That bloody ISP porn filter bollocks is back again

(217 Posts)

BBC News article

And because I can't be bothered to type it all out yet again, here's a load of reasons why it's a load of bollocks

Why it's wishing for a unicorn

SirChenjin Mon 22-Jul-13 12:27:43

I see it as one step forward, not the complete answer - and I disagree Murder, I think the ISPs have been far too slow in tackling this issue. It will be interesting to see how they take this forward and what improvements they make to it.

peggyundercrackers Mon 22-Jul-13 12:28:42

murder i read the technical piece and tbh it doesnt make any sense. the main argument is the ISPs are not going to be able to do a good job of blocking content because it will block things like medical sites, sitres for cats (using pussy as a word which will be blocked) etc. etc. and for the user to use some kind of software on their own computer. the ISP will use similiar software to a personal user would use and the same content will be blocked - unless you go through every site specifying its OK. yes some of the home use software will have a softer approach to what you can block but its all the same software based on the same exclusion lists.

i know this because i work in IT and manage lots of websense filters for various organisations.

peggy From a home filter POV, if you have small children you can set up a whitelist for what sites you want them to access. Which will do well. Plus with a home filter you can easily add or remove sites from a blacklist, or change keywords used. But no technology is as good as supervision.

sir You know they've been trying to block child porn right? Something which they are not only legally obliged to do, but morally too. And they've struggled to make it inaccessible. They've been fighting an uphill struggle.

Not only is adding a porn filter going to be more work, but it's also more ambiguous. More grey areas than child porn. They've hardly been twiddling their thumbs.

It's a step backwards because it will make more people think that the internet is safe for their children without additional filters and supervision, so their children will actually not be any more protected. Plus it will likely block innocent sites, including quite important stuff like sex ed. Not a step forward at all.

ravenAK Mon 22-Jul-13 12:56:25

Has anyone pointed out yet that this is being proposed by a bloke who managed to leave his own child in the pub? [gri].

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 12:58:07

I dont agree op

If some perverted fuck searches for a vile term I want him to get message saying "this is illegal, the police will be alerted". as if it scares some people off, well good. If it means that poor children have less people gawping at them being abused , well even better

YES its the tip of the iceberg, but its something.

and dont tell me that most is shared P2P and are in encrypted servers bla bla bla as I know this.

I get very frustrated by all knowing IT folks being so fucking scathing about it TBH

and you link to one blog, did you write it?

I do NOT want to live in a country when any perverted fucker can sit at google, feel curious and within seconds have vile shit on their screen, and this might help that

and DONT send me a technical link as I wont read it!!

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 12:59:09

and stop calling it child porn

its child abuse, being filmed

shall I link a blog on why that term is wrong huh???

peggyundercrackers Mon 22-Jul-13 13:00:51

murder - exactly - how many people do you think will set up white/blacklists and want to edit them on a daily/weekly/monthly basis - they will soon get fed up of doing it.

also how many people do you think know how to do this? or have the inclination to learn how to do it? how many parents hardly know how to use a computer other than do a bit of word/excel and check their emails?

i think its a good thing because if nothing else it will put some people off looking at porn if they need to opt in. i can imagine lots of people thinking if they need to opt in their other half will know they are looking at it and stop. no it wont stop everything getting through but its a start.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:01:21

OH, and it not about making it safe for children using the internet, for me anyway

Its about some fucking dirty perv searching for "insert vile phrase" and getting a screen shot back to scare him.

Its about someone who is curuous, getting the shit scared out of them

parents are responsible for their kids and what they acess, end of

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 13:03:31

Fromparis that's a very valid point re. "child abuse".

I for one didn't think. You're absolutely right.

Lagoonablue Mon 22-Jul-13 13:04:49

But it will only block those sites if you opt into the filters. So maybe useful to some extent to people like me who don't want it accessible but those who do will just opt out of the filters.

That is my understanding anyway.

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 13:05:24

On a different note, it's very silly to argue that you don't care about the technicalities behind the technology.

Makes this discussion pointless.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:10:45

poppy

I learnt that on MN funnily enough!

fromparis You know that they aren't making porn illegal right?

peggy They'll have to do whitelist/blacklists anyway because this ISP filter wont block all harmful content.

Not being bothered is a crap reason not to look after your own children btw.

fromparis Forgot to say, sorry about saying "child porn" instead of "child abuse", you are absolutely right there. I only used it as a way of linking it to the porn filter. No offense meant!

lljkk Mon 22-Jul-13 13:16:02

I like this proposal. For us it will be another layer.
Most parents don't manage to put in any layers.

I think it will remove a layer tbh. Those who don't put in any layers are likely to opt out anyway. And some who do put in layers will assume the ISP filter is enough and will leave their children exposed.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:18:32

of course I know they are not making porn illegal. i assume you refer to the adult to adult usage of the term? I fucking hope so

But I for one hope that if these filters make viewing children being abused harder, well thats a good thing

You sound very bothered about this issue, and not that bothered around people being able to readily acess child abuse.

get your priorities straight??

I know the two issues were being talked about on the news together this morning but I think the ISP filters and the child abuse images issue are separate aren't they? How will ISP filters make it harder to view child abuse images?

Well obviously. Child abuse is already banned and blocked (as well as can be), as it should be. This wont make viewing it harder, wish it would, but it wont.

And I am obviously bothered by child abuse. Please try not to start throwing slurs about my character.

This isn't about child abuse, it's about adult/adult porn.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:26:57

sorry OP, I was just frustrated by the tone. I am sure you think its vile

BUT

you say "This isn't about child abuse, it's about adult/adult porn"

maybe we are at cross purposes, as I thought this was about blocking acess to child abuse through filtering certain terms on search engines????

Nop problem, no offence taken, it's an emotive issue. But no, it's not about blocking child abuse. Child abuse is already blocked by ISPs/search engines, this is about non-illegal porn.

ChunkyPickle Mon 22-Jul-13 13:29:39

ISP filters won't make it harder at all. Even a casual user can find out about proxy sites and freely access the internet that way (every 10 year old already knows this), with the ISP unable to do anything at all about it.

Just because you feel that that is 'technical' doesn't mean that anyone else does - it's putting an absolutely trivial bar to accessing this content in place, which will lull people into a false sense of security.

flatpackhamster Mon 22-Jul-13 13:35:05

fromparistoberlin

If some perverted fuck searches for a vile term I want him to get message saying "this is illegal, the police will be alerted". as if it scares some people off, well good. If it means that poor children have less people gawping at them being abused , well even better

YES its the tip of the iceberg, but its something.

No, it's not something. It's nothing. It's worse than nothing. It's political grandstanding.

and dont tell me that most is shared P2P and are in encrypted servers bla bla bla as I know this.

Then why on earth do you imagine that this stupid idea will make any difference?

I get very frustrated by all knowing IT folks being so fucking scathing about it TBH

There's nothing worse than some evil clever people proving you wrong with their facts and knowledge, is there? How can you create the right sense of moral outrage with interfering idiots with their 'information' and their 'explanations'?

I do NOT want to live in a country when any perverted fucker can sit at google, feel curious and within seconds have vile shit on their screen, and this might help that

It won't.

and DONT send me a technical link as I wont read it!!

Then stop whinging when clever people who know more than you tell you why something you like won't work. Would you quiz a heart surgeon about the best way to carry out a transplant? Of course you wouldn't. So have the good grace to acknowledge that people who work in IT, and know this kind of stuff, know far better than you what is possible and what isn't.

That goes for the rest of you lot who think the same as fromparistoberlin does.

Join the discussion

Join the discussion

Registering is free, easy, and means you can join in the discussion, get discounts, win prizes and lots more.

Register now