×

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 Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn

samzenpus posted about 3 months ago | from the surprise-to-no-one dept.

United Kingdom 227

toshikodo writes "The BBC is reporting that Internet content filters being rolled out by major ISPs in the UK are failing to allow access to acceptable content, such as sex education and sexual abuse advise sites, while also still allowing access to porn. According to the article, 'TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight.' The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate, and that they are working with their users to improve quality. I wonder how long it will be before one of these filters blocks access to the Conservative Party's website, and what will Cameron do then?"

cancel ×
This is a preview of your comment

No Comment Title Entered

Anonymous Coward 1 minute ago

No Comment Entered

227 comments

What will Cameron do then? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45733989)

Probably not care, since the conservative base is a bunch of luddites anyway.

Also first.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (5, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | about 3 months ago | (#45734019)

We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture Mr Cameron, aside from applying technology to shape what is a social matter (mainly fear of educating properly our children).

Re:What will Cameron do then? (5, Insightful)

Adam Colley (3026155) | about 3 months ago | (#45734105)

It's nothing to do with porn and we all know it.
Did you notice that filter also blocks "extreme political content"?
Who decides what's too extreme?
They're going to ask everyone over the next year to choose filtering or no filtering, how long do you think it'll be until it's presumed consent unless you specifically ask for no filtering? How long after that anyone who wants no filtering is subject to extra GCHQ monitoring as they're considered subversive?

Can someone please stop the country? I want to get off -.-

Re:What will Cameron do then? (3, Insightful)

AGMW (594303) | about 3 months ago | (#45734147)

The default is already "Filtering ON", even though the Gov tried to insist that the ISP's call it something like "your choice" to hide the fact! Railroaded in by referring to it as some anti-child porn crusade, it also includes filters to block (extreme) political websites too.

Who determines what political sites are extreme?

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

kylegordon (159137) | about 3 months ago | (#45734633)

It *already is* presumed consent. When you opt out I hope you enjoy being on Camerons naughty-filthy-dog-buggering-and-political-extremism-terrorist list.

Encryption. Lots of it. It's almost the only way to be sure :-/

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

Drethon (1445051) | about 3 months ago | (#45734875)

I suspect they are trying to stop the country already, I'm trying to figure out how to catch back up to reality ;p

Re: What will Cameron do then? (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734113)

Love is a beautiful thing. Porn however is not love. The people don't love each other (exception is home made amateur porn) and it's not biological either (no offspring produced when the man blows his "money shot" in the woman's face)

Porn is not natural. It ruins the beauty of love and sex by desensitizing people to it. The less children exposed to this smut the better for society.

Re: What will Cameron do then? (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 months ago | (#45734191)

Sex for the purpose of pleasure is part of our biology. However, I believe the concern is that sex education is biology.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734135)

Ultra violent war simulation is training for military service. Obey the Man, man!

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

davester666 (731373) | about 3 months ago | (#45734157)

Parents MUST be the only ones who teach their children about love and sex. Otherwise, the entire foundation of civilization will go under. And for those parents who don't teach their children about these subjects, they obviously know their children well enough to know that they should not engage in further damaging the gene pool.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (5, Insightful)

daem0n1x (748565) | about 3 months ago | (#45734643)

for those parents who don't teach their children about these subjects, they obviously know their children well enough to know that they should not engage in further damaging the gene pool.

Unfortunately, the less kids know about sex, the more likely they are to spread their genes in an undesired and uncontrolled way. That's why sex education is so important and shouldn't be left to parents.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 3 months ago | (#45734161)

Something is seriously wrong with this picture ... (mainly fear of educating properly our children).

The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734541)

The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.

yeah, some subversive website for the higher educated might be next on the filtering block.. and Slashdot might be it.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#45734173)

We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology. Something is seriously wrong with this picture

Yes. Something is indeed very wrong with that picture.

Do you have any proof that something is wrong with letting kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours? If you simply decided that it is wrong, intuitively, you're making assumptions exactly as those who say porn is bad.

Without proof, it would be just as logical to say "We let kids drink water over and over again, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology".

Re:What will Cameron do then? (1)

ACE209 (1067276) | about 3 months ago | (#45734451)

Without proof, it would be just as logical to say "We let kids drink water over and over again, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology".

MO-MO-MO-MONSTER-SIP!!

Re:What will Cameron do then? (4, Insightful)

jimshatt (1002452) | about 3 months ago | (#45734181)

I don't know if you've seen any porn lately, but it has nothing to do with love (I'll grant you biology). Though I disagree with the UK and with censorship at large, I'm beginning to really hate this "boohoo violence is okay but love is taboo" whining. Besides, when videogames come up again after some high-school shooting, we're all up-ins too.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (2, Informative)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 3 months ago | (#45734561)

If you had only read TFS you'd realise the filter doesn't filter porn well. It does however filter out the biology part of it (sex ed websites).

Re:What will Cameron do then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734685)

What the fuck are you saying? Your comment doesn't relate to what the person your replying to said at all.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (5, Interesting)

Jherek Carnelian (831679) | about 3 months ago | (#45734199)

We let kids play ultra violent war simulation for hours and hours, but god forbid they get a glimpse of love and biology.

It isn't so obviously wrong. Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex. If they get a warped view of violence, it won't really affect their lives. If they get a warped view of sex (and nearly all porn is a production, not real sex) then that could screw up their ability to have sexual intimacy for the rest of their lives.

I doubt that's how the censors see it, but a broken clock is still right twice a day.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (3, Insightful)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734371)

Most kids will never commit any significant act of violence, but most will have sex.

Regardless of whether or not they watch porn. Furthermore, I highly, highly doubt that most people (even kids) aren't capable of distinguishing between reality and porn. But even if someone isn't capable of doing that, a five second talk would likely suffice; censorship will never be an acceptable solution to me.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734301)

Well, as the summary said, they're still getting access to Porn. They're still getting an education, it just may not be.... healthy? For them, or their (potential) partner(s).

Re:What will Cameron do then? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734221)

Cameron will organize The Nude Conservative Calendar for Awareness of Blocked Conservative Websites. It will smash pumpkins and spill some perfectly good warm stout.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (3, Insightful)

xelah (176252) | about 3 months ago | (#45734421)

Indeed he won't care, because he hasn't done this to 'protect children' or any similar thing. It's about political positioning: it's purpose is to present a certain image of the Conservative party - we're this sort of people - to a particular segment of voters who they hope will vote for them. (It wouldn't surprise me if this includes wives wondering what their husbands are doing as much as parents). It also helps distinguish themselves from their coalition partners who are the most pro-civil liberties of the mainstream parties, and who may be seen by some as saying 'we oppose protecting children'.

A huge amount of government policy and law is symbolic. Like the rest, you will notice that it doesn't have to actually work in order to achieve these goals.

Re:What will Cameron do then? (2)

coastwalker (307620) | about 3 months ago | (#45734837)

I am tired of illiterate morons running society, I sometimes wonder if we would be better off with an actual dictator instead of the establishment that runs it now. At least that would be a more honest arrangement instead of this bottom feeding so called democracy.

Come on... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734003)

... we all know that the filtering is done, how to put it, to solve an interest conflict.
And people should work, not amuse themselfes in pubs, at home or anywhere else.
Maybe the prices for tabaco and alc. are a little bit more adjustable too!

Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (4, Insightful)

El_Muerte_TDS (592157) | about 3 months ago | (#45734009)

Can't say I'm surprised by this.

Re:Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (2)

Thanshin (1188877) | about 3 months ago | (#45734037)

The mass is stupid. To make it understand even a simple concept, it needs to hear it many times.

The concept of filtering Internet will exist as long as there is an internet to filter.

We must keep the "filters never work." chant going. Maybe in a decade a politician will say "We need to filter the internet!" and his PR advisor will lean and whisper in his ear "My job becomes harder every time you say stupid shit like that. Sir.".

Re:Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 months ago | (#45734347)

I think we just need an IQ test for politicians. That's all.

Re:Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (4, Insightful)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 3 months ago | (#45734817)

The problem isn't the politicians' lack of intelligence, but the fact that their motives aren't aligned with what the people want. Unfortunately, the democratic process ensures that the top politicians are the most power-hungry and effective liars.

Blocking but allowing? (-1, Troll)

SuperKendall (25149) | about 3 months ago | (#45734011)

failing to allow access to ...sex education and sexual abuse... while also still allowing access to porn.

Confused - I thought you said the sexually educational materials were blocked? Then you say they are allowed.

P.S. plenty of abuse to be found in porn too if you try the right keywords.

Re:Blocking but allowing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734445)

It's blocking sex ed., yet failing to block some porn sites. The abuse part is probably referencing " Doncaster Domestic Abuse Helpline" and "Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre", I would assume.

Re:Blocking but allowing? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734515)

Those blocks are just being true to conservative roots. Can't have people have access to those sites helping with abuse, it might ruin the image of idyllic happy families!

No need for 100% accuracy (3, Insightful)

mwvdlee (775178) | about 3 months ago | (#45734023)

The ISPs claim that it is impossible for their filters to be 100% accurate

Nobody's asking for it to be 100% accurate, but there's a huge difference between 100% and just 93% accurate.
Considering this is automated restriction of speech, you'd better make damn sure you're atleast in the 99.99% range of accuracy.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (5, Insightful)

SuricouRaven (1897204) | about 3 months ago | (#45734049)

These filters are completly useless against anyone actively trying to subvert them. CGI proxies, SSH tunnels, VPNs, and the plain old 'google until you find something that slips through.' Children do know these tricks, or know a friend who will show them - they pick it up at school, finding games to play during lessons. Plus it only filters websites - there is still p2p, files exchanged with friends on IM, sexually explicit zones on social platforms*. It's almost useless. The best a filter can hope for is to stop people from accidentally stumbling across porn while looking for something else - and that is something we just don't need. While certain elements of government and pressure group may believe that glimpsing a penis traumatises children for life, there is no real evidence for this. Children are just not that fragile. A better approach is to just explain to them that there are naughty pictures on the internet and they should just close the tab.

* There's some really kinky stuff on Second Life.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (3, Interesting)

wvmarle (1070040) | about 3 months ago | (#45734569)

While certain elements of government and pressure group may believe that glimpsing a penis traumatises children for life, there is no real evidence for this. Children are just not that fragile. A better approach is to just explain to them that there are naughty pictures on the internet and they should just close the tab.

And at the same time YouTube is allowing snuff movies again. Specifically those of beheadings by terrorist groups and so. But of course seeing someone's head being chopped off is far from as traumatising as seeing two people having fun without clothes on.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734097)

but there's a huge difference between 100% and just 93% accurate.

And there is also a big difference between false negatives and positives.

Ofcourse, for which one of the two it is acceptable to have "a small percentage" to get the other down to 0% is also a problem, with the gouverment and the citinizery most likely at opposing viewpoints ...

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (0)

toshikodo (2976757) | about 3 months ago | (#45734123)

The accuracy these filters, or rather their lack of, is a bit of a moot point. The biggest problem from my point of view is that these filters are optional. This means some kids won't be protected by these measures because they will still have access to unfiltered Internet content. One draconian option could be to make the filters mandatory for everyone, but even Cameron would probably think that that would be a bad idea. I'd like to suggest an alternative, namely that content filters should be mandatory on all Internet connections used by children. The UK public are quite happy with age based censorship in the film & video game industries, and there are plenty of other things that adults can legally do that children can't, so maybe what the government should be doing is to make it an offense to allow a child to have unfiltered access to the Internet.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (4, Insightful)

FlyHelicopters (1540845) | about 3 months ago | (#45734205)

That is evil... It is not the government's job or business in how I choose to raise my child...

Naked human beings is not bad for children, we are all born naked, we'll all die naked, and under our clothes, we're all naked right now.

The violence in our culture is the real problem. Movies like "The Hunger Games" have 8 year old's being beheaded with lots of blood, that's ok, but a naked person? Evil!

Completely wrong and backwards.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734345)

It is not the government's job or business in how I choose to raise my child...

It is if the government decides it is.
It is the governments remit to decide what the government's remit is.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734381)

And when you have a government that's using censorship as a solution, I believe your government is insane and unjust.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734377)

The violence in our culture is the real problem.

I don't think that's a problem, either.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734535)

Well, I do think it is a bit of an artistic problem. Both that since it is so normal it is hard to make any kind of shocking effect and that replacing actual content with random violence is becoming more common, which honestly makes for bad movies/games/etc.
More along what you probably meant though, I don't think it's a problem for children though, and the above problem certainly isn't, when you're young things haven't yet become boring by endless repetition.

Re:No need for 100% accuracy (1)

Mashiki (184564) | about 3 months ago | (#45734557)

That is evil... It is not the government's job or business in how I choose to raise my child...

Yeah...keep telling yourself that. The government raising your kids is an extension of a buttload of liberal policies in the 70's, 80's and 90's. To the point where educators believe they're "co-parents" [canoe.ca] and organizations like Children's Aid, will go out of their way to enforce their will and vision upon you, and your children.

Waiting for the Daily Mail to get blocked (2)

IamTheRealMike (537420) | about 3 months ago | (#45734031)

It could go down either for porn or "hate speech", which Cameron is wasting no time adding to the filters [dailymail.co.uk]. The lulz will be heavy then.

Re:Waiting for the Daily Mail to get blocked (2)

Spad (470073) | about 3 months ago | (#45734479)

Given the amount of thinly-veiled paedophilia on the Daily Mail website ("Phwoar! This 14 year old looks all grown up, nudge nudge, wink wink") it really should be on there already.

I hate to say I told you so... (5, Funny)

Buchenskjoll (762354) | about 3 months ago | (#45734033)

no, actually I don't. In fact I love it. I told you so, I told you so, I told you so ...

Re:I hate to say I told you so... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734085)

...amusing without paying? Reminds me a little bit of the great firewall of another country.

Feel sorry for the people of UK (3, Insightful)

paavo512 (2866903) | about 3 months ago | (#45734065)

ISPs claim that [...] they are working with their users to improve quality.

One question: how can the users know about a blocked sexual education site in order to request unblocking it?

Re:Feel sorry for the people of UK (1)

xelah (176252) | about 3 months ago | (#45734379)

And, possibly more important: how can the operator of a site know in order to request unblocking it? They're much more likely to be willing to go to significant effort to make that happen. I suspect that the filter writers will not want this to be easy - the last thing they'll want is to spend all their time and money handling disputes.

Re:Feel sorry for the people of UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734531)

One question: how can the users know about a blocked sexual education site in order to request unblocking it?

They come across it while browsing after their kids' left the VPN enabled.

Re:Feel sorry for the people of UK (1)

Xest (935314) | about 3 months ago | (#45734553)

Because most of the information aid these issues are bullshit and only effect ISPs you'd be stupid to go with on the first place?

Even PlusNet which is owned by BT neither has a default filter nor was effected by the court ordered blocks on the likes of the pirate bay.

If you're affected then it's your own stupid fault for choosing such crappy ISPs. The rest of us who choose sensible ISPs just aren't affected in the slightest. I don't even know what any of these block pages look like and I've expended zero effort in trying to avoid them.

Re:Feel sorry for the people of UK (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734857)

information aid these issues

effect ISPs

English, motherfucker.

"what will Cameron do then?" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734067)

Disappear? Nah, I know that's just wishful thinking.

Does it work at all? (5, Funny)

isorox (205688) | about 3 months ago | (#45734073)

So I'm on BT, and like most people I've replaced the terrible "home hub" with a simple 4 router solution, 5G backbone to distribute wired around the house, single 2.4G AP for non-wired devices, OSPF to manage it all.

It's connected upstream to the VDSL via a pppoe (username bthomehub@btbroadband.com, no password), and the central DNS proxy uses either 4.2.2.2 or 8.8.8.8 upstream.

I've spent the morning scientifically browsing lots of porn sites, and haven't found a single one blocked. A google search for "porn" reveals the following sites on the first attempt, all work just fine.

http://www.pornhub.com/ [pornhub.com]
http://www.youporn.com/ [youporn.com]
http://www.redtube.com/ [redtube.com]
http://www.porn.com/ [porn.com]
http://www.xnxx.com/ [xnxx.com]
http://www.perfectgirls.net/ [perfectgirls.net]

The search also brings up the following site
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/ [dailymail.co.uk]

Which is blocked as being morally unwelcome in my house.

What am I doing wrong?

Re:Does it work at all? (1)

Dagger2 (1177377) | about 3 months ago | (#45734111)

You aren't turning the filters on. If they were on, access to non-BT DNS servers would be filtered.

Re:Does it work at all? (1)

isorox (205688) | about 3 months ago | (#45734129)

You aren't turning the filters on. If they were on, access to non-BT DNS servers would be filtered.

Right, but I thought these filters went on by default? The BT DNS servers were terrible, hence I changed from them. I was expecting them to be stealing UDP53 traffic, but they're not.

Re:Does it work at all? (2)

Rande (255599) | about 3 months ago | (#45734163)

Currently it's _new_ connections or connection switchers that have it turned on by default.
Others will have it turned on next year sometime.

Re:Does it work at all? (1)

oobayly (1056050) | about 3 months ago | (#45734195)

No, as far as I know it'll be switched on for new BT customers, but current customers will be contacted to see if they want to opt in.

It'll be interesting to see if this applied to our leased line from BT.

Re: Does it work at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734125)

If you are an existing subscriber you have to opt in to the filter. New customers will be enrolled by default.

The BT stance is confusing as they have long disabled the ability to change the DNS settings on their router to facilitate the use of OpenDNS blocking. I'd rather use a filter I can control.

Re: Does it work at all? (1)

loufoque (1400831) | about 3 months ago | (#45734139)

As a test, I took a look at each of your mainstream porn site. Each of them has at least one video depicting elements of rape on its first page.
When Cameron has its way, it will be a criminal act to visit any of those sites.

Re: Does it work at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734473)

Each of them has at least one video depicting elements of rape on its first page.

I'm afraid to ask, but which elements? I don't know those sites intimately, but I doubt any of them would feature snuff footage.

I wonder if Cameron would want to criminalize women who fantasize about it. Knowing third wave misandrist feminism, I'm sure that'll be white cis men's fault as well.

Re: Does it work at all? (2)

xelah (176252) | about 3 months ago | (#45734635)

One man's 'depiction of rape' is another's depiction of consensual bondage or role play. You can bet that if depictions of rape become criminal (and, as always, mainstream films will get an opt-out because people who watch those may be 'one of us' instead of 'one of them') then some perfectly nice, considerate, non-violent and non-malicious people will end up with their lives ruined whilst the definition is sorted out. As with teenagers charged over sexting (to protect teenagers, obviously), law can too easily be a weapon where those wielding it don't care what comes out of the other end and who it's aimed at...

Re: Does it work at all? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734747)

Weasel words. Naked people would qualify as 'an element of rape'.

Re: Does it work at all? (1)

hawkinspeter (831501) | about 3 months ago | (#45734877)

"Elements of rape"? You realise that what you wrote could be considered libel as you're accusing the people involved of criminal acts? Do you have any evidence that rape was in any way involved in any of the acts depicted?

Re:Does it work at all? (5, Informative)

jonbryce (703250) | about 3 months ago | (#45734383)

The filters are default-on for new customers, but off for existing customers unless you ask for them to be switched on. Very few people will be using them at the moment.

It's good to know... (1)

surfdaddy (930829) | about 3 months ago | (#45734101)

...that there's a country even more batshit crazy than us here in the USA!

Re:It's good to know... (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734131)

Sadly it's not so much a matter of degree as a matter of kind.

the UK is simply differently batshit insane compared to the USA, not more so.

percentages (0)

timdingo (1922214) | about 3 months ago | (#45734107)

"but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested" that's 4.76 websites it failed to block (?)

Re:percentages (1)

isorox (205688) | about 3 months ago | (#45734115)

"but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested"

that's 4.76 websites it failed to block (?)

It blocked 5 out of 76 websites, which is 7.35294..%

This was then correctly rounded to 7%

all part of the plan (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734117)

The first world is overpopulated, so instead of being educated about sex, kids are encouraged to watch porn and wank themselves to death. This is all part of the plan to punish white people for keeping the brown people down. Soon the guilty white folk will be extinct and brown will inherit the earth.

Filters are a joke. (2)

jtownatpunk.net (245670) | about 3 months ago | (#45734207)

I was staying at a resort in Utah a couple months back and they had a filter on the internet connection. My favorite web comic was considered profane. Another one had one panel blocked because it had "gay" in the image file name. (They were introducing a new, gay character.) Foobies was obviously blocked. But I could GIS page after page of triple X action. Of course, the filter blocked all kinds of non-pornographic material. Got around it by using a VPN to a system that didn't filter my requests.

Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734235)

You Brits are not free.

Re:Seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734629)

It's a free-ish country.

TalkTalk is the worst ISP I have ever had. (2)

Esperi (782483) | about 3 months ago | (#45734291)

I'm not surprised they can't get filters right, they can't get anything right. I joined TalkTalk in December last year as the price is attractive. They are the worst ISP I have ever had the misfortune to sign up with. Go-Live dates that came and went, with no connection. Engineer visits. Incorrect billing. Horrible network congestion rendering internet use nigh on impossible during peak times. The list is endless with my woes. My 12 month contract is up in a few days and I will never re-sign with this company.

There is a reason this company has been listed as the worst ISP in the UK as defined by complaints to Ofcom (UK ombudsman) http://media.ofcom.org.uk/2013/09/27/latest-telecoms-and-pay-tv-complaints-figures-3/ [ofcom.org.uk]

More fool, the government. (1)

zaax (637433) | about 3 months ago | (#45734317)

As we are getting more like Iran & China in our internet censorship more and more we will turn to VPN, and the harder and harder it will take the likes of GCHQ to read our internet words.

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734439)

Don't be so stupid. The filters are completely voluntary, and they are provided because people want them. The only people who are in any way inconvenienced by them are teenagers who - sorry to be the one to break it to you - do not have a right to unrestricted access to hardcore pornography.

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734505)

Don't be so stupid. The filters are completely voluntary

And on by default. But if they're completely voluntary, why not ban religious sites? If people want to be indoctrinated, they can simply opt out of the filter! No big deal, really!

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734559)

And on by default.

So what?

And on by default. But if they're completely voluntary, why not ban religious sites?

Because normal people don't mind religion and do mind hardcore pornography. They are not made for you, with your incredibly weird and specific list of dislikes, they are made for normal people. If you want to filter out religious sites on your home network that is entirely within your power and no-one will stop you.

Re:More fool, the government. (2)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 3 months ago | (#45734585)

Normal people do not mind hardcore pornography. When new technology comes out that can be reasonably used for porn, it is used for porn very soon, and in many cases even if it can just be unreasonably used for porn.

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734625)

The facts beg to differ. People do not want their children to have access to hardcore pornography. Adults can make up their own minds and this does nothing to prevent them from doing so. You're making this a fake matter of principle because you don't want your mum to take away your porn.

Re:More fool, the government. (2)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734617)

So what?

Censorship being on by default to block certain content that irrational people don't like is not something I'd expect in any free country, that's what.

Because normal people don't mind religion and do mind hardcore pornography.

By "normal", you must mean "irrational". The only reason you've given is, "Some people don't like porn, but they don't mind religion, so this censorship is okay." I simply don't find that convincing.

If you want to filter out religious sites on your home network that is entirely within your power and no-one will stop you.

If you want to filter out porn, do it yourself.

Re:More fool, the government. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734639)

By "normal", you must mean "irrational".

My "normal" I mean "not pornography-addicted teenagers with Asperger's syndrome".

Re:More fool, the government. (1)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734759)

Well, since you didn't respond to anything else I said...

Being opposed to censorship is different from being a teenager, a porn addict, or having Asperger's syndrome.

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734795)

What censorship?

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

cheekyjohnson (1873388) | about 3 months ago | (#45734813)

The filter. The very thing that government thugs told ISPs to enable so that certain websites that irrational pieces of trash don't like would be censored.

Re:More fool, the government. (2)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 months ago | (#45734711)

As someone living in a democratic country (one with a conservative government, the Queen as head of state and some level of filtering going on although exactly how much no-one here in Oz will say) I do not support ANY kind of mandatory (or even on-by-default) censorship or filtering.

If there are things that are genuinely bad/harmful (rape, child porn, sexual violence, sites advocating terrorism etc etc) the government should be working with other governments to get the content taken down and the scumbags who produced it thrown in whatever passes for "federal pound me in the ass prison" in the relavent country rather than being blocked.

If the sites in question are not harmful to most people (regular porn, torrent sites, opposing political views etc) then they should not be blocked by default. Those people who DO want them blocked (e.g. parents wanting to stop their kids getting to it, schools wanting to stop their students getting to it etc) then yes the ISPs can offer an opt-in service for those customers.

But it has to be opt-in with customers having to specifically say "yes I want the filtering".

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734741)

But it has to be opt-in with customers having to specifically say "yes I want the filtering".

Any reason why anyone other than a teenager who doesn't want his mum to take away his porn should care whether it's opt-in or opt-out? Any reason at all?

Re:More fool, the government. (1)

jonwil (467024) | about 3 months ago | (#45734783)

If its opt-out, its much easier to just remove the opt-out in the future and make it mandatory. Or to record the details of those who opt-out in some government database and give them extra scrutiny (i.e. if this person is opting-out they must be up to something)

Re:More fool, the government. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734851)

Conspiracy theories and slippery slope arguments aren't terribly convincing, I'm afraid.

Want to protect young minds ? (1)

Alain Williams (2972) | about 3 months ago | (#45734391)

This is, supposedly, what this is all about. So why not ban the ones that really cause damage: violent sites (people shooting people, stories about murder), religious sites (think of the guilt complex that many catholics have, islamic fundamentalist sites, ...), facebook (nuff said), ... ?

We will never agree on what causes damage, the current list has more to do with the daily mail tory electorate than any rational sense.

Orwell had the answer (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734425)

"I wonder how long it will be before one of these filters blocks access to the Conservative Party's website, and what will Cameron do then?"

Duh. The long term goal is to white list the ruler's web site and black list everything else. Read up on the principles of newspeak.

Yeah that sounds right (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734673)

Let them wank off until they elect their health and reproductive capacity enough ..

They should go further (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734707)

Someone should sneak a clause banning sex outright into one of these stupid laws.

Wrong end of the problem (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#45734739)

When a kid can access porn but not say the site of a breast cancer charity that's a problem, yes. But if you work on that angle you're critisicing how internet filtering is implemented when the true problem is the fact THAT it is done at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Sign up for Slashdot Newsletters
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...