That is the parental filter, if you don't opt out, you get pestered by continuous messages asking you if you want to like it was an O/S upgrade. The child porn filtering is separate and I suspect is using the type of BGP and IP intercept techniques that are commonly used to shut down a large range of Internet crimes in pretty much every jurisdiction, the US included. On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 1:52 PM, Ted Lemon <mellon@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > The UK filter is an "opt out" filter, and I assume that we (the IETF) opted > out. Even the "opt out" blocking is voluntary at present--an ISP is not > required by law to have a filter, but in practice the big ones do. > > On Tue, Apr 12, 2016 at 12:24 PM, Phillip Hallam-Baker > <phill@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >> On Sun, Apr 10, 2016 at 3:19 PM, John Levine <johnl@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> >>The IETF has a meeting network requirements document that specifies a >> >>number of parameters which includes no blocking. >> > >> > In London in 2014, do you know whether we were behind the national >> > child porn filters? >> > >> > R's, >> > John >> >> I am not sure that they actually filter. >> >> I think it rather more likely that if you were to surf to >> kiddieporn.com from the Hilton Metropole, that you would find Mr Plod >> knocking on your hotel room door 15 minutes later. That being the >> driving time from New Scotland Yard. >> >