Yes, but the choice is an "opt in" not an "opt out".McAvoy wrote:Anyway, it has always been about choice. They give you the choice.
Kind of like the porn block, really. Want it? Well there it is for you. Don't want it? Okay, no porn block for you.Want one? State will provide. Oh you got your own? Ok cool. Oh you don't want one? Ok well then you can be your own lawyer them.
That's an opt in system, not an opt out one. An actual opt out system would be along the lines of the cops not being allowed to question you at all until your lawyer was present, unless you specifically told them that it was okay to do so because you didn't want the lawyer.McAvoy wrote:No actually its more opt out. Because the moment you get arrested they ask you if you want one because at all times it will be provided to you.
Let them. Google has an "adult content" filter on it - I don't rant and rave about it, I just set it to "none" and then got on with my life. I'm really not seeing the problem here.Porn block is different. There are already certain programs or options to block porn. But now they block it for adults automatically. Next thing is they will do it for blood, gore and other similar sites. Maybe eventually they will have an option to black out curse words.
But when you sign up for an ISP, then "do you want the porn block" will be part of the sign up system. It's the exact same thing.Porn block is different. There are already certain programs or options to block porn. But now they block it for adults automatically. Next thing is they will do it for blood, gore and other similar sites. Maybe eventually they will have an option to black out curse words.
And one of the first rights they tell you about and something I think most of the US population over the age of 12 is, "The right to remain silent." They can question you all they want but you don't have to say a damn thing.IanKennedy wrote:From what I've seen and heard you only have to confirm that you understand your rights for them to stop asking and start questioning.
Yes, but to stay on point, you have to actually ask for a lawyer to get one. As Graham said. It a right you have that you have to opt in to. Much in the same way as Google works in the US. It has a Safe Search option. That option is on by default. It filters out 'rude' images. You have to actually ask it to include them. This is exactly the kind of thing that is being suggested. Why isn't there a massive uprising in the states about this. You said there would be if such a thing existed in the US? It does and I'm not aware of the complaints.Tyyr wrote:And one of the first rights they tell you about and something I think most of the US population over the age of 12 is, "The right to remain silent." They can question you all they want but you don't have to say a damn thing.IanKennedy wrote:From what I've seen and heard you only have to confirm that you understand your rights for them to stop asking and start questioning.
Google doing it is different. That is a private company self-censoring their product, and to my knowledge voluntarily. We don't. go after google for it for the same reason we don't (usually) go after our employers for creating rules about workplace language. Private entities can create their own rules, the government doesn't mandate them. This is the government mandating private entities (the ISPs) must block this content rather than them choosing to do it themselves. Fir futher illustration, if you don't like that google blocks their searches you don't have to use google. If you don't like your qorkplace rules about conduct or speech, you can find another one more to your liking.When the government mandates it, you have no optional recourse.IanKennedy wrote:Yes, but to stay on point, you have to actually ask for a lawyer to get one. As Graham said. It a right you have that you have to opt in to. Much in the same way as Google works in the US. It has a Safe Search option. That option is on by default. It filters out 'rude' images. You have to actually ask it to include them. This is exactly the kind of thing that is being suggested. Why isn't there a massive uprising in the states about this. You said there would be if such a thing existed in the US? It does and I'm not aware of the complaints.Tyyr wrote:And one of the first rights they tell you about and something I think most of the US population over the age of 12 is, "The right to remain silent." They can question you all they want but you don't have to say a damn thing.IanKennedy wrote:From what I've seen and heard you only have to confirm that you understand your rights for them to stop asking and start questioning.
Blocks for "adult" content? I'm okay with it more or less. There's plenty of censorship around; if it's aimed at making sure kids don't have access to adult material, and it has provisions to make sure that adults can see what they like, I don't see the issue. Cinema has a system for that, television has a system for that. I still get all the access to adult material that I want, I just have a very minor piece of inconvenience to get to it. Seriously, clicking "no block please" once when you join an ISP? This is the big threat to freedom of speech that we should all be railing at? Puh-leeeeze.McAvoy wrote:So... you don't have a problem with a government setting up blocks even though you can get past them if you want to? Is that we are arguing about?
So... you wouldn't have a problem with the government censoring everything 'for your protection' as long as you can get past the censoring? And no that isn't a slippery slope because that is what they are doing, censoring the internet. It's just a lower class of censor.
Not sure of the details. I'd imagine that for existing accounts you will either ring or do it through their website. But they'll just make it part of the signing up procedure for new accounts, surely.Griffin wrote:I thought you had to ring the ISP up?
Just like google. I've not seen you complain about it?McAvoy wrote:So... you don't have a problem with a government setting up blocks even though you can get past them if you want to? Is that we are arguing about?
So... you wouldn't have a problem with the government censoring everything 'for your protection' as long as you can get past the censoring? And no that isn't a slippery slope because that is what they are doing, censoring the internet. It's just a lower class of censor.
To many many people Google is the internet. Even language recognises this. People talk about googling things. Does that not make them somewhat special? A lot of people wouldn't even know that other search engines exist, my parents don't.Sonic Glitch wrote:Google doing it is different. That is a private company self-censoring their product, and to my knowledge voluntarily. We don't. go after google for it for the same reason we don't (usually) go after our employers for creating rules about workplace language. Private entities can create their own rules, the government doesn't mandate them. This is the government mandating private entities (the ISPs) must block this content rather than them choosing to do it themselves. Fir futher illustration, if you don't like that google blocks their searches you don't have to use google. If you don't like your qorkplace rules about conduct or speech, you can find another one more to your liking.When the government mandates it, you have no optional recourse.
You don't even have to do that. It isn't actually something real yet. If it works like the ones that are already in place on mobile phones you simply have to prove you're over 18 and they take it away. Can't remember how that was done with O2 (mobile provider), but it was trivial.Griffin wrote:I thought you had to ring the ISP up?
