Sky Broadband Shield

scotty365

scotty365

scotty365

Permabanned
Joined
25 Nov 2009
Posts
1,042
Location
Rotherham Need: GHz
Hi folks,

I don't know if anyone else has wrote anything about this 'offer' from sky to limit your internet from 'undesirable' web sites - I just received an email asking me to subscribe to which level of interference I would like from Sky Broadband. I selected none as there are no minors using our connection as of right now. I wonder where this is leading - I thought the whole idea of the internet is that it would be an open network that would be left to evolve and not to be interfered with (i guess this is evolution). I feel a bit let down with sensoring of certain sites although I think there might have to be something/someone to protect us from whatever nasty stuff there is out there.
Any views on this?

Regards
Scotty
 
Agree that I found it slightly odd, but as you said, there were no minors using your connection. In other cases, there would be, and an ISP level block being offered is far easier to agree to than setting up other measures.

As long as 'none' is being offered as an option, I don't see an issue. When that stops, and the ISP's are deciding what content can and can't be visited (to the extent that isn't already happening via court orders), then it is an issue.

Ninja edit - I'm sure the reason behind it is demand for it. It's a lot of extra hassle otherwise I imagine for a company to do so, so I assume it's being driven as a result of demand for it. Why else would they do it?
 
There are things going on with court orders that some might consider dubious, others not. There is bandwidth shaping and protocol shaping but that is down to ISP T's&C's. There is also the offer of 'blocking' content via the Sky BB Shield and that might suit some people. I think that if the ISP's block sites via the Sky BB Shield (or similar) by default then a line has been crossed, having to 'opt out' somehow feels against the internet 'etiquette' if there ever was one. I would rather 'opt in' if I wanted it.

Regards
Scotty
 
It's not quite by default though, is it? If I recall, when I signed up, it asked me what preference I wanted and let me set it. If I didn't automatically get that screen, and had to go somewhere to choose 'none', then I would agree it's auto opt-in.

With the court orders - it varies. I am surprised by how many ISP level blocks have been granted, but can also see why from the perspective of the rights owners. On the flip side, streaming content for instance was deemed legal (viewing it; not facilitating it) so clearly the Courts aren't leaning only one way.
 
Bandwidth throttling/shaping can't be deemed as censorship though, it's a perfectly reasonable action for an ISP to take against users who are using more than their fair share of available bandwidth and thus creating a bad experience for everyone else.

As for the opt-in/opt-out filtering systems, ISP's are putting these in place by demand from the government as one of their latest initiatives, to protect children from pornography. IMO i think it's a good idea as there's only going to be a minority of tech-savvy parents out there who will have the ability to set up a decent filtered connection to prevent certain types of material getting through. The vast majority will rely on the ISP to provide this safeguard for them.

I'm also in agreement with Sudden's point about them at least offering the "no you don't require filtering" option, as without that, it would cause a lot of outrage about the ISP's now dictating what you can and cannot view.
 
I agree. If they are sending out letters then good on them, to be honest. I'll always be one to 'opt-out' of any filtering, persay, but you can't complain that they are bringing this to peoples attentions. I know quite a few people that wouldn't even realise that this is a thing ISP's offer and they are the ones with young kids.
 
arknor said:
on virgin you can still access most blocked sites from changing http:// > https://
:rolleyes:
Click to expand...

I think many/most of us are aware of ways to circumvent blocks. My point was really about weather blocking should be an opt in or opt out option. I'm totally with the option being available but I'm not so sure the default should be opt-in. I guess there is plenty of warning to users which very good but there will be people that don't realise their connection is being censored without their knowledge or consent.
 
Semple said:
Bandwidth throttling/shaping can't be deemed as censorship though, it's a perfectly reasonable action for an ISP to take against users who are using more than their fair share of available bandwidth and thus creating a bad experience for everyone else.

As for the opt-in/opt-out filtering systems, ISP's are putting these in place by demand from the government as one of their latest initiatives, to protect children from pornography. IMO i think it's a good idea as there's only going to be a minority of tech-savvy parents out there who will have the ability to set up a decent filtered connection to prevent certain types of material getting through. The vast majority will rely on the ISP to provide this safeguard for them.

I'm also in agreement with Sudden's point about them at least offering the "no you don't require filtering" option, as without that, it would cause a lot of outrage about the ISP's now dictating what you can and cannot view.
Click to expand...

The main worry is that it'll make more parents think their little jimmy/juliette won't be able to see any porn now. It'll stop the 8 year old stumbling across anything i'm sure but will take about 1 minute for the teenager/kid looking for it to bypass it permanently...
 
It is not the blocking of 'porn or torrent' sites that bother me so much, that is an interfering government and a media industry that has not yet modernised, it is the 'other' sites that go too.
 
murah said:
protect children from porn, we all viewed it younger than we should and most of us turned out fine ;)
Click to expand...

Yes but it is always one exception that spoils it all e.g. Shoe Bomber. Look at where we are now and how 'normal' everyone accepts it.

It's a slippery slope IMO.
 
Working at an ISP for a little while I think this is a great idea. I'd go around to customers houses many times to see they were paying over the odds for filtering software that caused more issues than actually resolved them.

The whole free internet is still there, it's just taking the strain off parents who may be a bit worried. Nothing to worry about in my opinion!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom