14 ms·

I'm really disappointed with this whole situation. The government. The parliament. The people & the media. I resent all the apologizing and explaining and the "

by netcan 13y ago

I'm really disappointed with this whole situation. The government. The parliament. The people & the media. I resent all the apologizing and explaining and the "don't attribute to malice…" excuses. I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal. This article is right on the right track. This is an attempt to control the discussion, the definition of normal and public morality. It's is not a response to an actual problem. It's old fashioned conservatism and paternalism. The bottom line here is choice. Parents everywhere have easy solutions for voluntary porn filters. You can have them set up by your the people you buy your internet from or the people that sell you your computer. It's cheap or free and it's available. I do not buy the "it's too complicated" argument. This is parents responsibility and it just ins't that hard to meet that responsibility.

DanBC 13y ago
I think the filters are bad. But buying and installing filters is hard for many people. They don't know anything about networking or the internet. These people need help setting up wifi. This is just movong the filter from existing software providers to the ISP. It's not at all ISPs so you can shop around[1] if you want to avoid it. It's optional so you can tirn it off if it's on bu default for you, and not all of them are. [1] shopping around isn't possible for broadband because of the weird way it's provided in the UK.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.
  - netcan 13y ago
    Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.
    - citricsquid 13y ago
      If an ISP chooses to force people to call in to modify their filter level that's their prerogative, but the government hasn't required that and as far as I know all ISPs currently have it handled through their website(s). For example my ISP BT just has it as a clickable option in the account management panel, here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png
      - netcan 13y ago
        Sorry. I updated my comment while you replied. Aren't we going in circles? If they can make it that easy to opt out, why not make it that easy to opt in? Isn't the whole premise that it's too hard and you can't expect normal people to opt in to a porn filter? Now they also have to go on a now pervert list.
      - darklajid 13y ago
        That was the most amusing (and scaring) screenshot that I've seen in a while. No popular Facebook joke/Reddit meme ever made me chuckle that hard. So .. you actually can tell your ISP that you're more into alcohol and nudity, but dislike porn? Tasteless would be nice, though? I wonder if they wouldn't be more helpful if they'd just take the list of keywords/categories from YouPorn so that you can express your preferences in a better and more specific way..
        netcan 13y ago
        It's pretty dark
        timje1 13y ago
        I don't mind my children knowing about DP, but I'll be damned if I let them view felching videos!
    - DanBC 13y ago
      You realise that your ISP knows exactly what porn or disident material you're reading, right? Unless you're one of the few people who use privacy methods).
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Since many people in the UK were fine with the odea of ID cards (which did have some strong opposition but oy really failed when people thought they'd have to pay £120 to get one) and many people in the UK used to volunteer to have their DNA on the national database it is a bit worrying when we rely on punlic opinion to stop this kind of stuff. In theory this is what elected representitives are supposed to prevent - the stupidity of the masses.
    - blueskin_ 13y ago
      ID cards were always thoroughly unpopular and AFAIK never saw anything even near majority support (indeed, generally opposed by a significant majority). I never heard of any 'volunteering' to get your DNA added, unless you mean via getting arrested.
      - DanBC 13y ago
        People volunteer to be profiled when there are local hog profile cases. Here are some people saying that they'd never give their dna to the police along with other people saying that they're happy for the police to have their dna. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm this page gives more evidence that people volunteer. It also shows how large the dna database is, and how few crimes it helps solve. You are just wrong about id cards. The detica poll (2004) showed something like 80% support. The 2004 yougov poll showed 61% support. Even in 2006 support had only dropped to 53%, but opposition is only 37%. And all the way through pepple were clear about cost being very impotant to their acceptance of the scheme - when asked about id cards costing over £25 the support drops dramatically. Any support remaining for the cards collapsed when the estimated costs rose from about £40 for combined passport id card to about £120 for just the card.
- netcan 13y ago
  A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call your ISP and ask them to install it. You can get help from your kids' school or you can get help from whoever it is that helps you set up your email or home wifi network. It may not be absolutely trivial, but it is a solvable problem for an adult willing to invest an hour or two and/or a little bit of money. I just hate this "people are dumb, this is hard for them" argument. People are capable if they are interested. B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering. This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.
  - mattlutze 13y ago
    The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them. I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy. Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
    - Eclyps 13y ago
      The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
    - netcan 13y ago
- Stubbs 13y ago
  Shopping around for broadband in the UK is not difficult, broadbandchoices, MoneySavingExpert, uSwitch & MoneySupermarket are 4 places I know off the top of my head where you can type in your phone number & it gives you a list of providers, and there always "cheap broadband uk" in Google too.
  - _puk 13y ago
    All of those are geared around getting the cheapest internet possible, which will most likely put you in a position of having to opt out from this filter. I doubt any of the top10 ISPs on ispreview.co.uk have a filter in place. But yeah, I agree, it's not too hard to shop around.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    Typing "cheap broadband uk" into a search engine will definitely not get you quality, just the pile-em-high bottom-grade ISPs who profit from having massive contention and passing off Indian call centres reading off a script as 'support'. You get what you pay for.
- furyg3 13y ago
  For me, it's a question of defaults. I'm ok with ISPs having a 'child-protect' feature on your internet connection as a benefit. I'm less ok with the government working to develop the filters. I'm not really ok with the government mandating that ISPs provide such a service. And I'm very much against this service being on by default. I'm terrified by mandatory use of the service.
  - smokeyj 13y ago
    Mandatory service.. Heh
- kmfrk 13y ago
  You'd think David Cameron of all people would support a free-market solution.
- bambax 13y ago
  Everything is hard when you're not a specialist. Electricity is much more dangerous than porn. Unlike porn, electricity kills. The trick is to hire an electrician; and if you don't, and let wires hang about in your bathroom, then it's your problem.
- belorn 13y ago
  As hard you think it is to buy and have filters installed, its equally hard for people to disable filters. Both require the same level of expertise, willpower, and time.
whatevsbro 13y ago
> I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal. It's not only possible, it's exactly what's going on. How long did the NSA monitor the whole world before it became widely known?
goggles99 13y ago
I am firmly against the concept of internet censorship - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers. The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles? There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different. I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it) BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding. I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?
- tripzilch 13y ago
  > Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. Bullshit. I work at a kids' technology centre, teaching them computer and Internet stuff. This is in the Netherlands, ages 8-18. (no filters, but they are supervised and we can see what's on their monitors at all times) The only stuff I have seen them accidentally stumble upon is the odd bikini image in Google Image Search. I can't imagine any scenario how a four year old could accidentally stumble upon rape porn (which is the type that's supposedly psychologically damaging, right?). In particular because they can't type (they lack the motor skills). (actually I'd question how four-year-olds "surf the web proficiently" at all, for any definition of "proficiently" and any reasonable definition of "the web". Public libraries are easier to use, they're not proficient at those either) In a hypothetical thought experiment, give 1,000,000 four-year-olds a tablet with a browser opened on a child-friendly start page, and let them play for an hour. None of them will stumble upon rape porn. The "proficient" ones will find something fun and colourful to play with. Your biggest problem is the ones that don't, get stuck on something boring, and start crying. Good luck with that. > Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters Also not true. I put this to the test back when we still had these filters enabled. The two smartest kids (ages 11-12) couldn't do it, there's just too many hurdles, passwords, blocking, safeguards going on. It's horrible software, really cripples the machine (which is one of the reasons why we got rid of it, favouring simple supervision). It's quite hard to disable even if you are the administrator of these PCs. Super easy to set up, though. It's a real trapdoor. I have to admit I believe that they might have had a better chance if they could read English natively. At age 11-12 Dutch kids can read English, but not fast enough to do proper research on the English language web (so the solution would be for English parents to install Chinese filters, they got the experience anyway :-P). Kids ages 8 or lower couldn't do it no matter the language. There may be the odd (extremely) high-functioning exception, but we were talking about most kids. And by the time they're 16 it doesn't matter if it's a parental filter or a government one, they can--and will--get around government-grade censorship too. But then, a 16-year-old mind can think of depravities with or without help of the Internet. Just because children get better at computers than their parents all the time, doesn't mean developmental stages suddenly disappear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages > I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas? Sure! Education. Of the parents. Way before they're parents. It'll take a while before it pays off but when it does, oh boy, just look at all those bad statistics just evaporating! If you really care about the children you'd put all the money spent on this and other bullshit into improving their education.

by netcan 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

I think the filters are bad. But buying and installing filters is hard for many people. They don't know anything about networking or the internet. These people need help setting up wifi. This is just movong the filter from existing software providers to the ISP. It's not at all ISPs so you can shop around[1] if you want to avoid it. It's optional so you can tirn it off if it's on bu default for you, and not all of them are. [1] shopping around isn't possible for broadband because of the weird way it's provided in the UK.

sillysaurus2 13y ago
I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.
- netcan 13y ago
  Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.
  - citricsquid 13y ago
    If an ISP chooses to force people to call in to modify their filter level that's their prerogative, but the government hasn't required that and as far as I know all ISPs currently have it handled through their website(s). For example my ISP BT just has it as a clickable option in the account management panel, here's a screenshot: http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png
    - netcan 13y ago
      Sorry. I updated my comment while you replied. Aren't we going in circles? If they can make it that easy to opt out, why not make it that easy to opt in? Isn't the whole premise that it's too hard and you can't expect normal people to opt in to a porn filter? Now they also have to go on a now pervert list.
    - darklajid 13y ago
      That was the most amusing (and scaring) screenshot that I've seen in a while. No popular Facebook joke/Reddit meme ever made me chuckle that hard. So .. you actually can tell your ISP that you're more into alcohol and nudity, but dislike porn? Tasteless would be nice, though? I wonder if they wouldn't be more helpful if they'd just take the list of keywords/categories from YouPorn so that you can express your preferences in a better and more specific way..
      - netcan 13y ago
        It's pretty dark
      - timje1 13y ago
        I don't mind my children knowing about DP, but I'll be damned if I let them view felching videos!
  - DanBC 13y ago
    You realise that your ISP knows exactly what porn or disident material you're reading, right? Unless you're one of the few people who use privacy methods).
- DanBC 13y ago
  Since many people in the UK were fine with the odea of ID cards (which did have some strong opposition but oy really failed when people thought they'd have to pay £120 to get one) and many people in the UK used to volunteer to have their DNA on the national database it is a bit worrying when we rely on punlic opinion to stop this kind of stuff. In theory this is what elected representitives are supposed to prevent - the stupidity of the masses.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    ID cards were always thoroughly unpopular and AFAIK never saw anything even near majority support (indeed, generally opposed by a significant majority). I never heard of any 'volunteering' to get your DNA added, unless you mean via getting arrested.
    - DanBC 13y ago
      People volunteer to be profiled when there are local hog profile cases. Here are some people saying that they'd never give their dna to the police along with other people saying that they're happy for the police to have their dna. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/talking_point/8039149.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7532856.stm this page gives more evidence that people volunteer. It also shows how large the dna database is, and how few crimes it helps solve. You are just wrong about id cards. The detica poll (2004) showed something like 80% support. The 2004 yougov poll showed 61% support. Even in 2006 support had only dropped to 53%, but opposition is only 37%. And all the way through pepple were clear about cost being very impotant to their acceptance of the scheme - when asked about id cards costing over £25 the support drops dramatically. Any support remaining for the cards collapsed when the estimated costs rose from about £40 for combined passport id card to about £120 for just the card.
netcan 13y ago
A - Nonsense. It's not hard. You can take your computer to any "computer repair" shop and get it installed. You can install something yourself or you can call your ISP and ask them to install it. You can get help from your kids' school or you can get help from whoever it is that helps you set up your email or home wifi network. It may not be absolutely trivial, but it is a solvable problem for an adult willing to invest an hour or two and/or a little bit of money. I just hate this "people are dumb, this is hard for them" argument. People are capable if they are interested. B - You can use legislation to make it easier while preserving freedom. I don't like this option, but it's much better than mandatory. Make it mandatory for ISPs to offer free filtering. This is a case of not trusting people to manage their own families' affairs.
- mattlutze 13y ago
  The argument is an extension of the reason we don't let stores sell porno mags to 13 year old's -- it is ridiculous to assume the parents will always be with their child to make the decision for them. I've no measured and thought-out opinion on porn filtering or censoring at ISPs one way or another. But a lot of recent research on the subject of youth and lewd material consumption suggests the current free and unfettered access to pornographic material is unhealthy. Is there a "slippery slope" to cry out with where this line of thought goes? Sure. But in societies that decide their federal system should be arbiter of its health care system, it makes no sense to argue when that government takes measures to act on information regarding the health of its citizens.
  - Eclyps 13y ago
    The big difference here is that purchasing a porno magazine requires interacting with a clerk who will then verify your age and send you on your way. A better comparison would be banning the sale of all porno magazines unless the buyer registers for a porno card for his/her family (which would then provide unlimited access regardless of age). I tend to agree that unfiltered access to all sorts of things can have an unhealthy impact on the minds of kids, but this is still the wrong way to handle it.
  - netcan 13y ago
Stubbs 13y ago
Shopping around for broadband in the UK is not difficult, broadbandchoices, MoneySavingExpert, uSwitch & MoneySupermarket are 4 places I know off the top of my head where you can type in your phone number & it gives you a list of providers, and there always "cheap broadband uk" in Google too.
- _puk 13y ago
  All of those are geared around getting the cheapest internet possible, which will most likely put you in a position of having to opt out from this filter. I doubt any of the top10 ISPs on ispreview.co.uk have a filter in place. But yeah, I agree, it's not too hard to shop around.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  Typing "cheap broadband uk" into a search engine will definitely not get you quality, just the pile-em-high bottom-grade ISPs who profit from having massive contention and passing off Indian call centres reading off a script as 'support'. You get what you pay for.
furyg3 13y ago
For me, it's a question of defaults. I'm ok with ISPs having a 'child-protect' feature on your internet connection as a benefit. I'm less ok with the government working to develop the filters. I'm not really ok with the government mandating that ISPs provide such a service. And I'm very much against this service being on by default. I'm terrified by mandatory use of the service.
- smokeyj 13y ago
  Mandatory service.. Heh
kmfrk 13y ago
You'd think David Cameron of all people would support a free-market solution.
bambax 13y ago
Everything is hard when you're not a specialist. Electricity is much more dangerous than porn. Unlike porn, electricity kills. The trick is to hire an electrician; and if you don't, and let wires hang about in your bathroom, then it's your problem.
belorn 13y ago
As hard you think it is to buy and have filters installed, its equally hard for people to disable filters. Both require the same level of expertise, willpower, and time.

whatevsbro 13y ago

> I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal. It's not only possible, it's exactly what's going on. How long did the NSA monitor the whole world before it became widely known?

goggles99 13y ago

I am firmly against the concept of internet censorship - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers. The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles? There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different. I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it) BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding. I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?

tripzilch 13y ago
> Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. Bullshit. I work at a kids' technology centre, teaching them computer and Internet stuff. This is in the Netherlands, ages 8-18. (no filters, but they are supervised and we can see what's on their monitors at all times) The only stuff I have seen them accidentally stumble upon is the odd bikini image in Google Image Search. I can't imagine any scenario how a four year old could accidentally stumble upon rape porn (which is the type that's supposedly psychologically damaging, right?). In particular because they can't type (they lack the motor skills). (actually I'd question how four-year-olds "surf the web proficiently" at all, for any definition of "proficiently" and any reasonable definition of "the web". Public libraries are easier to use, they're not proficient at those either) In a hypothetical thought experiment, give 1,000,000 four-year-olds a tablet with a browser opened on a child-friendly start page, and let them play for an hour. None of them will stumble upon rape porn. The "proficient" ones will find something fun and colourful to play with. Your biggest problem is the ones that don't, get stuck on something boring, and start crying. Good luck with that. > Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters Also not true. I put this to the test back when we still had these filters enabled. The two smartest kids (ages 11-12) couldn't do it, there's just too many hurdles, passwords, blocking, safeguards going on. It's horrible software, really cripples the machine (which is one of the reasons why we got rid of it, favouring simple supervision). It's quite hard to disable even if you are the administrator of these PCs. Super easy to set up, though. It's a real trapdoor. I have to admit I believe that they might have had a better chance if they could read English natively. At age 11-12 Dutch kids can read English, but not fast enough to do proper research on the English language web (so the solution would be for English parents to install Chinese filters, they got the experience anyway :-P). Kids ages 8 or lower couldn't do it no matter the language. There may be the odd (extremely) high-functioning exception, but we were talking about most kids. And by the time they're 16 it doesn't matter if it's a parental filter or a government one, they can--and will--get around government-grade censorship too. But then, a 16-year-old mind can think of depravities with or without help of the Internet. Just because children get better at computers than their parents all the time, doesn't mean developmental stages suddenly disappear. See https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_development_stages > I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas? Sure! Education. Of the parents. Way before they're parents. It'll take a while before it pays off but when it does, oh boy, just look at all those bad statistics just evaporating! If you really care about the children you'd put all the money spent on this and other bullshit into improving their education.