Internet porn restrictions

[splodgeyAl]

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.

Surely that depends on how good your SQL is All I said is that your (anyone's, to be clear) ISP already know whether your account has been used to access porn (well, a human mind reading the URLs you've accessed probably would), in response to "And how many people would want to be on a database of internet users who like to look at porn?"

[Cyclone]

There's a big difference though between a database of all the urls accessed (by anyone with access to that connection) and a specific list saying these account holders told us they want access to porn.

[splodgeyAl]

There's a big difference though between a database of all the urls accessed (by anyone with access to that connection) and a specific list saying these account holders told us they want access to porn.

Yes, there's a difference in why the data was collected, but once it has been collected, can be used to make similar inferences. But as you can see from above, that's not the point I was responding to.

[Cyclone]

One form makes it a lot easier. It is also subtly different data. Collecting a list of urls accessed doesn't mean you know who accessed them. Collecting a list of people who've explicitly said they want access to porn makes it rather more obvious.

 

Most people would not want to be on such an explicit list, whereas the more indirect data that is gathered is not a concern.

[splodgeyAl]

One form makes it a lot easier. It is also subtly different data. Collecting a list of urls accessed doesn't mean you know who accessed them. Collecting a list of people who've explicitly said they want access to porn makes it rather more obvious.

 

Most people would not want to be on such an explicit list, whereas the more indirect data that is gathered is not a concern.

When someone says "who wants to be on a list of people who watch porn on the internet?" the context of how that is known is irrelevant, the important bit is the correlation between the user and the porn.

 

I'm unsure why me pointing out to the asker of that question that peoples' visits to porn sites is already known by their ISP is such an issue for you?

 

To your ISP, the hypothetical person asking for porn access would almost certainly have to be the account holder, otherwise asking the question is pointless, and that would most likely be the same identifier as that stored against the visited URLs.

[L00b]

To your ISP, the hypothetical person asking for porn access would almost certainly have to be the account holder, otherwise asking the question is pointless, and that would most likely be the same identifier as that stored against the visited URLs.

And there is the problem.

 

From a legal PoV, in the hypothetical case of a war-driving paedo or other sick-minded individual, the issue is that, so long as the account holder is not registered as having specifically requested access to such material, it would be up to the CPS to prove that it was the account holder (or anyone else using the connection) who accessed, say, criminal material (kiddie/snuff stuff) within the 'general classification'.

 

As and when the account holder is registered as effectively wanting access to the material, then -although the CPS technically still has the same burden of proof to discharge- it is a far less heavy burden, as it makes explicit a presumption of guilt, that was only latent heretofore.

 

You go from 'innocent until proven guilty' to the reverse, in one easy box tick.

[splodgeyAl]

And there is the problem.

 

From a legal PoV, in the hypothetical case of a war-driving paedo or other sick-minded individual, the issue is that, so long as the account holder is not registered as having specifically requested access to such material, it would be up to the CPS to prove that it was the account holder (or anyone else using the connection) who accessed, say, criminal material (kiddie/snuff stuff) within the 'general classification'.

 

As and when the account holder is registered as effectively wanting access to the material, then -although the CPS technically still has the same burden of proof to discharge- it is a far less heavy burden, as it makes explicit a presumption of guilt, that was only latent heretofore.

 

You go from 'innocent until proven guilty' to the reverse, in one easy box tick.

Indeed. The burden of truth is probably one of the many good reasons why tech-savvy customers of ISPs would prefer an ISP that does not offer the facility suggested by the OP.

[Cyclone]

When someone says "who wants to be on a list of people who watch porn on the internet?" the context of how that is known is irrelevant, the important bit is the correlation between the user and the porn.

 

I'm unsure why me pointing out to the asker of that question that peoples' visits to porn sites is already known by their ISP is such an issue for you?

 

To your ISP, the hypothetical person asking for porn access would almost certainly have to be the account holder, otherwise asking the question is pointless, and that would most likely be the same identifier as that stored against the visited URLs.

 

That's not true at all, the ISP doesn't have to make any assumption, and whoever was asking for the information (for a legal reason I assume) would have to prove that it was the account holder and not someone else with access to the connection.

 

Edit - it's no issue to me at all, as I've repeated several times the issue for some people would be with having a much more explicit list that says that the account holder requested access to otherwise blocked material.

[splodgeyAl]

That's not true at all, the ISP doesn't have to make any assumption, and whoever was asking for the information (for a legal reason I assume) would have to prove that it was the account holder and not someone else with access to the connection.

I'm not sure what you mean by "that's not true". It was exactly my working experience. Well apart from the hypothetical bit, which obviously cannot be either true or false, being hypothetical.

[splodgeyAl]

That's not true at all, the ISP doesn't have to make any assumption, and whoever was asking for the information (for a legal reason I assume) would have to prove that it was the account holder and not someone else with access to the connection.

 

Edit - it's no issue to me at all, as I've repeated several times the issue for some people would be with having a much more explicit list that says that the account holder requested access to otherwise blocked material.

I'm just wondering why you're continuing to argue this point. Having worked at an ISP I know they collect the URLs each IP visits and when. The also know when each IP is assigned to an account. That actually happens.

 

The list of people requesting access to porn is hypothetical - it doesn't exist.