Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK ISP Asks Religious Groups To Set Parental Controls

Posted by Soulskill on from the think-of-the-children dept.

Barence writes "A British ISP is inviting religious groups to help set parental controls for its customers. Claranet says it is recruiting volunteer 'Guardians' from a number of different organizations — including religious organizations, schools and child safety experts. A press spokesman for the ISP said that an 'Islamic advisor' was among the first batch of Guardians, but refused to identify them. The Claranet Guardians will be asked to choose whether they think 140 different categories of internet content are appropriate. Within those categories, the Guardians can choose to add or remove individual websites from the blacklists, which are created by a third-party company that Claranet also refused to name."

14 of 205 comments (clear)

  1. Hpw about by present_arms · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Religious groups can go and fuck themselves, I've had enough of superstitious groups trying to change the world to their liking, really it's too much. if some idiot needs to censor what he sees, install dans guardian or similar. geeze, leave the net alone

    --
    http://chimpbox.us
    1. Re:Hpw about by s.petry · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Come now, a moment of sane thought please. It's one ISP in Britain, it's not massive censorship. I'm sure that this company has a selling point to consumers that they do just this sort of thing, so members knowingly choose this ISP to help manage content without them having to worry about monitoring nearly as much at home.

      If a US company started (and they have by the way) which has a set of rules you don't like you change ISP companies right? I'm guessing that they have the same ability to change ISPs in the UK.

      This is not as you say "changing the world" and there is no need to "leave the net alone" since they are not touching the net! They are creating a service very similar to Cyber Sitter or Net Nanny which used to be US companies (and maybe still are) that block content because customers pay them to.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    2. Re:Hpw about by bugs2squash · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But if you are a member of a religious group and you like the idea that your priest/imam/rabbi/sith-lord will be shielding you from reality then why should you not be able to outsource your filtering ?
      I filter the internet from my children (by watching over them as they use it) according to my social mores, and if I were to choose to use a filtering program I'd like to know broadly what criteria were chosen for what gets through and what does not. If someone wants to make a little money by applying the terms kosher or halal to web content, and it's done by a practitioner you trust then people should have that option just as the unfiltered option should exist.

      --
      Nullius in verba
    3. Re:Hpw about by jellomizer · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The ISP wanted to offer parental controls (You know, offering something like Dans Guardian as a service), they are trying to make their product useful, so they are asking a bunch of different groups, for feedback.

      Religious groups, were invited, they didn't barge in. When you are making a tool for parental controls, you need a good diversity of ideas so you can make good decisions.

      Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

      --
      If something is so important that you feel the need to post it on the internet... It probably isn't that important.
    4. Re:Hpw about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Insightful

      I get it, you're one of those 'dont call it a tree because it's just a sapling' guys. This is the same non-sense people are faced with when pointing out the march of fascism here in America. It's not a big deal because it's not everywhere; it's not a problem because you can still get around it.

      BTW, I have one choice for normal internet at my house, I'd have two if I had a physical phone line.

    5. Re:Hpw about by Hatta · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is just fine if they also allow atheist groups to add items to the filter too. Given the amount of violence and sex in the bible, it would make just as much sense to censor the bible as anything else.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    6. Re:Hpw about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      >

      Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

      I'll stop hating them when they stop hating me for NOT following them.

    7. Re:Hpw about by readin · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Claranet customers can choose to set up and customise their own filters, or accept a pre-selected list from one of the Guardians and edit that themselves if they choose.

      - TFA

      Nothing to see here. Please move on.

      --
      I often don't like the choices people make, but I like the fact that people make choices. That's why I'm a conservative.
    8. Re:Hpw about by s.petry · · Score: 5, Insightful

      By that logic there should be no drinking age and most surely pornography should be able to be printed anywhere. There should be no movie rating system, lyrics rating system, or game rating system. Do you see that you have crossed well beyond the realm of common sense.

      Customers _pay_for_this service, it is not mandatory for _anyone_ to use the service.

      The reason this was brought up as a /. article was to create traffic based on the atheist zealots that come out of the wood work spewing hate on anything Religious for any reason.

      I doubt that you understand what that means for you and your comment, but I do feel an obligation to point it out.

      --

      -The wise argue that there are few absolutes, the fool argues that there are no probabilities.

    9. Re:Hpw about by nightfire-unique · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Stop Hating Religions because you just don't follow them.

      For many of us, wether or not we follow something is of little relevance to our opinion on the subject.

      Many of us hate religion because, frankly, it's a psychosis induced by our fear of the unknown, exploited by the wealthy and the power-seekers. The indoctrinated occasionally become immune to logic and reason, and present a huge problem to the rest of us living in the 21st century.

      For those about to mod me down as flamebate: this is how I, and many here actually feel, and our frustration is not without considerable merit. Just look at the damage that's being done to the education system. Or sexual identity. Or genetic research. Or the climate. Or women and girls in Islamic societies.

      Don't confuse hating a belief system with hating the believers.

      --
      A government is a body of people notably ungoverned - AC
    10. Re:Hpw about by toriver · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Is it censorship when it is voluntary? Are everyone who choose not to buy the latest issue of Penthouse practicing self-censorship? Should they stop, and buy the damn porn rag in the name of free speech? Or are you just wrong?

  2. Inflammatory headline by mu51c10rd · · Score: 1, Insightful

    It's not just religious groups, it's several different organization types. Singling out religious groups in the title is merely inflammatory and designed to ignite a flamewar. While I think what this ISP is doing is wrong, I also feel it wrong for Slashdot to engage in the same zealous behavior against a certain group.

  3. Why the vitriol by Intropy · · Score: 4, Insightful

    A private company offers an opt in filtering service, and they hire religious people to help them set up that service. Okay, sounds like something I absolutely do not want. But who am I to tell other people they can't have it. It's not bothering me any.

  4. Re:So if a parent wants to use parental controls . by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 3, Insightful

    That's not what the article says, did you read it? No?! I'm stunned!

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.