They are not the parents of the people so they can kindly fuck off. Tech won't stop because you don't want teens to masturbate. How would parental controls (proper ones that parents set up) work...
In a statement published this week, the Internet Services Providers Association (ISPAUK) claimed that Mozilla plans to support DNS-over-HTTPS "in such a way as to bypass UK filtering obligations and parental controls, undermining internet safety standards in the UK."
They are not the parents of the people so they can kindly fuck off. Tech won't stop because you don't want teens to masturbate.
How would parental controls (proper ones that parents set up) work with DoH, though? That is something important. And it is sad if it is correct that each app will have its own resolver, I'd rather continue to configure it at the OS level.
I doubt there is anything stopping DoH working at the OS level other than the fact that OS makers would never bother to implement it so applications take over control to progress privacy and security.
I doubt there is anything stopping DoH working at the OS level other than the fact that OS makers would never bother to implement it so applications take over control to progress privacy and security.
I'm a bit confused by your comment. ISPs offer a product to parents. That parental control product is optional. Why should people offering an optional product fuck off?
I'm a bit confused by your comment. ISPs offer a product to parents. That parental control product is optional. Why should people offering an optional product fuck off?
Because they apparently ask progress in privacy and security stop for the services they provide and the censorship they apply. The parental controls should be implemented at the device level, not...
Because they apparently ask progress in privacy and security stop for the services they provide and the censorship they apply. The parental controls should be implemented at the device level, not on the network itself.
Currently ISPs offer an optional product to parents. That's fine. But the next stage is that all internet porn in the UK will require mandatory age verification. That can fuck off.
Currently ISPs offer an optional product to parents. That's fine. But the next stage is that all internet porn in the UK will require mandatory age verification. That can fuck off.
That's not what parent poster said. But why is it wrong to verify user's ages before they access porn? This requirement already exists in the UK for print material, or dvd and bluray porn. The...
That's not what parent poster said. But why is it wrong to verify user's ages before they access porn? This requirement already exists in the UK for print material, or dvd and bluray porn. The government has for years tried to get the industry to self-regulate, and they chose not to. The porn wall is the first step in tighter regulation.
Well, the same requirement also exists for booze but you try telling that to the 14 year olds necking White Lightning in the woods down the road from my house. The thing about porn is that it is,...
Well, the same requirement also exists for booze but you try telling that to the 14 year olds necking White Lightning in the woods down the road from my house.
The thing about porn is that it is, to an extent, self-limiting. Kids aren't interested in porn. It's icky. Girls smell, boys are stupid, eeeuw who wants to see willies, etc. By the time someone is interested in porn they're going to find porn whatever the government does. So it's pointless theatre, designed to appease the pearl-necklace-clutching Middle-Englanders. What it will also do is enrich MindGeek et al even further, as people go to buy their "porn passes" for £10 a pop or whatever price they think they can get away with.
IF it were remotely technically possible and IF it were being implemented on the basis of solid evidence that it will help solve a problem, then I'd be rather more OK with it. But the former isn't true and I haven't heard anything about the latter.
What "tighter regulation" are you anticipating, and why is that not a terrible thing? They're already banned quite a few types of so-called "extreme" porn (and you KNOW there are plenty of Tories who just love some of that in private) and now they're trying to make all porn opt-in only - where do you see this going next?
...and regulatory action happens against shopkeepers who sell alcohol to people under 18, and if there was an industry wide agreement to not ask for ID for online sales we'd see something like an...
Well, the same requirement also exists for booze but you try telling that to the 14 year olds necking White Lightning in the woods down the road from my house.
...and regulatory action happens against shopkeepers who sell alcohol to people under 18, and if there was an industry wide agreement to not ask for ID for online sales we'd see something like an alcohol-wall being introduced.
The thing about porn is that it is, [snip a paragraph of pure opinion with no evidence to support it]
IF it were remotely technically possible and IF it were being implemented on the basis of solid evidence
Not really. Post-snip I was posing a hypothetical in which we agree that porn is necessarily bad and that young people need protecting from it and also that doing such were actually possible. None...
You can see the inconsistency here, right?
Not really. Post-snip I was posing a hypothetical in which we agree that porn is necessarily bad and that young people need protecting from it and also that doing such were actually possible. None of which is really true, so it's not really inconsistent with anything else I was saying. Also I'd like to stress that this bit - "enrich MindGeek et al even further" - is not opinion. The verification providers, the lead one of which is run by Mindgeek (aka Pornhub) are going to make a bunch of money from this.
But I'm much more interested in what "tighter regulation" you think this is paving the way for, and why that will also be OK like you think the pornwall is OK. Despite the fact we all know it won't work.
The age verification process requires the user to surrender private information to the website in question in order to prove their age (i.e. a credit card number or state issued ID number). So now...
The age verification process requires the user to surrender private information to the website in question in order to prove their age (i.e. a credit card number or state issued ID number).
So now the government has a list of what porn sites everyone is visiting, and unscrupulous websites have a legitimate-looking reason to ask for your credit card number or state ID.
Hilarious that they awarded the "Internet Hero" award to TBL for trying to "rebuild trust and protect the open and free nature of the Internet", which is exactly what DoH would help achieve. That...
Hilarious that they awarded the "Internet Hero" award to TBL for trying to "rebuild trust and protect the open and free nature of the Internet", which is exactly what DoH would help achieve. That wasn't an accident.
My feeling about this is that the ISPs know full well how stupid the various blocking and monitoring laws are but they're trying to make sure they look good in the eyes of government in case they decide to take it further. There was a point where it looked like ISPs were going to have to log all traffic on all connections and keep records for multiple years, which would have cost them a fortune. Fortunately that was ruled illegal by the courts. The government remains either completely clueless or well aware that what they're doing won't work (but doing it anyway to placate the Daily Mail readers with theatre) and I'm still not sure which of those things is worse.
It's partly theatre. The point of the various blocks is not to make access to these things impossible. It's to make it difficult for a person to accidentally stumble upon thousands of images of...
It's partly theatre.
The point of the various blocks is not to make access to these things impossible.
It's to make it difficult for a person to accidentally stumble upon thousands of images of child sexual abuse. With the various measures in place when police find someone who has thousands of images of CSE the suspect can't say "I didn't know what they were, I accidentally downloaded them". The suspect has had to download and install software to access the images and has had to search for them.
The piracy blocks are trivially easy to defeat and they seem to be purely theatre.
The "porn wall" will also be easy to defeat. It's aimed at making it harder for young children to stumble across explicit porn.
I'm broadly in favour of Cleanfeed, which has been going for a while now, although I doubt it achieves all that much because bypassing it is, as you say, trivial and many people will be doing so...
I'm broadly in favour of Cleanfeed, which has been going for a while now, although I doubt it achieves all that much because bypassing it is, as you say, trivial and many people will be doing so without even knowing they're doing it, so the "I didn't know what I was doing" defence still stands. Anyone with a VPN going out of the UK can legitimately make that claim.
The thing is, even back in the days when the internet was a lot wilder and more dangerous - and I was more interested in finding wilder and more dangerous stuff - I never once accidentally (or deliberately, I hasten to add) stumbled across CSE images. Images of death, disease, torture and other awful stuff, sure, pretty easy to find. Rotten.com was quite an eye opener as a teenager. But actual CSE images are considerably more rare than the Yelling Press would have us believe. Most people really aren't into that shit, even for shock value, and those that are tend to be very circumspect about it because we, quite rightly, tend to lock people up fairly hard for that sort of thing.
As for more vanilla, legal porn, I'm not sure that children need protecting at the ISP level. A bit of porn won't hurt them. Might disgust them a bit but they'll be OK. When I was a kid it was via finding jazz mags behind the bus stop, that's not really very different to accidentally stumbling across pornhub. When my kid is old enough to be using the internet himself but not yet old enough to be interested in naked people he'll be sitting behind a whitelist of my own construction because what he can and cannot see should be up to me as a parent, not a puritanical government. Also, fuck paying Mindgeek a fee to prove I'm old enough to view porn.
Ah, I should have spotted that, thanks. It was a backslash, because I'm sure Markdown used to require escaping brackets in urls when writing links but apparently not. Fixed!
Ah, I should have spotted that, thanks. It was a backslash, because I'm sure Markdown used to require escaping brackets in urls when writing links but apparently not. Fixed!
CSA images are blocked with industry agreement by using the IWF lists. End users can opt out of that by choosing an ISP that doesn't use the lists. Why would someone want to be able to access...
CSA images are blocked with industry agreement by using the IWF lists. End users can opt out of that by choosing an ISP that doesn't use the lists. Why would someone want to be able to access images of child sexual abuse?
Some websites that only provide access to pirate materials are blocked after rights-holders get a court order. The court orders only apply to the "big six" providers. Users can opt out of those blocks by choosing a different provider, or using a VPN.
Mobile internet providers have optional filtering of adult websites that is on by default. Users can opt out of this by checking a box in their account settings.
So it is not only CSA as you confirm. Your style of discussion and use of rhetorical devices is malicious, so I won't continue this discussion with you. For the record, the point is not allowing...
So it is not only CSA as you confirm. Your style of discussion and use of rhetorical devices is malicious, so I won't continue this discussion with you. For the record, the point is not allowing production or consumption of CSA imagery, it is about abusing the sensitivity of the public to this phenomenon to perpetrate an agenda of censorship and of surveillance, to curb the progress in pro-privacy technology, and to patronise people forcing patriarcal and religous values and views regarding childrearing on them. It is extremely and inhumanely dishonest and disingenuous to suggest that it was about defending perpetrators both active and passive of CSA.
This isn't actually true; at least on EE, you have to hand over a debit or credit card number to turn off the filtering (and even then, it seems to have issues and "accidentally" block sites every...
Mobile internet providers have optional filtering of adult websites that is on by default. Users can opt out of this by checking a box in their account settings.
This isn't actually true; at least on EE, you have to hand over a debit or credit card number to turn off the filtering (and even then, it seems to have issues and "accidentally" block sites every now and then anyway).
Observe the worlds tiniest violin for these poor isps that have been screwed over by big bad Mozilla, who is daring to advance technology forwards.
By planning to support DNS-over-HTTPS, Mozilla is throwing a monkey wrench in many ISPs' ability to sniff on customers' traffic and filter traffic for government-mandated "bad sites."
Observe the worlds tiniest violin for these poor isps that have been screwed over by big bad Mozilla, who is daring to advance technology forwards.
If you use pfsense for your DNS server, here are the instructions for setting up DOH on it: https://www.netgate.com/blog/dns-over-tls-with-pfsense.html
I've been meaning to set this up on my PiHole for a while, but kept putting it off (because, when it comes to procrastinating I'm sort of a big deal...). Just followed this guide and it took me...
I've been meaning to set this up on my PiHole for a while, but kept putting it off (because, when it comes to procrastinating I'm sort of a big deal...).
Just followed this guide and it took me about 5 minutes. No issues, really straightforward.
They are not the parents of the people so they can kindly fuck off. Tech won't stop because you don't want teens to masturbate.
How would parental controls (proper ones that parents set up) work with DoH, though? That is something important. And it is sad if it is correct that each app will have its own resolver, I'd rather continue to configure it at the OS level.
I doubt there is anything stopping DoH working at the OS level other than the fact that OS makers would never bother to implement it so applications take over control to progress privacy and security.
I'm a bit confused by your comment. ISPs offer a product to parents. That parental control product is optional. Why should people offering an optional product fuck off?
Because they apparently ask progress in privacy and security stop for the services they provide and the censorship they apply. The parental controls should be implemented at the device level, not on the network itself.
Currently ISPs offer an optional product to parents. That's fine. But the next stage is that all internet porn in the UK will require mandatory age verification. That can fuck off.
That's not what parent poster said. But why is it wrong to verify user's ages before they access porn? This requirement already exists in the UK for print material, or dvd and bluray porn. The government has for years tried to get the industry to self-regulate, and they chose not to. The porn wall is the first step in tighter regulation.
Regulating access to porn should not require compromising the privacy of an entire country or of the world.
What privacy is being compromised, and how?
Well, the same requirement also exists for booze but you try telling that to the 14 year olds necking White Lightning in the woods down the road from my house.
The thing about porn is that it is, to an extent, self-limiting. Kids aren't interested in porn. It's icky. Girls smell, boys are stupid, eeeuw who wants to see willies, etc. By the time someone is interested in porn they're going to find porn whatever the government does. So it's pointless theatre, designed to appease the pearl-necklace-clutching Middle-Englanders. What it will also do is enrich MindGeek et al even further, as people go to buy their "porn passes" for £10 a pop or whatever price they think they can get away with.
IF it were remotely technically possible and IF it were being implemented on the basis of solid evidence that it will help solve a problem, then I'd be rather more OK with it. But the former isn't true and I haven't heard anything about the latter.
What "tighter regulation" are you anticipating, and why is that not a terrible thing? They're already banned quite a few types of so-called "extreme" porn (and you KNOW there are plenty of Tories who just love some of that in private) and now they're trying to make all porn opt-in only - where do you see this going next?
...and regulatory action happens against shopkeepers who sell alcohol to people under 18, and if there was an industry wide agreement to not ask for ID for online sales we'd see something like an alcohol-wall being introduced.
You can see the inconsistency here, right?
Not really. Post-snip I was posing a hypothetical in which we agree that porn is necessarily bad and that young people need protecting from it and also that doing such were actually possible. None of which is really true, so it's not really inconsistent with anything else I was saying. Also I'd like to stress that this bit - "enrich MindGeek et al even further" - is not opinion. The verification providers, the lead one of which is run by Mindgeek (aka Pornhub) are going to make a bunch of money from this.
But I'm much more interested in what "tighter regulation" you think this is paving the way for, and why that will also be OK like you think the pornwall is OK. Despite the fact we all know it won't work.
The age verification process requires the user to surrender private information to the website in question in order to prove their age (i.e. a credit card number or state issued ID number).
So now the government has a list of what porn sites everyone is visiting, and unscrupulous websites have a legitimate-looking reason to ask for your credit card number or state ID.
holy fuck good point I never thought of that, imagine the scams
Hilarious that they awarded the "Internet Hero" award to TBL for trying to "rebuild trust and protect the open and free nature of the Internet", which is exactly what DoH would help achieve. That wasn't an accident.
My feeling about this is that the ISPs know full well how stupid the various blocking and monitoring laws are but they're trying to make sure they look good in the eyes of government in case they decide to take it further. There was a point where it looked like ISPs were going to have to log all traffic on all connections and keep records for multiple years, which would have cost them a fortune. Fortunately that was ruled illegal by the courts. The government remains either completely clueless or well aware that what they're doing won't work (but doing it anyway to placate the Daily Mail readers with theatre) and I'm still not sure which of those things is worse.
It's partly theatre.
The point of the various blocks is not to make access to these things impossible.
It's to make it difficult for a person to accidentally stumble upon thousands of images of child sexual abuse. With the various measures in place when police find someone who has thousands of images of CSE the suspect can't say "I didn't know what they were, I accidentally downloaded them". The suspect has had to download and install software to access the images and has had to search for them.
The piracy blocks are trivially easy to defeat and they seem to be purely theatre.
The "porn wall" will also be easy to defeat. It's aimed at making it harder for young children to stumble across explicit porn.
I'm broadly in favour of Cleanfeed, which has been going for a while now, although I doubt it achieves all that much because bypassing it is, as you say, trivial and many people will be doing so without even knowing they're doing it, so the "I didn't know what I was doing" defence still stands. Anyone with a VPN going out of the UK can legitimately make that claim.
The thing is, even back in the days when the internet was a lot wilder and more dangerous - and I was more interested in finding wilder and more dangerous stuff - I never once accidentally (or deliberately, I hasten to add) stumbled across CSE images. Images of death, disease, torture and other awful stuff, sure, pretty easy to find. Rotten.com was quite an eye opener as a teenager. But actual CSE images are considerably more rare than the Yelling Press would have us believe. Most people really aren't into that shit, even for shock value, and those that are tend to be very circumspect about it because we, quite rightly, tend to lock people up fairly hard for that sort of thing.
As for more vanilla, legal porn, I'm not sure that children need protecting at the ISP level. A bit of porn won't hurt them. Might disgust them a bit but they'll be OK. When I was a kid it was via finding jazz mags behind the bus stop, that's not really very different to accidentally stumbling across pornhub. When my kid is old enough to be using the internet himself but not yet old enough to be interested in naked people he'll be sitting behind a whitelist of my own construction because what he can and cannot see should be up to me as a parent, not a puritanical government. Also, fuck paying Mindgeek a fee to prove I'm old enough to view porn.
Just wanna chime in real quick to say your link is broken because of the extra
\aftersystemAh, I should have spotted that, thanks. It was a backslash, because I'm sure Markdown used to require escaping brackets in urls when writing links but apparently not. Fixed!
Also, quite a bit more than CSA images is blocked, it seems to me.
CSA images are blocked with industry agreement by using the IWF lists. End users can opt out of that by choosing an ISP that doesn't use the lists. Why would someone want to be able to access images of child sexual abuse?
Some websites that only provide access to pirate materials are blocked after rights-holders get a court order. The court orders only apply to the "big six" providers. Users can opt out of those blocks by choosing a different provider, or using a VPN.
Mobile internet providers have optional filtering of adult websites that is on by default. Users can opt out of this by checking a box in their account settings.
So it is not only CSA as you confirm. Your style of discussion and use of rhetorical devices is malicious, so I won't continue this discussion with you. For the record, the point is not allowing production or consumption of CSA imagery, it is about abusing the sensitivity of the public to this phenomenon to perpetrate an agenda of censorship and of surveillance, to curb the progress in pro-privacy technology, and to patronise people forcing patriarcal and religous values and views regarding childrearing on them. It is extremely and inhumanely dishonest and disingenuous to suggest that it was about defending perpetrators both active and passive of CSA.
This isn't actually true; at least on EE, you have to hand over a debit or credit card number to turn off the filtering (and even then, it seems to have issues and "accidentally" block sites every now and then anyway).
Is there any data on how frequently that happens if at all?
Observe the worlds tiniest violin for these poor isps that have been screwed over by big bad Mozilla, who is daring to advance technology forwards.
If you use pfsense for your DNS server, here are the instructions for setting up DOH on it: https://www.netgate.com/blog/dns-over-tls-with-pfsense.html
I've been meaning to set this up on my PiHole for a while, but kept putting it off (because, when it comes to procrastinating I'm sort of a big deal...).
Just followed this guide and it took me about 5 minutes. No issues, really straightforward.