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
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...
> 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!
First of all, it is about blocking by default and opting out(as you mention yourself at least for O2 before editing it to 'opt in', furthemore different providers provide either in or out by default). Then if you look at the img you posted yourself at http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png you will see that it is not only about pornography but a dozen other things including areas such as 'Obscene and Tasteless'(?).
The government's job making a law of(and therefore enforcing) the above is easy to justify under the rationale that this thing existed for years(with a few specific ISPs). Now everyone will have to do it, and on top of that it will be the government that will be defining what is 'Obscene and Tasteless' as opposed to a mere ISP.
I understand what you mean too, but my disagreement genuinely has to do with me seeing that both filtering schemes are identical to each other and have the same purpose and effect. Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.
> Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.
No they are not. The filtering scheme covered in the submission is the Under 12 O2 filter, that is a filter designed for parents to enable (it's opt in, not opt out) when they wish to give their children access to a mobile device. That filter scheme uses a whitelist, every single website is blocked by default until a person at O2 adds it to the whitelist. This service has existed for many many years and has absolutely nothing to do with the government, it's a feature that O2 added for their customers. O2 do also operate a porn filter, but it is not what this article talks about, it does not block tech articles and civil liberty websites.
Sorry but in your original post you specified opt-in. In any event, different providers are either opt-in or opt-out, O2 is not the only ISP in UK and the link you share is just the boilerplate text on O2's parental controls policy, so what?
I feel I explained my rationale and there can be no more constructive conversation in the particular thread. As for the article being FUD, sorry darling I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.
> I believe legislation will be in effect countrywide in early 2014
Source.
My understanding is that the current filters are part of a voluntary agreement with the big-4 ISPs. There was no legislation passed. And even if they started now, there would be very little chance of such legislation being passed such that it would be effective in this parliament, let alone 'early 2014'.
My impression was that it is set for early 2014, I did some searching online and the closest I could find on a date online is http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2372833/Internet-por... which generally sets this to happen in 2014 based on the PM's pledge/plan and not legislation.
This is simply not true. I live in the UK, don't have a UK passport or driver's licence,use GiffGaff and was able to remove the filter by typing in my Polish passport number just fine!
I do not intent to provide my own passport details, but you may want to go to the forum page and give your feedback to the people that had the problem.
Yep but if you look even further into the thread it has this reply from Giff Gaff and people are still not able to lift the filter(EU or not)
"Thanks for contacting me about removing your adult bar. Don't worry I'll look into this for you now.
Unfortunately due to a change in process recently we are only able to remove the adult content bar with a full driving license number or with a valid UK passport."
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.
> 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...
> 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.
The problem is that your children will now grow up thinking that a great firewall is something that those in positions authority normally maintain. How are you going to explain to these children that the Chinese firewall is bad? Would such children have protested SOPA or PIPA?
So really, the question here is not, "Should we protect children?" but rather, "What should we teach children about freedom of speech?"
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).
Except we're talking about a variety of filters. The filter in the op is an extreme form of filter that is perhaps useful for a locked down kiosk like environment. (Not as good as doing that properly, obviously) and so that filter is very broad, be because it wants to catch everything and allow owners to whitelist exceptions.
The ukgov porn filter will suffer from some of that, but also the Scunthorpe problem.
Having had blood test results delayed because my surname has the word COCKS In it was frustrating.
> 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.
Why is it okay to revoke internet access entirely, but not selectively? If the argument is that filtering a child's internet is bad parenting, then disabling it ought to be just as bad as limiting it.
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.
Yes, paedophilia really is such a Big problem; you want to see a study to understand that? are you serious? further to police efforts I would support any independent effort to get these people and hand them over to the police when it comes to this matter.
Paedos will be paedos no matter whether privacy exists or does not exist, and it is not an issue related to privacy and freedom, do not link it as such; freedom ceases to be freedom when it violates another individual's freedom(=abuse or product of abuse) so the abuser has to be stopped from further violating it. As the previous poster said, you could argue around consent and/or having an inclination, but as to the actual abuse taking place there can be no question about it.
In a truly anonymous internet that respects privacy, it would be up to individuals to find, isolate and condemn these people, much like Anonymous did in 2011.
Abuse of freedom and privacy can only lead to and justify not having any freedom and privacy, it fuels the whole pro Big Brother argument; if there was a way to demonstrate that Internet self regulation/regulation by the people works, then this would be a major blow to all kinds of 'higher authority' monitoring and fear mongering.
