[fakeanon]

You get to choose if you parental controls on or not Maybe there is something like that in the book, but the point is, company are now choosing to, by default, have sexually explicit content blocked, and it can be opted out of. Do you believe this is bad? The UK government forcing ISPs to block stuff may not be the best way to do it, but it looks like David Cameron is just recommending it and that the ISPs have agreed.) Have I misunderstood the situation?

[sb057]

"Hello, Internet Service Provider? I would like to have access to porn sites."

Also, it blocks a number of other stuff, including "extremist" views.

http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm201314/cmhansrd/c...

[fakeanon]

Maybe that sounding awkward is a hint to the nature of what you are requesting. And you think that is how you will request it when the box on computers for existing customers says "I don't want Parental Controls"? I believe that _____ is wrong, but am reconsidering my opinion on the filter due to to this part: "Paul Goggins (Wythenshawe and Sale East) (Lab): Two weeks ago, the head of the Security Service warned about the extent of Islamist extremism. This week, two individuals have been charged with serious terrorist offences. What is the Prime Minister going to do in January when, as a result of his Government’s legislation, some of those whom the Home Secretary has judged to pose the greatest threat to our security are released from the provisions of their terrorism prevention and investigation measures?

The Prime Minister: We have put in place some of the toughest controls that one can possibly have within a democratic Government, and the TPIMs are obviously one part of that. We have had repeated meetings of the extremism task force—it met again yesterday—setting out a whole series of steps that we will take to counter the extremist narrative, including by blocking online sites. Now that I have the opportunity, let me praise Facebook for yesterday reversing the decision it took about the showing of beheading videos online. We will take all these steps and many more to keep our country safe.". But now that I think about it, is this part of the parental controls filter or something else?

Now, take a look at the assertion in "Tackling extremism in the UK"[1]: "1.4 This is a distinct ideology which should not be confused with traditional religious practice. It is an ideology which is based on a distorted interpretation of Islam, which betrays Islam’s peaceful principles, and draws on the teachings of the likes of Sayyid Qutb. Islamist extremists deem Western intervention in Muslim-majority countries as a ‘war on Islam’, creating a narrative of ‘them’ and ‘us’. They seek to impose a global Islamic state governed" I have doubts that Islam is peaceful, but also about censoring websites about even advocating terrorism, and this is at the government level, not a recommendation, but I do not see a problem with an ISP doing it. It seems the article is referring to the government blocking terrorist sites, which I think is a different thing and not the best idea, rather than ISP parental controls, which the article was about. Am I misunderstanding, are these connected more, is the government forcing the blockage of a. immoral but legal sites in the filter or just b. child _____[2], or also c. terrorist sites? Government should only block b, ISP should block b and may provide parental controls to block a and c if they want. But I don't quite understand what is going on.

[1] https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/tackling-extremis... [2] Seems what the _parental_ filter is implicated for here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-25067051

[Dewie]

> Maybe that sounding awkward is a hint to the nature of what you are requesting.

It would also be awkward if you had to ask a stranger permission to take a shit. Some things are a private matter.

[vidarh]

The government is not "forcing" this filter per se. They are threatening the industry with extensive regulation if the biggest ISPs does not put in place filters. It's their way of evading democratic oversight. It is worse than government enforced blocks.

As for the hint of blocking "extremist" views, this worries me tremendously, as someone who in the past was a member of a marxist organisation (in Norway, not the UK) that for decades was under illegal surveillance (of the type where intelligence officials would stop prominent members in the street on occasion to openly taunt them with stories about the conversation said person had with his wife in the privacy of his own home the previous day) despite no evidence ever of any illegal activity (meanwhile members of the then ruling-party in Norway have been convicted of espionage for the Soviet Union...). Another organization under illegal surveillance was, subsequent to the illegal surveillance being rolled up, denounced as a terrorist organisation by an ex prime minister, in parliament, fro the speakers chair, with no evidence of any illegal activity provided (on the contrary, they stand as one of just a handful of victims of terrorist bomb plots in Norway - a bomb plot the intelligence services eventually had to admit they had used as an opportunity to steal internal documents), as he publicly made it clear that he wished that the illegal surveillance had not been stopped.

In the UK, "extremist" views would likely have including support for the provisional IRA if it had been put in place a decade or two ago, but the question is how far out from that would they have stretched it? Would they have tried to block people who argued for secession but who did not explicitly support violent means? People who supported self-defence in the case of attacks from security forces but not terror? Note that many of the restrictions aimed to target the IRA were not so obviously restricting only people implicated in terror.

While it is obvious to us that extremist fundamentalist islamism is dangerous since there are groups actively planning terror attacks, it is very often very hard to draw clear lines between people engaged in clearly harmful violent activity and people engaged in unpopular political activity that may very well turn out to be important down the line (back to my own example, a long list of the people subjected to illegal surveillance in Norway have become highly important and influential cultural figures)

For my own part not more than 20 years ago since I debated people from mainstream parties - in fact including from the current coalition parties in Norway - that though my liberalist marxist views, which I have never backed with violence, was sufficient reason that they believed I deserved to die (meanwhile I also regularly debated Stalinists who wished me the same fate) or rot in prison. Because, hey, that's apparently what you should get if you want to reduce the governments power.

[voyou]

"company are now choosing to, by default, have sexually explicit content blocked"

But that's not what they're doing. They are choosing to block a wide range of material, some of it pornographic, some of it educational, some of it merely to do with gay and lesbian identities which some people find immoral (or to do with the occult, or computer security); and also to not actually block a lot of sexually explicit material that slips through the filter. And they are "choosing" to do this because Cameron said he would legally require them to do so if they didn't do it voluntarily.

[andygates]

Not all ISPs. Andrews & Arnold are aggressively anti-censorship, for example, and if you sign up asking for a censored feed they tell you to move to North Korea. :)

They're getting my money as soon as the holidays are over. I'm done with BT since they added anonymizers and proxies to the block list: that's massive overreach, and I'm voting with my wallet.