Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊

Are you in favour of network level internet filters controlled by the ISP?

Are you in favour of network level filters controlled by the ISP?

  • Yes

    Votes: 2 4.4%
  • No

    Votes: 43 95.6%

  • Total voters
    45
  • Poll closed .


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2003
33,688
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
By April 2014 most of you will have your internet content filtered at network level by your ISP (Internet Service Provider). This is due to legislation to force people to opt in to 'naughty content that can be described by a four letter word beginning with P'.

The filters will be set the same for EVERY device in your house regardless of if your kids have access to it. The default setting will be maximum security, i.e parental filter level.

Personally I think this is some of the most terrible and insidious legislation out there. Not because I like to crack one off late at night but because your content is now being chosen by people who are completely clueless about it. We are talking about low cost, high bureaucracy organisations who are going to spend as little time and money on this as possible. I work in IT and believe me trained professionals get firewall settings and site allowances for staff wrong ALL the time.

Truly horrible kiddy fiddlers do not get their content through Google or Bing but through dark corners of the web barely understood by the rest of us. Meanwhile there is a real risk that your child won't be able to search for sex education or how to come out if they are gay.

And what about borderline businesses? Underwear shops or book shops selling the 50 shades series? How should they be marked? Shouldn't it be up to the parent?

Obviously I'm against but what do you think?
 

Bry Nylon

Test your smoke alarm
Helpful Moderator
Jul 21, 2003
19,738
Playing snooker
Hopefully it isn't only me who doesn't even understand the question :shrug:
 

seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
Even websites like NSC will be blocked as there is frequent mention of a six letter word starting with P
 

Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2003
33,688
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
Hopefully it isn't only me who doesn't even understand the question :shrug:

Apologies. Very simple. Rather than you deciding which internet devices have parental filters on and which don't, and what they are set to that choice is about to be made by default by BT, Sky or Virgin. The government forced them. Good idea or back of a fag packet thinking once someone had screamed "please think of the children"?
 

happypig

Staring at the rude boys
May 23, 2009
7,928
Eastbourne
No. I'm 100% opposed to it.
Part of being a parent is educating your child to the fact that there's a big world out there and that some parts of it, and some people, that aren't very nice or are downright dangerous. The internet is a part of that world and it's down to parents to educate and guide their children so they can make informed decisions. Hopefully if we do our job right, our children will make the right decisions. We have to teach them to respect others, whether face to face or online.
And yes, they may well have a look at a few fruity pictures, like we used to swap Mayfair and Fiesta at school,
These internet filters, as far as I am aware, will be fairly easy to bypass by using a VPN anyway (my son set one up when he was about 11 to connect to some Minecraft server or somesuch).

I look at it like this : You wouldn't take your kids swimming for the first time and chuck them in the deep end and ignore them because there's a lifeguard on duty.
 


Guinness Boy

Tofu eating wokerati
Helpful Moderator
NSC Licker Extraordinaire
Jul 23, 2003
33,688
Up and Coming Sunny Portslade
No. I'm 100% opposed to it.
Part of being a parent is educating your child to the fact that there's a big world out there and that some parts of it, and some people, that aren't very nice or are downright dangerous. The internet is a part of that world and it's down to parents to educate and guide their children so they can make informed decisions. Hopefully if we do our job right, our children will make the right decisions. We have to teach them to respect others, whether face to face or online.
And yes, they may well have a look at a few fruity pictures, like we used to swap Mayfair and Fiesta at school,
These internet filters, as far as I am aware, will be fairly easy to bypass by using a VPN anyway (my son set one up when he was about 11 to connect to some Minecraft server or somesuch).

I look at it like this : You wouldn't take your kids swimming for the first time and chuck them in the deep end and ignore them because there's a lifeguard on duty.

Absolutely spot on, especially the bolded bit.
 

Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
Without sounding dramatic, it's the first step in the state taking control of the internet. Any parent with the ability to read a paragraph out of an instruction booklet can control what their children view on the web already so not only is it insidious it is also an obsolete idea. It's the obvious way to make it seem like a good idea, take control under the guise you are protecting children.

As well as the idea of the state controlling what we can and cannot view I guarantee the implementation of this will be a shambles and will likely mess up a lot of people's non sexy browsing.
 

seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
Apologies. Very simple. Rather than you deciding which internet devices have parental filters on and which don't, and what they are set to that choice is about to be made by default by BT, Sky or Virgin. The government forced them. Good idea or back of a fag packet thinking once someone had screamed "please think of the children"?

The Government of the day regardless of political persuasion wants to control what is available to the public through censorship , however they don't want to be seen as the culprits. Ofcom absolutely frothed at the mouth when it was cascaded down to them as they want to incessantly meddle and call it "light touch" regulation. Ofcom didn't want to take the flak of being the Government's lackey and has told the ISPs to install filtering by default.
 


seagullsovergrimsby

#cpfctinpotclub
Aug 21, 2005
43,690
Crap Town
Without sounding dramatic, it's the first step in the state taking control of the internet. Any parent with the ability to read a paragraph out of an instruction booklet can control what their children view on the web already so not only is it insidious it is also an obsolete idea. It's the obvious way to make it seem like a good idea, take control under the guise you are protecting children.

As well as the idea of the state controlling what we can and cannot view I guarantee the implementation of this will be a shambles and will likely mess up a lot of people's non sexy browsing.

Australia has already done this , following in the footsteps of China.
 

Nibble

New member
Jan 3, 2007
19,238
Australia has already done this , following in the footsteps of China.

I didn't know about Australia but my Brother lives in China and he is forever having to find simple things like find an email platform that isn't periodically being shut down by the government, stuff like Facebook or NSC is just out of the question. That'll be the UK in a few years. Basically the government is trying to break the internet. It will essentially be only useful for the people that control the internet to advertise to you and for the government to recruit supporters. That's what the internet is used for in China now, the days of a world wide, cheap, non-regulated platform for the dissemination of information and ideas are numbered. The internet as it was intended and as we know it now will become a much smaller and less relevant part of our lives.
 


Shropshire Seagull

Well-known member
Nov 5, 2004
8,463
Telford
FFS Prevention is better than cure.
If you close down the sites that are "unsuitable" - although who draws the line and where, on this subjective definition is a huge issue.

But rather than block everyone access to eg "Kiddie fiddlers r us", turn it on its head and block the site at source, so no option to opt in if its illegal. Its gets more complicated when a line needs to be drawn, but if its not illegal, just naughty, no one should be blocked.

So its a "no" from me.
 

Albion and Premier League latest from Sky Sports

Paying the bills

Latest Discussions

Paying the bills

Paying the bills

Paying the bills


Top
Link Here