With the default on option, it's what those who opt out could be letting themselves in for. as no doubt their names will go on a data base, this could be used for all sorts of stuff by government,if could one day be used to help ruin their life, or have a negative affect on other things, if they information is misused by government
No i don't agree with this dumb idea,It should be an opt in, off by default, then those who want it can request it, & pay any assoicated charges/costs to the isp , as i also don't think that those who niether need or want this filtering should end up paying towards it ,
And on another point this i as well as a lot of others, belive this is the start of a much bigger plan, to censor the internet they will not stop at porn, soon we will all be in their nice & fluffy walled garden internet , a place the government can do no wrong, and always get re elected

Edited by tommy45 (Thu 25-Jul-13 12:24:24)

It is not clear either what will actually be blocked by default

Some say pornography (excludes Page 3 says the Prime Minister and other soft stuff, and the written word is not included!!!)
Some add violence, drugs and suicide to that list
Others may default even more things on.

In reply to a post by MrSaffron:

It is not clear either what will actually be blocked by default

Some say pornography (excludes Page 3 says the Prime Minister and other soft stuff, and the written word is not included!!!)
Some add violence, drugs and suicide to that list
Others may default even more things on.

I guess this all comes down to 2 areas.

1 - How will they technically achieve this. Passive filtering, inline filtering or simple DNS blacklisting (The later can be got round by anyone who knows the IP of googles DNS servers for example)

2 - What will indeed be cited as 'block-able' - The list is endless depending on who you ask... something that 1 person finds offensive or distasteful may not be to another and who will decide.

Whatever happens with this it will be as much fun as the 'snoopers charter'

Edited by IamQ (Thu 25-Jul-13 18:28:49)

In reply to a post by IamQ:

1 - How will they technically achieve this. Passive filtering, inline filtering or simple DNS blacklisting (The later can be got round by anyone who knows the IP of googles DNS servers for example)

If the ISP chooses to prevent DNS requests leaving its domain it could do so, but I think the sentiment behind this is not to design something that cannot be bypassed in any way but to put something in place that the average idiot will experience by default, and be able to opt out of trivially easily.

The objective is to give the typical Mumsnet user an internet connection that won't fill her screen or her kids screen with things she doesn't want to see, not a hackerproof censor wall.

What about Tails or Tor browser, will they be effected?

you forgot this

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xKM9u7CwNBc

In reply to a post by yarwell:

Opt out of being filtered. End.

what was wrong with opting in?

and why the banning of unsavoury content thats legal such as certian types of adult content for niche markets. Best way to put here without using words that might be censored.

also whats the publicised procedure for people getting false positives removed of this centralised list?

In reply to a post by yarwell:

In reply to a post by IamQ:

1 - How will they technically achieve this. Passive filtering, inline filtering or simple DNS blacklisting (The later can be got round by anyone who knows the IP of googles DNS servers for example)

If the ISP chooses to prevent DNS requests leaving its domain it could do so, but I think the sentiment behind this is not to design something that cannot be bypassed in any way but to put something in place that the average idiot will experience by default, and be able to opt out of trivially easily.

The objective is to give the typical Mumsnet user an internet connection that won't fill her screen or her kids screen with things she doesn't want to see, not a hackerproof censor wall.

i assume youtube be blocked then.
google blocked.
daily mail blocked.

the daily mail is a funny one as they campaigned yet their site is like a soft porn site. google is trivial to view adult content on their image search engine, youtube has tons of adult content.

OpenDNS parental filtering solution meets the needs of Mumsnet. Ironically Mumsnet weren't in support of mandatory UK wide blocking.

Gary

Daily Fail is about as useful /truthful as government both are hypocrites and spout bull excrement regularly , does any one apart from your avid torry voter actually read and take notice of what they print,

Also Adrian kennard talks a lot of sense, as the point he made regarding the number of people who allegedly have stumbled up on CP or terrorist sites is exaggerated is very true, that's how they government work to pass laws ect that are not really needed take the DEB they did that via the backdoor almost, that should have been re -peeled the lib dims made noises/told lies about doing that before they got elected ,

Thats the problem with all this nonsense, once it's brought in it's there to stay, and some times will pave the way for more of the same

Edited by tommy45 (Fri 26-Jul-13 13:45:06)