Print 35 comment(s) - last by Reclaimer77.. on Feb 3 at 11:13 AM

Sites that don't have inappropriate content are being filtered now

Back in December, we mentioned that some overzealous pornography filters in the UK that were meant to keep kids from seeing pornographic materials were flagging some legitimate and non-porn related sites. Specifically, the filters were blocking a number of sites for charities and sex education in the filter.
The UK government is trying to unblock these legitimate sites with the creation of a website whitelist. Many of the sites on the list are run by charities that want to educate kids about health, sex, and drug addiction.
The government wants to set up a system that will let any website that thinks it is being blocked wrongly to tell the ISP their story and perhaps be added to the whitelist.

"Research suggests the amount of inadvertent blocking is low," said David Miles, who chairs the working group on over-blocking for the government's UK Council for Child Internet Safety.
Miles has been working with research on accidental blocking by the filters and visiting the charities to determine how to get the filters to block pornographic material without blocking the legitimate sites.
The list will be shared with ISPs that run the network level filters to ensure these sites are viewable. 

Source: BBC

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: 1984
By troysavary on 1/31/2014 12:10:30 PM , Rating: 0
Relax, the UK is not trying to take your pr0n away. The filter has a simple opt-out. This is based on the simple idea that if you want porn, you ask for it, rather than having people stumbling on it when they don't want to.

RE: 1984
By Motoman on 1/31/2014 2:09:22 PM , Rating: 4
Sorry, not good enough. The fact that the filter exists at all sends a strong message that it's necessarily "bad."

Well, if it was necessarily "bad" then it would be illegal.'s not "bad." It is, in fact, the most popular product in the history of...history.

Either something is legal or it's not. If it's legal, let it be. Don't try to half-a$s something like this which is trying to force an (im)moral viewpoint down the throats of people who are otherwise law-abiding citizens.

The Moral Majority is neither moral, nor a majority.

RE: 1984
By ShaolinSoccer on 1/31/2014 3:53:12 PM , Rating: 1
Hey look. Another guy who has no daughters or females in his family that he cares about. You must also think any type of addiction is a "good" thing.

RE: 1984
By MrShadowfax42 on 1/31/2014 4:10:11 PM , Rating: 2
Hey look, another ignorant presumptuous guy who thinks he's God's gift to women when in actual fact all he is doing is patronising the living hell out of them. Basically saying that women should not have the ability to make decisions about how they live their lives. Sexist to the extreme.
And yeah, sex is an addiction, just like all the other natural bodily functions we have. Pfft.

RE: 1984
By StevoLincolnite on 2/1/2014 1:52:34 AM , Rating: 3
Hey look. Another guy who has no daughters or females in his family that he cares about. You must also think any type of addiction is a "good" thing.

There are plenty of free internet filters that you can install on your devices.

Just because you might have children and you don't want them looking at content... Does not mean that myself, being almost 30 years old shouldn't be allowed.

There is a line where your way of life impacts mine.

Thankfully I don't like in the USA or the UK/Europe, so allot of this passes us by. :)

RE: 1984
By Reclaimer77 on 2/1/2014 8:33:09 AM , Rating: 1
I know lots of females who love porn too. Do you think you're protecting them from something with a porn ban?

RE: 1984
By troysavary on 2/2/2014 5:41:37 AM , Rating: 1
Once again, reading comprehension failure. You seem to have a problem with that. "Ban" is never once mentioned. All this does is make sure filtering is available at the ISP level. No one is forced to have the filter applied.

RE: 1984
By Reclaimer77 on 2/2/2014 7:03:37 AM , Rating: 2
No one is forced to have the filter applied.


A Government mandated filter is one step away from a ban. Given the UK's track record in such things, it's a distinct possibility.

And you've already lost this against Motoman, don't come barking up my tree only to get smacked down too. This is a horrible idea with serious implications.

I guess you just pretend to be a Libertarian/Conservative on certain issues.

RE: 1984
By Lerianis on 2/2/2014 12:46:56 PM , Rating: 2
Here is a guy posting with two daughters and numerous female relatives who says that 'protecting' them from porn is not a good thing in the slightest.

Secondly, there is no such thing as a 'porn addiction' in the real world, it is a made-up fallacy in order to make people feel 'bad' if they have a higher libido than other people.

RE: 1984
By Solandri on 1/31/2014 3:59:49 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think this is the way forward. Right now when I do a Google search, there are a lot of irrelevant hits which would be pretty easy to filter out by category. If there were a huge database of categories.

Most annoying are all the shopping sites. I want to find a review of an Asus laptop so I search for it. The vast majority of hits are for sites selling the Asus laptop with a line saying "be the first to review this laptop." If there were a simple checkbox you could click so that Google would exclude shopping sites for that search, it would probably be their most popular feature ever. Same thing if I want to find a journal paper, or a blog, or a newspaper article (Google News only works for recent stories). The ability to filter in or out websites based on category would be immensely useful. Heck it'd even be useful for people looking for porn. If a sex tape of a famous actress gets out and you wanted to find it, you could filter for only porn sites. That would cut out the gazillion news stories about her sex tape getting out.

Withholding information from the people is bad. Giving people more information (as this filter does by classifying which sites are porn) is good. As long as the people are allowed to control what they do with that information.

RE: 1984
By troysavary on 2/2/2014 5:37:08 AM , Rating: 3
Having a legal drinking age sends the message that alcohol is "bad". If it is bad it should be illegal.

Needing a permit to buy firearms sends a message that they are "bad". If they are bad they should be illegal.

See how illogical your line of thinking is? There are already plenty of legitimate products that have some sort of controls in place that determine who has access. Hell, even porn, before the internet, tended to be "top-shelf" for the magazines or even in a back room for the videos, to make it something you had to be specifically looking for. No video stores mixed the porn tapes with the Disney movies. And it always had age restrictions on who could buy it.

RE: 1984
By phatboye on 2/1/2014 3:21:46 PM , Rating: 2
I agree, if you don't want the filter then opt of of it. Not a big deal, people will whine about anything.

If they were outright banning porn then these people would have a case. But the government did not ban anything. Anyone is free to opt out.

"Folks that want porn can buy an Android phone." -- Steve Jobs
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki