Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Worth noting that said filters are optional, you can turn them off.

Though the process to turn them off might resemble this[0].

[0] http://www.departmentofdirty.co.uk/



In most parts of the world optional means something you can opt-in to. Not something you have to painfully opt-out and be permanently put on the list of "those people".


In most parts of the world optional means optional.

If you're talking about the US in particular there are MANY things which are opt out (e.g. newsletters, sharing your information, recurring subscriptions after trial, organ donation (in some states, when applying for a driving licence), nude body scanners, and so on).

While I agree these filters should be opt-in, not opt-out, I think your claim that most of the world does it the other way is simply inaccurate. Even with kid-friendly net filters a lot of other countries and ISPs you are opted in unless you uncheck that box or request it.


"Painfully opt-out"?

You untick a box on the signup form. You're not put on the sex offenders register.


Which register are you put on? Or are you willing to state that you are completely sure that you are put on no register at all and this information that you "unticked a box" will not be used against you?


> Which register are you put on?

None, to my knowledge. Your ISP obviously has a 'no filters' flag somewhere, but they're not exactly telling the Government.

> Or are you willing to state that you are completely sure that you are put on no register at all and this information that you "unticked a box" will not be used against you?

We have pretty strict privacy laws, using it against you would probably be illegal.


How's that illegal thing worked out for curbing GHCQ?


The process to turn them off is to get your internet from Andrews & Arnold. Only the mobile ones are optional, some sites are still blocked.


The filters you refer to aren't the ones CCC is moaning about. Yes, The Pirate Bay (on its original domain only) and a limited number of proxies are blocked by court order on the few popular ISPs that control most of the market. But the CCC isn't, and the vast majority of the stuff people are upset about isn't.


Could you please prove that CCC is wrong?


The CCC isn't wrong (I assume), the poster that TazeTSnitchzel was replying to is wrong. The CCC's website is, according to them, caught up in the content filters that all ISPs now provide as an optional service, which block things from pornography to filesharing and gambling sites.

The majority of people in the UK are not currently under this filter, and the rest can opt out if they choose to do so. This is not the case with court-blocked sites like The Pirate Bay.




Consider applying for YC's Summer 2026 batch! Applications are open till May 4

Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: