cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Default ON - internet filters

Justinian
Grafter
Posts: 52
Registered: 02-07-2013

Default ON - internet filters

What does Plus Net think about these filters and if it is going to become a law how is this going to be technically implemented ?
What does everybody else in this PlusNet community thinks about ?
Related to this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23312579 ... http://news.slashdot.org/story/13/07/22/1121230/british-prime-minister-promises-default-on-porn-bloc...
33 REPLIES
Plusnet Staff
Plusnet Staff
Posts: 17,641
Thanks: 535
Fixes: 159
Registered: 05-04-2007

Re: Default ON - internet filters

There's already a thread about this here: http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,116748.msg1009176/topicseen.html#new
At the moment there's nothing we can say about this.
If this post resolved your issue please click the 'This fixed my problem' button
 Chris Parr
 Plusnet Staff
houlton23
Grafter
Posts: 268
Registered: 22-05-2011

Re: Default ON - internet filters

Quote from: Justinian
how is this going to be technically implemented ?

Badly.
Community Veteran
Posts: 6,307
Thanks: 86
Fixes: 3
Registered: 08-01-2008

Re: Default ON - internet filters

What a nightmare.
I have site filtering on my router and OpenDNS set up to block 'undesirable' sites, mainly because my son is at 'that age' but none of this blocks Google Images from showing pictures off the blocked sites so teenage boys still send each other 'dirty pictures' even if the sites containing these things are effectively blocked.
Will the government be looking to block Google Images by default (or at the very least 'certain' search results)?
I also had to disable my router's IPv6 tunnel since 'junior' somehow found he could use IPv6 to bypass OpenDNS, why are kids so clever?
Call me 'w23'
At any given moment in the universe many things happen. Coincidence is a matter of how close these events are in space, time and relationship.
Opinions expressed in forum posts are those of the poster, others may have different views.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,681
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

I just blocked Google and installed MS live's  family safety software with block list on all but allowed setting for my kids
then as there now in there teens I have adapted to no social media sites, no chat rooms, no forums and only verified kid friendly sites
bizarrely since Google refuses to comply wit the international action against child exploitation guidelines on coding all there services are blocked by default, recent alterations to family safety software though has caused a migration to MacAfee's offering but it leaves a lot to be desired even if it still blocks all Google services by default .....

if they want to use Google they have to use there smart phones and fortunately the phone operator blocks more than 80% of the dodgy content although of course unless this crap is made opt in (to view porn etc)  requiring a registration system like getting a driving licence and all hosted in a separate registered users only domain then neither kids nor anyone else can ever be protected from seeing nasty stuff,
the large problem facing society is the apathy and ignorance of the majority of parents who instead prefer to blame the service providers and the Govt for failing to do the job they themselves should be doing, its a problem that has been growing ever since the internet first started where so many parents had zero idea about anything the kids were doing and despite the majority of parents at least being it literate they are still either incapable of understanding the dangers or to apathetic to act first but the first to jump up and down screaming blue murder and waving a law suit when everything inevitably goes pete -tong
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
rongtw
Seasoned Hero
Posts: 6,539
Thanks: 1,267
Fixes: 12
Registered: 01-12-2010

Re: Default ON - internet filters

A total Ban on Porn is wrong ! as it would only lead to it being more Hidden and even harder to control .
And of course if its illegal it obviously would lead to more people trying to outsmart the software witch in turn would make it easier to stumble on the undesired porn that NEEDS to be stopped !
Asus ROG Hero Vii Z97 , Intel i5 4690k ,ROG Asus Strix 1070,
samsung 850evo 250gig , WD black 2 TB . Asus Phoebus sound ,
16 gig Avexir ram 2400 , water cooling Corsair H100i gtx ,
Corsair 750HXI Psu , Phanteks Enthoo pro case .
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: 23-04-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

If you believe the Daily fail and government  that this unnecessary filtering  is only going to be used to block porn then you must be naive, This is a just a front  the government like the us government seek total control of the internet and they wont stop in their quest
In any case some of us have no need for any dumb filtering  i also hope that  we don't end up paying for something we don't need or want, AAISP have the right idea ,shame they don't do unlimited  but there will be quite a few others who won't be implementing web filtering , as for search engines if google rolls over , then there are plenty of other search engines maybe google will loose out too
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,681
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

Quote from: rongtw
A total Ban on Porn is wrong ! as it would only lead to it being more Hidden and even harder to control .
And of course if its illegal it obviously would lead to more people trying to outsmart the software witch in turn would make it easier to stumble on the undesired porn that NEEDS to be stopped !

I agree but forcing all porn (its all legal somewhere in the world) to be hosted on a segmented area of the internet that people had to be registered to access (not pay to access) where anyone aged 17 or over could simply tick a box on there driving licence application or passport application and be sent the access code(s) to enter the domain would be a good working idea, then it would be a simple matter to prevent all such material from being accessed by anyone without a registration.
this also provides for all access to illegal material (in this country) like child/animal porn to be monitored and offenders dealt with accordingly.
believing that the government wants the ability to block material on the internet in order to control what people access is stupid (they already have the power to do that) what there arguing to get in a rather ham fisted way is the ability to have all the content moved into a separate domain so only registered users can access it, its rather a problematic process because of the way the internet works it would require consent from every country in the world to do it,
also for the conspira loon BT developed something called DPI (deep packet inspection) that is a process where all traffic packets on the backbone are inspected and illegal content is flagged (internal hosted material) and criminal maters are flagged as suspicious for investigation (packets that leave the uk)  its legislated for under the prevention of terrorism act 2k and a few other laws, people seem to think a lot of things are illegal but data gathering isn't one of them, the illegal part is acting on domestic non terrorism related information gained where a warrant to gather that information wasn't already present.
personally I think they should of just made the law allow collection of all information for law enforcement use back then and stop all the stupid loopholes, criminals will always do criminal things and the law abiding have nothing to worry about, that would of course have already prevented all the problems being discussed because they could of simply tracked-alerted-acted-on all the current crop of problems without needing to employ thousands of people to do in months what the dpi servers do in seconds.....
personal rights aren't infringed upon if the same thing happens to everyone and civil rights aren't infringed upon because its exactly the same as cctv cameras in the street, there there to monitor all activity in the vicinity nothing untoward and nothing to fear for the average member of joe public
the idea of installing advanced algorithmic filters however will never work as half the web hosts bounce there content via vpn's in a double blind to the viewers already, large server farms host legit domains on the same address as dodgy files only the port number changes etc etc
change the law to allow detection tracking and tracing of e crime simpler would go a long way to fixing the problem of course you still have jurisdiction problems when loads of stuff will be pushed to from countries where it is legal
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
wintonian
Dabbler
Posts: 18
Registered: 25-04-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

I quite like Andrews & Arnold's take on this
Quote
Active choice is not a choice
The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-
    Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
    Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.
If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.
Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html
Plusnet please consider doing likewise.  Cool
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: 23-04-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

@nanotm The theory of "if you aren't doing anything wrong ,you have nothing to worry about" What right does the uk government or the NSA  have to spy on anyone they feel like? never heard of privacy ? Also the idea about keeping porn in one place , and requiring registration to access it, that wouldn't work  as the registration system would have to be financed in some way, and it would have to be a trusted 3rd party , I feel that the fact that Cammer CON is wanting an opt out of filtering  is against our human rights, i bet it's against some EU law  It should  be opt in  or not exist  at all as it's a bad plan and could end in tears for  this looney, There is an official Petition about this http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/51746 And so far has got a lot of names , mine included, I hope it gets the required threshold, as he needs to be stopped
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,681
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

it has the same rights to do it as the way they stick cctv camera's everywhere in quassi mundane things, on an average day a person walking out of there front door down into the town center will be caught on several hundred cctv recordings, hell the streetlight outside my frontdoor has a cctv fish eye in it, the crossing has 3 cctv camera's in it, the 17 cash points all have cctv fitted to them never mind the plethora of "traffic monitoring" shop installed individual installed etc etc camera's most of which are linked to the central network and monitored by the dohnut squad at the civic center's monitoring station
you cant get away from being monitor'd in any part of the western world, computer traffic on the internet has been monitored for years, under the dmca all isp's are required to check and inspect all file sharing traffic, under the anti terrorism laws all isp's and mail providers are required to check the contents of emails and report anything suspicious (wither this is done by bt's DPI program or wither it is done by the isp itself is a moot point)
monitoring of everything is done regardless, any and all electronic communications can be monitored in order to aid detection of terrorist activities thanks to the labour government's knee jerk laws that allowed it.
allowing or legislating for a giant net nanny service isn't something new, as far back as 1993 people were trying to have access to a certain cookbook monitored or blocked to prevent people from learning how its done, and the science is there that a lot of wilful individuals would never do anything if they were unable to find the blueprints to make there dreams become reality. sure the seriously deranged will always be able to come up with a way but the average person will just forget about it and get on with life instead.
its about the scientific ideal of prevention being better than cure, if you prevent access then sexual crimes by minors will become far more sporadic and less prevalent, theres no way to cure a rapist once they start but since the humin rights laws wont allow the ultimate ventilation cure to be used on sicko's then we need to prevent access to the vulnerable to prevent it from warping there sense of morality in the first place (personally I would rather see the ventilation cure implemented as it would cure most peoples thoughts or desires when they know that at some point they will be caught and killed for there crimes) 
the problem of failing to provide a proper sentence is that it removes fear of detection of capture for action and with that comes the removal of any desire to ignore or repress the desire to experiment or experience that which is seen, couple that with the prolific ability to access the hardcore material (not tame smut) like fake (or real) rape, etc etc long gone are the days of the majority of "adult movies" containing cheesy music bad dubbing and a workman sweeping a busty youngster off her feet, now far more of it is about fetishism and brutality.
this isn't really about censoring the internet or blocking an adult from accessing stuff its about stopping children from accessing it, the only viable way is to force a block as being default on, and require an access code to turn it off (simple enough for an isp to provide a code to all over 18's) on an on demand basis that would in and of itself perform both the protection of the young and impressionable and not block anything from those above the age of majority, it could even bee tweaked so that households without minors are left unfiltered on request.
I read a lot about infringing on civil liberties and privacy but taken in context, where its already legal for people to follow your every move, where investigators can already enter your home plant bugs cameras sift through all your trash tap your phone and a whole host of other things (that inarguably infringe far more) without needing a warrant so long as you are in receipt of any state benefits (child benefit/tax credits/council tax reductions etc etc) which pretty much covers 90% of the population then a filter service with on the fly per session disabling wouldn't be infringing on anything
equating a content filtering service to spying (which is perfectly legal despite peoples assertions otherwise and has lead to many many terrorist attempts being thwarted) is the same as saying consensual sex is no different to rape, if you spin your argument right it will sound fine but its just lies purporting to support a flawed position
filtering that you have to disable with an access code would be the way ahead and is absolutely the same as requiring a pin number to access adult content or pay per view on satellite or cable TV services to say believe anything else is to be deluding yourself and to say otherwise is to be spreading misinformation in promotion of your own agenda,
of course pressure groups say otherwise if they don't speak out about such things they don't get sponsorship and all need to find another cash cow to get rich off, isp's say its unreasonable because they would all have to work in concert with BTW/BTOR to implement the service which would inevitably mean paying more not less for the service, and in its early days would of course be a complete nightmare to implement, however when you put it into perspective that certain companies have been providing this service for parents (because anyone with half a brain knows they cant lookover there kids shoulder all the time) for 10 years to a greater or lesser degree.
hell most isp's provide one of the 3 main players in the market for free with unlimited subscriptions (mcafee's net protect option is actually pretty good as is the Microsoft live family safety filter) then it all comes down to isp's baulking at the cost of the licences to amalgamate this into being a forced requirement in order to use there service....
from an isp point of view its a bit of a nightmare they would require duplicate servers, one for traffic that's over 18 allowed and one set of traffic that's not, bearing in mind that some people will be connecting on devices that cannot be fitted with the likes of netnanny software (because it doesn't exist for them) some will be on games consoles some will be on pc's so multiple streams out of a single customer connection would need to be individually routed (making routers in the home useless or the size of a shuttle pc) it makes it difficult for them to implement without making a good number of them bankrupt but that doesn't stop it from being an excellent idea, it just means that every customer would require a £450.00 router to operate as a net nanny server in the home and swap all hotspot's to an always filtered service....its not insurmountable and it doesn't require any new legislation if the industry steps up to the fore it would however mean the government shelled out a lot of money to get them to do it (about £450 per customer)
so the real question is should we as a nation spend so much money to invest in the protection of the young or should we leave them just as vulnerable to becoming warped by the video nasty's which are becoming more and more widely distributed and accessible  and are being identified as responsible for all kinds of enactments.
of course if the government stated the case properly in the first place then there wouldn't be such wild speculation about it being a back door attempt at regulating the internet (its not its a creation of a two tier internet access system with a sanitized safe mode for kids and a normal unsafe mode for adults)
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
x47c
Grafter
Posts: 878
Registered: 14-08-2009

Re: Default ON - internet filters

That's a good, well written & well thought out post.
To be honest I'm getting to the stage of thinking that some form of regulation of the internet is becoming required.
We are being deluged by the lunatics, the hate sites, the trolls and troublemakers, the bloggers, the conspiracy peddlars, the fake videos, the twitter rants, you name it.
Serious site for discussions being swamped by the lunatics pumping out their 'message'.  They are not interesting in either joining the discussions much less asking questions and actually learning from others - they are just interested in wrecking the discussion with their wild claims.
Moderators are spending their time removing the trash.
People are starting to want to make these discussion sites private with proper secure banking type registration requiring some 'credentials' to be provided that you might actually know something before you can post.
Some of the political sites are just filled with messages which are no more than snide comments at best or abuse at worst.....and I wouldn't go anywhere near some of the Arab/middle East related forums if you value your sanity.
It's everywhere.  Try looking at some of the responses to local council consultations and as well as the sensible ones there are a significant number from people who just want to waste time and make trouble.
In the past these people would be stuck in the corner of a pub spouting their drivel and ignored by everyone - now they are on the internet and the whole world is their village.
I'm sure there will be a website claiming todays train crash in Spain is the fault of a conspiracy between Prince Philip and the Freemasons.
Anyway if you want to see what powers HMG really have try looking at the stuff like the emergency powers acts and civil contingencies regulations.  These are on the statue book and can be simply implemented by an order in council - basically a cabinet vote.  I'm sure if they really wanted to HMG could use these to start building HS2 tomorrow.
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,681
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

theres so many things they *could do* given the wide ranging overarching power base setup by labour its actually scary, the not quite so scary part is the con-dem govt has been unravelling a lot of the bridging legislation to tighten the range of powers available without touching the tinderbox of amending the secretly introduced unpublished legislation.
fortunately they rescinded the ability to secretly introduce or amend powers unless in a time of war or civil emergency and as accorded by a time limited full member vote of cobra..... these safety limits to prevent the next smiling assassin from entering the megalomaniac phase of dictatorship unfortunately the conspiraloons believe that all changes to the communist agenda the prior governments implemented are to the detriment of society at large as opposed ot the truth about them being to protect wider society from the depraved depths of secret police organisations and full on communism, mostly because they have little or no idea about why the changes are needed to remove the empowering lines that already made it possible, shame they cant remove the ability to change the legislation while there at it so no future govt could re-establish them....
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you
deathtrap
Grafter
Posts: 1,063
Thanks: 4
Registered: 23-04-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

It's the parents responsibility to ensure that their offspring do not watch porn ect, not the ISP's or any one else's. They need to stop letting the internet babysit their kids and actually be parents to them, That means any time on the net is supervised, and any mobile device purchased for them is locked down as well if such a device needs to be able to browse the web , As for CCTV being everywhere , yes in public places, but what we do in our homes and our browsing habits should not be of any concern of the nanny state , And web blocking doesn't work, another load of bunkum from Scameron 
nanotm
Pro
Posts: 5,681
Thanks: 111
Fixes: 1
Registered: 11-02-2013

Re: Default ON - internet filters

if it was actually possible to lock down mobile devices you might be right,
however unless your a corporate partnership its not possible to get a specially crafted operating system on your gadgets,
web blocking does work, it works extremely well once the internet has been indexed (which took Microsoft half a decade to do) then its just a matter of checking new pages as they show up each day and categorising them as well,
kids require the internet to do there school and home work, my 7 yr old needs the internet in order to do and submit his homework which for me is fine as I just block access to all but 10 websites for him, and only allow one program internet access from his pc (something I've been doing for more than 8 years) and I do that in the router (but then I don't use an isp supplied one) however I cant be around to supervise any of my kids personally and certainly not all of them at the same time which is why I found out how and what I needed to do years ago, my older kids found a way to bypass what I was doing within 12 months so I was forced to go down the advanced router with full blocking ability.
software programs work but only so far, most programs require admin rights to work so the kids require an admin account, giving them an admin account means they can add or remove software at will, creating a secondary hidden account which installs a program in a hidden directory and adds it to the start-up routine for all accounts however does work and means they cant see it or bypass it, then again the average person isn't even it literate so expecting every parent to be an it geek is a bit far fetched- the majority know how to turn on the magic box, are able to use office programs browsers and email (web or client based) but little more than that.
in addition to all that even for the tech savvy family another problem to thwart any attempts at protecting the children is many schools provide tablets to there pupils to enable this those devices are beyond the control of parents so unless the ISP is responsible for blocking access to adult content there's no control over them at all.
I find it odd that you take exception to the idea of default on filters on the grounds that it would enable your internet usage to be tracked when all ISP's in the uk are required by law to track usage and store the data for 5 years and have been ever since the introduction of the DMCA the government however doesn't really want to legislate the introduction of filters because if they do then they have to pay for the implementation in full however an industry lead initiative will require little or no funding sadly this already the case since the widespread introduction of the internet back in 1994 however it was one of many laws tony b'liar and company got rid of in there first term of office (for some nice fat back handers off the industry) on the grounds it would "promote competition in the ISP industry" in reality it was one of many moves aimed at doing away with safety of children and eradicating any trace of parental responsibility in favour of creating a new generation of state dependant thicko's who have duly exacerbated the problem by breeding and becoming parents themselves and now the toff's are back in parliament and forcing the education system and various other issues back onto the path of proper education and responsibility (which includes ISP's being responsible for what they provide access to) and it creates a huge furore lead by the so called right to privacy groups who already know full well it has nothing to do with privacy and whipping up a groundswell of public opinion about nothing will get old fast, its what killed unions in the past and it will end up with so called rights groups being crushed in the future
just because your paranoid doesn't mean they aren't out to get you