You don't think it's a big deal when worthless government thugs coerce companies into implementing filters they didn't want to implement in the first place?

If they just roll over then it was never a big issue in the first place.

You don't think it's a big deal that they have all the names of the account holders who opt out of this nonsensical filter

That's over 90% of their customer base. It's hardly worthwhile information.

I demand that all religious websites be filtered, because I find them harmful.

Seems fair. Get onto your ISP. Request a "religion" filter.

"I wish to sue Thomas Paine for the damage he has done to the British people." -- Horace Edwards, if he'd lived in the 1770s.

Can you name the brilliant invention, that was made to solve the problem of people like Horace Edwards? It was called America! Fuck yeah!

It's not a javascript injection. It's a browser redirect. It is one message that you can opt out of. You just say no, and it stops coming up. If you see it again then there's a fault with the system and you should contact your ISP if the fault keeps cropping up.

And they've been able to intercept and redirect connections for years already. If you have a problem with cleanfeed than I'm totally with you on that, but people seem to be ignoring that mandatory system and whining about optional filters.

So fucking what?

If you don't want filters, say "No I don't want filters". If you don't want to be asked then use a different ISP.

That's what he did. He exercised his right to modify it, and he exercised his right to tell people what he did.

Which is pretty clear proof that pretty much no-one wants their Internet pre-censored.

Only if the free market works perfectly. Given that 4% of customers have turned on the filters, clearly there was some demand for this. This is much higher uptake than any software solution, so evidently that was not the solution the 4% wanted, and this is.

And, last I read, something like 4% of people had chosen to have their Internet censored.

So, 4% of the customers wanted filters. 96% did not. We now have a situation where the 96% get what they want, and the 4% get what they want. Why is this seen as a problem? Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?

They're probably the ones who clicked 'Yes' by mistake, thinking it meant 'Yes, I want the Internet, not Davenet'.

Or maybe they wanted the filters. If not, I have little sympathy for people who are that stupid.

Conservative parents might disagree.

They can turn the filters on. So the ISP provides a service that is useful for both those who so and those who don't want filters. The article is suggesting that the ISPs have a vested interest in tailoring their service for the smaller and more expensive of those groups.

Intentionally running a MITM attack against your customers aside, there is a huge problem with the legislation to begin with.

Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme

Cybersitter and NetNanny are not for me, but if I had young kids I may use that type of service if I was worried about their access.

Or you could use the service the ISP provides you with for free, that's easy to set up, available in the UK, and works with all network connected devices.

These companies get paid to manage content for you, and are _completely_voluntary so don't impose restrictions on everyone.

The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.

And if those services are not available in the UK, or not good enough in the UK, why not create the company and let the free market do the work?

We tried. No suitable product became available. David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged. If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.

As bad as the US has become, I'm glad I'm not from the UK.

Why? You don't even have a choice of ISP in a lot of the US.

A handful of people have reported that the "would you like to enable parental filters" message crops up. It's onbe of those setup screensthat a lot if ISPs use for initial setup.

Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things? It makes their service less useful and costs the ISP money. Filtering requires servers to run the filters.

Is it not possible, that perhaps the router was reset or something was changed at the exchange and that triggered the setup messag to appear? Click "no" and carry on browsing.

Yeah, that never accomplished much for me. And I still had to learn to relax in the face of frustration when I was grown. If I had simply learned that before adulthood, I probably would have had 80% of what I needed to get by productively and healthily.

I assume you meant "anglos"? Would it surprise you to learn that I'm raising them bilingually and interculturally?

I think you could benefit from some form of relaxation therapy. It's not always necessary or helpful to vent against lifestyles that you disagree with.

Typically patents are not on the concept but the implementation. The details of how to adjust pricing in an optimal way is far from obvious.

The wireless tools complicate everything. Otherwise? Yes. I'd just edit the interface descriptions in /etc/network/interfaces ...

Microsoft used to give all customer facing employees 5 of these, too. Ingratiating.

I ran five Battlefield 3 servers on two continents for a group of about 3500 registered users, and before that a Bad Company 2 server in America for a year or two. We had a Steam chat bot (IRC is Dead in this era, especially for games) that you could interact with and kick unregistered players. The first version was crude PHP run off of a godaddy account to register your account for Bad Company 2. The steam chat bot was some ruby glue code triggered by an AutoIt script/executable.
 
But later with Battlefield 3, we rewrote the whole system from the ground up. ChewieBot was a C# program that used an OpenSteam API dll, and called a URL via json which authenticated against another guy's custom Steam Authentication db (he handled the backend registration using the offical Steam API) and then we ran a python script from there to actually connect to the server and kick the guy(s). This actually ended up being so successful that we were blacklisted by the reddit guys on multiple occasions despite being a top 10 server. Another guy did the website redesign including custom CSS work. I didn't do very much of the coding, most of my skills were in project management and having the technical knowledge to pull together resources and people and make them work.
 
Over four years I worked with about 20 people in total to make the system happen and keep it running, plus bringing in regular funding to pay for the servers, mumble servers, and the actual game servers (never pay for your own servers, you're already giving them your time). All in all the project spent about $3500 in hosting, mumble server fees and the lion's share, top notch game servers (about $114/mo each) over four years.
 
I ended up getting the job with those project management skills I learned while putting everything together. I write a lot of server scripting/automation and also project management working with business analysts and our appdev team(s) for various internal groups' dashboards, interfaces and whatnot.
 
At least one other guy used the ChewieBot project to get a job as well, he added the json capability to give him a talking point in interviews. The guy who did our db back end already has a job doing C# stuff at an advertising data mining company in the UK but is pretty fantastic at what he does. With all the API hooks, free or nearly-free VPS hosting and a popular game it'snot difficult to build a reputation and portfolio (not to mention the real-world skills of dealing with true nerds) that will take you places.