The UK "Porn" Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech, Civil Liberties Websites
bsdly.blogspot.co.uk
bsdly.blogspot.co.uk
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
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...
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.empmuse...
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!
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.
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.
The article that you have submitted is FUD. Read this: http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-questions-a...
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.
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'.
I agree that the filter, and its implementation, is hopeless and stupid.
"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."
They use a credit card because those are limited to people over 18.
Why is that loaded and wrong?
Assuming the filters stay: what's a reasonable method to check age?
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".
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.
Can you see there's a difference between the weird ideas of sex depicted in online porn and actual sex? And that teaching a child about sex in all its diverse forms (and about the hateful nature of a lot of online porn) is not incompatible with wanting to prevent your 7 year old child seeing the extremes shown in online porn?
Spoken like an intelligent and thoughtful person. Posts like this ultimately keep me coming back to HN and make me realize that most people here are true one-percenters when it comes to intelligence and the ability to think rationally.
Most people in this world are complete dumbasses and morons and that's part of the reason why the world is in the state it is right now.
> 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.
It's not just about nudity and sex. If it were I'd be less ambivalent. As it is I feel that you're being a bit naive.
Agreed. Even the "just sex" vanilla porn is pretty unhealthy for children to see. That way leads to a skewed and unrealistic expectations and understanding of relationships, sex, and bodies.
The protection (along with education and discipline) is the responsibility of parents, not the government. Successful governments have set up constructs to attempt to aid like minded parents (for example the justice system and public schools).
While the porn filters could be construed as an extension of that aid (attempting to delay/soften the introduction to a controversial and mature topic), the ability to censor is at too great a risk for abuse by those with power or influence.
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.)
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.
As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.
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.
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_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_...
Are you honestly that naive?
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).
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.
So really, the question here is not, "Should we protect children?" but rather, "What should we teach children about freedom of speech?"
It's a useful discussion, but this filter doesn't. Hange the need for it. It does provide some nice examples of why filtering is problematic.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I am far from against banning porn, however, in certain situations some people can get addicted to porn. They may not be physically addicted as per heroin addiction, however, some addiction to porn has crept up on a couple of friends, to have a negative effect on their relationships. At the time I lacked anything helpful to say, a warning that 'erectile dysfunction' is the result of porn addiction might have made things easier.
There are lots of people on the lecture circuit that go on and on and on about one thing. Dawkins is a bit like that, he irritates the hell out of me. Yet, despite his presentation, he is correct.
There are others that have the opinion that porn has a negative effect on male libido, Gary Wilson does actually quote some science in his talk.
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
This is what companies should be doing, no?
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.
http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...
For something like a SIM, I can also see the business case - but again, that's a corporate decision rather than one that they're obliged to make by law (as they are now) which is a subtle but important distinction, as it represents the removal of choice via censorship.
My issue is with the opt-out censorship and the loud political circus that's been built up around it. It continues the same discourse of 'what have you got to hide' that the NSA business threw up, it's setting a precedent which could be misused later. Who knows if it actually would be, but waiting for the other shoe to drop is not exactly an ideal situation with any kind of censorship.
Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.
see my rant here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6940833
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.
"opt in is a genuine choice"; it all boils down to this, opt in to what exactly?
We have no idea and noone is accountable for the list. Given this, it makes no difference whether it's an opt in or an opt out. It should be opposed, loudly.
Whether you think these sites are unsuitable for consumption by your kids, it really doesn't matter.
Whether you think a tick box on a router is not hard to work out. Whether you think that'd be a reasonable balance (maybe it would). Whether you think the only 2 options are "give me my tick box" or "absolve parental responsibility", it's all by-the-bye; in today's situation.
Because there's no accountability for this hidden list. There's no checks or balances. My opinions on list content, like yours, don't mean much in this context. There's a bigger problem to deal with first and it's nothing to do with what sites are on the list.
FWIW my personal view, I'm less convinced these days that there even "has to be a balance". The internet is fundamentally a pull medium, not push (despite advertisers best efforts, i can still just drain the battery). So my current thinking leans heavily towards "you can always just choose not to use it".
[1] "these sites": bsdly.net nuug.no usenix.org ukuug.org flossuk.org eff.org amnesty.org.uk slashdot.org linuxtoday.com nostarch.com blogspot.com arstechnica.com openbsd.org undeadly.org freebsd.org geekculture.com linux.com
Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign relations, Skull and Bones