boxst

I have no idea how this will work: http://uk.news.yahoo.com/cameron-vow...1.html#oxtPsiR

Sounds like someone who doesn't really understand how operating systems and/or ISPs really work ...

PeteBrant

It's not his problem. He is just catering for middle England. He has appointed Clare Perry to implement it. I can't see any other way to do it other than through the OS, or a third party software solution that is shipped ISP's. It certainly can't be done remotely.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Well it works in countries like China and Indonesia so what do you think is the issue?

That said I wish they'd put as much effort into curbing the freeloaders downloading and publishing copyrighted material right, left and centre

^Qwerty^

Is that a cue for a government tender for somebody to write some software that will never work properly, or never be delivered at all, but cost tax payers tens of millions of pounds? Sounds like it to me

urban

iTrader: (1)

Yeah, that's what it sounds like to me too
They've spent millions over here trying to centralise all government department accounting systems
And they still haven't got it working several years on

boxst

It doesn't really. All ISPs must route their traffic through a central filter slowing down traffic and it 'blocks' certain sites.

Asking for preferences, saving them and/or forcing them at the local level is much more difficult and I would say nigh on impossible.

(impossible meaning within a worthwhile budget and timescale)

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Well it does actually work very well if full on censiorship is the way you want to go, but I grant you this is different

Well technically it's not that difficult, but requires co-operation of the ISPs and, as you say, a large budget.

The thing is though I feel this is yet another move in the wrong direction for society. If Little Joihnny is on the net unsupervised and looking at **** then that is bad parenting. Why should the state have to do the parenting here? Cameron said in his manifesto he would be moving away from the nanny state created by Labour, this proves he is just as bad!

pslewis

Surely all you do is not actually click on Porno Links?

Carlh

all that can be removed from the page pete, including the sites that host the links.

Its control blah blah blah.

You use google but google doesnt index everything. US Govt and governments of other countries ask google to block certain sites from search results.

Everything is control.

Leslie

I do not think it would be a retrograde step to remove any **** from the Net in general. Quite the opposite in fact.

Les

Steve vRS

Can anyone recommend any good blocking software? My lad will soon be of an age where he becomes curious about ladies.

When I were a lad, we had to work hard for our scud, I don't see why he should just be able to tap a few keys to get it!

Steve

5000th post

Tidgy

come on man, get with the 2010's, its the best sex ed most folks got in recent times,,,,, lol

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Net Nanny always scores highly.

See review here;

http://www.laptopmag.com/best-internet-filter-software/

legb4rsk

Just another form of mass population control.
The internet is dangerous to Government who only want you to see their version of events.

This is just the first step.................you have been warned.

hodgy0_2

http://www.opendns.com/home-solutions/

free -- and works for everyone getting access from your network and does not require any configuration of the client (Iphone, Ipad pc laptop etc etc)

the only downside it it is best used with a fixed IP address -- but most IP address don't change much

and I use it -- with 5 kids, (two teenagers) and it really work

can be over ridden if your wife insists on watch ****

boxst

I use http://www1.k9webprotection.com/ from the nice chaps at BlueCoat (industry grade web filtering).

wrx_driver

Looks like this one has solved Dave's dilemma. See last testimonial:

"K9 is the only one that actually works without over-blocking, slowing the PC down or conflicting with other software. Thank you." -- Cameron"

RobsyUK

iTrader: (2)

Guys, I have trouble finding decent **** without any blocks.. Looks like im screwed.

f1_fan

iTrader: (9)

Leslie

It might be useful to those who have nothing better to do than to ********** at their desktops, but is that really worth the ability of children to be able to access such questionable content?

Les

legb4rsk

I see your point Les, but would prefer education & far better parental guidance & very obvious choices when logging on.

I just have an inbuilt aversion to information control by Governments.

Scooby Soon!

I presume your joking about the filtering in these countries?

yabbadoo4

iTrader: (8)

lol havent heard the phrase "scud" for years. but i agree with limiting kids access to ****, when i was 14 it was the sexy undies section in the kays catalogue where i learned what a semi naked woman looked like and some of my big brothers jazz mags when i found his stash lol. if it was just some naked women posing on a bed it wouldnt be so bad but its the fact that the net delivers all the nasty stuff as well. but id like to be the one in control of it and not have it forced on me by government so id be able to set access myself in case i wanted to look at some for ahem "research purposes"

GlesgaKiss

Exactly!

Crikey, I'm agreeing with you... it's definitely the festive season.

Midlife......

iTrader: (2)

Our schools internet is filtered, I'm sure the IT guy said it all came through the University Network via Hull.............

Shaun

brendy76

iTrader: (6)

Filtering content is pretty straight forward, its all in the details though, selective viewing will be harder to sort.
Did I read that right where it mentions pornography and self harm sites in the same sentence? wtf?

Leslie

Yes I understand your point, but despite any kind of education, the first chance a your person gets and he will be calling up all the ****.

Its a bit like us having laws to make us behave properly though. Its a pretty strong form of government control to make it illegal to murder anyone!

Les

boxst

That isn't a correct comparison. You could draw example from perhaps drug legislation -- where it is illegal to take drugs in your own home. Both this and pornography theoretically cause no harm to others*. Where-as murder of course effects another person.

(*Yes ... I know you could point to indirect harm, but I'm leaving it out!)

J4CKO

iTrader: (1)

I dont think **** is the biggest problem on the net, I have K9 web patrol on my kids computers but I suspect is has been broken already, I have no iisue with my teenage lads looking at **** and fannies, it is all the weird stuff on the net, violent stufff, people crapping on each other, children and all the other deviency.

Aside from the **** I worry more about the videos they see of people being executed, eviserated, stabbed, shot, beaten up or commiting suicide but there is no mention of that, the net needs to stay uncensored and we need to limit what they see.

Some of the stuff, however horrible, like road accidents might actually be useful, I have seen some stuff ont he net that has made me think so, not always sure that blocking everything unsavoury is actually beneficial, it is way more complicated than that.

GlesgaKiss

Leave it completely uncensored, I say. What harm will it do? Someone answer that.