UK’s porn filter plans are just an illusion

http://gigaom.com/europe/why-the-uks-porn-filter-plans-are-just-an-illusion/

by iProject • 14 years ago

27 35 14 years ago

aspratley• 14 years ago

Ah the irony. Filtering the Internet but you can buy porn through the same companies eg Sky http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_channels_on_Sky:_Adult

cheez2• 14 years ago

That's not irony, it's a business plan.

cheez2• 14 years ago

I'm so tired of this game.

The Internet as the Wild West is what contributed to its success, both as an economic powerhouse and as a tool for connecting people. Leave it alone.

It starts at censoring porn and will end at censoring dissenting thought.

nkoren• 14 years ago

My UK mobile provider (O2) requires you to opt-in (with a credit card) to "adult content" for their mobile web service. I haven't done this, because I really don't need porn on my mobile, and also because I don't have a UK credit card. Anyhow, during the revolution in Egypt, I discovered that one of the most prominent and important Egyptian bloggers -- "Sandmonkey" -- had for some reason been blocked by O2's adult figure. So although I doubt that this was their actual intention, vital dissenting thought is already being censored by these filters.

mike-cardwell3• 14 years ago

When I was with O2, I remember having to opt in to "adult content" so that I could read a tech news site it was incorrectly blocking. I think it was theregister.co.uk, but it was quite a while ago so I could be wrong, or they could have unblocked it for everyone by now?

lucian1900• 14 years ago

With 3 you can try to disable the filtering, but they won't do it. All opt-in in adult content does is let you buy porn from 3.

Downright insulting, especially when I just want to read a news website.

CWuestefeld• 14 years ago

vital dissenting thought is already being censored by these filters

Years ago when my dog was a small puppy, I had a webcam set up in the laundry room so I could check throughout the day that he was OK. That worked great until WebSense, the filtering system that my company uses, decided to classify my puppy-cam as "adult content".

When I complained to WebSense, they did change the designation in their next update. But still, it makes me wonder just how they go about setting these classifications.

UnoriginalGuy• 14 years ago

I'm with Orange (UK) and their "adult filter" seems to block a lot of stuff that has nothing at all to do with porn/adult content.

I turned it off after less than a week because web-sites like Reddit became impossible to browse as half the links were blocked.

I think they just block entire domains after a single link is flagged as adult.

mibbitier• 14 years ago

Never put things down to malice, which are more likely to be incompetence.

Vodafone have a similar stupid filter, which blocks random websites. You can just call them up and remove it though.

daeken2• 14 years ago

> “It filters out 35 categories of content, including porn, adult, suicide, anorexia etc,”

What? Ok, I don't agree with filtering out porn but I can at least understand it. But why would you filter out sites about suicide, anorexia, "etc"? Way to increase the stigma around already difficult issues, block people from useful pieces of information, and make it harder for people to actually get help in the way they want it?

I really, really dislike that.

EdiX2• 14 years ago

I think that with 'anorexia' they are referring to pro-ana websites (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro-anorexia).

Maybe websites promoting suicide also exist? I don't know.

daeken2• 14 years ago

Even if they are (which is quite possible), this sort of filtering is just not that good. No matter the intention, this will limit access to valid information and almost certainly cause harm.

vilhelm_s• 14 years ago

Indeed. http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/7341024.stm

tomjen35• 14 years ago

A simple search seems to reveal a bunch of websites which shows different methods for committing suicide, but I can't directly see any that actually advocate suicide.

DanI-S• 14 years ago

It's extremely poor judgement. The article also mentioned filtering content about drugs - since obviously, it's a bad idea to allow the public to educate themselves about the safe use of substances that are encountered on a daily basis in the UK.

Whilst the 'slippery slope' argument is generally a weak one, it seems to be inevitable once this machinery is put into place. First porn, then drugs, then suicide and eating disorders, then sites that are used for piracy, then sites that advocate civil disobedience, then fringe political groups like Occupy Wall Street or Stop the War Coalition.

You can disable it at any time, but what parent is going to remove the filter that protects their children from seeing porn? Having to 'opt in' to 'risky content' is tantamount to public shaming.

tudorw2• 14 years ago

What do parents do at the moment? I am one but they are so youung it's not an issue (yet...)

rahoulb• 14 years ago

For me, I talk to my children all the time, so they know the standards I expect and I know if something's bothering them. If they do want to look at something I disapprove of, they can and will, so I don't try to stop them directly - as that will just make them do it in secret and never tell me if they find something that really upsets them.

However, I don't think this kind of legislation is aimed at that kind of parenting.

tomjen35• 14 years ago

That sounds like too much effort. I want a free instant fix dammit.

mike-cardwell3• 14 years ago

Presumably the good ones deploy, "parenting". Talking to their children, etc.

EvilTerran• 14 years ago

They whine to the government because they want to use the internet as a childcare machine but it's got bad stuff on it. In response, the government produces something utterly ineffective and bad for liberty, that nonetheless assuages their fear that their precious little snowflake might see a nipple.

-OR-

They take responsibility for their own damn kids, and put the computer in a family room, facing into the room so they can supervise. Being a way of monitoring and/or limiting what your children view online that actually, y'know, works.

tudorw2• 14 years ago

I like the family computer in a shared space, I think that encourages responsible use, it's the only thing I could come up with that did not over censor.

Monotoko2• 14 years ago

Just leave the Internet alone. I'm not against filtering inappropriate content (although suicide 'etc' should not be blocked) but the next generation of parents will be more aware of the issues online and put their own filtering software in place if needed. Government mandated filtering is a really bad idea

theorique2• 14 years ago

But what kind of content is deemed "inappropriate"? Who are the ones who make that distinction?

I certainly don't want either government bureaucrats or corporate bureaucrats making that distinction for me.

Monotoko2• 14 years ago

There are plenty of open source blacklists out there that are far more reliable than the corporations, a lot of us already apply some kind of filtering anyway - think AdBlocker.

Of course, if you can educate your kid about the internet and feel that they are responsible enough not to need the software (maybe just keep the PC downstairs?) then that would be the better way to do it.

tomjen35• 14 years ago

It would be reasonable to me that the parents may designate certain things as inappropriate.

That said, I don't think they should be allowed to block e.g information on politics and religion (just as you can't cause bodily harm to your child).

mike-cardwell3• 14 years ago

There will always be politicians trying to ban things on the Internet. They will slowly chip away at it until all sorts of things become banned. I really think we need technical solutions to make it impossible or much more difficult.

gouranga3• 14 years ago

Killbots that go after politicians?

tomjen35• 14 years ago

Aren't those called drones?

guard-of-terra• 14 years ago

"So even if you think the mandatory filters are a good idea, the question has to be whether these filters are worthwhile"

People who think the mandatory filters are a good idea don't really "think" in the common sense of this word.

They move on. Yesterday they were furiously pro-filters when asked by media, but today they moved on. They don't remember a thing about the idea. They don't care. You can ever persuade them that filtering in this shape is bad.

But: they'll move on again. And tomorrow they won't remember a word of your explanations. The media baited them once more and once again they will vote "with their hearts". They aren't exactly the caring-about-the-end-result kind.