Comment by citricsquid | Hacker News Reader

Comment by citricsquid | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

> 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.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com