Hacker News Reader

Comment by citricsquid | Hacker News Reader

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

View on HN

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...

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...

> 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.

The article that you have submitted is FUD. Read this: http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-questions-a...

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.

The legislation that would back this has received only a single reading so far. Still in the Lords.

If the Daily Mail ran a story saying that the sky is blue, I'd go to the window and check it hadn't changed.

Giff Gaff allow you to lift the filter if you have a UK credit card. They make a charge and refund it (or something similar).

I agree that the filter, and its implementation, is hopeless and stupid.

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.

If you look further into that thread there are other people saying that they could get their access unlocked using EU passports just fine.

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."

Except on several you have to enter credit card details to remove the filter. Which is loaded and wrong.

You're the customer. They already have some form of payment detail for you. They also have your correct id and address.

They use a credit card because those are limited to people over 18.

Why is that loaded and wrong?

In general, using credit card details as a form of identification is a bad idea since it's exactly the sort of behaviour phishers and scummy "free sample" rebillers are trying to encourage. These attack vectors are much less successful if the median internet user believes "anybody asking for my credit card details when I haven't agreed to pay for something is a scammer"

That's a good point.

Assuming the filters stay: what's a reasonable method to check age?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com