ISPs set to install network-level smut filters despite Lib Dem opposition

UK telcos are continuing to work towards flicking the switch on network-level filters that will allow subscribers to block "harmful" content by the end of this year. That's despite the fact that the Liberal Democrat Party - which is the junior member of the Coalition government - has overwhelmingly opposed the parental …

[Sandtitz]

"There's an app for that"

Switch to Opera and use the Turbo/Off-Road mode which enables all the smut and TPB as well.

[CAPS LOCK]

Re: "There's an app for that"

Sush. Lets keep that to ourselves.

[Busby]

Re: "There's an app for that"

Was about to post how trivial it would be to get around but you beat me to it.

Complete waste of time but will appeal to the mumsnet and daily fail lot so obvious why it's going ahead.

Still feel it's a very slippery slope to start down. Would be more comfortable if they agreed to publish a list of blocked sites to ensure this doesn't start being abused for other purposes. Who am I kidding that it will be abused became obvious the moment it was announced.

Surely there are more important things for the government to be focussing on like dreaming up new ways of demonising the poor?

[Jamie Jones]

Re: "There's an app for that"

Ditto "uc browser", which has so far made me appear from the USA, India, and China!

www.ucweb.com

[James 51]

Title is too long.

"UK telcos are continuing to work towards flicking the switch on network-level filters that will allow subscribers to block "harmful" content by the end of this year."

So, how long before the lib dem website gets added to the list of 'harmful' sites?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Title is too long.

"So, how long before the lib dem website gets added to the list of 'harmful' sites?"

Well, I saw Vince Cable's speech earlier and it certainly did some harm to the TV i started throwing things at ..

[TheOtherHobbes]

Re: Title is too long.

Probably after the next election.

Problem is, it's not just smut. It's a lot of other content that everyone should have free access to, including basic gaming sites like Minecraft and - of course - political sites that someone doesn't approve of.

Such as the Daily Kos, which is left-wing but hardly full of bomb-throwing anarchists, and was already been banned in libraries and schools. (I don't know if it was ever unbanned.)

You can be sure that anything vaguely odd and tut-worthy (if you're dead from the waist down and the waist up) is going to end up on that black list.

But I expect parliament will get a special opt-out, just because.

[Vimes]

Re: Title is too long. @TheOtherHobbes

But I expect parliament will get a special opt-out, just because.

Don't be so sure.

There was that story recently about MPs accessing porn. That could only be known if the connections they were using were monitored. In addition some of them were apparently complaining that some sites had been incorrectly categorised as porn, which suggests that access is also being filtered.

[Vladimir Plouzhnikov]

Re: Title is too long. @TheOtherHobbes

The MP's connections are being monitored so that the spooks have something to blackmail them with when they'd want the next RIPA or similar laws to be passed...

[Vimes]

Re: Title is too long. @TheOtherHobbes

It's not just the internet based communications of those working within government being monitored either apparently...

https://nodpi.org/2009/08/18/phorm-is-like-the-gms-opening-your-mail/

[Vimes]

Personally I have yet to see any answer to the following questions:

- What right will website owners have to be notified that they've had their site filtered?

- What compensation can they expect when they're incorrectly filtered? (this *will* happen - as recent problems with the radio times demonstrates)

- What sanctions will be taken against ISPs that incorrectly filter a site? (don't do anything about it and they'll keep on making the same mistakes - add a penalty and they'll think twice before filtering)

- What minimum standards will be applied when trying to get a site off the list? (Talk talk's site seems to suggest that they'll do what they want, and tough luck if you disagree - and even more tough luck if you actually want a response from them - this just isn't good enough)

- What minimum standards will be applied when complaining about how a case has been handled?

ISPs seem to forget that it's not just the website user that's having their web usage interfered with - it's the person on the other end too. No thought seems to have been given to this.

[Vimes]

I'm curious: why the downvote?

In any case whoever decided to do that might like to recall that filtering systems have already been abused.

http://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2012/orange-uk-blocking-la-quadrature-du-net

If we're effectively going to cut websites off the British part of the net then we really do need to spare some thought for those that run and own those sites, especially when some are relied upon for a livelihood and others contain information that is too easily censored.

[Len]

Compensation for correctly filtered

You are only talking about incorrectly filtered. I still don't know why porn sites who are correctly filtered would not be entitled to compensation, either from the ISP that block their legitimate business or from the government. I hope a smut monger sues they state for missed income.

[Gav]

Re: Compensation for correctly filtered

And what definition are we using for "correctly" filtered. My definition of what is "correct" may differ from that or the ISP's or the government's.

Here is the nub of the problem, in that you are giving the power to make that decision to either some drone in a commercial company, (where arse-covering is the watchword) or some drone in government, (where either vote-appeasement or political dogma is the deciding factor). Neither should be trusted to decide what is "correctly" filtered.

But that's the slippery slope that apparently some are eager we approach. Once the method of filtering is in place and working, how long before the ISP or the government start "tweaking" the criteria to suit themselves? How long before the ISP decides that certain traffic is an inconvenient drain on their resources, and might possibly be considered by some as maybe a bit scary to small children? Plonk it on the list then, problem solved! How long before the government decide that a website they don't like "promotes terrorism" (the magic words!), and must, ipso-facto, therefore be child unfriendly? Onto the block list with it!

So only those without the filter get to annoy the ISP or read what the government doesn't like. But that doesn't matter, because we've already established that they are all deviants that need kept an eye on.

[Crazy Operations Guy]

Re: Compensation for correctly filtered

"So only those without the filter get to annoy the ISP or read what the government doesn't like. But that doesn't matter, because we've already established that they are all deviants that need kept an eye on."

how do you know they won;t be filtered too? The ISPs could easily have a basic filter that everyone is subject to and then the smut filter that you can opt out of. If someone notices their traffic going through the filter, they could just lie and say that is how the network is blocked; everything goes through that particular piece of equipment.

[Vimes]

Re: Compensation for correctly filtered

The ISPs could easily have a basic filter that everyone is subject to and then the smut filter that you can opt out of.

AFAIK they effectively already do this to some degree - items on the naughty list established by the IWF are in all liklihood still blocked even if you opt out of other filtering.

[JimmyPage]

What's that US saying ?

"A day late, and a dollar short".

You might have pulled a stunt off like this 10 years ago. But nowadays, with a proliferation of millions of people sending each other links every second of the day, I suspect most "on" filters will get turned "off" within 24 hours, as people start wanting to access the links their friends can see.

Out of curiosity, how many links on (say) they Daily Mail website will require opting out ?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: What's that US saying ?

Reminds me of my sysadmining days. The company I worked for around 6 years ago just hired a new HR director. On her first day at the job she called me to discuss why we are have only AV checking and threat checking on our connection and no "net nanny".

At which point I told her that I am fine with filtering provided that it is equivalent to whatever is already considered acceptable in the workplace. Which realistically means nothing. She threw a wobbly and went to the CEO. I got called in for a "conversation" so I brought a selection of rags from the kitchenette. Sun, Daily Fail and a couple of others. I slapped them on the table and told her to explain me exactly why she is banning them first.

That ended the discussion.

[CAPS LOCK]

If David Cameron and other naive MPs want to associate themselves with this...

... and other ill thought out schemes let them. They'll just end up as a laughing stock as the internet routes round the damage.

In the end the 'official' internet is headed for a white-list only, with forms to fill in and a charge to pay to get on. By then of course the world will have moved on.

[CBN]

Thus...

we begin our journey down the slippery slope to Internet filtering in the wider context, not to mention making certain that parents are deemed to no longer be responsible for what their children do.

[Vimes]

Re: Thus...

...parents are deemed to no longer be responsible for what their children do.

Funnily enough pretty much every report I've seen on children & IT on the TV news shows the kids with the PC in the bedroom rather than somewhere where the parents can see what's happening.

God forbid that society expect parents to keep an eye on their own children.

[Tim #3]

But...

So, how long will it be before some ISP Sysadmin decides to leak a list of celebs and politicians that have opten in? No doubt certain tabloids would reward that very generously....

[Nick Kew]

Re: But...

Pre-empt any such story. Declare your intention openly, and explain that it's nothing to do with wanting to view smut, and everything to do with choosing Shakespeare over Bowdler.

http://bahumbug.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/endarkenment/

http://blog.inkyfool.com/2013/08/hamlet-is-banned.html

[Anonymous Coward]

Democracy by Mumsnet

I know it wasn't Mumsnet that kicked off the current batch of whinging but you know what I mean. There's nothing quite as awful as someone who knows what you shouldn't be reading.

If this lot blocks any of the sites I manage I shall be mightily pissed off. I tried for months to get one site unblocked by Orange. No luck.

[Yet Another Commentard]

Re: Democracy by Mumsnet

Well, seeing as Mumsnet has several forums dedicated to sex (about getting pregnant, natch, as well as more cosmo type relationship ones) I would suggest it is on the far side of the filter "to protect the children". After all, it has a cuddly website name, so a child would assume it was a safe place that mum would approve of after all.

Who will protect our children from the filth peddlers of Mumsnet eh?

And don't get me started on the Daily Mail sidebar...

[Shrimpling]

Re: Democracy by Mumsnet

The answer in this is when the filter is in place is to start reporting these sites to your ISP as inappropriate.

Social Media as well... all sorts of degenerates have a Twitter or Facebook account that the little ones need to be protected from.

It will hopefully become a contest for the Anonymous types to see which sites they can get blocked by the porn filter.

Then 6 months down the line when Claire Perry can no longer post on Twitter because of the ISP ban this will quietly be removed and we can all go back to normal.

[CAPS LOCK]

Re: Democracy by Mumsnet

We won't be 'going back to normal'. This has all been thought through. When the current scheme is deemed failed a more aggressive scheme will be necessary. This in turn will fail leading eventually to a government approved white list. Stretch out with your feelings - you know it's true.

[andreas koch]

@ Shrimpling - Re: Democracy by Mumsnet

What a wonderful idea! Apart, of course, from the fact that Claire Perry will be automatically blocked for having the initials CP and a lot of mentions of porn on her site.

As soon as there's somewhere that one can report websites to, I'll be on it and report just about everything.

For example this atrocity, this smut, certainly this or anything related to the Conservative Party.

I also would like naked images excluded from the school curriculum, especially from biology and PSHE, seeing that parents aren't even asked about this filth.

Children under 25 should by law be required to wear a sheet-metal burqa anyway . . .

Where the <Austrian town of choice> is this going?

[Jedit]

"Where the <Austrian town of choice> is this going?"

On a side note, there was at one point a movement to have Fucking, Austria twinned with the Norwegian town of Hell.

[Christoph]

Re: Democracy by Mumsnet

I wonder how loudly Mumsnet will scream when they find that br**st cancer help sites are blocked?

[J.G.Harston]

DNS level blocking? That means blocking the BBC, Wiki, the British Museum, The Sun, NHS Online, IMDB, Cancer Research, National Institutes for Health......

If you're going to block anything the only practical way of doing it is with URL level blocking. Which of course requires millions of humans examining the content of every single URL categorising it. Ok, where are the jobs being advertised?

[Captain Hogwash]

Not categorising, rewriting Winston. Your job is to rewrite.

[Rukario]

dailymail 8.5.15 reporting bb dayorder doubleplusungood refs clegg miliband unpersons rewrite fullwise upsub antefiling

[andreas koch]

@ Rukario -

Plusgoodthink.

I just have the feeling that after the CP* reveals it's renaming to Ingsoc and creates the Minitrue that there will not be a PornoSec . . .

*Not Child Porn, Conservative Party. Or Claire Perry, if you prefer.

[Don Jefe]

Global Insularism In a Global Market?

This just seems like one more step on the road to blocking a country off from the rest of the world, while still trying to influence global events. You can't have keep it both ways.

Censorship never works, it results only in the information being twisted and warped beyond recognition as it inevitably makes its way to the populace.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Global Insularism In a Global Market?@ Don Jefe

"You can't have keep it both ways."

Well, you're from the country in which topless sunbathing is largely frowned upon and even illegal, yet which is home to the world's porn industry, and the same country that defends the values of democracy through the National (domestic) Spying Agency.

Worth noting that what is proposed is "only" an opt in system. I shall be opting out (a) to look at the sort of material the internet was invented for, and (b) as a matter of principle, because I don't want lightweights like our political leaders censoring what I read. But in some ways I think a default filter is probably a good thing for those not clever enough to either install K9 or other filters for themselves, or alternatively monitor what their kids do. The common challenge of "you can work round it" is no more valid than suggesting you shouldn't lock a door because locks can be picked.

[Don Jefe]

Re: Global Insularism In a Global Market?@ Don Jefe

Believe me, the incongruities and hypocrisy here are readily apparent and excruciatingly frustrating. Even the platforms of the two major political parties are each internally contradictry and guarantee neither will ever be able to overcome their own conflicted interests; dooming the country to mediocrity. It was only due to, literally, nuclear powered momentum we got this far.

The repercussions of the lost momentum are painfully obvious to anyone who isn't covering their eyes with an American Flag soaked in apple pie and gravy.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Re: Global Insularism In a Global Market?@ Don Jefe

You're missing the main point, that as soon as people start opting-out, the filters soon become mandatory.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Global Insularism In a Global Market?@ Fluffy Bunny

"You're missing the main point, that as soon as people start opting-out, the filters soon become mandatory."

Well, IWF watchlists are already in effect a mandatory baseline filter for most ISPs in the UK.

I think the fuss will go away once the filters are in place, because the people who think this is a good idea will go back to promoting other illiberal ideas, of which there are many. For example, having all but banned smoking, expect The People Who Know Better Than You (tm) to move to outlaw smoking in public open spaces, and then they'll be on to clamping down on alcohol.

[Blacklight]

Not withstanding the joy of VPN, utilizing DNSCrypt will (or bloody well should) entirely stuff your ISP from viewing your DNS traffic, unless they get all MITM capable...

Then all that can be done is IP blacklisting, which, as mentioned, will block "quite a few" sites. HTTP Host Headers anyone?

re: Vimes' & J G Harston's comments - OpenDNS sort of do this now - it's crowd sourced reviewing, and sites may well find themselves "categorized" incorrectly, with all fun that ensues. See here for an example : http://www.techpavan.com/2009/07/14/website-blocked-opendns-wrong-category-unblocking-solutions/

I suspect various legal beagles will (again) be employed to ensure the wording used on any ISP block carefully avoids libelous comments, and that all blocks are for "suggested" content....

[Mr Flibble]

OpenDNS

Anything under me.uk is categorised as “blog” by default, which is sometimes a pain in the rear when I want to access my home network from somewhere which has blogs blocked. Ignoring the DNS resolvers specified via DHCP on such networks gets around that.

[Demosthenese]

3

I recently switched from o2 to 3 for my mobile internet. I was SHOCKED, shocked I tell you, to discover that the nanny filter was off by default. Won't somebody think of the children?

[Richard Wharram]

The easiest way to get around this

Is surely to say 'No Thanks'

Repeatedly.

[Don Jefe]

Re: The easiest way to get around this

I don't know about you guys over there, but here if you have to repeatedly say no to something being forcibly pushed in on you it is harassment or aggressive panhandling; both criminal and in some states, civil crimes.

[Richard 12]

I wouldn't mind except they are lying

"The decision to turn on filters is then put into the hands of parents and carers who know best what is appropriate for their children."

(My emphasis)

By pre-ticking "turn on filter" they are in fact pushing you to have the filter, and it's actually "the decision to turn OFF filters".

Not to mention that a website owner can't get their site unblocked or compensation for wrongful blocking, this is an all-or-nothing concept, with no granularity (why can't I see porn on my login to the home WiFi, even though my kids can't?), is trivially bypassed by accident (connect to next-doors WiFi) and rightfully would need to block most of the "Red-top" news sites, Mumsnet, half of YouTube...

Basically, it's a bit of knee-jerk twattery that not only won't work, fundamentally can't possibly "work" in the way that its been claimed, will do a lot of damage and then get quietly (or perhaps loudly) dropped.

[Don Jefe]

Re: I wouldn't mind except they are lying

They've pulled the oldest trick in Democracy. To force the refusal to comply with 'right' thinking, as defined by "them", onto 'the people'. You can choose either option, but you must choose one: Democracy Is Choice With Consequences, Choose Wisely.

Any desirable citizen will acquiesce to the governments chosen way, whereas those undesirables who do not wish to comply must make a loaded, pre-defined statement, that although they know what is 'right' they actively want to do 'wrong'.

[_] Check Here if you endorse institutionalized farming of children as food and you do not want an ID card.

[Fading]

Re: I wouldn't mind except they are lying

I can't get the check box to work.........

:D

[Shrimpling]

Re: I wouldn't mind except they are lying

It won't work for me either... I wanted Soylent Green.

Its just a shame about the ID card thing being tacked on. How are we supposed to make sure our food is sourced ethically if we don't give it an ID card?

[Don Jefe]

Re: I wouldn't mind except they are lying

You've been locked out of the system because you didn't want an ID card. As such you are both proven, self-confessed, undesirables and no longer entitled to a voice in the operation of our democracy. So here's your ID card anyway, with a special notation just for your kind.

Tricky thing, those government checkboxes...

[Dick Emery]

Re: I wouldn't mind except they are lying

I choose neither. I choose to bypass it. Fuck being flagged if I choose to opt out.

[patrick_bateman]

So if these blocks are being put in place.

Why hasn't a system been put in place to stop ever piece of spam/malware/DDOS event from coming up or going down someones line already,

surely stop these first as they have a larger financial and social impact on the world, porn can come second.....

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP can chose what they want to supply to customers

If you're not happy with your ISP you can always change.

[stuff and nonesense]

Re: ISP can chose what they want to supply to customers

"If you're not happy with your ISP you can always change."

1. Looking at porn is not illegal.

2. If it is not illegal it is allowed is one of the principals of the UK legal system.

3. The imposition of the proposed filters is censorship, pure and simple.

4. I did not vote for mumsnet and they have no right to tell me what I can or cannot view.

5. I am a customer of an ISP. ISPs are supposed implement "net neutrality", data types and packet types handled equally. (hint : W H Smiths sells porn mags but don't tell everyone)

6. re read 1 and 2

[BrownishMonstr]

Re: ISP can chose what they want to supply to customers

1. Looking at porn is not illegal.

Unless you're under 18. Not that that stops them from seeking porn, willingly. They say it is to stop them from watching extreme porno, in which case maybe it's time they should start using the TV License to fund some non-extreme porno and give this to the ones going through puberty, maybe via those SexEd lessons.

[J.G.Harston]

Re: ISP can chose what they want to supply to customers

No, supplying porn to under-18s is illegal. As a 16-year-old you don't get nicked for rubbing one out over a fancy mag, the shop keeper who sold it to you does.

[Nick Kew]

Move along, nothing to see ...

A quick google finds unsurprisingly El Reg is amongst those who've been reporting censorship for years: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/

Seems that the proposed legislation is more liberal than the status quo in at least two ways:

* We're being told that censorship is happening.

* We're getting the option, even if it comes with an "I'm a self-declared perv" label.

Hmmm .....

[banjomike]

It isn't about watching porn!

It is about allowing some Mary Whitehouse-type to decide what IS porn and therefore decide what is not allowed to be viewed. If the courts say "this is illegal" then fine, I can live with that but not with some dozy functionary in the basement of Virgin Media or BT Towers deciding for me.

[BrownishMonstr]

Re: It isn't about watching porn!

what IS porn

Easy, whatever offends those in power.

Power Corrupts. And Absolute power corrupts absolutely.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: It isn't about watching porn!

>If the courts say "this is illegal" then fine,

That's not a good thing.

If the courts came out and said "masturbation is now illegal," would you blindly accept that?

[Dick Emery]

Re: It isn't about watching porn!

Well it does make you go blind.

[John Miles 1]

you can always turn it off

Years ago when Mary Whitehouse complained about some programs on TV the response was 'well you can always turn it off'. Surely the same answer applies to network filtering; if you don't want it then just turn it off.

[banjomike]

Re: you can always turn it off

It would be more appropriate if you could 'just turn it ON'.

[stuff and nonesense]

Re: you can always turn it off

You have the burden of responsibility the wrong way round.

The ISPs ought to present the question (when it is offered) with the option to turn on the filters un-checked by default.

[Fluffy Bunny]

Re: you can always turn it off

The problem is that you can't "always turn it off". As soon as the nanny state finds out that people are opting out, watch the indoctrination campaign in the guise of community consultation, followed by mandatory filtering.

[Adam McCormack]

White List

Just cut to the chase and have a white list of Gov't approved sites...

[Haku]

Re: White List

So that would be Disney and Toys'R'Us then.

No, wait, people die in Disney films, and Toys'R'Us sell toy guns.

Hmm...

[DPWDC]

Re: White List

Not to mention Disney's habit of sneaking innuendos into their films... Come to think of it - they should be first on the black list!

[Dick Emery]

Re: White List

"Not to mention Disney's habit of sneaking innuendos into their films... Come to think of it - they should be first on the black list!

0

0

"

Surely that should be 'ethnic minority list'?

[billse10]

"TalkTalk, of course, debuted its Homesafe system in 2011. That system, provided by Huawei, works by harvesting every URL visited by every TalkTalk customer. It then follows them to each web page and scans for threats, creating a master blacklist and a whitelist of dangerous and safe URLs."

Nothing wrong with that in principle (please read rest of this sentence before downvoting) provided the name & contact details of the human beings reviewing every single exact URL are published, along with that exact URL (ie not just www.dodgysite.com but www.dodgysite.com/pages/12/terribleppic.jpg) that's been blocked, and replace e.g. blocked images with something that identifies the individual person who chose to block it.

Then make those individuals personally liable under civil law should they block anything that is not illegal, and their employers liable for a penalty equal to one years' revenue from each affected subscriber per exact URL affected by filtering of legal content. Just for completeness, then make the MPs and campaigners who support this nonsense accept joint & several liability for all fines and penalties.

[Suricou Raven]

It has been known to cause trouble with some sites - advertisers detecting what looks like click-inflating, forms being double-submitted, things like that.

[dephormation.org.uk]

Nothing wrong with that in principle

There *is*. And there is something wrong with that in law.

TalkTalk are non entitled to divulge the content of a lawful private/confidential communication (a url) to a third party without explicit consent from sender & recipient (or a warrant for surveillance). (UK RIPA).

TalkTalk are not entitled to retain the content of a communication or anything revealing the content of a communication (EC Data Retention directive).

TalkTalk are not entitled to commercially exploit the content of communication without a licence from the author (UK CDPA).

TalkTalk are not entitled to interfere with the operation of a computer without consent from the operator (UK CMA).

[Haku]

Malicious blocking of 3rd party sites?

So does this mean that if you can post pornography (either fullsize, thumbnail or browser-resized to a single pixel so site visitors don't actually see it) to a 3rd party website/forum you can get that site added to the filter list which will apparently be quite difficult to be removed from?

Some people are going to have a field day with that...

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: Malicious blocking of 3rd party sites?

I think the kudos will go to the first person to get the words "Cameron", "Miliband" and "Clegg" added to the list of forbidden search terms.

[Don Jefe]

Re: Malicious blocking of 3rd party sites?

Milleband and Clegg have names custom made for a Santorum type treatment.

[J.G.Harston]

Re: Malicious blocking of 3rd party sites?

I caught people Clegging in the bushes last night ;)

[Aristotles slow and dimwitted horse]

Bill of Hicks called it straight...

"Cameron appears to have spotted an opportunity to appeal to Middle England by throwing his support behind network-level filtering that compels a household's broadband bill-payer to make a declaration about whether or not they want to view porn online."

Which is interesting to a point... because I'd hazard a guess that it's "Middle England" (whatever that actually means) with it's milked like a cow and ever increasing tax burden; its hanging on in quiet desperation while tied to the mortgage with 2.5 kids while being allowed exactly no more or less than a scientifically measured shot of vodka or beer down the pub - that is actually the biggest consumer of online pornography.

And anyway - who is it who is actually defining what this pornography is?

I refer you to Sir Bill of Hicks who called it straight : Coca Cola & Porn.

[dmck]

Re: Bill of Hicks called it straight...

I don't mind him censoring "Middle England", but why does he have to take the rest of the UK with him ?

[Anonymous Coward]

"network-level content filters are coming"

correction: widespread censorship is coming.

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: "network-level content filters are coming"

But network-level content filters sounds so much more democratic and free than widespread censorship system.

[Anonymous Coward]

"These aren't the droids you're looking for..."

Will it be possible to discover the IP address(es) that are doing the smut scanning and get your website to serve up non-smut material just to those IP address(es) so that your site doesn't get on the naughty list?

(selected anonymous posting for the V mask)

[John Smith 19]

And all because Clare Perry can't set up the content filter software her ISP sent her.

The list of Stalk Stalk options is here

But note the government has a list (I can't find it again) that include other stuff as well (WTF is "esoteria"?)

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: And all because Clare Perry can't set up the content filter software her ISP sent her.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+esoteria

[John Smith 19]

Re: And all because Clare Perry can't set up the content filter software her ISP sent her.

"http://lmgtfy.com/?q=define%3A+esoteria"

Wrong.

I mean the government meaning of the word.

[Anonymous Coward]

Just use A&A

No filtering there :- http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html

[Anonymous Coward]

DNS Lockout

This is why the likes of Sky, BT and Virgin have locked out changes to the DNS settings on their supplied routers/hubs. They want to ensure we all use their DNS servers and not go "off reservation".

Sky then go the extra mile with their ridiculous T&C's which say you can't use your own equipment to connect to their services and then throw in a few extra DHCP options to make it awkward to get around it!

Unless you know how to use Google that is.

[John Smith 19]

Re: DNS Lockout

"This is why the likes of Sky, BT and Virgin have locked out changes to the DNS settings on their supplied routers/hubs. They want to ensure we all use their DNS servers and not go "off reservation"."

Yet another good reason not to touch them with a barge pole?

[Anonymous Coward]

Re: DNS Lockout

> This is why the likes of Sky, BT and Virgin have locked out changes to the DNS settings on their supplied routers/hubs. They want to ensure we all use their DNS servers and not go "off reservation".

I wouldn't be surprised to learn that those companies are quite happy to implement URL harvesting filters so they can do a google and spam their customers with "selected offers to enhance your browsing experience", buy up trending social media sites etc. I haven't seen any clear information about what degree of anonymisation will be applied to customer browsing histories or where that information will end up.

[Waspy]

Maybe there's life in the old Lib Dem dogs yet...

They do have a reason exist after all!

[TheRoundOne2013]

Censorship Infrastructure

I really wonder, why there is no huge public outcry over this.

Basically, ISPs are installing a censorship infrastructure under the guise of making the bad and ugly and perverse Internet safe for families.

A couple of years ago, they actually made a law in Germany, which required ISPs to implement filtering against child pornography, despite everyone who had a bit of technical knowledge telling them, that this is complete nonsense. Organizations working against CP confirmed that they made good progress getting smut removed; worldwide cooperation was good and improving and newly discovered sites were off the net in reasonably short times.

In the end, the law wasn't enforced and not too long ago, it was abolished.

Why not instead implement the filtering in the home router, using a server at the ISP to update the filter lists. Then everybody can enable/disable the filtering in the pivacy of their home and doesn't have to remove the embarrasing tick mark saying "yes, I want porn"...

And it's time that parents wake up and do their duty towards protecting their kids. Relying on global filtering on the side of the ISPs gives a false sense of security, especially since the curious little ones will find out very fast, how to use a free and unfiltered DNS server.

[mike moon]

Re: Censorship Infrastructure

they do not want the censorship at your home as you will be able to circumvent it to easy, they want it at tier 2 internet providers, which are the ones that your isp connects to, they want TOTAL CONTROL , TOTAL CENSORSHIP . after this is complete , the uk will officially be a police state , albeit the filters being applied from a mixture of security services in the uk /government agencies /local councils (any one who has a position in any of these that has a personal reason to ban a site) and then finally the ISP themselves . I suppose on a good note since bittorrent traffic , video streaming and anything else that is either bandwidth hungry or considered dangerous for children will be barred, we can all switch back to modems as we will not need broad band anymore, as it will not be BROADBAND it will be narrow band along with the narrow minded people controlling it. I guess it will come that everyone has to then PAY to use there connection like a licence fee to use the broadband they purchased, perhaps with per byte metering as well to squeeze some more money out the customer , how about barring skype use and voip they compete with telecoms companies, i am sure someone at one of these can find a very good reason to bar skype and voip traffic . They of course will have no ulterior motives, it will just e out of the kindness of there hearts that they get a rival business barred from the web , perhaps the filtering company can then run some kind of kick back scam with a bit of blackmail and fraud mixed in to get your site unlocked, like say a ADMIN charge of 150 pounds to get your site unlocked , plus a 20 pound charge for phoning sorry emailing the call center so that your request can be held in limbo if they wish.

[Don Jefe]

Re: Censorship Infrastructure

Government overreach is rarely preempted. It is either blissfully ignored or has certain aspects of it, and accompanying 'sacrifices', vocally supported by a subset of 'the people' until they realize the scope of what has been done.

Government, by definition, is restrictive; explicitly designed to take away and can never truly give. It can only not take away. That is the biggest danger in anyone, any idea or ideal, pushing any government to act. Any action must result in a loss to the governed.

Government action should be a last resort, an unused tool, dusted off only when there are no other options. The most valuable things to be lost are those that have little value until they are lost and those things are the first to go because they are the easiest to take.

The UK government is acting in the only way any government can, by taking away. In this case the titties. The government should never have been involved, but the requisite fanbase required of all democratically elected leaders put the 'Taking Away Machine' into motion.

[John Smith 19]

Re: Censorship Infrastructure

"I really wonder, why there is no huge public outcry over this.

Basically, ISPs are installing a censorship infrastructure under the guise of making the bad and ugly and perverse Internet safe for families."

Because most people are ignorant and they are playing the every useful "Think of the children card."

[Anonymous Coward]

Which part of democracy is this again?

[Anonymous Coward]

The part where yummy mummies who run websites and whose husbands work for the BBC and who have dinner with the Camerons get to decide policy.

[AndrewCarlton]

Tumblr, Blogger, Flickr, Imgur and Imageban

Chances are Tumblr, Blogger, Flickr, Imgur and Imagebam will be blocked by the new "mommy" filters, all 3 are known to contain lots of porn

(I should know :D)

the idea of ISP level filtering is aweful, let alone "on by default", if it's gonna be shoved down our throats it should be "off by default" and customers should be informed about their options

[Mr Young]

And here was me...

thinking ISP's were simply data pipes! I can imagine a phone getting tapped like in spy movies easy enough but blocking a phone call because I use a naughty word? OMG - do I have to go back to modem speeds or buy a satellite off Ebay to get round this control freakery stuff?

[Hayden Clark]

What about FreeView?

Along with the PC, many kids have TV's in their bedrooms. If you keep your finger on the channel "up" button for long enough, all sorts of icky things appear. BabeStation, the various "rabbit" stations, for example. No-one's proposing to ban those.

Odd that.

[Mr Young]

Re: What about FreeView?

Take an up vote for the good use of the word 'icky'

[Daniel Voyce]

What is the actual method they are going to use for this?

I moved to Australia 6 months ago and while I do follow UK news where possible - have they said how they are going to do this? I assumed it would be using the ISP's DNS servers to filter this out, but as someone said above - they would have to do it on a URL by URL basis for sites that might contain something people might find offensive....

Either way it's bullshit - leave the internet alone you massive shower of wankers!

[Anonymous Coward]

So I went to bed in the UK one day...

...and woke up in North Korea.

[Anonymous Coward]

I demand the gov't put some kind of system in place which prevents my children who can't swim from drowning when they run into the ocean when I take them to the beach.

After all, it's not my responsibility to make sure they don't drown.

Oh, wait a second, it is.

[Anonymous Coward]

Fuck the system!

Although you should not really have to do this.

http://clientconfig.immunicity.org

[hoola]

Do-Gooders & the Electronic Baby Sitter

There incessant moaning idiots trying to control everything that the population can see, do hear or watch will be the same bunch of muppets that believe it is always someone elses fault.

The fundamental problem in British (and Proabaly American) society is that the responsibility is always somebody elses. Schools are mainly seen as free childcare and many parent provide no support to their child's education. Those same parents then give the offspring unlimited access to TV, Film & computers with no supervision. They then bellyache when said offpsprinf have a screen load of porn that they have "inadventenly" found.

Yes, an innocent search can turn up the wrong material but there are pleny of free tools that will prevent this that will be far mor effective and controllably than anything an ISP can do. Where are the lines drawn?

What is acceptable for a 10 year old is inappropriate for a 5 year old. Then it gets even harder through 11 to 14 and 15 to 16. Then there is the legallity of the post 16 year olds.

One assuems that the camp in favour of filtering are happy for ALL defaults to be appropriate for 5 and younger.

Yet another politically motivated pile of sh** to come out of Downing Street as the result of lobbying by a noisy minority in an attempt to "safeguard" our children.

[Vladimir Plouzhnikov]

Re: Do-Gooders & the Electronic Baby Sitter

Nobody in the UK or US Governments, at least no one important, cares about the innocent searches or children being exposed to pr0n etc.

They want the snooping and filtering tech installed because:

- if you dig out any dirt on them they want to know first; and

- they want to shut it down before anyone else sees it.

That, in a nutshell, is their motivation. Of course, that's an unrealisable dream but one can't deny their tenacious perseverance...