[Closed] Porn filters - how not to discuss it with the wife

Do people really have such a problem with this, or are they just looking for things to complain about ?

Google safe search was set to "on" by default.

A few clicks and a password and it was turned off.

Job done.

I didn't complain about censorship or make out I was living in North Korea, I just turned off the safe search.

That's all we are talking about here. You log in, you make the settings suit what you want, you log out again.

FFS its hardly difficult.

But as for freedom in the country. ... Since when have we turned into China ffs?

Well given you can talk about it on the internet then we still haven't.

Nealglover, rough day at work?

& neither is the man either for that matter ewww

Do people really have such a problem with this, or are they just looking for things to complain about ?

The filtering of things like kiddie 'porn' is a non-story. Most UK ISPs already do that, and have done for about ten years (google "IWF"). So given that this is a non-issue, why mention it at all? Misdirection?

If the government can filter your network traffic, it's trivial for them to monitor it. Think about that for a minute.

The opt-out approach is problematic; it's not a great leap from "I'd like you to leave my Internet connection alone" to "here's a list of perverts and people we can't trust."

@nealg - no this is very very different from Google safe search.

The government - by their own admission and by the admission of the ISP's - told them they *must* implement these measures otherwise they would bring in new laws accordingly.

When a government starts making threats to ISP's about how they provide internet services to the public that is a slippery slope.

They have already mentioned banning sites about self harming and hate speech, the latter of which really concerns me as that is full blown censorship with a legal and / or technical framework for a government to decide what is considered hate speech and for the ISP's to then filter it. That is a dangerous position to be in.

I think any bloke 18-30 who doesnt opt in is either getting it on a epic scale or weird. So theres your weirdo register.

If the government can filter your network traffic, it's trivial for them to monitor it. Think about that for a minute.
The opt-out approach is problematic; it's not a great leap from "I'd like you to leave my Internet connection alone" to "here's a list of perverts and people we can't trust."

All they are doing is asking for (telling?) a filter that already a sits to be set to "on" by default.

And letting you turn it off if you want to.

Some ISP's and mobile providers already do it anyway, I really can't see an issue with it.

It's not that different from putting the grot mags on the top shelf at the petrol station, its not that you can't have them, or that there are any controls or censorship in place. It's just that they are not in your immediate eyeline if you are not interested in looking at them.

But if you do want to, just reach up and get one (turn off the filter)

It's not that different from putting the grot mags on the top shelf at the petrol station,

It's closer to not letting you into the petrol station at all because there's adult magazines on sale inside, unless you give them your name and address which they record onto a list.

Then once you're in, someone will follow you round the shop, watching what you're doing.

One step further than that Cougar. They watch you go into the toilets with a packet of Kleenex.

It's closer to not letting you into the petrol station at all because there's adult magazines on sale inside, unless you give them your name and address which they record onto a list.
Then once you're in, someone will follow you round the shop, watching what you're doing.

What's your logic ?

If they can "follow you around" with the filters turned off, then they do exactly the same with the filters turned on.

It makes no difference at all.

Nealglover, rough day at work?

No, it was fine.

Pretty good in fact.

Thanks for asking. ❓

If they can "follow you around" with the filters turned off, then they do exactly the same with the filters turned on.

It makes no difference at all.

Now you're getting it.

I bet one of you lot has ****ed over Alan Partridge

Not yet 💡

If they can "follow you around" with the filters turned off, then they do exactly the same with the filters turned on.
It makes no difference at all.

Now you're getting it.

What am I getting ?

That the filter on/off thing means absolutely nothing, and changes absolutely nothing, and I still don't understand why people appear to think it is some sort of big issue.

(Logging Internet use is a totally different issue so I've no idea why its being connected with the filter on/off default setting thing)

Nealglover go and crack one off.

BTW when you are ill/have a day off- do you go for the **** record?

From what I gather 7 is the max.

7 isn't the max.

Impossible. Wake at say 8.30, by 11am you are on 3?

Break for lunch.

By 3pm 7.

Ah.

When I'm at work I do split shifts. I get up at 2AM
Don't finish work till around 7PM

When I'm not at work, I have a LOT of spare time. 😀

@nealg - I think what you are not currently understanding is that the filters that are going to be implemented are not yet in place.

Google has it Safe Search thing but at ISP level it is up to people to set their routers etc accordingly. If you contact your ISP and ask them about parental controls etc they will guide you through setting your router and software local to your computer.

Further, ISP's can block specific sites (think Piratebay for example) and specific IP addresses or blocks of IP addresses.

What the government is forcing upon the ISP's is the obligation to provide internet filtering at point of source in effect and mandating what is and isn't 'allowed'.

This is a step change and in my opinion a dangerous one. it is not the filtering on goat porn or whatever that bothers me. It is the fact that a framework is being established that would allow a government to instruct an ISP to filter certain content and for that filter to be implemented.

We are being given a choice at this stage whether or not to accept the filter but there is no guarantee that this choice will always be offered.

This isn't tin foil hat stuff and the current and / or future governments may never take it that far but it makes it all the more possible and all the easier for them should they wish to.

From what I gather 7 is the max.

you dont [i]work from home[/i] do you hora? 😉

Blimey its dust in the lines.

hydrate, man, hydrate!

@nealg - I think what you are not currently understanding is that the filters that are going to be implemented are not yet in place.

No. I understand that bit thanks. I know it's not in place yet.

Currently the ISP's have the ability to block this content but you need to ask them to do so.

The new rule will be that it's blocked by default unless you ask them not to.

Does that cover it ?

😆 @ stoner

Ever had that feeling- go back to work and someone says 'hope you feel rested/better'?

You feel like replying that you feel knackered/exhausted.

Clearly Im in the company of Champions.

@neal - As I say it is not the whether the filters are on or off by default etc that is of concern. It is the government is pushing this on the ISP's and with the threat of legislation if it is not that is the issue.

Further, the government is instructing the ISP's what to include in the filter (self harm sites, certain hate speech sites as well as porn have been mooted). That is of grave concern.

So, this is being sold to the public as a porn filter but they are already looking at broadening this.

Once you have a framework in place which allows the government to insist that perfectly legal material be blocked and the ISP's are happy to follow such instructions it is very difficult to move back from that position but oh see easy to keep adding to the list of censored material.

but oh see easy to keep adding to the list of censored material.

And that would be the list of "censored" material that you can have access to anytime you like just by asking for it ?

Currently yes but you making the assumption that a) you will be told when something is added to it and b) you will always be given a choice.

Even as it stands if you opt in to the filter thinking its for porn because that's what is making the headlines there may well be stuff tagged on to it that not everyone who is opting in is aware of and that is an unhealthy position to be in.

Currently yes but you making the assumption that a) you will be told when something is added to it and b) you will always be given a choice.

I do make those assumptions yes.

Because I've no reason not to so far have I ?

Other than imagining what "might" happen in the future.

FFS. SIGNATURE!! 😉

Sorry bn

Cheers

Danny B

Yes, quite right Bearnecessities.

First I hated the signature, now I hate that it's gone.

Either way it sickens me.

Wait what.....

Further, ISP's can block specific sites (think Piratebay for example

Yeah that's gone really well.