Re: Not if
I don't have any objection to this whole (optional) porn and violence filtering drive IN PRINCIPLE. Perhaps a bit surprisingly as I'm generally of a rather liberal bent. The old interwebs can be a bloody gruesome place and the IDEA of protecting the kiddywinks form the worst of it seems rather worthy. Bit of a bugger for the ISPs to achieve though, I'd imagine... and I rather hope that a bit of a bugger for the ISPs doesn't translate into a thumping great price hike for the poor plebs at the end of the wires who (always) pick up the tab.
I also can't imagine it being terribly effective.
So it'll all probably amount to nothing more than another ineffective PR stunt resulting in higher bills. Wicked.
I'm concerned there's something insidious and rather evil lurking behind these sort of initiatives though. Once in place, we're all protecting the children. Fine. As far as it goes. All optional, at the bill payer's discretion. Lovely jubblies. Then... oh noes!.. The wee rascals are being groomed into using anti-censorship tools to corrupt themselves. The poor wee souls are exposing themselves to filth and badthink despite our wholesome filtering. We must outlaw these obscure and depraved programs immediately. Think of the children.
Suddenly we're all trapped in Whitehall's walled garden nirvana and the government once more has full control of the public media. Just a couple of little twiddles with the not-so-optional "national security" bits of those child protecting filters....
Biting the hand that feeds IT
