(28-07-2013 07:23 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]In principle not against filters but dont like the mandatory block all approach. Also dont like governments saying what people can and cant see how would we know if they were blocking other things they dont like
You've managed to miss the point entirely. It's not the goverment who operate the filters, it's you. It's not the government who decide what people can and can't see, it's you. It's your filter to use as you wish.
(28-07-2013 08:57 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]Its an interesting point about "cyber bullying" on facebook and twitter though, im sure if word got out that these would end up blocked there would be national outcry
But Talktalk has offered its customers the option to block facebook and twitter for over a year now and there hasn't been a national outcry.
(28-07-2013 12:19 )trevor format Wrote: [ -> ] (28-07-2013 08:57 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]Its an interesting point about "cyber bullying" on facebook and twitter though, im sure if word got out that these would end up blocked there would be national outcry
But Talktalk has offered its customers the option to block facebook and twitter for over a year now and there hasn't been a national outcry.
Have they though? the key word you use is option. Yesthey ask if you want adult based sites switched on, it isnt forced off. I would expect most people dont actually bother turning it on at the moment anyway. Anyway the point is (as discussed on mumsnet) that the imposed filter could lead to innocent sites being blocked on mass that people arent expecting rather than people making a concious decision about it
(28-07-2013 07:23 )HannahsPet Wrote: [ -> ]In principle not against filters but dont like the mandatory block all approach. Also dont like governments saying what people can and cant see how would we know if they were blocking other things they dont like
(28-07-2013 11:37 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ]You've managed to miss the point entirely. It's not the goverment who operate the filters, it's you. It's not the government who decide what people can and can't see, it's you. It's your filter to use as you wish.
"It's your filter to use as you wish."
No, it is the ACCOUNT HOLDER who sets the filter. How do we approach that subject with our parents? "Mum/Dad, please turn off the filters so I can watch porn. Sorry that I turned out as a pervert"..
(28-07-2013 11:37 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ]You've managed to miss the point entirely. It's not the goverment who operate the filters, it's you. It's not the government who decide what people can and can't see, it's you. It's your filter to use as you wish.
So wrong on so many levels.
It's the isp's who operate the filters not
you. You simply have the option to switch them on or off, and in some cases, choose from categories of sites to block. The lists of sites that actually get blocked often come from other groups who compile their lists based on various criteria, and use algorithms to determine if things like images may contain nudity (hence many museum and art sites becoming blocked)!
So the control you have over the filter is minimal at best and that is one of the big issues against it. Many legitimate sites fall victim to these filters as well. If I have need of a filter 'to use as I wish', then I will install it on my own pc where I can fully control it and know exactly what it is doing, I don't need the government to make that decision for me.
As some of you will have noticed I have decided to promote the petition as it's now on my signature and I'd like to urge as many members as possible to do likewise. Figurewise it's really picking up pace with the current total now standing at 27,459
For people such as MONEY BANG they really do find themselves in a very awkward situation. A few years ago eccles petition unfortunately just never made as big an impact that we had all hoped for.
Only 100,000 signatures required and we are almost halfway there
(28-07-2013 12:19 )trevor format Wrote: [ -> ] (28-07-2013 08:57 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]Its an interesting point about "cyber bullying" on facebook and twitter though, im sure if word got out that these would end up blocked there would be national outcry
But Talktalk has offered its customers the option to block facebook and twitter for over a year now and there hasn't been a national outcry.
Just a quick comment before I try and catch up. There is a world of difference between a voluntary system operated by one ISP and a compulsory scheme operated by every ISP that every internet user in the UK must go through.
At present potential employers do not automatically check whether job applicants have porn filters set on or off. There is no point as most ISPs do not operate them. But in future if your wife applies for a job as a teaching assistant, nurse, foster carer, care home assistant or taxi driver, the authorities might ask as part of their due diligence checks, secure in the knowledge that the information is reliable and available.
Far fetched? Foster carers are already banned from smoking in their own homes.
Want to become a school governor, parent volunteer herding kids on school trips, charity volunteer, football coach, candidate for the local council, or IT worker with access to sensitive information? You may be checked.
Eccles is spot on. my dad is a mini bus driver for Lambeth council, they already have a thing in place where staff have to declare all social network accounts they have, the council check to see if staff are talking about banned subjects like pro edl, pro isreal and if you say anything negative about the bosses, i‘m sure this would also extend to your habits of ticking boxes to say you watch porn.
(28-07-2013 13:16 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]I would expect most people dont actually bother turning it on at the moment anyway.
According to Talktalk when new customers are informed of the filters about 30% choose to activate them.
(28-07-2013 18:07 )eccles Wrote: [ -> ]Just a quick comment before I try and catch up. There is a world of difference between a voluntary system operated by one ISP and a compulsory scheme operated by every ISP that every internet user in the UK must go through.
At present potential employers do not automatically check whether job applicants have porn filters set on or off. There is no point as most ISPs do not operate them. But in future if your wife applies for a job as a teaching assistant, nurse, foster carer, care home assistant or taxi driver, the authorities might ask as part of their due diligence checks, secure in the knowledge that the information is reliable and available.
Far fetched? Foster carers are already banned from smoking in their own homes.
Want to become a school governor, parent volunteer herding kids on school trips, charity volunteer, football coach, candidate for the local council, or IT worker with access to sensitive information? You may be checked.
This is all valid however I would think that unless a full history of your search terms and emails were made accessible this would have little effect. For example we are now speaking about innocent sites which may end up blocked.
For example I remember having a filter thanks to some anti-virus software a few years ago which blocked me getting onto a website for local Essex news, (presumably because it contained "SEX" as part of the site name, but could have been as a result of a news story which used language associated with adult themes) The software would be more advanced now so you wouldnt get this sort of thing (we hope), but I can see things like Facebook being blocked if someone was to upload semi nude photos or make comments of semi sexual nature (i.e would updating your status to something jokey and irrelevant like "kate middleton is sexy as fuck"* now cause the site to reject it for swearing, using the word "sex" and therefore require people to have adult filtering off to view my page, even though they can view other pages within the website ok? could this status end up blocking the whole of the site for them?).
Would websites selling lingere and bikinis such as Littlewoods be blocked due to possible sexy images? further to that what about people with other fetish such as leather, boots or even sportswear, would I need to turn adult filters off to buy from sports direct just because some people find gym outfits or shiney bottoms a turn on?
Will it block sites which sell condoms (boots, superdrugs or the like) which many people may buy from through embarrasement? (and in turn safe sex educational sites)
Its important to note though that just having adult filtering switched off does not automaticly constitute a "pervert list", in the same way it doesnt now. Should I ever be challenged on it, just because its switched off doesnt mean im sitting around all day downloading videos of rough sex and swingers parties.
*(for the record, although shes very attractive, I dont think Kate Middleton is sexy as fuck, it just demonstrates the point)
(28-07-2013 19:32 )elgar1uk Wrote: [ -> ] (28-07-2013 13:16 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]I would expect most people dont actually bother turning it on at the moment anyway.
According to Talktalk when new customers are informed of the filters about 30% choose to activate them.
So really, around 70% of an ISP's customers are not interested in adult safe filtering