[MP-Ryan]

AHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

*ahem*

AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA

So, free speech concerns aside, does the UK government have any idea just how long it will take for any moderately tech-savvy person to skip the ISP-enable process and simply use freely-available privacy and encryption tools to bypass these filters?  Does it realize at all that such a filter system is bound to make the populace more generally tech-savvy and reduce the ability of the government to spy on its citizenry?

A good op-ed on the subject:  http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/digital-culture/why-britains-anti-porn-mega-filter-is-great-no-really/article13344645/

Dear Mr.  Cameron.  I'd like to introduce you to a very interesting fellow who's been causing headaches for people like you for many, many years.  He's most commonly known as Murphy, but you might know him by his more formal title:  The Law of Unintended Consequences.

[StarSlayer]

[The E]

Starslayer gets 1 point for making a good reference (Although the Rule 34 squad in the book was more concerned with people getting killed or otherwise grievously harmed, not with people wanking to video streams).

But yeah, this is an astonishing piece of comedy.

[Lorric]

Starslayer gets 1 point for making a good reference

I don't know what it means.

[Colonol Dekker]

My understanding was that it was a case of opt out by default, requiring anyone seriously dependant on porn to call the isp (in a similar fashion to mobile network providers like T-Mobile or O2) and say, I'm over 18, content lock off yo yo yooooo.


Srsly, you kids, in my day you had to pool pocket money then nominate the oldest looking friend in the group to go to the local newsagent

[Mars]

Uh . . . is this seriously going to happen? That seems a little less than funny. Yes it would be difficult to enforce, but significant penalties for what would amount to completely random people would count as not good in my book.

[666maslo666]

Does it realize at all that such a filter system is bound to make the populace more generally tech-savvy and reduce the ability of the government to spy on its citizenry?

I can see the headlines already: "Britain blacklists porn" In other news, "HideMyAss and Tor replace Facebook as the most popular web service among British teenagers"

 

[Colonol Dekker]

Lots of mobile providers already operate on an opt-in principle already. Talktalk and T-Mobile I think.  It's not a hardship.

[Klaustrophobia]

i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong.  there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters.  you just tell them you don't want them applied to you.  this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content.  it's just filters.  it's a morality thing.  an easy and automatic parental block if you will.  i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it. 

[Mars]

i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong.  there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters.  you just tell them you don't want them applied to you.  this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content.  it's just filters.  it's a morality thing.  an easy and automatic parental block if you will.  i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it. 

"I want to be able to access HotSweetTrapFeet.com please? And could I also get access to Analbananna.me?"

[Klaustrophobia]

the way i saw it a simple "i don't want the filters turned on for me" will suffice.  some article i read even made mention of yes or no checkboxes, and a no response was counted as a yes.

[MP-Ryan]

i think a lot of people are reading into this wrong.  there's no NEED to get all tech savvy and learn how to pirate/bypass filters.  you just tell them you don't want them applied to you.  this isn't a control thing, it's not blacklisting or restricting content.  it's just filters.  it's a morality thing.  an easy and automatic parental block if you will.  i personally would think it should be opt-in not opt-out, but that's about it.

I think you're missing that quite a number of people will not want to phone their ISP to disable content blocks (which they never wanted in the first place), and are thus more inclined to give their ISP and government a gigantic "F U" and use privacy tools instead - which in turns harms government espionage efforts generally.... all of which was the point of the OP.

If ISPs provided an adult filter as an opt-in then I see no problem; few people will opt-in, and those that do know what they're getting into.  Making this opt-out is just a great way to educate people about government interference with the internet and invasion of privacy, and therefore get them to use privacy tools.

Given the success of programs like PRISM, though, I somehow doubt that governments in general want their citizenry to adopt better privacy protections.  A number of these programs explicitly rely on a certain level of user obliviousness as to the capabilities of certain agencies that gather information.

[BloodEagle]

I don't know how it is out there.  But over here calling your ISP to get something fixed is about a useful, fulfilling, and pleasant as waking up one morning to discover a tattoo of a phallus on your forehead.

I would imagine that plenty of people will choose the easier option of learning data security measures. [/is serious]

[haloboy100]

I thought the point of it was to stop your 11-year-old kids from accidentally stumbling over porn while searching for warez or something on the internet and prematurely being exposed to adult content at a fragile and impressionable young age.

As was my case.

[deathfun]

What's so wrong with porn?

[Polpolion]

What's so wrong with porn?

Nothing. Obviously the PM just wants to shake things up; there's clearly no motivating factor in this outside of boredom.

[haloboy100]

What's so wrong with porn?

Nothing at all if you also don't think that there's anything wrong with exposing it to a young child.

[butter_pat_head]

My main gripe with this is that if you select the option that does not filter the internet then most likely your account details are going into a list.  That list WILL then be used for other things.

Lets just say for example HLP accidentally gets put on the block list (which will most likely be confidential with practically no way to get removed from).  Well thats no problem because I'l have filtering turned off.  Now a major sexual child abuse incident occurs in my local area and the police are looking for suspects, "I know, lets get those lists the ISPs have of all accounts with filters turned off and see who is in the local area oh and while we are at it lets get some search warrants made up just to be safe...".  Better hide those Strike witches complete collections eh?

The filtering will just break the internet, if places like Youtube and Facebook aren't blocked by the filters initially, a few well timed hardecoredesguisedaskiddiesstuff invasions will soon sort that.  Or even worse, Site A dosn't like Site B so arranges to get it flooded with inappropriate content and then reports it.  Site B getd blocked without parole and dies (exaggeration I know.

The final biscuit will be when people are unable to search for good tourist activities in S****horpe and Penistone... (I should have expected the first one to fall the the forum's built in word censor  )

[TwentyPercentCooler]

Okay, right now, it's porn. But I think a lot of people are concerned because there's potential later on to expand the filters to include other things. Hilariously ineffective for anyone who actually knows how to use the internet, but it still isn't a thing that governments (or ISPs, or anyone for that matter) need to be doing.

[headdie]

guys seriously can we at least use a reputable UK news source, http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23403068

also can we take not of things such as

What happens if a customer wants to change what is blocked?

Again, it varies by ISP.

For those that use installed software, the blocking can be turned off or customised on each machine as required.

Most ISPs that operate network level blocking let customers turn it on and off as needed via their account settings page on the web. In some cases customers might occasionally need to call a customer support line to adjust the filter settings.

Some ISPs operate a time-based system that lets parents restrict access to certain sites at certain times. Many people choose to block access to social networks in the early evening when they want their offspring to be getting on with their homework.

because when we do we find little bits of info like what is in bold.  seriously several ISPs in the UK already have this service built into the basic package so its a non news event beyond demonstrating that yet again the UK government is behind the times.