backtop


Print 21 comment(s) - last by laurentrepond.. on Jul 25 at 7:54 AM

75 percent of major ISPs failed to get even 10 percent of new users to opt for the porn filters

A new report shows that UK citizens are pulling out when it comes to anti-pornography filters offered by Internet service providers (ISPs).

The report, which was drawn up by industry watchdog Ofcom, shows that three out of four major UK ISPs (TalkTalk, Virgin Media, BT and Sky) haven't managed to persuade even 10 percent of new customers to sign up for the filters.

Since the launch of the filters, TalkTalk was able to talk 36 percent of new sign-ups into using the filters, but the other three weren't so lucky. Sky came in at 8 percent while BT and Virgin Media grabbed 5 and 4 percent respectively.

TalkTalk has had a bit of an advantage, though, since it launched its filters in May 2011. BT and Sky launched filter services towards the end of 2013 while Virgin Media introduced its version in February 2014. 


Virgin Media also reportedly fell short because 65 percent of new Virgin Media customers were not offered the choice of family-friendly network level filtering. 

The filters, which block pornographic websites and pages promoting self-harm and drug use, came to be after Prime Minister David Cameron announced in July 2013 that major ISPs had to offer "unavoidable choice" parental control filters. This choice meant that legal pornography and other adult subjects were blocked by default.

In April 2012, a new bill -- called the Online Safety Bill -- aimed to force ISPs and mobile network providers to offer internet packages that exclude access to pornographic material by default. It was raised in the House of Lords by Baroness Howe of Ildicote. It is a Private Members Bill, which requires government support before it can be made into law. 

Earlier this year, it was reported that the UK government started working on a porn-blocking filter whitelist for legitimate websites. This meant that websites looking to educate kids about sex or drug abuse would be unblocked. 

Source: Ofcom



Comments     Threshold


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

Censored?
By vortmax2 on 7/23/2014 2:35:15 PM , Rating: 2
Can someone explain to me how this is considered censorship? I thought that censorship meant you didn't have a choice in the matter. This doesn't seem to be the case here. Thanks.




RE: Censored?
By Motoman on 7/23/2014 3:26:50 PM , Rating: 5
Simply the existence of such filters, required to be available by the government, is several steps too far...because the implication is clear: porn is bad and you should avoid it.

Porn is perfectly legal. There's nothing wrong with making it, distributing it, or viewing it.

By having this governmental regulation requiring ISPs to offer such filters, the personal viewpoint of a powerful few is thrust upon the whole population, whether they want it or not.

Consider if they did the same thing, except instead of to filter porn, it was to filter out Christian websites (but let Islamic websites through). Or it filtered out any photos of black people, while allowing photos of white people. Or filtered out any websites with Yiddish text...etc. etc. etc.

The fact that you let people "opt" in or out is irrelevant. You've already forced your viewpoint upon the world, which is a pretty radical abuse of the people by a government.


RE: Censored?
By wordsworm on 7/23/2014 4:06:30 PM , Rating: 2
Consider what... that if I'm Muslim I can get a filter to take all the Christian propaganda out? It's still a choice.

The implication here is clear: the government is requiring that ISPs give people a choice.


RE: Censored?
By StevoLincolnite on 7/24/2014 1:52:59 AM , Rating: 3
I wonder if providers have ever given a thought to providing ISP-level advert filtering?
Could actually be a big selling point, especially those who rely on mobile data, those video and flash adverts can chew chunks out of a data cap!


RE: Censored?
By marvdmartian on 7/24/2014 7:38:21 AM , Rating: 3
Yes, but censorship comes from the fact that they have to opt OUT of the filtering. A free, open society would have made it an opt IN.

It's almost as if they're trying to guilt people into keeping it....which doesn't seem to be working too well!

The other disturbing pattern is that the people in the UK are seeing an erosion of their freedoms (not just from this). You give up pistols for safety (which has just caused a higher number of murders, by other methods, than they previously had). Now the government says, "Give up your porn...for the children!" (sound familiar, gun supporters?)

When does it end? When do the people realize that the government is NOT the nanny they want watching over them?

But hey, it worked out well for the people in the USSR, China, North Korea, and Cuba, didn't it?


RE: Censored?
By vortmax2 on 7/24/2014 11:31:06 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Yes, but censorship comes from the fact that they have to opt OUT of the filtering. A free, open society would have made it an opt IN.


So if they reversed it to an Opt In model, then it wouldn't be considered censorship?


RE: Censored?
By wordsworm on 7/24/2014 12:31:43 PM , Rating: 2
Do you think he was drunk when he wrote that?

It never ceases to amaze me how dumb some people are.


RE: Censored?
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 6:46:51 PM , Rating: 2
Duh, porn is evil! Kids need to stop accidentally finding their way onto these evil sites and destroying their minds. They need to stick, to call of duty and grand theft auto videos on YouTube


RE: Censored?
By vortmax2 on 7/24/2014 11:38:28 AM , Rating: 2
I happen to know lots of parents that don't know how to properly filter their internet (it's not that easy from a technical standpoint) and would like the option to have an ISP do it effectively.

With that said, they've already taken practical steps to help prevent their kids from stumbling upon inappropriate sites like keeping the computer in a common area (not in their bedrooms).

I wonder if the ISP filtering in the UK works with ads...ever go to a Minecraft mod site and see any questionable ads? How the heck to you prevent those from showing up?


RE: Censored?
By vortmax2 on 7/24/2014 11:39:36 AM , Rating: 2
quote:
Porn is perfectly legal. There's nothing wrong with making it, distributing it, or viewing it.


Cigarettes are perfectly legal as well, doesn't mean they're not bad, though...just sayin'.


RE: Censored?
By laurentrepond on 7/25/2014 7:54:56 AM , Rating: 2
I live in the UK and I am very thankful that they are introducing such filters. Especially for households with children. Without a filter like this, you are leaving children with the opportunity to view a range of addicting material online by just typing three letters in a search engine:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/health-and...

My wife's colleague left her 4 year-old child alone watching a DVD on her computer. 15 minutes later the child asked for her mommy to come back: porn had sporadically appeared on the screen (probably due to malware).

We don't leave drugs and cigarettes around for children to try saying it would be censorship to take them away. Why give access to something so potentially addicting?


RE: Censored?
By hughlle on 7/23/2014 6:44:28 PM , Rating: 2
Another example in the UK, is that if I use 3g on my phone, I cannot access many non-pornographic websites, stating I need to authorize 18+ websites, and the only way to do that "without" having to run around in circles, is to go online and use a credit card (I do not have one) where they then withdraw and then refund one penny, just to prove yo are you.

Its not censorship, but they need to go and get ******


RE: Censored?
By heffeque on 7/24/2014 6:01:17 AM , Rating: 2
Wow... this is... wow...


RE: Censored?
By rstove02 on 7/24/2014 7:54:19 AM , Rating: 2
Yesterday's optional can become tomorrow's mandatory.


RE: Censored?
By RapidDissent on 7/24/2014 4:54:00 PM , Rating: 2
It is censorship because the law is written as "opt out". Meaning, I have to call my ISP and personally request that porn be accessible. At this point I will make the broad statement that many porn aficionados would rather not have porn than talk to an old lady on the phone and admit that they are really missing not having porn delivered to their PC. This is social engineering and in this context is tantamount to censorship.


Jason Mick needed to write this
By techxx on 7/23/2014 12:06:08 PM , Rating: 2
The puns seemed to stop at citizens "pulling out". :(




RE: Jason Mick needed to write this
By andylawcc on 7/23/2014 1:07:02 PM , Rating: 2
i was about to say :)


innuendo
By daboom06 on 7/23/2014 12:04:52 PM , Rating: 2
i was hoping this article was going to cover me in it.




RE: innuendo
By techxx on 7/23/2014 12:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
.
By ritualm on 7/23/2014 2:05:59 PM , Rating: 3
"give porn filters the shaft"

"UK citizens are pulling out"

Bah, the fun stopped after the opening paragraph. =\




"We are going to continue to work with them to make sure they understand the reality of the Internet.  A lot of these people don't have Ph.Ds, and they don't have a degree in computer science." -- RIM co-CEO Michael Lazaridis














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki