News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

No, because he didn't mention it until you called him on it.

It takes two to tango. Just ignore emotive posts and stick to the facts. Such as: how do you know that Virgin's 6.75% rise in fees is accounted for by the internet filter, and not inflation, rise of energy costs and updating infrastructure to deliver higher internet speeds?

 

I find it easier to just take the pills for that. Seriously when was the last time you saw the sun? With all the water round our way I'm starting to be thankful for doing the sea survival swimming courses when I was a kid. Finally going to come in useful.

As much as the porn filters are a pain at least you can turn them off. The day that changes or becomes difficult is the day to really worry.

 

One little point occurred to me, the title of this thread injects a personal stab at "Cameron" right from the start. Not "the government" or "whoever may be in power at the time". However, I guess even though,right at the start of the thread creation, the little personal stab is present, it was easy to let it go because we can all lean whichever way we choose - even journos.

If you are clean in this debate Corky42, let's get back to you showing how you are not trying to scaremonger by regurgitating media created nonsense to use as logs for your anti-filter fire hatred, and let the thread know how that 6.7% pays for the filter. I don't hate by the way, like I already said, I get my warmth and fuzz from you entertaining me.

Note: I am not accusing you of trolling. You are telling the thread how I am derailing it with my arguments, whereas I am telling the thread that you are plain wrong in your post. Who is trolling? Who is not on topic?!

Sun still up here! Although having said that I can now see the moody clouds coming this way. Garlic, Magnesium, B12, Ginger and vit C supplements also help

 

Sorry but that is incorrect as forum_user first used this thread to state the following...

To which i answered...

I am not claiming all of the 6.7 percent is to fund the filter, but based on what is known we can be sure some of it is. Things like the annual inflation rate for 2013 was 2.5 percent, and that ISP's already pay anything from 1k-40k pa, to support the running of the IWF as well as recently making a £1 million donation. And from what i can tell the IWF's total resources expended in 2013 was £1.6 million.
I'm happy to pay extra to fund blocking illegal content, like in the case of the IWF. But i object to paying what theoretically will be a larger amount because only 1 in 8 parents don't know how to setup filters on a per device basis.

 

How can we be sure? As I said, there is not only inflation to consider, but also the steep rise in energy costs and renewal of infrastructure to deliver higher baud rates (for instance when Virgin upgraded existing 20mb customers free of charge, all their modems needed upgrading too). So I'm not at all sure how much internet filters add to that cost.

My concern is different. forum_user rightly suggested that if someone fails to behave in a responsible manner (whether it's drink driving or handling the finances of a country), you hold them to account for that behaviour. You do not give them a car with breathalyzer ignition lock; you do not install a nanny who will oversee a government's financial behavior. If they cannot handle the responsibility, they shouldn't have it in the first place.

Similarly if parents cannot manage their children's internet access in a responsible manner, they are arguably not fit to parent children and/or have internet access at all. A government-imposed internet filter just allows ineffectual parents to continue abdicating parental responsibility --when little Johnny inevitably across some unsuitable material, as filters are never 100% proof, they can simply blame someone else again. Internet filters will encourage ineffectual, lackadaisical parenting, not more responsible parenting.

Basically the question is: do we want more or less nanny state?

 

Haha sorry Gareth!

I just wondered that the title may have spawned the original political injections.

Corky42, my COMPARISON (added: I thought) was clear regarding how we pay for stuff that we don't ask for all the time. I don't get your 'paying for the filters' argument, I don't think you've made a very good point to defend your overall stance of detesting the idea of other people saying yes to being filtered, while you are free to say no.

How much extra is it going to cost everyone?! Not a lot I imagine. Certainly, so far, NOTHING on BT.

 

Yes, like i said we don't know how much of this years price rises that all ISP's have introduced are to pay for the filter. But we can be sure that some of the increase is to pay for it, after all the administration and hardware doesn't come without costs attached.

As we probably wont get to see figures for how much the block-by-default web filters cost each ISP, we can only go on estimates and rumors, like the widely reported figure that TalkTalk's filter costs them £20 million per year.

Your COMPARISON may have been clear, but it was incorrect IMO.
You drew the comparison between everyone facing higher insurance cost because of other households being at risk of flooding, something that doesn't happen as households at risk of flooding pay a premium for living in flood risk areas.
And the other comparison you drew about higher taxes, as i said at the time "we pay higher taxes for many more reasons than your rather simplistic view of the world."

Maybe if i use an analogy it will help explain why i think its a bad idea to make everyone pay just because 1 in 8 parents don't know about, or how they setup per device filtering.

If we all had to pay higher insurance cost because 1 in 8 drivers didn't know about, or thought car insurance was to complicated would it be right to get the 8 people that do have insurance pay for the 1 person that refuses to use all the service available to make getting insurance easier, or refuses to educate them selves on why insurance is needed.

And just so you know BT has increased charges this year by an average of %6.5

 

Another, related question that has been forgotten in this is: forum_user, as a concerned and responsible parent, do you use any of the home PC internet filters that are already available for parents to control their children's internet access? I can't remember if you answered that question.

If the answer is: "Yes, I do", then why still expect the government to compel ISPs to do it?

If the answer is: "No, I don't", then why abdicate this responsibility to government and ISPs?

Would you consider internet filtering a form of "nanny state" behaviour?

 

No we don't use BTs filters on [any] devices. We use the built-in restrictions on Apple devices that kids might use.

I've said it before, I believe that anything is better than nothing. I also agree with you and the others who say parents should teach their kids and take responsibility for what their kids have access to.

On one unrestricted device I typed into Google web search (not image search) "Sky presenters" - Google very kindly then offers 3 suggested pictures. The first 2 pictures are one female presenter in her pants, the other in her bra. Not for kids though. For dad's, yeah.

(Added) Internet filtering is a yes or no option. It's got nothing to do with the state, yet.

However, does state-forced internet filtering of content that normal healthy 'people' should have access to, add to a nanny state? Yes. Although when that happens I would probably agree its our time for a revolution.

 

So no better or worse than most daily newspapers.

Yet is the operative word, does the introduction of network level filtering make it a lot easier for the state to do exactly what they wanted to do in 2011. In Britain, a Meeting on Limiting Social Media

Luckily that time they backed down, but how long before MP's come around to thinking it would be a good idea again.

And you only have to look at the list of sites that are, or have been blocked in the UK to see how far outside of it's remit, of targeting only alleged child sexual abuse content cleanfeed has been used for.

And who is going to be passing judgment on what a normal person is.
MP's already want greater powers to block other legal content.

 

Are we on page 3 yet? My feeling is: pre-pubescent children will not be that interested in ladies in their bra and pants except for confirming a few anatomical differences between men and women which they most likely were already aware of (or should be). Children well into puberty will be interested, but by that time you should already have started having discussions with them about sex and sexuality, how porn is not a realistic representation of sex or love and the objectification of women (and increasingly, men) in the media. Basically, you should already be building the cognitive framework for them within which to make sense of such imagery.

Interestingly on the restriction of social media during civil unrest, research on the role of Twitter in the 2011 UK riots showed that its influence had been predominantly positive, with people appealing for calm and organising community clean-up and rebuilding activities post the riots.

 

Regarding twitter and the looting of shops, and violence.

Think about those calls for calm and restraint. Made by people sat at home watching buildings burning on TV.

Then think about the looters using social media to state their targets and using it to request overwhelming support for their looting activities, to render the police useless in the face of mobs too large to stop.

Social media was shown to be preventing, stopping, a force of good and positivity? I disagree.

The reason for the "riots" (?!?!) was to bag new trainers and laptops. Voices don't stop looters.

 

That may be your impression, but that is not backed up by the evidence:

In any case, it is not a simple issue. When Egypt killed internet access during its own civil unrest, there was condemnation of this attempt at restricting the freedom of speech and information, and it didn't slow down civil unrest one bit. After the 2011 UK riots (and the government's call to restrict social media), comparisons were inevitable. Some researchers decided to study what may actually be the best way to deal with social media during periods of civil unrest. Their study can be read here.

Their conclusion: any move by the government to censor social media is likely to result in future civil unrest, higher levels of violence, and shorter periods of social peace. As a psychologist I can tell you that people are cussed like that --they seem to behave in the most paradoxical ways.

 

I'm really not sure what to make of this...

David Cameron's online filters aide Patrick Rock arrested in child imagery investigation.
http://www.standard.co.uk/news/crime/david-camerons-online-filters-aide-patrick-rock-arrested-in-child-imagery-investigation-9167395.html

While i am sickened to think of what he has allegedly done, I'm also at a cross purpose and find my self oddly conflicted. Is it a good thing someone who maybe knowledgeable and have a good understanding on the subject gave advise on the setting up of internet filters, or a bad thing ?

 

In which case, why isn't the police recruiting more criminals? Oh, wait...

 

Stop UK Internet Censorship.
The UK is moving dangerously close to internet censorship and we need your help to stop it!

https://www.indiegogo.com/projects/stop-uk-internet-censorship#home

 

Update-a-looza:

The majority of Brits are disabling government-backed porn filters.

Interestingly while just one in every seven customers opted to keep the filter, TalkTalk ranked as a significant outlier: it reports that 36 percent of customers had the government-mandated filters enabled on their home router. TalkTalk puts it down to the fact it pre-ticks the selection box, suggesting that people tend to just ride with the default state of affairs. Still, 36% is quite low if you consider it's the 'do nothing' option.

 

Lol no shocker there.

http://youtu.be/cNARJPNz2CA

 

And VM don't tell anyone about it and the engi's tend to just disable it during setup anyway...