Hacker News Reader

Comment by Zariel | Hacker News Reader

As long as its opt-in then I am all for giving parents the choice to filter their networks, but as soon as it becomes opt-out I will be very angry about it.

View on HN

I'm not ok about opt-in either. If the router does filtering, fine. The ISP's network should not be capable of filtering.

why?

Because an ISP should be dumb pipe. They should only provide connectivity and not mess with people connections. Opt in is enabling. Opt out is intrusion.

Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute so to ensure they get sent via their own (and often blacklisted) servers, the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating!

>Here here, meddling with SMTP connections to my own servers one minute

I'm unaware of that, but that's a fair point.

>the next they're hijacking DNS and taking further measures to filter and control what I can and can't see. It's infuriating!

That's the thing: They aren't. It would only happen if you asked for it. They aren't filtering anything you don't want filtered.

And you think that's still going to be the case in five years?

Yes

You and I should get together and make a bet. If my rights are going to be stripped away I may as well profit.

you cannot broadcast what you want on radio or television, you cannot print what you like in newspapers or magazines - there are rules and regulations governing content. why should the internet be any different?

But I can say what I want on the telephone and write it in a mail. Internet is point to point bi-directional communication. It is not broadcasting.

Umm.. that is precisely what it is! TCP/IP maybe directionally agnostic, but application layer protocols vary. HTTP for example is very much a broadcast protocol.

I'm not sure you know what "broadcast" means.

Well you're just arguing semantics. Just because HTTP is a 1-to-1 connection doesn't mean web content is not "broadcast". It's there for anyone that wants to view it, so functionally it is exactly the same as traditional broadcast media - it's just the mechanics of delivery which are different.

A broadcast, by definition, is a data transmission initiated by the broadcaster to a number of recipients. HTTP doesn't fit this definition in any way, shape, or form. Every transaction is initiated by a request from you, the client. Right now radio waves are being forced through you and your computer by radio and television towers. Those are broadcasts. Hacker News is not. You made a specific request for the content of news.ycombinator.com. If you do not specifically ask for all this violent pornography you seem so concerned about, it simply can not find its way to your computer. Know why? Because it's not being broadcasted.

Beyond the "semantics" (your dismissal of which indicates you don't hold much regard for the rule of law), you are sorely mistaken if you think state censorship will be used exclusively to guard our fragile, sexually frustrated youth from gangbang clips. This is how a marketplace of ideas becomes a menu of state approved thought.

Because it isn't and shouldn't be controlled by any one governments ideas of what is right and wrong.

The internet is dead folks the only way it will ever be free is if we find a way of transmission of data that cannot be modified mid transit or blocked. Otherwise you will eventually only be able to read what other people want you to read.

SSL can prevent modification mid transit, of course you can still technically be MITMd if your ISP gets issued a cert which is valid for every domain but this would be detectable.

You can circumvent blocking with proxies/VPN, your ISP would have to block all proxy/VPN services to prevent this.

Because it essentially results in a list of people who say "Yes, I watch pornography".

There was a survey a few years ago in the UK where over like 70% (maybe 80%) of parents were in favour of having access to porn via their internet connection. The results were slightly lower with those who didn't have children, presumably because they thought they'd change their minds after having kids.

Point being, I'm pretty sure the country isn't in favour of this. It's being thrust upon us because of two party system and a political class that seems to intent on listening to moral crusades. One can only hope Scotland gets a clue in 2014 but I'm not really that hopeful. :(

What's the story here? What can Scotland do in 2014?

The Scottish independence referendum is in 2014.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com