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

SomeoneWithCommonSense Mon 26-Aug-13 23:36:06

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

Solopower1 Sun 28-Jul-13 13:48:54

Boney, I don't trust any govt to take care of the information properly.

Yes, I believe that this lot are better than UKIP.

BoneyBackJefferson Sun 28-Jul-13 13:35:55

"What if UKIP got into power and had this incredible database in their grubby little maulers?"

Do you really believe that this lot are any better than UKIP.

How long do you think it will be before your information is misplaced and your email (at very least) is filled up with spam?

Solopower1 Sun 28-Jul-13 13:27:25

I think the thing to remember is that any govt, whatever their colour, will always want to know as much as possible about you. It's mostly for good purposes, ie to help them plan services, and stamp out terrorism and crime. But they also want it because knowledge is power, and they definitely can't be trusted to protect your privacy or use the information in your best interests.

If you doubt that there is any cause for concern, just imagine what you would do with the information, if you had total freedom to do anything you wanted with it. Most of us haven't been elected and would only have our own interests at heart. Although they are elected, governments also have the interests of only one or two particular sections of society at heart (the ones who vote for them).

And what if, what if?? What if UKIP got into power and had this incredible database in their grubby little maulers?

ttosca Sun 28-Jul-13 13:13:54

Cameron’s Phoney ‘War on Porn’ is Actually a War on Privacy

David Cameron has today announced a ‘war on porn’ – asking Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to automatically filter people’s internet usage, with anything classed as ‘porn’ inaccessible without the user specifically requesting access to it. Not only is this idea unworkable, but it is entirely cynical. David Cameron is attempting a bloodless coup of the free internet, inside a paper mache Trojan Horse of Daily Mail headlines.

https://scriptonitedaily.wordpress.com/2013/07/22/camerons-phoney-war-on-porn-is-actually-a-war-on-privac

I hadn't seen the Byron review before, good to see it covering all the same points we've raised.

avacuppa Fri 26-Jul-13 20:40:43

FWIW, here is what the 2008 Byron Review (conducted by Dr Tanya Byron for the last government) had to say on the subject of "network level blocking" (what the present govt is proposing):

Network level blocking

4.54
Some material on the internet, such as child abuse images, material inciting racial hatred
and extreme pornography is clearly illegal in the UK. For such material, there is a strong
case for it to be blocked by ISPs at a ‘network level’ using the Internet Watch Foundation’s
list, so that when a user tries to access a website they are blocked from doing so. Countries
like China and Saudi Arabia have a much wider list of content which is illegal, and use
similar techniques to prevent their citizens (including adults) from accessing it.

4.55
In the UK, at least one ISP offers users the option of connection to the internet which blocks
material that is unsuitable for children to access. Some people have suggested that this
approach should be extended to all ISPs in the UK. Users aged 18 and over would have to
opt out of such a system in order to receive un-filtered access to the internet from their ISP.
Proponents of extending network level blocking point to the fact that it does not rely on
families to set up their own filtering software, and that, unlike filtering software on the
user’s computer, it cannot be disabled by technologically advanced children. However,
there are a number of problems with a policy of blocking non-illegal material at a network
level.

4.56
Firstly, there is the problem of deciding what material should be blocked. There is a general
social consensus, reflected in our approach to film and television content, that explicit
pornography and violent material such as videos of executions is not suitable for children.
However, there is no such consensus about material such as non-pornographic nudity,
violence or death in an educational context (such as information about wars or the
holocaust) and the websites of extremist political parties. Similarly, many parents would
wish to stop young children from stumbling across such material, but would be keen for
their children to see such material when they are older teenagers or when it can be put in
an appropriate context.

4.57
The decision about what constitutes “inappropriate content” can be highly subjective.
What one person views as harmful, another might find offensive, whilst yet another might
see it as an important, empowering learning experience for their child; and this view is
likely to change depending on the age of the child. An example of this might be a sex
education website. In consequence, any attempt to block content which falls into these
grey areas would leave some parents unhappy that the system was either too restrictive or
not restrictive enough (especially where there is more than one child in the house). There is
also the possibility that someone whose content had been blocked as being unsuitable for
under 18s might bring a successful legal challenge under Article 10 of the European
Convention on Human Rights (right to freedom of expression).

4.58
Secondly, the task of blocking material at a network level presents a range of technical
issues. The construction of a comprehensive list of harmful and inappropriate material
(even if a satisfactory definition could be agreed), would be extremely difficult and
expensive. Alternatively, the use of a program to automatically filter content based on
words, phrases and the properties of images is likely to prove difficult. The extra equipment
required by ISPs to operate such a system can be costly, and the process may have the side
effect of slowing down internet access for users. For example, an Australian Government
feasibility study of a network level filtering trial in Tasmania (NetAlert, 2006) found that the
use of filters significantly reduced network performance, although only one in six users
noticed this. Problems may also arise around words which can be used in several different
contexts (e.g. the word “breasts” might denote a pornographic website, but it might appear
on a site about breast cancer support or recipes for chicken breasts). Although this problem
applies to all types of content filter it is particularly problematic at a network level, where
users cannot override the filter for sites they know to be acceptable or set a different level
of filtering for different members of the family, as they can with many PC-based filters.

4.59
Thirdly, there are problems with the way that network level blocking can appear to be an
easy way of protecting children from all harmful and inappropriate material online. Even if
it were possible to put a block on all content that is “unsuitable for under 18s”, the
presence of a content filter would do nothing to prevent harmful or inappropriate contact
of the child or conduct by the child online. Also, it is wrong to assume that tech-savvy
children determined to access blocked material could not ‘get round’ the system. There are
a number of techniques such as using ‘proxy websites’ and certain kinds of encryption
software, which make any network level filter – including those used by the Chinese and
Saudi governments – possible to evade. As such there is a risk that purporting to give
parents a ‘safe’ internet connection could lull them into a false sense of security, preventing
them from developing effective parenting strategies to empower their children – especially
older children – to use the internet safely.

4.60
For these reasons I do not recommend that the UK pursue a policy of blocking non-illegal
material at a network level at present. However, this may need to be reviewed if the other
measures recommended in this report fail to have an impact on the number and frequency
of children coming across harmful or inappropriate content online.

Safer Children in a Digital World
The Report of the Byron Review
media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/pdf/s/safer%20children%20in%20a%20digital%20world%20the%202008%20byron%20review.pdf page 92-94

WidowWadman Fri 26-Jul-13 18:50:50
Solopower1 Fri 26-Jul-13 08:31:17

Sounds good. Thanks, OldLady.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Thu 25-Jul-13 23:08:25

The interwebz won't work without cookies. But you can run something like C-Cleaner after every session, it'll kill your cookies (and your history...)

Solopower1 Thu 25-Jul-13 20:15:09

But if they are going to block porn, could they also get rid of cookies and adverts please?

Solopower1 Thu 25-Jul-13 20:12:46

What OldLady said. Keep the computer in the sitting room and don't buy kids smart phones - until aged 16.

I think what some of us are lamenting is the fact that in the past we had a front door and an on/off switch, so we could at least control what came into our houses.

I don't want the govt to do this or the IPA or anyone else, tbh. Next thing you know, they'll be seeking to block 'terrorism' websites, ie anyone who disagrees with them.

BoneyBackJefferson Thu 25-Jul-13 19:48:05

Posters that are saying that this is a good thing, you do realise that this ISP block won't stop your children "sexting" or receiving videos, or extreme images on their smart phones.

niceguy2 Thu 25-Jul-13 18:52:32

Oh and another example. As per earlier I updated my ISP settings to homesafe. Ie. block all porn & other such nasty stuff.

Just tried to google a pub to get the postcode where I want to take the family tonight for dinner. It's blocked.

It's classified as "Drugs, tobacco & alcohol". Ironic that I can physically take my child to the pub but not look at their website to find their postcode.

OctopusPete8 Thu 25-Jul-13 18:33:16

But it won't affect the Deep Web which will harbour all the nasty stuff.

Green If it does then it's more luck than judgement. I don't know about you, but I prefer my child to be protected by a bit more than crossed fingers.

niceguy2 Thu 25-Jul-13 17:33:49

<clap>. Yep, Green you can stand right next to Mr Cameron looking for the magic unicorn.

That certainly is your right.

Green18 Thu 25-Jul-13 17:14:16

If it reduces the chances of my children stumbling across something awful, then i'm right with you Mr Cameron!

ComtesseDeFrouFrou Thu 25-Jul-13 17:02:13

Apologies, I have come to this thread late via the newsletter, but I have several objections to this proposal.

It won't work - as someone has already pointed out, what will the filter use to judge what is porn and what is not? If I want to watch a video of childbirth will that be blocked because it contains too much flesh and a shot of a vagina?

It lulls the technically illiterate into a false sense of security.

But my main objection is that I would have to tell my ISP whether or not I want to look at porn online. Why is that any of their business! What they're proposing is that users are automatically opted out of access to porn, unless they opt back in manually. Why, as an adult, should I have to tell my ISP that I want look at porn? Porn is legal. My privacy is being seriously compromised.

Obviously no-one objects to anyone trying to block images of child abuse, but that's a separate issue and not something that is best dealt with by filters.

IloveKatieHopkins Thu 25-Jul-13 16:35:34

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.

niceguy2 Thu 25-Jul-13 15:03:43

Not the best sentence I've constructed but the point is clear.

And to extend that analogy a little further. What if instead someone suggested that instead of building a bloody expensive sieve that you use freely available sandbags to protect your home. Something you can use as much of or as little as you feel comfortable with.

Which would you prefer?

As I read in another forum. Bear in mind that these 'child protection' proposals are being championed by someone who forgot his own child and left them behind in a pub!

So let's say you wanted to build a dam. And I propose using a large sieve. Would you think that's a good idea or would you be arguing that it's better than nothing?

Good analogy.

No one said that education was the be all and end all. All we've ever said is that it's the most useful solution, the least useless.

A combination of educating parents about
- childrens safety online
- using filters
- supervising children

And educating children about
- safety online
- sex ed
- relationship advice (ie. how much porn doesn't represent a healthy relationship)

No, it won't magically fix every thing. Of course not. But it'll do a damn sight more than an ISP filter.

Actually thinking on that, you know how many people do the whole, "hmmph so a porn filter is too hard let's just give up shall we?" discussion as a reason why we should do the porn filter? Got to wonder why they don't see that they are using the same logic by saying, "educating is too hard and takes too long, let's not bother and rely on a pretend fix instead"?

niceguy2 Thu 25-Jul-13 14:38:34

@Notgoodnotbad

The fundamental issue here isn't that blocking porn is bad. Clearly it's not. The issue is that the proposed plans make no sense.

So let's say you wanted to build a dam. And I propose using a large sieve. Would you think that's a good idea or would you be arguing that it's better than nothing?

Because that's exactly what these proposals are. A sieve to hold back a flood. As I've clearly demonstrated above, you can bypass ISP filters in around 10 seconds as taught to me by a child.

flatpackhamster Thu 25-Jul-13 12:48:34

NotGoodNotBad

flatpack
- sex and violence on television. Yes, I'd be happy to have this filtered. More accurately, I'd say I'd be happy not to have it there in the first place (along with swearing in every other programme). So many channels, so much sex and violence. Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand, when films like Clockwork Orange were not banned at the cinema, never mind in your house, did anyone really suffer from not having instant access to this stuff?

Well, at least you're consistent. But I wonder if you can tell me whether or not you think that generations of sexual repression was good for people. That is, after all, what you're proposing - a return to the 1950s.

I don't particularly disagree with you about the violence, which I think is far too prevalent but I do about the sex.

- viewing porn as a human right
Well no-one has said this on this thread perhaps, though I've not read every post, but I've seen and heard it plenty of times elsewhere. It's not a strawman argument, as if we didn't accept the argument that people have a right to view porn/violence etc., and we did accept the argument that it can be harmful, we wouldn't have it in films and TV programmes in the first place.

Why wouldn't we? Since when did the government become the expert on what was best for everyone?

Much of the problem I have with your argument is that you assume that government is kind and benevolent and acts in our best interest and in my experience that really isn't the case. You're relying on the 'right' decision being made by a group of people who have self-selected through being better at backstabbing each other. They aren't selected on the basis of wisdom, intelligence or ability. And you want them to decide what people are allowed to watch on their TV and on the internet.

Internet is another matter as it is less controllable and can be produced by individuals rather than corporations. Of course, the "harm" argument is another one that proponents will argue against, and is difficult to prove either way, and we could debate till next century about exact definitions of porn and violence.

Indeed, and that is yet another of the problems of this 'porn filter' nonsense.

- can't discuss this without addressing the technical issues. OK, fair enough. Maybe it can't be done. It's just that I don't think the "education" that people are pushing is any kind of answer, or we wouldn't have gambling/alcoholism/drug use/obesity and many others of society's problems.

I like a drink. I know it's supposed to be bad for me. But I still like it. I, as a functioning, thinking rational human being have made that apparently irrational choice.

At some point you have to trust people to just get on with their lives, and stop interfering and treating them like children. If they make decisions that are bad for them - that's their bag.

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