Internet Filters

Tacitus · Jan 03, 2014, 08:58:01

According to this article in today's Guardian, the Governments 'opt-out' internet filter is about to come into effect: see the start of the third paragraph. It's not clear from the article whether this applies to all ISPs or just the big outfits. I believe AAISP have steadfastly refused to implement any filtering.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/jan/03/david-cameron-internet-porn-filter-censorship-creep

Has anybody any more information on this? Since we have to express a desire to watch porn, will iDNet be asking us to sign a formal request?

Simon · Jan 03, 2014, 09:52:35

I don't know specifically about IDNet, but I would guess that all ISPs will eventually have to comply with the law, if it's applied across the board, even AAISP. A further guess is that any process to 'opt out' of the filters would be fairly anonymous, but I'll try to find out more.

Tacitus · Jan 03, 2014, 10:43:41

Quote from: Simon on Jan 03, 2014, 09:52:35
I don't know specifically about IDNet, but I would guess that all ISPs will eventually have to comply with the law, if it's applied across the board, even AAISP.

I agree but have long felt that the 'porn' element is a distraction. What they really want is internet censorship of anything the government of the day doesn't like, which is no better than what the Chinese, the Iranians and others are doing. If parents or individuals want to block stuff, there are plenty of tools to do it with.

Quote from: Simon on Jan 03, 2014, 09:52:35
A further guess is that any process to 'opt out' of the filters would be fairly anonymous, but I'll try to find out more.

"Fairly anonymous" is not the same as completely anonymous.

Personally I couldn't care less about porn, but I do object to being told what I can or can't do perfectly legally in my own home and that's quite apart from the fact that filters are a blunt tool and will block all sorts of other content which may be of use to people.

Simon · Jan 03, 2014, 11:16:03

"Fairly anonymous" were my own words, and as I said, a guess, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "completely anonymous" on the internet these days. $:-\$

Anyway, I've heard back from IDNet that they have no plans to implement internet filtering, unless they are forced to do so by law, in which case, they will have to comply.

I wonder if this might actually be good for some of the niche ISPs, who may gather business from the big players, whose customers don't like the idea of filtering?

zappaDPJ · Jan 03, 2014, 16:23:02

The irony of this nonsense is that those who have had their porn filtered will bypass the filters while thousands of everyday sites such as Imgur, BitTorrent, Tribler, VODO, Fedora, Linuxtracker, ChildLine, the NSPCC, the Samaritans, the British Library and the National Library of Scotland are being blocked by various ISPs since the filters were introduced. According to an article I read recently in the Independent the filters also deny access to Parliament and Government websites, including that of Claire Perry, the clueless MP who campaigned prominently for the introduction of these filters

Tacitus · Jan 03, 2014, 16:28:05

Quote from: Simon on Jan 03, 2014, 11:16:03
"Fairly anonymous" were my own words, and as I said, a guess, but on the other hand, I'm not sure that there is such a thing as "completely anonymous" on the internet these days. $:-\$

I think you're right regarding the Internet, but there should be complete anonoymity as to whether or not you choose to view porn. As I said the stuff doesn't bother me, it's the principle I object to when there are perfectly workable ways for individuals to block stuff if they so choose.

Quote from: Simon on Jan 03, 2014, 11:16:03
Anyway, I've heard back from IDNet that they have no plans to implement internet filtering, unless they are forced to do so by law, in which case, they will have to comply.

Agreed they would have no choice and I can see this being the next battleground when MumsNet realise that not all ISPs are filtering.

Quote from: Simon on Jan 03, 2014, 11:16:03
I wonder if this might actually be good for some of the niche ISPs, who may gather business from the big players, whose customers don't like the idea of filtering?

I think it probably will be good for them in business terms, but once the tabloids start labelling certain ISPs as "the ISP for pervs" I'm not sure. If that does happen it will be interesting to see Adrian Kennard's response. At least the printable part......

Tacitus · Jan 03, 2014, 16:33:38

I agree Zap. As someone that works at a University I'm wondering what stuff is going to get blocked or whether Universities will be exempt. Given they're full of hormonal young people I've got my doubts.

Someone once said, there is nothing so ridiculous as the British public having one of its periodic fits of morality.

colirv · Jan 03, 2014, 16:39:41

Except it's not the British public, it's failing British politicians trying to find something that they can persuade us is both a problem and something they can solve. All the main parties do this periodically. Luckily for them the Daily Mail has sufficient readers to listen!

cavillas · Jan 04, 2014, 09:41:55

I will definitely opt out of any sort of filter on the basis that the government wants these filters implemented. As an adult I can choose to see and do what I wish, even if I break the law I have the right to do so but also must suffer any consequences as a result. As far as these filters go because it is a government requirement then I will opt out as it is an infringement on my personal life choices and anti-democratic. I don't care if people think I want to lok at porn (which I don't) but it is the wider, future implementation of blocking legitimate sites which future governments don't want people to access. governments always attack their own people where freedom is concerned and criticism of them is not wanted. Over the past 45 years British governments have proved they cannot be trusted any more.

talos · Jan 04, 2014, 09:52:05

The more this government wants to hide the more I want to see it. They use the excuse of porn, to filter everything we see, its big brother all over again

Gary · Jan 04, 2014, 10:49:06

Many will opt out, many will use it thinking its protecting thier children/themselves not realising it can block links to sexual heath sites etc. As far as the government hiding things, the Conservatives have already hidden about ten years of their own internet history, and I am sure they will continue.

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/nov/14/conservatives-website-purge-history-tory-party-speeches-internet

pctech · Jan 04, 2014, 11:36:53

More technically clueless MPs on the hunt for votes.

Presumably these filters are working on aggregate routes as well as domains and IPs which is why lots of other stuff is getting blocked.

My own ISP has taken the 'want filtering? We're not the ISP for you then' approach which I totally agree with because people who want to access the material will know how to circumvent the filters or will definitely know someone who does.

I'd rather see the law makers here and in Europe bringing the full weight of the law down on paedophiles and making it as hard as possible for them to use the Internet.

Gary · Jan 04, 2014, 12:43:25

Quote from: pctech on Jan 04, 2014, 11:36:53
More technically clueless MPs on the hunt for votes.

I'd rather see the law makers here and in Europe bringing the full weight of the law down on paedophiles and making it as hard as possible for them to use the Internet.

Paedophiles don't google, they have access generally though the darknet to their vile material. These filters seem to me to be a door way to stop access to material that a government may consider a threat to itself or its policies possibly, or to stop access to information about how our human rights are changing, or fact that this kind of censorship is even happening. How long before we have the great firewall of the UK, I wonder? It will happen but slowly, and then it will be to late to stop it. The days of frees speech on the net are crumbling away.

pctech · Jan 04, 2014, 12:45:22

Yep I think you are 100% correct there Gary.

Lona · Jan 04, 2014, 12:59:26

I wish they would filter Facebook and Twitter as they are a blot on society.

pctech · Jan 04, 2014, 13:06:10

Agree with you Lona but I do tend to monitor Jack Dee's twitter feed as he does come up with some real cracking jokes that he posts there.

Gary · Jan 04, 2014, 13:11:42

Quote from: Lona on Jan 04, 2014, 12:59:26
I wish they would filter Facebook and Twitter as they are a blot on society.

Yes helping the disabled with special forums on Facebook is a ~~blot~~...sorry no its not. Nor is having twitter which helped a whole country to free itself from a crushing regime.

Not understanding something is not a reason to persecute it, unless you are an avid daily mail reader... and when I say 'you' I mean in general, not you specifically Lona. Facebook lets me keep in touch with friends, talk in groups for people with similar disabilities to myself, and enjoy family and friends contributions from all over the world.

colirv · Jan 04, 2014, 13:12:29

Lona, I hope that was a joke. You don't have to look at Facebook if you don't want to. Our large family uses it a lot to keep each other posted about what we're up to, who's feeling well or poorly, grandchildren's latest drawings and so on. I can't think of a better way of doing that.

Simon · Jan 04, 2014, 13:24:00

Talking of Facebook...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25584286

I have used it to access certain groups, but I'm not 'on Facebook' myself, as I find it just too intrusive. Even joining a group requires a lot of digging around in settings to avoid constant notifications of this, that, and everything else, all of which seem to enabled by default. That's just annoying.

Gary · Jan 04, 2014, 13:29:05

Quote from: Simon on Jan 04, 2014, 13:24:00
Talking of Facebook...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25584286

I have used it to access certain groups, but I'm not 'on Facebook' myself, as I find it just too intrusive. Even joining a group requires a lot of digging around in settings to avoid constant notifications of this, that, and everything else, all if which seem to enabled by default. That's just annoying.

Its quite easy, you just turn off notifications for a group, its at the top of group pages, Simon.

talos · Jan 04, 2014, 13:48:35

I use Facebook quite a lot, the trick is to learn how it works, so you use it and not let it use you

Lona · Jan 04, 2014, 18:16:14

I agree with a lot that has been said here and yes, Facebook could be a really good way of keeping in touch with Family. The objections I have to it is the fact it is not monitored like this forum is for example. What would it be like on this forum if folk could type whatever they wanted to bully and abuse people.

When I said filter Facebook and Twitter I meant just that. To stop some of the things that happen regarding bullying and filth being typed.

colirv · Jan 05, 2014, 01:09:37

In general I prefer forums which are not moderated, so people can indeed post whatever they like. I object in principal to being censored. However, for forums that cover specific technical subjects, such as this one for customers of IDNet, I'm content to accept censorship as the price for technical help and discussion.

talos · Jan 05, 2014, 07:25:38

I've been on Facebook almost from its start and I have to say I've not seen or heard from other users any bullying or filth, have you any personal experience of this Lona ? If you meet somebody you would not like to associate with you simply filter them out, and as far as I can see this option is available on most forums. Twitter, I joined two years ago likewise no problems although I don't use it much so I don't really feel qualified to comment on it. If I joined any forum or any other interactive service on the web and don't like the content or the way it runs I don't get wound up by it I simply delete it from my system.

talos · Jan 05, 2014, 07:36:04

Quote from: Simon on Jan 04, 2014, 13:24:00
Talking of Facebook...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25584286

I have used it to access certain groups, but I'm not 'on Facebook' myself, as I find it just too intrusive. Even joining a group requires a lot of digging around in settings to avoid constant notifications of this, that, and everything else, all of which seem to enabled by default. That's just annoying.

I'm sorry but I think its rather naïve to think messages are not monitored, I firmly believe that there is no such thing as a "private" message be it an Email, Tweet or comment. If you want privacy use a landline or a letter. In my radio days we were taught never to send sensitive or private information over the air, and I consider mobile phones and Wi-Fi as radio .