[hipsters_unite]

Even if it's not actually the 'porn law' itself that's causing this (rather O2's blocklist it seems) - the fact is that it's the same attitudes and discourse underlying both. Both are censorship and both are maintained and supported by the government's position and policies.

[DanBC]

Customers ask their ISP to supply a blocklist. The ISP supplies a blocklist.

This is what companies should be doing, no?

[dijit]

yes, the article is confused about opt-in censorship as a service (for parents, demo tablets at supermarkets etc;) vs opt-out censorship.

I gave a scathing comment last time about the ramifications of opt-out censorship, but in my examples of it working properly opt-in was singled out as being ideal.

FYI, this opt-in filter has been around a few years, I dislike that it also filters explicitly pornographic sites unless you call in (yes, I had o2, yes, I tried) but that seems to have been the norm with a few cellular phone providers (such as T-Mobile).

the thinking is probably along the lines of: "We give sim cards away for free, we don't know who will use them, internet costs very little, we should probably stop the worst stuff just in case of complaints"; contracts are instantly unblocked and the same goes for broadband (because getting a contract means you must be over 18 anyway), at that point it's the responsibility of the contract holder to filter internet for any under-age people on the line.

well, that's how it was, the way it's going is... slightly different.

[scholia]

Yes, "this opt-in filter has been around a few years" -- since 2008 -- and it's not even specifically British. It was announced by TELEFÓNICA and covers "O2 businesses in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Germany and the Czech Republic".

http://pressoffice.telefonica.com/documentos/nprensa/PR0808_...

[hipsters_unite]

Right, of course I'm not against an opt-in blocklist; people should have that choice as well.

For something like a SIM, I can also see the business case - but again, that's a corporate decision rather than one that they're obliged to make by law (as they are now) which is a subtle but important distinction, as it represents the removal of choice via censorship.

My issue is with the opt-out censorship and the loud political circus that's been built up around it. It continues the same discourse of 'what have you got to hide' that the NSA business threw up, it's setting a precedent which could be misused later. Who knows if it actually would be, but waiting for the other shoe to drop is not exactly an ideal situation with any kind of censorship.