back to article Major problems beset UK ISP filth filters: But it's OK, nobody uses them

Consumer takeup of network-level filters offered by the UK's biggest ISPs remains sluggish, with customers largely declining to censor internet content on their home connections even when prompted, an Ofcom report revealed today. The regulator found (PDF) that very few subscribers opt to turn on so-called parental controls. …

Page:

  1. Graham Anderson

    BT has fewest miscategorisation requests, because almost impossible to report

    According to Blocked.org.uk, my personal website is blocked by BT, as is a friend's.

    Neither of us were able to find a mechanism to report mis-classification, and its not like we're newbies. I used to be in charge of Parental Controls product management for AOL UK, and my friend is a respected technology journalist. Sky should be given some credit for having relatively accessible tools to report a problem.

    *Update, BT now have information for site owners, but there was none when Blocked.org.uk launched. Obviously stung into action.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: BT has fewest miscategorisation requests, because almost impossible to report

      Some minor credit for BT for that.

      I would like to see more coverage of this topic for mobile operators, three of whom incorrectly block my site and none of whom will tell me how to get it correctly classified or even acknowledge my requests to do so.

      They just tell me to allow adult content on my phone which is completely missing the point.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: BT has fewest miscategorisation requests, because almost impossible to report

      If your website is incorrectly blocked, sue for libel.

  2. Necronomnomnomicon

    TalkTalk blocked my site

    Which was hugely annoying. A friend suggested that they're actually blocking wordpress-based sites by default, although I wasn't able to confirm that. Either way, I didn't complain because I couldn't find where one would actually go to do that, and have since moved to a BT connection which isn't filtered by default.

    1. Brewster's Angle Grinder Silver badge

      Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

      According to http://www.blocked.org.uk TalkTalk blocked my wordpress site. (Occasional mild profanity?)

      Can every wordpress user check their site: lets build a case against them.

      1. Steve Davies 3 Silver badge
        FAIL

        Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

        Bummer, my wordpress site is not blocked by TT but by Sky.

        I must shove that down their throats the next time they try to get me to sign up for their service.

      2. VinceH

        Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

        "Can every wordpress user check their site"

        I've checked my three WordPress sites, and none are blocked.

        1. Voland's right hand Silver badge

          Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

          I've checked my three WordPress sites, and none are blocked.

          They may be shortly. Talk Talk blocker is not real time, it walks your site after one of their subs has visited. So if you find it blocked in half a day or so after their filter processes data do not be surprised.

          1. VinceH

            Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

            Okay, in that case I'll make a point of checking again in a week or so (and then perhaps fairly regularly - every month?)

            Of the three WP sites, one does have a couple of instances of swearing in it, so depending on the different filtering levels, there may be a small amount of validity in blocking that one.

    2. Franklin

      Re: TalkTalk blocked my site

      I run and/or administer a large number of Web sites, on subjects ranging from computer troubleshooting to emerging biotechnology to sex.

      Ironically, my personal site, which has no content that might be deemed even remotely scandalous (and is not a WordPress site), is blocked on Sky...but my sex site, which talks about kink in very explicit terms, is not blocked by any of the major UK ISPs.

      Let's hear it for Net censors, getting things wrong since...well, since the dawn of time, I think.

  3. James Hughes 1

    Too broad

    This sort of filtering need to be done in the home, so that the porn is kept away from the younger people, but is still available to the older people who may wish to indulge.

    Killing it all at the ISP (or even at the in home router) kills it for adults as well...

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Too broad

      "Killing it all at the ISP (or even at the in home router) kills it for adults as well..."

      whereas trying to kill it at any interior point in your home network means it doesn't cover all the devices that the kids have access to. Particularly if you are relying on some PC software, you are missing your telly, your tablets, your gaming consoles, your phones, and quite possibly other gizmos that an old fart like me isn't aware of yet.

      1. Fluffy Bunny
        Angel

        Re: Too broad

        Australia used to have a whole of country filter available to anybody with an ISP connection. You get the disk and put it onto any computer you wanted free of charge.

    2. Remy Redert

      Re: Too broad

      If only this technology was A) Opt-in and B) Easily circumvented with a VPN.

      Oh wait, for most providers it IS opt-in. And until ISPs start blocking all VPNs (Never, too many (big) companies rely on their home users being able to use VPNs) it's easily circumvented if you enable the filter for your connection because you have, for example, young kids around the house.

      And then you realise that if YOU can get around the filter with a VPN, so can they. So what was the point of blocking content at the ISP level again?

      1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
        Unhappy

        Re: Too broad

        "And then you realise that if YOU can get around the filter with a VPN, so can they. So what was the point of blocking content at the ISP level again?"

        It scored the back bench non entity a job in charge of preventing "Child Exploitation and Sexualization" IIRC.

        And just think all because Ms Perry could not work out how to set the parental controls on her browser.

  4. John Miles 1

    Getting facts right puts things in proportion

    Talk Talk with 36% take up has been running filter by far the longest - so suggests around 30% is the long running take-up ( with it varying higher or lower depending on how the option is presented).

    According to ONS 2012 statistics only approx 30% of households have 1 or more children - so as its mainly such households that would use a 'child' filter, it sounds like quite a good takeup.

    You say Sky is 'bombarded' with reclassification requests. It has 5M subs, with 8% take up that means 400k are using the filter, and off those 110 request a reclassifcation each month, i.e. 0.025%. Not much of a bombardment.

    1. Richard 12 Silver badge

      Re: Getting facts right puts things in proportion

      How do you report that something's blocked incorrectly if you can't see what it is that's been blocked?

      So most requests come from webmasters who A) know that Sky is blocking them and B) can find Sky's "WTF? Unblock me!" scheme.

      Given that Sky subscribers can't get to the website, they can't find out how to contact the webmaster and thus the webmaster will only know if an existing visitor suddenly cannot access and is able to find how to contact the webmaster, or if the webmaster herself goes to www.blocked.org.uk or similar to check if they have been unexpectedly blocked.

      And they have to keep checking because the ISPs don't notify webmasters.

    2. The Vociferous Time Waster

      Re: Getting facts right puts things in proportion

      The only reason TalkTalk has such uptake is they go to great lengths to make you feel like a child abusing pervert if you choose to opt out of this safety feature.

      1. Matt 21

        Re: Getting facts right puts things in proportion

        While it may be true that 30% of households conatin children I don't think it's true that 70% of the remainder have got an internet connection, so the uptake rate is probably not representative. Another factor to take into account is that we don't know if TalkTalk's customers match the proportion of childless households. It could be that they attract more households with children.

        Finally I don't think it's true that only households with children will take this up. Anecdotal evidence suggests Granny will probably do it either because she considers herself not a pervert or because she thinks it's "protecting" her in some unspecified way.

  5. Don Jefe

    Wrong Category

    If next to no one is using the filters it seems rather pointless to track the number of incorrectly categorized sites.

    But what I really don't understand, is why Talk Talk had such a higher number of subscribers using the filters. Even without the default opt-in they still had far more people using the filters. Why? What kind of people sign up for Talk Talk service? Inquiring minds want to know.

    1. Rabbit80

      Re: Wrong Category

      TalkTalk bombarded their customers for years with literature about their "HomeSafe" options - by mail, email and IIRC I even had a phonecall or two offering it to me! I also think it has been a preselected option for signups for years as well. I have had to actively refuse it each and every time rather than confirming that I wanted it.

    2. auburnman

      Re: Wrong Category

      Given TalkTalk's old reputation for coming top of the customer complaints league for several years in a row, I would speculate that their customer base has a built-in bias towards the less tech literate members of the population who wouldn't think to do online research before choosing a provider.

      From there it's not that big a leap to assume they're going with the filters because the signup page says it 'protects them online' or whatever convincing bollocks the opt-in page shows.

    3. Robin Bradshaw

      Re: Wrong Category

      "What kind of people sign up for Talk Talk service?"

      Idiots

  6. Extra spicey vindaloo
    Joke

    So if I want to buy a bottle of scotch while on a date in a casino as I play blackjack in the nude while explaining to my date why it's ok to post sex ed topics on facebook if you are smoking at the same time. Then the provider to pick is virgin!

    1. Yet Another Anonymous coward Silver badge

      Although you won't be able to visit their site if your own ISP blocks 'virgin' as a naughty word

  7. Tom_

    BT

    Interesting statistics. As a BT customer, I've certainly never been asked whether or not I want filtering to be enabled on my internet connection. Has everyone else been asked then?

    1. kdh0009

      Re: BT

      May depend how recently you changed your BT deal. I have changed mine slightly this summer and last, and was poked with the Parental Controls stick both times.

    2. Chris Redpath

      Re: BT

      Lucky you, I get to choose whenever I put the router password into a new device.

    3. browntomatoes

      Re: BT

      Neither have I as a Sky customer (who signed up in the last 3 months). But then I've never used their DNS servers because I have my own caching resolver set up locally.

      1. jonathanb Silver badge

        Re: BT

        It is in the account management settings of the website. I saw it when I added the free sky wifi thing to my account.

    4. auburnman

      Re: BT

      We got Fibre at the gaff last month, and every bloody device I hooked in was forbidden from seeing webpages until I had chosen one of the "I am feeble minded and would like to be inconvenienced by not seeing half the internet / I am a grown man and I quite like pornography thank you very much" options. To be fair I think you can turn that behaviour off from the router manager.

    5. StripeyMiata

      Re: BT

      My HomeHub5 used to prompt me everytime I connected a new device until I replaced it with a Cisco one. The MyBT site prompted me for the first time a few days ago, ironically because I was getting my account details to get a MAC code to leave them.

  8. Tom 38
    Flame

    "hacking" seems to be in the list of categories that are filtered. What the fuck? How is information about hardware and software considered so harmful that it cannot touch the minds of our precious little children?

    Where will the next generation of hackers come from? In 15 years, will we find that 99% of CS graduates only know how to prod .NET or Java?

    Filter hardcore porn? Sure. Filter gambling? Sure. Filter drugs? Sure.

    Why filter hacking?

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "Why filter hacking?"

      You didn't think this "government initiative" was for the benefit of customers, did you?

    2. h4rm0ny

      >>""hacking" seems to be in the list of categories that are filtered. What the fuck? How is information about hardware and software considered so harmful that it cannot touch the minds of our precious little children?"

      One of the signs of an authoritarian society is that things move from a state of permitted unless forbidden, to forbidden unless permitted. It's a direct consequence of a society becoming about fear and control, rather than curiosity and freedom.

      1. Dan Paul

        "They who can give up essential liberty.......

        to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety".

        Seems Ben Franklin knew what he was he was talking about even back then.

    3. Suricou Raven

      In fifteen years, we'll be lucky if most of them understand that a file is a series of bytes.

    4. LucreLout

      "Why filter hacking?"

      America.

      Lets say you have a child with a disorder (not one that suddenly springs forth post arrest, but an actual condition), Aspergers, for example.

      It's possible, given the number of high profile cases (McKinnon et al), that they may become interested in hacking, and may test servers hosted in or owned by companies based in America. If you fail to avoid extradition, your child may then get locked up for eons.

      That, sadly, is why you *might* want to filter hacking.

    5. Roj Blake Silver badge

      "Why filter hacking?"

      To prevent you looking up how to circumvent their controls

    6. oddie

      ""hacking" seems to be in the list of categories that are filtered. What the fuck? How is information about hardware and software considered so harmful that it cannot touch the minds of our precious little children?

      Where will the next generation of hackers come from? In 15 years, will we find that 99% of CS graduates only know how to prod .NET or Java?"

      - I suspect that the next generation of hackers will come from the abusive households* that partially and/or arbitrarily blocks access to the internet? There is no greater motivator than being told you can't do something :) I imagine any teenager who was effectively told that there are pictures of naked people on the internet, but that they will only be able to look at them if they learn a fair bit about VPN, DNS and ISP filters would very soon be at the local library with their nose in a book reading about networks :)

      *If you decide and filter what information/material members of your household are allowed or not allowed to see, read or learn then how can that not be an abusive household? Do you cut out articles from the newspaper you don't want them to see as well? Sit in on any meeting they have with their friends in case any of them has any forbidden knowledge? On a more pragmatic level; An 8 year old will likely not go looking for porn as they have no interest in it, whereas a 14 year old won't be scarred for life at the sight of boobies** :) Or the sight of a swear word on a page for that matter :S

      **and if they go looking for tubgirl or lemonparty they will learn very quickly that there are a lot of very different people in this world..

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        down at the local ... ?what?

        "they will only be able to look at them if they learn a fair bit about VPN, DNS and ISP filters would very soon be at the local library with their nose in a book reading about networks"

        And I thought your democratically elected government was well on the way to doing away with such 'unprofitable' public services as libraries ....

    7. ElReg!comments!Pierre

      Don't worry about hacking skills

      Most of the hackers I know where raised with little or no 'tarwebs access. You learn hacking hands-on, not through Carolyn Meinel's website. You still need some tech manuals but I doubt they'll be covered by the ban.

  9. Neil Barnes Silver badge
    WTF?

    Virgin...

    kindly emailed to suggest that if I implemented their ISP censorship, it would improve the safety of browsing for my children.

    Since one is in Berlin, and the other in Rio (which made for an entertaining world cup!) I am at a loss as to how this will help.

  10. Wokstation

    The watchdog said that unlike BT...

    "The watchdog said that unlike BT, TalkTalk and BSkyB which nagged all of their customers with an "unavoidable choice" about filtering"

    I switched to BT about a month ago (only FTTC provider here). Wasn't asked by customer services nor the engineer. Not had any popups asking.

    I'm guessing it's because I disabled Smart Setup, which makes the choice far from unavoidable.

  11. Dan 55 Silver badge
    Facepalm

    Must... hit... button... to... get... cheese...

    "Ofcom noted that 36 per cent of TalkTalk subscribers merrily skipped through the HomeSafe set-up page, which now opts customers in by default. Before TalkTalk added the pre-tick to its filtering page, its uptake was closer to 20 per cent, apparently."

  12. Menelaus-uk
    Trollface

    Block all the internet!

    For BT to block the whole internet, they would only need to add "Cat Videos" to the category list.

  13. Bronek Kozicki
    Megaphone

    actually ...

    ... I might be tempted to filter IP traffic at home, but under following conditions:

    * I own the box which does the filtering

    * I decide what is being filtered

    * I decide which of my home computers are affected by the filtering and which are not

    * The box supports both IPv4 and IPv6

    Anything else - f* off, it's my network and I decide what enters it.

  14. Lee D Silver badge

    I work in IT in schools. We recently had a bunch "e-Safety" sessions - several with the kids, two with the parents, one with staff.

    Product names were not mentioned in the sessions, they weren't there to sell, they were there just to inform. At each, it was offered that if any parent had any problems or questions, IT-wise, they should come to me and I'll help them install ISP filters / filtering software etc. at home. This was met with great enthusiasm in the session, much gratitude from the governors, and I hung around outside the session just to be visible.

    Bear in mind that we're a private "primary" school, going up into Year 8, with just under 400 kids. Just the kind of kids old enough to go on things that they're too young to be on.

    Out of all their parents, all the sessions, etc. hundreds of parents attending a specific session on e-Safety, I got one parent ask my details. They took my email. I never got an email from them.

    People just aren't interested in filtering the net. If they are worried what their kids are doing, they MAKE THEM DO IT IN FRONT OF THEM, like proper parents do. If they aren't worried, they wouldn't activate a filter. An online babysitter (literally a "net nanny") is pointless and horrible parenting. And the biggest threat now isn't PC's or laptops or tablets that use the wireless, it's smartphones that bypass it to talk 3G directly.

    Nobody cares. Because, well, good parents are managing the problem already without the aid of unnecessary technology, and presumably bad parents couldn't care less anyway.

    1. GrumpyOldBloke

      When the parents got home and raised the possibility of filtering I bet their kids gave them a good talking to hence the lack of follow through. This optional phase is temporary anyway in order to work out the bugs and soften up the electorate. Pretty soon we will begin to hear of 'demands' to make filtering mandatory, perhaps underscored by an expert or some otherwise avoidable crime but all the 'authorities' were on leave that day. Then some brave MP will stand up for the bankers and the war mongers (== ?) and make Britain great again. 2 minutes later the Australian public service will try and get it implemented here.

  15. Dabooka
    FAIL

    Well unfortunately I'm currently with Talk Talk and T-Mobile both of which immediately had my consent to unlock their content filters. However I only twigged they were on when I was blocked from various footy sites linked / associated with gambling. I still don't understand why the choice isn't there to select or opt in / out of blocking categories rather than lumping them together.

    I don't need any filters (my only lad is 3) but when I get to the point where I do need to take this seriously, I'll be having to do my own filtering to keep open the parts of the net I and the wife want access to. I go further to suggest therefore that if people were given the option of just blocking 'porn' (or whatever) the uptake would probably improve, but as long as it's all or nothing who'd sign up for it?

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

Anonymous cowards cannot choose their icon

Other stories you might like