British ISP: “Want Filtering? Move to North Korea!”

One Internet service provider from the United Kingdom simply told its subscribers that if they want filtering they should choose another provider or move to North Korea.

In response to David Cameron’s unpopular pornography filtering crusade, an ISP Andrew & Arnolds pointed out that the authorities demanded providers to offer filtering as an option, so they offered an active choice when users sign up. The subscribers are suggested to choose between two options: unfiltered internet access and censored internet access. The first option means no filtering of any material within the ISP network, with the user being responsible for any filtering in their own network. The other option offers restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list and Daily Mail website, but still fails to guarantee that children are safe from porn. In case the potential clients choose the latter option, the ISP tells they have to either pick another provider or move to North Korea. Andrew & Arnolds claims: “Our services are all unfiltered” and wonders if that is enough of a choice for the government.

More Articles after the break.....


The ISP also believes that it isn’t up to the broadband provider to filter access. Andrew & Arnolds assures that they don’t try and log or limit what users are accessing, saying that it’s subscribers’ responsibility to stick to the laws that apply to them. Of course, some convincingly snarky reasoning behind the A&A’s actions followed, like welcoming customers to create their own adult content filters or suggesting that parental responsibility may be more effective than a state filtering policy which is technically doomed to fail anyway.

Moreover, the ISP offers some pretty solid advice on how to protect from snooping, along with a call to use encryption for all regular Internet traffic wherever possible. Indeed, Cameron’s “opt-in” option for all adult material is strongly criticized as a slippery slope which could lead to wider censorship for something else. Critics claim that it is widely seen outside the pages of the Mail as a power grab dressed up as a moral crusade that has set a nasty precedent for online basic freedoms.