The UK Babe Channels Forum

(28-07-2013 21:56 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]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.

Many employers would see it that way, but not all. Try explaining to tweed suited harridans on the ways and means committee why you need ANY access to porn sites. Sala gives a real example of what might be illegal restrictions that are already happening, namely support for Israel. Comments about employers are legit for bans because there is a clear conflict of interest. Support for illegal activities (discrimination) are legit for bans where the person is identifiable and it would create a conflict with colleagues, suppliers or customers. Banning support for unpopular but legal causes (Israel) is contrary to the Human Rights Act.

Policies are implemented by a small number of unrepresentative people (David Cameron, Jack Straw) not the majority.

Quote:So really, around 70% of an ISP's customers are not interested in adult safe filtering

But 30% are and thats more than voted for the Tories.

Sorry I cant agree with what your saying there at all.
Just because you have adult filtering turned off on your home pc, this should not affect your ability to get a job. Your adult filtering is off at the moment for you to access this site, and this will be logged with your internet provider (and im sure if they wanted to the governmet could access this record) are you employed?

You would also need to prove that the employee had been looking at porn for this to hold any water, rather than just agreed to turn a filter off. Even then, the point you are overlooking is that porn has not been made illegal, as long as it is not featuring rape or children/animals and I would hope that doesnt interest many people anyway!!.

I have cited in my previous reply that I can see a number of potential sites being blocked which are innocent, I will be turning my filter off, and should this put me on a "pervert list" then there needs to be firm proof I have been looking at either something illegal vs something i am allowed to see and also firm proof that I have not turned it off to view non pornographic sites otherwise there will be lawsuits all over the place

To be honest if we base this on the fact that 70% of talktalks users do not activate adult filtering, i think that this will become an irrelevant part of a job application process as the majority of candidates will have the same.

I'd like to encourage the Tories to implement a tattoos and plastic tits filter.

(28-07-2013 23:03 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry I cant agree with what your saying there at all.
Just because you have adult filtering turned off on your home pc, this should not affect your ability to get a job. Your adult filtering is off at the moment for you to access this site, and this will be logged with your internet provider (and im sure if they wanted to the governmet could access this record) are you employed?

Its a question of degree. My ISP does not offer an ISP based porn filter so what I have is on my computer and can vary from user to user. The default for reputable big name antivirus packages that include child protection filters is no filtering for users identified as adults, so my setting now is normal.

Regardless of that, for an employer to gain access to my browsing history now they would first have to identify my ISP - they need my cooperation for that - then get a Court order to force the ISP to retrieve my browsing history from the ISPs complex records. Even then they would have to prove it was me browsing and no another family member. Thats quite apart from separating out the prefetching requests from your browser for pages you have never ever visited.

Retrieving the information is an expensive process and ISPs will resist it unless presented with something they cannot oppose, like a Court order. At present only law enforcement can access that data, and only in very specific circumstances. If I simply wrote to my own ISP asking for my own browsing history they would refuse. More so if I signed a "voluntary" form and the request came from an employer.

In future it would be a much simpler process, the employer would post a simple question to a centralised contact point for all ISPs asking if they provide me, my home or my mobile with data services, and if so is the porn filter on or off. Centralised information points already exist for bankruptcy, debt enforcement and credit scoring.

It wont happen straight away, only after a few scandals involving teachers or social workers. Remember, David Cameron commissioned a "balanced" report from the head of the Mothers Union and his agenda seems to be keeping Daily Mail readers happy. Dave is on the record as saying he doesn't care about freedom of speech, and it is a small step from there to the precautionary principle.

(28-07-2013 23:03 )mido Wrote: [ -> ]Sorry I cant agree with what your saying there at all.
Just because you have adult filtering turned off on your home pc, this should not affect your ability to get a job. Your adult filtering is off at the moment for you to access this site, and this will be logged with your internet provider (and im sure if they wanted to the governmet could access this record) are you employed?

You would also need to prove that the employee had been looking at porn for this to hold any water, snip

Sorry mate, that is just not the case. I have sent you a screen cap via dm of a number of facebook comments by local authority "people of power" (on a group that one of my c&g tutors runs) who are drooling at what 2014 holds with web users having to turn off "adult filters". Talk about abuse of power.

(29-07-2013 05:14 )MONEY BANG Wrote: [ -> ]...
I have sent you a screen cap via dm of a number of facebook comments by local authority "people of power" (on a group that one of my c&g tutors runs) who are drooling at what 2014 holds with web users having to turn off "adult filters". Talk about abuse of power.

Sounds about right.
Remember there was new legislation rushed out after the London Tube bombings. Part of this anti-terrorist legislation allowed people to get quicker and easier access to personal information about potential suspects. It turns out that the people most using this new legislation are actually the likes of local councils, looking up people with parking fines or unpaid council tax etc! Doesn't seem unreasonable to assume such people would find a way to make this new information 'useful' to themselves.

(28-07-2013 11:37 )bigglesworth Wrote: [ -> ]

(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.

But who tells the ISP's what to block its not me or you. Think its ironic that its Huawei that are running the talk talk filter system huawei have very close links to the chinese goverment who are no doubt hacking uk companys and goverment installations

(28-07-2013 19:04 )sala Wrote: [ -> ]i‘m sure this would also extend to your habits of ticking boxes to say you watch porn.

There won't be a box to say you watch porn. That's an illusion on your part.

What there will be is a box asking you if you want the whole internet filtered to block certain types of content including pornography. Unless you have someone in need of that kind of protection this filter will achieve nothing except slow the internet down and like most people you will understandably opt out of it. Note that your decision to opt out will not prove that you watch porn, take illegal drugs or use torrent sites.

The compulsory filter will look like this:


image hosting websites


Of course, by ticking that you do not want to block pornography simply means that you desire "a faster web browsing experience".

"Note that your decision to opt out will not prove that you watch porn, take illegal drugs or use torrent sites."

In the eyes of the law maybe, you people don't seem to comprehend that certain council's are a law unto themselves. But don't worry, if you are single, intend to remain single, have no children, you do not intend to have children and you do not work anywhere near children or vulnerable people then your "ticked/unticked" web choices will not impact on you. Carry on.

(29-07-2013 12:53 )MONEY BANG Wrote: [ -> ]But don't worry, if you are single, intend to remain single, have no children, you do not intend to have children and you do not work anywhere near children or vulnerable people then your "ticked/unticked" web choices will not impact on you. Carry on.

The Talktalk filter - which was singled out for praise by David Cameron when announcing the new policy and said to be a model example of how a filter should operate - as a matter of fact does not work in the way that you have claimed. I don't need to go into the detailed settings at all and see the list of boxes. I can simply turn the whole thing off with one click - which is what I have done. So in my case there aren't any "ticked/unticked" web choices. They don't exist.