UK ISP Sky Is About To Start Censoring the Web For All of Its Customers (betanews.com) 167
Mark Wilson, writing for BetaNews: The UK government is on a mission to protect the young of the country from the dark recesses of the web. And by the darker recesses, what is really meant is porn. The main ISPs have long been required to block access to known piracy sites, but porn is also a concern -- for politicians, at least. As part of its bid to sanitize and censor the web, Sky -- from the Murdoch stables -- is, as of today, enabling adult content filtering by default for all new customers: Sky Broadband Shield. The company wants to "help families protect their children from inappropriate content", and in a previous experiment discovered -- unsurprisingly -- that content filtering was used by more people if it was automatically enabled.
And we criticise China? (Score:5, Interesting)
And we criticise China?
UK is one of the WORST violators of human rights laws in Europe. Once they leave Europe, it will get WORSE. They already want to get rid of the Human Rights acts.
Re:And we criticise China? (Score:5, Funny)
Patrick Stewart on Human Rights
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ptfmAY6M6aA [youtube.com]
UK you can Turn Off, China You Can't (Score:5, Insightful)
And we criticise China?
The big difference is that in the UK, you can turn off the porn filter at home. In China, you don't have a choice in disabling the Great Firewall.
Re: (Score:2)
Generally human rights abuses tend to refer to things like imprisonment without a trial merely because you disagree with the government, not someone who has to click an extra button or two before finding porn.
Re:UK you can Turn Off, China You Can't (Score:5, Interesting)
For now, you can turn it off. The obvious next step is do mandate filtering for 'extreme pornography' as possession of this is already illegal in the UK. You can't turn off the piracy filter.
You also can't turn of the child abuse material filter, which is a bigger issue than you might think - the filter is generated by the IWF, about as opaque an organisation as you can get. The list is secret, the rules for what goes on the list are secret, websites are not informed when they go on the list, there is no process of appeal, and many ISPs will spoof a 404 page so the end user doesn't even realise they are being restricted.
Re: (Score:3)
That's because of Brexit - or rather, "Brussels meddling". You see, the human rights acts in the UK are there ONLY BECAUSE of the EU The EU human rights acts are forced upon member nations including the UK, which is why they even exist at all. Because of Brexit, the reason the human rights act exist in the UK is gone, so they can be eliminated once the UK exits the EU.
Re: (Score:1)
The European Convention on Human Rights was imposed by the Brits on the rest of Europe after the second World War and has nothing to do with the EU. The only thing those two have in common is that it has Europe in its acronym. Some British leader want to get rid of the ECHR because she sees it as yet another rule impose by the EU on the poor UK. In reality the EU has nothing to do with the ECHR, but it requires all states to enforce it before negotiations about trade can happen.
ECHR is a British invention a
Re: And we criticise China? (Score:3)
Re:And we criticise China? (Score:5, Interesting)
Here is the difference:
In China the government decides that you can or cannot view porn.
In the *Account Holder* who pays the ISP decides if he/she prefers to allow access.
It is a huge difference. The sensationalist click-bait reporting is inaccurate, disingenuous and deceptive.
I am in the UK. I am the account holder for the service I receive from my ISP at home via FTTC (Fibre To The Cabinet) and from my ISP on 4G (different company). In both cases by default, i.e. for new customers, the ISPs' filters block porn, gambling, notorious P2P sites (but *not* P2P protocols!) and so on. I *CHOSE* to disable them and I can browse any site (Ok, any site not explicitly forbidden by the High Court of a democratic, free nation with separation of state and judiciary, whose laws are enacted by a body with a democratic mandate).
Occasionally my young (below 10 years old) nephews and nieces visit and they like to use any available tablet or PC to find music, funnt videos etc. Before they arrive I open my landline ISP's page, log in and enable the filtering. After they leave I disable it.
I'm the adult, I'm the account holder and I have the choice. I choose to allow myself any and all kinds of gambling, porn, file sharing, political extremism etc. When minors visit me I choose to disallow the same things that their parents disallow.
This is not censorship. It is judgement and responsibility. Censorship is when *someone else* decides what adults may or may not see or hear. This is *NOT* the case in the UK. The ISP account holder has full control and responsibility. Nobody cares if you disable or enable filtering, it's just a checkbox you mark or not, according to your whim.
Judgement and responsibility are when *YOU, as an adult* have the choice. Minors do not get to decide these things, parents and responsible adults do.
To conflate censorship with responsible parenting (including acting in loco parentis) is inane, disingenuous, hysterical and stupid. Ultimately it discredits liberals and libertarians and does them no service.
Re: (Score:2)
I think the primary issue with this service is that you can't control (to any useful degree) what is, or is not blocked. I'm not a Sky customer, but I seriously doubt you'd be able to phone them up and say "I'd like your filter, but please allow *.playboy.com" (I'd be interested to hear if you can do such a thing, and what hoops you have to jump through to do it though).
Herein lies the problem - if you turn the filter on, you're letting $provider decide what you can/can't see. If you turn it off, you're (po
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This is hardly related to human rights violations. This company decided to put an internet filter by default on your internet connection.
Hardly related, you say... [slashdot.org]
Re: (Score:2)
That would violate Article XII of the Constitution.
Re: And we criticise China? (Score:1)
Re: And we criticise China? (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Next they will censor "hate". That would include such things as pro-Trump sites based on the headlines the MSM constantly putting forth. An awesome tool for controlling the minds of the masses.
It's not censorship. It's "content filtering". You're entirely permitted to re-enable the most disgusting slime if you should so desire. It's just that it' filtered "be default" . And it damn well SHOULD be. Censorship[ is en entirely different issue, and is a much bigger concern, as it generally is applied by corrupt democracies and totalitarian regimes alike. I'm sure that, just like the Americas, the UK, already does quite a bit of it, and the social networks do it as a matter of practice. And it's hard
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nowadays it's hard to determine whether this is sarcasm or not.
Re: (Score:2)
It's an astroturf strawman. Basically, the grandparent is posting a caricature of what his political idelogy says its opponents think, so his fellow believers can then pretend its genuine and they're brave heroes fighting the forces of darkness. I
Re: (Score:1)
Hate is anything that disagrees with what the politicians want you to think. A one sided lie that you and your children will serve and eventually die for. That is their real dream. Question : why were the young the most pro-EU in the country? Answer because they are freshly emerged from the indoctrination of school and have no real life experience to question their programming. Just like in 1984, children are the most fanatically loyal to big brother and the party and most dangerous to anyone who questions
Re: (Score:1)
Unless the earth suffers a 2012 type event the UK is not leaving Europe anytime soon, being a continent and all.
The European Union is a entirely different entity, and is not the same politically or geographically as Europe the continent.
Give it a break you pedantic moron. You knew what he meant. We knew what he meant. You are just making a stupid point to avoid addressing his actual comment. It is an embarrassment that the UK, one of the originators of the European human rights laws, is now at the stage where the ECHR is the main protector of basic rights like the right to vote.
Re: (Score:1)
PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. (Score:5, Insightful)
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The control belongs with the parent, not the government.
No wonder post world war parents are bad. They expect government to do their parenting for them, in schools, the police etc.
Re:PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. (Score:5, Interesting)
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company. If you don't like it, you can use a different ISP, or you can just disable it. Of course, you may then need to explain to your wife why you disabled the porn filter, but that is a MARITAL issue, not a GOVERNMENT censorship issue.
Re: (Score:2)
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company. If you don't like it, you can use a different ISP, or you can just disable it. Of course, you may then need to explain to your wife why you disabled the porn filter, but that is a MARITAL issue, not a GOVERNMENT censorship issue.
Disabling an internet filter should not be a mere "MARITAL" issue. Today it may be adult content that is filtered. Tomorrow it will be anything your monopoly-ISP deems unnecessary for its customers to view or participate in.
If your significant other does not grasp this concept, then you may want to sit and have a talk about the real issue at hand, which is CENSORSHIP, not "porn".
Re: PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I don't think you understand or fully appreciate the digital world we live in. Parental and governmental attitudes have to change with the times. I am not anti porn by any stretch of the imagination but porn was not so freely available before the explosion of the World Wide Web. I would lobby government to legislate to make these filters default by standard.
I've been around long enough to remember when porn was a magazine found in the woods somewhere. The only "attitude" that has changed with the times is that parents don't feel they need to be parenting, and are too fucking lazy or detached to do it properly. So we now "rely" upon monopoly ISPs and even the government to do this, and sue them when they fail to protect the "children", which leads to mandatory authenticating filters, which vaporizes privacy (how would you feel when YOUR internet traffic is li
Re: PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. (Score:1)
Re: PARENTING ISSUE, not Government control issue. (Score:4, Insightful)
You are also a moron.
Today it is optional.
Tomorrow it is mandatory. The day after you cannot disable it.
Only a moron would not see where this is going.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
the real issue at hand, which is CENSORSHIP, not "porn".
Oh horse pucky. A private company changing their defaults is not "CENSORSHIP". You can still access content. The NY Times does not publish bestiality and bondage on their front page. Does that also count as censorship?
Re: (Score:1)
I'm not sure what this new filter might cover, but the UK Government (under the Conservatives) has mandated an opt-out adult content filter as default on all connections provided by the "Big 6" (of which Sky is one). There's a longer standing law which also mandates this on mobile connections, too. For both of these, the account holder has to call the company to request an opt-out.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
I remember responding to a call from the IWF when I was working for an indy ISP there. They wer
Re: (Score:2)
These are PARENTING issues, not GOVERNMENT censorship issues.
The government is not doing this. Sky is a private company.
Off-topic rant coming up:
This is exactly why I have a pet peeve about everyone throwing the word 'censorship' like they do. The usage of the term may technically be correct, but the incorrect picture is being painted by many who read it. Of course this is intentional, but as you can see, it's cheapening the metaphor.
Oh and just for clarification, this is really directed at those morons that are trying to equate moderation with censorship. If not for them I would not have brought this up in this thread.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sort of. The government isn't doing this directly, but they have held some consultations and debates over the issue, and made the government position quite clear: Either ISPs start filtering, or the government will introduce a law to require filtering. All of the major ISPs including Sky considered the risk of a vaguely-written law passed by a parliament that has no idea how the internet works and probably involving impossible or contradictory requirements, and decided they'd rather comply voluntarily.
Re: (Score:2)
They expect government to do their parenting for them, in schools, the police etc.
Only if you grew up in a household without a TV.
Re: (Score:2)
Control hasn't moved at all, only the default settings. If you ever read TFA:
I cannot fathom how you can say this removes control from anyone. Is there any evidence to believe
Re: (Score:2)
No wonder post world war parents are bad. They expect government to do their parenting for them, in schools, the police etc.
And we're the generation which, when we were your age, prided ourselves on Questioning Authority.
Idiots with their heads up their ass (Score:5, Insightful)
The reason they are putting it on by default is that only 5-10% of their audience was requesting things be blocked.
Instead of admitting that their customers DID NOT WANT THIS CRAP, they decided to expand it by making it default
News flash, when only 5-10% of your target audience wants something, that means you should discontinue it, not force everyone else to use it - and worse, create a 'pervert' list of people that refused to accept your censorship.
So now they are pissing off over 80% of their customers because
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
> "Idiots with their heads up their ass"
I'm pretty sure that sort of thing would now be blocked by default.
Re: (Score:2)
The real reason as usual is money... This is the same group of companies that directly or indirectly runs 90% of PPV and PPN (mostly very soft) porn channels on TV in the UK (on their satellite platform as well as the "competing" cable and terrestrial TV channels). Their revenue has dropped so much due to the internet making better quality free and pay porn available that they are willing to do all sorts to try and prop up a failing business model.
Re: (Score:2)
No, the real issue is that government told them to implement blocking. The ISPs put in a scheme where their customers had to opt-in. However not many people actually did so and the government has threatened to make it a mandatory opt-out scheme. Sky is just jumping the gun.
Of course this is just stupid. Not every household has kids and even if I don't want to access porn the block is going to catch false positives and I would want to opt-out just not to deal with that hassle.
Re: (Score:1)
They are doing it because the government has repeatedly said that if they don't do it voluntarily, a law will be passed to make it mandatory.
Re: (Score:2)
My prediction: as soon as their technical support costs skyrocket when those 80% can't figure out how to get their porn, or when customers cancel service and sign up with a different ISP, they'll rethink their position.
It's really when the government starts mandating this sort of thing that I have a real problem with it, or if there's no competition for ISPs and no way to disable this "feature". Obviously, I'd prefer that ISPs remain a "dumb pipe", but we live in an imperfect world. As such, I use a comme
Re: (Score:2)
Those filters block web sites, aka IP addresses. If there is anything that you can not hide from your provider it is the IP address you are connecting to, as somehow your packages have to reach their destination. All they have to do is find the IP address of pornhub and block it.
That is of course unless you are using a VPN, but for that you need a second ISP, the one that connects the server you VPN into and from where you connect to the rest of the Internet. That second ISP may in turn also block access to
Re: (Score:2)
5-10% of the audience is for many options more than enough to keep them alive. Why else would Samsung produce so many different phones? Every single one can't be much more than the 10% of their audience (aka customer base), yet having the option is a selling point. You may not be interested in it, but other people may be.
Re: Idiots with their heads up their ass (Score:1)
Re: Idiots with their heads up their ass (Score:1)
Well, now the EU ... (Score:1)
... is on that list because the UK said, "Fuck you!"
The purpose of government (Score:2)
It is not and should never be the place of Government to enforce subjective morality.
I would opt in (Score:2)
I live in the USA, and I wish my ISP offered this for myself, even if I had to call to opt in.
I would use it even if I didn't have three kids, which I do. Also, I would use this to supplement, not replace, good parenting.
Re: (Score:2)
If you didn't have three kids, who would you be using this filter for? Is it because you are afraid you will find porn by searching accidentally for bukkake? What other parts of your parenting and self preservation do you want to hand off to an ISP?
Re: I would opt in (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Can you not get a router that does this for you, then? Or get one of those proxies that does it, or whatever? That's opt-in, and best of all, you get to choose what is blocked and what is not (unlike Sky customers), so you get to keep your rights.
Re: (Score:2)
if automatically enabled (Score:5, Insightful)
content filtering was used by more people if it was automatically enabled
Uh, duh. Getting mild electrical shocks is used by more people if automatically enabled. Hell, getting kicked in the knackers would be used by more people - at least for a certain period of time - if you're doing it by f***ing default.
Positive Spin (Score:1)
Perhaps the filtering will enable those ultra-conservative parts of the people to engage in the society through internet. Their minds and values really need that protection in order avoid crumbling all over the place. Some of those crumbs surely end up in the couches of ISIS recruiters.
Is it REALLY censorship if it's optional? (Score:2)
Yeah, okay, slippery slope. But is it really censorship if it's optional? You can either turn it off or switch suppliers.
Re: (Score:3)
Is it really not censorship if it's imposed on you whether you want it or not until you find out what they did and act to turn it off?
Re:Is it REALLY censorship if it's optional? (Score:4, Insightful)
It is censorship the moment they decide to what you should or shouldn't be shown. In fact, the defense you offer of this being able to be turned off means you receive censored information at all times, unless you asked to have it unfiltered. Even if you are censoring yourself it is censorship.
Re: (Score:2)
It is censorship the moment they decide to what you should or shouldn't be shown.
If that is your definition of "censorship", then everything is censored. Every newspaper has to decide what to publish and what to not publish. Every news broadcast must do the same. Even Google has to "censor" search results to decide what to list on the page.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It sounds optional, until it isn't.
Had to check the date. (Score:2)
Cybersitter. (Score:5, Interesting)
Years ago I got to work with some machines running cyber sitter.
It was great at blocking things you needed to look at updates software or maybe the news?
BBS flamewar? Blocked!
The trick was it was a url and text based filter so you had to use websites that weren't in its database. And didn't have any ad's on the page that would trigger the filter.
http://www.spectacle.org/alert... [spectacle.org]
I do not believe that you can have a web filter that is both effective and not a PITA for normal daily use of things that really are no relation to what's intended to be blocked.
Re: (Score:2)
100% secure = 0% accessible
0% secure = 100% accessible
So what has happened here is a loss of access. An ISP with potentially millions of customers has downgraded everyone's service.
The temperature of the water the frog is in will be increased. The frog either moves out of that water (if there is other water to move to) or g
Re: (Score:2)
Ah yes, that reminds me of the webfilter at work. Of course they are free to filter what we can look at. Just a shame that _every_ single page on 3D ***mathematics*** (you know, the knowledge I need to do the programming I do) is labelled as "games", and therefore blocked. And yes, you can in fact write games using 3D mathematics. I happen to be writing scientific 3D visualisations, but the IT department honestly doesn't give a shit. If I want access to a specific page I can ask for it to be unblocked and t
Murdoch (Score:5, Insightful)
Whenever I come across something unpleasant in the world I also seem to find the name Murdoch involved in some way.
Thanks, All-Seeing Overlord! (Score:2)
We'll tell you what's "okay" to see and what isn't. It's for your own good, Citizen, so shut up and thank us for telling you what to think.
False Headline (Score:2)
"The UK government is on a mission to protect the young of the country from the dark recesses of the web."
No, they're not.
Not much unusual here - no censorship (Score:2)
I personally would prefer opt-in but it was extremely clear and easy to turn off, so I'm simply not very exercised by this.
My concern (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Taking Bets (Score:4, Insightful)
Control (Score:2)
Not Totally Unlimited (Score:2)
The adverts (and their web site) for Sky Fibre Broadband claim that it is "Totally Unlimited". If they limit access to porn then they will have to remove the claim to be totally unlimited.
VPN providers compete with content providers (Score:1)
It has been relatively interesting to observe the development of internet censorship in Failland [wikipedia.org] and the rest of EU. Here it all started with legislation that was supposed to censor child pornography. It was immediately abused and quite soon systematically used to censor unlawfully known "pirate sites" such as torrent trackers (such as certain famous bay from friendly neighbor). Combined together with legislation allowing ISPs to spy legally on all traffic by their clients and several years to develop spyin
Political and foolish (Score:2)
Politics has descended into rhetoric and vote-hunting. Nobody in politics cares that much about consequences of policies compared to whether it sounds good with the voters. Porn is a stable bogeyman in religion and politics, a 'great evil that lurks in the dark shadows of the internet' which must be valiantly fought against. Like the 'negative automatic traits' of clinical psychology, these ideas prevent themselves from being challenged: the reality is ignored, rhetoric prevails, votes get won, and nothing
shame (Score:2)
"It would be a terrible shame if that new tech startup you're launching wound up on the internet Ban list? Perhaps if this empty briefcase was suddenly filled with cash, I might forget to update the ban list."
It being a Murdoch company ... (Score:2)
Secondly, they're probably hoping to boost ales of their execrable excuse for porn in "the Sun".
Re: (Score:2)
So let them check off the box next to "Yes, protect me from The Digital Devil" when they sign up.
This is not about a filter existing. It is about that filter being turned on by default so you have to call up and answer awkward questions about why you want to look at porn if you want it turned off.
Re: (Score:2)
Unfortunately you can't do that as an Anonymous Coward, you have to get registered on the Possibly Sexual Deviants list to get outside the filter.
Re: (Score:2)
There are privacy implications. What happens when you have the snooping parents, potential partner or puritanical co-worker visiting your house? If you let them on to wi-fi then it's a matter of seconds to type in "e621.net" and find out if you are a dirty perv who asked their ISP for pornography.
It could even be cited as a factor in divorce proceedings.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, in the case of divorce proceedings, the correct counter is, "I do not trust the ISP to filter porn and only porn, so I would rather use the filter in my brain."
Re: (Score:2)
They already had opt-in filtering, they're just making it opt-out.
Re: (Score:2)
So let them install a net nanny. Hell, as far as I care, make it free and paid for by taxes.
Now take your imaginary friend and shove him, I got porn sites to surf to!
Re:Good. Porn Is For Scum. (Score:4, Informative)
http://www.vice.com/video/asse... [vice.com]
Sorry. It just felt like a perfect response.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Billies or nannies?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
The scummy feeling is the best part of it though.
Re:Good. Porn Is For Scum. (Score:5, Insightful)
I watch porn, I have no kids and I don't give half a shit about your opinion about me.
Anything else?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: Good. Porn Is For Scum. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
I watch porn, I have no kids, and I don't want anyone who I let use my internet connection to be able to find out about the porn. Many people are very sternly disapproving.
Re: (Score:2)
Note that video of gang riots, military combat, dictatorial executions, and other scenes of violence are, by their omission, presumably "appropriate content". Heaven forfend that some child should, even by accident, see an erect penis; it would scar them for life. But letting them watch police fire tear gas into crowds of rioters, or a policeman getting dragged down and beaten by rioters, or bodies lying in the street in pools of blood, is all just part of life.
Re: I also want protection for my children. (Score:1)
Re: Never gonna work. (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There's been rumblings in Parliament for years about porn filtering. They gave the "option" for the big ISPs to "voluntarily" implement one with the threat of mandating one by legislation if they didn't. So, yeah, it is the Government, but the ISPs will get the complaints.