Internet censorship 'clean feed' system (UK)

[drummer]

By DAILY MAIL REPORTER
Last updated at 1:39 PM on 19th December 2010

Parents will be able to block all internet pornography unless they specifically request access under a new government plan.
The scheme is aimed to ensure that young children are not exposed to sexual images when surfing the internet.
The plan is to allow parents to 'opt out' of the sites and they will then be blocked at the source, rather than using conventional parental controls.Adults who wish to view the material would have to choose to 'opt in'.

Following their decision, homeowners would then be able to choose what sites they receive in a cinema style guide, such as U for all ages, or 18 for adults.
The move comes as some of Britain's biggest broadband providers prepare for talks with Communications Minister Ed Vaizey.
Representatives from TalkTalk, BT and Virgin Media are to meet Mr Vaizey to discuss how they can stop pornography being seen by youngsters.
The Communications Minister told the Sunday Times: ' This is a very serious matter. I think it is very important that the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) come up with solutions to protect children.
'I am hoping they will get their acts together so we don't have to legislate, but we are keeping an eye on the situation and we will have a new communications bill in the next couple of years.'

The initiative comes following a successful trial by British ISPs to stop innocent people accessing child pornography websites.
Ministers now want companies to use the same technology to stop children accessing adult images. A survey earlier earlier this year said one in three ten-year-olds has viewed pornography.
Tory MP for Devizes Claire Perry, who has campaigned for restrictions said: 'Unless we show leadership, the internet industry is not going to self-regulate. The minister has said he will get ISPs together and say "either you clean out your stables or we are going to do it for you".
'We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see.'
Previously the providers had said implementing the scheme would cost too much and be technically difficult.
However some internet providers now seem happy to implement the scheme voluntarily.
Andrew Heaney, TalkTalk's executive director of strategy and regulation, said: 'Our objective was not to do what the politicians want us but to do what is right for our customers.'
'If other companies aren't going to do it of their own volition, then maybe they should be leant on.'
A Virgin Media spokesman said they had already implemented the technology on their mobile service, as they can leave the home, but said that parents can control what their children see at home and online.
And a BT spokesman said they had a 'clean feed' system to stop access to illegal sites.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-...agery.html

[Dunamis]

As long as this is what they say it is, all I can say is:

"Finally!". I know many will not be for this, but as an individual who was exposed to pornography at quite a young age, and now as a father myself, I am all for stopping Pornography being so easily accessible to children.

The mobile phone system works well from what I have heard (I only have a mobile phone for emergencies myself due to living in rural Wales). And when errors come up for non porn sites they are easily corrected, even for the under 18's.

[rsol]

this will be introduced as a volantary thing for an ISP to provide. then there's two ways about it.

one ban "just" the porn sites. difficult as they pop up all the time and will have to be taken down as and when. OR make an identifier to the websites.....no porn for example. block everything exept those accepted as legit.

Tariffs designed to separate services, porn, TV, music ect. so we would have to "decide" what we want on our internet. this is the beginning of the end.

ALL data will be blocked except what you have asked for. safe and secure and empty.
The reasoning behind having qualified sites. If you dont conform to industrial standards you wont even appear. Who decides the standards but the big players who will be happy to shoulder anything independent or small scale operation out of the field.

This inch gets given and its a long slide to the internet being about as useful as the newspapers. the "channels" are coming. where your web page will have to be licensed to some sort of package deal(with the ISP or a middle marketing twat.) so just to GET your website to be seen requires you to deal with people all over the world.

For full access a premium would be attached so that for the full internet experience you must be willing to fork out the money. this model is making them alot of money already, but getting this inch would sort out the whole control issue.

dunamis you can easily block porn by rigging the browser and even making google safe search. you can i believe find child friendly browsers too. cuts down the hassle.

This website will require a classification or it will simply not exist. that may cost money. alot of money. the internet is about to get condensed.

Quote:'We are not coming at this from an anti-porn perspective. We just want to make sure children aren't stumbling across things we don't want them to see.'

The most terrifying choice of words.

[Dunamis]

Hey, your speaking to an recovering porn addict here, there's NO way you can keep a determined individual out, or at least they never found a way to stop my college buddies and I, and that was with a network that had a proxy firewall. Where there's a will, there's a way.

I think this could be blown out of proportion, especially here. It's no where near what the USA already has in place. If that sort of legislation begins, fair enough, panic. But even then, I probably won't. I'm free, internet or not. Maybe that'll be the day the worlds dissident thinkers will all take to the streets...the day the free internet dies. Maybe what's needed for the sleepers to awake is in fact a "wake up call". It's a better one than more death imo.

[rsol]

its not the porn thats the problem.

The principle is classification and compartmentalisation. the idea is laid out under the pretence of making your young ones safe.

The idea is a bit like protecting your kids from getting run over by taking away the road.

You are right it COULD be blown out of proportion, you open a door then they have access to new doors. they will be knocking on them next.

for me id be able to "opt out" from this plan and spank my monkey all over the monitor if i so choose. the problem is where it leads.
This would evolve into a medium to filter website based on classification, giving further powers to information gate keepers all in the guise of safety. I have mentioned this before.

[Dunamis]

(12-19-2010 05:02 PM)rsol Wrote:  The idea is a bit like protecting your kids from getting run over by taking away the road.

Maybe it is a bit like that. But I'd say a more accurate metaphor would not be taking the road away, but ensuring young children cannot get to the dangerous road in the first place, to take away the danger by implementing protection.

(12-19-2010 05:02 PM)rsol Wrote:  the idea is laid out under the pretence of making your young ones safe.

What you are saying is, that the parents who have been pushing this in the UK for many years now, are actually doing it for other reasons. If you look into this a little more you will find that the politicians are only just starting to actually take note of what their constituents want. They have ignored us parents for long enough.

Like I said, for porn, cool. If they tried it in other areas then I'd have a protest to voice.

It's good to remember, not all ideas government initiates are from 'Big Brother'...just most of them

[rsol]

Quote:"What you are saying is, that the parents who have been pushing this in the UK for many years now, are actually doing it for other reasons."

quite the opposite. there are special interest groups for everything. Just because there is an excuse to use it does not mean that it should be done. the repercussions are worse.

Im free to say whatever i like except fire in a movie theatre i understand this.

The thing you are trying to say is regardless of whats out there you want to be able to filter it so you kid doesnt see porn or whatever else is out there. I say fair enough. But you want someone else to take care of that. You are handing the keys to an authority that wouldnt think twice about using whatever powers it has for the benefit of its friends in business.

Quote:Like I said, for porn, cool. If they tried it in other areas then I'd have a protest to voice.

It's good to remember, not all ideas government initiates are from 'Big Brother'...just most of them

i agree whole heartedly. There is nothing to stop them doing it once you compartmentalise it.
you dont see pirate radio station on digital streams for a good reason. compartmentalisation. the system wont allow for it.

Tbh the people complaining about this need to get a bit of knowledge and set thier childs computer up correctly. a child friendly version of ubuntu would be fine. YOU should be the one doing the filtering. You dont want every porn mag taken off the shelf. if you dont want your child to see porn you wouldnt frequent the red light district.

There is enough software out there. EDUCATION works better.. a little bit of knowledge goes a long way. ignorance makes for huge mistakes.

The same can be said for global warming, concerned citizens wanting to have proper air to breath ect ect...
For some its a step too far. education about the subject helps.

Your problem can be handled better, if you want a job done properly......

[Dunamis]

Looking at the risks you mention, I think I have to agree that it's not actually worth it. If a free proxy service was available that you could connect to that filters such things out, that may help, but only if it can be done for individual accounts on a machine.

Having to install a variant operating system just for web use seems excessive to me though, but I know it's only one example and option. Gladly my two are still to young to type, so I have time to plan such things.

[rsol]

its like road safety. teach them to use the kit responsibly. use browsers that have safty features on and make sure you are checking history. You have a host file on your computer. You can take any website address and link it to nothing if you want. the kids would never know.

in windows 7 is c:/windows/system32/drivers/ect/hosts

If you open that in an editor. you can just put in say Cbeebies ip address for any site you dont want them to access like i dunno..... fox you could use your own IP for any webpage your browser decides to look for. The syntax is like:

Quote:127.0.0.1 <TAB> http://www.big-butts-covered-in-mixed-race-poo.com

The http:// wont go away. its not supposed to be there
This will essentially tell the computer to think that site is indeed itself. ERROR! consult your administrator. quite a handy file if you need to be punching in ip addresses all day.

[Dunamis]

Some good info there. I was unaware you could stop access to sites in the Windows system as described. Sadly I am terrible when it comes to the intricate stuff within Windows. Know of a good guide by any chance? Sounds like a great way to do it, at least for individual sites, though I am sure you can get a full list somewhere of most adult sites at least.

[rsol]

well thats as easy as it gets.

That hosts file is similar to every router, every other computer. that host list is a permanent, do this or nothing type file.

Whatever you decide to name something it will goto that ip
if you dont know an ip of a website...ping it

go to the dos prompt and just type ping http://www.bt.com and the ip will pop up. a whois can find this aswell. ask yeti im sure he has better ways.

you can add as many sites as you like, give them different names even. you could put in "goog" and replace it with http://www.google.com and then if you just wrote "goog" in your browser it would go straight to it. very handy for remembering a mate's ip without having to writ them all down.

by the way due to the wonderful coding in here evey web address has the http:// in front. please ignore these

[clouds]

My self, i hate internet censorship in all it's forms and shapes because i believe in freedom of speech and knowledge but porn??!!
Thats not freedom of knowledge any more!! I think it's correct to ban and stop such sites because it has a very negative impact upon every body and not only children !!
20 years ago, when we saw a woman with small skirt or her bra was a little bit seen, we got all the way excited and dreamed of making love to her !! Today, you can see a woman fully naked and masturbating in front of u and barley it will shake u down!!
Thats because porn is every where already.
Did u know that the most expensive domain name ever bought is http://www.sex.com for 18 million$ ?!!
It's all about sex !

[Dunamis]

Some good points there. It is funny how we live in a society that outlaws suicide (by default it's classed as illegal and can get you arrested, or more usually, sectioned) and yet we allow people to self-harm, engage in a form of prostitution legally (porn) and allow people to become hooked legally to dangerous substances (alcohol and tobacco). To me that simply seems to be double standards. Though I myself stand at different points on each issue mentioned.

One thing is certain on specifically the porn issue though. There seems to be little, if no evidence of a good enough argument that the befits of porn can even scratch the amount of negative outcomes of the porn industry. Take away the financial aspect of the industry and what are we left with really?