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

ravenAK Mon 22-Jul-13 11:36:04

Oh goody.

Send that unicorn over here with the popcorn, Murder grin.

navada Mon 22-Jul-13 11:38:22

I think it's a brilliant idea. All for it.

Well done DC.

Uh huh, brilliant idea. Why?

raven grin

Kendodd Mon 22-Jul-13 11:41:30

I'm also all for it. I know it won't be perfect, I don't think anyone believes it will be, but it's another layer of protection.

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 11:42:15

It's another "easy win" for the loathsome David Cameron.

"I stand against child pornography and want to do something about it" even though what I'm proposing will have little to no impact on the problem

SirChenjin Mon 22-Jul-13 11:42:55

Yep, all for it too here. The ISPs have been far too slow to get their figures out of their backsides and do something, so good on DC.

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 11:43:40

Layer of protection would be to allocate more money to law enforcement task forces and to promote international collaboration with other agencies.

This is just cosmetic demagogy.

Is it though kendodd? Or is it false security?

poppy Quite. It's posturing really isn't it?

sir So how do you think it will work?

ChunkyPickle Mon 22-Jul-13 11:45:21

It's a layer of pretend protection which will result in also mistakenly censoring plenty of healthcare/art.

People(and children) will have no problem getting to porn if they want it, but suddenly loads of other sites will be mistakenly taken away too, and some poor sod is going to have to wade through all these reports checking them.

The only way to stop your kids accessing porn is to have them in the same room as you on the computer - and yes, that's impossible with an internet enabled phone. I don't know what the solution is, but I don't see that this is one and would prefer to see the effort and money this will take go towards educating people - and perhaps getting rid of all the low-level porn all around us such as page 3 and lads mags.

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 11:46:50

The suspect in Tia Sharp's case googled something innocuous like "Little girls in glasses" - how do you "censor" that sort of language?

Not to mention that the vast majority of child pornography is shared P2P

SirChenjin Mon 22-Jul-13 11:48:29

It won't stop it, but it will build in a layer of protection at the basic, front end. Perhaps what it might do it force the ISPs to do something positive, rather than hopping from one foot to the other whilst talking about future plans and education.

sir I don't think it will. And the ISP's have hardly been sat on their arses, they've got enough on their plates trying to block actual illegal child porn.

ChunkyPickle Mon 22-Jul-13 11:54:01

But it won't!

How do you propose it works? Filter on filenames/urls? Filter on the amount of flesh in an image/video?A room full of aforementioned poor sods manually ticking 'yes this is porn' 'no this is not porn'?

Surely you can see that neither of those would work!

navada Mon 22-Jul-13 11:57:12

Well it's a start, & it's better than nothing.

navada Actually I think it's worse than nothing, as it will lull some people into a false sense of security while blocking innocent sites. And there is a better alternative. It's just the alternative isn't a vote winner.

navada Mon 22-Jul-13 12:05:24

Murderofgoths: you could be right - I'm not very 'techy' - it just seems like a good idea to me. They're talking about it on the Jeremy Vine show today so I'll listen to that.

Thank you :-)

PoppyAmex Mon 22-Jul-13 12:09:32

It's pointless.

In this discussion, all people hear is "block child porn" and obviously no one is against that.

Sadly, this is just a smoke screen that won't have any real effect and will give people a false sense of security.

If it goes ahead, we'll have threads in 6 months' time with people carping:
"My 7 year old just came across child porn online. I thought Google was going to block it! Who can I sue?"

navade It's a long read, but this might help clarify it a bit the technical issues and whether it will protect children.

LtEveDallas Mon 22-Jul-13 12:22:44

I like this quote from the Unicorn site that Murder linked to, It makes things very clear:

Think of it like this. Imagine the internet is a cliff, and we are having a picnic at the top of the cliff. It’s a mostly beautiful view, but if you let your guard down, you could fall off. You wouldn’t let your child play near the edge. Installing the opt in system is like putting a strong looking but flimsy fence in place. You could be fooled in to thinking it was safe but left to their own devices your child, could easily fall through. We can’t put a brick wall there otherwise it spoils the natural beauty of the view (the educational benefits of the internet)

navada Mon 22-Jul-13 12:23:42

That's great - thank you murderofgoths.

That was a MNer quote LtEve Can't find who said it though. If I do then I'll credit them!

navada Let me know if it isn't clear, or needs explaining, was written in a rage rush.

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.

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

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

Yes, it's mine. I've written that stuff out so many times it's easier to just point to it then rewrite it. Nothing more sinister than that. Will link to other sites as and when I find them.

I know you don't want to read the technical stuff, but it is absolutely core to this issue. If they are going to legislate technology (and if you are going to support it) then you need to understand the technology you are legislating. I have tried to simplify it as much as I can, and am happy to try and explain stuff if I haven't explained it enough. But really, it is integral to this whole issue.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:40:44

flatpack

if you wanted to enrol me, or make me learn that there might be a different way, you failed. completely

as OP said its an emotive topic. and maybe I dont know enough, read too much DM online. probably.

But we had an earlier "discussion" shit fight on this issue on here and someone managed to very easily search, and find child abuse images. She did not linik them, thank fuck!

I mean that is WRONG on so many levels

fromparis That's the thing, child porn can still be found, despite ISPs and search engines teaming up to stop it, despite child abuse sites attempting to hide from people, and despite the people that host/share it being prosecuted.

If all of that isn't enough, then an ISP porn filter wont help, not will it block adult-adult porn.

flatpackhamster Mon 22-Jul-13 13:46:51

fromparistoberlin

if you wanted to enrol me, or make me learn that there might be a different way, you failed. completely

I wasn't bothered about teaching you because you've shown no interest in learning. Why should I put myself out?

as OP said its an emotive topic.

And the problem is that policy is being made by people like you who put emotion before rational behaviour. If you're going to make policy you need to take the emotion out of it.

and maybe I dont know enough, read too much DM online. probably.

Yes, and yes.

But we had an earlier "discussion" shit fight on this issue on here and someone managed to very easily search, and find child abuse images. She did not linik them, thank fuck!

I mean that is WRONG on so many levels

Porn filters won't stop it. Just doing something isn't the answer. You want it fixed, get money shoved to CEOP. Giving government the power to content filter every home broadband in the country isn't going to solve shit.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 13:55:07

what is the answer then? I want to have hope there is something!

I know we cant stop the people that DO it, thats like trying to stop the rain

But it frustrates me that we have this seemingly sophisticated technology, and yet..

look at what the FBI can bloody do, what intelligence manage to detect terrorists etc

and yes I reacted angrily, but I am not angry with you 2, just at the world!

I get that fromparis. I don't know how we stop child abuse or remove it entirely from the net, I think we are doing all we can. Suspect having more people doing the horrific job of manually filtering the web would help moist, as would more people working on prosecutions. Don't envy those poor souls at all though.

Either way, this isn't the solution, and isn't even trying to be the solution.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Xales Mon 22-Jul-13 14:01:37

Unless I turn off the orange mobile filter on my account mumsnet is blocked.

Not surprising as there are threads on anal sex, penis size, strip clubs, prostitution, child abuse etc all over it.

flatpackhamster Mon 22-Jul-13 14:13:20

fromparistoberlin

what is the answer then? I want to have hope there is something!

The answer to what? How to stop perverts trading images of child abuse?

There isn't a quick easy fix. You need to give the police the resources to do the job they're trained to do. And it won't ever go away. Ever.

I know we cant stop the people that DO it, thats like trying to stop the rain

But it frustrates me that we have this seemingly sophisticated technology, and yet..

look at what the FBI can bloody do, what intelligence manage to detect terrorists etc

I think you've been watching too much TV.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 14:22:46

flatpack

time after time intelligence agencies manage to filter/acess email accounts to arrest terrorists. Its on the news! But I guess they are people they were suspicious of in the first place?

so my question is why are we not able to channel this technology in this area. I get that if you IT savvy seeing someone do a seemingly "easy win" policy must be frustrating to say the least

and yet....I just find this very hard to comprehend how we cannot channel the technology we have (in part) created, to adress this

I though you IT folk were clever

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 14:28:56

just to be clear

I am not referring to home PCs. I think parents need to take responsibility here. OP I did take a look at your blog, thanks.

I refer to the fact that if you search for certain terms, you will get a hit. Morally, I think the ISPs should have a certain list of common terms (pertaining to child abuse) that if searched for, create an alert. I wont even type the terms, but I think if you look at some of what Stuart Hazell looked for you will get the gist.

I am curious why noone wants this? Yes its the tip of the iceberg, but I finf it morally reprehensible that google (at al) dont even have alerts on this.

does this make sense?

Fromparis, you seem to want a magical solution, a fix-all, which doesn't exist. In order to make the internet safe from child abuse images/videos etc we need to eradicate child abuse. Its that simple. And that difficult.

I do understand the passion and frustration that drives you to want the solution, but you have to understand that the internet is as wonderful as it is awful; it is the users of it who make it that way, not the technology itself.

Actually from what I know with intelligence, they miss more than they catch (even with PRISM)

We don't have the technology yet. Remember the technology we are working with (the internet) was only originally intended to send text between computers. It's come a long way, but was never designed to do what it does today. It was also never meant to become this massive international thing that needed policing.

Even the technology you use to view websites is a bit of a bodge job, trust me, I've done a fair bit of coding. A lot of websites are held together with the tech equivalent of sellotape!

I have explained how websites work and store info, and why it is virtually impossible to use that tech to apply filters in my earlier link.

"I refer to the fact that if you search for certain terms, you will get a hit."

Sometimes. Sometimes not.
I know I've used search terms and got really unrelated responses, or not being able to find the thing I wanted.

I think they probably do use keywords like that, but a lot of words can have mutliple meanings.

Eg. if someone is searching for "pussy", it'll come up with both porn and websites about cats.

Someone on another site pointed out the Lolita is a common terms used for child abuse images, but it's also a valid female name and the name of a famous book.

There's very few terms which will only point to dodgy sites and not to others.

flatpackhamster Mon 22-Jul-13 14:37:23

fromparistoberlin

flatpack

time after time intelligence agencies manage to filter/acess email accounts to arrest terrorists. Its on the news! But I guess they are people they were suspicious of in the first place?

GCHQ already monitors internet and emails but the deluge of information is so colossal that they don't have a hope. What usually happens is they get assigned a target, an interesting individual and they then go after that person and check their records going back a few years. It isn't a random trawl of information.

so my question is why are we not able to channel this technology in this area. I get that if you IT savvy seeing someone do a seemingly "easy win" policy must be frustrating to say the least

and yet....I just find this very hard to comprehend how we cannot channel the technology we have (in part) created, to adress this

I though you IT folk were clever

Tell me how it'd work. Let's say you use a keyword system to block people looking at child abuse images. So what happens if they stop using one word and start using another. What happens if they start using the word 'lego' to refer to images of child abuse. "Have you got any good lego?"

How would keywords deal with that?

What about if you want to block search engines from handling child abuse images. Well, they already do it. So there's this thing called the Dark Net, which is sort-of-but-not-quite connected to the internet. Dark Net doesn't use Google, it's under its radar. So that doesn't work.

The images and videos are traded using a system called Peer to Peer. that means that the data is streamed directly from computer A to computer B, without it ever being stored on the 'internet'. The data can be encrypted so it can't be read en-route but that can attract the attention of the authorities, so it usually isn't. There's SO MUCH DATA out there that a few million pictures or videos don't even get noticed.

So you could block the data ports that P2P uses, but they'd change the ports (there are 65,000 ports to choose from). And you can't block P2P because so much other stuff relies on it.

So what do you do?

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

FlowersBlown Mon 22-Jul-13 14:45:31

I don't know anything technical, but as soon as I heard about this on the news it sounded like a load of rubbish. Nobody will have the bloody thing turned on, because it is bound to block access to non-dodgy sites that people do want to get to. Also practically all men look at porn, and how many households have a man in them? I can't see anyone turning the filters on and off all the time.

meditrina Mon 22-Jul-13 14:46:38

It's not a "porn block".

Some companies offered a 'net nanny' type filter anyhow, so those who wanted one could already have one.

It simply means that all customers will be offered a filter.

But that won't reliably block things you don't want your DC to see, and may block things you do want (even MN has fallen found of such filters before). And of course it blocks every device you connect in the same way - so you can't have one level for you and a different one for DC of different ages.

It's spin, not substance. No improvement on what already exists.

Pendeen Mon 22-Jul-13 15:02:14

"David Cameron and the Daily Mail in a headline-grabbing but essentially meaningless stunt?"

What is the world coming to?

sad

Absy Mon 22-Jul-13 15:13:16

What I find dodgy about it is that you have to "opt in", so now you have to go to your ISP and go "yip, I watch porn/your definition of porn". And if they're legislating to block at ISP level porn, what else are they then going to legislate to block? And how sophisticated are the blocks? At work, we have firewalls to filter out a number of things (porn, blogs, gambling sites etc.) but IT clearly went a bit crazy and also blocked the speedo website, and online women's underwear stores (e.g. Bravissimo) forgetting that (clearly bar the IT department) women work at the organisation and go to these websites for a legitimate purpose.

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 15:43:09

"Think how long it took to find Bin Laden

I think what you have all made me realise is that for every IT genius hired by FBI/MI6/Interpol there is an equally clever one hired by someone with no moral compass, eh voila.....

I have calmed down, its just really upsetting is it not sad

Flowers, " Also practically all men look at porn, and how many households have a man in them? I can't see anyone turning the filters on and off all the time."

Would you like to re-read your statement and perhaps rephrase. At best it is a massive generalisation of men and women (you know many men do NOT look at porn and conversely there are plenty of women who do enjoy porn) and at worst it is you placing the blame of children stumbling across porn on the internet at the feet of men. Do children in single parent families where the parent is the mother not have this problem then? hmm

It really is fromparis so I understand why people want this to be possible, but the desire to have it work is nothing without the technology to make it happen.

ravenAK Mon 22-Jul-13 16:13:48

Ironically enough, this thread has now fallen foul my work firewall!

Haha, sounds about right raven.

And demonstrates one of the flaws quite nicely

FlowersBlown Mon 22-Jul-13 16:20:36

Littledire, Unfortuately it is true that very many men do enjoy pornography, more so than women. If men didn't have these desires than there wouldn't be porn on the Internet so I suppose you could say I am blaming them, but really I was just making the point that in most households there will be people who don't want the filter on. Therefore it will be useless.

RocknRollNerd Mon 22-Jul-13 16:40:00

Just the journalism about this shows the problems - half the articles are using pornography (adult, not illegal) interchangeably with 'child porn' (images of child abuse, illegal) and chucking 'adult content' in as well as a general catch all which given the articles which then talk about 'family friendly filtering' could imply that anything to do with betting, alcohol, tobacco etc could also be filtered.

It can't be done - the fact that they're being gloriously vague about what they want to filter (content, search terms, adult porn, self-harm, child abuse) shows that they haven't even worked out what they want to do on a piece of paper never mind got the technology to use it.

We don't need government by soundbite and kow-towing to the Daily Mail (and its audio counterpart the Jeremy Vine show); we need better education of parents as to how to use the tools already available to manage internet access at home; better sex and relationships education in schools and a government that knows its technological arse from its elbow.

lljkk Mon 22-Jul-13 17:32:10

Ooh, Goody, I just read the unicorn press blog entries, and I'm even more convinced that the proposed changes are a good thing. Nothing on the unicorn website worried me in the slightest. Hooray!!

What's good about the proposed changes lljkk? What do you imagine they will achieve?

NoComet Mon 22-Jul-13 17:57:06

Am I honestly the only parent that long ago decided that their DCs have to live in the Internet world and that they may as well learn not to click on things they don't want to see.

Filters are pointless, they don't for example, stop things like a gory two headed kittens appearing on an image search, because it was a vets mag photo.

DCs who are interested in porn will seek it out and those who aren't won't.

Personally I'd rather My DDs could watch pawn than let big brother near the Internet.

NoComet Mon 22-Jul-13 17:59:25

Porn not pawn, watching chess really is dull.

lljkk It wasn't meant to worry you, but to explain the technical issues. So go on, what are the advantages to an ISP based filter as opposed to home based filter plus supervision. What can an ISP do that the others can't?

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 22-Jul-13 18:26:05

I have a bridge that I would like to get rid of, this seems like a good place to sell it.

boney Can I ride my unicorn over it? grin

BoneyBackJefferson Mon 22-Jul-13 18:45:36

Murder of course you can, but you will have to be quick as I think that it will be bought soon. smile

fromparistoberlin Mon 22-Jul-13 22:27:35

I am sorry I shouted earlier BTW (OP and others). I was in a place of frustration I guess

as noted...these fuckers are clever

need to focus on something happier, Kate has had a baby boy!

<wander off sadly>

fromparis Don't worry about it, can understand your frustration - feel it myself.

SideshoBob Tue 23-Jul-13 02:33:18

They've been pretty clever to put normal pornography in the same league as child abuse (which is already banned anyway) which has vastly reduced the amount of opposition. It's a VERY slippery slope the second you start censoring things that are perfectly legal. Either it'll be a pointless gesture to win brownie points or it'll be the end of the internet as we know it with lots of innocent sites getting banned, regardless of which normal porn is not a crime anyway, and its not the ISP's job to be parenting children. There's plenty of programs out there that do the same job already.

wanderings Tue 23-Jul-13 07:09:54

DC is someone who has lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege all his life, and hence knows nothing about the world the rest of us live in, and thinks anything is possible if you know the right people. Here is yet another example to prove it. (From the Prime Minister in Love Actually: "The SAS are absolutely charming, ruthless killers, just a phone call away.")

I'm sure that in the style of "Yes Minister", the Humphreys of the civil service will do absolutely nothing (if only because they don't want to be affected!).

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that this big idea was mentioned on the royal birthday: "crackdowns" often are buried in this way.

exoticfruits Tue 23-Jul-13 07:17:32

At least it is a start- I am all for it. You have to start somewhere.

Tau Tue 23-Jul-13 07:38:15

It's a completely stupid idea.

I once, in the distant past, tried a filter. Couldn't look up any information on the Sex Pistols anymore... so I got rid of the filter and implemented common sense and parental supervision/teaching as protection methods instead.

There's no saying what Cameron's beloved filters will result in keeping away from us.
A few years ago I had worries about a child, and I searched extensively online for things related to signs and symptoms of sexual abuse. How much of the (some very helpful) information that I was able to access will be filtered out now, making it harder for people to find that information?

And as mentioned already, articles/web pages related to |(sexual) health and art will certainly fall victim to the filter.

And will it help? I doubt it. Abusers know how to hide their stuff - well, at least the ones who don't get caught do.

And from my personal experience again: The only time that I accidentally ended up on a very awkward porn page was when I was searching for a lego bionicle with my son. Will bionicles also be filtered?

SoupDragon Tue 23-Jul-13 07:40:27

You have to start somewhere.

Yes. Somewhere like using your own parental controls.

SoupDragon Tue 23-Jul-13 07:50:16

It simply means that all customers will be offered a filter.

Won't it mean that all customers will be given a filter unless they opt out? That's not quite the same.

I thought there were two separate issues though - the one about ISPs being better at stopping images/searches about child abuse and the blanket filter.

exoticfruits Tue 23-Jul-13 08:07:26

You are assuming that all parents are responsible.

CokeFan Tue 23-Jul-13 09:40:05

If this was going to be a filter that would block out all porn (if everyone could agree on what exactly that is) and only porn then it would be useful to protect children. Unfortunately I don't think it's achievable and I'd have to "opt in" - not because I want to watch porn but because I know it will block things that don't need to be blocked.

If every image that someone uploaded had to be tagged "porn" or "not porn" then it would be simple - that's not going to happen though is it? Who decides and who polices something tagged "not porn" when it actually is without having to manually look at every image? It's not a safety net.

The only way to block everything that you might find objectionable for children to see is to have a whitelist system - prove that your content is ok. We have this for my 4 year old.

Blocking keywords is problematic because there are so many false positives - financial advice websites trip gambling filters, names of body parts on medical sites trip obscenity filters and the Scunthorpe effect.

I know someone who has a "flesh" filter on their work internet. Basically if an image contains too many flesh tones then it gets automatically blocked and someone in their IT department has to look at it and "OK" it. I sent her a picture of my DD as a baby (fully clothed) and it tripped the filter. How much work does that create for someone to police?

If you've got unfiltered access at home and filtered at work then you've probably already experienced pages being blocked for silly reasons. It's only because you know (through your unfiltered access) that the site is innocuous that you realise that you were "missing" something. (MN, NHS website etc.). If it's all filtered then you'd just never know it was there.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Quangle Tue 23-Jul-13 09:49:59

I'm all for it. I don't think anyone should be pumping porn into my house unless I've actively asked for it. How we let this happen in the first place is beyond me. The child abuse reasons are another issue in my mind but it's very weird to me that default = porn.

And saying that this is the parents' issue to resolve by implementing their own filters is the wrong way round. I personally don't know how to do this (though I could find out). My 73 year old mum certainly doesn't - and the children use her computer when they stay there. If this is a consumer choice issue then it should be for the people who want it to go out and get it rather than for the people who don't want it to erect barriers to stop it getting in to their homes.

It also doesn't matter particularly that technological limitations make this difficult. It's just about making sure that porn is not the default. I agree that if you want porn you should have the choice but the problem is at the moment, whether you want it or not, it's there.

This is no different to putting mags on the top shelf. They are there if you want them but you have to reach for them.

exoticfruits Tue 23-Jul-13 10:09:03

I agree Quangle- you should have to go and get it- I don't want it. It might block a few innocent things but it it is a minor inconvenience.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

exoticfruits Tue 23-Jul-13 10:16:38

Yes, but you are actively saying that you don't want to reach it and you don't want it handed out. It makes sense for that to be the default and then people can choose to reach it and be in line when it is handed out.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

flatpackhamster Tue 23-Jul-13 12:08:04

exoticfruits

Yes, but you are actively saying that you don't want to reach it and you don't want it handed out. It makes sense for that to be the default and then people can choose to reach it and be in line when it is handed out.

It's this sort of post that makes me wonder whether or not you've read the technical explanations doled out earlier in this thread.

Quangle Tue 23-Jul-13 12:29:33

I think the technological limitations are secondary because there already are technological limitations. There will always be technological limitations but at the moment the default is porn (with technological limitations as to the filters that can be applied) and the proposal is that the default is not-porn (with technological limitations as to the filters, or anti-filters as it were, that can be applied).

That's why I said the technological limitations matter less to me than the ordering of the default.

NumTumDeDum Tue 23-Jul-13 12:32:07

Well I've just had my eyes opened. I read the first link and found myself nodding along, thinking oh yes good idea. Then I read the second link and was appalled that I had had that reaction to the first link because I ought to have thought about it more and having read the second link I can totally see why the first cannot be achieved and why it is undesirable. I don't know what the answers are but this is not it.

I for one would like to see a higher standard of it teaching in schools, education, it seems might be a better route. I'd certainly like to know more about my computer, about the internet and about how to make my own whitelist. I'd also like to know how I do that on an ipod as my stupid exh has given my 4 year old one so he can facetime (presumably he doesn't like me having to be present when we cam on the laptop). The ipod is only used under supervision in my home but no idea at his. And of course, I have no control over computers in his home. He for one, would be opting out.

Thanks MurderofGoths. Lots to think about.

flatpackhamster Tue 23-Jul-13 12:37:12

Quangle

I think the technological limitations are secondary because there already are technological limitations.

There will always be technological limitations but at the moment the default is porn (with technological limitations as to the filters that can be applied) and the proposal is that the default is not-porn (with technological limitations as to the filters, or anti-filters as it were, that can be applied).

That's why I said the technological limitations matter less to me than the ordering of the default.

And I'm telling you - again - that the technical reasons why it can't be done over-ride your fantasy that we can have a 'default off' for porn.

You might as well say "Spaceships can easily travel to the moon and back on a cup of diesel, they don't need any more fuel than that because I say that the laws of physics don't matter." Just as the laws of physics are not secondary to the amount of fuel required to reach the moon in a spaceship, so the technological aspects of the internet are not secondary to understanding why a blanket 'off for porn' default setting is not possible.

SideshoBob Tue 23-Jul-13 13:03:08

But Quangle to use you're magazine analogy, for this to be successful a lot of perfectly innocent magazines would be banned as well, and even then it still wouldn't stop all 18+ magazines, frankly it'll be the worst ones that get through as the mainstream ones are easier to find and ban...

There's already safe search on google which is the presumed setting anyway so this hysteria of people accidentally stumbling onto porn is bizarre. And before anyone complains that they found porn with safe search on, then you have to realise that if safe search didn't recognise it as porn and remove it, then it would probably have got through a filter as well...

If you don't understand computers then its your job to learn to at leas the level of your child's understanding, if you can't do that then you shouldn't have one in the first place. Considering there are a far greater amount of houses without children, its odd to any censor system as opt in.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

"At least it is a start- I am all for it. You have to start somewhere."

I'd rather they started with logic and common sense personally, rather than unicorns.

NumTumDeDum Thank you, means a lot. I do feel like a ranty lunatic about this, so nice to see it someones comes across as useful instead! grin

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

lunatic Quite! Btw people when Tim B-L says the technology doesn't exist - it really doesn't exist!

Quangle Tue 23-Jul-13 14:46:37

If you don't understand computers then its your job to learn to at leas the level of your child's understanding, if you can't do that then you shouldn't have one in the first place

Really? I look forward to the mumsnet quiz on how televisions work because apparently unless you understand the physics behind them, or have a full knowledge of the regulatory system that approves content for broadcast, you can't have one.

There really is no policy argument that unless you know where the filters are, you shouldn't have one. That doesn't hold any water at all. Computers are actually increasingly essential to everyday life, hence the inclusion of broadband costs in the basket of "goods" used to calculate the inflation rate. And government is persuaded that access to the internet is an important part of social inclusion. So it's increasingly just viewed in a policy sense as just another utility. Quite rightly. But I don't need to understand what checks are in place to make sure the water that's pumped into my house is safe for human consumption - I expect the regulator to do that.

This is perfectly standard - it applies to TV programmes (a highly regulated medium by the way) and most other forms of broadcasting. All the "other" stuff is still there but not pumped into homes whether you want it or not.

SideshoBob Tue 23-Jul-13 15:13:03

I said learn to at least a childs level, christ its not a lot to ask. If you can't do that then you're not equipped to be a parent in the first place! Filter technology really isn't difficult to get a hold of, anyone who wants to can quickly learn to do so themselves.

You can't regulate the internet like tv, there's a small amount of tv shows and a small amount of tv channels, compared to billions of web pages of which countless amounts spring up every single day. I'd have a real problem if tv programs started to get banned because key words in their sypnosis were banned by an algorithm. The water comparison is just bizarre. Safety standards for consumption are just a completely different ball game. Again there's a finite amount of water companies for whom regulating their output is relatively simple.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

"Really? I look forward to the mumsnet quiz on how televisions work because apparently unless you understand the physics behind them, or have a full knowledge of the regulatory system that approves content for broadcast, you can't have one. "

You're comparing apples with oranges.

TV isn't regulated using computers, it's regulated using humans. We already understand how they process information because we are humans too.

The internet has to be regulated by computers because of the sheer size of it, understanding how they process information is key to how we can use them.

"But I don't need to understand what checks are in place to make sure the water that's pumped into my house is safe for human consumption - I expect the regulator to do that. "

Fair enough, but if all the experts on how water is checked are saying that the system for checking it is deeply flawed would you still drink it?

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 18:11:12

If this is just offering a filter, then presumably the parents will have to set it, so someone is going to have to have the knowledge to do so.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 19:45:44

I would like to know what the filter is, how it operates and what it monitors.

flatpackhamster Tue 23-Jul-13 20:04:37

BoneyBackJefferson

I would like to know what the filter is, how it operates and what it monitors.

Hush now, and just let the government filter what you can look at on the internet. It's for your own safety, and the safety of all the children in the world. Asking questions will just make your head hurt.

I said learn to at least a childs level, christ its not a lot to ask.

Actually I think it is quite a lot to ask of many many parents. There are loads of parents out there in their 40s and 50s (so parents of teens sort of age) who didn't grow up using computers and don't really understand how they work, although they muddle through with email, FB and whatever packages they need to use for work. They haven't a hope in hell's chance of ever understanding them as well as their DC who have grown up using them. No wonder the magic button is so attractive! Lots of them already feel a bit stupid and a lot scared and I don't think it does any good to berate them further.

What's needed is support and education for parents as well as children and teens, regular and ongoing for as long as is needed.

I don't think the water analogy or the TV analogy work. It's more like owning a car and being responsible for its roadworthiness. I've never owned a car and if I did get one I'd not only have to learn to drive it but how to maintain it to keep myself and other road users safe.

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 20:49:57

flatpackhamster

grin.

If I thought that I could trust the government etc.

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 20:52:17

"There are loads of parents out there in their 40s and 50s... They haven't a hope in hell's chance of ever understanding them as well as their DC who have grown up using them."

That is just BS.

I think there are a lot of people who just aren't good with technology, but they need to at least try for their kids sakes!

Can you imagine if people used the same excuse for other areas of children's safety?

"I don't understand car seats so I just wont bother!"

"Removing risks from the house is too complicated, I'll only childproof if someone else does it for me"

They'd be, rightly, called out for not putting their children's safety before their own problems. Why isn't keeping children safe online viewed the same?

I didn't understand a thing about nutrition for babies when I had DS, but I damn well found out.

BellEndTent Tue 23-Jul-13 21:08:54

People have been aware that this is mainly aimed at porn and won't block all internet nasties though so will continue to supervise their children's computer use. It wouldn't lull me into a false sense of security at all, that's no kind of argument.

You realise you only speak for you right? I have spoken to people who think this is a fix all.

Um... I work with them boney. They don't like speaking about it much because people make them feel stupid. They do their best to hide it and muddle through.

It's a bit like moving to a foreign country as an adult and learning the language. You will never ever speak it or understand it as well as your DC who have grown up speaking it.

Yes people need to try and learn this stuff, absolutely, but we should be supporting that learning and not making people feel like idiots for not knowing because then they won't learn they'll just wish for unicorns.

Education really is key isn't it? Shame it's not the exciting option, maybe then the govt would get behind it

BellEndTent Tue 23-Jul-13 21:23:03

Perhaps that needs to be emphasised more then
Murder, I think it's pretty easy to grasp but can understand that maybe others do not agree.

I'm a bit on the fence. I don't like the government involvement angle, have little faith in them but as far as I can see, they aren't trying to censor what adults can view, it's an optional filter to stop children seeing potentially damaging things. But once you open the gates...

I also don't like that it is a cover-all and if we implemented it, DH and I who are both obviously adults, couldn't view adult material if we so chose. I would gladly take the hit if it made it even a bit more difficult for my sons to access porn when they are older though. I can only imagine the effect some of the stuff online would have when viewed by someone very sexually immature.

I'd certainly think very carefully about doing it.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BellEndTent Tue 23-Jul-13 21:30:28

That's the bit that worries me, the not knowing what has been blocked from a hell of a lot of households.

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 21:31:26

PlentyOfPubeGardens

You work with and speak for all of the 40 - 50 yr olds?

A lot of the programmers that I know are 40+ years old.

It is more likely that you speak for some of the age group.

strangely enough the OAP computer club would counter your anecdotal evidence.

niceguy2 Tue 23-Jul-13 21:32:08

I've not read all the posts since my broadband is playing up so forgive me if this has already been said.

I'm going to try & avoid the techie speak as it clearly bamboozles a lot of people and I can understand why your average person in the street may welcome this as a good idea. It's plainly not but I can see the appeal.

What really pisses me off is the govt have clearly been totally deaf to the industry who have told them it's not a good idea at all.

To make matters worse, they're using the old "These big companies should be doing more" argument without really understanding why. Do you really think Google wants child porn on their search indexes!?!?! Of course not!

And now we're going a step further than simply blocking porn but now we're being told we're not even to be allowed to search for certain terms which have been deemed 'horrific' (without defining the word).

Oh and absolutely no mention of the fact there are tools already out there that are free and able to do the job today without the need for legislation.

What it tells me is the govt has simply politicised the subject to so they can appear pro-family. Doesn't matter if there's a free better solution already available. Doesn't matter if the solution they're forcing ISP's to adopt is full of holes.

Just so long as they get a few positive headlines.

Education really is key isn't it?

Yes, it really is.

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

You work with and speak for all of the 40 - 50 yr olds?

Where have I said this? I know loads of 40+ programmers too, including myself. It doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of muddlers out there.

"There are illiterate adults out there. How do you get them setting up firewalls, secure networks and filtering?"

This is off the top of my head, so haven't thought too deeply. But surely some clever company could create a filtering system with options to install different levels of filter? So it'd be as simple as choosing an age appropriate one. It wouldn't be a perfect solution obviously, even if the different packages were customisable, if people weren't confident customising them. But they'd still be better than nothing or a blanket filter.

I think what I'd most like to see is a freeware program (crowdsourced especially) that had these different levels of use (age 5-7, 10-12, etc). Maybe the lower levels set as a whitelist of approved kid friendly sites, then opened up as a blacklist for the older age groups. With the ability to send reports of sites that are wrongly blocked or not blocked to a wiki style set up which could then be moderated and used to update the filtering programme. I'm pretty certain something like this probably already exists - DS is 16mo though so I've not really looked too much into them.

They key would be if the govt would point people to it, maybe even offering a download via their website. Even better if the ISP's and mobile networks could promote it and help by having their tech bods cooperating with it, sharing data, skills and testing it and making sure it worked with their devices. Maybe even giving the option of having it installed when people have internet access set up?

That way there is the option of using it, people know it can be trusted, and it covers all different family set ups with relative ease. So one user can view adult content, while another can be shielded, and another can have partial access.

Boney There's no denying that some 40-50 year olds are totally inept at computers, and they could do with some help. Fuck it, some 15-20 year olds are!

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 21:42:38

"It doesn't change the fact that there are a lot of muddlers out there."

I bet that the majority of them can programme a VCR (ok probably extinct), Sky+, Tivo etc.

All require setting up, its no different from a broadband filtering system.

BoneyBackJefferson Tue 23-Jul-13 21:45:00

I don't deny that there are some people that are inept at computers but it doesn't mean that they can't learn.

LtEveDallas Tue 23-Jul-13 21:58:00

BoneyBack, I work with a 41 year old who asks me to search for stuff on the Internet as 'you know how to do all that eve' and a 30 year old who thought the 'big red button to stop child porn' was a good thing (I showed her Murders unicorn site, and used the Lego analogy before she 'got it').

I think there are probably very few under 30s that wouldn't understand, but my DH (48) has DD (8) running rings round him on a regular basis where the computer is concerned. He even has to write his passwords down...and before now has had DD say 'no, that's not it dad, it's XXX'. There are probably lots around like him.

DD worked out my password once for my apple account and downloaded stuff. It gave me a kick up the arse and now I have a double password and have set up some restrictions - I hadn't actually realised how savvy she was. Parents need to take more responsibility and I worry that relying on the Gov will mean they think they don't have to.

SanityClause Tue 23-Jul-13 22:06:29

This thread has been very enlightening.

I hadn't really thought about it, although I would generally tend towards the belief that too much censorship is probably a bad thing.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 06:51:32

LtEveDallas

this
"I hadn't actually realised how savvy she was"
and this
"and I worry that relying on the Gov will mean they think they don't have to."

IMO most parents don't know how savvy there children are and are shocked that that can circumvent a lot of the security systems.

The bigger question should be
What is next?

If so many parents are so inept are we going the regulate online gaming?
Its very easy for a child to get on to casinos, or online rpgs because violent gaming is a breeding ground for violent children.,

"If so many parents are so inept are we going the regulate online gaming?"

Most of it has age ratings, which many parents ignore as they think their child is a special snowflake who the age ratings don't apply to.

When you have that level of ignorance do we really think parents will still supervise their kids and use home filters when the ISP filter is in place?

Given that there are parents who let their children watch all kinds of stuff on the television, what are the realistic chances of these parents regulating the internet for their children?

A couple of examples - in DD's primary school leavers' book, each child had a profile with likes, dislikes etc - the most popular TV programme was The Inbetweeners hmm. And one of DD's male classmates had an 11th birthday party where they all stayed up all night watching 18-rated films. hmm

flatpackhamster Wed 24-Jul-13 08:33:03

NotGoodNotBad

Given that there are parents who let their children watch all kinds of stuff on the television, what are the realistic chances of these parents regulating the internet for their children?

A couple of examples - in DD's primary school leavers' book, each child had a profile with likes, dislikes etc - the most popular TV programme was The Inbetweeners hmm. And one of DD's male classmates had an 11th birthday party where they all stayed up all night watching 18-rated films. hmm

In that case, it's clear. The only moral, responsible thing that any government would do is install a censorship device on everyone's television. You have to phone up the licencing agency and tell them that you want to watch material suitable for adults. Otherwise all you get is the Food Channel and Cbeebies.

It's for your own good. No more grown-up TV.

"In that case, it's clear. The only moral, responsible thing that any government would do is install a censorship device on everyone's television. You have to phone up the licencing agency and tell them that you want to watch material suitable for adults. Otherwise all you get is the Food Channel and Cbeebies.

It's for your own good. No more grown-up TV."

grin And this has the advantage that it is technically possible. Wonder when we'll see Call me Dave backing this?

LtEveDallas Wed 24-Jul-13 09:08:10

Yes Boneyback. I must admit, that despite me thinking I was a pretty 'savvy' parent, I was shocked when DD asked me a question I didn't know the answer to and casually said "Lets Google it". I didn't actually realise she knew what Google was, or how it worked. I mean she was 7 then and it just didn't occur to me.

Then when she worked out my apple password (and by default my hotmail and amazon too - yes, I was that person) I finally realised that it was time to set up some net nanny type restrictions on our home PC.

Before then I had wrongly assumed that she didn't 'know' enough to be unsafe.

She likes making powerpoint presentations, and searches for images to use in them. Using my own home filters means that when she googled "Big Balls" for a presentation about how she wanted a giant football means that we didn't have any nasty surprises grin. How would the Government's filters deal with that one?

I don't deny that there are some people that are inept at computers but it doesn't mean that they can't learn.

Of course they can learn. That's why I'm proposing education. I really don't think it helps making people feel like idiots for not knowing this stuff. That doesn't promote learning it promotes continued ignorance.

Murder, I like your suggestion in your Tue 23-Jul-13 21:37:18 post.

We have laws that prevent minors from buying alcohol and cigarettes, we don't expect parents to police this. Why should access to internet porn be different?

flatpackhamster Wed 24-Jul-13 13:07:36

NotGoodNotBad

We have laws that prevent minors from buying alcohol and cigarettes, we don't expect parents to police this. Why should access to internet porn be different?

Would you accept the same limitations on TV and books and by extension on anything that might 'harm' minors?

LtEveDallas Wed 24-Jul-13 13:27:58

We have laws that prevent minors from buying alcohol and cigarettes, we don't expect parents to police this. Why should access to internet porn be different?

Well actually parents do police this. It is illegal for kids to purchase alcohol and cigarettes from a shop, that is all that the law actually stipulates - it's not illegal for children to partake of alcohol or cigarettes in the home.

Parents are expected to ensure that their children do not partake of alcohol or cigarettes when they are in their own home.

So equally (to my mind) parents should ensure that their children do not have access to internet porn when they are in their own home.

(Very simplistic I know)

As much as I agree with you Murder of Goths (your name always makes me think of Sophie Lancaster sad ) I just don't see that this is going to happen. We have nothing to fear from a law that simply can't be implemented.

somebloke123 Wed 24-Jul-13 13:47:38

I think it's worth remembering that the internet originally was a military project and designed to be robust and resilient to attack, without crucial single points of failure. If routers were destroyed then the protocols were such as to enable alternative routes to be used. Similarly with attempts to block information/data.

In the words of one internet guru (can't remember the name), the internet treats censorship as a malfunction and works around it.

At least Canute was aware that he couldn't turn back the tide. Cameron is not so wise. He seems to have little concept of the nature of the internet and its distributed non-centralised nature. He's like an old Soviet apparatchik deciding what the proles shall be permitted to read in Pravda. It's not like that.

somebloke123 Wed 24-Jul-13 13:51:21

AKiss Well I don't know. It can't be properly implemented but I don't think that means we have nothing to fear. I think a danger is that various totally innocent people will be caught up and possibly lives ruined, because of the impossibility of identifying porn by software.

SideshoBob Wed 24-Jul-13 13:54:48

NotGoodBad what would you think then when you went to buy a drink but sorry its been confused for alcohol so its not being stocked? Would you find it odd if you had to have your name on a government list to specify you were an alcohol drinker? Would you not find it bizarre that the government presumed everyone doesn't want alcoholic drinks?

At best its a hollow legislation that will do nothing, the dangers of accidentally stumbling upon porn are much overstated. If you're looking for it, no doubt you'll find it, but its not on every corner as the daily mail and the like make out. At worst its a dangerous begining of censorship of the internet, things like search terms being banned for example for being "extreme". Extrapolate that out and a situation becomes very possible where search terms that "are concerns for national security" get banned, strangely banning opposition blogs and dissenting voices...

Good point somebloke. Thank goodness for organisations like Backlash.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 17:14:57

Plenty

I do honestly agree that education is the key.

But lets be honest with the current options available your name would be blacklisted as would a huge amount of research in to abuse, rape, DV, EA etc.

I hate to think of the amount of literature and music that would fall foul of this.

AKiss I never thought my name could make people think of that, that was horrific sad

But yes, as the others on the thread have said the risk is that they'll try to make it happen and cause problems in the process.

confused

Sadly cases have already occurred with the 'extreme porn' ban. There was an incident where a man was prosecuted for sharing a rude cartoon of Tony the Tiger as it was deemed to be bestiality! It was a joke cartoon FFS. Fortunately I believe the jury saw sense but still, lives ruined for that.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 17:46:08

Plenty

Why confused.

I do honestly agree that education is the key.

I agree.

But lets be honest with the current options available your name would be blacklisted as would a huge amount of research in to abuse, rape, DV, EA etc.

I hate to think of the amount of literature and music that would fall foul of this.

I agree again, but I'm not sure what this has to do with advocating education.

Plenty I think Boney meant that education rather than this filter would prevent innocent things falling foul of the filter.

Oh ... I agree smile

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 17:57:27

Sorry, it was just an off hand comment about the way some filters work.

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 17:59:09

murder has it in one.

I will step away from the keyboard for a while until I can work in full sentences. smile

ValentineWiggins Wed 24-Jul-13 18:12:26

I think what I'd most like to see is a freeware program (crowdsourced especially) that had these different levels of use (age 5-7, 10-12, etc). Maybe the lower levels set as a whitelist of approved kid friendly sites, then opened up as a blacklist for the older age groups. With the ability to send reports of sites that are wrongly blocked or not blocked to a wiki style set up which could then be moderated and used to update the filtering programme. I'm pretty certain something like this probably already exists - DS is 16mo though so I've not really looked too much into them.

murderofgoths I think you just described norton family!!! That's what we use - its free (I think) per user per computer. So adults can have anything and you have default levels of protection for different ages. If they try a banned site they have the option to ask a parent (automatic email) and you can whitelist it.

Problem is it takes more set up/knowledge rhan getting the ISP to block all porn wink

That is the issue, someone needs to work out an intuitive user interface, one that even the most tech illiterate can use. It can be done, there are some amazing UI designers out there.

ravenAK Wed 24-Jul-13 18:23:07

It would be fair to say that Claire Perry, for example, isn't someone whose opinion on the internet should be taken seriously.

Cameron ?Porn? Advisor?s website ?hacked? ? Threatens/Libels Blogger

Wow, hadn't seen that Raven

She really hasn't got the faintest has she??

In case people don't want to read the whole link Claire Perry's websites was hacked and pornographic content was put up there.

Guido Fawkes, a blogger, wrote a blog about it, including a screenshot/photo of the hacked page (without showing any porn).

Perry threatened him with legal action for blogging about it, she threatened that she was going to try and get him sacked, and accused him of "sponsoring" the hack. Totally failing to grasp what a screenshot was.

ravenAK Wed 24-Jul-13 18:35:23

Quite.

& if she doesn't understand the difference between a link & a screengrab, I really wouldn't expect her to grasp how a proxy works, say.

There are obviously veritable herds of magical unicorns gambolling through the empty spaces in her head.

Shocking amount of ignorance for someone so involved in this!

ihearsounds Wed 24-Jul-13 19:21:06

Filters drive me insane. The amount of innocent things that they block is mental. Yet at the same time you can get a pop up, and in your face is a massive pair of breasts. This btw was in the past few years, even with a filter encouraged by the LA that blocked youtube and some educational sites. But the innocent wording on the pop up meant it was fine.

Education really is key. Something is not getting through to parents that actually you need to monitor your child's usage. This is something that needs to be addressed, because I really don't think that the parents I speak to, are a true indication of the faults. Because these think well I have filters at home so I don't need to monitor access.

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 24-Jul-13 19:43:30

Claire's tweets are still up, Guido's lawyer will write to her pointing out they're libellous. (Am familiar with the story, didn't follow links)

niceguy2 Wed 24-Jul-13 20:08:37

Well that just confirms what I already suspected. And that's our politician's are creating laws without really understanding the blindest bit about technology.

If someone doesn't understand the difference between a screenshot and a hyperlink then they clearly shouldn't be responsible for government policy on technology.

It'd be like getting a plumber to fit you a new shower and he doesn't know the difference between a tap and a spanner. You'd be worried wouldn't you?

Guess I don't think trying to block internet porn for children is an extreme measure on the part of the government, since I would be perfectly happy if all porn were blocked for everyone. Can't say I view porn as a human right or anything.

Notgood: you are missing the point. The technology isn't there to implement this. So what if, along with blocking some porn, sites containing information about breast feeding, sex education, sexually transmitted infections were also blocked. You still don't see a problem?

OldLadyKnowsNothing Wed 24-Jul-13 20:47:31

I have a very simple idea, and it's free to introduce. How about we ban web use by under 18's? I do realise it won't happen, but if you don't want your dc to see porn, don't give them access. There is no need for dc to have a phone that does anything more than make calls and texts, and home access should be closely monitored. By parents.

Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues - I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care.

ravenAK Wed 24-Jul-13 20:57:47

Notgood: no-one has said the Govt. trying to reduce accessability of internet porn for innocent kiddywinks is a bad thing, y'know. We are all in favour of that.

Just that their existing proposals are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, will waste lots of money & will actually be counter-productive as IT-illiterate parents will wrongly believe their dc to be protected & not bother taking measures that would work.

So the Govt. should go away & listen to someone who actually knows their links from their screenshots.

ravenAK Wed 24-Jul-13 20:58:38

I'm afraid 'Not addressing the technical issues' = 'No, sorry, I really do want that unicorn. Gimme unicorn!'

I'm not addressing the technical issues

Is that you David?

BoneyBackJefferson Wed 24-Jul-13 21:42:41

NotGoodNotBad

"Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues"

Its not that you are missing the point, it is that you are avoiding it all together

"I'm not addressing the technical issues"

We are talking about a technical solution, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala" every time someone mentions the technological side of it.

"I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care."

Right.. and this ISP filter wont solve that either.

niceguy2 Thu 25-Jul-13 09:01:52

Ha ha. Just out of interest I changed my settings to 'block porn' on my ISP filter. (I use TalkTalk)

Thought I'd see how long it would take to bypass it and view porn. My challenge was I wasn't allowed to install any software or do any hacking that a 10 year old child couldn't be reasonably expected to do.

It took about 10 seconds.

1) Go to http://translate.google.com
2) Change language to translate to say Dutch
3) Type in URL
4) Click on it. er...that's it.

And how did I learn about this 'hack'? My 12yr old son mentioned a while back as the way they all bypass the school's filters.

The only way to block that now is to block Google translate. And of course that's not the only one. We'd have to go block all language translation websites like Google's.

OMG...won't somebody please think of the children!

Ironically my kids haven't managed to figure a way around having a computer in the same room as me. The hovering dad filter is tougher to crack and totally free! I let my 16yr old daughter take a laptop to her room now. The younger kids. I say 'no'. Fancy that!?! Saying no instead of expecting the government to police them (badly) for me!

BoneyBackJefferson Thu 25-Jul-13 10:44:35

Where I work there are three different filter sets at work:-

the LEA
The School
and the classroom

All three are reactive, (filtering generally has to be), due to the heat the school system has basically disappeared.

Due to the heat and the effect that it is having on the servers the classroom network filter is system is more disruptive than not using it (it constantly refreshes the connection to the pcs so that the screens flicker).

That leaves the LEA filter, any blocks that are put on it have to come from the school to the LEA and can take up to 3 weeks to be implemented.

The LEA filter is the easiest to get around because using a proxy just stops it from working.

Of course we could block them using a filter but how do you keep in front of changes that could just be http to https, or .co.uk to .com, or .it to .au?

then you have the translation issue that niceguy puts forward, if you block the word game do you also block it in other languages. remembering that in German

Game = Spiel
Games = Spiele
to play = spielen

Turkish

Game: Oyun
Games: Oyunlar
To play: Oynamak
I'm playing: Oynuyorum
He/she is playing: Oynuyor
They are playing: Oynuyorlar

You block the base word and you run the risk of blocking any related words as well.

flatpackhamster Thu 25-Jul-13 11:17:11

NotGoodNotBad

Guess I don't think trying to block internet porn for children is an extreme measure on the part of the government, since I would be perfectly happy if all porn were blocked for everyone.

I asked you, on this thread, whether you supported filtering of adult content (sex and violence) on televisions and I am still looking forward to your reply.

Can't say I view porn as a human right or anything.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that it was, so that's a strawman argument.

Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues - I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care.

You can not discuss this issue without addressing the technical issues. The technical issues are inseparable from the issue of porn filtering.

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?

- 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. 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.

- 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.

BoneyBackJefferson Thu 25-Jul-13 12:43:32

Notgood

"Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand"

There is no "going back" to the "good old days" especially when the "good old days" weren't actually that good.

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.

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.

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"?

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.

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!

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

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

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.

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!

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.

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.

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

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

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.

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.

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.

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?

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 Fri 26-Jul-13 08:31:17

Sounds good. Thanks, OldLady.

WidowWadman Fri 26-Jul-13 18:50:50
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

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

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

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?

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 13:48:54

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

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

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

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

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