Bwahahahahaha

I’ve no idea whether this is true or not but how lovely:

David Cameron’s pledge to protect children from sickening online pornography has been dealt a potentially fatal blow by Brussels.
European Union laws voted through yesterday will force internet firms to scrap the porn filters they installed following a Daily Mail campaign.
The new rules make internet service providers treat all online traffic ‘without discrimination, restriction or interference’ – regardless of its content. It means that by the end of next year, filters that require people to opt in if they want to view online pornography will have to be removed.

18 thoughts on “Bwahahahahaha”

  1. The EU referendum is going to be interesting. I predict it will degenerate into pet hate mud slinging contest with all the sophistication of a late night episode of big brother (channel five version).

  2. It’s untrue, because there were never any laws introduced. This was entirely voluntary scheme involving the biggest ISPs.

  3. I look forward to the people demanding we slavishly adhere to every jot and tittle of EU legislation trying to find a way to wriggle out of this one.

    *popcorn*

  4. It’s a massively overblown problem, anyway, and more about mothers feeling really awkward that their sons are dirty little wankers rather than the sweet little cherub, than any real harm.

    I used to have my own filters for when the kids were little and I didn’t want them inadvertently seeing it, and honestly, they twice got a warning, and in both cases they were false positives – websites blocked that shouldn’t have been.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    Yep, filters are arbitrary and useless.

    Surreptitious Evil’s blog is blocked the the ISP that serves the Victory Services Club in London but can easily be accessed by the simple use of Tor’s browser.

    I lifted the filters on my PC when I realised by son was working round them, and he’s a technophobe. Presumably someone at school told him how to do it.

  6. The Laughing Cavalier

    Is the government really so naive as to believe that teenage boys can’t get round their filters?

  7. This was entirely voluntary scheme involving the biggest ISPs.

    Ah yes. The “entirely voluntary” schemes whereby the government of the day invite the major companies concerned in for a little chat during which they’re told it would really, really be in their best interests if they implemented such and such of their own accord. Uh-huh.

  8. This isn’t about the government stopping people accessing porn. It’s about the government looking like they are stopping people accessing porn. Actually doing it would be a happy bonus for them but almost incidental.

  9. BiND,

    Nice to know. Isn’t blocked at the A&N or the UJC.

    Tim & ukliberty,

    Exactly why we have the idiotic Anti-Money-Laundering rules on new account opening at a branch you have had an account at for 20+ years.

  10. Well if a 15 year old can apparently hack an ISP getting around filters shouldn’t be a problem.
    Reminds me of when I was showing a neighbour various ways computers tracked online activity and there was a cookie for a well known brand of condoms, when he questioned his 15 yr old daughter she claimed she had visited the site as homework which happened to be true.

  11. Tim Newman,

    I think it might be more complicated than that. One thing about the companies that signed up is that they aren’t just ISPs. They’re ISP + content sellers. So, Virgin aren’t just providing you with a data pipe, they’re also selling you say, Sky Movies. And one thing they snuck in along with porn filtering was filtering a load of sites like The Pirate Bay as “dangerous content”. By doing so, well, it means people’s kids might not go off to the internet to stream a dodgy movie, they will pester mum and dad to rent it from a service.

  12. What happened was this: a bunch of authoritarian busy-bodies (Claire Perry and a small Christian group were particularly vocal and of course the dear old Daily Mail) moaned at Cameron et al sufficiently to persuade them it would be politically expedient to get these filters in place. The majority of respondents to the consultation (indeed the majority of parents) agreed with having opt-in filters if any at all, not opt-out, and Cameron made noises that was the way forward; subsequently he said the ISPs would have to ‘voluntarily’ deploy opt-out filters or else the Government would pass a law forcing them to.

    And while I can understand the business case for Virgin to go along with media piracy filters I confess I don’t understand the business case to block dating, social media, gaming websites, Childline, the NSPCC, Techdirt or order-order.com, to name but a few silly blocks. At one point Sky blocked jquery ffs! (Yes, I know it’s an accident, that’s not the point.)

  13. Bloke in Costa Rica

    “David Cameron’s pledge to protect children from sickening online pornography has been dealt a potentially fatal blow by Brussels.”

    That wasn’t the problem. The filters were stopping them from accessing regular wholesome porn as well.

  14. Exactly why we have the idiotic Anti-Money-Laundering rules on new account opening at a branch you have had an account at for 20+ years.

    Yet when a dodgy Nigerian turns up with a sackful of cash looted directly from the state coffers, the banks mysteriously turn a blind eye. It is *that* which fucks me off more than anything else about this whole “money laundering” pantomime.

  15. I think it might be more complicated than that.

    Oh, I’m quite prepared to believe large companies and corporations go along with government plans to restrict freedom and liberty because they think it will improve their bottom line.

  16. The 4 or so large ISPs may easily have rolled over, but some seem intent on not playing ball.

    http://www.revk.uk/2015/10/seriously-censorship-of-communications.html

    Once again Cameron is meddling …

    Even so, with all his meddling, I seriously doubt that we (A&A) will not be able to offer an unfiltered service. Every bill Baroness Howe has tried to introduce has so far had no impact on us, and with which we already comply. We offer a choice, but we simply refuse to provide service to anyone asking for filtering. Simples.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *