News - BT implements porn blocking by default for all new customers

[Apex]

I currently use opendns to help filter certain content; mainly 'parked domains' and domains that are listed as putting out malware. Other then that there is no other filters in place and nor would i want to.

[Smudger]

How long until someone sues an ISP for 'letting their kids see porn' when something goes wrong with the filters? I think this is shifting responsibility from parents to ISPs, and in my opinion, it's up to parents to educate their children.

[krazy_olie]

1000s rush to download Tor browser...

[eatonm62]

I don't like the direction this country is heading in but it's going to be very hard to block porn sites that are ilegal or any site actually.
Just look at Pirate Bay as one web address is blocked another one opens, as I decribed to a friend there is an infinate amount of doors which need to be closed before a site can be truly blocked.

I think this is a good step. Kids these days are around PC's more than their less knowledgable parents. There have been too many reports in the papers of late where a little boy has raped another little girl and parents did not stop him from feeding his addiction.

Are you a troll!

I am going to take a big bite on your bait anyway.
What you are refering to is a classic case of bad parenting, I am of the belief that problems need to fixed at source or you'll just spend a life time of chasing your tail.

[crossy]

How long until someone sues an ISP for 'letting their kids see porn' when something goes wrong with the filters? I think this is shifting responsibility from parents to ISPs, and in my opinion, it's up to parents to educate their children.

Presumably this is why the legal authorities are all in favour ... they see it as a revenue stream!

PS the "it's up to parents to educate their children" - I couldn't agree more strongly, but unfortunately there's those (from experience - wife was a primary teacher) who's attitude is that as long as they (the adults) aren't impacted then it's up to someone else to deal with their kids. Maybe the fascists had a point - and those kind of "parents" should have been forcibly sterilized.

Are you a troll! I am going to take a big bite on your bait anyway.
What you are refering to is a classic case of bad parenting, I am of the belief that problems need to fixed at source or you'll just spend a life time of chasing your tail.

People's objections seem to be based solely on that this is opt-OUT rather than opt-in (which would be preferable). I'd still maintain that there's a good segment of the public that will not expend any effort "protecting" their kids, so it falls to society to do so. Yes, this also causes inconvenience for us responsible folks, but that's the nature of the beast.

One additional point for the folks taking a contrary view to mine. The fact that BT's porn* filter is on by default also means that these lazy, useless parents also get blocked from viewing adult content - so they're punished for their sloth.

(* one question - who decides what is "porn" and what isn't? Back to the old argument that Playboy pinups are "porn", but nude paintings by the old masters are "art")

[Brutos]

So the great firewall of UK takes another step closer

There's a clear sequence:

First, block the child porn. No-one ever objects to that one, it's an easy sell to the public, and it gets the filtering systems in place.
Then you can progress to blocking sites performing criminal activity. After that comes the porn - start off on the kinky stuff, less backlash, and describing BDSM as 'rape porn' assures support from certain pressure groups.

A brief detour for sites deemed harmful to children like suicide advice, then start on the 'hate sites' - start off with the open racism and calls for violence, and gradually loosen the definition until you can start banning anyone who raises concern about the high immigration rate or 'promotes religious hatred' by insulting a religion.

A little loosening of libel law to allow anything insulting anyone to be easily struck down by court order, and you have a government-controlled easily-censored internet - at least for those who aren't dedicated enough activists to seek out the technological underground communities.

Whilst i agree with the sentiment, immunicity is hardly hard to find. I'm not too worried as I'm fairly confident we'll still be governed by complete muppets that couldn't implemetn a firewall if they wanted.

Totally Agree with you these Muppet couldn't manage a pub team much less a country so I am not too worried about these guys.

[Spud1]

Glad to see the majority are strongly against this block - it's a pretty terrible idea designed to win over customers who don't know any better, and make BT look good to the masses.

Ultimately:
- It will be as effective as the pirate bay block (didn't make any difference, easy to bypass and no need for VPNs)
- It will end up blocking legitimate content - complaints will skyrocket
- It is exceptionally dangerous for society as a whole - we're losing far too much freedom on the internet as it is
- I don't personally believe it will protect kids in any way - but then I don't think that hiding this sort of content from them is any better than making it fully open/available

I really hope that this isn't a trend we'll keep on seeing - I suspect we'll always be able to bypass this kind of restriction or pay extra for an unmonitored supplier, but thats not the point.

Awful idea that will be awfully implemented - but it will make the daily mail happy for at least 1 edition.

[crossy]

Glad to see the majority are strongly against this block - it's a pretty terrible idea designed to win over customers who don't know any better, and make BT look good to the masses.
[snipped]
I really hope that this isn't a trend we'll keep on seeing - I suspect we'll always be able to bypass this kind of restriction or pay extra for an unmonitored supplier, but thats not the point.

Awful idea that will be awfully implemented - but it will make the daily mail happy for at least 1 edition.

I'm going to agree with most of what you've said (especially the bits I cut out to save space). Problem is that, as you identify, BT will undoubtedly use this in "we're the safe internet" type adverts, which invariably will put pressure on other ISP's to follow suit. Only hope being that someone decides to go against the flow and use the "we give you the whole internet" byline.

As an idea it will do a little good, but then again it makes a whole lot more sense than others on the go, like that idiot Cameron's "think of the children" great firewall of the UK, (funny that he's over in China - coincidence?). Or worse still, that idea that web sites would be "licensed" in some fashion proposed by a group of Republican cretins in the US.

Any chance we can get Mylie Cyrus banned as "porn"?

[Saracen]

....

Any chance we can get Mylie Cyrus banned as "porn"?

Now that I can wholly support.

And, by the way, I like the way you think. Silver lining to every cloud, eh?

[anselhelm]

I knew this was coming, but it's no less pathetic now than it was when first proposed.

This just encourages lazy and bad parenting. Furthermore this can only lead to a dangerous and slippery slope where unelected public servants with no mandate from the people get to arbitrarily decide what is dubious material.

I wonder how long before politically sensitive material is swept under the banner, along with newspapers and anyone who shows a modicum of sense or who disagrees with the state.

As much as I loathe Labour, if they promised to undo this, I'd vote for them in the next election, even if it meant having the Milli-Balls combo.

[Brewster0101]

stupid idea if you ask me, it is up to the PARENTS to monitor what their children are doing, not the business/provider.

Because society is full of good parents these days.

Personally I don't see the need for this filter because my kids are 10 and 6 - I'm more concerned with the fowl language on Youtube. But as time goes on I can see the point, although I think I'd rather have a decent home router that filtered this stuff per device.

[wasabi]

Personally I don't see the need for this filter because my kids are 10 and 6 - I'm more concerned with the fowl language on Youtube.

EDIT by Admin - Oh no, no, no no. Definitely not.

We DO NOT permit posts with video carrying that kind of language.

Any repeat of that gets an account suspension,

[Apex]

Because society is full of good parents these days.

Personally I don't see the need for this filter because my kids are 10 and 6 - I'm more concerned with the fowl language on Youtube. But as time goes on I can see the point, although I think I'd rather have a decent home router that filtered this stuff per device.

OpenDNS and you get to control what the system does not the other way round.

I knew this was coming, but it's no less pathetic now than it was when first proposed.

This just encourages lazy and bad parenting. Furthermore this can only lead to a dangerous and slippery slope where unelected public servants with no mandate from the people get to arbitrarily decide what is dubious material.

I wonder how long before politically sensitive material is swept under the banner, along with newspapers and anyone who shows a modicum of sense or who disagrees with the state.

As much as I loathe Labour, if they promised to undo this, I'd vote for them in the next election, even if it meant having the Milli-Balls combo.

The bit in bold is what worrys me more then most; look at the chilling effect that happens in China and while it would be wrong to say we are like China we are going along the path that takes us to the same point.

Side note: The cons already hid / removed a lot of public posts in relation to their speachs at the party meets etc what is it that they have to hide from the public (other then their lies ?)

[Saracen]

....

Side note: The cons already hid / removed a lot of public posts in relation to their speachs at the party meets etc what is it that they have to hide from the public (other then their lies ?)

Oh please. One day, ONE day after Labour lambasted the Tories for removing speeches, it turned out Labour had already done the same thing. Not quite as aggressively, perhaps, but nonetheless, the exact same thing.

For instance, Blair's speeches as PM. And apparently, just two instancss of Brown's "boom and bust" claims, which he made with nauseating frequency, remain, one of which is Balls distancing himself from Brown.

Face it, politicians are politicians, whichever party they're in. They're all deceitful, manipulative, incapable of answering a straight question with a simple answer, treat the electorate with contempt and will do their level best to spin the truth and obfuscate every chance they get.

Ever seen some of these senior politicians up close, in private? They can be at each other's throats in public, and an hour or two later, in private, and laughs and chummy, over drinks.

It's one big game. A performance, for our benefit. And "managing" information is part of it. They're all, bar none, cut from the same cloth.

Do you know how to tell when a politician is lying? When he/she flaps their mouth and words come out.

[Apex]

First against the wall ! >_<

The fact is they need to keep their house in order and they didn't; more fool them.

[Saracen]

First against the wall ! >_<

The fact is they need to keep their house in order and they didn't; more fool them.

Quite.

But, after my previous little rantlet, I'll also point out that rarely are politicians given any credit for, a) changing their mind when wrong, or b) changing direction or policy in response to circumstances changing.

The biggest single culprit in this is the press, or rather media, some leading proponents of which are far more concerned with merely scoring points and getting their own jibes in than actually having a reasoned 'argument' over facts or issues.

Paxman is bad enough but Kirtsy Warck drives me berserk for doing this. It's as if she has pre-scripted snippy, bitchy little questions and, having hectored a politician, often won't even let them answer the question before moving on to the next snipe. God, does that woman adore the sound of her own voice. If the politician is dodging the point or repeating him/herself, fair enough, but if they're actually answering, Kirsty, don't keep flaming interrupting.

So, while I despise the way politicians don't answer questions, in no small part the reason they answer as they do is the press/media.

Trouble is, we now have a vicious circle. Media have to be pretty obnoxious or politicians run rings round them with spin. And politicians have to spin or the vultures in the media don't give them a fair go, and instead, score points for the sake of it.

If the politicians need to be first up against the wall, next in line is those media and press hacks.