cancel
Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 

Website Restrictions

flexo1966
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎21-07-2014

Website Restrictions

I can only speak as a father or 3 and I know which option I would choose but i know which option will prevail when they get older.
68 REPLIES
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,773
Thanks: 4,033
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

I've voted its up to the customer for the following reasons...
1. It is not the role of the ISP to police internet access (beyond a court order to inhibit access to identified piracy sites).
2. It is not the role of the ISP to censor content access.
3. If any of the above were to become their responsibility and those systems failed or someone found away around them, them some "it is all really someone else's responsibility to do this and you've failed" merchant is going to come bouncing along to sue the pants off the ISP and bleat about how badly they've failed everywhere they can.
They are YOUR KIDS and it is down to YOU to look after them.  This is the kind of thing which has gone wrong with this country, everyone expects someone else to look out for their kids, whilst they do nothing.  I bet they have their internet in their own bedrooms behind closed doors.  If you are so concerned about what they might be looking at, do not let them have access where you cannot see what they are doing.  Also get along side them and guide them... or are you too busy watching the footie?
flexo1966
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎21-07-2014

Re: Website Restrictions

Should plusnet offer, repeat offer a family filter. Again "offer"
It's a poll not a slagging match for goodness sake.
I lookout and more over look after my children but I cannot be there 24 hours and do have eyes in the back of my head. What's more I resent your accusations.
As for doing "nothing" I'm sure most parents given the choice, with a press of the button would jump at the choice. All Major isp's offer this service so why not plusnet?
Once again it's a poll.
This is the kind of thing which has gone wrong with this country, everyone expects someone else to look out for their kids, whilst they do nothing.
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,773
Thanks: 4,033
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

Steve,
Fair dos there - I had not intended to personalise my response.  I should have used "people" rather that "you" - SORRY!  Embarrassed
I do though feel that there is an expectation that such matters will (should ?) be addressed by "someone else" and that should the third party fail in their delivery, there is then cause for litigation.
Coming from an IT back ground and having been involved in major IT litigation I can tell you that having the burden for protecting users against their own wrong doing (intentional or otherwise) is an onerous burden.  The supplier is dammed if they do and dammed if they do not.  As a point of interest, that litigation had elements of we the supplier not allowing the customer to do / access what they wanted and then when they did exactly what we sought to prevent, having grounds to then complain that we let them do what they wanted, with the consequence that they broke the system.
Protections systems cannot deliver to the levels people expect without a massive level of intrusion into (deep inspection of) what people are doing, many will consider that an invasion of privacy and is expensive to set up.  Parental controls are completely dependent on content providers marking their material honestly for both age suitability and subject matter.  The big issue is that the stuff your really don't want kids to see does not come from responsible providers - therefore it is not marked and will not be picked up by content filters.
Offering a product which cannot deliver 100% protection from risk is just asking to have the pants sued off you these days.  To pretend that 100% protection is available is foolish.  At a global level improperly marked material can be taken down, however such vendors very quickly set up a replacement site nearly quicker than the old ones are ripped down.  Frankly it is little different to dealing with the drug problem.  No sooner is one outlet shut down, than three more are started up.  The best protection is to explain to the child why consumption will be detrimental to them.
Quote from: flexo1966
All Major isp's offer this service so why not plusnet?

Sorry this is simply not true - at least one major UK ISP makes it their distinguishing principle NOT to offer filtered services...
Quote from: http
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?

Quote from: http
Why are we against censorship?
There are three main reasons for not filtering:-
1. We feel strongly that how you communicate should be kept separate from what you communicate, allowing the free technical development that has created the communications networks we enjoy. This is a view supported by EU rules on mere conduit which clearly separate the technical issues from moral and legal implications of what happens to be communicated. Without such a framework we would not have the Internet at all.
2. We feel strongly in free speech as an essential tool to help ensure a fair and open government. Censorship of any sort is the thin end of the wedge and not to be taken lightly. Once started, censorship is very easy to extend one step at a time until wrong thinking is banned.
3. Filtering rarely, if ever, achieves the stated goals - blocking web sites does not stop people communicating, and rarely even stops the actual web sites themselves. Most filtering creates a false sense of security, add technical complexity, and causes problems with over blocking. In many cases it is not true that "something is better than nothing".

Frankly it just does not work and any sense of comfort claimed by those who claim to provide it is shallow comfort.
Kevin
DaveyH
Seasoned Pro
Posts: 1,441
Thanks: 253
Fixes: 9
Registered: ‎15-11-2012

Re: Website Restrictions

Quote from: Townman
I've voted its up to the customer for the following reasons...
1. It is not the role of the ISP to police internet access (beyond a court order to inhibit access to identified piracy sites).
2. It is not the role of the ISP to censor content access.
3. If any of the above were to become their responsibility and those systems failed or someone found away around them, them some "it is all really someone else's responsibility to do this and you've failed" merchant is going to come bouncing along to sue the pants off the ISP and bleat about how badly they've failed everywhere they can.

Pretty much echoes my thoughts* and voted its up to the customer.
*Except the complying with court orders. ISPs should be actively fighting any kind of censorship.
Community Veteran
Posts: 19,102
Thanks: 443
Fixes: 21
Registered: ‎31-08-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

+1 as well.
flexo1966
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎21-07-2014

Re: Website Restrictions

All Major isp's offer this service so why not plusnet?
Sorry this is simply not true - at least one major UK ISP makes it their distinguishing principle NOT to offer filtered services...

Which is please ?
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,773
Thanks: 4,033
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

Hi Steve,
As per the quotes (links in the header box) A&A.
Kevin
rongtw
Seasoned Hero
Posts: 6,973
Thanks: 1,532
Fixes: 12
Registered: ‎01-12-2010

Re: Website Restrictions

i am a father of 4 , and i dont visit porn sites  !
but i will not be forced into any kind of censorship , my kids are old enough to make ADULT decisions
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 .
flexo1966
Grafter
Posts: 115
Registered: ‎21-07-2014

Re: Website Restrictions

Mine aren't.
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 27,090
Thanks: 1,797
Fixes: 146
Registered: ‎14-04-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

Then you make the decisions for them as a responsible parent.

Customer and Forum Moderator. Windows 10 Firefox 62.0.3 (64-bit)

Community Veteran
Posts: 5,177
Thanks: 482
Fixes: 20
Registered: ‎10-06-2010

Re: Website Restrictions

I'm not sure A&A could be described as a major ISP based on number of customers: http://www.ispreview.co.uk/review/top10.php
Quote
There should be an option to opt in or out via your account.

I expect plusnet will eventually implement that option, and make you pick an option when signing-up, like the other large ISPs.
Community Veteran
Posts: 26,722
Thanks: 936
Fixes: 10
Registered: ‎10-04-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

@Townman
A&A is definitely not a major ISP, they are very much a niche supplier offering a very specialised service at a premium price.
jelv (a.k.a Spoon Whittler)
   Why I have left Plusnet (warning: long post!)   
Broadband: Andrews & Arnold Home::1 (FTTC 80/20)
Line rental: Pulse 8 Home Line Rental (£13/month)
Mobile: iD mobile (£4/month)
Superuser
Superuser
Posts: 12,773
Thanks: 4,033
Fixes: 26
Registered: ‎22-08-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

OK, but they are a highly respected provider, arguably more respected for what they do than any of the bigger names.
The key point though is that their statements about the effectiveness of the claimed "protection" are all so true - this "protection" holds water like a sieve!
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 18,479
Thanks: 2,844
Fixes: 229
Registered: ‎06-04-2007

Re: Website Restrictions

Quote from: Townman
The key point though is that their statements about the effectiveness of the claimed "protection" are all so true - this "protection" holds water like a sieve!

The likes of the many savvy members of this forum understand the drawbacks and short-comings of this protection but so many will blindly have it turned on unaware of it's limitations and work-arounds leaving their children open to see and hear much of what they're supposed to be protecting them from.
Children's protection should always start at home with the parents/guardians.
I have voted for "No, it's up to the customer.".
Perhaps a more easily accessible/prominent comprehensive FAQ covering this area could be made available to help those 'not in the know'?
Edit: Last sentence made no sense  Cheesy

Forum Moderator and Customer
Courage is resistance to fear, mastery of fear, not absence of fear - Mark Twain
He who feared he would not succeed sat still