Comment by smtddr | Hacker News Reader

Comment by smtddr | Hacker News Reader

Oh yes, it starts as ThinkOfTheChildren... but then it's an opt-out process. They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I want porn". And of course, this filter will eventually expand to cover more than that. And now, you have those in power censoring the internet in a China-like fashion, but the masses assume it's just porn. Maybe at first they'll put up an error message from the ISP that "This site is blocked by porn filter" but that would make some people curious and ask questions. So eventually, it'll just 404.

http://www.pinknews.co.uk/2013/12/20/bt-gives-parents-tool-t...

http://www.darkpolitricks.com/2013/07/uk-internet-filter-wil...

http://www.techdirt.com/blog/wireless/articles/20130107/1119...

>>This very broad, default censorship is disturbing for at least two reasons. First, because many people will be unaware that this kind of "mature content" censorship is taking place at all, and therefore won't ask for it to be stopped. And secondly, even if they are aware, the fact that asking for the filter to be lifted could be seen as tantamount to wanting to access porn -- something that many will understandably be reluctant to have noted down on their Internet access record -- means that they will simply put up with a limited feed

> They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I want porn"

I called my Canadian cable company on some trivial matter. The end of the call went something like: "We've got a great deal on the kids TV channel package. Do you want to sign up?"

"I live by myself. Not interested."

"Oh, in that case, I can give you a deal on our adult channels."

Moral of the story: the call centre staff couldn't care one way or the other - they're just doing their jobs. Call 'em up and get the stupid filter removed.

Sure. But people who do care will have access to the list. And the list will be leaked.

The same way there are leaks of who subscribes to the adult cable channels?

Regardless, if there is to be a filter service I guess it's good that it covers a lot more than just porn. So what if the list is leaked? People probably just want unfiltered access to news sources.

(Which sounds like a modern day version of the "I just buy it for the articles" Playboy defence.)

Now Jacqui Smith was a pretty awful excuse for a politician anyway, but consider: http://www.standard.co.uk/news/brought-down-by-husbands-porn...

I'm not familiar with the case, but the article seems to imply that they tried to claim the porn films on expenses (along with a lot of other dodgy expenses).

That's a totally different kettle of fish.

They are charging you for the extra channels. The call center people are motivated to make you pay more.

It's a bit different with this Internet filter.

Yeah. In fact, historically some of the UK mobile providers used their Internet filtering to direct users to their own for-pay porn of which they got a cut.

> They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I want porn".

Some ISPs have been filtering "adult" content for some time.

Turning it off is simple - you visit a page and have a credit card checked (no charge to you); or you ask for content lock to be turned off.

The filters are so poor that most adults ask for them to be removed.

Asking for the filter is not saying "I want to see porn", it is saying "I want to visit a bunch of normal sites that you are wrongly filtering" and they know this.

Not true. I can't find the blog, but there was a guy who had a filter like this on his mobile device that blocked alternative news sources. You could not go to a webpage, you had to call. And the person that he called repeated asked "To confirm, you want to be able to access adult content". He tried to reason with them that the news site wasn't a porn site, but still he had to say something to the effect of "Yes, I wish to access explicit content on my mobile".

I really wish I could find this blog. Been looking for it for months to be prepared to reply to a comment such as yours.

They were totally going for the squeamish factor. The only way was to call and request that you want pornography & other explicit content. Something the average person would at least hesitate to do.

> I really wish I could find this blog. Been looking for it for months to be prepared to reply to a comment such as yours.

The only time I've ever seen a system like that was in hypothetical arguments. Are you sure you saw a real conversation or a fake one designed to create discussion?

"you visit a page and have a credit card checked"

This sounds like an obvious social engineering hack waiting to happen, merely register "nude-hacker-news-pics.com" and put up a page promising to merely test a credit cards number, and to be certain you're an adult, maybe your mom's maiden name and social security number and DOB and a dr license # and ...

Well, maybe you need a better domain name, but the overall hack idea is good.

>> "They know people will feel kinda embarrassed to call their ISP and say "I want porn""

I'm against these filters but that's not how it works. Filters are only added to new accounts. I've been through this with a provider who has offered the feature for a while. When I was signing up they asked something like, "Do you want our child protection/home safety filters enabled". I said no. So really it isn't embarrassing and it's easy to choose to have them not enabled. I doubt the ISP's would sink to the level of referring to them officially as 'porn filters' and requiring customers to disable 'porn filters'.

If this goes live, at least, maybe, there still will be a bit of good side to that - admitting the fact one's watching porn won't be considered too embarrassing. :)

(Not that I say censorship is good by any means.)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com