Posted @ whirlpool - ILCF pt4

derspatz writes...You might want more opportunity to make a choice in relation to acting illegally or not, but shouldn't I have "the right" to have me and mine pro-actively protected from anything to do with illegal choices you might make ?

Aha, there is the problem David. You already have that right. Download net-nanny or whatever it is from the ACMA website. Your PC is now protected from all the nasties out there (that the government know about anyway). And so is whatever family you may have. Though by the same token you are restricting your significant other from her freedom of choice being of legal age.

And that is where an opt-in filter would be more acceptable to everyone.

Which is fine when me and mine are using our own machines in the comfort of our own living room, but doesn't help beyond that.

On the subject of local filters, I just had a look at the number of "blocked sites" Spybot Search and Destroy "immunises" via my hosts file these days. Tis over 66,000 now, and I can't say I've ever noticed an impact in performance because of it.

Nor any kind of "ooops, I can't get that page for you" message because of it either, come to think of it.

I guess I just don't try to browse places where it is ever likely to be triggered ...

So, if ISP-Level filtering would be used to do the same sort of thing that many of us are already doing via Hosts files, then truly many of us are never even going to realise a filter is even in place, let alone miss anything it may be filtering ... and nor need there be much in the way of a response time hit when it comes to legit sites being served up.

regarDS