Website Restrictions
Steve,
Fair dos there - I had not intended to personalise my response. I should have used "people" rather that "you" - SORRY!
I do though feel that there is an expectation that such matters will (should ?) be addressed by "someone else" and that should the third party fail in their delivery, there is then cause for litigation.
Coming from an IT back ground and having been involved in major IT litigation I can tell you that having the burden for protecting users against their own wrong doing (intentional or otherwise) is an onerous burden. The supplier is dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. As a point of interest, that litigation had elements of we the supplier not allowing the customer to do / access what they wanted and then when they did exactly what we sought to prevent, having grounds to then complain that we let them do what they wanted, with the consequence that they broke the system.
Protections systems cannot deliver to the levels people expect without a massive level of intrusion into (deep inspection of) what people are doing, many will consider that an invasion of privacy and is expensive to set up. Parental controls are completely dependent on content providers marking their material honestly for both age suitability and subject matter. The big issue is that the stuff your really don't want kids to see does not come from responsible providers - therefore it is not marked and will not be picked up by content filters.
Offering a product which cannot deliver 100% protection from risk is just asking to have the pants sued off you these days. To pretend that 100% protection is available is foolish. At a global level improperly marked material can be taken down, however such vendors very quickly set up a replacement site nearly quicker than the old ones are ripped down. Frankly it is little different to dealing with the drug problem. No sooner is one outlet shut down, than three more are started up. The best protection is to explain to the child why consumption will be detrimental to them.
Sorry this is simply not true - at least one major UK ISP makes it their distinguishing principle NOT to offer filtered services...
Frankly it just does not work and any sense of comfort claimed by those who claim to provide it is shallow comfort.
Kevin
Fair dos there - I had not intended to personalise my response. I should have used "people" rather that "you" - SORRY!
I do though feel that there is an expectation that such matters will (should ?) be addressed by "someone else" and that should the third party fail in their delivery, there is then cause for litigation.
Coming from an IT back ground and having been involved in major IT litigation I can tell you that having the burden for protecting users against their own wrong doing (intentional or otherwise) is an onerous burden. The supplier is dammed if they do and dammed if they do not. As a point of interest, that litigation had elements of we the supplier not allowing the customer to do / access what they wanted and then when they did exactly what we sought to prevent, having grounds to then complain that we let them do what they wanted, with the consequence that they broke the system.
Protections systems cannot deliver to the levels people expect without a massive level of intrusion into (deep inspection of) what people are doing, many will consider that an invasion of privacy and is expensive to set up. Parental controls are completely dependent on content providers marking their material honestly for both age suitability and subject matter. The big issue is that the stuff your really don't want kids to see does not come from responsible providers - therefore it is not marked and will not be picked up by content filters.
Offering a product which cannot deliver 100% protection from risk is just asking to have the pants sued off you these days. To pretend that 100% protection is available is foolish. At a global level improperly marked material can be taken down, however such vendors very quickly set up a replacement site nearly quicker than the old ones are ripped down. Frankly it is little different to dealing with the drug problem. No sooner is one outlet shut down, than three more are started up. The best protection is to explain to the child why consumption will be detrimental to them.
Quote from: flexo1966 All Major isp's offer this service so why not plusnet?
Sorry this is simply not true - at least one major UK ISP makes it their distinguishing principle NOT to offer filtered services...
Quote from: http The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-
◦Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or
◦Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.
If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.
Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?
Quote from: http Why are we against censorship?
There are three main reasons for not filtering:-
1. We feel strongly that how you communicate should be kept separate from what you communicate, allowing the free technical development that has created the communications networks we enjoy. This is a view supported by EU rules on mere conduit which clearly separate the technical issues from moral and legal implications of what happens to be communicated. Without such a framework we would not have the Internet at all.
2. We feel strongly in free speech as an essential tool to help ensure a fair and open government. Censorship of any sort is the thin end of the wedge and not to be taken lightly. Once started, censorship is very easy to extend one step at a time until wrong thinking is banned.
3. Filtering rarely, if ever, achieves the stated goals - blocking web sites does not stop people communicating, and rarely even stops the actual web sites themselves. Most filtering creates a false sense of security, add technical complexity, and causes problems with over blocking. In many cases it is not true that "something is better than nothing".
Frankly it just does not work and any sense of comfort claimed by those who claim to provide it is shallow comfort.
Kevin
@Townman
A&A is definitely not a major ISP, they are very much a niche supplier offering a very specialised service at a premium price.
A&A is definitely not a major ISP, they are very much a niche supplier offering a very specialised service at a premium price.
Quote from: Townman The key point though is that their statements about the effectiveness of the claimed "protection" are all so true - this "protection" holds water like a sieve!
The likes of the many savvy members of this forum understand the drawbacks and short-comings of this protection but so many will blindly have it turned on unaware of it's limitations and work-arounds leaving their children open to see and hear much of what they're supposed to be protecting them from.
Children's protection should always start at home with the parents/guardians.
I have voted for "No, it's up to the customer.".
Perhaps a more easily accessible/prominent comprehensive FAQ covering this area could be made available to help those 'not in the know'?
Edit: Last sentence made no sense
