Page 1 of 6 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 168

Thread: Britishers: Will you opt-into porn?

  1. #1

    Default Britishers: Will you opt-into porn?

    I don't suppose the government will be able to subpoena ISPs for records of who has opted-into seeing porn and other "objectionable" content?

    ISPs to include porn filters as default in the UK by 2014
    New and existing customers will have to opt out of filtering program.

    by Kadhim Shubber, wired.co.uk - June 16 2013, 11:00am EDT

    Parental filters for pornographic content will come as a default setting for all homes in the UK by the end of 2013, says David Cameron's special advisor on preventing the sexualization and commercialization of childhood, Claire Perry MP.

    Internet service providers (ISP) will be expected to provide filtering technology to new and existing customers with an emphasis on opting out, rather than opting in.

    "[In the UK] we will have filters where if you do nothing, the parental filters will come pre-ticked," said Perry, speaking at a Westminster eForum on 14 June.

    The move is part of a government effort to force ISPs to make filtering a standard option across industry and to make the technology easier for consumers to use. As ISPs are voluntarily rolling out filtering technology, it will require no new legislation or regulations.

    It had previously been feared that the government would force ISPs to block access to pornographic content unless a consumer specifically requested it.

    Companies like TalkTalk have forced new consumers to make a choice about parental filters since March 2012. It recently began doing the same with existing customers and 20,000 enabled filtering in the first week. Speaking at the event, TalkTalk's Head of Public Affairs Alexandra Birtles said that a third of their customers have filtering enabled.

    Perry said parents were "complacent" about the risks of online pornography, pointing out that only four in 10 parents use some kind of Internet filtering at home.

    Features such as time-limited deactivation of filtering and email updates when filter settings are changed are expected to become widespread. "We will have automatic put on, so if you turn the filter off at 9pm, it turns on again at 7am," said Perry.

    Although parental filters may not completely restrict young people from accessing pornography—who's willing to bet against a tech-savvy teenager?—making it easier for parents to control what type of Internet content is available at home will no doubt help.

    That said, restrictions on the content available to young people via mobile networks have been in place for a number of years. Access to pornographic images via peer-to-peer networks, sites like reddit and Imgur, and also to pornographic content created by young people themselves is unlikely to be affected by this initiative.

    "There's something different about the online world, it is anonymous, it is easy, and it is efficient to share imagery," said Perry, emphasizing that education was a crucial part of the challenge.

    As expected, the government is pushing ahead with ensuring that all public Wi-Fi spots are free from adult content, Perry confirmed.

    Perry also urged Internet companies to take up an active role in restricting young children from accessing hardcore pornography, saying, "the analogy I've used with these companies is, 'you've got yourself into a situation, by default, where you are peddling [pornography] to kids in a way that you never intended.'"

    Culture Secretary Maria Miller recently summoned major tech firms and ISPs like Google and BT to a meeting on June 17 to discuss the policing of illegal content online, a separate issue to underage access to pornographic images. Ahead of the meeting, Google donated £1 million ($1,570,400) to child sexual abuse charity Internet Watch Foundation.

    http://arstechnica.com/tech-policy/2...in-uk-by-2014/

  2. #2
    Maybe they can have filters by porn type as well. What could possibly go wrong?
    Hope is the denial of reality

  3. #3
    This is I believe already standard for "18+" sites on mobile (who's behind that I don't know). I've opted in as a political blog I go to www.politicalbetting.com is caught as a gambling website so thus 18+ despite mainly being about politics and rarely about gambling (and where it is its tips and not a site you can bet on).

    I think this is bloody stupid personally.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  4. #4
    At what level is this being done at? In the US our ISPs already hijack our DNS queries, and most porn sites already include a "are you 18?" page.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  5. #5
    To activate over 18 on my mobile I had to pay a £1 charge on my credit card (only 18 year olds have credit rather than debit here) and got £1 knocked off my next bill to compensate.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  6. #6
    if the ISP is doing the verification like that, that means its either comparing to a predefined no-go list, or using a crawler to "determine" which sites are likely pornographic based on certain keyword flags. Both are stupid easy to get around and both widely open to be exploited for political means.
    Last edited by Ominous Gamer; 06-18-2013 at 05:37 PM.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  7. #7
    I don't know what it is but that is ISP-side "opt-in" that pre-exists for mobile (and the politics site getting caught due to the name including the word betting indicates keywords) - and it seems that's what they want for regular non-mobile ISPs now. We're talking ISP-side vetting and not website age-verification of the totally meaningless "are you 18" kind.

    I believe the mobile ISPs already doing that is voluntary (albeit with pressure) and not statutorily required.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  8. #8
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    To activate over 18 on my mobile I had to pay a £1 charge on my credit card (only 18 year olds have credit rather than debit here) and got £1 knocked off my next bill to compensate.
    I could do it only by going to a shop and present my ID there. Then it still took them like 15 minutes to do it and part of the proces was me trying to understand what the hell some person with a line full of static and a heavy indian accent was trying to convey to me.
    Congratulations America

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    I think this is bloody stupid personally.
    I'm not so sure.

    Article said:
    "the analogy I've used with these companies is, 'you've got yourself into a situation, by default, where you are peddling [pornography] to kids in a way that you never intended.'"

    ... which strikes me as true.

  10. #10
    I'm on the fence about this one. My instincts are to dislike anything that automatically censors information, even if there's an easy opt-out. That being said, I do get the very real concern about little kids seeing things they probably shouldn't. My two big issues are:

    1. Efficacy. Most filtering works pretty poorly, catching lots of legitimate stuff along with the porn, or vice versa.

    2. Privacy. Now the government (or ISPs?) will essentially have a list of porn viewers, even if they opted out of filtering for non-porn reasons. That's a potentially more damaging list than if you had the reverse - a list of people who wanted filtering to protect their kids.

    That being said, the benefits may outweigh the costs. Porn viewing by children is a big problem and IMO has led to all sorts of issues.

  11. #11
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm on the fence about this one. My instincts are to dislike anything that automatically censors information, even if there's an easy opt-out. That being said, I do get the very real concern about little kids seeing things they probably shouldn't. My two big issues are:

    1. Efficacy. Most filtering works pretty poorly, catching lots of legitimate stuff along with the porn, or vice versa.

    2. Privacy. Now the government (or ISPs?) will essentially have a list of porn viewers, even if they opted out of filtering for non-porn reasons. That's a potentially more damaging list than if you had the reverse - a list of people who wanted filtering to protect their kids.

    That being said, the benefits may outweigh the costs. Porn viewing by children is a big problem and IMO has led to all sorts of issues.
    Maybe we should also put a nanny in everybody's home to check if they are feeding their children properly and if children go to bed on time after brushing their teeth.
    Congratulations America

  12. #12
    Well, we (the US at least) do provide specific food subsidies for poor mothers that are specifically chosen to be healthier for growing kids. We also provided subsidized dental care for children, and I'm sure that social workers follow up with parents if their children are seen to be regularly groggy at school.

    Regardless, the point is that there's so many routes of access to the internet now that it's increasingly difficult for even well-intentioned parents to effectively police their children's internet usage. Having an explicit opt-out from porn filters might make it more challenging for kids using dispersed internet access to stumble across objectionable material. Will it stop a concerted effort? Of course not, but it helps set a default filter on everything that can only be (legally) avoided by proving one is an adult.

    I don't disagree with you entirely, Hazir, I do have some issues with this sort of intrusiveness. But I'm not sure it's really all that bad, and I do see some upside.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    I'm on the fence about this one. My instincts are to dislike anything that automatically censors information, even if there's an easy opt-out. That being said, I do get the very real concern about little kids seeing things they probably shouldn't. My two big issues are:
    1. Efficacy. Most filtering works pretty poorly, catching lots of legitimate stuff along with the porn, or vice versa.
    2. Privacy. Now the government (or ISPs?) will essentially have a list of porn viewers, even if they opted out of filtering for non-porn reasons. That's a potentially more damaging list than if you had the reverse - a list of people who wanted filtering to protect their kids.
    That being said, the benefits may outweigh the costs. Porn viewing by children is a big problem and IMO has led to all sorts of issues.
    2 is a pretty big one. It also means that there are people who will deny access to themselves just to avoid being on that list, and then the system can be abused to censor information by how one defines adult content, or by accidental miscategorization.

    If you want this, it needs to be opt-in, not opt-out.

  14. #14
    Agreed with most of your points, Wraith. I do get the point about making it opt-out, though. That makes the opter prove they're an adult; otherwise all a kid needs to do is find a device or connection which isn't opted in, and they're good to go - even without intentionally meaning to. This doesn't mean opt-out is a good idea, just that there are not-awful reasons for making it so.

  15. #15
    This is good, it will help tame young male chavs and horny office-drones alike. Control should be even more fine-grained so that parents can specify exactly what kind of porn they want to permit after 10 PM, eg. watersports, gimps etc.
    "One day, we shall die. All the other days, we shall live."

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    Well, we (the US at least) do provide specific food subsidies for poor mothers that are specifically chosen to be healthier for growing kids. We also provided subsidized dental care for children, and I'm sure that social workers follow up with parents if their children are seen to be regularly groggy at school.

    Regardless, the point is that there's so many routes of access to the internet now that it's increasingly difficult for even well-intentioned parents to effectively police their children's internet usage. Having an explicit opt-out from porn filters might make it more challenging for kids using dispersed internet access to stumble across objectionable material. Will it stop a concerted effort? Of course not, but it helps set a default filter on everything that can only be (legally) avoided by proving one is an adult.

    I don't disagree with you entirely, Hazir, I do have some issues with this sort of intrusiveness. But I'm not sure it's really all that bad, and I do see some upside.
    I would rather porn filtering this not be a regulatory operation at all. If parents want to proactively filter, great. But how are the ISPs going to have any better of a list of porn sites than any other regular blocking mechanism? Is there going to be a national registry of 18+ sites?

    This is the kind of thing best left to parents, not regulators.

  17. #17
    Meaningless catchphrase. What are parents meant to do exactly?
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  18. #18
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Meaningless catchphrase. What are parents meant to do exactly?
    They could take an interest in what their children are doing online; it would make perfect sense to me if a child under 12 is not allowed to use a device connected to the internet in his or her own room. They can install parental control and actually discipline their children if they circumvent it. They should also take time to explain to their adolescent children to explain why certain parts of the internet are not appropriate or even harmful to them.

    Yes, it takes a bit more time, but that's what you opted into when you got a child. You're actually supposed to raise that child. Also you have to be pretty stupid to think there are no ways around these blanket bans that also children will learn about.
    Congratulations America

  19. #19
    Quote Originally Posted by Dreadnaught View Post
    I would rather porn filtering this not be a regulatory operation at all. If parents want to proactively filter, great. But how are the ISPs going to have any better of a list of porn sites than any other regular blocking mechanism? Is there going to be a national registry of 18+ sites?

    This is the kind of thing best left to parents, not regulators.
    When I first saw the news story, this was precisely my instinctive reaction, and I still have some of that. I'm deeply ambivalent about this sort of thing. But I have thought about it some, and I realize that there's a real issue here they're trying to address. No amount of parental oversight will be able to control a child's access to internet-connected devices. It's already hard, and within another 5 or so years internet connections to every device are likely to be ubiquitous. Forcing a blanket filter on everyone is a way to solve this issue; it won't stop kids who intentionally want to circumvent the filter, but it will stop the 6 year old from stumbling across something they really shouldn't see.

    I acknowledge your critique, though, and I have my own concerns as well.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    They could take an interest in what their children are doing online; it would make perfect sense to me if a child under 12 is not allowed to use a device connected to the internet in his or her own room. They can install parental control and actually discipline their children if they circumvent it. They should also take time to explain to their adolescent children to explain why certain parts of the internet are not appropriate or even harmful to them.

    Yes, it takes a bit more time, but that's what you opted into when you got a child. You're actually supposed to raise that child. Also you have to be pretty stupid to think there are no ways around these blanket bans that also children will learn about.
    What you're suggesting is impossible unless you intend to keep kids under lock and key 24/7 and prevent them roaming the house. So many devices are always online that its not plausible to prevent access. How do you expect a parent to prevent an 11 year old ever going unsupervised on a PC or a TV or a mobile phone or tablet or Kindle or ...?

    We don't have kids yet but I did see my little brother get raised up (well) since I was 16 when he was born and he got online easily. Before the age of 5 he'd asked for help because he kept crashing his plane - we didn't have any plane games. He'd gone on the PC and managed to download a Microsoft Flight Sim game demo and install it all figured out by himself though he struggled more with controlling the planes. And it was in '98 he was born before so many devices were always online. Nowadays we have more online devices than we have rooms in the house.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  21. #21
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam/Istanbul
    Posts
    12,312
    Really? So how do parents cope with children and a burning hearth ? It amazes me how when one suggest parents supervise their children while using the internet it seems entirely impossible for parents to do what they opted into when they put a child in the world.
    Congratulations America

  22. #22
    I was just thinking that. We somehow trust parents to allow their kids to play outside, with all the dangers that entails, but we don't trust them to keep their kids away from naughty websites...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  23. #23
    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    When I first saw the news story, this was precisely my instinctive reaction, and I still have some of that. I'm deeply ambivalent about this sort of thing. But I have thought about it some, and I realize that there's a real issue here they're trying to address. No amount of parental oversight will be able to control a child's access to internet-connected devices. It's already hard, and within another 5 or so years internet connections to every device are likely to be ubiquitous. Forcing a blanket filter on everyone is a way to solve this issue; it won't stop kids who intentionally want to circumvent the filter, but it will stop the 6 year old from stumbling across something they really shouldn't see.

    I acknowledge your critique, though, and I have my own concerns as well.
    Ubiquitous? You mean like on toasters? No, at best it becomes more or less expected on communication devices. Computers, phones, tablets, tvs, etc. Tools with a reason for broadcasting and receiving signals. And I see no reason for a kid to have unsupervised access to any communication device, just as Hazir said, nor do I think it's terribly difficult to keep 'em off unless the scenario we're positing is that there are a bunch of internet devices which the parents mostly aren't using and aren't around. That only really makes sense to me for latch-key kids and there are still some easy ways around it, like the parents using laptops they take to work with them rather than desktops that stay at home. Since portability is such a hot feature these days, making use of it to keep kids out of things you don't want them in makes more sense to me than asking the ISPs to ban content.
    Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"

  24. #24
    Quote Originally Posted by Hazir View Post
    Really? So how do parents cope with children and a burning hearth ? It amazes me how when one suggest parents supervise their children while using the internet it seems entirely impossible for parents to do what they opted into when they put a child in the world.
    Maybe supervise the sole burning hearth as it burns for whatever restricted time that its there?

    If parents had 17 various always-on burning hearths throughout the house with some in every room then it'd be accurately comparable
    Quote Originally Posted by Loki View Post
    I was just thinking that. We somehow trust parents to allow their kids to play outside, with all the dangers that entails, but we don't trust them to keep their kids away from naughty websites...
    Not sure what kind of point you're trying to make. The government ensures car speed limits for example are wildly different between residential roads and highways. We have a 20mph limit on our estate versus 70mph on urban highways or motorways.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  25. #25
    residential speed limits aren't there for the children else they would all be the same as school zone restrictions.
    "In a field where an overlooked bug could cost millions, you want people who will speak their minds, even if they’re sometimes obnoxious about it."

  26. #26
    Our one is. 20 where kids may be playing, the norm is 30 otherwise. 20 zones used to be unheard of but have been pushed typically as important for kids. If a kid runs onto a road chasing a football you should be going slow enough to stop.

    My estate is a 20 zone and you frequently get kids playing football on the road itself, especially in summer. I'll often turn a corner on a weekend and wait for kids to clear out the way, if I was skidding around like a boy racer there'd be an accident.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  27. #27
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    Meaningless catchphrase. What are parents meant to do exactly?
    Whatever they want. Or nothing. Ban computers in the house. Or put their own filtering systems on them. Or don't buy them smartphones/tablets. Or do nothing and let their kids explore. Government-mandated lists of "adults only" Web sites and making life painful for everyone isn't a proper regulatory response to replace parenting.

    It's not a meaningless catchphrase, it's just a statement that this is an area where parents should make choices and the government shouldn't bother with.

    Quote Originally Posted by wiggin View Post
    When I first saw the news story, this was precisely my instinctive reaction, and I still have some of that. I'm deeply ambivalent about this sort of thing. But I have thought about it some, and I realize that there's a real issue here they're trying to address. No amount of parental oversight will be able to control a child's access to internet-connected devices. It's already hard, and within another 5 or so years internet connections to every device are likely to be ubiquitous. Forcing a blanket filter on everyone is a way to solve this issue; it won't stop kids who intentionally want to circumvent the filter, but it will stop the 6 year old from stumbling across something they really shouldn't see.

    I acknowledge your critique, though, and I have my own concerns as well.
    I have the same concerns about porn can impact relationships/sexuality/growing-up/etc. But I don't think this is really an issue of the government making a serious and considered effort to address the issue. This is just "dem dar kids shouldn't see that videosex, cut off dem dar bad Internet sites!". It's cheap moralizing and, as devices proliferate, it will mean less and less.

  28. #28
    As Devil's Advocate (already said not keen on this) how do you expect normal parents to put their own filtering system onto all computers, Laptops, phones, tablets, ereaders, games consoles and TVs and whatever else will be online in the future?

    I'd rather an opt-in ISP filter but the only realistic filter I think is ISP side.
    Quote Originally Posted by Ominous Gamer View Post
    ℬeing upset is understandable, but be upset at yourself for poor planning, not at the world by acting like a spoiled bitch during an interview.

  29. #29
    The same way that parents make sure their children don't choke, drown, or stab themselves on any given day? You only have to apply the filter once...
    Hope is the denial of reality

  30. #30
    Quote Originally Posted by RandBlade View Post
    As Devil's Advocate (already said not keen on this) how do you expect normal parents to put their own filtering system onto all computers, Laptops, phones, tablets, ereaders, games consoles and TVs and whatever else will be online in the future?

    I'd rather an opt-in ISP filter but the only realistic filter I think is ISP side.
    They can make an effort and, if they don't like how it goes, they can just not buy their kids all these things. If I don't want my kid to kill herself in a car accident of her doing, I won't buy her a car when she's older and deal with the consequences of that.

    Life is a balancing act, and I hesitate mightily to support censorship of adults as an option to "protect" kids. An opt-in filter from the ISP would be okay to try out, but that's far from what's being suggested here.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •