Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK ISPs To Begin Censorship of Porn Websites

timothy posted about 3 years ago | from the just-wipe-this-blood-over-your-threshold dept.

Censorship 186

An anonymous reader writes "In a plan sponsored by the UK government, four major UK ISP's, Virgin, BT, TalkTalk and Sky, are set to implement blocking of porn websites, requiring subscribers to 'opt-in' if they want to visit blocked websites (or to put it another way, 'opt-out' of internet censorship)."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Blocking porn websites? (5, Insightful)

LilBlackKittie (179799) | about 3 years ago | (#37677932)

Good luck with that.

Moral panic panic. (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37677944)

The Bible, Qur'an and Torah are full of sex, weapons and violence. I hope the new net filters will remove all trace of them off the net.

Actually this is misreported. Most the ISP's are making it opt-in. http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/reality-check-with-polly-curtis/2011/oct/11/internet-pornography

BT is providing filtering software as part of their install package. Mcafee no less. Botnet admins are probably rubbing their hands with glee.

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

Joce640k (829181) | about 3 years ago | (#37677996)

I don't think written porn is illegal in the UK...just explicit images of erections, penetrations and ejaculations.

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

IgnoramusMaximus (692000) | about 3 years ago | (#37678466)

Oh, of course! I mean a kid seeing an erection or an ejaculation would immediately suffer such a massive brain damage as to go blind on the spot! No?

Well, at least it would be such a traumatic shock that he or she would be a PSTD victim for the rest of his/her life! Surely?

Or maybe, just maybe, the "parents" and the whole Western society are under an influence of some Judeo-Christian-Moslem frothing-at-the-snout mental disease that rots the parents' brains and turns them downright psychotic when it comes to sex and naked bodies and into completely insane, dangerous, violent mental cases when their offspring is thrown into the mix with one of the religious taboos ....

I mean its not like the "innocent little angels" are equipped with their own penises (erection capable - oh the horror!) and vaginas or something...

Next on the agenda: ban on mirrors for all minors. And then full body burkas with padlocks and bult-in catheters to piss through for all children!

Sex education at an age before it is actually needed? Never!!!

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

jhoegl (638955) | about 3 years ago | (#37678922)

I like where this is going.

Re:Moral panic panic. (2)

hairyfeet (841228) | about 3 years ago | (#37679396)

Personally as long as it is opt in and up to the INDIVIDUAL parents I don't see a problem with this. I wouldn't want to tell some parent they HAVE to let their little Suzy see a cock anymore than I'd want them telling ME what kinds of games my boys are allowed to have. Every parent should have the right to decide what they think is appropriate for THEIR child and if the ISPs want to give them an easy to use option to exercise that right? As long as it isn't forced on anybody I think that's a good thing.

Re:Moral panic panic. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678474)

I don't think written porn is illegal in the UK...just explicit images of erections, penetrations and ejaculations.

Is that true? An image of an erection is actually illegal in the UK?

Why?

It's illegal in Japan, but we forgive that because the Japanese have the most perverse culture in the world today, but England? An picture of a hard on is going to bring about the demise of civilization as we know it?

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

History's Coming To (1059484) | about 3 years ago | (#37678350)

If this is the same "opt-in" that BT applied to their FON system then everybody will be "automatically opted in". You can opt-out of their opt-in system, but being automatically opted-in. I did query how this was different to an "opt-out" system, but I'm clearly not smart enough to understand the difference.

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678352)

The Bible, Qur'an and Torah are full of sex, weapons and violence. I hope the new net filters will remove all trace of them off the net.

And I hope you use your uncensored internet access to look up the definition of pornography.

Re:Moral panic panic. (0)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#37678770)

A judge in the US was tasked to define pornography and he couldn't come up with a definition other than "I'll know it when I see it". The only thing people do universally agree on is child pornography.

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

xaxa (988988) | about 3 years ago | (#37678938)

The only thing people do universally agree on is child pornography.

No, they don't. Must it be a sexual situation, or does any nudity qualify? What age -- 18? 16? 14? 12? Does being male or female make a difference?

I've probably seen what could be considered child pornography
- "Page 3" in British tabloid newspapers before the age limit for topless modelling was raised from 16 to 18
- Baby/child photos (mostly me or my siblings, but occasionally friends)

Re:Moral panic panic. (1)

cavreader (1903280) | about 3 years ago | (#37679120)

Child pornography in the US defined as anyone under the age of 18. Though most of the sick fucks who get off on child porn tend to concentrate of kids much younger than that.

WTF??? (1)

muffen (321442) | about 3 years ago | (#37677946)

Internet without porn.. INTERNET without porn... INTERNET WITHOUT PORN!??!!??!?

Re:WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37677984)

This is not your father's Internet.

Re:WTF??? (4, Funny)

Noughmad (1044096) | about 3 years ago | (#37678278)

My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father's Internet. Prepare to die.

Re:WTF??? (2)

Penguinisto (415985) | about 3 years ago | (#37678486)

ASCII porn from a BBS over a 2400 baud modem needed to die.

Re:WTF??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37679138)

Don't be silly. There's always ASCII.

Re:WTF??? (2)

shikaisi (1816846) | about 3 years ago | (#37679412)

You can have my porn when you pry it out of my cold, dead, sticky, hands.

blocking of porn websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37677948)

No they are not... Catch up will you?

Wrong. (4, Informative)

richy freeway (623503) | about 3 years ago | (#37677954)

Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678080)

And even then it's only the noob ISPs.

Re:Wrong. (1)

XxtraLarGe (551297) | about 3 years ago | (#37678210)

Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.

That's less sensationalist and doesn't generate as many flaming posts and page hits!

Re:Wrong. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678318)

Sort of. You'll be given a straight choice of filtering, without anything presumed either way. You can argue this is opt-in to be filtered, or opt-in for porn. Either way it requires a conscious choice.

On the plus side you can't get filtered without your consent (yet) but on the downside you have to show a positive decision to allow porn, which some people may be uncomfortable with. It also gives the ISP's a nice list of who "chose" to watch porn.

Re:Wrong. (1)

Kjella (173770) | about 3 years ago | (#37678572)

On the plus side you can't get filtered without your consent (yet) but on the downside you have to show a positive decision to allow porn, which some people may be uncomfortable with. It also gives the ISP's a nice list of who "chose" to watch porn.

Or those that need their net pre-filtered or those who feel they can do their own filtering by not going to websites they don't want.... unless you're scared you will forever be mentally crippled if someone links you to a porn site. Actually,if they have a category for shock sites that's one category I might check myself, the goatse.cx guy is one thing I could gladly do without...

Re:Wrong. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37679362)

Wrong wrong wrong. You have to OPT IN to the filter.

Of course its wrong to have to opt in to pornography, because it makes pornography seem as if it is somehow bad. And the fact that these initiatives are instigated by religious groups is also noteworthy.

Notice also the hypocrisy here. They want to prevent children from watching pornography (according to these people, sex is an exclusive right to people 18 years of age and older), and yet there are no, ABSOLUTELY NONE, restrictions on religious content. Children can be exposed to the bigotry, hatred and irrationality of religious content but something as normal and natural as sexual pleasure is "harmful". Clearly we live in a sick society.

Well, this will be a problem (1)

zcomuto (1700174) | about 3 years ago | (#37677958)

For the legions of probably around 14-to-[something] year olds that live at home leeching "free" internet from their parent's wallets.

Re:Well, this will be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678150)

Why?

Do you think your parents never watched porn?
They probably didn't have sex either, right?

Re:Well, this will be a problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678258)

Legally more serious, the 18+ year olds who still live with parents.

Opt In, not Opt Out? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37677964)

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128

The BCC imply this is opt in for censorship "They said they would talk to parents about how to *activate* and administer parental controls. The tools to limit what children can see and do online are already available but, before now, have not been offered to customers as they sign up"

Nothing new (3, Informative)

IrquiM (471313) | about 3 years ago | (#37677972)

Vodaphone already have this on their 3g sticks. Had to opt-in for porn to be able to surf Norways biggest newspaper (and also the recent winner of the best ipad newspaper app.)

Re:Nothing new (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678034)

Or use Opera Turbo...

Re:Nothing new (1)

Robadob (1800074) | about 3 years ago | (#37678116)

Had this with o2 3g internet for my phone however it applied to a broader range including online forums etc so it was more of an over 18 flag than a 'does want porn' one.

Re:Nothing new (4, Funny)

HopefulIntern (1759406) | about 3 years ago | (#37678380)

Ditto this for Orange mobile internet (on my Desire). The guy I phoned up to turn the block off was cheeky as well, convo went as follows:

Indian guy: "So you wish to turn off Orange Security?"
Me: "Yes"
Indian Guy: "You don't like security?"
Me: "No...I don't..."

Re:Nothing new (1)

Geeky (90998) | about 3 years ago | (#37678400)

It's not just the adult filter - they put little messages in front of other sites too. Apparently if you go to one of the UK dating sites, you get an O2 website warning you to be careful when meeting people. You can then click through to the real site.

Re:Nothing new (1)

ProbablyJoe (1914672) | about 3 years ago | (#37679260)

Applies to almost all UK mobile networks, as far as I know. It blocks a ridiculous range of sites though, including anything alcohol related. This was particularly annoying when I was with a group of friends, and we were trying to find out the opening times of local pubs.

It's not a particularly big deal to disable it, but it requires calling them, and this sort of thing really shouldn't be opt-out when they have your age recorded on the account anyway.

Who decides whats to be blocked, a public vote? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37677974)

Probably some fruity/corrupt member of parliment.

Re:Who decides whats to be blocked, a public vote? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678026)

More importantly, how many people will they hire to "find" all of it?

Related: Can I work from the privacy of my own home?

we won't see David Cameron or Nick Cleg any more (1)

Chrisq (894406) | about 3 years ago | (#37678760)

we won't see David Cameron or Nick Cleg any more


They are a pair of tits.

Re:Who decides whats to be blocked, a public vote? (1)

TheRaven64 (641858) | about 3 years ago | (#37678974)

Probably then Internet Watch Foundation, a completely unaccountable non-government organisation that maintains the current child porn lists (including things like Wikipedia).

Wrong (5, Informative)

Barence (1228440) | about 3 years ago | (#37677994)

This story is completely inaccurate. Consumers don't have to opt-in to receive adult content: http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/broadband/370450/confusion-reigns-as-government-announces-porn-ban [pcpro.co.uk]

Re:Wrong (2)

richy freeway (623503) | about 3 years ago | (#37678012)

The first and only accurate news report regarding this I heard was on Radio 4 this morning. By the time I've got to work suddenly everyone has to opt in to porn!

Strangely okay with this... (0)

nhstar (452291) | about 3 years ago | (#37678000)

I usually hate the idea of censorship, and arguably still do... but if this is designed to be an easy (or at least easier) tool for parents to use, then yes I think it's a good thing.

Once the rugrats are of age and on their own, then they can choose their own connection's ability.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (3, Insightful)

nhstar (452291) | about 3 years ago | (#37678020)

however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (0)

indrid cold (2433282) | about 3 years ago | (#37678134)

you can't always "parent" an innocent curiosity or a typo,

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

Edzilla2000 (1261030) | about 3 years ago | (#37678260)

What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?

Re:Strangely okay with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678322)

http://www.whitehouse.com/ [whitehouse.com] used to.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

clorkster (1996844) | about 3 years ago | (#37678508)

What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?

whitehouse.(choose carefully here)

however (having just thought of this point once clicking "submit") it would be far easier, and less expensive to just have the parents, um... parent.

And how is preventing your children from being able to view pornographic content not parenting?

Re:Strangely okay with this... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678590)

whitehouse.(choose carefully here)

Only because you are so used to politicians being bought, and acting as if they were employed by companies. Why else would you think the Whitehouse was a commercial (COM) entity, and not a part of the government (GOV)?

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 years ago | (#37678718)

Most browsers will auto-try .com (first) if you leave off the root domain.

And yes, I am ignoring the fact that you're just trying to be a troll.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (2)

niftydude (1745144) | about 3 years ago | (#37678798)

What kind of typo brings you to a porn website?

dictoinary.com used to. I accidentally typed that at work once. Awkward!!!

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

Alioth (221270) | about 3 years ago | (#37679442)

I managed to accidentally hit lovethecock.com instead of slashdot.org, the keys are right next to each other...

Re:Strangely okay with this... (2)

MoonBuggy (611105) | about 3 years ago | (#37678266)

Would you really want to? A typo is just going to lead to the kid reacting somewhere along the spectrum from "Meh" to "Dude, WTF?!", and then closing the page. Genuine curiosity seems like the last thing you'd want to place technical measures in the way of. Either way, the blocking software just creates a counter-productive air of mistrust between the parent and child.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678762)

you can't always "parent" an innocent curiosity or a typo,

I've been using the net since I was 9 in the 90s, this was before Google when search engines were really shit. I was usually unsupervised and would occasionally stumble upon porn whilst looking for unrelated stuff (programming sites, video game patches/cheats) and my reaction was usually "WTF is this shit? This isn't what I wanted" and hitting the back button.*

It's funny how so many people forget what being a kid was like; until you hit puberty and develop a sex drive, porn just is not very interesting in anything beyond a "huh? What is this all about?" kind of way. Really, whenever people bring this up as a "destroying the innocence of the childrenz" issue, I just laugh. What you're really doing is just trying to avoid "the [sex] talk" by constantly putting it off; that can get real fun as it won't stop your kids getting that knowledge from their peers and the quality is likely to be far lower than if you just got over yourself.

* (This isn't to say that there are no problems, of course. Paedophiles actively trying to groom kids can be a problem but the filter isn't going to help with that, I had the advantage of having read a book which included various sections about "cybersafety" so knew better than to give out any personal information on forums or chat but that may not work universally)

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

ElectricTurtle (1171201) | about 3 years ago | (#37679324)

From my own personal experience this is false. I was extremely interested in sexuality in my prepubescent adolescence. I found some dirty magazines in the woods when I was 10 or so and was thoroughly obsessed with them. I started browsing porn when I was 12, and I feel my obsession was fueled primarily by the way my parents similarly obsessed with keeping me away from it. It was a secret amazing forbidden fruit, and I was fascinated by that.

If my parents were more like the way I am now as a parent and treated sexuality as just another natural thing, I probably would have had a "normal" tepid interest as a prepubescent. The more you highlight something as special and forbidden that is also undeniably abstracted as a sign of maturity and right of passage, the more fascinated those minors will be who have any initiative and curiosity.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37679204)

Isn't the parent choosing to filter porn at home, um... parenting?

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

tenchikaibyaku (1847212) | about 3 years ago | (#37678066)

I would buy your argument if it was opt-in. Why does it need to be opt-out?

Re:Strangely okay with this... (1)

tenchikaibyaku (1847212) | about 3 years ago | (#37678096)

Replying to myself, it seems to actually be opt-in. Good thing I just answered the Slashdot reader survey with a complaint about misleading and/or outright false stories.

Re:Strangely okay with this... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678302)

Good thing I answered it with a complaint about too many brainless idiots commenting on stories they don't even bother to fucking read.

Conservative Sharia law (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678002)

All bow to our Puritan overlords! And my captcha was "unclean" haha.

Re:Conservative Sharia law (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678040)

Allahu Akbar!

now everybody knows... (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | about 3 years ago | (#37678024)

LOL, and after few years some Anonymous will get their (opt-outers) database from ISP resources and everybody will know that every Tom, Dick and Harry watches porn. On the other hand, everybody is watching porn so it won't be that bad like hacking PSN this year, right? :)

Re:now everybody knows... (1)

DarwinSurvivor (1752106) | about 3 years ago | (#37678170)

Or better yet get the ISP's and government websites ADDED to the list!

Re:now everybody knows... (1)

Dark Lord of Ohio (2459854) | about 3 years ago | (#37679252)

yeahhhh...

Harry is entitled to watch porn (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678194)

"everybody will know that every Tom, Dick and Harry watches porn."

I think that Harry is entitled to watch porn, after all he did fight for his country in Afghanistan. And his father is hardly likely to preach morality to him given what he got up to with Camilla...
http://yro.slashdot.org/story/11/10/11/1243243/uk-isps-to-begin-censorship-of-porn-websites#

What next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678028)

Opt-In to visit websites which don't agree with the government?

Re:What next? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678344)

There's already an opt-in mechanism in place. It's called "clicking on a link" or "navigating to a URL."

It's the war on drugs all over again. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678050)

Rather than dealing with the problem of social attitudes towards sexuality, drive it underground. Clever.

So sane, healthy adults will have to identify themselves to their ISPs (and potentially other billpayers) if they want to access legal content. How about getting these lazy parents to actually discuss the content with their kids rather than turning it into forbidden fruit? That or use local technologies rather than national sledgehammers.

So... (1)

Izhido (702328) | about 3 years ago | (#37678072)

... that's it for 4chan in UK, then?,

Re:So... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37679084)

... that's it for 4chan in UK, then?,

Yeah, but there is probably a downside too.

Oh god damn it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678074)

Stupid mothers, watch your own god damn children, stop forcing your laziness on us!
I'm seriously getting sick of lazy parents blaming others for their childrens corruption.
You, as a parent, are responsible for educating them about these things so that it isn't some sort of taboo!
Taboos are points of interest for the curious! Children by design are curious, it is how the learn!
You are the kind of people who bring up 40 year old virgins.

He is giving even more reason for laziness in Britain! After all the reform of the benefits system, this is completely hypocritical.

Worse, spearheaded by a religious charity group at that!
Next we will have sex-before-marriage banned!
Fuck that. Yes, fuck that. Fuck you David Cameron, fuck you. We got rid of this shit in the past for a reason.
Stop allowing religious nutjobs the ability to push their nonsense upon a country of multiple faiths. Especially if it is laziness!

Re:Oh god damn it! (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 years ago | (#37678738)

I think it's funny that you've gone off on this totally inappropriate rant instead of reading either the article or the rest of the comments which have preceded yours.

If you can opt-in... (0)

goldspider (445116) | about 3 years ago | (#37678078)

...how is that "censorship"?

Misusing words eventually makes them meaningless.

But, But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678098)

But if they block "porn websites" that only leaves Slashdot on the interwebs.

Re:But, But... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678546)

({}) e===3

What was that now? I was too busy making text-porn at work.
Now all sites are gone! My evil plan worked, I killed the internet.

Slippery slope. (1)

Lose (1901896) | about 3 years ago | (#37678126)

"As you say, we should not try and wrap children up in cotton wool or simply throw our hands up and accept the world as it is. Instead, we should look to put 'the brakes on an unthinking drift towards ever-greater commercialisation and sexualisation'."

So in other words, the ISP's are giving parents the easiest form of parental control they can muster, and any censorship they wish to impose using this system on their children is on their hands?

That wouldn't bother me so much, but children and teenagers are going to discover web proxies and evade blocks, and a block on websites containing adult material will expand to blocking methods for circumventing blocks on adult material, and so on. I just hope this doesn't lead to a blocking of services used for more formidable purposes (SOCKS proxies and the like) just to block porn.

Implementation (1)

igreaterthanu (1942456) | about 3 years ago | (#37678146)

Let me guess, they are going to block it the same way pirate sites get blocked [slashdot.org] ? Good luck with that.

This is likely just going to be a false sense of security.

Virgin?! (1)

frank_carmody (1551463) | about 3 years ago | (#37678158)

Oh my! How they've turned full circle. Appropriate name, mind you.

Should be called 'opt-out' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678264)

I'm wondering why they call this 'opt-in', where action needs to be taken by the user in order to lift a ban. It should actually be called 'opt-out', because every user is included in the ban by default. This is more than a philosophical issue, if we're trying to present 'opt-out' as the default violation (of privacy, freedom, etc) and overloading the other meaning, then we're missing the point.

Mobile network operators already do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678286)

All major mobile network operators(Vodafone, T-Mobile, O2, etc) already do that. You have to go to their shop and prove you are over 18 in order to get the ban off. They even block okcupid!!

  I often wonder why do I put up with all those shit and still live here...

Re:Mobile network operators already do that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678356)

Opera mini

Fine. Be like that. (1)

L4t3r4lu5 (1216702) | about 3 years ago | (#37678304)

â5 a month on a VPN and BT don't see shit about my internet use.

I'm fairly sure there's an over-quoted soundbite from John Gilmore to be repeated here.

Seriously? (1)

bryan1945 (301828) | about 3 years ago | (#37678334)

Mother's Union. Christian charity review. Hey, and a whole new website for parents to complain about pretty damn well everything they find objectionable. The website will have no fewer than 8 oversight committees (WTF!).

And how many of these parents are not going to 'opt-in' to being able to view a little bit of porn now and then? And teens are smarter than you think, and will figure out how to 'opt-in' anyway.

I don't get it- parents' did this porn to get a kid, but what, are they still using the stork story to tell them how they showed up?

I didn't opt in to slashdot! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678338)

I didn't opt in to slashdot - why are you exposing me to this filth?

not that big of a deal (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678410)

Assuming we all know its opt-in by now, once you recognize that most people are technologically illiterate, it makes sense to have this option on an ISP level. A lot of parents can't manage to either a: monitor their child's online behavior or b: install their own blocking software.

Re:not that big of a deal (1)

Pi1grim (1956208) | about 3 years ago | (#37679450)

>> Most parents can't manage to monitor their child's behavior.
FTFY.

Why not do some parenting for a change? If a kid wants to see porn — he'll find a way. Even without the darn internets. If he doesn't want to see — he won't. It's not like seeing a vagina or a penis will leave you kid paralized and drive him into a coma.

Bleh. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678414)

Do the editors in here even check their facts before throwing a story up anymore?
C'mon, this is starting to sink to CNN's "tech" area level of terrible quality...

no way! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678446)

They took our poooorn!

Won't work but what about liability? (1)

Geeky (90998) | about 3 years ago | (#37678448)

If it's as effective as O2's 3G filtering, it won't be any use.

O2 block access to some really tame and completely non-adult sites unless you opt out, but conveniently forget to block google image search...

If you can't find what you need on google image search, you most likely need a therapist, not an internet filter.

It will therefore just be an inconvenience, while lulling parents in to a a false sense of security. How long before an ISP gets sued because they promised filtering and poor little Johnny could still find porn?

In a related story... (1)

kaizendojo (956951) | about 3 years ago | (#37678458)

UK is suddenly flush with excess bandwidth as millions of people turn off their PCs and go back to holding up pictures of Page Three girls with one hand.

I know you were joking, but... (1)

Anonymous Brave Guy (457657) | about 3 years ago | (#37678748)

I realise you were joking, but funnily enough my first thought about this wasn't about yet another pseudo-censorship policy that will fail, it was that ISPs have been struggling to provide the bandwidth and they've advertised now that people actually want to use it so they can watch streamling videos a la Netflix/BBC iPlayer, video calling via Skype, etc. Getting rid of most porn downloading probably removes a convenient amount of load on those ISPs' systems and lets them provide other services to customers without having to invest a fortune in serious infrastructure. That in turn means they can try to get the government to fund or partially fund "next generation broadband" or something instead of paying for it entirely themselves, though naturally they will still take all of the profits.

Of course, this whole idea is doomed as soon as the tabloids start looking up which MPs have "porn-enabled" their Internet connections and the smear campaigns start.

freenet. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678526)

http://freenetproject.org

UK ISP's going down ! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678754)

They are gonna lose a lot of money.

Wrong (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678776)

Not just porn will be blocked, things like looking up al qaeda on wikipedia will be aswell, basically anything harmful for children. if you want to surf the net properly then you'll have to turn it off (even for those who don't watch porn).

Vodafone do this (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37678980)

So I just say, unblock my VPN access, and I get the porn with it :)

They will also block VPN's and tunnels with the porn block, so say you need VPN's for work. Unblocked, easy.

Or use www.freeopenvpn.com

As boring as... (1)

seanmcelroy (207852) | about 3 years ago | (#37679052)

Is it just me, but the continuous, crushing global regulation of the Internet both in what content is legal, what our allowed "bandwidths and data caps are", what behaviors or opinions can be freely expressed, and a constant barrage of advertisements are making it as boring as television?

I don't pay for television. I won't pay for the public Internet if this trend doesn't stop.

There's plenty of private alternatives. Grandma can enjoy her walled gardens of Facebook and have her viewing habits sold off ten times over. I'll pass.

List of sites (1)

Meneth (872868) | about 3 years ago | (#37679168)

I want to see the list of sites that would be blocked by this program. Just to make sure they didn't block any Bonsai-tree sites by accident.

I guess internet usage will go down (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 years ago | (#37679224)

Well I guess internet usage will go down now.

That's not censorship. (2)

xyourfacekillerx (939258) | about 3 years ago | (#37679312)

Submitter, why quote something so sensational and so wrong? It's like saying Google censors websites becaue it ranks them in a way that hides far away results, and I'm opting out of censorship by clicking to the next page. The pages are there, they can be viewed. By definition, that is not censorship. Just filtering. I see no harm here.
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?