Active discussions

Please or to access all these features

Talk
Site stuff

Join our Innovation Panel to try new features early and help make Mumsnet better.

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Original poster

recent decision by MNHQ

508 replies

NetworkGuy · 02/02/2011 23:33

Please, MNHQ, do have a read of this thread and consult your Tech people so they can give you the answers as to whether your support for this campaign and the Minister's plans are worth going on with.

I would hope you not only reverse your position but assuming you get sufficient technical reasoning in 'Plain English', that you go public and explain how unworkable the proposal is likely to be. I feel sure journalists at Computer Weekly and Computing will be able to provide confirmation that filtering is a hiding to nothing and can be very costly because of the millions of GB of data flowing through the bigger ISP networks.

For anyone baffled, and wondering if I'm a nut case, this concerns a proposal to get ISPs to "filter out" all porn, unless a customer "opts in". For numerous technical reasons the idea is never likely to achieve filtering without blocking access to legitimate sites or not blocking access to better than say 95% reliable, thus making it a costly exercise in futility, while parental vigilance and filtering software at the home would still be essential for peace of mind.

(Incidentally the wording of the campaign page implies the parents need to ask, at the same time as someone wanting not to have censored content needs to ask - it is one or other, but not both that would need to contact ISP. )

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 04/02/2011 14:03

LeninGrad - I would hope that there'd be enough trust such that while some sites may be blocked, you'd explain you would regard using methods to avoid the blocking (without ever mentioning web proxies) as bad as going to the worst sites available on the web.

I suspect that a check at random once in every couple of months (so there's no way for DC to know if the following day the log could show they went via a web proxy) would be enough.

Although I was involved in securing multi-user systems, the sanctions we had for students were sufficient that without the ability to use computers for study they might as well give up on getting their degree, and as a result there were few problems. More problems with 6th formers from a local school who were able to access the service (and found a bug in the system allowing them to actually crash one HP multi-user service).

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 14:02

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 04/02/2011 13:53

Kaloki's suggestion was for open source software with a database for download, that could be updated centrally, rather like the anti-virus firms do now. Childnet or similar might be in a position to maintain a list of what they think should be banned.

The flexibility comes in because a parent could add or delete entries to make the list suitable for their child, depending on gender and age (so for a girl to have access to sites which give health advice, contraception, etc IYSWIM, esp once she is in her mid teens, while her brother age 10 may still be restricted from some sites).

Open source to cope with XP, etc, etc that don't have the benefit of Microsoft's latest software for Windows 7.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 13:51

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 04/02/2011 13:45

LeninGrad "just use proxy servers and so on, is that true even with parental controls on the PC and no admin access"

Visit www.hidemyass.com/ and in the input box type www..com (or something innocent!)

Unless 'hidemyass.com' is blocked (and not by any porn filter it wouldn't be)... then you would be able to view the images, but playing the videos might not work very well (since this is free access, the speed of traffic from the hidemyass.com server to your home PC might be too low for streaming to work - there are usually low speed 'trial' facilities, whereas someone paying for access would get full speed for downloading. i don;t know if xhamster would reduce the speed of video going to hidemyass as well, or whether hidemyass would buffer some of the data if it was coming in faster than it was being passed on to the end user.

To reliably block images, analysis would need to be done while data was being sent to the ISP and before it was sent to your home connection, a significantly more complicated task [when you click the link for a web page, the HTML (web page text) starts to load, and embedded in the text will be references to images and other media (Flash or Shockwave files).

The browser will usually start to download those files as well, possibly downloading as many as 10 different files at once (a browser setting which commonly starts at say 4). A proxy may limit the number of simultaneous transfers but even so, to analyse each image it would need to be rebuilt at the ISP on the filtering system, then analysed to determine if it is innocent or not. A page with "thumbnail" images for say 100 'scenes' would need each of those 100 images to be checked.

If the images are not checked, then the basic "is this web address on out blocked list" test would be used. It would be possible to request a proxy service be blocked, but there are lots of valid, innocent, reasons why a proxy might be used so it would be overkill to block just because it could be misused.

Of course, even blocking one web addres for a proxy will not necessarily be enough. Once you have entered a web address you will see the proxy puts a yellow bar across the top of the browser window. At the right is a drop-down list of alternative domain names for this 'hidemyass' service. I suspect that there are 10 or 20 proxies for every one I have come across in the last six months, and any firm could add new domain names every week. I tend to use them for checking web site changes (when moving a domain from one server to another, it helps to know that a fresh 'look up' is finding the new web address even if my PC or ISP is holding the old IP address.

PS have found that a 14 minute hardcore video from the [FREE] x-rated service did play OK through this service. however I suspect it would fail in the evening UK time, when servers overseas might be far more heavily used than at 8am Eastern time.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 13:35

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snorbs · 04/02/2011 13:16

Proxy access depends on how comprehensive the controls and filters are. Basic content filters won't stop proxy access. More complex filters can, with some difficulty, and at the risk of affecting other entirely innocent services (eg Skype, iChat, BBC iPlayer download manager etc) as well.

Isn't some kind of subscription service needed?

No. What is needed is for parents to keep an eye on what their children are doing on the Internet. If a parent can't be arsed to do that then no technological measure in the world is going to stop a determined teenager from seeing pictures of naked people.

LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 12:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 04/02/2011 12:33

yes - goldticket - that idea has I believe already been voiced above (or similar).

Still doesn't help the millions of households who already have equipment, - so better education is needed.

The other problem is that not everyone buys their hardware from the UK........we can't legislate to prosecute a manufacturer in Holland selling a netbook to someone in the UK that is unprotected.

You also want the protection on your new hardware to be comptaible with your other (old) hardware - which is a major issue for many too.

goldenticket · 04/02/2011 12:27

OK, so I agree with you now re the ISP blocking but I don't see why the onus cannot be put on the manufacturers to ship their products with protection already installed (and one of the first screens you see could be "customise your protection"). That way, the parent will still need to be aware and amend as needed but the default protection is on (and this must be possible otherwise how does K9/NetNanny do it?)

I brought up the smoking analogy because a retailer discovered selling cigs to an underage child will be prosecuted - surely if manufacturers were threatened with similar for selling unprotected hardware, we'd see a change pretty quickly?

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 04/02/2011 12:13

Who has said you should do bugger all ?

My view is that the filtering/blocking must logically be at the household end of the connection, so on Mum's laptop she can use Mumsnet and if she wants to look at Ann Summers, and DC would have a more restricted set of sites, because porn and violent and any other "objectionable" site (Viz, Nuts, etc) could be blocked.

Having porn blocked at the ISP end, if that is what is decided, does not prevent DC frrom viewing 'rotten.com' and could lull many parents into no longer considering just what can be accessed by their DC.

Now, let's for a moment imagine the DC had a 200 quid netbook for their birthday. At home, the ISP connection is blocking porn (but not violent sites etc) and on a sleepover, 2 streets away, the DC finds his netbook can connect to an uncensored, unencrypted wi-fi connection (even though the household's internet link is also filtered like at home). So porn can be viewed, images downloaded, there's a bit of a laugh (or embarrassment) and neither set of parents is any the wiser. What has ISP filtering achieved in this case? Given the chance of "forbidden fruit" the DC may well hunt for it.

If the netbook had some software on it, then whether it is at home or at school or in a cafe in town, the blocks stay the same, and logging of what has been accessed [if that is included] also takes place.

Personally I feel any DC where logging of what they do is in place should be told that is the case, but that's only because I feel they need to know how they are "under scrutiny" 24x7.

OP posts:
BaroqueAroundTheClock · 04/02/2011 12:07

No-one is saying that at all goldenticket - we're saying that ISP blanket blocking/allowing porn isn't the answer.

Parents need educating. and it needs to be made simpler for those parents that do care (because quite frankly those parents that don't care will just have the block removed with no thought as soon as they find they can't access anyone particular website they want - hardcore porn or just unfamily friendly).

I'm fairly clued up on internet safety and the likes. And (almost) can cope with setting up and filter on an indvidual basis for my children - and I understand that even a "block" on porn wouldn't mean my children are safe.

However, a lot of parents don't know that. My BF is very new to the WWW. (she only learned how to switch a computer on 3yrs ago!). And struggles with techy things quite a lot (I often get panicked phone calls about little things Grin . It's not that she doesn't care, or doesn't have time, or can't be bothered. She's on a steep learning curve, but the current technology for parents to use to protect what their children see it mostly quite complex.

When you're struggling to work out why you can't see the thumbnails of pictures when you're trying to insert one in powerpoint (she had the view set as details instead of thumbnails it turned out) - setting up current filtering systems is a minefield.

The answer for people like her isn't - just block it at the ISP - because as has been pointed out - we're only talking about porn for this blocking and

a) porn isn't just available on "porn" websites

b) it won't protect from the other "nasties" we want to protect our children from.

So then - parents like her are back to square one - trying to sort out software on their individual PC's which is complex, and often isn't compatible with all the OS's in the household.

Our Junior school did recently offer an "internet safety" evening (I didn't attend) - which covered various aspects of internet safety for children - including parental blocks. I know of several parents - with genuine concerns over what their children find online - who found it immensely useful.

goldenticket · 04/02/2011 11:51

I agree maryz and I've actually changed my mind on this through reading and participating in this thread. But some posters seem to be saying that because the www is very big and fast moving and some 13 year olds are complete computer whizzes, we should just throw our collective hands up and do bugger all.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 04/02/2011 11:51

No - I'm saying that I believe "blocking porn to protect children" is a red herring.

What good is regulating porn going to be if a 13yr old can still access what seems to be an even bigger selection of disturbing/damaging images/videos of other nature?

How many 18+ DVD's have you watched that were 18 (rightly so) because of the sex content and how many because of the violence - how many of you would let your children watch "Saw"???? I know I certainly wouldn't - yet images such as those contain in "Saw" are extremely easy to find.

If a parent who is too lazy/too technophone/hasn't got time etc etc thinks that their job is done for them by keeping the "porn" filter on - which I suspect would happen. Then yes - your child may be safe at home (presuming you've also added on the PC filters to combat other undesirable material) but that doesn't mean that at their friends house (also with "porn" filter on - but no/limited filtering of other stuff because they think they're now "safe") they're not going to find stuff.

LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 11:47

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maryz · 04/02/2011 11:44

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

goldenticket · 04/02/2011 11:40

So what you're basically saying is it's totally up to parents and it's unreasonable of them to expect any kind of help from Govt/ISPs/manufacturers etc

And presumably because some 13 year olds smoke and some 13 year olds can bypass filters, we just shouldn't bother with trying to regulate either?

Everything can be knocked down with a few choice examples (Uncle Harry smoking 90 a day and living until he was 105 etc) but surely it's worth trying to protect the many knowing that a few will slip through the net rather than just not bothering?

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 04/02/2011 11:35

Everything I've read indicated it would be an "on" or "off" setting - no picking and choosing.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 04/02/2011 11:34

I agree that accidental exposure to porn seems to be hard to come by. Google safesearch (on the whole it would appear) does indeed filter out most of the stuff we wouldn't want our children to see on the porn front.

However, it certainly isn't anywhere like as good at filtering out other totally undesirable images that - well quite frankly I wish I hadn't stepped into DS1's mind and thought about "gruesome! (as in horrible histories) and done an image search DON'T DO IT it's really really quite horrific what shows up with the safe search on strict - I'll be frank and say I'd rather one of my children came across a picture with someone with a penis up their arse than those Sad

The chance of my DS1 "accidentally" (or on purpose) coming across porn even with just the most basic of safety measures in place - is really quite low. the chance of my DS1 coming across other extremely undesireable images is much MUCH bigger it would appear - and really rather frightening.

LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 11:33

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maryz · 04/02/2011 11:27

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 11:24

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

LeninGrad · 04/02/2011 11:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maryz · 04/02/2011 11:20

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maryz · 04/02/2011 11:19

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Swipe left for the next trending thread