The UK's Internet Porn Filter and Fighting Censorship Creep

An anonymous reader writes "The Guardian takes the UK government's internet porn filter to task by pointing out how absurd the opt-out process is: 'Picture the scene. You're pottering about on the internet, perhaps idly looking up cake recipes, or videos of puppies learning to howl. Then the phone rings. It's your internet service provider. Actually, it's a nice lady in a telesales warehouse somewhere, employed on behalf of your service provider; let's call her Linda. Linda is calling because, thanks to David Cameron's "porn filter", you now have an "unavoidable choice", as one of 20 million British households with a broadband connection, over whether to opt in to view certain content. Linda wants to know – do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can't hear you.' The article also points out how the filter is being used as a tool for private industry to protect their profits. 'The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" – in other words, filesharing and music downloads, debate over which has been going on in parliament for years.'"

Comments

This is why I like being old

[boristdog]

As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

While you're at it, ask Linda where you can find the video of her getting creampied by a German shepard.

Re:This is why I like being old

[i kan reed]

Yeah, me too. I have a relationship that would stand up to a "porn's okay" conversation.

Re:This is why I like being old

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Ask if you can have the list.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Say that things are commonly misfiltered and that Google already filters for that so it's rather unlikely to show up, and if it does you'll report it to the authorities.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Check, mate and match.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Charliemopps]

Yup. Do it to it Linda. I survived the internet for 20 years before your filter showed up, I think I can manage.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Savage-Rabbit]

As a 50 year-old man nearing retirement, I can emphatically say "Hell yes!" to all of those questions.

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Making poor Linda suffer for the fact that this unfortunate job has been foisted upon her would not achieve anything. Statistically Linda is highly likely to be a single mom or one half of a low income family and I can't blame her for not being reluctant to take a stand over this and risk losing her job over it. David Cameron, the conservative party and UKIP (out of fear of whom the Tories are doing this and who really deserve your scorn) can, however, shove their entire censorship program where the sun does not shine along with all of the hypocritical spin about how censorship measures that are only rivalled by those used by communist China and Saudi Arabia are being introduced in a democratic country in the name of protecting 'freedom' and 'moral values'.

Re:This is why I like being old

[carlos92]

ISP agent: The blocked content includes child pornography, madam.
Linda: Thanks for reminding me that, I will make sure I block CP on my end. I just don't want you or the Government to block pictures of my grandchildren in the swimming pool or something like that.

This reminds me of a project where my team worked from the client's office, and we had to ask the client to let view porn, because their f***ing content filter thought Java source files were porn because they had some comments marked with XXX (standard Java notation to indicate areas that are kluged up or need to be).

Re:This is why I like being old

[sentientbeing]

Child porn is already illegal in the UK.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linda doesn't want to hear the answer, she shouldn't ask the question. I can see why one wouldn't want to be in that position, but she is.

Re:This is why I like being old

[grahammm]

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

Reply, "so sign me up to the filter which ONLY blocks child pornography."

Re:This is why I like being old

[noh8rz10]

how the heck are you a 50 year old man nearing retirement? In US you'd be halfway through your working life.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

And I'll let Linda know that I'll be wankin' it to much of that aforementioned content. While smoking weed.

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

I would request that she just block the child porn. I am 100% OK with that. Their primary argument is that they are protecting the children: so go ahead and do that. The reality is that they aren't willing to do the work to filter out the actual bad stuff, they just want to force their "morality" on others.

Re:This is why I like being old

[BasilBrush]

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who take jobs that largely consist of annoying people. And that includes all cold-calling. We should do nothing to make their job easier and everything to make their job harder.

Re:This is why I like being old

[lgw]

You have a sexy voice Linda. What are you wearing? Obscene content you say? Describe it to me in detail, so that I can make an informed decision.

Re:This is why I like being old

[the eric conspiracy]

It isn't that hard if you reject consumerism and learn how to invest properly (see John Bogle).

Speaking from personal experience.

Re:This is why I like being old

[cayenne8]

how the heck are you a 50 year old man nearing retirement? In US you'd be halfway through your working life.

Well, you see...some of us save a respectable portion of our income over our work lifetime, and don't spend every fscking penny we earn buying crap.

Do a reasonable savings, invest, and yes...get a little lucky here and there from time to time, and at age 50yrs, you should be able to see retirement in the reasonable near future.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Still say I don't want my internet connection censored. I can determine for myself what is appropriate and what isn't, thanks. I don't need or want a nanny.

CP isn't illegal to view, it's illegal to produce and distribute. Tell me, what would you do if you were reading through some forum, someone posts a link to "a cute bunny", which turns out to be CP? You've already clicked the link, the file was download to your PC and the image is up on your screen. Have you broken the law?

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Me: That's not a question, Linda. Are we done here?

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

I am in my late 30s and I have already semi-retired (I own a cafe, but I don't participate in the day to day operations). It's called spending wisely and saving money for the future.

Re:This is why I like being old

[ILongForDarkness]

I'd say I'm currently wanking it to the teletubbies. Please provide some better material.

Re:This is why I like being old

[ILongForDarkness]

Speaking of "porns okay" wouldn't it be nice if you could only opt into good porn. Yes I want adult material but only that which meets the following criteria. Think of the thousands of hours you could save if you didn't have to search :)

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

I can't speak for England, but in the US, yes you have broken the law. Your intent doesn't matter, it doesn't matter if you deleted it the moment you realized what it was. You can be charged with viewing it, they just spin it as possession (saw it on the internet? You had to have downloaded it first: possession)

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Bullshit. It's the same reason it's not illegal to download pirated material. You don't know what the data is until you've downloaded and viewed it. Or what about a site that embeds an illegal image that shows up as soon as the site loads? That cannot be held against you, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.

Re:This is why I like being old

[operagost]

Some of us don't plan to retire when Social Security says we can, and live the last few years of our lives in poverty.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Mr D from 63]

I once took a telemarketing job in college, pay a time of day worked for me. That was the most miserable two days of work in my life. Walked out on day two, told the boss I can't mislead people.

I have a little empathy, but no sympathy.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Ahh yes, well known child porn sites like Wikipedia.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

ISP agent: Hmm... What is this "grandchildren" and "swimming pool" you're talking about?

Re:This is why I like being old

[Joce640k]

Tell that to Pete Townsend: http://www.thesmokinggun.com/documents/crime/pete-townshends-child-porn-treatise

Re:This is why I like being old

[RavenLrD20k]

Towards the end of my last stint at RadioShack they started having us do cold calling of the people who bought cell phones from us and were nearing the end of their contract. I maybe called 6 numbers my entire stint there. Once I had called two people back to back that said they didn't sign anything authorizing the call. Unfortunately, they did... it was just buried in all the paperwork when they signed RadioShack's copy of the carrier contract. After that, I only went through and marked off the numbers in the call list as they came up. Also, just before the customer got to the section that gave RadioShack the authorization I made up my own spiel to say "Before you sign this, understand that the only purpose of this page is saying that you're giving us permission to interrupt your dinner in two years to harass you into coming into the store for an upgrade. It is not required for your contract to go through." My manager was pissed when he realized what I was saying... I didn't care. He never argued it or wrote me up for it.

I gave up a lot of my soul in doing sales, but there's one bit of integrity that I didn't let go. At least now I'm in a position where I can start getting a good bit of my soul back.

Re:This is why I like being old

[boristdog]

How did I do it? Let's see:

I live in a small house that I built myself on land I bought cheap outside town many years ago. I also bought more of that "cheap" land that is now worth 3x to 5x what I paid for it, so I can sell it later.

Saving and investing about 1/3 of my income. Dumped as much as I could stand into the market after the 2008-2009 crash. Lost some, made far more.

I'm building some alternative income streams now to keep the do-re-mi flowing.

I still travel a lot and spend way too much money on my pets and various hobbies, but I should be able to retire in 5 years and continue my wanton ways. It helps that the wife and I both have good-paying tech jobs.

Re:This is why I like being old

[chuckugly]

"I can filter that on my own, thanks anyway"

Re:This is why I like being old

[Luckyo]

If you want to be really "creative" you could ask Linda to talk dirty to you while she switches the filters off, so you can start early. She is working in service industry after all!

Re:This is why I like being old

[Luckyo]

This is UK. You're boned no matter what you say. Pedohunters will rape you regardless of your choice.

Re:This is why I like being old

[rueger]

It isn't that hard if you reject consumerism and learn how to invest properly

And are lucky,

And don't suffer a major illness which takes you out of the workforce for several years. Or which, in the US, has to be paid for with your life savings or by selling your home.

And don't invest is supposedly safe things that tank during a major economic recession. The things that supposedly highly trained investment advisors told you to buy. (or are you suggesting that every single person regardless of background, intelligence, and education should be expected to play the markets on their own??)

And don't find your previously well-paying job shipped offshore, leaving you working at McDonalds.

And of course, lets not forget that many millions of people were promised by both industry and government that if they worked hard in their jobs for the requisite 35+ years they would receive a decent pension at age 65 and would be allowed to relax and enjoy their so-called golden years.

Those people have been shafted in the most a callous and despicable fashion, and with no plausible reason. The demographic age bubble has been rolling along for more than half a century, and everyone knew it. There's no reasonable excuse why the various pension schemes couldn't have been managed in a responsible way so that the promises made to these ordinary working people would be honored.

It's time to stop blaming the victims that are struggling to live in retirement poverty, and start blaming the businesses and governments that are putting them there.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

First

After a four-month investigation, London police today cleared Pete Townshend of kiddie porn charges

Second

At the time of his arrest, Townshend admitted using his credit card to visit a web site offering child porn, but told cops he was just conducting research.

So he KNOWINGLY downloaded child porn and STILL got off the hook for it. You might try reading stories before you link them in support of your argument.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Nyder]

While you're at it, ask Linda where you can find the video of her getting creampied by a German shepard.

thepiratebay of course.

Re:This is why I like being old

[shutdown -p now]

That sort of thing is pretty much the only niche where pay sites are still useful. Look up DOMAI, for example.

Re:This is why I like being old

[shutdown -p now]

Look up "strict liability" on Wikipedia. Child port possession and distribution is a strict liability crime in many places, so mens rea is not necessary.

Re:This is why I like being old

[ultranova]

Making poor Linda suffer for the fact that this unfortunate job has been foisted upon her would not achieve anything. Statistically Linda is highly likely to be a single mom or one half of a low income family and I can't blame her for not being reluctant to take a stand over this and risk losing her job over it.

Unfortunately, this leads to a rather bleak conclusion about the future of our societies. After all, if Linda won't stand up to creeping tyranny, then who will? China?

Perhaps it's time to admit you can't have a free society when people's income depends on other people's goodwill and institute guaranteed minimum income sufficient to live on. The alternative seems to be continued Finlandization of individuals in relation to corporations and political entities their livelihood depends on. As has been noted, you never know who might be posting pictures of you partying on your free time to Facebook, and how they might affect your future employment prospects. The world is becoming a panopticon; the only real question is: do you want the warden to have power over you?

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Strict liability is not a criminal offense unless the defendant were found guilty of some other crime in relation.

Re:This is why I like being old

[boristdog]

I admit to being VERY lucky. Born white and middle class to parents who valued education (NASA scientist father, teacher mother) and who looked at me disapprovingly if I didn't bring home straight A's. My father also likes to build stuff, my mother loves to travel so I've been building stuff and traveling the world since I was a wee lad. There are few better educational and incentive experiences than visiting the poorer parts of the world when you are young.

So yeah, I had a lot of advantages and I used them. But I also plan to use my retirement to help many less fortunate than myself, as everyone should.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Fortunately, I have no child port, nor have I ever seen any.

Re:This is why I like being old

[shutdown -p now]

Strict liability is not a crime, it's a liability standard, so it can't be an offense. The crime in question would be possession and/or distribution of child porn. Strict liability just means that you don't have to be culpable to be charged with the crime; merely committing it is sufficient.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Savage-Rabbit]

I'm sorry, but I have no sympathy for people who take jobs that largely consist of annoying people. And that includes all cold-calling. We should do nothing to make their job easier and everything to make their job harder.

If this was a telemarketer I'd agree with you, those people can be terribly annoying. But in my experience my telco's support centre staff are not there to annoy me. The handful of times they have cold-called me over the years it was to offer me more economical plans for my mobile phone and my iPad. As it turned out they were right, given my usage pattern I was actually paying less with the plan they recommended.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

No it isn't. It is not used in criminal cases unless the defendant is guilty of a related crime.

Re:This is why I like being old

[shutdown -p now]

A crime related to what?

Re:This is why I like being old

[the eric conspiracy]

> And don't suffer a major illness which takes you out of the workforce for several years.

Most people avoid that, so really it takes some quite bad luck for that to happen. It isn't particularly lucky to avoid that. With the PPACA it shouldn't happen at all.

> And don't invest is supposedly safe things that tank during a major economic recession.

I referenced John Bogle in my comment. If you were to read his advice you would realize that it's not hard to avoid the scenario you proposed. One of the things he points out is that high-paid investment advisors don't know shit. They are salesmen selling useless services, the cost of which materially depletes the efficiency of investing. This has been known for 80 years. cf "Where are the Customer's Yachts", a classic book on the investment industry. Do you due diligence for crying out loud.

> And don't find your previously well-paying job shipped offshore, leaving you working at McDonalds.

That happened to me except I avoided the McDonald's part and found another good job. It did take some effort. I don't think there was any luck involved other than perhaps the part where I worked hard when I was a student to get a good education.

> There's no reasonable excuse why the various pension schemes couldn't have been managed in a responsible way so that the promises made to these ordinary working people would be honored.

I used these various pension schemes. Because I was careful about debt and not buying into keeping up with the Jones and actually thinking about what I was doing I am going to have a comfortable retirement.

Seriously, the whining in your post is really pretty sad. Luck is what happens when you are prepared for life and tackle it head on.

If you don't, well, you were warned.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Reply, "so sign me up to the filter which ONLY blocks child pornography."

Linda: /blocks slashdot.org, because the string now matches at least once, and because slashing dots sounds like extremist violence, and thinks she's doing you a favor.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

*sigh* Learn how to read

Re:This is why I like being old

[shutdown -p now]

Learn how to express yourself clearly.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Linda: The blocked content includes child pornography sir.

What will you do now?

Demand to speak to her supervisor, and start recording the call. .

Because I know that known kiddie porn is already blacklisted across the board by all ISPs. Has been for years. So the statement implies they would be offering unfiltered access. Removing an already in place and effective blacklist.
And offering such a thing is essentially trafficking.
And that is a very serious criminal offence.
So.. If Linda asks me that, I want to know her real name, and her manager's name, and her location so I can pass this information on to the police.

In other words.. This is not actually going to happen.

Re:This is why I like being old

[AmiMoJo]

If you are unemployed and the local call centre is hiring then your choice is to take the job or lose your benefits.

Re:This is why I like being old

[AmiMoJo]

You are very lucky, like many of your generation. Young people today often don't have enough spare cash to buy land, build a house or otherwise invest.

Re:This is why I like being old

[TheGratefulNet]

wrong way to approach this.

the right way is: "I don't search for CP, and so it won't be an issue."

Re: This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

you are very wrong. In the UK since you view child porn your computer is making a copy on your computer and making an image is illegal.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Cederic]

The act of viewing it includes creating a new copy of the bits in the display memory area.

See the word 'creating' in the sentence above? In the UK they don't just charge you with possession, they charge you with creation too.

Yes, people are found guilty.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Cederic]

No, it's not illegal to offer an unfiltered connection in the UK. The IWF blacklist is an opt-in choice for ISPs. There are some small ISPs that haven't opted in.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

You act just like a small child.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

Prove it. Show me one case where someone has been busted for inadvertently downloading CP because they were tricked into it.

When you do an image or a video search online, you are downloading many copyrighted images. When you search for text and get results from books or scripts, those are copyrighted materials you have downloaded too. I could post a completely innocuous link to something right here and by clicking it, you'd be downloading copyrighted material. That doesn't mean you've broken the law, because you could not have known what would be sent to your browser before you saw it.

Re:This is why I like being old

[BasilBrush]

Or take a different job. McDonalds are usually hiring.

Re: This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

A friend of my brothers was arrested and charged and served a prison sentence for just viewing an image. He was charged under the offence of creating offensive images of children. I know that this is UK law so stop saying it isn't please . just cod you don't think it I'd doesn't make it so.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Askmum]

Tell her that I also don't look at religious websites. Or David Cameron's personal website. Because I also find those too offensive to watch.
You play a poor game of chess.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Xest]

Or accept one of the many apprenticeship and training programs available to those who are getting those benefits precisely so you can take something other than a call centre job.

But no, you're right, training requires effort so do the least possible effort option and then whinge about how hard done by you are right?

We live in the UK, there is no "Oh I had no other option but the call centre job" - there's so many other jobs available, so many training opportunities available for free. I'm not unemployed, I'm a net contributor to society with my taxes and I'm still eligible to go to the local college and do a number of training courses ranging from everything from plumbing to photography. There's even more available to those who are on low incomes or unemployed including things like fully funded CCNA training and certification and some of the latter follow ons. Up until the tuition fee changes you could even do a degree with the OU completely free too if you were earning less than about 20k a year, although that has passed now for earners, though IIRC may still even be free for the unemployed - even if it's not you can still get a student loan for free and never have to repay it if you never earn enough from doing so and only pay it back if you ever do earn enough to do so.

"A call centre job is my only option" is equivalent to "I'm a lazy twat and it's the only thing that was handed to me on a plate so I took it" in our country because we have so many options to become qualified for and apply to do something else. If you can't afford to live whilst doing the training there's still the option of the many paid apprenticeship routes.

I have zero sympathy for people who think the only job they can get is something in a call centre or whatever, because it's simply false. There are so many other options available for free to better yourself if you're not lazy.

Re:This is why I like being old

[AmiMoJo]

The problem with training and apprenticeships is that they don't pay the bills. You lose some of the benefits you get for being unemployed, and take on extra costs like transport, childcare and study materials. It's fine if you are young and living at home (although your patents might not agree) but not everyone can do training.

You have to remember that some people have mortgages and children too. If you need £18k just to pay the bills it cuts out a lot of jobs. I suppose you could tell people to lose or sell their homes, but the point of the welfare system is to prevent that.

On top of that there are far too many scam jobs with zero hour contracts and the like. They pressure you to take one and the first week gives you enough hours, but then it trappers off and you have to go back and try to claim low income benefits on a week-by-week basis. After that has happened to you a few times you want to avoid it happening again.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Xest]

Actually a lot of training courses allow you to keep your jobseekers allowance. My girlfriend's uncle was unemployed for 3 years and got paid jobseekers allowance for the entire duration because he kept going on training courses.

I don't think the welfare state is designed to stop you from losing your home but it is designed to stop you from being homeless - there's a subtle difference there, if you had a £500k house and lost your job then the state shouldn't be expected to keep paying for that, you need to downsize into a £100k house if need be. This makes sense otherwise everyone would be encouraged to buy something wholly unaffordable and then demand the state makes up the shortfall.

Most areas of high unemployment have training centres situated within them, LearnDirect centres are aplenty. Here in Yorkshire there's a hell of a lot of villages that are high in unemployment as a continued result at the loss of mining, but the amount of money that has been pumped into them is phenomenal. You can't go more than 10 miles without hitting a train station that'll get you to places like Leeds, or Sheffield which are the 3rd and 4th largest cities in the UK in no time at all and the fares are subsidised so extremely cheap, more so for the unemployed. There are many new businesses and cheap business units so people can try and start their own businesses being built and so forth too. Despite this there's a massive disparity in the villages, the worst off have ever more investment pumped into them ranging from brand new health centres, to brand new LearnDirect centres, new housing and new businesses as well as ever better transport, but despite this they don't improve. Others that were equally badly off are doing pretty well and are becoming much more afluent, the people in this places are starting their own businesses, they're commuting to major cities and doing well.

I accept that there may be cases where you have people in low unemployment areas that are unemployed and so might not enjoy quite such benefits but they're the exception, not the rule.

So despite the nonsense from the about how these people can't help it blah blah blah it's simply not true, it's not about can't, it's about wont. We have these case studies that prove this, we have villages from identical starting points, but attitudes in some are simply wont, they choose to wallow in their pit of failure and misery whilst their neighbours pick themselves up and sort themselves out and more and more funding can't help those that wont, because the problem is wont, not can't, and that's the issue.

I've lived around here long enough to see that those living in cloud cuckoo land like Owen Jones just have no idea about the real problems, neither do successive governments that think throwing money at the problem will make it better. The problem isn't lack of opportunities, the problem is completely about attitude. You can provide all the opportunities in the world to these people, but they still wont take them because they simply cannot be bothered to learn, or to work. All they want is to spend their days in the local working mens club, or betting shop. The fact that entire villages coming from the exact same starting point have done more with less investment is proof enough that they can sort themselves out and get more than just call centre jobs if the will is there to do so.

I don't pretend to know what the solution is, but it's like you need to move a bunch of highly motivated people to live in these villages to work their way up and show them what they can make of themselves if they actually try. It's like success, and failure are contagious and the difference between the successful and failed villages is simply catalyst people who do try, who do take the opportunities handed to them, and do succeed and everyone else follows, but it's definitely not lack of opportunities, lack of ability to get training and so forth - all this is handed them all on a plate.

Re:This is why I like being old

[Anonymous Coward]

"How about, as an ISP, you sell me Internet access, like you advertise."

Re:This is why I like being old

[RockDoctor]

But would your relationship stand up to a "I like taking the piss out of stupid laws" conversation?

"Yes across the board."

[grub]

I would hope Linda and others would have the fortitude to say "Yes across the board" and hang up. It's better to face the odd goatse than to have the government spoon feed you.

Re:"Yes across the board."

[Anonymous Coward]

It's better to face the odd goatse than to have the government spoon with you.

FTFY

Re:"Yes across the board."

[Anonymous Coward]

Why is Linda saying yes? She asked me the question damn it.

Re:"Yes across the board."

[houghi]

I was thinking YES as well. I want to be ABLE to look at what I like. I should even be allowed to see Justin Bieber if I want to.

Re:"Yes across the board."

[Anonymous Coward]

I should even be allowed to see Justin Bieber if I want to.

Let's not go that far. Some things are just not okay.

Re:"Yes across the board."

[Anonymous Coward]

Putting "goatse" so close to "spoon feed" is just cruelty to skim-readers.

The answer is simple

[TheNastyInThePasty]

"I do not wish to have the government choose for me which content is appropriate for my viewing. Unblock all of it. If I am worried about what my children will get into, I will monitor them myself or purchase configurable child blocking software. Thank you. Have a nice day."

Re:The answer is simple

[Seumas]

"Sir, I'm sorry, but I'm obligated to receive individual confirmation of each item on the list. Can we continue, now, please?"

Re:The answer is simple

[Anonymous Coward]

No, the simple answer is the make it opt-in instead of opt-out.

Re:The answer is simple

[Doghouse13]

Agreed. My response is more terse, along the lines of, "I object on principle to having my potential internet access censored."

Re:The answer is simple

[FireFury03]

"I do not wish to have the government choose for me which content is appropriate for my viewing. Unblock all of it. If I am worried about what my children will get into, I will monitor them myself or purchase configurable child blocking software. Thank you. Have a nice day."

My answer would be "please can you send me my mac code".

Re:The answer is simple

[Bite The Pillow]

As I said before, no to censorship, meaning yes to everything, including that one.

If the call is recorded an individual yes is acceptable at that point, and if its not no one will care.

Did I miss something? Do you still think the chilling effect exists?

Re:The answer is simple

[kekx]

While this is a very nice reply, the problem is that the majority of the population will not be able to formulate it clearly and concise like you did and/or will simply conform social norms and accept the blocking.

"Yeah baby"

[Anonymous Coward]

No big deal, I'll just make it equally creepy for Linda

really?

[lagomorpha2]

How hard is it to say, "Give me the total freedom package and piss off!"?

Re:really?

[bluefoxlucid]

The British have one thing over America: They know how to say "Piss off!" in every situation imaginable. Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over. Violence is bad here, it's taught as "not the solution", and all aggression is looked down upon; we've forgotten how to push back, to shout at people, and to react to someone trying to kill us by throwing a brick at them instead of crying and ducking under a chair.

In America, it would be like, "ohgod, I uh, please don't call me, I don't want to talk about stuff like that it's uncomfortable!"

Re:really?

[Antipater]

Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over

Just phrase it as "Obama is coming to take your porn!" That'll get 'em riled up good.

Re:really?

[lagomorpha2]

Nah, over here it would be the other way around. Rumors would start about the government subsidizing adult content and the next thing you know the Right in the US would be screaming about protecting the children from Obamaporn.

Re:really?

[Trepidity]

It's kind of a split personality though. In some situations it's immediately to "piss off!" But in other situations, like on the tube, it's 100% near-silent passive aggression.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

That must be why we have an unelected hereditary head of state and no real concept of freedom of speech . . . Oh wait thats the uk :D

The Brits can tend to go with the flow worse than Americans. I cant imagine an unelected hereidatry king or queen trying to stay in power in the usa for very long.

Capcha: redcoat (lol)

Re:really?

[Doghouse13]

Except the poor beggar on the other end of the line is simply doing a job, and probably for mediocre wages because it's what they could get. There's no reason not to do them the courtesy of staying civil.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe Obama should start supporting rifles so that people immediately start screaming for the second amendment to be overturned.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

While you are right to a degree, it is important to know the difference between assertiveness and violence -- the two have correlation but are not the same.

And come to think of it, I do NOT think you are right in that violence is viewed as bad uniformly in US. "There's nothing in ass-kicking as long as the right ass gets kicked" is a credo in more conservative parts of the country; and even corporal punishment is legal.

If you want to find countries with actual aversion to violence, you'll have to go to places like northern Europe (Scandinavia; Sweden or Norway esp.) or Japan.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Except the poor beggar on the other end of the line is simply doing a job, and probably for mediocre wages because it's what they could get. There's no reason not to do them the courtesy of staying civil.

Exactly, this is why you first polity explain that you are not addressing to her when you shout obscenity, but to the ass-hole that will listen to the recording for quality assurance later.

Re:really?

[noh8rz10]

Imagine if Bush II had commited a bald-face lie - multiple times! - about his one major initiative. And don't give me the Iraq war bullshit

some interesting points here, but don't undermine them by making a GWB comparison since he was a super bad president and a liar who killed thousands with his ignorance.

And yet Obama bald-face lied about Obamacare - over and over. On multiple points. "If you like your plan you can keep it!" "You can keep your doctor!" "It'll be CHEAPER!"

I'm not ready to judge obamacare yet, because the market is still adjusting to the new normal and we haven't seen how the full package of premiums, state action, and tax breaks some together

Hell, Obama's been about to "pivot to jobs" for what? Five fucking years now without doing it? The US media was all over Bush for an unemployment rate that looks downright rosy compared to Obama's continued failure.

no, employment has gone up and up steadily throughout his term except for the first 9mo where the bush effects were still reverberating. look at a graph of employment under Obama vs employment under bush.

Obama the candidate ran against the NSA and Gitmo - citing his past as a scholar to go so far as to call such things "unconstitutional". Yet President Obama seems to have entirely forgotten his past Constitional cares...

I don't recall candidate Obama running specifically against NSA, but president Obama has definitely presided over an enormous expansion of secret state power. scary,

..

Obama the candidate called multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits "unpatriotic". President Obama runs multi-TRILLION dollar deficits year in and year out while the media tries to blame Republcans for daring to shut down the government over a few tens of billions of dollars of spending cuts.

it's the house of represnetatives that writes and passes a budget. Obama has never vetoed a budget.

Sarah Palin was a successul governor of a large state for years before getting picked to be a VP candidate, and the media skewered her.

you have to admit she was a total joke and had it coming.

Re:really?

[dirk]

Americans just get all hot and whimper and then bend over.

This post is now potentially blocked in the UK.

Re:really?

[RichMan]

You should actually say that to the politician to get results not the anonymous phone support person

Re:really?

[lgw]

I'm assuming in the UK that no one is actually forced by the government into this line of work? (I'm actually unsure about this, after hearing stories of people legally forced to work unpaid "internships".) If they chose this job, they deserve everything that comes from it. I'll stop before I godwin the thread.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

You are deluded if you think that there is any difference between right and left or between members of any given political party. Politicians are politicians. They are all greedy scum who absolutely do not have the best interests of the people they claim to serve at heart.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people don't have a choice of job - not sure what the rules are now but it used to be that to receive benefit you had to apply for a certain number of jobs which you would be able to do, and if you were offered the job you had to take it.

Re:really?

[fahrbot-bot]

Sarah Palin was a successull governor of a large state for years before getting picked to be a VP candidate, and the media skewered her.

you have to admit she was a total joke and had it coming.

In addition, while Alaska may be a large state in terms of *area*, it's ranked 47th in population with fewer people (735,132) than Rhode Island (44th w/ 1,051,511) and Delaware (46th w/ 925,749). Seriously, Fairfax County, Virginia has more people (1,118,602). I guess "large" is a matter of perspective (hopefully GP's girlfriend will understand.)

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Many people don't have a choice of job

Yes, they do. If your job is immoral, there is no excuse.

Re:really?

[lgw]

I'm willing to have sympathy for someone effectively forced into a job by the government, much like I'd only hold a drafted soldier responsible for behavior inappropriate for a soldier, not for the fact there's a war in the first place.

OTOH, I find it quite shocking that in the UK being forced into working some job you didn't choose (over a job you were actually doing, the way I hear it) is apparently a thing. I mean, all of us not independently wealthy are forced by circumstance to earn a living, and our options are limited by our skills, but that's a far cry from having a single job dictated to you.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

"In America, it would be like, "ohgod, I uh, please don't call me, I don't want to talk about stuff like that it's uncomfortable!"

Oh bullshit. 'America' is far more than the kids in the Liberal Arts dorm on your campus.

Re:really?

[mjwalshe]

yep if you turn down work offered by the job center you get sanctioned ie have your benefits removed - no matter that you might have 30+years of NI contributions

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Imagine if Bush II had commited a bald-face lie - multiple times! - about his one major initiative. And don't give me the Iraq war bullshit - Clinton I and II were both on board for that, as were most Dems and even on-US intel agencies. Hell, even with support from Clinton, Gore, and allies, we still hear "BOOOOSH LIED!!!" bullshit. (So maybe you shoud go ahead - cite "Bush LIED!" and make my damn point for me!)

The plain fact is that the Bush administration was a bit less than candid to the general public about the intelligence we had on Iraq's WMD. Just because lots of other politicians in the opposition party were spineless about calling him on it in no way exonerates what was done.

And yet Obama bald-face lied about Obamacare - over and over. On multiple points. "If you like your plan you can keep it!" "You can keep your doctor!" "It'll be CHEAPER!"

Obama's claim that "if you like your plan you can keep it" has an implicit assumption built in, namely that people are going to react to the changes in health care in a rational manner. I have noticed that certain partisan news organizations (Faux News, among others) have been in the habit of putting out heart breaking stories of people that were about to lose their health insurance to "Obamacare". They were all in a tizzy that they could not keep their old insurance policies under the new healthcare regulations. Later, more careful investigative journalism found that these people were losing expensive, almost worthless insurance policies which had to be replaced with other insurance policies that required a certain minimum standard of coverage. Yes, in many cases their insurance premiums will be going up, but on the flip side they will supposedly be getting much better insurance policies. Strange, no?

Obama the candidate ran against the NSA and Gitmo - citing his past as a scholar to go so far as to call such things "unconstitutional". Yet President Obama seems to have entirely forgotten his past Constitional cares....

During the early days of his administration Obama tried to transfer the gitmo detainees to the federal prison system as the first step to shutting gitmo down. It seems that many republicans in congress were vehemently opposed to terrorists being allowed certain civil liberties like confronting their accusers and seeing the evidence against them (a lot of it classified) presented in open court. At the very least this does present troubling constitutional issues.

Obama the candidate called multi-hundred-billion dollar deficits "unpatriotic". President Obama runs multi-TRILLION dollar deficits year in and year out while the media tries to blame Republcans for daring to shut down the government over a few tens of billions of dollars of spending cuts. Oh no, it's not Obama and the Democrats who are intransigient over the TRILLION dollar deficits, it's the Republicans who want to cut the deficit from $1,000,000,000,000 to $950,000,000,000 per year that cause the government shutdown.

The government shutdown cost taxpayers somewhere between 12 and 24 billion dollars. As a cost-cutting strategy it leaves a lot to be desired. Most republican strategies for cutting deficit spending go after discretionary spending which is just south of 20% of the federal budget. If they were really serious about banacing our federal budget they would need to tackle spending on things like defense, social security, and medicare. Few republicans have the stomach for taking those on, particularly during election years.

Obama doesn't get a pass in the media?

State rep and part-time Senator before he became President? Sarah Palin was a successul governor of a large state for years before getting picked to be a VP candidate, and the media skewered her. Meanwhile, Obama got away with saying the US had 57 states. (Go ahead, grow some stones and google that....) Imagine w

Re:really?

[Mashiki]

no, employment has gone up and up steadily throughout his term except for the first 9mo where the bush effects were still reverberating. look at a graph of employment under Obama vs employment under bush.

No employment has not gone up steadily throughout his term. That's why the average amount of time on unemployment is now between 32 and 40 weeks(a massive increase over the 20-27 weeks in '07). And paying attention to that number, note how the U6 number has continued to climb up under his presidency. That's the statistic that includes people who've given up looking for work, because they can't find work. Which makes it very easy to fudge the U3 number, and while we're doing this--note that the labor participation rate continues to fall through the floor like a brick.

it's the house of represnetatives that writes and passes a budget. Obama has never vetoed a budget.

Sure, and during the 2 years he controlled the house he never passed a budget either. Following with that, the democrats control the senate. So he's never actually had to veto anything, since the party whip simply makes sure it never gets past the senate. The house has passed several budgets however.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Damn. Slashdot is just as much of a circlejerk about the U.S. as reddit.

Re:really?

[Antipater]

Sorry, but many of the statistics in your post are wildly incorrect.

No employment has not gone up steadily throughout his term.

CPS Table A-1 Historical Data: Employment bottomed in December 2009 at 138.025 million. Since then it has risen steadily (with a few hiccups here and there). As of November's data, employment is at 144.386 million. If you want to talk about job growth rather than employment, CES Table B-1 shows we've had steady positive jobs growth since the "double dip" scare in 2010. Every single month since September 2010 has had net jobs created.

note how the U6 number has continued to climb up under his presidency

U6 peaked at 17.1% in April 2010, and has been on a downward trend ever since. It is currently at 13.2%. Source

while we're doing this, note that the labor participation rate continues to fall through the floor like a brick

This is accurate, and "continues" is the proper word to use. Labor participation peaked in 2000 and has been trending downward since. It flattened out during the bubble years ('05-'07), steepened again during the recession, and is now back down to where it would have been had it never deviated from the '01-'04 trendline. Source (table A-1 again from above). While not a good thing, the aging of the baby boom generation cannot be attributed to economic policies of any president or any Congress. Economic policies don't stop people from getting old and retiring.

Re:really?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't worry, social workers all over England are trying to correct this by encouraging children to say that to their parents.

Re:really?

[gnasher719]

yep if you turn down work offered by the job center you get sanctioned ie have your benefits removed - no matter that you might have 30+years of NI contributions

The problem of the person with 30+ years of NI contributions is that they don't know how to play the game. You don't turn down the work. You go to a job interview and make sure they don't accept you.

Re: really?

[Sinus0idal]

You realise the Queen has no real power over policy/government these days right? She's a figurehead. Your post reads like you think she's running the show!

Re:really?

[Mashiki]

Would that be, "before" or "after" that the BLS was caught fudging statistics at the behest of the whitehouse?

Right, we already know exactly what happened there.

Re:really?

[Cederic]

You don't have to take the job being 'forced' onto you. It's just that the Government wont continue to hand out cash to you if you don't.

The conversation goes along the lines of
You: I have no job, I need money
Gov: Here, have some money to keep you going while you find a job
You: I have no job, I need money
Gov: For fucks sake it's been fucking months. Find something. Here's some money anyway
You: I have no job, I need money
Gov: Ok, here's money. And here's a job. They go together. Your call.

Re:really?

[mjwalshe]

that only works a couple of times and they can force you to take work and B most people wont push back

Re:really?

[lgw]

That's pretty normal in Europe too, as I understand it, with only occasional problems where the job is in a brothel or somesuch. But I've heard stories of:

Gov: Ok, here's money. And here's a job. They go together. Your call. BTW, the job pays nothing.
You: but I have an internship, in my field, and it's paying a little and leading me to real work.
Gov: We don't care, go dig ditches for free.

Re:really?

[Cederic]

Yeah, I've heard those too. It's a bit daft but also difficult to put a process around.

I'd stop unpaid internships, it's just slave labour..

Re:really?

[lgw]

I agree, but I'm pretty sure that slave labor is the point of the system. Being forced by the government to work below market wage for the benefit of well-connected business owners goes hand-in-hand with totalitarian government.

Re:really?

[Antipater]

That's historical data reaching back as far as you'd like - decades or more. It covers both before and after the time when a single worker claimed he had made up data, despite all evidence that such a thing was not happening.

politifact check on the issue

Definition.

[nospam007]

I guess for the ruling party, the opposition would be 'obscene'.

Re:Definition.

[Trepidity]

Will be interesting to see if it applies to their own. If an MP has a racist rant on their site, will the "extremist" filter flag it? Will Enoch Powell's speeches on YouTube get the axe? Guess: no.

Re:Definition.

[FireFury03]

Will be interesting to see if it applies to their own. If an MP has a racist rant on their site, will the "extremist" filter flag it? Will Enoch Powell's speeches on YouTube get the axe? Guess: no.

I'm waiting for a newspaper to publish a leaked list of MPs who have said "yes I want the porn" to their ISPs...

Re:Definition.

[mjwalshe]

mm ok so thats all of UKIPS then

Re:Definition.

[AmiMoJo]

Is there a submission form for potentially bad sites? I want to write a script that bulk submits Daily Mail pages as they are published based on keywords for child porn/hate/racism etc.

Re:Definition.

[Cederic]

bulk submits Daily Mail pages

I'd start with http://dailymail.co.uk/ and get the whole site blocked.

Move on to the Guardian (Extremist), the Telegraph (Extremist), the Sun (Pornographic) and the Mirror (not suitable for children).

I'd add in websites attached to any religions (all guilty of child abuse) and obviously all political parties (as they're extremist, and trying to subvert the democractic process).

Basically the more of the internet to which the blocks prevent access, the more likely they are to be turned off.

Please ...

[PPH]

... hold the gay sex and drugs. I'll have an extra helping of porn, if that's not too much trouble.

Re:Please ...

[MozeeToby]

Does "drugs" block sites such as those advocating an end to marijuana prohibition? Does "gay sex" block sites such as support sites for homosexual teens? I suspect yes and yes; if not intentionally every time then at least unintentionally some of the time. So no, you damn well won't censor any of my communications with the outside world.

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you're not interested in ever taking drugs, the experience reports on Erowid make for some damn interesting reads!

Re:Please ...

[Jason Levine]

Personally, I'd respond "give me all of it" even though I have no desire to visit gay sex or drugs websites. First of all, should I decide to visit such sites in the future, I don't want to ask for permission to see them. Secondly, I don't want the government deciding what constitutes "gay sex" or "drugs" websites.

Who is determining this and who is preventing them from abusing their position? (i.e. "You oppose me so your site is suddenly an 'undesirable' site and blocked by default.") Government shouldn't be in the business of blocking websites. If the government feels the need to do anything, they can recommend a few of the many free or pay web blocking programs and provide information on how to install/configure them on your local computers. This should appease the "think of the children" crowd without forcing the rest of us to abide by their definition of "right and wrong."

Re:Please ...

[Krneki]

I guess Game of Thrones is on your block list.

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

No lesbians and medicinal cannabis for you then, Mistress!

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

... hold the gay sex and drugs. I'll have an extra helping of porn, if that's not too much trouble.

Except girl on girl of course...

Re:Please ...

[operagost]

Gay sex isn't porn?

And I thought just filtering out the gay porn might get you flagged as a bigot.

Re:Please ...

[PPH]

I see your point.

When 'Linda' calls, I'd like to request a block on the 'barely legal' genre but a definite yes to MILF. Brunettes, OK. Redheads, definitely yes. Blondes, if nothing else is available. Gonzo porn: check. Light on the plots, please. Big jugs OK, but hold the circus-sized breasts. Nice long legs a must.

What? You say your filter cant handle this? What sort of an outfit are you running there? I'd be surprised if Linda didn't hang up in the middle of my filter parameter list.

Re:Please ...

[mjwalshe]

Or those calling for a Pardon for Alan Turing

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Seeing as how Turing has been pardoned that's not really a problem now...

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Get with the program baby. Or is the BBC filtered from your connection?

Re:Please ...

[Anonymous Coward]

You should watch the "it's not porn - it's HBO" clip. Well maybe you already have :)

Boutique ISP

[Anonymous Coward]

I have NO problem what so ever telling Linda (Infact I would be proud to tell her that!!) that I want to view all the porn and information about where the best place to smoke drugs is when I visit Amsterdam. Give me internet. Oh so much internet. Then again at the moment I have one of those boutique ISP's that wont have such a crappy filter on it.

porn filter price breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

I personally would like to see a porn filter price break. I'm a cheap mother fucker. I also like being efficient, and sometimes it distracts me to have porn around. (I'm known to have weak will.) I wish I had an option for cheaper internet that included a porn filter. That way, it'd be my own choice, and knowing that I'm saving money would be great. And then I could go back to magazines. Those were the days!

Re:porn filter price breaks

[Anonymous Coward]

It'd probably save you money in the form of not having to buy a new keyboard every couple of months, too.

Re:porn filter price breaks

[unrtst]

I wish I had an option for cheaper internet that included a porn filter.

That *should* be the other way around. If you're making use of their filtering services, that's requiring more hardware/bandwidth/etc on their side, so you should have to pay more (a filtering tax?), whereas if you opt out, you should not have to pay for the service.

Sadly, if there was a cheaper option, I know it'd be what you said. They can even blame the cost of having to call everyone every year to confirm they want to keep the filter off as the reason those people need to pay more.

No Nanny State for me

[Anonymous Coward]

The internet should not be fillered by anyone nation. I don't support censorship, if people do not want to view contents. They should simple put out the filter on the browser to whatever setting. Its plain stupid. Unfortunately, government of United Kingdom is a Nanny state, with dim view people being able take care of themselves.

There has to be better way protect people without having a government censor judging for people.

Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

"Internet censorship, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong, and I for one do not support it nor will I endure it, because while ostensibly it is to 'protect the children!', it is inevitably mis-used as a tool by politicians to further their own political and social agendas, and by proxy it is further mis-used by big business to increase their profits by silencing their competition. Lastly it has been proven time and time again that using blacklists to censor the internet simply does not work, and it inevitably will block perfectly 'acceptable' content while sometimes allowing 'unacceptable' content through. Therefore I do not wish to have anything to do with anything having to do with any form of censorship, please do not include me in it, and please do not bother me about this subject again."

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

You're the kind of person that doesn't indicate there is a problem when your order is fucked up, aren't you?

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

Children, children. Neither throwing a tantrum nor being a passive pushover is the way to get ahead in this world.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

You have obviously never worked in customer service.Throwing a tantrum almost always works.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

That's only because you're not aware of the spit in your food the next time you go there.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[misexistentialist]

Kind of a non-issue in a country where people are arrested and go to jail for offensive speech.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[gnasher719]

Internet censorship, in any way, shape, or form, is wrong,...

Well, no, I wouldn't agree with this. There is certainly stuff out there that should be censored (and the people putting it up should be put into jail).

However, filtering this out completely is impossible, and I very much suspect that attempting to filter it out is done with the intention of filtering out contents that people _should_ be allowed to see, that is helpful, but doesn't fit someone's agenda.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[fredprado]

There is a huge difference between consequences and censorship. Maybe publishing some stuff in the Internet should be enough to put people in jail or make them pay damages, but nothing should ever be censored.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

sometimes

It depends on your definition of sometimes.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

First rule of throwing a tantrum is never return.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[YumoolaJohn]

Well, no, I wouldn't agree with this.

Then freedom doesn't matter to you.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[YumoolaJohn]

The children don't need protecting to begin with. You could sum that up as, "Freedom is more important than safety, even if that safety is real, which in this case, it isn't."

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

I think you need to differentiate between "censorship" and "illegal content". I am not in any way, shape or form going to say that, for instance, child pornography should be allowed to exist, as the people who create and traffic in such material are predators, plain and simple, and need to be dealt with as the criminals they are. However the hue and cry to 'Protect the children!' is usually disingenuous at best, used merely as an emotional ploy to further someone's agenda.

On the other hand you may well be one of those people who truly believe that you know better what's best for all other people and for society in general, and thus your sense of moral superiority in turn makes you believe that anything you do is right and justified, regardless of the rights of others you are trampling on. If you're That Guy, then you are the one who needs to be censored, not the Internet.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

Can you clarify what you mean by "not allowed to exist"? I am all for going after producers of that stuff, but against trying to censor it online. It can't be used as the justification for building censorship infrastructure.

In fact I'd suggest that decriminalising possession might be worth considering. The police are all to happy to use claims of finding child porn on victims victims computers to put pressure on them, especially when the police themselves have bungled the investigation. Like firearms or the ability to stop and search people for no reason it's just to much power for them to wield responsibly.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

Can you clarify what you mean by "not allowed to exist"?

Pornographic images of children victimizes children because children are incapable of giving Informed Consent due to their developmental level; the vast majority of people agree with this, as do I. The act of producing child pornography is illegal, the product itself, or posessing the product itself, are all illegal; the vast majority of people also agree with this, as do I. As such child pornographic materials need to be destroyed or at least removed permanently from circulation; the vast majority of people agree with this, as do I. If you don't for some reason then perhaps you need to re-examine yourself and your motivations. This is not the classical discussion of "What is art and what is pornography", because children, who cannot give Informed Consent are involved, not adults, who can.

In fact I'd suggest that decriminalising possession might be worth considering.

Are you a child molestor? Statements like that would lead most people to believe that you are.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

Did you even read my comment? I want to protect children as much as anyone, by going after the abuses. I just don't want the police to use it as a weapon against innocent people, as they have done repeatedly in the past.

Reactionary people like you are the reason it is so hard to discuss these issues rationally, and why the "think of the children" argument works so well.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

You must be a troll, or you're just plain dumb. Your comment was read by me repeatedly, and as you will notice the relevant sections were quoted to prevent any misunderstandings, and you're ignoring what I said. If you said in public what you said there you'd have people jump all over you thinking you're a pedophile because any reasonable and sane person would not wish to advocate posession of child pornography being made legal, and I just can't see how you could be that dumb and yet be able to put together coherent (if rediculous) sentences, so you must be just another shitty troll. So far as calling me "reactionary" that's at least as rediculous as everything else you're insisting upon here so once again I must conclude you are just another shitty troll looking to get your jollies on the Internet. Don't bother replying to this as I believe I'm done wasting my time on just another troll.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

You didn't address my point, you just accused me of being a child abuser. I actually think that decriminalising it would force the police to target the abusers directly rather than the low hanging fruit of idiots who use their credit cards to pay for it. Obviously sites would be taken down, material destroyed when the police find it. They just wouldn't be able to prosecute for possession alone.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

You must be a troll, or you're just plain dumb.

No. You simply do not understand. Yet.

The rest of your post serves only do demonstrate the above fact, so I won't quote it any further, since it would only make you look even more ignorant than you already do. You really need to think this through much more thoroughly. Please do so.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

Oh, I see. So you're caught with CP, they remove and destroy it, but they don't arrest and interrogate you, investiage you on possibly being a pedophile? How convenient if you are a pedophile. Here's a clue for you: If you obtain child pornography through any means then you are a pedophile. Pedophiles eventually will evolve to actually molesting children because they are mentally ill and cannot help themselves, it's just a matter of time before a child is victimized by them. Furthermore, as I said earlier: If you advocate posession of CP not being a prosecutable offense then you are going to be accused by the vast majority of society of being a pedophile regardless of whether you are or not -- and that's a stain that will never wash off you. Therefore: You are either horribly naive, incredibly dumb, a pedophile, or just another troll stirring up shit. Which are you? Since you keep pushing the whole "de-criminalizing CP posession" agenda, my opinion is veering rapidly towards "pedophile in denial about who he is, trying to justify his stash of CP being 'OK' to have".

Go turn yourself in before you molest a child -- assuming you already haven't. And don't complain that I'm labelling you a pedophile, because I'm not, that's all on you, you've practically gone out of your way to label yourself as such in a public discussion forum.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no valid, justifiable reason why anyone should have child pornography. The only people who have such things are pedophiles, and pedophilia is a crime. Your entire argument doesn't have a leg to stand on. Regardless of your reasons for saying what you're saying you're making yourself sound like a pedophile to pretty much everybody.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

You are the perfect example of the kind of foaming at the mouth idiot that poisons every debate. Anyone who doesn't take your absolute hard line is a paedophile. Doesn't matter if they are trying to protect children, their opinions make them child abusers.

It's clear you know nothing about the actual situation. The claim that all paedophiles will eventually harm children is ludicrous. Such material has been on sale openly in some counties for decades, including the Netherlands and Japan. Child abuse is actually rarer there. I'm not saying we should do the same here but clearly your extreme attitude is at the very least worthy of some debate. You aren't interested in that though, are you?

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

"Extreme attitude" indeed.

Listen, idiot, I'm going to say this one more time in as few words as possible, since you're either ignoring it or incapable of understanding. Please read every single word:
You cannot tell people "I think posession of child pornography should not be illegal" without people assuming (probably correctly!) that you are a pedophile. Furthermore: There is NO VALID REASON to be in posession of child pornography in the first place, unless you are indeed a pedophile.
I don't care what the police do, and I don't care if planting CP on people happens. People get framed for all sorts of crimes every single day and there is nothing you can do to stop that, not any more than you can stop people from speeding or running a stop sign when nobody's looking. However we have laws like this against the production and posession of CP for damn good reasons, and when you start making exceptions to the laws, you create loopholes actual criminals use to escape them. You don't like it, then tough shit, go sign up to be one of the first Mars colonists, then you can leave Earth with your likely sizable CP collection and be free of Earthly laws -- except when the other colonists discover your proclivities, they'll likely put you out the airlock.

Oh, and go ahead and call me names all you want, asshole, all you've done in this entire conversation is demonstrate that you're probably a child molestor or at least some sick piece of crap who masturbates to child pornography.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

You keep repeating the same thing without realising that I already addressed it. There is no legitimate reason to possess it, I agree. It should be destroyed when found, I agree. All I'm saying is that it should be decriminalised.

This was tried with drugs. They would take then off you but not prosecute. It worked, but morons like you put an end to it.

If what you say about "most people" is true then most people are idiots who are contributing to child abuse through ignorance.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

All I'm saying is that it (child pornography) should be decriminalised.

*sigh*
This is your blind-spot: You cannot say this to people without appearing to be a pedophile. It doesn't matter why you are saying it or what your motivation is for saying it or what your "big picture" is, all people hear is "I think dirty pictures of children shouldn't be illegal". This includes law enforcement, by the way. If you say this thing in real life in front of other people, they will asssume you are a pedophile and you will be attacked as a pedophile. If you say it in front of law enforcement, they will assume you are a pedophile and you can then anticipate being investigated as a pedophile. You may as well say "I think the President of the United States should be killed", or "I'm glad the World Trade Center was destroyed by terrorists" or "Some women who are rape victims were asking for it"; no one will care WHY you're saying it, all they'll care about is that what you're saying is utterly wrong and totally offensive. There is "exercising your right to freedom of speech" and then there is "being an idiot and/or being an asshole", and in this case you are being the latter. Are you really so naive that you don't understand this, or is there just something wrong with your brain that doesn't allow you to understand this? Regardless of what may or may not be wrong with you, what you are saying here is completely and utterly wrong and there is no way you can justify it. You can continue to assert that "most people are idiots" all you want, it doesn't change something that the vast majority of adults alive today accept as "right", and that what you are saying is terribly wrong.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[AmiMoJo]

It's interesting that in all the examples of things you should never say people have said them and enjoyed a certain amount of support, plus derision. I don't think people are as reactionary as you are. You could have argued the same thing about decriminalization of drugs, but people proposed it and eventually it happened.

Also, the whole point of free speech is to be able to say things that other people don't like. If you are saying someone shouldn't say something that will offend people and make them the target of hatred then you don't support freedom of speech, and you should also shut up because you are offending me.

Re:Here's what I'd say, and what YOU should say:

[kheldan]

Fuck the fuck off, pedo.

The Nanny State

[vikingpower]

is now being turned, all nice and easy, into Nanny State 2.0: a Surveillance State. Police State will be Nanny State 3.0. Rejoice, o Britons !

Re:The Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Surveillance state is a police state.

Stop making a distinction where none exist.

Re:The Nanny State

[Anonymous Coward]

Sadly, UK has actually missed much of "nanny" part (working support system), while heading towards "police" part pretty quickly. Not sure why, but both UK and US have this tendency to gravitate towards harsh parts of nannying and policing, while ignoring and undervaluing "soft" parts that are actual beneficial things.
Like police actually being respectful AND respected.

Re:The Nanny State

[vikingpower]

Do agree. I am originally from the Netherlands, and my father once told me a story about police being respected, in the 1930s. In a pub, there was a brawl, and some knives were being drawn. Someone still sober called the police from the nearby police station. A constable arrived, opened the door, stepped inside, looked around and said: "Well, it's about time to stop this nonsense, I guess." The rest of the evening was quiet.

Palahniuk

[snookiex]

Linda wants to know: do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? How about information on illegal drugs? Or gay sex, or abortion? Your call may be recorded for training and monitoring purposes. How about obscene and tasteless material? Would you like to see that? Speak up, Linda can't hear you

I suddenly felt like if I was reading a Chuck Palahniuk's book

Re:Palahniuk

[3.5 stripes]

Almost, I don't have that uncomfortable, kinda creeped out feeling, and the undeniable sensation that I'll never get those hours of my life back again though...

"Active choice"

[Anonymous Coward]

"So how about you block all that crappy granny porn and just give me barely legal? Also unblock all those piracy websites, I feel like committing some crimes. If you don't tell anyone, Linda, I will make you a music CD, how long has it been since you got one of those eh? How long Linda? Does it feel lonely over there? I can fix that for you. So, dinner on Friday at 6? Great, see you then"

Well, that wasn't exactly what I planned, but it works.

The UK is just a fascist regime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Sorry. Big anglophile here which is to say fascinated by "Engla-land" its history and it's people. Descended therefrom also. Doesn't stop em from seeing that this UK government is a fascist regime. Specifically

They have sought to turn the act of journalism into a "terrorist" (their word not mine) enterprise and consider journalists to BE terrorists. This is such a sad and sick distortion of this word it use itself threatens to undermine the population's faith and credence in legitimate authority and concern with national security.

http://www.presstv.com/detail/2013/11/03/332673/outrage/

https://www.commondreams.org/headline/2013/11/02-2

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but some fear-mongering delusional "independent journalism" sites are more destructive than terrorists. Sites like nsnbc for instance are a hub for anti-vaxers and chemtrail believers and don't allow comments or feedback. I'd rather be killed by a bomb than a measles outbreak or by paranoid mobs of tinfoil hats.

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry, but some fear-mongering delusional "independent journalism" sites are more destructive than terrorists. Sites like nsnbc for instance are a hub for anti-vaxers and chemtrail believers and don't allow comments or feedback. I'd rather be killed by a bomb than a measles outbreak or by paranoid mobs of tinfoil hats.

Huh. nsnbc is a real thing, not a typo of MSNBC. Interesting. Thanks, AC.

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[wonkey_monkey]

Sorry, but why is everyone opening their posts by saying "sorry"?

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[Anonymous Coward]

You clearly don't read conspiracy-theory sites. When tin foil hat wearers speak of "chemtrails" they are NOT referring to cloud-seeding, whether-manipulation, and geo-engineering. They're referring to their own delusions about poison and mind-control with absolutely no evidence whatsoever to back it up. What you're talking about is a completely different thing altogether, and of course it's real.

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[Anonymous Coward]

A lot of Canadians on today, sorry.

Captcha: sorry

Re:The UK is just a fascist regime

[WOOFYGOOFY]

Yeah, WTF are you talking about? Do you even know? I am talking about the UK govt. classifying people like David Miranda and the papers like the Guardian as "terrorists" and you're talking about chemtrails. Then your buddys' are jumping in talking about chemtrails. What is this, a UK sponsored hijacking of my point?

Go fucking fuck your fucking selves. The word "terrorist" can't be used to describe "anyone who pisses us off on matters of national security or business " or it will lose all meaning and take the faith of the population in government with it.

The government has to protect it's reputation and deal with complex situations honestly if it's going to be respected.

Those parts of the security apparatus who think they can rule nations and their people by fear and intimidation instead of representing their legitimate interests are dangerous to any nation that permits them to have access to power.

One question for Linda

[BringsApples]

Linda, what are you wearing?

Re:One question for Linda

[Anonymous Coward]

Loophole!

Re:One question for Linda

[BringsApples]

No seriously, I'd ask that. If Linda has to make 500 calls per day to ask people if they're interested in a pornographic internet, then she may as well be treated like a hussy. Worst case scenario, she gripes to her manager and eventually quits that shitty job.

Re:One question for Linda

[mikael]

"Linda" is probably working in a call-center somewhere in India.

Re:One question for Linda

[TheGratefulNet]

well, then, say you are sari but you still don't want anyone to filter the internet for you.

Re:One question for Linda

[BringsApples]

Then she's "Leendah".

Briar Patch

[ThatsNotPudding]

Given that both the US and UK governments no longer operate according to their own laws, is it really insane to posit that all those that fully opt-out will be placed on a list curated by the organs of state security? And if any of those on that list dare speak up or protest the doings of NSA / GCHQ, they will be backdoored, child pron / snuff placed on their devices and promptly arrested? "See? the system works! And the rest of you lot best reconsider opting back in or you're next."

As Goering said: "It's the same in every country."

Re:Briar Patch

[shutdown -p now]

Which laws did the UK government break?

Leave censorship to the customer

[Anonymous Coward]

I am all for the ability to censor the web. But their are plenty of tools people can easily use to do this. Mandating that your provider has to deal with this is government intrusion into personal lives at there private residence. Gee, I see 4th graders playing Call of Duty and other adult games all the time in the presence of their parents. Do I find that a issue? Yes, but I don't condone anyone locking up their game console because the kids have bad parents. Yea, porn makes up a lot of internet traffic and yes I am sure little Johnny is getting his jolly's when Mom or Dad are not watching. But like I said, you can filter content at your router, at the computer or even with software. Is the UK turning into a content filter like China? Or North Korea? Could be.

Re:Leave censorship to the customer

[mikael]

And before those games came out, British TV was always playing wartime and post-war movies like "Battle of Britain". Those were just as violent, if not more. Wartime movies would show innocent civilians being hurt, like someone taking a cab through English countryside roads, only to be shot at by a fighter plane.

Merely making you vocalize it

[OldSoldier]

Search engines can figure out most of this stuff anyway, right? Isn't our privacy on these issues already gone? What's the difference between UK asking you for it and Google just paying attention to your browsing history? Now a-days I'm just going to assume the NSA and my ISP (I'm in the US) can see this stuff anyway.

This is in part a rhetorical question meant to focus on the general lack of privacy these days. We shouldn't get up in arms about being asked, we should be up in arms about not having privacy in these matters be a fundamental right. (Eg a law requiring ISPs to destroy all such records after 90 days.)

Re:Merely making you vocalize it

[Anonymous Coward]

(Eg a law requiring ISPs to destroy all such records after 90 days.)

Why should they create such records in the first place?

Easy answer

[Anonymous Coward]

"I wont even dignify that question with an answer; i pay for internet, not for camerons-morality-net. If my internet "malfunctions", i don't pay the bill 'til thats fixed. "

Repeat after me..

[Anonymous Coward]

Thanks for your call Linda. Our household prides itself on cleanliness, which is why I clean my pipes with Mr. Muscle twice a day. Knowing that censorship of crucial parts of my Internet experience was imminent and following the 2008 censorship of Nirvana due to unproven links to child pornography, I already took the step of purchasing an unfiltered anonymous VPN to bypass any and all of BT's infrastructure.

Is there anything I can do for you, Linda? It seems there's nothing to discuss.

(CAPTCHA: Classy)

BIG Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

I would immediately lauch an allout allin lawsuit against any intrusion such as that call from someone in that capacity.

Re:BIG Lawsuit

[Anonymous Coward]

Good luck doing that without disclosing your name my friend.

Not all ISP's are applying the filter. Mine isn't and has no plans to do so.

In any event, it is stupidly easy to get around the filter. Doh!

Good social experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

It would be interesting to measure the impact over time of restricted porn viewing. Pornography is one of the most cited reasons for marriage failures. Given that there is a correlation between family stability and children's success later in life, it's not impossible that countries with less porn viewing might benefit from it. We used to force people to be nice to each other by warning of dire religious consequences. For good or ill, we can't pretend it didn't affect behavior. The removal of many rules of acceptable social behavior over the last 60 years has in its own way made us all guinea pigs in a giant experiment. So having a few nations that try to temper that progression might be useful.

Re:Good social experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Pornography is one of the most cited reasons for marriage failures.

No it's not. It's not even in the top ten of any survey or study I can find anywhere. But that's probably because "pornography" is not a reason. A dispute about pornography viewing would be one way a problem in the marriage such as communication or intimacy issues would manifest itself.

Re:Good social experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Pornography is cited for marriage failures because it's resented by the other party. I think it's just a symptom.

My marriage failed (amongst many other reasons) because my wife was completely uninterested in sex for any reason other than procreation. If anything, pornography was something that kept it from failing sooner - by providing an outlet for my otherwise unresolved sexual tension. Without it, I would have been seeking an affair, or a divorce - but I didn't want to do either of these because my sense of duty to to my daughter meant that I was determined to stick around and provide a balance to the religious nutjobbery on her side of the family (which was no doubt part of the reason my wife has such a fucked-up attitude to sexuality - apparently she thinks it's OK to use it to get what she wants, within the framework of marriage, but not OK to enjoy it).

In the end, she ended it, because she couldn't stand the fact that I no longer pretended to care about her any more. For my part it was impossible to care for someone who's sole interests were going to church, working herself into an early grave, and vegging out on the sofa watching Ice Road Truckers and other similarly painful mental WMDs.

Re:Good social experiment

[Anonymous Coward]

Your problem was that you got into a relationship with 3DPD. Never do that; they're mentally and physically disgusting.

simple question

[zlives]

would you like censored internet? yes or no!!!

Turn it off.

[ledow]

Hi Linda,

What do you class as adult content? Who decides? Where would an act of fellatio fall in this criteria? Would that be blocked? What about anal sex? What about playing with a vibrator? So all adult content is blocked? What about pregnancy advice? What about information on alcohol consumption? What about contraception? What about advice on which genital piercing to get? So not all adult content, then? So which content to I know that I'm opening up or not? How can I decide? Where's the list?

Cue twenty minutes of questioning, without even bordering on my side of it being considered an obscene communication with Linda, and I could make it just as awkward for Linda, and also waste an AWFUL lot of time, and even get Linda questioning herself as to why she has to ask consenting adults about this. And come to the only logical conclusion: Turn it off, because I can't tell what you have filtered for me in any way, shape or form, so it's too inconvenient to deal with "Is it a problem with my network, or my ISP, or with their filter? (whose filter?!)". Turn it off now, let's save the hassle in the future.

But, fortunately, being a customer of a major UK ISP, I haven't yet been asked. Not even once.

I was asked something similar by a mobile phone provider recently, and about 10 years ago (when GPRS was the norm), but it wasn't in person. It was an automated "I agree" box on a website / portal page. I predict that's how 99% of ISP's that are forced to do this will do it, even if there's a phone call to remind you to do it or you have to phone support to find out that the reason you see a blocked page is because you haven't done this.

To be honest, I'm not that bothered about it. I will bypass any filter that throws up even a single false positive. Sorry, I spend my working life trying to get kids away from the unfiltered net, and there is no way that even in just ordinary usage of my Internet I won't run into this and - when I do - I will bypass it. You don't even have to assume that I would go looking for pornographic material, I guarantee you that it will get in my way at some point. As such, if anyone bothers to ask me (they won't, except in a hands-off way like the 3G operators do), they will be told to remove any and all filters.

Similarly for those ISP's that used to block port 139 for me. I think it's a good idea to block it by default. But I didn't ask you to do that, and I'm clever enough to know what it is and what it does, and do better myself. So take it off, so that a single nmap packet going out on port 139 to my own private server elsewhere on the net (to test that I'm NOT doing anything stupid myself) doesn't trigger 30 minutes of web interception telling me that I have a) a Windows machine, b) exposed to the Internet without anything firewalling it at all, c) that must be infected and d) I must have some stupid option turned on that I don't even have available to me.

Honestly, there's just too much of a pain in the arse in even considering letting you putting it on by default. I will ring my ISP and have them remove it the second I see such a thing. The fact that I can get round it in a matter of *seconds* just with the tools and systems I already have available and already am using is neither here nor there.

And, you know what, I reckon those homes who think the same will do the same. And those homes who are already reliant / believing in the government to filter everything because they are too stupid to parent themselves - they'll leave it turned on.

If anything, the database behind this will see a correlation of IQ / parental responsibility with those who turn it OFF than those who leave it on.

Linda

[Anonymous Coward]

I can hear "Linda" singing in between calls.
"Making a list, checking it twice.
Gonna find out who's nauty and nice. Suckers"

Filtering lost one customer

[amorsen]

I am not from the UK but I live there. I signed up to GiffGaff, only to realize that the "optional" filter could only be disabled by giving GiffGaff my UK passport information. However, not being a citizen of the UK, I obviously do not have a UK passport and therefore cannot opt out. So much for the freedom of movement for workers.

Sites which have been blocked included childline.org.uk and British Library. Obviously they correct those mistakes when they make it to the newspapers, but what about all the sites that are too small to get the media riled up? Although most of the UK media are very much FOR the filter. Maybe they hope that people will turn to the old media when the blog sites are blocked.

The UK seems to be eager to combine the bad parts of the US with the bad parts of the EU.

Don't forget cleanfeed

[ichthius]

This optional layer of filtering sits above the mandatory "cleanfeed" filtering.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system)

Anything judged to be illegal is already blocked.

Re:Don't forget cleanfeed

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not mandatory. The government *threatened* to pass legislation forcing ISPs to implement it but never did.

Re:Don't forget cleanfeed

[SuricouRaven]

Because any such legislation would probably turn into a self-contradictory paperwork-laden mess of nightmareish complexity asking ISPs to achieve things that aren't possible short of a revolutionary breakthrough in artificial inteligence. The major ISPs objected for a while, but eventually saw common sense: If they do as the government asks voluntarily, they get to define the filtering requirements themselves according to what they can actually achieve. If they don't, then eventually the legislation would probably be forced through in some form. Acting in their own interests, better to cooperate now.

ISPs are commercial entities. Protecting free speech isn't their job: Making money is. I was very surprised to see Virgin fight the order to block the pirate bay for so long, given their close ties to the media industry.

So how good are the filters?

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean really - can I filter on only gay guy-on-guy porn but still get hot babe-on-babe action? Are there specifics that I can request that will still let me enjoy wheelchair-midget-nun porn but not the standard wheelchair-nun porn?

The clear answer

[nurb432]

Fuck yes i want freedom. ( and be sure to scream the obscenities )

Filters won't "protect the children"

[Anonymous Coward]

As has been said again and again, parents need to take responsibility and monitor their childrens internet usage if they don't want them viewing porn.

Filters don't work - Case in point:

* My 7 year old niece has a tablet, and she said it was connecting to the neighbours wifi instead of their own for about a month without them realising, the neighbour had left it open - what if they don't have the filters enabled?

* Also URL blocking does not prevent all the other ways kids can access this content

Also be aware that while ISPs don't have to implement the blocking right now, they are trying to push it into UK law it seems:

http://services.parliament.uk/bills/2013-14/onlinesafety.html

Re:Filters won't "protect the children"

[SuricouRaven]

Hasn't gotten very far through the process yet, and is less likely to do so now it's clear that all the major ISPs are complying without a law to force them.

You're right about filters being useless. They do nothing about all the non-web sources of pornography - IM programs swapping pics with friends, p2p software, etc. And let us not forget that the prank of posting pornography of an unusual or humorous nature to unrelated forums is a long-established pasttime of internet culture. Plus all those dubious sites hosted in various legally-vacant countries that just want to lure in all the clicks they can get and don't care who sees, and are quite willing to resort to search engine manipulation and spam.

Wrong question.

[SuricouRaven]

What is really being asked:
"Do you want to be able to see hardcore pornography? If you answer yes, we'll make sure your partner knows, along with any visiting family, friends or co-workers who may use your connection and have the fleeting curiosity to see if sex.com if blocked."

Whenever privacy issues are discussed, someone will quickly raise the obvious question: 'What are you hideing? The innocent have nothing to fear.' Well, here's your answer. Pornography is still legal, that doesn't mean I want everyone who shares or visits this house to know I look at it.

And you're an asshole

[Any Web Loco]

In a perfect world we'd all be able to have jobs that didn't piss you off. Sadly, we don't live in that world and there are some people who have to take the only job that's available to them, and in some cases, that jobs going to be a job that consists of annoying you. When the alternative's starvation, any job's a good one. You're an asshole because you're advocating making life even shittier for people who may have no choice in doing the job they do.

Re:And you're an asshole

[Anonymous Coward]

So working for the TSA is okay, even though it's a job that requires you to violate people's rights? No, it isn't. "I was just following orders" is not an acceptable excuse.

Re:And you're an asshole

[BasilBrush]

There is virtually never only one option. No options of jobs, that happens. Several options of jobs, that happens too. But precisely one option of job: that's an unlikely proposition. It happens, but not often enough to explain the number of people that do cold-calling jobs.

Making the job even shittier reduces the number of people that are willing to do it. And that's a good thing. I have no sympathy for those that chose to do the job.

Verify the caller?

[Anonymous Coward]

If she's calling me, I'd want to be sure she's calling from my ISP. For a question this sensitive, I'd hang up and call them back on the number published on their website / invoices.
It'd be an interesting game: Call someone up, pretend to be from their ISP, get them to tell you their private preferences, record it all (you notified them you were recording, too), blackmail.

Re:You can opt for "self-control"

[Anonymous Coward]

why the mod down?

The solution

[Anonymous Coward]

Censorship is wrong.

The solution is simple. Do not censor.

If something is truly seriously wrong, do not censor it. Take it to court and deal with it properly, visible to all, not quietly censored in private.

It's like this

[Anonymous Coward]

If Linda can't afford children she should have kept her legs closed, should she not like her minimum wage job perhaps her decision not to listen at school might have been a poor life choice.

Neither of them is my problem.

Linda

[Anonymous Coward]

Linda is really called Sakragita, and she smells.

My response to Linda...

[Stolpskott]

Thanks you for calling, Linda. Please sign me up for the no-filtering-whatsoever service, please. My own filters that I have setup and maintain are more accurate, more unbiased, and less aligned toward corporate group think than the crap you are trying to push on me. As for child pornography and hard core porn, I have already discussed such things with my children and prepared them for what is out there. I trust that they are mentally strong enough and intelligent enough to be able to make basic decisions about "wrong" and "right" more than some faceless and unaccountable political dweeb that I have never met.

Heh - I'll answer that for you

[Anonymous Coward]

The troll(s) downmodding my posts on hosts can't can't validly disprove my points in favor of custom hosts files giving users of them better speed, security, reliability, & even added anonymity (to an extent on the latter)) - it truly is "the best they got" & it ain't much (more like zero/nothing).

* :)

(When they're reduced to that & nothing more? I've won...)

APK

P.S.=> So, there's your answer, in a nutshell... as to WHO is doing it? Some fool I've "spanked" here before who's ego is bruised, OR possibly malware-makers/botnet masters, competing products' makers, or fanboys of them is a few groups I suspect of doing it... they're pitifiul!

... apk

Good Old British Humour

[SlovakWakko]

I just can't think about this and NOT imagine Linda and Mr.Bean's discussion on this topic... :D