Brussels rules that new porn filters are illegal

[zappaDPJ]

As much as it pains me to link to the Daily Mail, they appear to be the only outlet that has published this story so far.

David Cameron's pledge to protect children from sickening online pornography has been dealt a potentially fatal blow by Brussels.

European Union laws voted through yesterday will force internet firms to scrap the porn filters they installed following a Daily Mail campaign.

The new rules make internet service providers treat all online traffic 'without discrimination, restriction or interference' – regardless of its content. It means that by the end of next year, filters that require people to opt in if they want to view online pornography will have to be removed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3292677/Blow-Cameron-Brussels-rules-new-porn-filters-illegal-Fury-EU-outlaw-opt-protects-children.html#ixzz3ppaBcHOB

[mervl]

As much as it pains me to link to the Daily Mail, they appear to be the only outlet that has published this story so far.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3292677/Blow-Cameron-Brussels-rules-new-porn-filters-illegal-Fury-EU-outlaw-opt-protects-children.html#ixzz3ppaBcHOB

True, as long as you ignore the exceptions contained in the Regulation. As usual it doesn't allow criminal activities or blocks required by a Court Order. It also I understand explicitly allows network Parental Controls, but only with the prior consent of the customer, which must be able to be withdrawn at any time. It's easy to say that anything should be banned or allowed absolutely, which is often the default Press position, but in reality one man's right is another man's wrong, and the Regulation seeks to strike a balance. Of course it's a free country so anyone is free to lobby about what anyone else should be allowed to do (and we all think it'd be a better country if only we could control everyone else's behaviour), but perhaps the customer (other people, with different views) also ought to have a say in the matter too (unless it's criminal or illegal and the Regulation, as well as the rest of the law, doesn't allow those anyway)?

Just one thought though. If we believe that Parental Control filters should be mandatory without any need for consent, what are we doing with an ISP like IDNet, who don't filter anything (and I believe are on record as saying they won't)?

[colirv]

As much as it pains me to link to the Daily Mail, they appear to be the only outlet that has published this story so far.

I imagine because of "European Union laws voted through yesterday will force internet firms to scrap the porn filters they installed following a Daily Mail campaign"!

[mervl]

  The Good News is that the Government has mooted passing legislation (as they're entitled to do under EU law for public safety) to require all ISPs (that would include IDNet, then) impose default Parental Control filters, so we'll all have to ask to look at anything the government thinks we shouldn't. So now we can all sleep soundly in our beds (and pay for the pleasure).