UK ISP Adult Filters Block Sex Education Websites Allows Access To Porn 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?"
Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Can't say I'm surprised by this.
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
I think we just need an IQ test for politicians. That's all.
Re:Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
The problem is not to identify this. The problem is to change it.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
FTFY. Your post is pure wishful thinking, Actually, when asked, the British public are widely supportive of ISP-level filtering to block pornography. The most on-point survey I can dig up[1] is from 2010, but shows that, even though only 16% of people think that a filter would be effective at blocking pornography and 60% think it would be relatively easy for technically-able people to c
Re: (Score:2)
I personally don't mind the "opt-out" nature of the filtering, but what concerns me more is the way that people are accepting that the internet is routinely filtered by
Re: (Score:2)
I'd prefer an IQ test for voters.
Re: (Score:2)
That's simple: just offer them, at the age of 18, a choice between voting rights and an iPhone.
Re: (Score:2)
Given the impact voting has, I could be swayed, too, ya know...
Re:Internet filter does not work, news at 11 (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that this is exactly what "the masses" want. And they are very eager to believe the promise that this is what they get.
They don't want to deal with "that intarnets stuff". They don't want to be responsible for little Timmy's surfing habits. Not only because little Timmy usually knows ten times what they know about computers and can easily defeat any kind of "protection" they throw in his way. Not only because he simply grew up with it, Timmy also has about ten times more time at his hands, not to mention a whole schoolyard of information on how to thwart any and all parental blocking and filtering. Plus, unlike for his parents, it's quite a bit of a status symbol for Timmy if he can evade his parents' directives, that's something you can brag about amongst your peers.
What his parents want is that magic little box that makes all the stuff they don't want go away. Porn, predators, violence... they don't want Timmy to see that. But they do want the internet as their nanny. Just like the TV was. Why oh why can't there be some watershed on the internet? It did work on TV, didn't it?
And no, I'm not kidding. That question actually does get asked and is a prime example of what people do NOT know about it. And why it is easy to trick them into believing any kind of snakeoil you promise them. Because they want that snakeoil to work. They want their perfect nanny. They want the internet to be just like TV was, a neat way to get rid of your kids but not be seen as a bad parent.
Re: (Score:2)
No need for 100% accuracy (Score:4, Insightful)
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 (Score:5, Insightful)
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 (Score:4, Interesting)
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: (Score:2)
But of course seeing someone's head being chopped off is far from as traumatising as seeing two people having fun without clothes on.
Or, horror of horrors, just seeing a human breast and nipple (notwithstanding the fact that most kids in the world see their first one within a few hours of being born).
Re: (Score:2)
On the other hand, if you want random unrelated contents blocked, these filters are excellent and deserve a broader deployment. For example, as we all know plastic modelling (as in 'building styrene scale models') is a horrible subversive passtime that is looked upon by government officials and search companies as unacceptably original and therefore obscene. As such, it is completely acceptable that doing a Google image search for '[scale] [machinery name]' removes half the results because they supposedly a
Re: (Score:2)
Googling 'stamen Rosa' results in pron.
No, it doesn't. When did you last try it?
Re: (Score:2)
If you want to subvert the filter, you opt out!
No need for fancy cgi proxy, ssh tunnel vpn nonsense.
Re: (Score:3)
You're then proclaiming to anyone who uses your connection that you went to the trouble of selecting 'porn mode.' That's asking for awkwardness when friends/family/co-workers/girlfriend visit. It could even have legal implications in things like divorce or child custody - if the ex wishes to paint you as a dirty perv, that gives them the ammunition to do so.
Plus there are lots of over-eighteens who still live with the parents, with the cost of living as high as it is these days. I'm in my late twenties, and
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Not gonna happen - you just can't make the filters that accurate. The point you seem to be missing is that the people implementing the filters (the ISPs) have been saying all along that it can't be done and they don't want to do it. But the government has ignored them and basically threatened to legislate unless the big ISPs implement filters. So the big ISPs know they have to implement filtering either way, and figure that if they do it "voluntarilly" (i.e. because of threats rather than because of legi
Re:No need for 100% accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:No need for 100% accuracy (Score:5, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
The violence in our culture is the real problem.
I don't think that's a problem, either.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
If you don't think it is wrong for your kids to have access to those materials, then you opt out of the filtering, and you get the internet in its full unfiltered glory.
Re: (Score:2)
And when you have a government that's using censorship as a solution, I believe your government is insane and unjust.
Waiting for the Daily Mail to get blocked (Score:3)
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: (Score:3)
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... (Score:5, Funny)
Feel sorry for the people of UK (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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 ef
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please provide a list of FTTC ISPs that aren't being forced to implement the filter. Thanks.
Re: (Score:2)
Could you please provide a list of FTTC ISPs that aren't being forced to implement the filter. Thanks.
AFAIK the only ISPs that are implementing the filters are BT, Virgin, TalkTalk and Sky. So take your pick out of all of the others (of which there are a fairly large number).
Does it work at all? (Score:5, Funny)
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: (Score:2)
You aren't turning the filters on. If they were on, access to non-BT DNS servers would be filtered.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: Does it work at all? (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Depictions of rape are actually already illegal in the UK, but the prosecution would have to convince a jury that it is violent and non-consensual. Typically all "obscenity" in the UK is determined by a jury, but in the case of violent porn there is more definitive language in the bill.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
It's a depiction. It doesn't mean it is real.
(In truth, it probably is real to some extent in the sense that the women are truly being subjected to abuse even if they did agree to it for the purpose of filming)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Does it work at all? (Score:5, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
It's good to know... (Score:2)
Filters are a joke. (Score:3)
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.
TalkTalk is the worst ISP I have ever had. (Score:2)
Want to protect young minds ? (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
So perhaps the answer is to now 'lobby' for more filtering, along the lines of what you suggest. The aim to be that the only thing not blocked will be the BBC. Once we've got to that level of obvious stupidity, start voting for someone who'll undo it all.
It will never work. (Score:2)
Protect the children (Score:2)
Block the conservative party website? (Score:2)
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
Who determines what political sites are extreme?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Who determines what political sites are extreme?
Isn't it any site that criticises the currently elected government?
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
First they came for the pron, to protect the children.
Then they came for the VPN sites, to protect us from the pron.
Then they came for the hacker sites, to protect us from finding out how to access the VPN's.
Then they assumed state control of the internet, which they turned into a local intranet to protect us from the hackers.
And then they began censoring all the sites that criticized the government, because they could.
Re: (Score:2)
Something is seriously wrong with this picture ... (mainly fear of educating properly our children).
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
Re: (Score:3)
The more uneducated, the more easily manipulated.
A legitimate fear of parents is that our children are being manipulated under the pretense of education.
If so, then those parents are probably just as, if not more, uneducated. In any case, teaching people to think clearly and independently is the best education and is more important than teaching them "stuff" - facts and/or fiction - and I believe that this is what people (including the media, politicians, religious leaders and corporate overlords) really fear.
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:2)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
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: (Score:2)
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:4, Informative)
I don't know if you have seen any porn lately, but more female oriented stuff is quite popular now. It tends to focus on the bond between the performers and barely shows the actual penetration. It's much better than the usual macho bullshit.
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:5, Interesting)
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? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
As weird as some porn tends to get, the mainstream stuff is very good educational material. My niece asked her mother, after hearing about what parts go where, "but don't the legs get in the way?" So at some point it is very educational to see a little porn and go "ah, well now it all makes sense."
Re: (Score:3)
As weird as some porn tends to get, the mainstream stuff is very good educational material. My niece asked her mother, after hearing about what parts go where, "but don't the legs get in the way?" So at some point it is very educational to see a little porn and go "ah, well now it all makes sense."
The trouble is that people are so interfering that if anyone got wind of someone showing their child some porn, even carefully selected porn for legitimate educational value like you mention, they'd get a visit from social services faster than you could say "bonk".
Re: What will Cameron do then? (Score:4, Interesting)
eh?
Saying that home made amateur porn is love and the rest ain't is being a tad bit over simplistic. Sex is there for the enjoyment, believe it or not. Seriously think about it from a biological perspective. If sex were a pain in the arse (heh heh heh) then we would not be doing it because it would be too much effort. For example imagine our society relied on the fact we needed to lose weight. We would have mucho less people right now because even obese folks want to have sex. Thus because sex is very enjoyable we try to do it however, or wherever we can. Some more, some less. Don't believe, read over the Bonobo monkey, google "bonobo monkey sex". Its a hoot, and if that ain't an example of nymphomania I don't know what is.
Re: (Score:2)
So right - but so bad for your karma.
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:5, Insightful)
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? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:4, Insightful)
Sex education will happen. No matter whether you want it to or not. You can only decide whether your kids learn about it in the classroom or the school yard.
Re:What will Cameron do then? (Score:4, Insightful)
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: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I sometimes wonder if we would be better off with an actual dictator instead of the establishment that runs it now.
No, we wouldn't be, for four basic reasons:
1. If you get a bad dictator, life really really sucks until the dictator dies. Life sucks a lot less under democracies historically.
2. If you get a good dictator, being dictator for a while will not infrequently turn him into a bad dictator. Once you have absolute power, the temptation to abuse that power is simply too great.
3. Even good dictators can't keep track of *everything*, so any dictator has to rely on subordinates. If any of those subordinates is bad, bu
Re: (Score:2)
"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%
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
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: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
The completely voluntary filter that lets people choose whether to turn on or not, that government consumer protection authorities insisted ISP's provide, and is provided at no additional cost.
If it's on by default, then it's restricting access to certain sites on the open Internet, which is open by default. I can't get behind such blatant censorship, no matter what you say. I don't think government thugs should even have a say in this to begin with.
And you never even answered my question. What would the problem be with censoring religious websites like they're doing to porn sites? The filter would be 100% "voluntary"; maybe it would be on by default, but you could opt out of it. What's the issue
Re: (Score:2)
You're just rambling now. This is not coherent. And your inability to talk about the government without saying "government thugs" just makes you look like a paranoid nutcase, in addition to looking like an autistic teenager.
And you're just a naive government cheerleader. Every government throughout history abused its powers in horrendous ways, and furthermore, the fact that we even limit what powers our governments have indicates that we believe they can't be trusted with certain powers. Why? They're corruptible humans. I have every reason to refer to them as "government thugs"; I believe distrust of government is a good thing.
No-one wants religious sites blocked. There is no demand for it.
So if people wanted religion censored, that would be okay? I can't say I agree with that. It is highl
Re: (Score:3)
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 wh
Re: (Score:2)
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: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
What about Penistone?