BT sued over porn dialler block

[Damien]

Originally Posted by ikthius

I am for BT.

some people room the net and accidently find a porn site, then all of a sudden, you have a dialler changing your settings.

if it is a crime to send out a virus that can change your settings *and cause malicious damage* then a dialer should be considered the same.

I did not ask for them, and I don't know how I got it, then they are getting into your system without your consent and changing things.

THIS IS NOT RIGHT OR FAIR

therefore, I would like BT to win and send a message out to other companies that have rougue dialers.

ik

Me too. This is a test and a really hope that the case finds in favor of BT. Also if BT were not blocking these sites and just taking the money a lot of people would be even more angry

Originally Posted by Damien

Either way there will be the barrier between it being turned on by default and it being turned off by default.

Now the people who want to do this will know about the price and the dangers but a lot of people don’t. If they want the service then all they have to do is log into a website and allow it. They know its there, they choose to use it.

It is not the job of the state, BT or anyone else to act as babysitter or nanny.

The responsibility for what you and yours see or don't see is down to *YOU*, nobody else.

There are virus checkers, fire walls, pop up blockers and programs like Cyber Sitter and Net Nanny available to protect the innocent, why should those who want to see this sort of material be required to take action because others cannot be bothered to "protect" themselves??

The other (and larger) group of people are the ones who do not know about this.

Someone else's ignorance is not my problem. And I'm sorry if that blunt statement sounds selfish, but the argument you put forward is the same as the one that wants to ban sex/ violence/ "unacceptable" material from TV etc because some people don't know how to change channel.

surely having it on by default is bad as the users don’t know its there so they wont be aware they should switch an option on. While those who want it would be aware.

At the moment there is a massive uptake in computing and computers from the public, many of which do not understand the steps they should take. Or they do, but they simply install an anti-virus and think they are protected. In this environment the most secure options should be on by default. Not the other way around.

Why do you think it is better for the line to be allowed by default?

Because if you supply computers with firewalls, anti-virus et al as standards (and make sure they are switched on by default - Hello Micro$oft!) that way people won't be forced to take extra steps to access something that they want.

It is not me who is responsible for this.
__________________

Originally Posted by AndrewJames

While there is other methods to be used perhaps, I think the main one of having to ring up to have it permitted or having a passworded check box to permit it, would stop the pitter patty of kids finding half of this stuff and also could help keep chat clean and safe for children.

Oh dear, now it's the "for the sake of the children" argument.

See my above for whose responsibility it is...

[Keytops]

Originally Posted by Graham

...why should those who want to see this sort of material be required to take action because others cannot be bothered to "protect" themselves??

So, by that argument, if I wanted to see child porn I should be allowed to? And it should be freely available - just tell others not to visit those sites...

Because if you supply computers with firewalls, anti-virus et al as standards (and make sure they are switched on by default - Hello Micro$oft!) that way people won't be forced to take extra steps to access something that they want.

Thats a big IF. Likewise then - IF you supply cars with seatbelts there's no need for laws regarding their use? IF you supply 240V Mains into a house there's no need for regulations regarding the safety of the wiring etc? IF Dialers are wrote that bypass the normal AV/Firewall checks (which they did at one point), it wouldn't matter if you ran up a £10,000 bill (paid to some offshore extremist group) without your knowledge (and be forced to pay up)?

Sometimes, people need rules and laws for their own good.

Good on BT !

How many people actualy want to dial these 09XXX numbers ?

Disable them by default and if customers want the block lifted then they can go to a bt website and type in a pin or some other system of that type...

These dialers are no diferent from me coming into your house and stealing £50 in cash !

I say good luck to you BT !

Originally Posted by Keytops

So, by that argument, if I wanted to see child porn I should be allowed to? And it should be freely available - just tell others not to visit those sites...

You know, I think there should be a Child Porn version of the Godwin just to stop nonsensical arguments like this...

I said nothing of the sort, nor would I. I am talking about *consenting adults* who want to look at *adult* material being made to jump through hoops because *others* are unable (or unwilling) to take action to avoid seeing the stuff or protect themselves from rogue diallers and other scams.

This makes as much sense as saying that you should have to "opt in" to watching Soap Operas because *I* don't want to watch them but may accidentally switch over to see one.

Thats a big IF.

No, it's simple sense. You supply the safety features as standard, whether others choose to use them or not is up to them, but the default is "on" not "off".

Likewise then - IF you supply cars with seatbelts there's no need for laws regarding their use?

That is correct. If you don't want to use a seat belt it is your responsibility because it affects only you.

IF you supply 240V Mains into a house there's no need for regulations regarding the safety of the wiring etc?

It is not the responsibility of the *supplier* to ensure the safety of the wiring. It is, however, the responsibility of the installer because it can affect others.

IF Dialers are wrote that bypass the normal AV/Firewall checks (which they did at one point), it wouldn't matter if you ran up a £10,000 bill (paid to some offshore extremist group) without your knowledge (and be forced to pay up)?

Ah, now it's not child porn, it's "extremist" groups...

However, the answer is "No", you should not be forced to pay up. This is one of the reasons why ICSTIS has introduced new regulatations that payment should be made two months in arrears so these things can be spotted and stopped before "extremists" get the money.

Neither, however, should phone companies benefit from this (by billing you and then keeping the money), but by the same token, neither should they be responsible for what people do with the phone lines they supply, nor should they be required to monitor or control those services.

Phone companies, like the Royal Mail have a "common carrier" status, ie they they supply a service, but have no control (and should have no control) over the content carried otherwise you're going to end up with a) people trying to sue them for eg junk phone calls and b) (more seriously) a tacit agreement that it's ok for them to monitor *all* communications "just to be sure" which is an infringement on basic liberties.

Sometimes, people need rules and laws for their own good.

"It's for your own good..." as the vet said to the tom cat...

Pardon me if I don't want a Nanny State.
__________________

Originally Posted by Stuartbe

These dialers are no diferent from me coming into your house and stealing £50 in cash !

If I leave my door open and the money in plain sight, whose fault is it that?

If you *break in* to my house, however, that's a different matter.

[ian@huth]

Originally Posted by Graham

I said nothing of the sort, nor would I. I am talking about *consenting adults* who want to look at *adult* material being made to jump through hoops because *others* are unable (or unwilling) to take action to avoid seeing the stuff or protect themselves from rogue diallers and other scams.

There is a vast difference between choosing something and having it forced onto you.

Originally Posted by ian@huth

There is a vast difference between choosing something and having it forced onto you.

There's also a vast difference between taking responsibility for what happens to you and expecting others to do it *for* you...

[Damien]

How would you like it if your TV package came with expensive pron channels on by defalut and you ahve to 'opt out'. Instead of them coming on disabled requiring you to switch it on?

[Chris]

Originally Posted by Graham

If I leave my door open and the money in plain sight, whose fault is it that?

If you *break in* to my house, however, that's a different matter.

And whose fault is it when granny lets the 'gas man' in to 'read the meter' and then waits patiently while he nips upstairs to 'check the pipes'? Confidence tricks like that are illegal. I don't know whether the porno dialler variety is also, but it darned well should be.

I take on board your concern about the nanny state and legislating against things that are not universally held to be distasteful, but as you have often said, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. For a great many people, the very existence of these things within our society is offensive. That's why some of it is deemed illegal and some of it while not illegal is to be sold only on licenced premises, behind anonymous doors and blacked-out windows, or an encrypted, pay-per-view TV service, where there is no danger of someone who is offended by it tripping over it accidentally.

To my mind, blocking 09xx numbers or making them an 'opt-in' service, is no more controversial than requiring a sex shop to be licenced.

Originally Posted by Damien

How would you like it if your TV package came with expensive pron channels on by defalut and you ahve to 'opt out'. Instead of them coming on disabled requiring you to switch it on?

I would, of course, object, because I am being obliged to pay for something I haven't ordered, just as I objected when, for some reason, C&W decided I'd accessed the Playboy channel and wanted to bill me for it.

But, as I said above, people shouldn't be made to pay for the actions of rogue diallers, however they should also take responsibility for ensuring that their PCs are secure.

Letting it happen once is forgivable, twice is stupidity.
__________________

Originally Posted by Chris T

And whose fault is it when granny lets the 'gas man' in to 'read the meter' and then waits patiently while he nips upstairs to 'check the pipes'? Confidence tricks like that are illegal. I don't know whether the porno dialler variety is also, but it darned well should be.

IIRC it's called "Burglarly Artifice". But that's why the government etc puts out warning adverts and leaflets *warning* people of the dangers of letting people in without confirming their ID and so on.

However we're not talking about someone's confused grandmother, we're talking about fully compos mentis adults.

I re-iterate: if I leave my door open it is not *your* fault or the fault of the Government or the Police if I get robbed.

To suggest that it is leads to the sort of "compensation culture" nonsense that produces ridiculous warning labels like "Superman play suit - Note: This suit does not enable wearer to fly".

I take on board your concern about the nanny state and legislating against things that are not universally held to be distasteful, but as you have often said, your right to swing your fist ends at my nose. For a great many people, the very existence of these things within our society is offensive.

And personally I find people with those attitudes offensive because they not only don't want to see the stuff, they don't want *ME* to be able to see the stuff too.

That's why some of it is deemed illegal and some of it while not illegal is to be sold only on licenced premises, behind anonymous doors and blacked-out windows, or an encrypted, pay-per-view TV service, where there is no danger of someone who is offended by it tripping over it accidentally.

I remind you of the story of the couple who were so offended by a TV programme that they had to watch it *all the way through*...

However the point is that all of the things you quote above are just the last ditch actions of a reactionary old guard who have lost the battle to stop people like me from seeing the stuff and now are simply trying to make it as hard as possible for anyone else to get access to it.

To my mind, blocking 09xx numbers or making them an 'opt-in' service, is no more controversial than requiring a sex shop to be licenced.

Sex shop "licencing' is just another classic example of attempting to deny access. The claim that it's to "protect" others is simply an excuse.

But to get back to the topic of the thread, it is not the fault of BT if someone uses their lines to try to con money out of people by installing a rogue dialler on their system and BT should not be held responsible for people failing to undertake adequate security provisions on their computers.