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 ISP Asks Religious Groups To Set Parental Controls

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the think-of-the-children dept.

Censorship 205

Barence writes "A British ISP is inviting religious groups to help set parental controls for its customers. Claranet says it is recruiting volunteer 'Guardians' from a number of different organizations — including religious organizations, schools and child safety experts. A press spokesman for the ISP said that an 'Islamic advisor' was among the first batch of Guardians, but refused to identify them. The Claranet Guardians will be asked to choose whether they think 140 different categories of internet content are appropriate. Within those categories, the Guardians can choose to add or remove individual websites from the blacklists, which are created by a third-party company that Claranet also refused to name."

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

Google Filter Bubble (2)

Buccaneer Waggerstrm (2682059) | more than 2 years ago | (#40617903)

Remember that these parental filters are voluntary. Much worse filtering - one that western people are creating themselves - is called Google Filter Bubble [wired.com] .

What is Google filter bubble

I'm glad you asked. It's a filter you're creating to yourself without thinking. It's a bubble you're creating around yourself, letting only your opinions and knowledge ever reach you. Everything else is censored.

Re:Google Filter Bubble (1)

MinotaurUK (763706) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618015)

What he said. These filters are entirely optional - noone is being subjected to them against their will.

The impression I get from the tech folks I know at Claranet is that they take things like privacy and freedom on the 'net pretty seriously.

Re:Google Filter Bubble (-1, Flamebait)

Chrisq (894406) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618143)

What he said. These filters are entirely optional - noone is being subjected to them against their will.

The impression I get from the tech folks I know at Claranet is that they take things like privacy and freedom on the 'net pretty seriously.

The problem is that you will set "child mode" tinking you will be protected and get some Muzzie telling the kids that nothing is better than killing an infidel or some Fundie telling them that they will go to hell if they don't send money.

Re:Google Filter Bubble (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618425)

What he said. These filters are entirely optional - noone is being subjected to them against their will.

The impression I get from the tech folks I know at Claranet is that they take things like privacy and freedom on the 'net pretty seriously.

The problem is that you will set "child mode" tinking you will be protected and get some Muzzie telling the kids that nothing is better than killing an infidel or some Fundie telling them that they will go to hell if they don't send money.

Exactly. Trading one form of mind-fuck perversion for another is not the answer most are looking for here.

Hpw about (5, Insightful)

present_arms (848116) | more than 2 years ago | (#40617947)

Religious groups can go and fuck themselves, I've had enough of superstitious groups trying to change the world to their liking, really it's too much. if some idiot needs to censor what he sees, install dans guardian or similar. geeze, leave the net alone

Re:Hpw about (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40617999)

how about you f*ck yourself?

Re:Hpw about (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618521)

I would if I could!

Re:Hpw about (4, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618083)

Come now, a moment of sane thought please. It's one ISP in Britain, it's not massive censorship. I'm sure that this company has a selling point to consumers that they do just this sort of thing, so members knowingly choose this ISP to help manage content without them having to worry about monitoring nearly as much at home.

If a US company started (and they have by the way) which has a set of rules you don't like you change ISP companies right? I'm guessing that they have the same ability to change ISPs in the UK.

This is not as you say "changing the world" and there is no need to "leave the net alone" since they are not touching the net! They are creating a service very similar to Cyber Sitter or Net Nanny which used to be US companies (and maybe still are) that block content because customers pay them to.

Re:Hpw about (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618119)

If a US company started (and they have by the way) which has a set of rules you don't like you change ISP companies right?

No.

Re:Hpw about (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618299)

I get it, you're one of those 'dont call it a tree because it's just a sapling' guys. This is the same non-sense people are faced with when pointing out the march of fascism here in America. It's not a big deal because it's not everywhere; it's not a problem because you can still get around it.

BTW, I have one choice for normal internet at my house, I'd have two if I had a physical phone line.

Re:Hpw about (1)

present_arms (848116) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618367)

That is fine that it's just one ISP, but how long before religious groups start targeting the more bigger ISP's here like BT or Virgin. It's the start of a downward spiral, only took one man to start a war, and although that is a very different thing, there are similarities :)

Re:Hpw about (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618827)

Did you read the article? Shame on you if you have not. Listing ISP companies in the UK I find at least as many as we have in the US. Like AOL of old these companies use a different front end service that they control and larger ISP back ends. Maybe you have never heard of a HTTP Proxy, but in essence that is what this is.It's a voluntary service that they pay for, and a front end service at that. They mimic a different company that has been around for a while now called "TalkTalk" and add additional rules based on consumer input.

"Consumer input?"

Correct, it's a service geared toward consumers asking for enhancements based on their needs and beliefs.

"What a novel concept!"

Yeah, we used to have similar things in the US. Then atheist zealots got involved and started suing them, because the services that people paid for interfered with non-customers beliefs.

"Wait, people that were not customers were able to sue them and put them out of business for rules they did not even have to follow?"

That is correct. Welcome to America where the Constitution no longer matters.

Re:Hpw about (2)

casings (257363) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618375)

That is a stupid argument since not everyone has choice to switch. Top down censorship is unethical in any form.

Re:Hpw about (1)

Riceballsan (816702) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619075)

There are 2 sides to this IMO, first off I don't consider this top down censorship, because it sounds like an optional service, not a requirement for an ISP. Now yes if it is a requirement, IE you cannot use the ISP without having the filter, or it gets legislated that if you have kids in the house, you must have parental controls turned on, then it becomes censorship. Personally I do have a few dislikes of the idea, namely that if religious groups are going with it, you are bound to have some blatant blocks, say r\atheism could be blocked, but still that is within the bounds of what a parent has the right to do if they chose.

Re:Hpw about (5, Insightful)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619299)

By that logic there should be no drinking age and most surely pornography should be able to be printed anywhere. There should be no movie rating system, lyrics rating system, or game rating system. Do you see that you have crossed well beyond the realm of common sense.

Customers _pay_for_this service, it is not mandatory for _anyone_ to use the service.

The reason this was brought up as a /. article was to create traffic based on the atheist zealots that come out of the wood work spewing hate on anything Religious for any reason.

I doubt that you understand what that means for you and your comment, but I do feel an obligation to point it out.

Re:Hpw about (2)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618497)

Come now, a moment of sane thought please. It's one ISP in Britain, it's not massive censorship.

A sane moment of thought suggests that it's the camel's nose [wikipedia.org] .

Allowing religious groups to define filters for the web should be resisted. As they say: "it is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."

Re:Hpw about (1)

s.petry (762400) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619077)

While I appreciate the nice reference, it's not nearly the same. It's a Service provider, which I know is easily confused with a back end provider but not nearly the same thing. Hell, you could easily set up your own business doing the same thing. Create a proxy and allow links to Big Bang theory, Atheism and while disallowing links to Creationist theory.. and call it "idontbelieve.com", I'm sure you would get subscribers.

A word of warning: Someone in the US probably has a patent on the idea so you may get sued in to poverty a Cambodian would not want.

Re:Hpw about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618519)

Change the story then from Claranet to "Vodafone" or other major british ISP equivalent in the US to Charter Communications, Comcast, Verizon, Frontier, CenturyTel, TimeWarner or Cox Communications doing the same thing. And, then they start doing it also "for" (to) down-stream ISPs that buy service from the major ISPs...

You make ISP choice as simple as switching from Oreo cookies to Hydrox or some other chocolate-and-white-sugary-filling cookie, from your store of choice. But it's not.

Re:Hpw about (1)

Grimbleton (1034446) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618799)

Man, I would kill to have a choice of ISPs. Get out of here, Comcast.

Re:Hpw about (1)

colinnwn (677715) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619211)

If a US company started (and they have by the way) which has a set of rules you don't like you change ISP companies right?

It isn't unusual in the US for there to be one practical option for reasonably priced broadband, the cable company at around 10mbs. That runs about $65 a month after taxes in my area. There might be a second option if you are lucky enough to be in one of the few Verizon FiOS or AT&T Uverse areas (though they are pricier), or one of the few municipal high speed service areas that haven't been quashed by ISPs suing the states to shut them down.

Your local incumbent telephone provider may offer internet at half the speed (around 5mbs) for close to the same cost, though that isn't guaranteed if you are too far from the neighborhood switch. Then you could also get dial up at a pokey 50kbs for about the same cost when you take into account a dedicated phone line. Of course there is clear.net and satellite internet, which are both pretty slow and expensive for what you get, but better than dialup.

The choices are ok, pretty bad, and terrible.

Re:Hpw about (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619359)

Come now, a moment of sane thought please. It's one ISP in Britain

Thin end of the wedge.
Slippery slope.

You get the idea.

Re:Hpw about (1)

dmacleod808 (729707) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618121)

Religious groups frown on f*cking yourself, especially the catholics.

Re:Hpw about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618283)

Religious groups frown on f*cking yourself, especially the catholics.

The catholics frown on anyone f*cking anything, unless they're a priest f*king children, in which case it's all good and anyone who rats them out is evil for bringing embarrassment on the church. (And said priest is moved to a new location to find new, less aware targets.)

Re:Hpw about (1)

Talderas (1212466) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618479)

unless they're a priest f*king children

Priests faking children?

Re:Hpw about (3, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618665)

unless they're a priest f*king children

Priests faking children?

No, of course not! It's "priests forking children". Spawning child processes via fork() is the only way they can reproduce.

It's a tenuous existence, though, because the children are clones of the parent, share all the same memories as their parent up until the time they were forked, and *die* if their parent dies.

Re:Hpw about (3, Insightful)

bugs2squash (1132591) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618151)

But if you are a member of a religious group and you like the idea that your priest/imam/rabbi/sith-lord will be shielding you from reality then why should you not be able to outsource your filtering ?
I filter the internet from my children (by watching over them as they use it) according to my social mores, and if I were to choose to use a filtering program I'd like to know broadly what criteria were chosen for what gets through and what does not. If someone wants to make a little money by applying the terms kosher or halal to web content, and it's done by a practitioner you trust then people should have that option just as the unfiltered option should exist.

They tried with an atheist... (2)

YA_Python_dev (885173) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618199)

They tried with an atheist but she left the blacklist empty.

Re:They tried with an atheist... (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618483)

If you had a web site that said, "War doesn't become good the instant the guy in the White House has a 'D' after his name," 95% of the atheists I know would be all to happy to blacklist it.

Re:They tried with an atheist... (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618835)

You mean 95% of the atheists that you made up in your imagination.

Re:They tried with an atheist... (1)

houghi (78078) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618491)

Reminds me when I was at school, one teacher had one student write down students names when they interrupted class.
One kid tried not to write names down and got detention. When it was my turn, I wrote down the names she mentioned, just like she asked. I also wrote down all the names she did NOT mention.

So if an empty list does not work, try a full one.

Re:They tried with an atheist... (1)

santosh.k83 (2442182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619471)

I consider myself religious (in the sense I believe in the abstract God), but I'd leave the blacklist empty too. Ideally children should be personally monitored by their parents when they use the Net, and most importantly, should be educated well, so that they are able to avoid unhealthy obsessions and think for themselves without hand-holding.

Any filtering is best done on the client side, as needed by each family. If a family is too ignorant (or too wise) not to do so, then let the children take care of themselves. Compared to so many Real World dangers, content on the Internet is at worst mildly disturbing; not a big deal. I mean, I've had unrestricted access to the Net since early teens, and I haven't got messed up as far as I can tell.

I wouldn't support ANY censorship of any content, however vile it may be, EXCEPT to protect children and early teens, and that implemented at the end-user side, not by ISPs or Governments, who'll be all too easily tempted to misuse the power.

The violence you routinely get to see on regular TV (films, news, reality shows etc.) is far more pervasive and insidious, as it's easily viewed and constantly broadcast, as opposed to some obscure website you'd have to take the trouble to search out and visit. And violence IMO is FAR more damaging to the growing psyche than sex or nudity.

Re:Hpw about (5, Insightful)

jellomizer (103300) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618261)

The ISP wanted to offer parental controls (You know, offering something like Dans Guardian as a service), they are trying to make their product useful, so they are asking a bunch of different groups, for feedback.

Religious groups, were invited, they didn't barge in. When you are making a tool for parental controls, you need a good diversity of ideas so you can make good decisions.

Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

Re:Hpw about (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618447)

Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.[sic]

That's like saying: Stop Hating paedophiles just because you aren't one.

Re:Hpw about (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618713)

>

Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

I'll stop hating them when they stop hating me for NOT following them.

Opt-in (1)

phorm (591458) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619325)

As long as it is always opt-in, I don't really see a big issue. TV's have parental controls that can be easily enabled/disabled by an adult with the appropriate password (how effective they are I dunno as I've not used them). If a customer wants to ring their ISP and say
I'd like the "Christian standards web filtering package", it doesn't affect me or bother me. Heck, some people would probably pay for such a "service" (which is probably what the ISP will aim for)

The issue becomes when such filters become "opt-out", and are on by default. I believe the register coined it well when they asked how many people would be willing to check off the following box on their internet-service application
  [X] Yes I am a dirty pervert

Re:Hpw about (5, Insightful)

nightfire-unique (253895) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619403)

Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

For many of us, wether or not we follow something is of little relevance to our opinion on the subject.

Many of us hate religion because, frankly, it's a psychosis induced by our fear of the unknown, exploited by the wealthy and the power-seekers. The indoctrinated occasionally become immune to logic and reason, and present a huge problem to the rest of us living in the 21st century.

For those about to mod me down as flamebate: this is how I, and many here actually feel, and our frustration is not without considerable merit. Just look at the damage that's being done to the education system. Or sexual identity. Or genetic research. Or the climate. Or women and girls in Islamic societies.

Don't confuse hating a belief system with hating the believers.

Re:Hpw about (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40619523)

I'd agree with you 100% however the UK Gov wants these "parental controls" enabled by default with a customer having to request the censorship be removed. Children shouldn't be permitted on the internet without an adult present, same way you wouldn't let them go into the city without an adult.

Re:Hpw about (2, Insightful)

Hatta (162192) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618359)

This is just fine if they also allow atheist groups to add items to the filter too. Given the amount of violence and sex in the bible, it would make just as much sense to censor the bible as anything else.

Re:Hpw about (1)

Inda (580031) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618573)

If the Big Bang Theory has taught me anything, it's taught me that clarinet is a euphemism for cock.

Raj said "Oh, Bernadette, please play my clarinet".

I propose that all mentions of clarinet on the internet should be censored by the Guardians.

*wink*

Re:Hpw about (0)

stillpixel (1575443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618591)

Religious groups can go and fuck themselves, I've had enough of superstitious groups trying to change the world to their liking, really it's too much. if some idiot needs to censor what he sees, install dans guardian or similar. geeze, leave the net alone

I wish I had mod points, I'd mod you insightful with all of them. I'm not a UK citizen, but I think if I were.. I'd want the option to filter content based on my own beliefs and opinions by NOT GOING to the sites that I find objectionable. It's kind of like TV or Radio.. you don't like it? find it offensive? Do watch/listen or go there.

As far as filtering for kids.. well basic porn filters for schools and then filter to your own preference at home. Not that Johnny or Jane shouldn't be able to research porn at school for valid reasons.. but we don't want Johnny viewing porn at school, school can be embarrassing enough for guys without having porn crank up the blood flow.

And on top of all that.. Religious groups can go fuck themselves, instead of the rest of the world for once.

Tricked into viewing a shock site (1)

tepples (727027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618763)

I'd want the option to filter content based on my own beliefs and opinions by NOT GOING to the sites that I find objectionable.

What method of "NOT GOING" did you have in mind? If you mean just not keying in the URLs of objectionable sites, what should you do if someone cites a document in support of his argument, but when you click the link to view the document, it ends up being a shock site [wikipedia.org] ?

Re:Tricked into viewing a shock site (1)

stillpixel (1575443) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619207)

What method of "NOT GOING" did you have in mind? If you mean just not keying in the URLs of objectionable sites, what should you do if someone cites a document in support of his argument, but when you click the link to view the document, it ends up being a shock site [wikipedia.org] ?

Exactly, don't type it in, don't search for it on Google, don't click on a link going there (assuming the link is not masked/hidden). As far as Shock Sites.. well, for adults.. I hope you can handle that moment of discomfort and for children you could be filtering as I said above. But filters are like virus definitions.. only as good as your last update. If I name a porn site 'Puppiesandkittens.com' and don't use any 'bad words' in the content I'm pretty sure it will defeat the filters.

For my kids I don't filter the web, I limit the time they spend on it, but not where they go. If they go somewhere they shouldn't I say something to them about it as a responsible parent. I know that is alien to a good portion of the population today, but I would TALK to my kids about it. The other solution to kids going where they "shouldn't" on the net.. the computer is located in the living room where everyone is, not in their rooms. IF they ever get a computer of their own that is in their own rooms, it will because they have proven themselves to be responsible enough to deserve it.

Re:Hpw about (3, Insightful)

readin (838620) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619131)

Claranet customers can choose to set up and customise their own filters, or accept a pre-selected list from one of the Guardians and edit that themselves if they choose.

- TFA

Nothing to see here. Please move on.

Controls on religion (2, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 2 years ago | (#40617977)

We need controls to prevent kids from overdosing on religion. There's a maximum safe dose of religion, maybe around an hour a day. Kids who substantially exceed that dose may turn into cult members, Jesus freaks, non-working yeshiva students, or Islamic militants. It's not the brand of religion that matters as much as the dosage.

Re:Controls on religion (1, Interesting)

TheGratefulNet (143330) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618173)

see, even here we disagree; I think that zero hours a day is about right for religious indoctrination.

its child abuse, plain and simple. it creates stupid non-thinking adults who continue the disease.

the fact that 'we have been doing it this way a long time' does not justify the continuation of indoctration of youth. not when it takes SO much effort to retrain the individual, later on, in non-mythlogical, rational thinking.

I give no honor to religion. its brain damage and it should be stopped. I know full well it won't be in my lifetime but I can still call it for what it is and tell others that I'm tired of the 'give religion some respect' bullshit. it does not deserve ANY. all that it does can be done better via other means (eg, charity can fully be done without any magic words from wizards, thank you.)

also, I do realize that politicians love to keep people grouped together and religion is a 'great' way to keep the us-vs-them mentality going.

Re:Controls on religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618463)

Yes, but how effective would that charity be if it ignored 95% of the population as potential benefactors? Most people believe in a higher power and gathering together helps build community and set commonly accepted standards. It has its purpose.

Re:Controls on religion (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619221)

I thought religious folk were just interested in doing good.. you mean they'll only donate to charities that give the help with strings attached? Like food handouts - after the sermon?

Tch. Doesn't seem very "love thy brother" to me.

You can have community and common ground without religion ; we've just forgotten a lot of the ways how, because religion worked so hard to stamp everything else out - the stigma and shame of not attending church on a Sunday in some communities being the least of it. And capitalism doesn't want us to have community that isn't based on it's products or services.

Re:Controls on religion (1)

Znork (31774) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618191)

Religion is unsafe at any dosage. Sure, some can handle it, but you never know in advance who's going to go psychotic on the first exposure.

So if we're going to get mandatory filters I certainly hope any and all religions will be among the pages filtered. After all, we must protect the children.

Re:Controls on religion (4, Funny)

SJHillman (1966756) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618287)

Religion is like bath salts. Sure, it's a fun fantasy world at first but next thing you know you're stripping naked eating some guy's flesh and drinking his blood.

Re:Controls on religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618355)

Religion is like bath salts. Sure, it's a fun fantasy world at first but next thing you know you're stripping naked eating some guy's flesh and drinking his blood.

How does...

I don't...

What?

Re:Controls on religion (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618717)

"bath salts" is the marketing name of a class of new synthetic mind-altering drugs. There were a couple of cases recently of random human canibalism happening on the street, and blath salts were blamed.

Re:Controls on religion (2)

MachDelta (704883) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618221)

I think it's more about context than dosage.

Of the "this book was written a long time ago by some goat herders and has some pretty wild ideas about magic sky fairies and superman zombies and other strange things but it tells us a lot about our culture and history" variety, you can eat as much as you like.
It's the "this is how the universe works and don't you ever dare question it or yer lawd Jaaaaaaaysus Chriiiiiist will smite thine ass" that has a very low (mental) LD50 in children.

Re:Controls on religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618545)

We need controls to prevent kids from overdosing on religion. There's a maximum safe dose of religion, maybe around an hour a day. Kids who substantially exceed that dose may turn into cult members, Jesus freaks, non-working yeshiva students, or Islamic militants. It's not the brand of religion that matters as much as the dosage.

We're trying. Mandatory prayer is out of schools. As is Bible Studies. Still working on some other nuances.

Re:Controls on religion (3, Interesting)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618623)

We need controls to prevent kids from overdosing on religion. There's a maximum safe dose of religion, maybe around an hour a day. Kids who substantially exceed that dose may turn into cult members, Jesus freaks, non-working yeshiva students, or Islamic militants. It's not the brand of religion that matters as much as the dosage.

You want to control and size religion to avoid overdosing? It's fairly simple. We need to start treating all forms of religion appropriately. They are a business, so get rid of the damn tax breaks. Not only would you likely cleanse religion of the false prophets (they would somehow find a reason not to practice anymore, go figure), but the tax revenue would be massive. Probably enough to kick-start the economy again instead of people praying for it to turn around by putting money into a silver platter and making false prophets obscenely rich.

Re:Controls on religion (1)

Capt.DrumkenBum (1173011) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619539)

You deserve the first (Score:10, Insightful) ever on /.

Notice how my signature is on topic for once. :)

Re:Controls on religion (1)

oldmac31310 (1845668) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618655)

And obsessive praying and religious worship makes your palms hairy and causes blindness.

Re:Controls on religion (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618857)

I'm with you... I originally (optimistically) thought they were adding the religious sites to the "parental control" lists. We need to protect our kids from those that would try to trump science with doctrine (Evolution anyone?). Great - have your theories and beliefs... but when you try to censor true science with it, you'll have to fight me. I'm just glad I don't live in the South.

Re:Controls on religion (1)

na1led (1030470) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619171)

Exposing yourself to any amount of non-sense, and being told its the truth, can't be good for you. Religion is cancer to the intellect.

Will there be an FSM representative? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40617983)

How about Jedi?

Well, I think this is all perfectly reasonable (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40617989)

I mean, nobody expects the Inquisition.

religious content category (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40617991)

No child should be exposed to religion !
Neither should adults really, but if they want to indulge in unhealthy behavior that is there own business.

Re:religious content category (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618155)

that is there own business.

Where own business?

Re:religious content category (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618513)

Where own business?

Omnipresent.

Inflammatory headline (1, Insightful)

mu51c10rd (187182) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618005)

It's not just religious groups, it's several different organization types. Singling out religious groups in the title is merely inflammatory and designed to ignite a flamewar. While I think what this ISP is doing is wrong, I also feel it wrong for Slashdot to engage in the same zealous behavior against a certain group.

Re:Inflammatory headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618107)

"Slashdot - sensationalism for the masses, anything goes."

Re:Inflammatory headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618231)

Slashdot - All the News That's Fit to Troll

Re:Inflammatory headline (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618127)

I don't see why what they are doing is wrong?

It provides granularity in the parent's hands to be able to filter content based on what they feel their children should be exposed to, however it is also providing pre-canned filters that can be used as a starting point. Again, here the parents are give a choice of the canned filters in terms of their ideology, hence it would take them less time/effort to customize to their liking.

If the network was willy nilly filtering content based on these "guardians' " input, then I'd say you're right, however, in this case the parents control what is filtered and what is not. The choice is in the consumers hands with tools being provided by the ISP. What's so wrong about that?

My response (1)

sanosuke001 (640243) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618009)

Call ISP:

(20 minutes on hold)

Them: "Hello, how may I help you today?"
Me: "Please opt-in me on any blacklists started, managed, or endorsed by any religious individual or organization. Thank you."
Them: "...okay?"

Re:My response (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618587)

Hi. I'd like FSM's blacklist and Alister Crowley's whitelist. Yes, including the Dutch satanic nuns peeling bananas with their censored. Thanks.

Perfect! (0, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618021)

They'll all wipe each other's religions off the Internet!

Re:Perfect! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618477)

Exactly! The Muslims will censor and block anything Jewish, the Christians will block anything about Muslims, and about eachother (for example, in Ireland, Catholics and Protestants really really hate each other. A lot. Or at least, the people in charge of those two groups do.), and they'll probably all block out Scientology. The only down-side to this is that actual reality based websites that offend their delicate fictional tastes (ie: Atheism, Evolution, Unapproved History, etc...) will probably also get blocked.

Muslim groups won't block CP... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618031)

...since that would prevent on-line access to the Quran.

Re:Muslim groups won't block CP... (1)

fustakrakich (1673220) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618429)

Oh God said to Abraham, "Kill me a son"
Abe says, "Man, you must be puttin' me on"
God say, "No." Abe say, "What?"
God say, "You can do what you want Abe, but
The next time you see me comin' you better run"
Well Abe says, "Where do you want this killin' done?"
God says, "Out on Highway 61"

So how does CoS handle it? (1)

ackthpt (218170) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618037)

"You can only go to the CoS sites, the rest of the sites don't exist and if they did they are evil and corrupting."

Mixed message (1)

Mattygfunk1 (596840) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618045)

We can envisage a situation where people would only block known malware sites... and they can allow everything else.

That appears to be not the desired situation. They're marketing it at parents, but taking a bet each way.

Site Blocker (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618053)

When I scanned the summary I thought it meant that an ISP was implementing parental controls to shield minors from dangerous religious sites. That seems like a far more worthwhile endeavor....

Dogbert had it right ... (1)

Krishnoid (984597) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618061)

Reposting, [slashdot.org] but similarly short-sighted even if it's voluntary on the part of the parents at the customer-end of the service.

Great! (1)

Gordonjcp (186804) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618071)

So now we can have a filtered ISP for the weirdy religious types, and they can stick to that and leave the other ISPs alone for normal people.

It also means that detecting people who spend a worrying amount of time looking at the wikipedia pages for explosives, ebay auctions for chemical equipment and downloading illegal copies of the talmud can be spotted and chucked into Broadmoor before they hurt someone.

Which religious groups? (1)

Stoopiduk (1593855) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618087)

The paedos could be looking forward to catching a break for once.

Let the parent set parental controls! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618101)

I don't understand why the gov't, isp, etc. want to be in the business of parenting.

Is this something very thin I see before me? (1)

folderol (1965326) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618167)

.. that may get more intrusive over time. Something beginning 'W' perhaps. Ah yes, a wedge indeed.

They are going to be SOOOO corrupted (1)

Maxo-Texas (864189) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618195)

You just can't "un know" and "un see" things.

As so many times in the past (seriously- back to like 200 A.D.), those censors and monitors will be corrupted. Some will be found to have large collections of porn- some of it illegal, etc.

Just your average insane left-wingers again (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618207)

They are going to ask a great number of organisations for input into the filters. That includes religious organisations.

Since the communists failed to eradicate religion and all their other traditional enemies as defined in their pyramid charts in their last attempt, the remaining shambling, rotten corpses who still haven't gotten their brains blown out keep trying to do the same thing today. Never mind, in about a decade or so most of them will be dead or senile.

Bad Idea.. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618235)

This just seems like a bad idea. I'm not saying that religion itself is a bad idea, but giving them control over something is just asking for problems. They can't even uniformly decide what is right in their own sects...

Access to information - a human right? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618279)

While acknowledging that this is just one ISP and that they may want to corner a small market of parents who are concerned about such things, I do have to wonder at what point we say it is unacceptable and a form of child abuse to withhold information from children.

Suppose I am a parent who in the future decides to sign up to the 'creationist' package, that filters out anything on the internet that relates to evolution, geology, etc etc. If the child was being sent to a school which also indoctrinated such ideas, then there are few avenues left for the child to get access to proper scientific information, and possibly come to question their beliefs. It scares me just a little bit to think that an information resource like the internet can be used to possibly decrease knowledge in people whose parents decide what information they consume....

Why the vitriol (4, Insightful)

Intropy (2009018) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618383)

A private company offers an opt in filtering service, and they hire religious people to help them set up that service. Okay, sounds like something I absolutely do not want. But who am I to tell other people they can't have it. It's not bothering me any.

Re:Why the vitriol (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618959)

I agree entirely, this is a decision made by an ISP rather than a government forcing every ISP to adopt controls. You don't have to go to church, mosque, temple, etc. Just like you don't have to spend your money with Claranet.

Re:Why the vitriol (1)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618975)

But who am I to tell other people they can't have it.

Damn strait. I'm ordering asap if it even diegns to promise me that it will filter out any and all variations on "Call Me Maybe" videos.

Sharianet (1)

gelfling (6534) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618407)

Which is fine if they limit themselves to themselves. I'd hate to have my whole neighborhood burned to the ground, the women raped the men decapitated the children enslaved all in the name of religious tolerance because some nutjobs happened to see some porn or worse, something Jewish.

Allahu Porqchop!

Not very religious, but I don't find anything bad. (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618509)

Well, I am not very religious, not fundie and I very strongly believe in evolution and science. Having said that, the only objection I have about the fundies is their attempt to grab tax dollars, or use tax money to fund their views and their sense of entitlement to the use of public property while denying the same level of access to the minority religions and atheists.

Here, as long as tax dollars are not used to support the ISP and if it is not a government sanctioned utility, I don't see anything wrong in a private company doing it with their own money and capital. You don't like it, use a different ISP.

Further recognize it is UK, it is not a secular nation but a Christian/Protestant nation and their laws will differ from ours, I mean the USA's. We did not like their laws and so we said adios way back in 1770s.

Re:Not very religious, but I don't find anything b (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618805)

Asking whether the UK is a secular nation or not can get a bit confusing. Technically we are a theocracy, since the head of state is the monarch, and the monarch rules in the name of god (according to constitutional tradition). For practical purposes though, that's all bollocks. Our actual government has no religious element to it. The bishops that sit in the house of lords are forbidden to rule on anything other than the internal laws of the church, and are mostly ignored. For everybody else, religion in government is a major taboo.

Compared to the US, the UK is very strongly secular indeed.

Re:Not very religious, but I don't find anything b (1)

140Mandak262Jamuna (970587) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619139)

Is it illegal in the UK for a private company (without any government funds) to mix religion with its business? It is illegal in USA? If there is no public resources involved, there is no standing for others to sue them.

On the other hand, others do have the freedom of expression to disparage the idea and the company. Again not using public funds or resources.

Re:Not very religious, but I don't find anything b (1)

Dr_Barnowl (709838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619451)

Indeed, Tony Blair concealed his religious leanings quite assiduously while in office, sometimes with the intervention of his director of Communications. In the UK, someone who openly made state decisions based on religious reasoning would be ridiculed in the popular satirical comedy press, and probably regarded as being "a bit barmy" by everyone else.

Censorship committees (2)

dkleinsc (563838) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618589)

The difference between censorship committees and regular people is that the censorship committees want to watch and read their smut in a group setting rather than at home alone. It's rather kinky when you think about it that way.

And thou shalt block... religious websites (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40618663)

As a parent, honestly, I'd prefer religious websites to be blocked by parental control, over religious nutcases deciding what to block.

Cable (2)

benjfowler (239527) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618877)

When our household got cable for the first time, it was great.

The first thing we did was put the parental lock on the God Channel.

Brilliant! (2)

interval1066 (668936) | more than 2 years ago | (#40618927)

Here's a good idea that will be only implemented after thoughtful, contemplative consideration of all its implications and effects are throughly explored with invitations to discussions for all affected parties extended I'm sure.

So if a parent wants to use parental controls ... (0)

wisnoskij (1206448) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619007)

... to block sexual content for their child they will also have to block scientific and atheistic websites as well, because they will be on the same backlists?

Well if it is like my experience.. (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#40619051)

Well if it is like my experience it will help produce more atheists. When I was young so many things I enjoy were declared satanic by the church. For example I used my own money I earned from mowing lawns, and shoveling snow to buy dungeons and dragons books. I had all of them. I also would play D&D with a few friends of mine. I was a early teen and still hadn't discovered women yet. I appreciated the thought aspect of the game in thinking about your decision and the mathematical aspect as well. I also appreciated a lot of the original artwork contained in the books. Which if you seen the original AD&D books then you know what I mean. Even Deities and Demigods had some of the real mythology behind the characters contained. I mean seriously I look at it as an adult and an inspirational way to get a kid to use his brain and read and calculate all the math, is that such a bad thing?

Well I came home one day to find all my books gone. I asked my mom where they were and she threw them all out. Why, because the church said it's satanic. I realized even at an early age the church was a nothing more than a mass of stupid people that couldn't think on their own. I went all the way up as high as I could go as a kid questioning my mom and the preacher of the church she went to if they even read any of the books. Which they all said no. Which I asked how did they know it was satanic. It was all word of mouth. People in mass just blindly following and not thinking. That's when I knew church and organized religion was a sham. Admittedly I became agnostic, later as I seen more and more of the stupid things people of all religions do. I became Atheist. We can only hope that children raised in homes that blindly just shut off access to things that kids use grow up to hate the stupidity of religion and see it for that. The world needs a lot less ignorant sheep.

I am eagerly awaiting the first reports of abuse. (0)

_KiTA_ (241027) | more than 2 years ago | (#40619073)

I am eagerly awaiting the first reports of abuse. For example, how long until a Muslim, Buddhist, or Atheist website is marked as "objectionable"? How about Spongebob Squarepants' homepage (he's in a gay relationship with that starfish, ya know). Or randomly blocking Liberal blogs or politician website, since we simply must protect children from abhorrent ideas like class equality.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?