(Straight question; if there's an answer to that I'm just not seeing, great! I'd love to hear it.)
Many benign sites show as blocked by the "Parental Control (opt in u12 service)" service. Try these: http://www.gov.uk http://www.guardian.com http://www.amazon.com http://www.orange.co.uk http://www.youtube.com http://www.blogspot.com http://www.bing.com http://www.apple.com
A few sites seem to be allowed, such as http://www.google.com and http://www.o2.co.uk and http://www.amazon.co.uk
I'm not 100% clear on whether I'm reading the reports correctly, or whether the opt-in filtering is the same as the forced-choice filter that Cameron has pushed on ISPs. I'm assuming the forced-choice filter is something much less restrictive as I can't imagine anyone applying this filter to themselves by choice.
I resolve my issues with proper supervision. I hope no-one assumes that the u12 blocking means that "The Internet", even in such a reduced form, is safe (whatever that might mean).
Now, of course, this doesn't prove the "majority" of the internet is blocked.
Spot check some sites.
slashdot.org Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked
news.ycombinator.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked
news.yahoo.com Parental Control (opt in u12 service) Blocked
The use of the word 'Internet' should be strictly defined. If by 'Internet' they mean going through restricted gateways in accord with their criteria, that is fine, but if they mean allowing processes to connect as described above they are in breach. The public needs to understand that.
There was a case some time ago when BT wanted to cut of the phone lines to prostitutes who had their ads plastered in phone booths and the courts stopped them from doing this.
Restrictions should be done with customers informed consent or at least they should be notified when the subscribe to the service
Which clause of the O2 service contract are they in breach of? You said 'technically', so you must think they really are in breach rather than just morally in breach.
They are morally in breach if you are inclined to see it that way, based on promoting a restricted concept of what an Internet is.
There has been a surge of Twitter outrage about it this weekend, though many of the outraged appear to misunderstand what the feature is designed to do.
I mean who is even allowed to block outgoing 911 on their cellphone? it works even without a sim card!
The bottom row appears to be an (properly) opt-in service for much younger kids that must be whitelisting only a few destinations, which is not the same thing at all as the filters that Cameron et al are pushing for.
Having grown up in a southern baptist family I think you're being idealistic here. I could easily see this filter being imposed on me by my previous parent/guardian until I moved out of the house, thus vastly restricting my knowledge of the world. Any alternative news site is blocked, so it's basically the mainstream conservative fun-filter.
Sorry parents, censorship is still no alternative to actual parenting and may just get in the way of your kid becoming the next amazing Python hacker.
> Your reclassification request has been received. Please come back soon to check the reclassification results.
No way to specify what I think ought to be changed. Thanks, O2, for giving everyone a great way to report problems!
(edit: Bing is more blocked than google!)
They are probably going to receive tens of thousands of requests so I wouldn't expect them to be read by a human. If that's the case they'll just prioritize by frequency of report. Obviously it's all conjecture on my part.
