ISPs torch UK.gov's smut-blocking master plan

The same network level filtering operating in schools which every school kid knows how to subvert so they can continue to post rubbish on facebook and other blocked sites as if the block didn't exist. The only workable solution that will 100 prevent kids seeing stuff their parents are not happy with is the parents sitting down with their kids when they use the internet instead of just using the internet as a baby sitter and leaving them to do what they want.

Common Sense Prevails

If parents don't want their kids viewing porn on the internet, then it should be up to the parents to look after their kids.

It's not my fault that Claire Perry can't figure out how to turn her kids PC off or configure her router or filtering software.

They're not going far enough

There's the possibility that I might stumble across adult entertainment on my TV (11pm on Freeview channel 97, in case you wanted to make sure don't come across it)

I was watching Starship Troopers a few weeks ago and was disgusted when the blood and gore was interrupted by a gratuitous nude shower scene. Nothing warned me that this was going to happen.

Also, just the other day, I was reading a techno-thriller, and there was some explicitly described sex scenes - I was livid.

Why aren't these MPs speaking up and demanding that two version of books are published - the clean version & the filthy sex-filled version.

Somebody needs to tell the committee that they're not going far enough, it's what the public wants (in fact, it's what the public needs)

"It bears all the hallmarks of a policy proposal that is trying to fix a problem without understanding the solution"

I'd go further and say the government is trying to fix a problem without even understanding the problem, never mind any solution...

Network level filtering for mobile data connections is right and propper as parents can't otherwise restrict adult content on a childs device, but on a home ISP connection it is entirely inappropriate not just for technical reasons but because it is never going to be an effective solution and will pring with it a whoile host of new problems and issues.

I personally don't se what all the fuss is about - securing every device on a hoime network in one swoop can be easily achieved by using an alternative DNS service such as OpenDNS. Even without a static IP tis can be effective by way of a DNS update client. Of course, ISPs wouls be very reluctant to tout such a solution as it would cut their revenu drastically if users migrated away from their DNS servers en masse; so surely a reasonable solution is for ISPs to implement OpenDNS style user configurable content filtering on their own DNS servers. This could even be done on an opt-out basis without causing too mouch hastle, or alternatively provide alternate DNS server addresses depending on a customers choice at sign-up.

The posibilities and permutaions are many but I'm convinced that this would be the best way to implement additional content controls, provided the responsibility and configurability of it was placed firmly with the bill payer.

But think of the children!

If you don't see this as anything other than what it really is (just another means for them to censor out what they don't want you to see or hear. I.E. more control over the internet) you are a fool. We already have that list of blocked sites on most ISP's that nobody but a privileged few knows is what is on it. Will this filter have a list of sites publicaly availble for us to scrutinize? I highly doubt it.

It's a smokescreen for more government control by any other name.

Opt-in?

This reminds me of the episode of The Simpsons where Marge is against Itchy and Scratchy, the mums campaign against Itchy and Scratchy and then decide to go onto the Statue of David. If these folks on 'mumsnet' get their own way they'll keep pushing until they have blocked everything that they don't like.

As a parent, I don't want my kids to see bad things, I don't let them go on Facebook yet (my daughters are nearly 12, just turned 10 and nearly 6) and I do give them a bit of freedom of what they access on the net but I do reguarly monitor what they do and I've implemented DansGuardian (okay not all parents have the knowhow on how to do this).

So if they want to do this, why can't they make it opt-in?

I mean, why can't they give customers the option to turn the filter on if they don't want little Johnny to see anything bad via a web control panel or a call to the ISP.

Rob

Sigh

I wish somebody would think of the parents - children are totally annoying between the interwebs;)

You can tell this is utter bollocks when the first so called expert witness is an agony aunt from The Sun.

http://www.pcpro.co.uk/blogs/2012/04/19/dear-deidre-what-the-hell-do-you-know-about-web-censorship/

After all the recent scandals and such I thought my opinion of politicians could not possibly get any lower. How wrong I was.

I really do think someone needs to smack these idiots upside the head and hopefully get them to focus on the real issues like promoting critical thought, science and technology and getting rid of jumped up fuckwittery.

Pint coz otherwise its all too far depressing.

Why is it anyone's job to protect the children

Other than the parents.

In our house, at least, we accept that as parents it's our responsibility to raise the kids ourselves and teach them right from wrong and smart from stupid.