News Porn filters criticised as BT goes opt-out

The O2 filter isn't based on the "unavoidable choice" filter the Cameron "nudged" ISP's into implementing as it was running a long time before Cameron strong armed the ISP's

It is the highest setting on O2 and is meant for children under 12. http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/23/o2-filter-blocks-children-from-stonewall-bbc-conservative-and-downing-street-websites/

Its also worth noting that following complaints, media attention and misunderstandings surrounding O2's URL checker and categories, O2 have switched it off, with no timescale for reinstatement.
What this emphasises is that transparency needs to be of right, and not something that can be withdrawn for commercial or public relations purposes. Websites need to identify that they are blocked, or not. Complaints should not only be dealt with because of Twitter campaigns.

 

Why would you give a phone to a five- to eight-year old in the first place?

 

These are the same people who hand their £400+ phone to little timmy, then raged at me over the repair bill when surprise surprise, they dropped it and/or or threw a strop and smashed the screen...

Or allow their loin-spew unsupervised access to their credit card [pretty much] and wonder how and why sprog has run up a 4-figure credit card bill on 'We'll Milk Yo' Wallet Dry Saga'...


Some people should not be allowed to breed...

 

Yea i kinda share that same puzzlement as you. But recent study's have shown one in ten children have a phone by the time they are 5 years old, and most have a phone by age 11.
And i do understand that parents may want the peace of mind that a phone brings, in case they need to know where they lost them

 

Ill informed Claire Perry should be blocked from the internet, lol

 

David Cameron's internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep.
The question of who is allowed access to what data is a defining one of our age – and Edward Snowden has taught us to be wary. http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep

UK ‘Porn Filter’ Blocks Legitimate File-Sharing Services (And TorrentFreak)
http://torrentfreak.com/uk-porn-filter-blocks-legitimate-file-sharing-services-and-torrentfreak-140103/

Maybe a vision of the future.
http://www.livemint.com/Politics/78m3Npvc0iVc9w1YAxrhcJ/Iran-readies-domestic-Internet-system-blocks-Google.html

 

Are the filters in effect yet?

Edit: Seeing reports of sites being blocked I would think yes.

 

We may yet be saved from the travesty of a default on internet filter.
Exclusive: Lib Dems risk ‘pro-porn’ label as they oppose internet filters.
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/exclusive-lib-dems-risk-proporn-label-as-they-oppose-internet-filters-9050312.html

 

Surely the only evidence since these filters came online, is that a few sites have been temporarily blocked?

Not that they are ineffectual? Where is the evidence that sites that should be blocked are not being correctly blocked as per filter limits?

Side note: I moved recently. Signed up with BT for the slowest broadband I've ever had the displeasure to receive. Every new device that went through my HomeHub router was presented with a web page asking whether it should received filtered internet access or not. So far I do not need the filters, so I declined the kind offer - simple really.

 

That is a bit like arguing for the effectiveness of military drones because they do actually kill bad guys and not just innocent civilians.

Totally. But that doesn't stop the BT filtering system from still logging every site you visit. Still, if you got nothing to hide, right?

 

So collateral damage is OK then ?
And how are you going to know if your site has blocked ?
Even if we are only talking about a %1 error rate that's still 1.5 million web sites blocked by accident with no way of knowing they are blocked.

A recent Newsnight test found the following. "TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight." on a more positive note "Sky's filter fared much better, blocking 99% of sites, but it did block six porn-addiction sites."

This filter gives a parents a false sense of security and that is more dangerous than not having a filter at all.
http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall?CMP=twt_gu

That is until the government of the day decides that you shouldn't have that choice.
Or that a record may well be kept now that you have disabled it.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep

 

Thank you for choosing BT! Please, enjoy our complimentary Kool-aid.

 

I am fairly sure (50/50) ..... that ISPs already have to retain data for proper law enforcement. Like when the police get one of those real old fashioned things called warrants, rather than just suspiciously data-rape the world in a spooky way.

Going back 10+ years I vaguely remember the ISPs were not reliably holding on to data needed to prosecute suspects, and I thought a regulation had come in, or something?

As regards the Newsnight data you used Corky - 7% of the 68 porn sites were not blocked? And? Are you frustrated that 5 porn sites made it through the filter? Or that the other 93% didn't? Or are you frustrated that a 7 year old little girl with a heavy porn addiction will not be able to get treated if her parents have Sky broadband and it's filters in place? (Nexxo - I liked your drone reference) If you are using the Newsnight programme data broadly to reinforce your idea that filters won't work, then I would argue that blocking 93% of porn sites from children is better than only blocking 7% ... or none at all.

On the other hand how many hundreds of thousands of porn sites are there?! And Newsnight only used 68? Maybe they used 68 of the most obvious sites? Maybe they used 5 really obscure ones? How did they choose the 68?

We can be sure that Newsnight will have passed the site details of those 5 that made it through the filter to the ISP, so I guess 100% are now blocked! Job done.

 

True, but now they have a dedicated system to do that, and what's more it has a veneer of legitimacy. Just because the NSA and MI6 are screwing us doesn't mean that we have to make it easy on them.

 

I think that the argument is one of false sense of security. But you are completely missing the point. The point is (concentrate) that internet filtering abdicates parental responsibility to the government, or worse, commercial companies.

Yeah, you can argue that some parents simply don't have the technical competence to filter the internet at home. But that is bullcrap. All that parents have to do is be present, and take an interest in what their kids get up to. All they have to do is talk to them and foster the sort of relationship where their children want to talk to them. If they can't do that, they shouldn't have children at all, and no amount of ersatz parenting by government or commercial business is going to be a substitute.

You may argue that it's not a big deal in the grand scheme of things, but it is one more thing that surreptitiously establishes the societal notion that parenting can be handed to the state; that it's OK for parents to just shrug and pass the buck. I oppose internet filtering on principle, because you, forum_user, should get off your lazy butt and do your own parenting of your own offspring. It's your responsibility. You should be prepared to crawl over burning coal for your kids. Nothing should be too much effort for their wellbeing. So get off your ass and do your job. Don't leave it to some sociopathic politicians or companies.

 

The argument isn't false sense of security in filters.

That is you guys using that item as a bolster in your argument for not wanting filters. In the same paragraphs in these debates you guys are saying parents should take responsibility and use filtering software.

Honestly though, what you guys are actually saying is NO FILTERS. Software filters are how reliable? The risk of huge embarrassment makes the ISP filters how reliable?

 

Technically the idea is impossible to implement reliably, at ISP level or at home, but in the latter case at least responsibility and control stay with the parent. For me it is mainly about power and responsibility. As an intelligent autonomous citizen, do you keep responsibility and control over your own life and that of your children, or do you hand it over to the state and corporate business because it all feels a bit too much like hard work?

If you do parenting right, you don't need filters. You don't need a single scrap of technical knowledge. The problem of children accessing inappropriate material is not a technical problem; it's a parent-child problem. PEBCAK.

There is no technical fix for inadequate parenting.

 

I agree that filtering wouldn't be needed if kids weren't overly inquisitive, driven by peer pressure, innocent eyes prone to accidentally witnessing bad ****, well-parented and well-educated.

 

No they wouldnt but a list of what household have opted out of a filter that prevents them from viewing 'extremist' content sure makes the NSA and GCHQ's job a lot easier.
And lest not forget sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices and distribution of software. In other words, filesharing and music downloads. Opt out and you may find your household monitored by the RIAA and MPA.

Actually the EU passed the Data Retention Directive in 2006 that requires all members states to retain data for between 6 and 24 months. But it has been a very controversial directive challenged many times as being against people privacy rights.

No im frustrated that we are all facing higher bills for a filter that does more harm than good and is only intended to win Cameron votes from frightened parents.

As has been said many times this filter give parents a false sense of security. If you know the internet is a dangerous place you sit with your child while they are online and still small enough that you can perfectly regulate their network usage – not just to ensure that they don't happen on to the bad stuff, but also to instill in them the responsibility, sense and good habits that will help them to steer clear of the bad stuff when they get a little older and you can no longer monitor all their online activity.

But now with the filter parents will be more inclined not to regulate their internet usage, after all this filter that i switch on stops my child from viewing inappropriate material so i have no need to teach my child good internet habits or to monitor them.

But wait the filter doesn't work as shown by Newsnight so now not only are you not teaching your child good internet habits, but your child is still able to accidentally or purposefully view inappropriate material without you there to put it into context for them.

So does this mean you are starting to see the problem with a filter ?
If Newsnight only tested 68 sites and found some sites not covered by the filter imagine how many sites are not covered when a larger sample size is used like the 1.5 billion web sites out there. Yet parents are being lead to believe that if they turn on this filter their children are safe, when that is far from the truth.

They probably did but that doesn't mean 100% is now blocked, what about the other 1.5 billion web sites out there? don't forget a margin of error of just 1% means 1.5 million web sites.

It is a false sense of security in filters, if you are going to have a filter you want to make sure its fit for purpose. If you install a filter at home you have control over the white and black list, you make the decision on how your child accesses the internet, you decide when and on what device they may use it.

When a filter is imposed by your ISP you have no control over the white and black list, you have no way of checking what is and isn't blocked, it effects every customer not just a single household, it potentially gives an abuser control over what the person they are abusing can or cant see and it raises some very serious privacy and security concerns.

Yes we (i) am saying NO (default on network level) FILTERS for all the reason i have already gone into, its not a matter of embarrassment its that they are fundamentally flawed.
Like it or not parenting is hard, it's scary.