becoming the next amazing Python hacker.
- est 13y ago
  China once blocked "freebsd.org" because there's a "free" keyword in it.

49 points by alexcason 13y ago

The O2 Parental controls feature is designed to limit access to a whitelist of “sites that have been classifed as suitable and interesting for children under 12”. It must be explicitly enabled for each device by the account holder. There has been a surge of Twitter outrage about it this weekend, though many of the outraged appear to misunderstand what the feature is designed to do.

octo_t 13y ago
there is literally zero reason to block sites such as the NSPCC and Childline. Zero. Parents being fundamentally able to block these sites is wrong.
- perlpimp 13y ago
  yeah it is somewhat similar to having all outgoing calls being blocked even 911 unless enabled by the parent. I mean who is even allowed to block outgoing 911 on their cellphone? it works even without a sim card!
  - acallaghan 13y ago
    It'd be like blocking a special number, say 1111 (which is the UK landline Childline number), which kids could use to only get advice on bullying, stress, self-harm and abuse. It's extremely sad that parents can be given the option to block these sites from potentially at-risk kids with abusive parents.

jerf 13y ago

As I write this, the title is "Majority of Web Sites Blocked by O2 Parental Controls". How does the link in question justify that title? It links to a lookup tool. (Straight question; if there's an answer to that I'm just not seeing, great! I'd love to hear it.)

krallin 13y ago
If you e.g. try "gmail.com", it's blocked. Same for nytimes.com, or stackoverflow.com. I think this has to be the point. Now, of course, this doesn't prove the "majority" of the internet is blocked.
- naich 13y ago
  I haven't found one that isn't blocked yet. Even o2.co.uk is blocked as "Technology and Telecommunication" u12 service. "http://www.bbc.co.uk/" http://www.bbc.co.uk/" is blocked under two categories, so the poor u12s can't even watch Cbeebies online.
mhurron 13y ago
> How does the link in question justify that title? Spot check some sites. slashdot.org Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked news.ycombinator.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked news.yahoo.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- jerf 13y ago
  I'd expect a "parental filter" to work on a whitelisting principle, which will inevitably look like this. Anything else is snake oil.
TheSilentMan 13y ago
While I had the same thought, I did a few searches and haven't been able to find a site(trying everything from facebook and google to this site and disney) that doesn't have 'blocked' in the 'Parental Control' row in at least one of the boxes that appears. It's to the point that I think I must be interpreting the results incorrectly.
- desas 13y ago

timw6n 13y ago

It looks like the middle "Default Safety" row is the normal mode however, and that doesn't seem particularly onerously restrictive. It seems to only be blocking actually NSFW sites, plus selected pages on Reddit, Tumblr etc. The bottom row appears to be an (properly) opt-in service for much younger kids that must be whitelisting only a few destinations, which is not the same thing at all as the filters that Cameron et al are pushing for.

indlebe 13y ago
>The bottom row appears to be an (properly) opt-in service for much younger kids Having grown up in a southern baptist family I think you're being idealistic here. I could easily see this filter being imposed on me by my previous parent/guardian until I moved out of the house, thus vastly restricting my knowledge of the world. Any alternative news site is blocked, so it's basically the mainstream conservative fun-filter.
- desas 13y ago
  It blocks mainstream news too...

Moocat87 13y ago

It may be a whitelist filter. Inevitably, isn't that the result of every whitelist-based filter?

CallbackJockey 13y ago

Well at least http://www.conservatives.com/ http://www.conservatives.com/ is blocked too.

morgante 13y ago
So is http://foxnews.com http://foxnews.com. Good riddance.

vfclists 13y ago

It is the result of the government allowing providers to fudge what the concept of what the 'Internet' is. All your service provider does is to allow a process running on your computer to make contact with another computer over the TCP/IP protocol. If they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract. The use of the word 'Internet' should be strictly defined. If by 'Internet' they mean going through restricted gateways in accord with their criteria, that is fine, but if they mean allowing processes to connect as described above they are in breach. The public needs to understand that. There was a case some time ago when BT wanted to cut of the phone lines to prostitutes who had their ads plastered in phone booths and the courts stopped them from doing this. Restrictions should be done with customers informed consent or at least they should be notified when the subscribe to the service

yohanbachk 13y ago
"if they interfere with that they are technically in breach of contract." Which clause of the O2 service contract are they in breach of? You said 'technically', so you must think they really are in breach rather than just morally in breach.
- vfclists 13y ago
  It depends on what the 'Internet' means to customers. The man in the street considers being able to get Email, Facebook and Google as being connected to the Internet, and doesn't understand that the provider doesn't even have the right to obstruct or interfere with their connectivity for any reason, whilst a tech guy considers it to be the ability to connect to a port on an IP address. They are morally in breach if you are inclined to see it that way, based on promoting a restricted concept of what an Internet is.
desas 13y ago
These restrictions are only done with the customers informed consent. The only blocks without consent is for child porn and other specific court mandated content - such as pirate bay

greglindahl 13y ago

Huh. blekko's search engine has more blocking than google's, so I pushed the "If you think this website needs a different policy, click here" button to give them feedback... and the response is: > Your reclassification request has been received. Please come back soon to check the reclassification results. No way to specify what I think ought to be changed. Thanks, O2, for giving everyone a great way to report problems! (edit: Bing is more blocked than google!)

Yver 13y ago
Don't worry, your reclassification request has been duly archived to /dev/null for later review. They are probably going to receive tens of thousands of requests so I wouldn't expect them to be read by a human. If that's the case they'll just prioritize by frequency of report. Obviously it's all conjecture on my part.

acd 13y ago

If its a dns based control, one can dnswalk/iterate over the censored dns ipv4 space for example 1.1.1.1, then lookup the same ip in a public dns server such as opendns or google dns. By comparing the dns results from the censored and public dns you get the list of what censorship authority was trying to block. You can then publish the list of the address on for example Pastebin :)

sdfjkl 13y ago

Hm, Github is blocked, Python.org too. Microsoft.com is permitted though. Wikipedia is permitted, including pages about coprophilia, tentacle erotica (illustrations) and decapitation (photographs). Sorry parents, censorship is still no alternative to actual parenting and may just get in the way of your kid becoming the next amazing Python hacker.

est 13y ago
China once blocked "freebsd.org" because there's a "free" keyword in it.