-
My wife has a 3 network pay as you go SIM. Just about everything is blocked by default, anything with a public input. I tried lfgss on it an hour ago and although some of the pages are visible, about 90% are outright blocked.
On checking those pages on my iPad they seem to be mostly profanity or image based pages.
Velocio might have to start going CTC squeaky clean on the habitual swearers...
-
That is fucking shitty, what a bunch of cunts.
-
glad I'm on A&A
http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html
That looks like brilliant! Thanks -
Their pricing seems complex. How much do you pay per month clefty?
It's not massively cheap about £50 a month with the phone line, but that covers everything we do and the 100mb link, and as you know we run a shit load of kit at Clefty Mansions.
As far as I'm concerned it's good value for usRevK the very approachable boss of A&A explains it better than me
http://revk.http://www.me.uk/2012/11/new-home1-tariff.htmlalso an interesting post on his take of the censorship issue http://revk.http://www.me.uk/search/label/CENSORSHIP
-
I would place pretty big bets that the argument will be made that in the 5% who disable parental controls, there exists all paedophiles, violent people, etc... and that it would be an effective use of net monitoring to more closely monitor this segment.
We've already seen this year that the NSA and GCHQ monitor everything, and now they will have a nice switch to monitor too... the 95% are safely controlled, throw all resources at the 5%.
Censorship aside, this is one one of the bigger issues for me. I know that as soon as I opt-out of the filter I'll likely become a more significant data-point for the giant spy networks.
I hope some good comes out of this, and educates the 'average' user into the use of VPN's and other such use of technology, thus rendering both the blocked-site list and massive data collection less efficacious.
Seems that the government is shooting itself a foot a little with this.
-
Would it not be easy to avoid being the 5% by using VPN's etc? Surely if anything focusing on the 5% who have publicly said 'I want them off' is unlikely to lead to anyone nefarious, who will already know how to bypass this sort of control, and will want to avoid being on any list? So fail either way in my eyes from a monitoring viewpoint
-
It's a sly, scaremongering, anti-societal thing to do. Exactly what you'd expect from the most right wing administration this side of the war.
They're clearly worried that by using forums we might educate and inform one another, and that by exercising a Project Fear, we'll just stop. It's a vote loser, only a vehement protest now will have any impact.
You know what to do.
-
What does this actually mean:
O2 customer profile | O2 policy
Open Access | Allowed
Default Safety | Allowed
Parental Control | (opt in u12 service) BlockedLFGSS.com is still available on O2 Mobile.
Open Access = Opted out... everything (that isn't blocked by UK courts) should be accessible.
Default Safety = Reflects the current default, which today is Open Access
Parental Control = Opted in... most sites that are not white-listed or known to be safe for children are blocked, anything with user generated content is blocked.
The u12 should mean "suitable for under 12s", which is basically a marketing line for when you should use parental controls.
The immediate problem is two-fold:
1) The wide scope of sites that are blocked by parental controls (the currently opted-in rules)
2) The precedent set by BT in making parental controls default (reversing opt-in to opt-out)With so many sites appearing on the block list (including LFGSS), and with the biggest ISP moving to opt-out it feels quite inevitable that the default will be that LFGSS and many other sites will be blocked by default.
The issue with that is one of audience, revenue and viability. If the audience drops as a consequence, the razor thin margins that the sites make based on affiliate or banner advertising will mean that a lot of sites will simply not be able to keep paying the bills.
That's the immediate day-to-day concern.
The bits that bother me most are:
The whole thing about pressuring ISPs to adopt net filters has created a long chain of deniability and buck-passing. The politicians can claim that they aren't the ones filtering, the ISPs can claim they have to do this, etc... everyone makes money in the lengthening of the chain, and the government and companies involved get to control what can be accessed.
The lack of accountability and transparency: Why are some sites on the block list? How do those sites appeal against that and have themselves removed? Is this now whack-a-mole and do those sites have to approach every ISP individually? It all means that without judicial process or a right to appeal anything can now be blocked, and it appears that it will be.
For those who choose to opt-out, the surveillance state is almost certainly going to now be performing additional profiling and be more intrusive. How can we have a democracy if people fear repercussions from expressing their beliefs. The USA delivers many examples of this, most recently by adding people to a no-fly list to prevent them from speaking in court: https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20131204/10434025453/dhs-puts-witness-trial-over-legality-no-fly-list-no-fly-list-making-her-late-her-testimony.shtml
So I have a load of fears based on witnessing the behaviour of the UK and US government and some of the corporations involved, and I have fears about the viability of LFGSS and Microcosm if all form of debating ground (forums) are black-listed by default.
ciocc
snottyotter
Dammit
ChainBreaker
clefty
freddo
allensea
branwen
hippy
Machine
skydancer
Emyr
Yemble-
Post a reply
About
UK "default on" ISP censoring will include "web forums" by default
Posted by
@Velocio
Those companies - with recourse to lobbyists and lawyers - will end up on a whitelist. Websites without deep pockets, will be left high and dry