Claire Perry MP, David Cameron’s special advisor on ‘preventing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood', has outlined plans for UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to make users opt-out to view adult content online by the end of the year.BBC 18th June
But Nicholas Lansman, secretary general of trade association ISPA, which represents the UK's net suppliers, said: "ISPs have already taken several steps on making the internet safer, with many offering or working towards an 'active choice +' system, which presents parents with an unavoidable choice."So, Claire Perry is going to make them do it, but there's no legislation, and they don't want to.
Trouble is, filtering's a blunt instrument that works badly. Even people who hate porn often find themselves ordering it to be switched on because a site they use is categorised as pornographic incorrectly.
It's much better done on the PC end - set up your PC with a login for each user and then set filtering accordingly. Not only do kids then get "their" view on the PC (with their choice of wallpaper and files and bookmarks), you can also downgrade their rights so they don't go deleting something important. Then if the kids need to get to a site that the filtering blocks incorrectly, you can do it, rather than having to sit for an hour waiting for the ISP to deal with it.
7 comments:
^THIS. It is, I think, the first vaguely sensible post I've seen about Net filtering. And I've seen a lot of them.
It is the thin end of the wedge of t'internet censorship!
If they can get away with forcing ISPs to filtre at their end with-out legislation,; where will they set their sights next?
Licences for bloggers?
Cameroon and his Coblelition are turning out to be bigger state socialists than nuLabor and that Fruitcake frae Kirkcalldy!
The problem with this solution is that it leaves it up to the user to make the choices, and the user could very well make the wrong choice, whereas Clare Perry will always make the right choice, being an MP and therefore next to the Pope in infallibility.
Another problem is it presupposes a certain amount of intelligence on the part of the user, which is not a good presumption when dealing with the internet. You only have to compare the success of Windows, which works on the basis that all users are idiots, with that of Linux, which doesn't.
And much of the discussion is about "porn and other adult material" so it's easy to see there being a slippery slope to extend it to cover anorexia and suicide sites, then tobacco, then alcohol...
"sit for an hour waiting for the ISP to deal with it"
Which ISP are you with? I want some of that.
With TalkTalk it takes an hour just to get to speak to someone, who then turns out to have marginal English and insists on working to a script.
They wouldn't even know what you were talking about imho.
Hopper: Ta
Barnacle Bill: But it's not really going to happen. We could power the country on the amount of bullshit that Cameron claims he is going to do.
Bayard: Quite. Except Linux/Windows, which I'll gladly debate separately if you like.
Curmudgeon: giving in to one group always has the effect of emboldening other groups to try it. It's why I opt against government protection, even where it is slightly on the side of sensible now.
WY: Pays your money etc. Talk Talk are cheap. What do you think is going to come of that?
You only have to compare the success of Windows, which works on the basis that all users are idiots, with that of Linux, which doesn't.
You could just as easily change the comparison and come up with a completely different answer:
"You only have to compare the success of Apple, which works on the basis that all users are idiots, with that of Windows, which doesn't."
Windows is certainly more "idiot" oriented than Linux, but I get rather a lot of free bottles of wine due to neighbours struggling with windows. That doesn't extend to Apple products.
Post a Comment