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."

29 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 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!
    5. Re:Hpw about by casings · · Score: 2

      That is a stupid argument since not everyone has choice to switch. Top down censorship is unethical in any form.

    6. Re:Hpw about by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2

      Come now, a moment of sane thought please. It's one ISP in Britain, it's not massive censorship.

      A sane moment of thought suggests that it's the camel's nose.

      Allowing religious groups to define filters for the web should be resisted. As they say: "it is a wise rule to resist the beginnings of evil."

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
    7. Re:Hpw about by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Funny

      unless they're a priest f*king children

      Priests faking children?

      No, of course not! It's "priests forking children". Spawning child processes via fork() is the only way they can reproduce.

      It's a tenuous existence, though, because the children are clones of the parent, share all the same memories as their parent up until the time they were forked, and *die* if their parent dies.

    8. 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.

    9. 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.
    10. 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.

    11. 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
    12. Re:Hpw about by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

      I just moved and kicked Comcast to the curb. They called me up every day until I turned my cable modem in and wailed and wringed their hands and tore their hair out trying to get me to transfer service. No matter what they'd say, I could retort, "Getting FIOS: twice the speed for half the price." Then they'd try again to tell me what a mistake I was making by cancelling my established relationship for that "experimental" fiber optic technology. "Twice the speed for half the price," came my rebuttal. They never did catch a clue until I finally said, "This conversation's over. ".

      Man, I'm tempted to sign up for Comcast again just so I can dump their sorry asses all over again.

      --
      by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
    13. 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?

    14. Re:Hpw about by toriver · · Score: 2

      Well, hate is perhaps a strong word: pithy and scorn is rife, though.

      "2 Corinthians 6:14 – “Be ye not unequally yoked together with unbelievers: for what fellowship hath righteousness with unrighteousness? and what communion hath light with darkness? “"

      "I do not consider atheists to be patriots or citizens. This is one nation under God." - George Bush Sr.

    15. Re:Hpw about by qc_dk · · Score: 3, Funny

      As to your last comment, you do realize that abstinence and self control is proven to be the best birth control one could use right?

      It is the worst type of birth control. The last time someone used it, she gave birth not only to a child but to 2000+ years worth of drivel and gibberish.

  2. Controls on religion by Animats · · Score: 2, Interesting

    We need controls to prevent kids from overdosing on religion. There's a maximum safe dose of religion, maybe around an hour a day. Kids who substantially exceed that dose may turn into cult members, Jesus freaks, non-working yeshiva students, or Islamic militants. It's not the brand of religion that matters as much as the dosage.

    1. Re:Controls on religion by MachDelta · · Score: 2

      I think it's more about context than dosage.

      Of the "this book was written a long time ago by some goat herders and has some pretty wild ideas about magic sky fairies and superman zombies and other strange things but it tells us a lot about our culture and history" variety, you can eat as much as you like.
      It's the "this is how the universe works and don't you ever dare question it or yer lawd Jaaaaaaaysus Chriiiiiist will smite thine ass" that has a very low (mental) LD50 in children.

    2. Re:Controls on religion by SJHillman · · Score: 4, Funny

      Religion is like bath salts. Sure, it's a fun fantasy world at first but next thing you know you're stripping naked eating some guy's flesh and drinking his blood.

    3. Re:Controls on religion by geekmux · · Score: 3, Interesting

      We need controls to prevent kids from overdosing on religion. There's a maximum safe dose of religion, maybe around an hour a day. Kids who substantially exceed that dose may turn into cult members, Jesus freaks, non-working yeshiva students, or Islamic militants. It's not the brand of religion that matters as much as the dosage.

      You want to control and size religion to avoid overdosing? It's fairly simple. We need to start treating all forms of religion appropriately. They are a business, so get rid of the damn tax breaks. Not only would you likely cleanse religion of the false prophets (they would somehow find a reason not to practice anymore, go figure), but the tax revenue would be massive. Probably enough to kick-start the economy again instead of people praying for it to turn around by putting money into a silver platter and making false prophets obscenely rich.

  3. They tried with an atheist... by YA_Python_dev · · Score: 2

    They tried with an atheist but she left the blacklist empty.

    --
    There's a hidden treasure in Python 3.x: __prepare__()
  4. 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.

  5. Censorship committees by dkleinsc · · Score: 2

    The difference between censorship committees and regular people is that the censorship committees want to watch and read their smut in a group setting rather than at home alone. It's rather kinky when you think about it that way.

    --
    I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Cable by benjfowler · · Score: 2

    When our household got cable for the first time, it was great.

    The first thing we did was put the parental lock on the God Channel.

  7. Brilliant! by interval1066 · · Score: 2

    Here's a good idea that will be only implemented after thoughtful, contemplative consideration of all its implications and effects are throughly explored with invitations to discussions for all affected parties extended I'm sure.

    --
    Python: 'And then suddenly you have a language which says "we're all stuck with whatever the whiniest coder wants".'
  8. 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.
  9. Re:I am eagerly awaiting the first reports of abus by Mike+Buddha · · Score: 2

    Methinks you're creating a strawman here. Can we argue about reality, not made up hypothetical situations?

    --
    by Mike Buddha -- Someday the mountain might get him, but the law never will.
  10. Yes, Religious content should really be filtered by Kjellander · · Score: 2

    Nothing brainwashes a kid more than religion and has started more wars than anything else. Just ask all the religious guys what sites they do like and filter that.

    Start with http://www.conservapedia.com/ and work from there on.

  11. Official Claranet Soho response by Claranet+Soho · · Score: 3, Informative

    Hi everybody, My name’s Alan Tavernor and I am Sales and Marketing Manager for Claranet Soho which is the division of Claranet that has just released the Childsafe product that is being discussed. I just wanted to clarify that the product we have created is about the free choice of parents to choose what their children can access online rather than to subscribe to any particular view ourselves. It has been designed to allow parents to easily protect their children whatever their knowledge level of the internet themselves. They can do this by either allowing or banning any one of 140 categories that exist for over 6 billion webpages on the internet. The option is there for parents to either choose their own selection or to choose the recommendations that are made by something called a Claranet Guardian. Claranet Guardians could be any one of a number of different people ranging from everyday parents, to education authorities, to relevant high profile people and to religious people. It’s worth noting that the religious angle is to cover the section of people in society who are religious and would find this beneficial rather than as a blanket for all. It’s really about increasing the level of choice for parents. The Childsafe service is an option available to any of our consumer Broadband subscribers but is not mandatory and is something that a customer can select to have when signing up for a service. I hope that clarifies everything but if anyone has any questions then please feel free to email me directly to alan.tavernor@uk.clara.net. Kind Regards, Alan