13 ms·

The UK "Porn" Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech, Civil Liberties Websites

147 points by gts 13y ago

tombrossman 13y ago
This was submitted at least twice last week, does anyone have the link to the original that was on the front page 6 days ago? There were some useful comments. My search skills are failing me righ tnow and all I've found is this one from 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463
gts 13y ago
Original poster here, in my opinion the best article I've found online so far showcasing clearly the effects of the so called 'porn' filter, and that it is not at all about safety but control. The list of websites blocked and the nature of the websites is just shocking.
topbanana 13y ago
This is nothing to do with what he dubs the 'Nanny Tory' initiative. O2's parental controls is an opt-in whitelist. Only sites like Disney.com etc are allowed. It is presumably intended for when children are left alone with devices like tablets. Seems like a useful service to me.
- hdevalence 13y ago
  I don't really see what's so useful about giving parents tools to block their children from accessing sites like Childline.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
  - PhasmaFelis 13y ago
    Irrelevant. The point at hand is that the article is completely inaccurate. Whether or not parents should restrict their kids' internet use is a different question entirely.
  - cases 13y ago
    You should bookmark this so you can come back and laugh at yourself when you have kids of your own.
    - M2Ys4U 13y ago
      You do know what Childline is, right? It's a counselling service run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that deals with child abuse, teenage pregnancy, bullying etc. As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.
- adamnemecek 13y ago
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
- gts 13y ago
  When it comes to parents approving such measures, I feel it is mostly an easy way out for them either due to inefficient parenting or extreme insecurity/protectionism. If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online. Finally and with regards to the 'indecent'/'porn' aspect of the filter, if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina then there is something wrong with the upbringing the parents gave to it. Having sexual education websites blocked by the filter makes the matter all the more worst.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    > if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina It's like people on HN have never seen online pornography, which is usually much more than just an unclothed boob. Let's not pretend online pornography is all like this... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Bo... > If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online. Sure. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_this_zippocat_video_if_not_you/ http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_... Are you honestly that naive?
    - gts 13y ago
      1. Yeah, so were you traumatized when you first saw a porn flick or beat off to it? How old were you? 18? Come on.. 2. There are some really sick people out there I get it. Are you saying that kids should not be told/prepared that such people exist out there and be instructed on how to react when encountering something like this? (e.g. leave the page, call mom etc).
    - Crito 13y ago
      If hardcore pornography and animal abuse are the targets, then how the hell are educational sites getting dragged into the fray?
- fit2rule 13y ago
  This has everything to do with the Nanny Tory initiative! If you read the article, the point he is making is not that Porn is good, or that O2 are censors, but that: UK Parents are failing at parenthood! And that is exactly the condition that the UK Nanny state is expecting to exploit with such initiatives - and any corporation setting up to serve their government masters is part of the problem. The problem, being, that people do not want to be responsible parents and monitor what their children are doing online.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Or maybe it's that parents tried to monitor what their children were doing online, but failed only because asshole marketers refuse to believe that anyone has a right to refuse their spam and were sending graphic pornography to children.
    - betterunix 13y ago
      This has not been a problem for a very long time now. We have spam filters and ad blockers -- basically, marketers do not get to show you anything if you do not want them to.
citricsquid 13y ago
There are many ISPs in England. One of these ISPs is called O2. A service that O2 offers is a whitelist only internet service designed for parents to enable if they wish to give their young children access to a mobile device without concern for the content that the child can access. This whitelist has existed for many many years. This has __nothing__ to do with the UK "Porn filter". Absolutely, categorically... nothing. Here is a screenshot of one of the actual filters recently implemented (by an ISP called BT) with new accounts defaulting to the "Light" pre-set, which customers must opt out of: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png
- gts 13y ago
  Although it is not The 'porn' filter itself as promoted by the goverment, it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment. So when the legislation comes into effect the particular ISPs will already be compliant with it and the ones currently not having any such filters will have to set them up. Does changing the settings in BT require any passport details, sex details or UK driving licence number? Also is blocked access to filtered content limited to the content providers the ISP has a commercial relationship with? Reason for asking is the above applies for the Giff Gaff network(running on top of O2) if you want to have the filter lifted. http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png What is sad is that Giff Gaff is supposed to be run by it's own users(i.e. like a cooperative) yet checking at the forums this change was unannounced. Furthermore people that do not have a UK passport or driving licence but live in the UK simply can't lift the filter... http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas/Adult-content-unlocking-I-am-not-a-UK-passport-holder-and-I-don/idi-p/7375928 http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas... Curiously the URL I was blocked on was a link in the WayBackMachine for a biography of Alfred Bester(sci-fi writer) http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuseum.org/exhibitions/index.asp?articleID=922 http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuse...
  - citricsquid 13y ago
    > it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment No it isn't. That is an optional opt in feature available to customers of O2. A customer has to explicitly opt for the Under 12 filter to be applied to their account. O2 do have an adult content filter that is enabled by default (which requires identity verification to disable) but that does not block access to tech and civil liberty websites, it blocks access to pornography, it is not what this article talks about. There are 2 filters, adult content (default on O2 accounts), U12 (opt in). This article uses the filter status of websites on the U12 list (a whitelist) that has existed for many years and has nothing to do with the government as evidence that the government filter is oppressing children. They have no connection. I get it, this country wide opt-out filter requirement is bad and it shouldn't be happening, I agree, but whining about something that has nothing to do with it makes absolutely no sense. The O2 U12 filter is fundamentally different, it's an optional extra customers can opt in to. This article has nothing to do with the "porn filter". Nothing!
acd 13y ago
Slippery slope of censorship. Censorship placed there by Bilderberg group kissing politicians. What is their real agenda? Map the politicians real group affiliations on nndb.org Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign relations, Skull and Bones
- markdown 13y ago
  Seriously? On HN too?
xacaxulu 13y ago
Get ready for more and more of this sort of thing. Parents are too busy to raise their own children. Better let the government take care of that. Soma anyone?
CraigJPerry 13y ago
Opt in or opt out filter. It makes no difference. Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- dijit 13y ago
  it makes a large amount of difference. see my rant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833
- alan_cx 13y ago
  Absolute complete ignorant arrogant rubbish. First, an opt out is a declaration of perversion or subversion. And opt in is a genuine choice, which IMHO, should be available. IMHO, every router in a home should have in its config a tick box which concerned parents can tick if they want to. Along side that should be an "advanced" button or link for more knowledgeable parents to tailor the the filter as they see fit. In a home parents should have an easy way to chose. And dont give me nonsense about installing firewalls and what not. That is way out of most normal people's scope. Even I can't be arsed with that, so I dont see why some single mum who works in a supermarket should either. I also think there should be a simple system for parents to control mobile devices for their kids too. Not hard to work out something reasonable. While I despise national and ISP level blanket filters and censorship, I fully respect the choices parents might want to take. I have 6 kids, aged 2 - 20, but personally dont and wont filter or censor. However, I am not arrogant enough to tell other parents what to do. I might be very wrong. Look, on one level I do not want censorship. If I, as an adult, want to watch porn I dont see why I should be humiliated to do so. However, I also see that parents are left in the shit and are expected to be responsible, but have no help to be so. And no, its not good enough for hackers to offer hacker solutions that are not practical for anyone other than hackers. There has to be a reasonable balance here. And I say it comes in the form of a simple tick box in the router. Either that, of we agree to free parents of parental responsibility in both law and society.
  - 13y ago
hipsters_unite 13y ago
Even if it's not actually the 'porn law' itself that's causing this (rather O2's blocklist it seems) - the fact is that it's the same attitudes and discourse underlying both. Both are censorship and both are maintained and supported by the government's position and policies.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Customers ask their ISP to supply a blocklist. The ISP supplies a blocklist. This is what companies should be doing, no?
  - dijit 13y ago
    yes, the article is confused about opt-in censorship as a service (for parents, demo tablets at supermarkets etc;) vs opt-out censorship. I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out as being ideal. FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes, I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone providers (such as T-Mobile). the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free, we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age people on the line. well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.
    - scholia 13y ago
      Yes, "this opt-in filter has been around a few years" -- since 2008 -- and it's not even specifically British. It was announced by TELEFÓNICA and covers "O2 businesses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Czech Republic". http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_Child_Protection_Press_Pack.pdf http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...
jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
Ridiculous article. Firstly there is no single "UK Porn Filter". Each ISP does their own thing in their own way. Secondly, the writer of this article is apparently surprised that none of the sites they're checking are on a WHITELIST of websites for children under 12, and concluding from this that "The UK Porn Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech ... Websites", etc. That's such a complete misunderstanding of the true situation that it's impossible to believe it has been made in error. Drawing the conclusion from this, as some of the article's commenters have, that "the UK Government must really hate open source" is a level of stupidity that has no place on HN. Make no mistake about what the (non-existent) "UK Porn Filter" is - it's a political stunt from the right-wingers currently in power. As yet it has no legal basis or enforcement and is just a "strong suggestion" from politicians to private businesses. There are ISPs who don't engage in this filtering, and even for those that do, it is not mandatory. (The "on by default" is something that even the compliant ISPs said they would not do, and the politicians announced it anyway. Even where it is implemented and on by default that is only for NEW customers, and the "do you want this filter" question is part of the initial setup.) I'm strongly opposed to filtering and censorship too, and as I've said before, publicity-seeking politicians wanting to display their "family values" by getting big businesses to "voluntarily" introduce such filtering IS the thin end of the wedge. But, at least now, it's still optional and voluntary, and you absolutely have the freedom to sign up with an ISP who offers no such filter, if you wish to take that stand. (The UK broadband market is pretty open compared to other countries - you're not restricted to one or two ISPs based on your location or phone company, in most cases you can pick any ISP you want to provide you with a service.)
Theodores 13y ago
Here is the truth - watch too much porn and you get erectile dysfunction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU Why did it take me decades to find someone able to present that reasonably plausible reason as to why I should definitely not want to watch porn under any circumstances whatsoever? The argument (with science) in the above TED talk is that if you do watch a lot of porn then you are not going to aroused by real women as much as you should, leading to unsatisfactory bedroom performances. Yep, porn is actually that dangerous. I might not care for the traditional 'don't watch porn because it is porn'/'think of the children'/'porn exploits women' arguments, however, I do have enlightened self interest and loss of libido is so not what I want to have. If I was in the UK government I would want to get this message out to kids in schools, not to scare them away from porn for the sake of it, but because they deserve to have 'normal', happy sexual health. By censoring porn they are not going to get this message, in fact they will be further away from it than they are now, doing what they can to get the 'forbidden fruit' instead of knowing why they just should not bother. Instead of censoring they could have demanded that there be a banner on the pages of porn sites warning that use of porn leads to erectile dysfunction. This would be a proactive move, no harder to get into law than that stupid 'this site uses cookies' directive. They could get the ISPs to do it so porn from outer Mongolia would be suitably warned of too. We have had a block on mobiles in the UK for some time now. There were no riots in the streets because of this, people are fine with it. The ISPs can take the block off for people and the system just works. This new move is an extension of what we already have, not some Orwell-nightmare-slippery slope thing. The politicians will get their votes, some people will grumble but that will be it.
- SquareWheel 13y ago
  Two things. 1. This is a TEDx talk, not a TED talk. Very different. TED talks are given by experts, TEDx can be anybody who has something to say. 2. The science in this talk felt shaky at best. And frankly, from spending even a short period looking into Gary Wilson and his website yourbrainonporn.com, he comes off as an anti-porn conspiracy nut. I think you need to apply more skepticism to the argument.
  - 13y ago
dcc1 13y ago
UK has turned into an Orwellian surveillance state (I live in Ireland) Hell I am watching news now and they are about to setup a centralised database of every woman who got breast implants, you couldn't make this shit up!
Istof 13y ago
The great firewall of UK.
Allower 13y ago
Seems legit..
guelo 13y ago
Looking from afar, this type of debate is becoming more interesting to me as a recent parent and as a strong anti-censorship type. As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open and honest and explain it. Life is sex, sex is why we exist, sex is beautiful and sacred. I hope my daughter will have great sex someday, why hide it from her now? The impulse that so many parents have to hide sex from their kids seems like their brain damage that they want to pass on to their kids. And impose it on mine. Their line of thinking is what I wish I could hide from my daughter. But I won't. She'll be exposed to it along with all the other ugly and beautiful things in the real world.
- StavrosK 13y ago
  I don't understand why sex became such taboo. Everyone does it, it's nothing to be ashamed of, yet kids must be protected from it by any means necessary. I think this viewpoint creates many more problems than the alternative (young people have sex while uninformed and spread STDs/get pregnant/etc). I don't see why we can't just treat sex as natural and treat online porn like a Hollywood movie, i.e. "the basic premise is the same, but it doesn't actually happen like that in real life".
- pachydermic 13y ago
  I think the argument (and I don't really believe it, so excuse me if I don't present it convincingly) is that certain materials are just harmful to children (and possibly adults). You have a daughter, but I think that with boys/young men you can point to porn and say that it's addictive and has a lot of negative side effects. In that case, it's not about protecting them from knowing about sex, but instead trying to keep things the way they were before internet porn existed (and the porn on the internet certainly seems different than a playboy or something). I think that's a natural tendency in a lot of areas and it may or may not have any substance to it. As far as your little girl goes, would you really be okay her stumbling onto a site like liveleak and watched dudes' heads be cut off or whatever messed up thing is on there right now? I'm not even sure of how to answer that question, but I don't think it's absurd to think "no". So I can at least understand why people would want to block this kind of content from kids. Did they go about it in the right way? Doesn't it seem like it would be easy to abuse? It's an understatement to say that governments haven't exactly earned our trust when it comes to technological issues.
PythonicAlpha 13y ago
It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the voters, to lead them into any form of surveillance and mind-control.

147 points by gts 13y ago

This was submitted at least twice last week, does anyone have the link to the original that was on the front page 6 days ago? There were some useful comments. My search skills are failing me righ tnow and all I've found is this one from 5 days ago: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463

gts 13y ago

Original poster here, in my opinion the best article I've found online so far showcasing clearly the effects of the so called 'porn' filter, and that it is not at all about safety but control. The list of websites blocked and the nature of the websites is just shocking.

topbanana 13y ago

This is nothing to do with what he dubs the 'Nanny Tory' initiative. O2's parental controls is an opt-in whitelist. Only sites like Disney.com etc are allowed. It is presumably intended for when children are left alone with devices like tablets. Seems like a useful service to me.

hdevalence 13y ago
I don't really see what's so useful about giving parents tools to block their children from accessing sites like Childline.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
- PhasmaFelis 13y ago
  Irrelevant. The point at hand is that the article is completely inaccurate. Whether or not parents should restrict their kids' internet use is a different question entirely.
- cases 13y ago
  You should bookmark this so you can come back and laugh at yourself when you have kids of your own.
  - M2Ys4U 13y ago
    You do know what Childline is, right? It's a counselling service run by the National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that deals with child abuse, teenage pregnancy, bullying etc. As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.
adamnemecek 13y ago
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Think_of_the_children
gts 13y ago
When it comes to parents approving such measures, I feel it is mostly an easy way out for them either due to inefficient parenting or extreme insecurity/protectionism. If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online. Finally and with regards to the 'indecent'/'porn' aspect of the filter, if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina then there is something wrong with the upbringing the parents gave to it. Having sexual education websites blocked by the filter makes the matter all the more worst.
- DanBC 13y ago
  > if a child is traumatized after viewing a pair of boobs or a vagina It's like people on HN have never seen online pornography, which is usually much more than just an unclothed boob. Let's not pretend online pornography is all like this... http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Botticelli_-_La_nascita_di_Venere_-_Google_Art_Project_-_edited.jpg http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/0/0b/Sandro_Bo... > If the kid is too young and not too knowledgeable about the world then perhaps it would make sense to not be left alone with an -online- tablet. If the kid is older then parents should have by that time invested time and talked with their child and let it know of what dangers may await online. Sure. http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_this_zippocat_video_if_not_you/ http://www.reddit.com/r/WTF/comments/9cltv/has_anybody_seen_... Are you honestly that naive?
  - gts 13y ago
    1. Yeah, so were you traumatized when you first saw a porn flick or beat off to it? How old were you? 18? Come on.. 2. There are some really sick people out there I get it. Are you saying that kids should not be told/prepared that such people exist out there and be instructed on how to react when encountering something like this? (e.g. leave the page, call mom etc).
  - Crito 13y ago
    If hardcore pornography and animal abuse are the targets, then how the hell are educational sites getting dragged into the fray?
fit2rule 13y ago
This has everything to do with the Nanny Tory initiative! If you read the article, the point he is making is not that Porn is good, or that O2 are censors, but that: UK Parents are failing at parenthood! And that is exactly the condition that the UK Nanny state is expecting to exploit with such initiatives - and any corporation setting up to serve their government masters is part of the problem. The problem, being, that people do not want to be responsible parents and monitor what their children are doing online.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Or maybe it's that parents tried to monitor what their children were doing online, but failed only because asshole marketers refuse to believe that anyone has a right to refuse their spam and were sending graphic pornography to children.
  - betterunix 13y ago
    This has not been a problem for a very long time now. We have spam filters and ad blockers -- basically, marketers do not get to show you anything if you do not want them to.

citricsquid 13y ago

There are many ISPs in England. One of these ISPs is called O2. A service that O2 offers is a whitelist only internet service designed for parents to enable if they wish to give their young children access to a mobile device without concern for the content that the child can access. This whitelist has existed for many many years. This has __nothing__ to do with the UK "Porn filter". Absolutely, categorically... nothing. Here is a screenshot of one of the actual filters recently implemented (by an ISP called BT) with new accounts defaulting to the "Light" pre-set, which customers must opt out of: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png

gts 13y ago
Although it is not The 'porn' filter itself as promoted by the goverment, it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment. So when the legislation comes into effect the particular ISPs will already be compliant with it and the ones currently not having any such filters will have to set them up. Does changing the settings in BT require any passport details, sex details or UK driving licence number? Also is blocked access to filtered content limited to the content providers the ISP has a commercial relationship with? Reason for asking is the above applies for the Giff Gaff network(running on top of O2) if you want to have the filter lifted. http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png What is sad is that Giff Gaff is supposed to be run by it's own users(i.e. like a cooperative) yet checking at the forums this change was unannounced. Furthermore people that do not have a UK passport or driving licence but live in the UK simply can't lift the filter... http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas/Adult-content-unlocking-I-am-not-a-UK-passport-holder-and-I-don/idi-p/7375928 http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas... Curiously the URL I was blocked on was a link in the WayBackMachine for a biography of Alfred Bester(sci-fi writer) http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuseum.org/exhibitions/index.asp?articleID=922 http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuse...
- citricsquid 13y ago
  > it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment No it isn't. That is an optional opt in feature available to customers of O2. A customer has to explicitly opt for the Under 12 filter to be applied to their account. O2 do have an adult content filter that is enabled by default (which requires identity verification to disable) but that does not block access to tech and civil liberty websites, it blocks access to pornography, it is not what this article talks about. There are 2 filters, adult content (default on O2 accounts), U12 (opt in). This article uses the filter status of websites on the U12 list (a whitelist) that has existed for many years and has nothing to do with the government as evidence that the government filter is oppressing children. They have no connection. I get it, this country wide opt-out filter requirement is bad and it shouldn't be happening, I agree, but whining about something that has nothing to do with it makes absolutely no sense. The O2 U12 filter is fundamentally different, it's an optional extra customers can opt in to. This article has nothing to do with the "porn filter". Nothing!

acd 13y ago

Slippery slope of censorship. Censorship placed there by Bilderberg group kissing politicians. What is their real agenda? Map the politicians real group affiliations on nndb.org Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign relations, Skull and Bones

markdown 13y ago
Seriously? On HN too?

xacaxulu 13y ago

Get ready for more and more of this sort of thing. Parents are too busy to raise their own children. Better let the government take care of that. Soma anyone?

CraigJPerry 13y ago

Opt in or opt out filter. It makes no difference. Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.

deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
dijit 13y ago
it makes a large amount of difference. see my rant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833
alan_cx 13y ago
Absolute complete ignorant arrogant rubbish. First, an opt out is a declaration of perversion or subversion. And opt in is a genuine choice, which IMHO, should be available. IMHO, every router in a home should have in its config a tick box which concerned parents can tick if they want to. Along side that should be an "advanced" button or link for more knowledgeable parents to tailor the the filter as they see fit. In a home parents should have an easy way to chose. And dont give me nonsense about installing firewalls and what not. That is way out of most normal people's scope. Even I can't be arsed with that, so I dont see why some single mum who works in a supermarket should either. I also think there should be a simple system for parents to control mobile devices for their kids too. Not hard to work out something reasonable. While I despise national and ISP level blanket filters and censorship, I fully respect the choices parents might want to take. I have 6 kids, aged 2 - 20, but personally dont and wont filter or censor. However, I am not arrogant enough to tell other parents what to do. I might be very wrong. Look, on one level I do not want censorship. If I, as an adult, want to watch porn I dont see why I should be humiliated to do so. However, I also see that parents are left in the shit and are expected to be responsible, but have no help to be so. And no, its not good enough for hackers to offer hacker solutions that are not practical for anyone other than hackers. There has to be a reasonable balance here. And I say it comes in the form of a simple tick box in the router. Either that, of we agree to free parents of parental responsibility in both law and society.
- 13y ago

hipsters_unite 13y ago

Even if it's not actually the 'porn law' itself that's causing this (rather O2's blocklist it seems) - the fact is that it's the same attitudes and discourse underlying both. Both are censorship and both are maintained and supported by the government's position and policies.

DanBC 13y ago
Customers ask their ISP to supply a blocklist. The ISP supplies a blocklist. This is what companies should be doing, no?
- dijit 13y ago
  yes, the article is confused about opt-in censorship as a service (for parents, demo tablets at supermarkets etc;) vs opt-out censorship. I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out as being ideal. FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes, I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone providers (such as T-Mobile). the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free, we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age people on the line. well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.
  - scholia 13y ago
    Yes, "this opt-in filter has been around a few years" -- since 2008 -- and it's not even specifically British. It was announced by TELEFÓNICA and covers "O2 businesses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Czech Republic". http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_Child_Protection_Press_Pack.pdf http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...

jamesbrownuhh 13y ago

Ridiculous article. Firstly there is no single "UK Porn Filter". Each ISP does their own thing in their own way. Secondly, the writer of this article is apparently surprised that none of the sites they're checking are on a WHITELIST of websites for children under 12, and concluding from this that "The UK Porn Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech ... Websites", etc. That's such a complete misunderstanding of the true situation that it's impossible to believe it has been made in error. Drawing the conclusion from this, as some of the article's commenters have, that "the UK Government must really hate open source" is a level of stupidity that has no place on HN. Make no mistake about what the (non-existent) "UK Porn Filter" is - it's a political stunt from the right-wingers currently in power. As yet it has no legal basis or enforcement and is just a "strong suggestion" from politicians to private businesses. There are ISPs who don't engage in this filtering, and even for those that do, it is not mandatory. (The "on by default" is something that even the compliant ISPs said they would not do, and the politicians announced it anyway. Even where it is implemented and on by default that is only for NEW customers, and the "do you want this filter" question is part of the initial setup.) I'm strongly opposed to filtering and censorship too, and as I've said before, publicity-seeking politicians wanting to display their "family values" by getting big businesses to "voluntarily" introduce such filtering IS the thin end of the wedge. But, at least now, it's still optional and voluntary, and you absolutely have the freedom to sign up with an ISP who offers no such filter, if you wish to take that stand. (The UK broadband market is pretty open compared to other countries - you're not restricted to one or two ISPs based on your location or phone company, in most cases you can pick any ISP you want to provide you with a service.)

Theodores 13y ago

Here is the truth - watch too much porn and you get erectile dysfunction: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU Why did it take me decades to find someone able to present that reasonably plausible reason as to why I should definitely not want to watch porn under any circumstances whatsoever? The argument (with science) in the above TED talk is that if you do watch a lot of porn then you are not going to aroused by real women as much as you should, leading to unsatisfactory bedroom performances. Yep, porn is actually that dangerous. I might not care for the traditional 'don't watch porn because it is porn'/'think of the children'/'porn exploits women' arguments, however, I do have enlightened self interest and loss of libido is so not what I want to have. If I was in the UK government I would want to get this message out to kids in schools, not to scare them away from porn for the sake of it, but because they deserve to have 'normal', happy sexual health. By censoring porn they are not going to get this message, in fact they will be further away from it than they are now, doing what they can to get the 'forbidden fruit' instead of knowing why they just should not bother. Instead of censoring they could have demanded that there be a banner on the pages of porn sites warning that use of porn leads to erectile dysfunction. This would be a proactive move, no harder to get into law than that stupid 'this site uses cookies' directive. They could get the ISPs to do it so porn from outer Mongolia would be suitably warned of too. We have had a block on mobiles in the UK for some time now. There were no riots in the streets because of this, people are fine with it. The ISPs can take the block off for people and the system just works. This new move is an extension of what we already have, not some Orwell-nightmare-slippery slope thing. The politicians will get their votes, some people will grumble but that will be it.

SquareWheel 13y ago
Two things. 1. This is a TEDx talk, not a TED talk. Very different. TED talks are given by experts, TEDx can be anybody who has something to say. 2. The science in this talk felt shaky at best. And frankly, from spending even a short period looking into Gary Wilson and his website yourbrainonporn.com, he comes off as an anti-porn conspiracy nut. I think you need to apply more skepticism to the argument.
- 13y ago

dcc1 13y ago

UK has turned into an Orwellian surveillance state (I live in Ireland) Hell I am watching news now and they are about to setup a centralised database of every woman who got breast implants, you couldn't make this shit up!

Istof 13y ago

The great firewall of UK.

Allower 13y ago

Seems legit..

guelo 13y ago

Looking from afar, this type of debate is becoming more interesting to me as a recent parent and as a strong anti-censorship type. As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open and honest and explain it. Life is sex, sex is why we exist, sex is beautiful and sacred. I hope my daughter will have great sex someday, why hide it from her now? The impulse that so many parents have to hide sex from their kids seems like their brain damage that they want to pass on to their kids. And impose it on mine. Their line of thinking is what I wish I could hide from my daughter. But I won't. She'll be exposed to it along with all the other ugly and beautiful things in the real world.

StavrosK 13y ago
I don't understand why sex became such taboo. Everyone does it, it's nothing to be ashamed of, yet kids must be protected from it by any means necessary. I think this viewpoint creates many more problems than the alternative (young people have sex while uninformed and spread STDs/get pregnant/etc). I don't see why we can't just treat sex as natural and treat online porn like a Hollywood movie, i.e. "the basic premise is the same, but it doesn't actually happen like that in real life".
pachydermic 13y ago
I think the argument (and I don't really believe it, so excuse me if I don't present it convincingly) is that certain materials are just harmful to children (and possibly adults). You have a daughter, but I think that with boys/young men you can point to porn and say that it's addictive and has a lot of negative side effects. In that case, it's not about protecting them from knowing about sex, but instead trying to keep things the way they were before internet porn existed (and the porn on the internet certainly seems different than a playboy or something). I think that's a natural tendency in a lot of areas and it may or may not have any substance to it. As far as your little girl goes, would you really be okay her stumbling onto a site like liveleak and watched dudes' heads be cut off or whatever messed up thing is on there right now? I'm not even sure of how to answer that question, but I don't think it's absurd to think "no". So I can at least understand why people would want to block this kind of content from kids. Did they go about it in the right way? Doesn't it seem like it would be easy to abuse? It's an understatement to say that governments haven't exactly earned our trust when it comes to technological issues.

PythonicAlpha 13y ago

It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the voters, to lead them into any form of surveillance and mind-control.