Read more.Filters were wonky anyway; blocking self-help sites but letting through hardcore porn.
Read more.Filters were wonky anyway; blocking self-help sites but letting through hardcore porn.
I wish the government would just leave my internet connection alone. It's not about being able to see porn, it's about what else they might add to the filter in future.
Also, the argument 'Think of the Children' isn't good enough, surely it's up to the parents to control what their children are doing and seeing.
Last edited by Animus404; 23-12-2013 at 05:52 PM.
This goes to show the governments total lack of understanding on how these things work, either that or they chose to ignore the advise saying it wouldn't work.
In the end its us poor customers that are going to foot the bill for something that amounts to little more than a PR exercise.
dave87 (23-12-2013)
When will the government learn; on the internet the internet nerd always wins
Definitely that. Cameron is just desperate for people to like him for something at this point, and about the only thing he's prepared to do along those lines is tweak the public's obvious sensitivity about children and sexuality. I wish he'd remember that the trick that almost-but-not-quite got him enough votes to win the election was when he pretended he would be the Tory to protect the NHS. If he hadn't been lying about that, he might have some genuine goodwill right now without having to resort to stunt politics. Sad man.
The whole thing makes me both laugh and cry simultaneously. Laugh because it's so hopelessly inept, and cry because it's a first step down the road towards building a Great Firewall of the UK using the ever-so-specious "OMG - Think of the Children!!1111" argument.
But the filter isn't targeted at the internet nerd. If you're techy enough to do something like install a plug in then you don't need a pre-set filter either and you would have already opted out.
If you're a non-techy parent with a techy child then you've got a bigger worry, but then that's a life lesson for you
It would be easier to ban religion than anything on the internet!
This and previous governments have wasted so much of tax payers cash on silly vanity projects with the only winner being the company taking the cash, I for one really would like for them to think these sort of projects out more thoroughly before wasting money.
I have no qualms about the government pressuring businesses to make an option available for parents who want some peace of mind. My only objections are that's auto-on, and undoubtedly infringe privacy on all connections, even if disabled.
The fact that they can be bypassed with a quick change is unsurprising, as all I've seen so far imply it's just DNS filtering, so hopefully I won't even be affected.
(\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/) (\___/)
(='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=) (='.'=)
(")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(") (")_(")
This is bunny and friends. He is fed up waiting for everyone to help him out, and decided to help himself instead!
Step 1 - make a black list that doesn't work
Step 2 - sell the rights to a white list
Step 3 - Compuserve by Sky, Wants sports news? you'll need our sports package
Step 4 - Profit
So the average 13 year old can re activate porn, so be it.
But the average 5 year old isn't going to accidentally install this then accidentally find some porn so the filter is still doing it job.
I don't see the big problem, it was hardly a problem to login to my mobile account and tick a box to get everything working and I wouldn't be too bothered if I had to do that with my home connection.
If someone is letting a 5 year old use the internet unsupervised i would question how responsible that parent is, in the same way as i would question the responsibility of a parent that dropped their child off in the local park and buggered of to the pub, or the parent that let their 5 year old wander the streets late at night on their own.
Am I the only one that thinks this measure is completely out of step with Conservative political thinking anyway?
I understood (and please, correct me if I'm wrong/misunderstood) but Conservative politics is based around the idea of a minimum interference with private life by the state, and the state being a small entity. Seemingly at odds with this political doctrine, which has been central to Conservative politics for decades (centuries?) is the mollycoddling of the technologically inept that were already well catered for by off the shelf software. Add to this the Cameron branded idea of Big Society, empowering communities rather than government, and you've got an essential disconnect with this policy.
Now of course, this isn't the state which is the one introducing these measures, but private companies. This is all very true but also misleading unless cast against a backdrop of threatened regulation should the ISPs not 'voluntarily' introduce something like this. Voluntarily in this context has a different meaning to the one I'm accustomed to.
There is also the inevitable mission creep which is involved in a project (especially ones which involve a variety of stakeholders, and especially ones which involve a variety of stakeholders and are government funded/run/connected) in that it is not, as evidenced by the news reports of Childline being blocked by the filter (news story here), simply limited to things which shouldn't be accessed (albeit that can be explained away as a technical balls up). By things that shouldn't be accessed I don't mean torrents or newsbin files (that is a separate, and quite distinct matter of concern - the judiciary, presumably absent of specific legislation, enforcing blocks to whole sites on the internet) but the sort of material that CleanFeed or similar already filters.
How long before these lists (which are not open to scrutiny as far as I'm aware) add things which shouldn't be on the list? Of course, this is all futile, if, as is noted above, a couple of clicks and you are past it.
The final aspect of it is this, given the government's (and not just this government, the previous and probably future government's) inability to specify, scope, or deliver an IT system of any complexity that actually works - why should this be any different? Not to mention it is us that foots the bill, either through higher ISP charges (well, the money has to come from somewhere), or from tax (either directly by government spending, or indirectly when the big ISPs say we fixed this filter thing for you etc. etc., and that cost us £Xm, so please can we pay less tax). I'd far rather pay for IT education which could also have a tangible benefit to the economy.
I'm looking at the above through the eyes of someone who is in the conservative end of the political spectrum...what would his political opponents say?
Last edited by dave87; 24-12-2013 at 01:33 AM.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)