UK Porn Filter Will Censor Other Content Too, ISPs Reveal

[shamu726]

This week prime minister David Cameron announced further details of his crusade to have adult material censored in the UK. It’s a controversial topic for a number of reasons, with even those unconcerned about losing access to porn wondering what will be censored next. Apparently the government have already thought that through. According to ISPs speaking with the Open Rights Group, the filter will target a range of other content too.

On Monday David Cameron told his citizens that by the end of the year broadband subscribers will be required to go through a compulsory system which will decide what they can and cannot see on the Internet.

Starting from a position of ‘porn banned’, subscribers will have to systematically unblock things they require access to. This, Cameron says, will help prevent the nation’s children from gaining access to “corroding influences” online.

While the idea of protecting children is a commendable one, censorship opponents leveled several criticisms at the scheme. Would it work? Would it lead to over-blocking? Would the system be easily circumvented? What about the privacy implications?

In the last few hours new information has been emerging which reveals that the proposals seen so far are actually only the thin end of a worryingly fat wedge.

The Open Rights Group are reporting that they’ve had a nice little chat with some of the ISPs that will be expected to introduce Cameron’s porn filter. Unsurprisingly the list of websites and content to be blocked by default won’t stop at porn.

ORG speculate on categories of content that might be filtered in future, but for a clearer idea of where we stand today we can take a look at the system currently being operated by ISP TalkTalk. The HomeSafe system, which was singled out for praise by David Cameron earlier this week as leading the way in this field, currently covers several categories as detailed in the image below.

As previously noted, leave the third box ticked and not only will all file-sharing sites be wiped out, but TorrentFreak with them too. Leave the rest of them ticked (note: the government is promising “default on” for all filters) and it’s anyone’s guess what else will disappear. Just like when many novice (or even experienced users) install software, the chances of people simply clicking through, next after next, is extremely high.

Furthermore, in news that’s unlikely to win the PM or TalkTalk many fans, it’s now been revealed by the BBC that HomeSafe is being run by Huawei, a Chinese company founded by a former China People’s Liberation Army officer.

The UK government already knows about the connection, as an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report released last month expressed concern over the “alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State” as they “generate suspicion as to whether Huawei’s intentions are strictly commercial or are more political.”

Whether Huawei is linked to the government or not (they insist not), it’s hardly encouraging to discover that even when TalkTalk subscribers turn filtering completely off, their traffic is still routed through Huawei’s system.

UK ISPs will be free to use whatever filtering system they like when the time comes, but it’s certainly possible that some will choose to use the existing service offered by Huawei. In order to thwart their traffic being monitored, subscribers will still be able to use a VPN. Unless circumvention tools are blocked too, as Open Rights Group suggest.

Shameless plug for Dan Bull’s new track on Cameron’s blacklist.

Source: TorrentFreak

[jtmulc]

[Bizarre™]

[sarcasm] They should probably filter everything on the web. If they still have doubts, another option is to shutdown all their ISPs. [/sarcasm]

[calguyhunk]

I don't know why people are so critical of this so called 'censorship'. This is not really censorship. You need to be in India to see what arbitrary ad-hoc censorship entails :(

This is an OPTIONAL - I repeat - OPTIONAL - filter for grown ups to turn on or off at their whim. Just so that a 10 year old doesn't Google $ex out of natural curiosity and get pr0n links or while away money gambling or stumble upon sites that tell them cutting themselves is normal or doing drugs is cool :o

The whole process sounds very logical and civilized to me. No default access to suicide or self-flagellation sites, drugs and alcohol, $ex and violence, gambling or piracy related content. :) But the adult subscriber can turn this filter on or off any time and get a fully unrestricted web experience. :dance:

This wouldn't have affected me if I were in the UK. But will preserve the innocence of many a little child. I'm completely against censorship of all kind irrespective of how nasty and/hurtful it is, but I'm all for this. :thumbsup: I hope the Indian govt. too introduces this EXACT system - that puts the choice in the hands of the adult subscriber - rather than the arbitrary banning of websites from time to time :mad2:

[Dodel]

I don't know why people are so critical of this so called 'censorship'. This is not really censorship. You need to be in India to see what arbitrary ad-hoc censorship entails :(

This is an OPTIONAL - I repeat - OPTIONAL - filter for grown ups to turn on or off at their whim. Just so that a 10 year old doesn't Google $ex out of natural curiosity and get pr0n links or while away money gambling or stumble upon sites that tell them cutting themselves is normal or doing drugs is cool :o

The whole process sounds very logical and civilized to me. No default access to suicide or self-flagellation sites, drugs and alcohol, $ex and violence, gambling or piracy related content. :) But the adult subscriber can turn this filter on or off any time and get a fully unrestricted web experience. :dance:

This wouldn't have affected me if I were in the UK. But will preserve the innocence of many a little child. I'm completely against censorship of all kind irrespective of how nasty and/hurtful it is, but I'm all for this. :thumbsup: I hope the Indian govt. too introduces this EXACT system - that puts the choice in the hands of the adult subscriber - rather than the arbitrary banning of websites from time to time :mad2:

Whilst yes it is optional. it hasn't been thought out in the slightest.

The main reason for doing this is down to child porn, which I 100% back BUT how does blocking adult sites / paraphernalia keep child porn off the net, put simply it doesn't. Child porn isn't sat on normal everyday websites, when I say everyday I mean what would constituted as 'adult sites', it's kept underground, shared via vpn, p2p, hardcopy, further more if these filters are proposed to stop child perverts and grooming, it's flawed already as I bet most people of this ilk 'recruit' via social media sites, and chat rooms, not porn sites.

All these filters will do is cause chaos, as they try to learn what they should white list / blacklist. Say for example I browse a site for Viagra for medical reasons, undoubtedly there's going to be adult related subjects linked to that product. how is a filter going to know that this is actually an 'OK' site and white list ?, it isn't, filters aren't selective.

Another example, say some little snot nosed script kiddie decideds to deface a legitimate website and then dumps porn or such like material on it, how long before the same filters blacklist it ?, even though it was a legitimate site. It's then down to the site owner to get the site whiltelisted, that's going to be fun!..

These filters are being proposed by MP's who have previously been in the news for hosting 'private' sex parties and such like, so it smacks some when they are wanting filters in place to protect us.

I am all for protecting the younger generation, I have two kids of my own (9 & 6 respectivley), and yes I suppose I'm from a generation that grew up with the internet so I'm quite well versed in protecting my kids from unsollicited content, however putting our faith in a set of automatic filters is just basically sticking our heads in the sand. We should educate parents & kids about being online, how to be safe what to look out for.

Regards

Dodel.

Edited July 27, 2013 by Dodel

[kmcknight2001uk]

Fuck me... Isn't there anything the UK government doesn't interfere with and fuck up? They'll just push it all underground and then they'll have no control over anything.

This whole thing is getting rather silly... I'm sure we haven't heard the last of this.

PS. Sorry for my bad language!

[OrioNeXus]

dump the computer and lets run into the forest!!!

[calguyhunk]

The main reason for doing this is down to child porn, which I 100% back BUT how does blocking adult sites / paraphernalia keep child porn off the net, put simply it doesn't. Child porn isn't sat on normal everyday websites, when I say everyday I mean what would constituted as 'adult sites', it's kept underground, shared via vpn, p2p, hardcopy, further more if these filters are proposed to stop child perverts and grooming, it's flawed already as I bet most people of this ilk 'recruit' via social media sites, and chat rooms, not porn sites.

I'm not sure that the main purpose of this is to stop child pr0n. That's banned everywhere anyways, and you cannot have an option to legally have that on your computer irrespective. That will remain an underground activity and people who want to find it, will unfortunately continue to do so :(

The purpose of this - as I understand from seven seas away - is to turn off legal adult entertainment access to children whilst keeping it accessible to adults should we so desire. Sounds good enough to me at least on the face of it ;)

All these filters will do is cause chaos, as they try to learn what they should white list / blacklist. Say for example I browse a site for Viagra for medical reasons, undoubtedly there's going to be adult related subjects linked to that product. how is a filter going to know that this is actually an 'OK' site and white list ?, it isn't, filters aren't selective.

Another example, say some little snot nosed script kiddie decideds to deface a legitimate website and then dumps porn or such like material on it, how long before the same filters blacklist it ?, even though it was a legitimate site. It's then down to the site owner to get the site whiltelisted, that's going to be fun!..

A lot of issues obviously need to be sorted out before this filtration system is ready for prime time, and I'm sure it will continue to be fine tuned as we go along, but even when a lot of checks and balances are put in place, it will still be a work in progress and you'll never get anything 100% right, given the nature of the www. That doesn't mean we don't do anything about it :)

... putting our faith in a set of automatic filters is just basically sticking our heads in the sand. We should educate parents & kids about being online, how to be safe what to look out for.

Agreed 100% on both those counts. But to be fair, nobody is saying that this should be the only option. That you put the filters in place and stick your head in the sand as if it's all cool and dandy. NO! :nono:

This is just one more step towards keeping mainstream media (the net is mainstream these days) safe for kids so as to protect them from accidental exposure to unsuitable material. This isn't meant to replace that 'educating parents and kids' bit. But just one more tool for concerned parents and educators :yes:

most people of this ilk 'recruit' via social media sites, and chat rooms, not porn sites.

Yes, but most of the 'recruits' are in their teens. I'm more worried about real kids - 12 and below. Teens will find ways to circumvent all types of filters anyways. Most filters in middle schools exist only for the sake of fulfilling an obligation. Completely as ineffective as can be ;)

Edited July 30, 2013 by calguyhunk

[Bizarre™]

I'm completely against censorship of all kind irrespective of how nasty and/hurtful it is, but I'm all for this.

A few years ago, I learned this from a wise person:

With the first link, the chain is forged.

The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

Hence, I reject any kind of censorship.

[calguyhunk]

A few years ago, I learned this from a wise person:

With the first link, the chain is forged.

The first speech censured, the first thought forbidden, the first freedom denied, chains us all irrevocably.

The first time any man's freedom is trodden on, we're all damaged.

Hence, I reject any kind of censorship.

I agree 100%. I categorically reject all kinds of censorship myself. But there's a difference between censorship/banning and regulation.

Prozac or Valium are regulated drugs. Not censored/banned ones. Alcohol is a regulated beverage in most countries, not a censored/banned one. Movies are rated "R" (Restricted) to regulate viewership. Not censor them. And that's the way it should be. :)

Regulating access to controversial (some might say socially detrimental) products and services to protect the vulnerable ones who aren't mature enough to decide for themselves is not censorship. It would be though, if they were trying to restrict mature grown-ups from accessing the same ;)

Edited July 30, 2013 by calguyhunk

[Bizarre™]

Regulating access of controversial (some might say socially detrimental) products and services to protect the ones who aren't mature enough to decide for themselves is not censorship. It would be though, if they were trying to restrict mature grown-ups from accessing the same ;)

It's all the same. At first, they will censor young children. Next thing you know, they start censoring teenagers. Then they move to their real target, adults.

Everything starts small, but "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men (and women) to do nothing."

Will it take another SOPA / PIPA / ACTA / CISPA before people start seeing the bigger picture?

[Lucent]

FYI, Three.co.uk is already filtering 18+ content (even Newgrounds and 4chan were blocked) over their mobile broadband lines (I was in the UK for a school project last month) and to unlock the filter you had to enter your credit card info to verify your age.

Anyways they don't check if you are crossing their filter over a proxy and/or VPN -- but most Pay as you Go contracts prevent you from tethering -- get yourself a FoxFi/PDAnet license ;)

[edwardecl]

This is nothing to do with child porn, this is the PM trying to win over idiot parents who think somehow a magic filter can be put on by ISPs to fix all the things they perceive as evil in the world.

This is highly irresponsible and a stepping stone to far more idiotic things in the future. There is already filters in place on all major ISPs in the UK blocking evil sites such as the pirate bay now this is an extensions of that.

I'm not saying this feature is not welcome for some people, but having to opt out instead of in is stupid. I have a content filter on my mobile phone, but it seems to block a hell of a lot of unrelated sites that it's unusable, this will be no different and annoying to 99% of people.

[majithia23]

Brits these days ------ :P

[Lyon275]

Brits these days ------ :P

:rofl: :lmao:

[Reefa]

Regulating access of controversial (some might say socially detrimental) products and services to protect the ones who aren't mature enough to decide for themselves is not censorship. It would be though, if they were trying to restrict mature grown-ups from accessing the same ;)

It's all the same. At first, they will censor young children. Next thing you know, they start censoring teenagers. Then they move to their real target, adults.

Everything starts small, but "All it takes for evil to flourish is for good men (and women) to do nothing."

Will it take another SOPA / PIPA / ACTA / CISPA before people start seeing the bigger picture?

totaly agree this is the first step.to a load of :shit: :shit:

[calguyhunk]

@ majithia ROFL :lmao:

At first, they will censor young children. Next thing you know, they start censoring teenagers. Then they move to their real target, adults.

That might just be a tad alarmist in the free world. Maybe a valid concern in Iran or China, Afganistan or Russia, but can't see that happening in Western Europe or North America :)

Edited July 30, 2013 by calguyhunk

[Bizarre™]

That might just be a tad alarmist in the free world. Maybe a valid concern in Iran or China, Afganistan or Russia, but can't see that happening in Western Europe or North America :)

He who passively accepts evil is as much involved in it as he who helps to perpetrate it. He who accepts evil without protesting against it is really cooperating with it.

[MidnightDistortions]

While we're at it why don't we block spyware, ads and certain bad words. Or how about just google for porn blockers: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=porn+blocker+software Seriously i think i now realize why Windows 8's start screen app center was necessary.