Sky to Block your favourite sites by default...

[scorza]

While I agree there are some sites that "should" be blocked, where does the line lie? We already have the situation where torrent sites are now blocked, what about Russia today or other non european news sites? Sites of organisations and groups opposed by the UK government?

None of this is a new issue, we've always had the means for making judgements on where that line lies, and checks and balances for scrutinising those judgements. I don't see the fundamental difference between a newsagent not being able to sell top-shelf material to under 18s and an ISP verifying that an adult has OK'd delivering adult content to a household.

It's also not about what is blocked overtly but monitoring that takes place. The keeping of logs for 18months by ISPs (against EU law IIRC), monitoring of Internet traffic and the accessing of email accounts by government forces, many of which are questionably legal currently (which is why the security services and Cameron are trying to force through the "snoopers charter" again).

I understand you are very authoritarian so we will probably never agree on this but for many of us that would prefer personal freedom to th occasional chance of terrorism (or our kid "accidentally" stumbling on to a "dodgy" website).

You're right we won't agree on this because I'd hate to live in a totally free society. We live in an overcrowded island and crime, whether it be terrorism, child abuse, low-level anti-social behaviour, whatever, just makes everyone's lives more miserable. Not having total freedom to do what we want at the cost of those around us is a good thing imo.

As already mentioned this filter is the thin edge of the wedge that is very easy to bypass. I'm guessing every year 9 student now knows how to change the DNS setting on their personal internet device (computer/smartphone etc.). It was like that when I was at school (we would always bypass the filters) and I doubt it's changed. Unfortunately the younger generation are almost always more tech savvy than the generation before, it's a losing battle that never seems to be understood by politicians. The politicians who are invariably worried about new technology they can't control 100%.

No it's not the thin edge of a wedge - that's a slippery slope fallacy

 

[Draeger]

I don't see what the problem is. Mobile phone service providers have been doing this for years, requiring you to contact them and request adult rated content be permitted on your smartphone. If you are an adult and the household broadband subscriber then you can make your own mind up whether you want this content available and can chose to do so or not. If you're a child within that household you can't. If you are a kid who can use proxy filters or install Tor then that's another matter entirely.

 

[m4cc45]

None of this is a new issue, we've always had the means for making judgements on where that line lies, and checks and balances for scrutinising those judgements. I don't see the fundamental difference between a newsagent not being able to sell top-shelf material to under 18s and an ISP verifying that an adult has OK'd delivering adult content to a household.



You're right we won't agree on this because I'd hate to live in a totally free society. We live in an overcrowded island and crime, whether it be terrorism, child abuse, low-level anti-social behaviour, whatever, just makes everyone's lives more miserable. Not having total freedom to do what we want at the cost of those around us is a good thing imo.



No it's not the thin edge of a wedge - that's a slippery slope fallacy

A newsagent judging you and an ISP verifying your age is completely different. A households internet can be used by several people. It's up to you to safeguard your kids. Try watching what they're doing on the internet, coaching them and showing an interest. It shouldn't be up to the ISP to do it, it should be up to the parent.

And you think monitoring peoples email stops crime? Did you not see what happened in France? Do you really think all terrorists, axe murders, etc. discuss there plans on an open forum?

The sooner people realise that this is a bad thing the better.



M.

 

[J.T]

You're right we won't agree on this because I'd hate to live in a totally free society. We live in an overcrowded island and crime, whether it be terrorism, child abuse, low-level anti-social behaviour, whatever, just makes everyone's lives more miserable. Not having total freedom to do what we want at the cost of those around us is a good thing imo.

When are you moving to North Korea?

Seriously for a sec...

I'm 40 years old this year and in those 40 years on this earth and in this great country of ours I can honestly say none of the things you have mentioned above have directly affected me.

Yeah sure I have read about them in the papers and heard on the news but (and I am sure I am not alone here) if any of those things directly affected me I would deal with it at the time and not spend my whole life worrying about "What if".

Guess I am not in this group of "Everyone" you mention.

The last point you mention is why we have laws, but we are not talking about doing something that would have a direct negative impact on others, again you are talking about "what if"...

The cost of Freedom has always been high, the cost of non-freedom (for lack of a better term) is even higher!

 

[adolf hamster]

surely other isp's are already at this arent they?

it would probably be more helpful tbh if there was better education about these sorts of things, in terms of both dealing with women but also dealing with the Internet.

porn or no porn, there's a lot of terrible things happen to kids on the Internet, especially cyber bullying etc (im not going to say "trolling" regardless of what the goverment thinks that means).

the Internet is a scary place for the inexperienced and its worse for kids these days growing up with it who have always had it and dont develop the seperation that its not real and what people say doesnt matter because theyre just strangers that shouldnt affect you.

Tl;Dr the Internet is a dangerous place for kids but pr0nz isnt part of it.

 

[scorza]

When are you moving to North Korea?

Seriously for a sec...

I'm 40 years old this year and in those 40 years on this earth and in this great country of ours I can honestly say none of the things you have mentioned above have directly affected me.

Yeah sure I have read about them in the papers and heard on the news but (and I am sure I am not alone here) if any of those things directly affected me I would deal with it at the time and not spend my whole life worrying about "What if".

Guess I am not in this group of "Everyone" you mention.

The last point you mention is why we have laws, but we are not talking about doing something that would have a direct negative impact on others, again you are talking about "what if"...

The cost of Freedom has always been high, the cost of non-freedom (for lack of a better term) is even higher!

Ah the I'm alright jack argument. Just because *you* haven't been directly affected by low-level anti-social behaviour doesn't mean it doesn't go on and doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled.

 

[Amp34]

A newsagent judging you and an ISP verifying your age is completely different. A households internet can be used by several people. It's up to you to safeguard your kids. Try watching what they're doing on the internet, coaching them and showing an interest. It shouldn't be up to the ISP to do it, it should be up to the parent.

And you think monitoring peoples email stops crime? Did you not see what happened in France? Do you really think all terrorists, axe murders, etc. discuss there plans on an open forum?

The sooner people realise that this is a bad thing the better.



M.

What would be really nice is to have an open/transparent investigation into recent terrorist attacks and whether proposed legislation could have helped. Currently all the articles discussing this sort of thing appear to be indicating they would. All were known to security services and all were "lone wolf" attacks. It seems to me more like security services trying to cover their errors rather than an actual need for more mass surveillance.

It's much like the recent statement from the ex head of MI6 and the need for big tech companies to work closer with the security services. They do work closely, except now they don't just give data away freely, they ask that the request comes with a warrant signed by a judge. In a modern society that shouldn't be something security services believe is unfair!

 

[Amp34]

Ah the I'm alright jack argument. Just because *you* haven't been directly affected by low-level anti-social behaviour doesn't mean it doesn't go on and doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled.

How does bulk monitoring of the Internet and blocking websites have anything to do with low level anti social behaviour?

The I'm alright Jack argument is certainly no worse than the "I have nothing to hide" brigade...

 

[doofer]

What Sky customers should do is all cancel their Direct Debits to Sky as in UK Law only ADULTS can Legally be bound in to Contracts. If they want to treat us like Children then they will need to find some responsible ADULTS to pay our bills.

 

[scorza]

How does bulk monitoring of the Internet and blocking websites have anything to do with low level anti social behaviour?

The I'm alright Jack argument is certainly no worse than the "I have nothing to hide" brigade...

Because the same arguments were used when CCTV surveillance started to get used, "boohoo - what about my right to privacy", "won't stop the chavs", "it's like 1984 all over again!". Guess what, the sky didn't fall in and it's now regarded as a useful tool for securing convictions for crimes major and minor.

 

[Washout]

There's lots of angles you could look at this. I guess you might see it as the start of a slippery slope but to be honest so long as you can opt out then I don't see too much of a problem.
There's a lot of stuff out there that curious kids will seek out that really they shouldn't be watching! Not unless you want them thinking some of the stuff that goes on is normal!

 

[MookJong]

I'm against censorship but I am also against children being damaged by material they should not be viewing. My wife is a Primary school teacher and has seen first-hand the result of young children viewing hardcore material and I can tell you it is not good.

The problem is that the type of parents who don't give a **** about their kids will also be the ones who want everything unblocked. Parents who care would take steps to protect their children anyway, so I don't see how this will work in a lot of cases.

 

[J.T]

Ah the I'm alright jack argument. Just because *you* haven't been directly affected by low-level anti-social behaviour doesn't mean it doesn't go on and doesn't mean it shouldn't be tackled.

Yes you are absolutely right... though I would call it the argument of "The majority of people are alright jack apart from the small group of people who don't seem to want to take any personal responsibility for anything and would rather have the state tell them what they can and can't read/see/do and how to live their lives"...

But that is just my personal opinion so please take it or leave it as you see fit
because that is your right in the (currently) free society we live in.

 

[Macro]

Well as a parent and school class rep this issue has already presented itself to some parents in my 9 year old class.

Having now discussed this issue with parents there are quite a few parents out there that don't know how to stop their kids from accessing this content. The have googled it and are left with an array of expensive add ons for their PC none of which are really suitable.

Factor in on-line access to games on Xbox and PS4 + tablets and smart phones and you have quite a few on-line possibilities for access to unsuitable material. Not all parents are tech heads with OCUK forum membership.

For the moment I've restricted my son's access in Windows 8 to games I've approved. However I realise that I won't be able to prevent him playing online games for too long so I have to educate him.

On the Ipad it's easy to restrict apps, youtube and safari.

He can still see youtube on the PC but at least I can see what he's watching. I don't allow him to use headphones either so I can hear what's being played.

Children are curious so I'll have to explain pornography to him eventually as he will no doubt be curious about it once he gets to teenage years (as we all were).

http://familysafety.microsoft.com - control everything from time of day your son can use the pc/tablet/xbox to which website he can go to, which games and apps he can use and get a consolidated report to you each week.

Lots of pre set templates based on pegi/bbfc age ratings to chose from and if you lock stuff down and he wants to access it he gets a message allowing you to grant access either once off or permanently with a pin code (wither in person or via email if you're not there)_.

All of which is free.

 

[J.T]

The problem is that the type of parents who don't give a **** about their kids will also be the ones who want everything unblocked.

I don't think you meant quite such a sweeping gernalisation there so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually meant something more along the lines of...

"The problem is that the type of parents who don't give a **** about their kids will also be the ones who can't be bothered to put measures in place to protect those kids in the first place and expect the state to do it for them as they are either to lazy, don't care or just don't know what to do."

But if not please feel free to tell me again about how I don't give a **** about my three children who so far have turned out to be well balanced kind hearted and hard working kids with no P0rn addiction issues or tendencies to inflict sexual assault or any other criminal activity on anyone even though I don't block anything on the Internet in my house.

 

[Amp34]

Because the same arguments were used when CCTV surveillance started to get used, "boohoo - what about my right to privacy", "won't stop the chavs", "it's like 1984 all over again!". Guess what, the sky didn't fall in and it's now regarded as a useful tool for securing convictions for crimes major and minor.

Guess you haven't heard the news? Due to cutbacks and questionable benefits in various studies the use of CCTV is being cut back in the UK...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30793614

Dyfed-Powys police are set to cut funding to monitor CCTV following an independent report set up by Police and Crime Commissioner Christopher Salmon. The force covers over half of Wales and just under half a million people.

The report found that the removal of Powys Country Council CCTV did not result in a significant rise in crime or anti-social behaviour and there is little evidence that CCTV deters violent or alcohol-related crime. Salmon says the police will direct funds where the public want them, with "more bobbies on the beat".

Perhaps CCTV and Internet monitoring have more in common than we first thought...

To be fair I think they are missing a major point, which is the evidence as you point out, rather than reducing crime in the first place.

 

[Washout]

I don't think you meant quite such a sweeping gernalisation there so I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you actually meant something more along the lines of...

"The problem is that the type of parents who don't give a **** about their kids will also be the ones who can't be bothered to put measures in place to protect those kids in the first place and expect the state to do it for them as they are either to lazy, don't care or just don't know what to do."

But if not please feel free to tell me again about how I don't give a **** about my three children who so far have turned out to be well balanced kind hearted and hard working kids with no P0rn addiction issues or tendencies to inflict sexual assault or any other criminal activity on anyone even though I don't block anything on the Internet in my house.

I think it's safe to say he meant exactly what he said in his first line. The type of parents who don't give a hoot what their kids do. Unless you fall into that category you don't need to take offense!

 

[Washout]

Guess you haven't heard the news? Due to cutbacks and questionable benefits in various studies the use of CCTV is being cut back in the UK...

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-30793614



Perhaps CCTV and Internet monitoring have more in common than we first thought...

To be fair I think they are missing a major point, which is the evidence as you point out, rather than reducing crime in the first place.

Yah, if someone is drunk enough to be causing trouble then they're not going to be thinking about the fact they're on camera. Monitored cameras would also mean police can react quicker (you'd hope).

 

[J.T]

I think it's safe to say he meant exactly what he said in his first line. The type of parents who don't give a hoot what their kids do. Unless you fall into that category you don't need to take offense!

The second part of the statement is the bit I take offence at (though not real offence just internet argument offence ), the bit you left out.

Just because someone doesn't agree with blocking content on the Internet does not automatically make them a bad parent.

 

[Diagro]

cant read the OP as work network saying it has porn in it :O