This was followed by a review (the Bailey Review) and a consultation by the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS).
The idea for default filtering originated from manifesto commitments concerning "the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood" given by the parties forming the Cameron–Clegg coalition government in 2010. Ĭategories blocked across the major ISPs include: Dating, Drugs, Alcohol and Tobacco, File sharing, Gambling, Games, Pornography, Nudity, Social networking, Suicide and Self-harm, Weapons and violence, Obscenity, Criminal Skills, Hate, Media Streaming, Fashion and Beauty, Gore, Cyberbullying, Hacking and Web-blocking circumvention tools The range of content blocked by ISPs can be varied over time. However, the complex nature of the active monitoring systems means that users cannot usually opt out of the monitoring and re-routing of their data traffic, something which may render their data security vulnerable. Means that customers have to 'opt out' of the ISP filtering to gain access to the blocked content.
A voluntary code of practice agreed by all four major ISPs The filtering program has applied to new ISP customers since the end of 2013, and has been extended to existing users on a rolling basis. Internet customers in the UK are prohibited from accessing a range of web sites by default, because they have their Internet access filtered by their ISPs. Main article: Web blocking in the United Kingdom Current situation Default network-level blocking by Internet service providers In 2017 the Communications Select Committee set up an inquiry as to whether to, and how to, further regulate the Internet in the UK. However years later, they are no longer listed as an "enemy of the internet". Other major economies listed in this category include China, Iran, Pakistan, Russia and Saudi Arabia. The country was listed among the "Enemies of the Internet" in 2014 by Reporters Without Borders, a category of countries with the highest level of internet censorship and surveillance that "mark themselves out not just for their capacity to censor news and information online but also for their almost systematic repression of Internet users". In others they are voluntarily implemented by private operators (e.g., internet service providers). In some cases these are encouraged or required by the state and used by state agencies. National security concerns, terrorism and crime, and issues regarding child protection have resulted in the state introducing extensive surveillance measures over online communications as well as filtering and tracking practices. Since the mid-2000s there has been a gradual shift toward increased surveillance and police measures in the UK. Individuals and groups routinely use the Internet, including e-mail, to express a wide range of views. An independent press, an effective judiciary, and a functioning democratic political system combine to ensure freedom of speech and press. The law provides for freedom of speech and press, and prohibits arbitrary interference with privacy, family, home, or correspondence, and the government routinely respects these rights and prohibitions. Moreover there is a broad sweep of exceptions in the Convention. Where courts cannot interpret compatibly, some courts can issue a declaration of incompatibility however the incompatible domestic legislation remains intact and it is for Parliament to decide whether to amend it to bring it into line with the Convention. This was achieved under the Human Rights Act 1998 by requiring courts, if necessary, to strain the meaning of domestic law to be compatible with Convention rights and public authorities also have a duty to act compatibly with these rights.
In 2000, the United Kingdom required its courts to interpret as far as they can its domestic legislation compatibly with the European Convention, and the guarantee of freedom of expression it contains in Article 10.