I looked on their category stats which shows how many are on the banned list and its 225713 out of 6280485 - 3.6% of all websites. Of these just 200,000 are 'sexually explicit' but the rest of the banned include these: Betting & Gambling (not illegal in the UK BTW!), anonymous proxies (which I guess includes anonymiser), glamour & Intimate apparel ( I wonder if Anne Summers knows), usenet!!! and General Banned (550!)

I'm not on BT Internet (but a lot are).

David Bolton

That's a different "cleanfeed", not the project in the article.

Umm. You say they're different- hey maybe? But what is the chance that BT would pick the same name as a major company who specialise in supplying this as a service to ISPs? If not a full service, I'd guess they might have licensed the technology to use internally. Too big a coincidence otherwise!

Reuters had a piece http://www.reuters.com/newsArticle.jhtml?type=topNews&storyID=5362364

Which says:
BT's Danon cautioned the blocking scheme would not be extended to Web sites inciting hatred or espousing terrorism or those that traffic in copyrighted materials, citing the lack of clearly worded laws outlawing such content.
"We do not intend to, nor can we, extend this to other areas," Danon said.

But this beggars the question- what about proxies?

I'm sure they won't block proxies. You might say, they'll block proxies because otherwise people can use them to get around the blocks on child pornography. But that's a security person's perspective, not a corporate perspective. Blocking proxies would open BT up to charges of censorship which can't be sustained when it is only blocking child porn. There is an enormous gulf between child pornography and all other controversial topics, and by keeping to this side of that gap, BT is perfectly safe. Going beyond it would totally change the PR situation.