
The UK "Porn" Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech, Civil Liberties Websites - gts
http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-blocks-kids-access.html
======
citricsquid
There are many ISPs in England. One of these ISPs is called O2. A service that
O2 offers is a whitelist only internet service designed for parents to enable
if they wish to give their young children access to a mobile device without
concern for the content that the child can access. This whitelist has existed
for many many years. This has __nothing__ to do with the UK "Porn filter".
Absolutely, categorically... nothing.

Here is a screenshot of one of the actual filters recently implemented (by an
ISP called BT) with new accounts defaulting to the "Light" pre-set, which
customers must opt out of:
[http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png](http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png)

~~~
gts
Although it is not The 'porn' filter itself as promoted by the goverment, it
is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by the ISP
instead of having been forced by the goverment. So when the legislation comes
into effect the particular ISPs will already be compliant with it and the ones
currently not having any such filters will have to set them up.

Does changing the settings in BT require any passport details, sex details or
UK driving licence number? Also is blocked access to filtered content limited
to the content providers the ISP has a commercial relationship with?

Reason for asking is the above applies for the Giff Gaff network(running on
top of O2) if you want to have the filter lifted.
[http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png](http://i.imgur.com/Y3BEKEU.png)

What is sad is that Giff Gaff is supposed to be run by it's own users(i.e.
like a cooperative) yet checking at the forums this change was unannounced.
Furthermore people that do not have a UK passport or driving licence but live
in the UK simply can't lift the filter...
[http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-
Ideas...](http://community.giffgaff.com/t5/Submit-Great-giffgaff-Ideas/Adult-
content-unlocking-I-am-not-a-UK-passport-holder-and-I-don/idi-p/7375928)

Curiously the URL I was blocked on was a link in the WayBackMachine for a
biography of Alfred Bester(sci-fi writer)
[http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuse...](http://web.archive.org/web/20120722084039/http://www.empmuseum.org/exhibitions/index.asp?articleID=922)

~~~
citricsquid
> it is the exact same thing, under the exact same logic, as implemented by
> the ISP instead of having been forced by the goverment

No it isn't. That is an optional opt in feature available to customers of O2.
A customer has to explicitly opt for the Under 12 filter to be applied to
their account. O2 do have an adult content filter that is enabled by default
(which requires identity verification to disable) but that does not block
access to tech and civil liberty websites, it blocks access to pornography, it
is not what this article talks about. There are 2 filters, adult content
(default on O2 accounts), U12 (opt in). This article uses the filter status of
websites on the U12 list (a whitelist) that has existed for many years and has
nothing to do with the government as evidence that the government filter is
oppressing children. They have no connection.

I get it, this country wide opt-out filter requirement is bad and it shouldn't
be happening, I agree, but whining about something that has nothing to do with
it makes absolutely no sense. The O2 U12 filter is fundamentally different,
it's an __optional extra __customers can __opt in __to. This article has
nothing to do with the "porn filter". Nothing!

~~~
gts
First of all, it is about blocking by default and opting out(as you mention
yourself at least for O2 before editing it to 'opt in', furthemore different
providers provide either in or out by default). Then if you look at the img
you posted yourself at
[http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png](http://i.imgur.com/dWxORfJ.png) you will see
that it is not only about pornography but a dozen other things including areas
such as 'Obscene and Tasteless'(?).

The government's job making a law of(and therefore enforcing) the above is
easy to justify under the rationale that this thing existed for years(with a
few specific ISPs). Now everyone will have to do it, and on top of that it
will be the government that will be defining what is 'Obscene and Tasteless'
as opposed to a mere ISP.

I understand what you mean too, but my disagreement genuinely has to do with
me seeing that both filtering schemes are identical to each other and have the
same purpose and effect. Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with
pornography only. I sincerely do not see how these can be different.

~~~
citricsquid
> Both are opt-out and both do not have to do with pornography only. I
> sincerely do not see how these can be different.

No they are not. The filtering scheme covered in the submission is the Under
12 O2 filter, that is a filter designed for parents to enable (it's opt in,
not opt out) when they wish to give their children access to a mobile device.
That filter scheme uses a whitelist, every single website is blocked by
default until a person at O2 adds it to the whitelist. This service has
existed for many many years and has absolutely nothing to do with the
government, it's a feature that O2 added for their customers. O2 do also
operate a porn filter, but it is not what this article talks about, it does
not block tech articles and civil liberty websites.

The article that you have submitted is FUD. Read this:
[http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-
questions-a...](http://news.o2.co.uk/2013/12/24/parental-control-questions-
answered/)

~~~
gts
Sorry but in your original post you specified opt-in. In any event, different
providers are either opt-in or opt-out, O2 is not the only ISP in UK and the
link you share is just the boilerplate text on O2's parental controls policy,
so what?

I feel I explained my rationale and there can be no more constructive
conversation in the particular thread. As for the article being FUD, sorry
darling I guess we'll have to disagree on this one.

------
guelo
Looking from afar, this type of debate is becoming more interesting to me as a
recent parent and as a strong anti-censorship type. As of now I'm thinking
that I'll never block my kid from looking at any kind of content. If she
happens to come across some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll
be open and honest and explain it. Life is sex, sex is why we exist, sex is
beautiful and sacred. I hope my daughter will have great sex someday, why hide
it from her now? The impulse that so many parents have to hide sex from their
kids seems like their brain damage that they want to pass on to their kids.
And impose it on mine. Their line of thinking is what I wish I could hide from
my daughter. But I won't. She'll be exposed to it along with all the other
ugly and beautiful things in the real world.

~~~
RiderOfGiraffes

      > As of now I'm thinking that I'll never block my kid from
      > looking at any kind of content. If she happens to come across
      > some nudity or sex and she has questions about it I'll be open
      > and honest and explain it.
    

There's some really, _really_ nasty stuff out there. _Really_ nasty stuff. Not
just people having sex, but some brutal stuff that a medic friend of mine says
gave him significant nightmares for some days.

It's not just about nudity and sex. If it were I'd be less ambivalent. As it
is I feel that you're being a bit naive.

~~~
Gracana
> It's not just about nudity and sex.

Agreed. Even the "just sex" vanilla porn is pretty unhealthy for children to
see. That way leads to a skewed and unrealistic expectations and understanding
of relationships, sex, and bodies.

~~~
randomdata
Media in general gives you skewed and unrealistic expectations about all
facets of life. What is special about porn?

~~~
andrewflnr
It's more so. Anyway that's an argument for restricting other media until the
kid is ready, not letting them see porn.

------
jamesbrownuhh
Ridiculous article. Firstly there is no single "UK Porn Filter". Each ISP does
their own thing in their own way. Secondly, the writer of this article is
apparently surprised that none of the sites they're checking are on a
WHITELIST of websites for children under 12, and concluding from this that
"The UK Porn Filter Blocks Kids' Access To Tech ... Websites", etc. That's
such a complete misunderstanding of the true situation that it's impossible to
believe it has been made in error. Drawing the conclusion from this, as some
of the article's commenters have, that "the UK Government must really hate
open source" is a level of stupidity that has no place on HN.

Make no mistake about what the (non-existent) "UK Porn Filter" is - it's a
political stunt from the right-wingers currently in power. As yet it has no
legal basis or enforcement and is just a "strong suggestion" from politicians
to private businesses. There are ISPs who don't engage in this filtering, and
even for those that do, it is not mandatory. (The "on by default" is something
that even the compliant ISPs said they would not do, and the politicians
announced it anyway. Even where it is implemented and on by default that is
only for NEW customers, and the "do you want this filter" question is part of
the initial setup.)

I'm strongly opposed to filtering and censorship too, and as I've said before,
publicity-seeking politicians wanting to display their "family values" by
getting big businesses to "voluntarily" introduce such filtering IS the thin
end of the wedge. But, at least now, it's still optional and voluntary, and
you absolutely have the freedom to sign up with an ISP who offers no such
filter, if you wish to take that stand. (The UK broadband market is pretty
open compared to other countries - you're not restricted to one or two ISPs
based on your location or phone company, in most cases you can pick any ISP
you want to provide you with a service.)

------
topbanana
This is nothing to do with what he dubs the 'Nanny Tory' initiative.

O2's parental controls is an opt-in whitelist. Only sites like Disney.com etc
are allowed. It is presumably intended for when children are left alone with
devices like tablets. Seems like a useful service to me.

~~~
hdevalence
I don't really see what's so useful about giving parents tools to block their
children from accessing sites like Childline.

~~~
cases
You should bookmark this so you can come back and laugh at yourself when you
have kids of your own.

~~~
M2Ys4U
You do know what Childline is, right? It's a counselling service run by the
National Society for the Prevention of Cruelty to Children that deals with
child abuse, teenage pregnancy, bullying etc.

As a parent, why would you want to block that?! I know I wouldn't.

------
dcc1
UK has turned into an Orwellian surveillance state (I live in Ireland)

Hell I am watching news now and they are about to setup a centralised database
of every woman who got breast implants, you couldn't make this shit up!

------
Theodores
Here is the truth - watch too much porn and you get erectile dysfunction:

[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wSF82AwSDiU)

Why did it take me decades to find someone able to present that reasonably
plausible reason as to why I should definitely not want to watch porn under
any circumstances whatsoever?

The argument (with science) in the above TED talk is that if you do watch a
lot of porn then you are not going to aroused by real women as much as you
should, leading to unsatisfactory bedroom performances. Yep, porn is actually
that dangerous.

I might not care for the traditional 'don't watch porn because it is
porn'/'think of the children'/'porn exploits women' arguments, however, I do
have enlightened self interest and loss of libido is so not what I want to
have.

If I was in the UK government I would want to get this message out to kids in
schools, not to scare them away from porn for the sake of it, but because they
deserve to have 'normal', happy sexual health. By censoring porn they are not
going to get this message, in fact they will be further away from it than they
are now, doing what they can to get the 'forbidden fruit' instead of knowing
why they just should not bother.

Instead of censoring they could have demanded that there be a banner on the
pages of porn sites warning that use of porn leads to erectile dysfunction.
This would be a proactive move, no harder to get into law than that stupid
'this site uses cookies' directive. They could get the ISPs to do it so porn
from outer Mongolia would be suitably warned of too.

We have had a block on mobiles in the UK for some time now. There were no
riots in the streets because of this, people are fine with it. The ISPs can
take the block off for people and the system just works. This new move is an
extension of what we already have, not some Orwell-nightmare-slippery slope
thing. The politicians will get their votes, some people will grumble but that
will be it.

~~~
SquareWheel
Two things.

1\. This is a TEDx talk, not a TED talk. Very different. TED talks are given
by experts, TEDx can be anybody who has something to say.

2\. The science in this talk felt shaky at best. And frankly, from spending
even a short period looking into Gary Wilson and his website
yourbrainonporn.com, he comes off as an anti-porn conspiracy nut.

I think you need to apply more skepticism to the argument.

~~~
Theodores
Points taken. However his talk was the first time that dots were connected for
me in a way that made sense to me.

I am far from against banning porn, however, in certain situations some people
can get addicted to porn. They may not be physically addicted as per heroin
addiction, however, some addiction to porn has crept up on a couple of
friends, to have a negative effect on their relationships. At the time I
lacked anything helpful to say, a warning that 'erectile dysfunction' is the
result of porn addiction might have made things easier.

There are lots of people on the lecture circuit that go on and on and on about
one thing. Dawkins is a bit like that, he irritates the hell out of me. Yet,
despite his presentation, he is correct.

There are others that have the opinion that porn has a negative effect on male
libido, Gary Wilson does actually quote some science in his talk.

------
gts
Original poster here, in my opinion the best article I've found online so far
showcasing clearly the effects of the so called 'porn' filter, and that it is
not at all about safety but control. The list of websites blocked and the
nature of the websites is just shocking.

------
tombrossman
This was submitted at least twice last week, does anyone have the link to the
original that was on the front page 6 days ago? There were some useful
comments.

My search skills are failing me righ tnow and all I've found is this one from
5 days ago:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6954463)

------
Istof
The great firewall of UK.

------
hipsters_unite
Even if it's not actually the 'porn law' itself that's causing this (rather
O2's blocklist it seems) - the fact is that it's the same attitudes and
discourse underlying both. Both are censorship and both are maintained and
supported by the government's position and policies.

~~~
DanBC
Customers ask their ISP to supply a blocklist. The ISP supplies a blocklist.

This is what companies should be doing, no?

~~~
dijit
yes, the article is confused about opt-in censorship as a service (for
parents, demo tablets at supermarkets etc;) vs opt-out censorship.

I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out
censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out
as being ideal.

FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also
filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes,
I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone
providers (such as T-Mobile).

the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free,
we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should
probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are
instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a
contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the
responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age
people on the line.

well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.

~~~
scholia
Yes, "this opt-in filter has been around a few years" \-- since 2008 -- and
it's not even specifically British. It was announced by TELEFÓNICA and covers
"O2 businesses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Czech
Republic".

[http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...](http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_Child_Protection_Press_Pack.pdf)

------
CraigJPerry
Opt in or opt out filter. It makes no difference.

Blocking of these sites should be opposed, loudly.

~~~
alan_cx
Absolute complete ignorant arrogant rubbish.

First, an opt out is a declaration of perversion or subversion. And opt in is
a genuine choice, which IMHO, should be available.

IMHO, every router in a home should have in its config a tick box which
concerned parents can tick if they want to. Along side that should be an
"advanced" button or link for more knowledgeable parents to tailor the the
filter as they see fit. In a home parents should have an _easy_ way to chose.
And dont give me nonsense about installing firewalls and what not. That is way
out of most normal people's scope. Even I can't be arsed with that, so I dont
see why some single mum who works in a supermarket should either.

I also think there should be a simple system for parents to control mobile
devices for their kids too. Not hard to work out something reasonable.

While I despise national and ISP level blanket filters and censorship, I fully
respect the choices parents might want to take. I have 6 kids, aged 2 - 20,
but personally dont and wont filter or censor. However, I am not arrogant
enough to tell other parents what to do. I might be very wrong.

Look, on one level I do not want censorship. If I, as an adult, want to watch
porn I dont see why I should be humiliated to do so. However, I also see that
parents are left in the shit and are expected to be responsible, but have no
help to be so. And no, its not good enough for hackers to offer hacker
solutions that are not practical for anyone other than hackers.

There has to be a reasonable balance here. And I say it comes in the form of a
simple tick box in the router.

Either that, of we agree to free parents of parental responsibility in both
law and society.

~~~
CraigJPerry
So Alan, I resent ignorant but i'm definitely arrogant enough to tell you when
you're misguided.

"opt in is a genuine choice"; it all boils down to this, opt in to what
exactly?

We _have no idea_ and noone is accountable for the list. Given this, it makes
no difference whether it's an opt in or an opt out. It should be opposed,
loudly.

Whether you think these sites are unsuitable for consumption by your kids, it
really doesn't matter.

Whether you think a tick box on a router is not hard to work out. Whether you
think that'd be a reasonable balance (maybe it would). Whether you think the
only 2 options are "give me my tick box" or "absolve parental responsibility",
it's all by-the-bye; in today's situation.

Because there's no accountability for this hidden list. There's no checks or
balances. My opinions on list content, like yours, don't mean much in this
context. There's a bigger problem to deal with first and it's nothing to do
with what sites are on the list.

FWIW my personal view, I'm less convinced these days that there even "has to
be a balance". The internet is fundamentally a pull medium, not push (despite
advertisers best efforts, i can still just drain the battery). So my current
thinking leans heavily towards "you can always just choose not to use it".

[1] "these sites": bsdly.net nuug.no usenix.org ukuug.org flossuk.org eff.org
amnesty.org.uk slashdot.org linuxtoday.com nostarch.com blogspot.com
arstechnica.com openbsd.org undeadly.org freebsd.org geekculture.com linux.com

------
xacaxulu
Get ready for more and more of this sort of thing. Parents are too busy to
raise their own children. Better let the government take care of that. Soma
anyone?

------
PythonicAlpha
It seams, that porn, crimes and terrorism are the honeypots of choice for the
voters, to lead them into any form of surveillance and mind-control.

------
Allower
Seems legit..

------
acd
Slippery slope of censorship. Censorship placed there by Bilderberg group
kissing politicians. What is their real agenda? Map the politicians real group
affiliations on nndb.org

Hint the wierd ones almost always: Bilderbergroup, Altalfa, Council on foreign
relations, Skull and Bones

~~~
markdown
Seriously? On HN too?

