ISP to block porn

[Emil Von]

"...In his speech, Mr Cameron said family-friendly filters would be automatically selected for all new customers by the end of the year - although they could choose to switch them off.

And millions of existing computer users would be contacted by their internet providers and told they must decide whether to use or not use "family-friendly filters" to restrict adult material.
----------
Other measures announced by the prime minister included:

-New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops-

-Search engines having until October to introduce further measures to block illegal content

-Experts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre being given more powers to examine secretive file-sharing networks...."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-23401076

So all porn and illegal content will be filtered and file-sharing and -host will be monitored.

I believe that in the future will be more control of the Internet and the EU will be take model from UK.

[knobby109]

Originally Posted by Pepe26

Lets see now trying to hide:

1.) Privitisation of the NHS (anyone remember his pre-election pledge of no top down reorganisation of the NHS). If you want to see what privatisation will look like just look the the USA where they have by far the most expensive system but a system that is nothing like the best when compared to other health care systems around the world. Or if you want an example closer to home look at the privitisation of the railways in this country which has been a disaster for the consumer.
2.) Economy in the dumps as he let that imbecile Osborne loose on the economy. Go back and read where George Osborne originally forecast we would be and where we are now. It would be funny if it were not so depressing.
3.) They want to invite foreign companies to take our natural resources and pay no tax.

There are many others but if that doesn't piss you of nothing will.

Evidence for all this?
The biggest privatisation of the NHS happened with the last government with the PFI system.
As for the economy , the collapse of the Eurozone which is our biggest trading partner wouldn't have had any effect would it? If they can't buy we can't sell.

[hslc]

I like most people on here and other forums would see no problem in seeing underage sex and rape blocked, but where dose it end then. its a very clever ploy to get the snoppers bil through as a law. Cynicaliy exploiting a situation for a policy to please the moral minority who read the daily mail and the torygraph.

[palo5]

Originally Posted by knobby109

As for the economy , the collapse of the Eurozone which is our biggest trading partner wouldn't have had any effect would it? If they can't buy we can't sell.

First, the Eurozone has not collapsed. It's still there. I know many English dream it wouldn't be, but they've always been wrong

Second, you have it the wrong way round, because it's England that has the negative trade balance. In other words, if YOU can't buy, they can't sell

There's one more thing, though I could get hammered for saying it. If you and the Americans didn't have such cra**y, crook-filled banks, the world would be a much happier and more prosperous place

So rather than blocking blocking porn, it would be much better for everyone's wellbeing if ISPs blocked high-frequency trading, and limited traffic by investment banks

[MrInBetween]

TalkTalk, the ISP I'm with, already have a filter in place. If you sign up to them now, you're presented with a choice to have this filter turned on or not, but existing customers have been left alone. The announcement today means that at some point TalkTalk will contact me again and ask if I want it put on, and if I don't give them an answer, will put it on anyway.

All the other main ISPs will do a similar thing with their customers. The filter attempts to block all kinds of porn, not just child pornography. However, I understand that you could get round it quite easily by using a different DNS server to the one provided by your ISP.

Sky already had a similar plan, so in one sense, all that's happening today, on this issue, is that David Cameron has managed to bully the ISPs into using the words 'default on' in their descriptions of their services. No new technology is being deployed. What's worrying is what was already worrying about it. What happens to the list of people who opt in to porn? Is this the first step to building the sort of state Internet censorship they have in China? Already, every time someone on TalkTalk visits a site, a scanner checks out that site afterwards - whether you have opted in to its porn filter or not, whether you use its DNS server or not.

So as Max says, it's largely a publicity stunt, to please the readers of the Daily Mail. I don't know about them, but it doesn't seem to be playing well in Wolverhampton. So it may well be that nothing much, much different that is, will come of it. Personally, I'm most interested in this bit:

New laws so videos streamed online in the UK will be subject to the same restrictions as those sold in shops

What does that even mean? Streamed from sites hosted in the UK? How many of them do you know? Or streamed to the UK? How exactly would you do that?

[Pauldec]

I'm asking my ISP tp block all references to bandwagon-jumping, drone-loving, money-grubbing, Daily-mail appeasing, fat posh boy conservative politicians.

[Office Boy]

This is the part that I find awkward;

What happens to the list of people who opt in to porn?

Which is all of us. They will probably spend time watching you because it is a priority for them. If ISP'S are going to put filters in by default, I would expect the porn merchants to find a way around it like they do most things. There is so much of it on the net that it is all far too vast to prohibit. It's a can of worms and I can't see it having much effect. Plus the fact that the government should be focusing on more important issues than this. It is a soft static target, therefore an easy one to pinpoint. If the government wants everyone to be internet connected by a certain date-which is one reason why broadband is attempting to be rolled out to lesser area's of the country, surely that means that more porn becomes accessible? Along with sites that change your life through recruitment drives towards terrorism and the like. If that is not a priority in this country, then I don't know what is. The possibilities are endless .

[snowy25]

Originally Posted by MrInBetween

Sky already had a similar plan, so in one sense, all that's happening today, on this issue, is that David Cameron has managed to bully the ISPs into using the words 'default on' in their descriptions of their services.

True, at the moment the default is you have to opt into filters and when this comes into force the default will be you have to opt out of filtering.

This ultimately wont make any difference to those that view legal or indeed illegal porn. All they will do is tick the box that removes the filters and carry on as usual. The issue with filtering is that certain websites, medical for example could well be blocked due to dodgy filtering methods. So people who are not even looking for porn may have to opt in to view websites that are not even about porn.

Also the other issue is how ambiguous will the wording of this legislation be. My guess is that it will be so open that they could then use the filters to block anything they do not want you to read including certain news sites and political blogs. There is a huge option for abuse with this new rules coming into force by the Govt and we could well see more and more blocks in the future.

[deefer]

This is just another attempt to appear to do something whilst doing nothing. Although this whole thing kicked of because of the murder or April Jones, who's murderer was found to have violent child porn imagery on his computer, we forget that these "stranger murders" only occur once every 2-3 years. In-comparison there are around 50,000 children at some kind of risk of abuse, neglect or violence in the UK at he moment.

Cameron knows that to deal with all or even a part of the problem of child abuse would cost tens or hundreds of millions, which he has no chance of getting from harry potter, but knows a bandwagon when he sees one.

From what little I know, the worst of these images are distributed pier to pier under massive encryption and are virtually undetectable.

As an example of the nonsense of trying to block images, Sarah Whittle was a supposed 16 year old who posed for one of the girly mags legally and with her parents consent. Having seen her pics she was very mature for her age, curvy, with big hair and big boobs.On the other hand, little Lupe, as some of you may know, is a Latin hardcore star who looks far younger than her 26 years, if they look nothing like their age to a human how will a computer cope.
On top of that, a south american man, having been stopped at an airport and told to fire up his laptop, was found to be in possesion of images of Lupe and arrested on child pornography charges. Experts attested that she was under age due to her physique and measurements. He was only released after Lupe Fuentes herself attended the court and gave evidence. I ask again If humans cant get it right how can computers

[Meini Hirion]

Different ISPs have / will have differing citeria when building their filters.

Some ISPs could well include this forum, and others as being file-sharing and 'porn-peddling', and other ISPs may not.

Some ISPs could filter (block) online versions of tabloid junk or even Playboy etc, and others may not.

It will not be a universal filter.

A serious problem will arise on having anything trawled mentioning sex being blocked, and I'm thinking of sexual health, medicine and education. Some people are going to be spending a fortune trying to disciminate between descriptions on medical sites and porn sites. Then the thousands of chatrooms will have to be analysed to see if they match any criteria.

I think the government just want an opt-in list of a few million people to concentrate on with their technology (PRISM ?), rather than having to trawl everybody in search of the sickos.

It's going to be a very difficult and hotch-potch exercise, far better they do it in reverse. Use their technology to track down and close down the sick sites, and then go after THOSE users and Payers.