Default ON - internet filters

[#1]

Quote from: nanotm

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

Eh? 

[#2]

+1
I don't get it either.

[#3]

Wikipedia - "The Digital Millennium Copyright Act (DMCA) is a United States copyright law..."

[#4]

Thanks - thats why I didn't get its relevance to the UK.

[#5]

there are both UK and EU versions of that law as well and the EU version allowed the backbone carrier to accept the responsibility in lieu of the actual ISP's having to do the job themselves, IIRC BT formally accepted this when DPI was introduced but *most ISP's* simply sidestepped the responsibility by blocking file sharing traffic, but regardless everything everyone does on the internet (digital footprint) has been tracked recorded and used to provide targeted advertising as well as to produce profiles, all of the "marketing" information is theoretically anonymous but in practice most of it isn't which is why various ISP's were fined in the last few years by the information commissioner, however the un sanitized records are required to be maintained for law enforcement purposes and can be the subject of warrants or subpoenas for up to 5 years, something the recording industry has been utilising to prosecute and or sue various people since the laws were introduced in 2001.....
perhaps I should of spelled it out properly and accurately. however the laws were relaxed in 2012 following a revision of the draconian law by the current government, rather bizarre as all the so called privacy rights groups are now complaining about a proposal to have a 2 tier internet safety system with a default of safe mode.... that wouldn't have any tracking or reporting added to the requirement,
the problems of course are only financial in terms of getting the system implemented, and the groundswell of opposition to the idea is based purely on the cost of implementing it in a useable way, strange then that mobile phone companies have been able to do it for years and every device is either unlocked limited or restricted when it comes to what there allowed to browse online

[#6]

links?

[#7]

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:32006L0024:EN:HTML
http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/859/contents/made

[#8]

except that the only data to be retained is given here http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2009/859/schedule/made so not relevant

[#9]

So does:-

Quote

Data necessary to identify the destination of a communication 12.— (1) In the case of internet telephony, the user ID or telephone number of the intended recipient of the call. (2) In the case of internet e-mail or internet telephony, the name and address of the subscriber or registered user and the user ID of the intended recipient of the communication.

mean that only the destinations of phone calls, e-mails and nothing else are recorded?

[#10]

Thought so.  On the general internet stuff this is about being able to map an IP address to a customer when requested thought a process like RIPA.  Nothing to do with content filtering stuff as suggested? 

[#11]

I was referring to the fact everything that is done is monitored, and that implementing filters to obtain a 2 tier internet system (safe or unsafe) has nothing at all to do with controlling what people want, default on just means the customer would need to use a secondary logon to disable the filter as and when required, despite the assertions of someone else who insists that any form of internet filtering will be based on monitoring who does what (which ironically has been done for years without so much as a whisper about it from so called privacy action groups) yet there's so many people out there crying about a nanny state wanting to *control* the populace when the inverse is true,
indeed the whole idea of internet filtering to sanitise what the youngsters can access is based around the premise 99% of parents don't have the time ability or knowhow to make there offspring safe online, so its actually about empowering people with the ability to be responsible by providing them with the tools to be able to provide the safest environment possible without forcing anyone to follow that path (of course that could be used as proof of promoting the delinquency of a minor should something go wrong but hey ho your pays your money you takes yer chances )

[#12]

Introducing these filters will be very educational.
Parents will learn that you can't trust a machine to do your child-minding.
Children will see this as a challenge, to be defeated.
A lot of freshly created hackers will be educated in the ways of the internet...
Why would a computer based filter work when no-one has yet created a reliable spam filter for simple email?
Such a task ought to be trivial if you think it possible to take on the complexity of web access.

[#13]

not really my kids cant bypass the web based filtering service I use already on there pc's the problem from my point of view is there school issues them with tablets which I am unable to install the filtering software on and at the same time am forced to allow there use from my home despite the fact I cannot monitor block or otherwise parent (control) what they have access to on those devices, the only method by which I could perform a lockdown would be to limit the devices internet access based on the device ip and creating advanced rules in my hardware firewall, doing this however doesn't work because the sodding crapple devices bypass them by creating a vpn on the fly to access the internet or they refuse to connect to the internet (when vpn's are blocked for those devices) because the stupid heaps of crap require vpn access to apple's online monopoly
I find this as a parent to be against my human rights, and to be subversive to everything I have done for years in order to provide my family a safe and secure environment at home, yet my hands are tied and I cannot deny them the use of there devices (I have however blocked them from accessing my home network and created a totally separate subnet for that virus ridden spyware bloated crapple junk that comes complete with built-in keyloggers)
if my isp offered a filter then I wouldn't need to spend weeks of my life investigating methods by which I can control the websites my kids view on such devices only to find out that all attempts at providing them with a secure and safe online experience during there formative teenage years is thwarted at every stage, yet there school which monitors everything the devices are used for fails to provide any option to control access away from school (they could cause the devices to only access the internet via a vpn that passes through the sanitizer system they have in place for on premise use instead of absolving themselves of this responsibility) but in school they use a corporate level filtering system to do what I have been doing for years with a £90 a year subscription service.......

ISP based filtering systems aren't impossible there not impractical there just expensive, ask Microsoft and you find it will licence the family safety package for business use at a hefty per user premium yet the service regularly receives a 5star rating on both corporate and home use reviews, look at the various other services offered and you find there either really good or really poor, look at Google and Facebook track record and all you can find are failures on the basis of the content they deliver (pictures of naked/semi naked people always on screen when using the mobile app's)
mobile operators provide an under18 access service which blocks access to all unsuitable sites including twitter Facebook etc etc kids cant bypass it which makes it perfect because they get access to the other 85% of the internet that is suitable for them (porn free) sadly this also includes known nefarious sites that are active criminal enterprises but then that can be a useful life lesson for them should they get stung anyway, albeit a costly and annoying one that disrupts your life for a week or two while you get a new handset and a new phone number .....but then again capping there service so nothing other than the contract cost can be racked up makes this a much more wallet friendly problem (someone I know didn't bother because they didn't believe the problems were real and ended up with a £1500.00 bill for charges accrued on a stolen account)
I understand there will always be those who don't understand the need for web filtering but for the vast majority of people it is required and a hardware based system generally cant be circumvented with a software solution of course installing them in the customer premises makes them able to be smaller and allow the filter to be disabled for a particular device on the fly or permanently but having it at the isp server end will mean its based on the whole connection meaning it will be basically pointless for people with a similar mind-set to myself because we would have to block ourselves (the adults) from things like forums in order to prevent our offspring from being able to access everything were trying to keep them safe from.
the idea announced by "call me dave" was a good idea but in practice will cost to much to be implemented unless central government offers to cover the one off initial fee for the new routing equipment required to implement the system (because not even the latest home hub would be able to do it)
of course that would also mean the customers could simply not use the equipment which makes the whole thing pointless from a child safety initiative point of view, its one of those rock and hardplace things but no doubt there will be a way to get the best of both worlds that will still enable people to have more than 8 internet devices connected simultaneously and give all of them individual filtering options but nothing that will be cheap, and who can afford to spend upwards of £300 on equipment to replace what the isp currently gives out for free when you sign up or after a few years when it breaks down....

[#14]

Just because your kids haven't bypassed your web filters doesn't mean they can't be bypassed, in most cases a software based system can be bypassed, simply booting in to safe mode with network support normally bypasses most software based solutions. Often kids just carry around a pen-drive with various solutions to bypassing restrictions and these are updated daily offering new ways to circumvent protections. The trouble with creating any kind of restriction is there is normally a more determined team trying to find ways to get around them.

[#15]

yeah I know I spent years making sure they couldn't do it, started with simple options but ended up using a locked registry based solution, basically if there pc isn't running family safety software the network connectors don't work because of the customised setup, to make it even better I then created the backup drives and so even a restore to factory settings will mean there at the stage they first got there pc's (locked down) and nothing they can do will change that unless I unlock the required part of the registry (it took me ages to setup) to allow changes to the networking side of things....
also nobody would waste there time breaking kid filters on home pc's if they aren't making money out of doing so 99% of those USB devices steal personal and financial information not to mention co-op the pc into a botnet, and that's the nice ones that don't instigate ransom ware or bombard the user with popups, or just upload the entire pc contents to the internet.....
personally I would prefer that I was able to use a hardware solution but given the average machine will need to be replaced every 3>5 years and would cost more than a pc its just not financially viable so the only option left is the online software one, nothing is truly fallible but as with anything if you put a lock on the door the only people it stops are the passing chancers and honest folk, the criminals will either break it or pick it apart, kids however are all honest until someone teaches them not to be.......