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

Quote:

---

Also new Parental Controls will work across all devices in your home.

---

Read more.

Stupid if you ask me just watch this video explains what the internet is about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kV7ou6pl5wU

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.

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.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by OilSheikh

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.

---

That assumes that watching porn makes people (kids in this case) more likely to commit rape, which is not proven by any means.

I think it's a terrible idea, and people like you posting support in these terms are a very dangerous group as you'll push in broad censorship for the masses under some sort of misguided moral crusade despite the lack of evidence.

Wailing "think of the children!" and then banning everything is not the solution.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Apex

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.

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

soon enough this will turn into a censoring filter which will most likely censor anything negative, censor cussing etc. - bound to happen (For example, Xbox/kinect ban you for swearing...)

this is just yet another step the government are taking to taking over the internet for themselves so they can control what they want us to see.

The Daily Mail will be pleased...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Butcher

and people like you posting support in these terms are a very dangerous group as you'll push in broad censorship for the masses under some sort of misguided moral crusade despite the lack of evidence.

---

Oilsheik is entitled to voice his opinion without being labelled with a broad brush as "people like you". :)

This changes adult material from 'opt-out' to an 'opt-in' content. It doesn't stop anyone from deliberately searching for adult material, but might prevent some from finding it by accident.

I'd have to agree with Apex.
We, as a people, are giving up our rights too easily and a lot of it is for the ability to blame someone else. What I find amazing is that this, by and large, seems to be carried out at a government level and I wouldn't normally credit them with this calibre of finesse.

The only good thing about this is that this will promote new/ improved technologies to bypass state firewalls.

We have become accustomed to "anything goes" when it comes to the Internet. Well, the 90s are over and an overhaul is well and truly overdue.

Back in the early days the Internet was used by a tiny minority. Twenty years have passed and it is now the majority of everyday people that use the Internet in one way or another. I am truly surprised ISPs have gotten away with not filtering out certain contents thus far.

Bt deems naked people unsuitable for its customers and blocks it by default? What's next any form of violence, any media that's not rated PG and content with swear words in it? I don't want my internet filtered thanks and I can see this snowballing.... I for one will never be using bt.

I don't think that the banning of any sites is good for us. The Internet is the last place where only you limit what you can and chose to read/watch/download.

The isps should stop forcing there rules on us. If the ability is avaliable to block a site, give us the choice if we want to or not.

I don't agree with some of the websites out in the interwebz, but banning them should be a choice for the subscriber not someone else.

Aye, agree. The customer should have a choice to choose from several blocking profiles, the basic would be none, then child porn and such, and ending with a situation what I have at work: blocking even verydemotivational.com, cause apparently it is tasteless.
Good job we can still get the sites we want thanks to alternative-proxy-sites.

Surely its simple enough when you sign up to an ISP to have the question "do you have children in your home who regularly access the internet" and then offer the choice of having the filter enabled.
If they can succssfully enable this (BT) surely they can also enable an automatic ad blocker to prevent those tracking adverts.
How will this affect the BT Openzone/Fon network? If you are trying to access one and it has the maximum Parental controls set and yet you do not, is it going to let you access?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by roostapro

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

---

Problem is many parents don't know how to. Having an opt-out system means that the majority don't have to worry about it, and the only group that need to worry now are those who don't want the block but don't know how to opt-out.

Is that a smaller group than the alternative (those who do want the block but wouldn't know how to get it)? I don't know, but I guess it's probably the better default way around. An alternative way around it would be to have ISPs require that you state if there are any under 18s in the household/likely to use the internet connection, and if so, implement the block by default. But then, that means collecting personal data...

My only concerns are whether the monitoring has any impact on the quality of service, but I think it's the case that the same monitoring has been active for a while for most ISPs (and just no action/blocking takes place) so if it's been OK already, it'll stay OK. (And if it's not, well that's one other performance differentiator between ISPs)