5 ms·

Censorship is bad. That said… This is not censorship. It's an opt-in web content filter, operated by the largest ISPs, with no statutory backing. It's intended

Censorship is bad. That said… This is not censorship. It's an opt-in web content filter, operated by the largest ISPs, with no statutory backing. It's intended to encourage ISPs to provide optional parental controls for every subscriber, and no more. Frankly, I think this is actually a pretty good outcome, if not deliberately so. It completely kills the arguments for actual Web censorship by eliminating the "think of the children" argument, which is probably the one which the media bang on about most, without imposing any legal requirements or mandatory filtering. So there are plenty of options for users who don't want to be subject to the filter. Switch to another DNS provider, or don't opt in to the filtering, or even better – switch to one of the ISPs that don't offer this feature and never will. Ironically, I think that these filters are going to encourage the preservation of Internet freedom in the UK in the long run.

nodata 13y ago
It's opt out, not opt in. How does it stop being censorship just because there is no centralised list?
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Can you back this up? I've seen no evidence that it's opt-out; new users are presented with the choice before gaining Internet access, and existing users are presented with the choice at some point.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Cameron's filter is opt our for new customers, but opt in for existing customers. It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship.
  - nodata 13y ago
    You added a word: "government censorship". This is the same argument that companies like to use when they shift blame onto a third-party contractor. Back to my question though. Third party or not, how is this not censorship? (Your example of modesty sleeves is a bad one: the filter doesn't apply only to "adult magazines" (porn sites, here) but to lots of other non-"adult" content too.)
    - DanBC 13y ago
      The filters are optional. It isn't censorship if it's voluntary. The filters are different on each ISP. It's not censorship if the customer can shop around. Individual companies cannot censor something. There are no penalties for accessing this material even if you do so without turning the filter off.
  - coldtea 13y ago
    >It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. First, it's still censorship. Second, the government can start supply a list of banned sites at any time. Third, the way telcos/ISPs work with governments (and how they have to work with them, in order to get certain contracts, favors, bandwidth etc) it's very easy for government agencies to supply lists (not only of "adult content" but also of "extremist content", whatever that is), under the table. Who will let you know that the sites ISP x blocks were given to them by government agencies? >And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship. Well, the very role of "modesty sleeves" IS censorship. It might be to censor those covers from childrens eyes, and we might agree with that, but it still is censorship.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      I genuinely don't understand how some companies voluntarily providing filters to their customers, that those customers can chose to use or not to use, can possibly be censorship. It's fucking insulting to people living with real censorship.
      - cs02rm0 13y ago
        I've lived in countries with what seemed like real censorship to me. I guess there were warehouses of people somewhere with black marker pens, it was interesting to see the way they took different approaches as individuals applying the rules. Adjacent Nirvana Nevermind albums stick in my mind; one with a perfect rectangle drawn over the naked baby, one with swimming trunks creatively drawn on. There's nothing amusing about this, no creativity to find in the black. It stinks of blanket censorship on a very inhuman level to me. But maybe my idea of censorship still isn't real enough. How much further does it have to go before it's real, how close should we get to that?
        DanBC 13y ago
        What changes need to be made to the uk system to make it more like proper censorship? 1: make it mandatory for all ISPs to provide it. 2: make it mandatory for all people to use it. 3: have a government supplied list of banned material 4: have penalties for being in possession of such material. At the moment ISPs are chosing to offer these filters (albeit with the threat of potential legislation). People don't have to use the filters. Not everyome is opted in by default, and for those who are there are proceedures to opt out. The government isn't supplying any lists of what to ban, they've just asked ISPs to make sure that under 18s are not getting access to pornography. And there are no penalties for possessing any content blocked by these filters. Someone can have terabytes of this stuff with no problems.
  - makomk 13y ago
    > It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. By that definition, the Chinese government isn't censoring internet access either - they leave compiling an actual list of banned sites to internet providers, which is why what's blocked varies depending on your provider.
- k-mcgrady 13y ago
  It's technically only opt-out for new customers. And even for them I believe they are specifically asked "Would you like us to use our home safe system to block dangerous material for children blah blah blah". So it's really only a matter of saying "no thanks". I don't think they trick you into using it, or set you up without informing you that you have the right to turn it off. Edit: I could be wrong but this was how it worked when I last signed up about 12 months ago. The law hadn't come into effect I don't think but my ISP was already offering filtering.
  - buro9 13y ago
    It's opt-out for new devices. I visited a friend's house for NYE and he let me have his WiFi details, the parental filter option kicked in immediately even though he'd already chosen to not opt-in. Every new device that was added (and there were a few, as we arrived as a party staying for a long weekend) had to go through the same opt-out process. Therefore, and with only this limited exposure to the system, I would guess that the preference is stored by MAC address per BT customer.
    - Shish2k 13y ago
      Unless my knowledge of network hardware is way off, MAC addresses are only relevant on a LAN - the ISP should know the router's MAC address, but not anything behind the router. If the routers are cooperating with the censorship, they could be stored that way, but that seems like a lot of routers to patch (unless this feature was there from the start?)
      - vidarh 13y ago
        Most major UK isp's provide their own routers. While for most of them you should be able to use your own router, most people don't. Sky at least provides a router that is Sky branded and running Sky specific software - I would not be surprised if it does automatic software updates.
      - buro9 13y ago
        The routers are BT Home Hubs and are controlled by BT. ADSL: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wireless-hub-4-router http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wir... Fibre: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wireless-hub-5-router http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wir... This does give them control over the LAN. If you visit the page for "Parental Controls" then right at the top is the picture of the Home Hub router and the "No software to setup"... because it's your connection that has the filter rather than local software: Parental Controls: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=37062 http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displ... From appearances this looks like a per-customer opt-opt, and then if opted-out (unfiltered ... well, still Cleanfeed) then it goes down to a per-device opt-out.
jackweirdy 13y ago
I see what you're saying, but you overlook the fact that it's backed by a blacklist held by Government whose contents are not public. EDIT: Obviously ISPs also decide whether to block something, but Govt. has a list of sites which must be blocked
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  I don't believe this is the case, given that there is no legislation regarding this filter, meaning that there can't be a list of sites which must be blocked. There's the issue of Cleanfeed and the IWF, but that's not a government thing.
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
  There's no evidence (yet) of there being ANY Government list of sites which must be blocked. All ISPs are going their own way and basically letting the decisions be made by whatever technology partner they have engaged to back-end the filtering. The only thing close to a UK-wide list of sites which MUST be blocked is the IWF/CEOP list, which exists specifically to deny access to images of child abuse and selected 1970s rock albums. (Search "Virgin Killer IWF") - That filtering is entirely separate and long-established in the UK, known as "Cleanfeed", and generally adopted by most major ISPs (but again not all.)
DanBC 13y ago
Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters. That's not an outlandish suggestion: mobile providers have had opt out filters for years now. Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters.
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters. I can't buy into a slippery slope argument, because I don't really think this is going to happen. And if it does, we should fight it. Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters. Are they? I've not seen evidence of this anywhere.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    We're in a thread about Cameron's filter!! This is exactly them saying that the existing mobile filters are not enough and need to. E expanded to cover all home internet connections.
    - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
      There is no such thing as "Cameron's filter" though. David Cameron is a politician whose party has a "think of the children" policy and has pledged to "get tough" and "crack down" on the availability of naughty material online. The filtering "policy", if you can even call it that, is basically just to urge ISPs to implement content filters of some kind. Not mandatory - not all ISPs have chosen to play along, but the big ones have due to the risk of reputational damage if not. Customers of ISPs with such filtering get the choice either to allow or disallow the content that their ISP's chosen filtering solution thinks may be unacceptable. Some ISPs offer more comprehensive and flexible filters than others. E.g. Some will just block anything "not for kids and nice families", others have a wide range of categories and options - just like corporate filters and technologies like WebSense offer. (e.g. Only block porn, allow sexual health, block humour and social networking sites, allow file sharing, etc etc etc) There is NO "Government" filter. There is only a POLICY. Just a policy - barely even that. Certainly no legislation or law. Just a statement of intent, that "we think people should do this" and that's all. Fight censorship, absolutely. But be right about what you're fighting. Opponents arguing against this policy using outlandish and wrong claims just blow holes in the credibility of the "no" camp, which will just make it all the harder to argue the case if/when genuine, non-optional, state-backed censorship DOES come to tea.
bowlofpetunias 13y ago
Outsourcing censorship to the private sector is an ongoing trend. See also the various Pirate Bay blockades. Just because it's executed by private companies and the decision making process is somewhat obscured and decentralized, the net effect is the same. In a way, it's quite similar to the way we're being drawn into wars which aren't "technically" wars, and intelligence gathering against terrorists of course isn't totalitarian spying on their own people. They just tilt the paradigms a bit to avoid association with the evils of the past, whilst effectively pursuing the same old agenda.
hoggle 13y ago
You are wrong. This is an opt-out filter and therefore "obfuscated" censorship.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]

nodata 13y ago

It's opt out, not opt in. How does it stop being censorship just because there is no centralised list?

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Can you back this up? I've seen no evidence that it's opt-out; new users are presented with the choice before gaining Internet access, and existing users are presented with the choice at some point.
DanBC 13y ago
Cameron's filter is opt our for new customers, but opt in for existing customers. It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship.
- nodata 13y ago
  You added a word: "government censorship". This is the same argument that companies like to use when they shift blame onto a third-party contractor. Back to my question though. Third party or not, how is this not censorship? (Your example of modesty sleeves is a bad one: the filter doesn't apply only to "adult magazines" (porn sites, here) but to lots of other non-"adult" content too.)
  - DanBC 13y ago
    The filters are optional. It isn't censorship if it's voluntary. The filters are different on each ISP. It's not censorship if the customer can shop around. Individual companies cannot censor something. There are no penalties for accessing this material even if you do so without turning the filter off.
- coldtea 13y ago
  >It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. First, it's still censorship. Second, the government can start supply a list of banned sites at any time. Third, the way telcos/ISPs work with governments (and how they have to work with them, in order to get certain contracts, favors, bandwidth etc) it's very easy for government agencies to supply lists (not only of "adult content" but also of "extremist content", whatever that is), under the table. Who will let you know that the sites ISP x blocks were given to them by government agencies? >And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship. Well, the very role of "modesty sleeves" IS censorship. It might be to censor those covers from childrens eyes, and we might agree with that, but it still is censorship.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    I genuinely don't understand how some companies voluntarily providing filters to their customers, that those customers can chose to use or not to use, can possibly be censorship. It's fucking insulting to people living with real censorship.
    - cs02rm0 13y ago
      I've lived in countries with what seemed like real censorship to me. I guess there were warehouses of people somewhere with black marker pens, it was interesting to see the way they took different approaches as individuals applying the rules. Adjacent Nirvana Nevermind albums stick in my mind; one with a perfect rectangle drawn over the naked baby, one with swimming trunks creatively drawn on. There's nothing amusing about this, no creativity to find in the black. It stinks of blanket censorship on a very inhuman level to me. But maybe my idea of censorship still isn't real enough. How much further does it have to go before it's real, how close should we get to that?
      - DanBC 13y ago
        What changes need to be made to the uk system to make it more like proper censorship? 1: make it mandatory for all ISPs to provide it. 2: make it mandatory for all people to use it. 3: have a government supplied list of banned material 4: have penalties for being in possession of such material. At the moment ISPs are chosing to offer these filters (albeit with the threat of potential legislation). People don't have to use the filters. Not everyome is opted in by default, and for those who are there are proceedures to opt out. The government isn't supplying any lists of what to ban, they've just asked ISPs to make sure that under 18s are not getting access to pornography. And there are no penalties for possessing any content blocked by these filters. Someone can have terabytes of this stuff with no problems.
- makomk 13y ago
  > It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. By that definition, the Chinese government isn't censoring internet access either - they leave compiling an actual list of banned sites to internet providers, which is why what's blocked varies depending on your provider.
k-mcgrady 13y ago
It's technically only opt-out for new customers. And even for them I believe they are specifically asked "Would you like us to use our home safe system to block dangerous material for children blah blah blah". So it's really only a matter of saying "no thanks". I don't think they trick you into using it, or set you up without informing you that you have the right to turn it off. Edit: I could be wrong but this was how it worked when I last signed up about 12 months ago. The law hadn't come into effect I don't think but my ISP was already offering filtering.
- buro9 13y ago
  It's opt-out for new devices. I visited a friend's house for NYE and he let me have his WiFi details, the parental filter option kicked in immediately even though he'd already chosen to not opt-in. Every new device that was added (and there were a few, as we arrived as a party staying for a long weekend) had to go through the same opt-out process. Therefore, and with only this limited exposure to the system, I would guess that the preference is stored by MAC address per BT customer.
  - Shish2k 13y ago
    Unless my knowledge of network hardware is way off, MAC addresses are only relevant on a LAN - the ISP should know the router's MAC address, but not anything behind the router. If the routers are cooperating with the censorship, they could be stored that way, but that seems like a lot of routers to patch (unless this feature was there from the start?)
    - vidarh 13y ago
      Most major UK isp's provide their own routers. While for most of them you should be able to use your own router, most people don't. Sky at least provides a router that is Sky branded and running Sky specific software - I would not be surprised if it does automatic software updates.
    - buro9 13y ago
      The routers are BT Home Hubs and are controlled by BT. ADSL: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wireless-hub-4-router http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wir... Fibre: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wireless-hub-5-router http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/products/broadband/wir... This does give them control over the LAN. If you visit the page for "Parental Controls" then right at the top is the picture of the Home Hub router and the "No software to setup"... because it's your connection that has the filter rather than local software: Parental Controls: http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displayTopic.do?topicId=37062 http://www.productsandservices.bt.com/consumerProducts/displ... From appearances this looks like a per-customer opt-opt, and then if opted-out (unfiltered ... well, still Cleanfeed) then it goes down to a per-device opt-out.

jackweirdy 13y ago

I see what you're saying, but you overlook the fact that it's backed by a blacklist held by Government whose contents are not public. EDIT: Obviously ISPs also decide whether to block something, but Govt. has a list of sites which must be blocked

matthewmacleod 13y ago
I don't believe this is the case, given that there is no legislation regarding this filter, meaning that there can't be a list of sites which must be blocked. There's the issue of Cleanfeed and the IWF, but that's not a government thing.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
There's no evidence (yet) of there being ANY Government list of sites which must be blocked. All ISPs are going their own way and basically letting the decisions be made by whatever technology partner they have engaged to back-end the filtering. The only thing close to a UK-wide list of sites which MUST be blocked is the IWF/CEOP list, which exists specifically to deny access to images of child abuse and selected 1970s rock albums. (Search "Virgin Killer IWF") - That filtering is entirely separate and long-established in the UK, known as "Cleanfeed", and generally adopted by most major ISPs (but again not all.)

DanBC 13y ago

Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters. That's not an outlandish suggestion: mobile providers have had opt out filters for years now. Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters.

matthewmacleod 13y ago
Until government says that the optional filters are not enough and they push for stricter filters. I can't buy into a slippery slope argument, because I don't really think this is going to happen. And if it does, we should fight it. Gov said it's not enough and pushing for wider coverage of the filters. Are they? I've not seen evidence of this anywhere.
- DanBC 13y ago
  We're in a thread about Cameron's filter!! This is exactly them saying that the existing mobile filters are not enough and need to. E expanded to cover all home internet connections.
  - jamesbrownuhh 13y ago
    There is no such thing as "Cameron's filter" though. David Cameron is a politician whose party has a "think of the children" policy and has pledged to "get tough" and "crack down" on the availability of naughty material online. The filtering "policy", if you can even call it that, is basically just to urge ISPs to implement content filters of some kind. Not mandatory - not all ISPs have chosen to play along, but the big ones have due to the risk of reputational damage if not. Customers of ISPs with such filtering get the choice either to allow or disallow the content that their ISP's chosen filtering solution thinks may be unacceptable. Some ISPs offer more comprehensive and flexible filters than others. E.g. Some will just block anything "not for kids and nice families", others have a wide range of categories and options - just like corporate filters and technologies like WebSense offer. (e.g. Only block porn, allow sexual health, block humour and social networking sites, allow file sharing, etc etc etc) There is NO "Government" filter. There is only a POLICY. Just a policy - barely even that. Certainly no legislation or law. Just a statement of intent, that "we think people should do this" and that's all. Fight censorship, absolutely. But be right about what you're fighting. Opponents arguing against this policy using outlandish and wrong claims just blow holes in the credibility of the "no" camp, which will just make it all the harder to argue the case if/when genuine, non-optional, state-backed censorship DOES come to tea.

bowlofpetunias 13y ago

Outsourcing censorship to the private sector is an ongoing trend. See also the various Pirate Bay blockades. Just because it's executed by private companies and the decision making process is somewhat obscured and decentralized, the net effect is the same. In a way, it's quite similar to the way we're being drawn into wars which aren't "technically" wars, and intelligence gathering against terrorists of course isn't totalitarian spying on their own people. They just tilt the paradigms a bit to avoid association with the evils of the past, whilst effectively pursuing the same old agenda.

hoggle 13y ago

You are wrong. This is an opt-out filter and therefore "obfuscated" censorship.

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]