Cyclone Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 If there was no list of which IP address accessed which URL and when; along with a list of which IP address is assigned to which customer's account at a given time, how would an ISP respond to a RIPA request? They keep data recording what urls you are accessing, that's quite true. But that's very different to a list of customers who have explicitly requested (as the account holder) that porn is not blocked. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Personally I'd be more for an adult content filter, rather than just porn, as much as I don't want my 5 year old son having access to porn, I don't want him having access to violence, swearing or horror. This would be effectively impossible to implement, even the porn filter wouldn't really be effective, but with the vague and vast categories that you have just identified you'd be better off acting like a parent and supervising his net access. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 Personally I'd be more for an adult content filter, rather than just porn, as much as I don't want my 5 year old son having access to porn, I don't want him having access to violence, swearing or horror. If you're happy for someone to decide which parts of the internet you may or may not look at, under the guise of "thinking of *your* children" (when you can't be bothered to do that yourself), then I can't imagine them making it porn only, but that's the subject of this thread, and this is SF Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bypassblade Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 This would be effectively impossible to implement, even the porn filter wouldn't really be effective, but with the vague and vast categories that you have just identified you'd be better off acting like a parent and supervising his net access. I agree he's 5 so should be supervised, but also you couldn't put those kind of filters in, the porn sites also work by using key words or did, such as Disney in time gone by. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stereolab Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 make it compulsory for them to offer it and the cost becomes irrelevant-they just have to pay for it. This doesn't make any sense - needlessly adding expense to everyone for the sake of introducing a block that wouldn't work anyway? Three mobile used to block 'adult' websites by default - the problem was they also blocked many websites that weren't adult in nature at all (eg comedy sites, betting sites, health advice sites) - because it was all or nothing the only way round this was to remove the blocking completely. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 This would be effectively impossible to implement, even the porn filter wouldn't really be effective, but with the vague and vast categories that you have just identified you'd be better off acting like a parent and supervising his net access. I totally agree, I supervise him whenever he's on the internet (to be honest he's only interested in a few things anyway and those things don't tend to contain links to worse stuff) but as he gets older I will have to let him have graduually more and more freedom. I can't watch over his shoulder until he's 16/18. The internet on my phone already prevents me from watching anything that Virgin deem "adult content", I'm not sure how they go about this but I can't watch adult humour, violent action, or sensitive subjects without enabling it through the provider. I know there will always be stuff that's not rated or regulated, but I'd rather have mainstream (ie, iplayer, itvplayer, more4 etc.) restriction than none at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RootsBooster Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 If you're happy for someone to decide which parts of the internet you may or may not look at, under the guise of "thinking of *your* children" (when you can't be bothered to do that yourself), then I can't imagine them making it porn only, but that's the subject of this thread, and this is SF What makes you think I can't be bothered? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
splodgeyAl Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 What makes you think I can't be bothered? Sorry, I didn't mean you personally, but "one", as in the people who think it's someone else's responsibility to decide what their child may or may not access on the internet. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
llamatron Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 If I go to a url right now and it isn't served, then it is blocked. The fact that I can have the block removed by making a phone call doesn't alter the fact that it would, right now, be blocked. so if you don't have the internet then it is blocked??? Its essentially the same issue. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted June 7, 2012 Share Posted June 7, 2012 No, if I have the internet but certain urls are blocked then they're blocked. Why are you trying to claim that a block on an address is not a block so long as it can be lifted when you ask? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.