According to the guardian.co.uk the four biggest internet service providers (ISP’s) in the UK is going to require users to have to “opt in” if they want to view sexually explicit websites.
The service providers involved are BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin.
Customers who do not opt in to adult content will be unable to access pornographic websites.
This has nothing to do with .XXX. domain names.
This would apply to any “pornographic website” using any TLD.
According to another report on the same story, the new rule will reportedly not require existing subscribers to opt-in retroactively, but will kick in “when a customer pays for a new internet package from a service provider.
Of course who will determine what is a pornographic website was not disclosed but I’m sure if they are hiring someone for that position there will be a ton of applicants.
The announcement of a “voluntary” agreement between major ISPs and the UK government to require customers to “opt in” to receive access to adult-oriented violates the basic principles that information online should be widely available and that individuals – not governments or service providers – should decide what they want to see. The default position should favor free expression, and people should not have to “ask permission” to have access to the entire Internet.
The agreement can hardly be called “voluntary,” since it was announced under threat of direct governmental regulation. And it gives the government and the ISPs too much power to decide in advance, and in a broad-brush way, which websites will be blocked in advance.
ICM Registry fully supports the principle of empowering individuals and families to decide what to read or view online, and designed the .xxx domain to assist with such personal decision-making. But blocking all adult-oriented sites in advance is overkill, since 2/3 of households have no children residing in them, and it is inconsistent with Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights.
“The default position should favor free expression, and people should not have to “ask permission” to have access to the entire Internet”
=====
“access to the entire Internet”
The insidious nature of the new technology (Set.Top.Boxes are one example) is that the **entire Internet** becomes relative to the people with the new boxes (and ISPs)
Using XXX as an example, the new DNS software takes a NAME.XXX and finds it at least 6 ways. The new DNS software will even start using the Twitter name-space. The .XXX names are also direct-mapped to .ORG. There are also
the *-XXX.com names.
People like software that finds “access to the entire Internet”
ZOOM://ZOOM
maybe, they want ot help the DVD industry and revive the VHS 🙂
“who will determine what is a pornographic website was not disclosed”
====
Users (with the New Boxes) determine that. (openDNS is just the start)
Have you missed all the Reputation DNS stuff coming from TBLS ?
If you only have the ICANN “censored” Internet – then you do not have the “entire Internet”. Without access to the **entire Internet** you can not see the technology being used to “determine what is pornographic”.
With IPv6 it gets worse. The address space is massive.
The UK is now the official testing ground for this. Depending on how things go don’t be surprised to see a bill floated to have this happen in the US. The private proxy business just got more interesting in the UK.
The complaints from the community approach seems the most sensible. What is pornography? Waht is offensive or inappropriate? Only the community can decide. Have a channel throught which the community can direct complaints. Use that input to compile the block list.
But how are they going to block sites? By domainname? Or by IP address? The former is futile for any kid with a clue; they can figure things out very quickly. The latter may prove difficult for shared hosting providers. If one customer draws a block from an overzealous ISP, many others could be blocked along with it. So the burden is pushed on the hosting provider to drop customers who end up on block lists.
Feels like we’re back in the 90’s debating the Communications Decency Act.
Breaking.Domain.NEWS
Verisign and ICANN are now planning to take-down .COM domains
from the Press Info…
“Verisign said it has been piloting takedown procedures with US law enforcement agencies, cybersecurity experts, US government Computer Emergeny Readiness Teams, and domain registrars to establish baseline procedures, and has begun planning pilots with European government agencies and registrars. Just what those baseline procedures are—and what recourse domain holders who run afoul of them have—hasn’t been spelled out. Verisign says it “will be offering a protest procedure to support restoring a domain name to the zone.”
Personally I think this is great, subject to correct implementation which includes making sure non-adult sites are not caught in the net.
It would seem to me that no part of this affects anyone’s right to freedom of speech or access to information, and imo the ECHR doesnt even really come into it since imo children’s common law right to not accidentally seeing porn and statutory right to be reasonably protected from such, by eg. innocent typo or searching for ‘pussycats’ or something, easily overrides any rights that may exist for ‘unfettered’ porn on any connection anyplace anytime.
This is why sex-shows in Soho are on private premises, indoors, and not out on the street where theyd surely make more money, it strikes a practical balance between the people who want it and those who do not.
For people who want to see porn, fine no worries, Im sure the opt-in will be a simple tickbox or signature somewhere – big deal. Noone is saying you can’t still fill your boots with as much porn as you could possibly imagine.
If this saves even one child from what is effectively an abusive but entirely foreseeable and preventable situation then it was worth it. One can only assume that many in the adult industry just want their paychecks and be damned with any kids they collaterally mess-up.