That bloody ISP porn filter bollocks is back again

[MurderOfGoths]

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]

Oh goody.

Send that unicorn over here with the popcorn, Murder .

[navada]

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

Well done DC.

[MurderOfGoths]

Uh huh, brilliant idea. Why?

[MurderOfGoths]

raven

[Kendodd]

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]

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]

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]

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.

[MurderOfGoths]

Is it though kendodd? Or is it false security?

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

[MurderOfGoths]

sir So how do you think it will work?

[ChunkyPickle]

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]

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]

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.

[MurderOfGoths]

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]

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]

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

[MurderOfGoths]

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.

[MurderOfGoths]

Good article here

[navada]

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]

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?"

[MurderOfGoths]

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

[LtEveDallas]

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]

That's great - thank you murderofgoths.

[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]

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.