recent decision by MNHQ

I can access half a dozen WiFi connections from my home (I don't though, I hasten to add). Probably at least one of my neighbours would remove the porn filter. FFS I would remove the porn filter!

Controls need to be applied at the home/device/user end of things. Relying on ISPs is ridiculous.

I'm puzzled by the emphasis on children's accidental exposure to porn. Perhaps because my children are older I am way more concerned by their experimental seeking of porn and other stuff I wouldn't want them to see.

It is easy to keep young children away from porn using parental controls. Even without them (i.e. just with google safesearch)the very 'worst' accidental exposure I have had is a picture with some erect penises. The most offensive things I have seen has been as a result of knowingly following MN links to explicit stuff. And most of those have been links to what I think might not even be classified as porn by those with the power to classify on society's behalf: 'soft' images of young women presented as targets for fantasy, along the same lines as nasty pop videos and Hooters waitresses.

(The absolutely worst thing I have seen wasn't porn at all but a purported case of a lion killing a man on youtube.)

TBH accidental exposure to porn seems only a corner of the problem. I am much more concerned with deliberate porn-seeking behaviour in adolescents.

"Anything and everything can be bypassed, and no-one is talking about preventing access to anything an adult wants."

I'm not sure that's true. As far as I am aware, the filtering services that are available in the UK today - such as those enforced by mobile network providers unless you prove you're over 18 - aren't just filtering porn, they're attempting to filter all non child-friendly sites. VerityTheBrave mentioned earlier that she had to prove her age and opt out of her Orange network filtering because, otherwise, she couldn't get to mumsnet.

If this proposal really is just about hardcore porn, then even the filtered connections still won't be anywhere near safe for children to access unattended and without a more specific filter on your PC. So what would we have really gained for all the expense?

If this proposal is actually more about making the Internet safe for children in general and not just about porn, then you as an adult will find that your access to adult, non-porn sites will be greatly affected.

Child porn is covered by the Internet Watch Foundation receiving reports of sites hosting such images. It then distributes a list of sites to block to the UK ISPs.

It doesn't work very well as evidenced by the frequent prosecutions of people in the UK who are still being found with child porn on their computers. And the IWF's job in policing child porn is still a simpler proposition than that of policing porn in general, if only for the sheer scale of the task.

you see - I'm worried that this is all about blokcing/banning porn - and not about actually protecting children from harmful/disturbing material.

WHY is it only porn that's being discussed if the issue is actual protecting children from stuff we don't want them to see??

re the smoking analogy.

That definitely does not work. I used to be a youth worker and every young person I worked with fro, 13 upwards smoked, and had no difficulty in obtaining cigarettes.

Re the its easy to rate dvds analogy. the internet is unimaginably huge. There is no way that individu pages could be categorize by hand.. Especially as it changes all the time. So that leaves us with computer filtering which will be inaccurate.

Those suggesting Tha sites should be required to rate themselves - remember the internet has no borders. Any uk legislation would only affect uk hosted sites and isps which is,t that many.

two other wee scanners in the works - what about encrypted data - how would that be filtered.

And do'you trust your I to keep secure their big let of people who have asked to be able to view pornography - esp as the government can pretty much access that data if they just ask

Sorry about typos am on phone and Can,t see what I am typing properly :) ...

Eleison, porn blocking using image analysis has been tried many times. It doesn't work. It's very hard to explain to a computer the difference between a bare-chested man and a bare-chested woman, particularly if that woman has small breasts. You also run the risk of blocking many classic paintings.

oh, and network guy, you are my hero

re the smoking analogy.

That definitely does not work. I used to be a youth worker and every young person I worked with fro, 13 upwards smoked, and had no difficulty in obtaining cigarettes.

Re the its easy to rate dvds analogy. the internet is unimaginably huge. There is no way that individu pages could be categorize by hand.. Especially as it changes all the time. So that leaves us with computer filtering which will be inaccurate.

Those suggesting Tha sites should be required to rate themselves - remember the internet has no borders. Any uk legislation would only affect uk hosted sites and isps which is,t that many.

two other wee scanners in the works - what about encrypted data - how would that be filtered.

And do'you trust your I to keep secure their big let of people who have asked to be able to view pornography - esp as the government can pretty much access that data if they just ask

Sorry about typos am on phone and Can,t see what I am typing properly :) ...

"Maybe all devices should be shipped with complete lockdown on anything vaguely dodgy"

"Vaguely dodgy" is a pretty broad term. Also, think about how this will sound to an adult non-parent. What you'd basically be saying is "Some of us parents can't be arsed to supervise our children properly on the Internet. Therefore we want legislation to make our lives easier and we don't care that it will affect everyone who uses the Internet whether they're a parent or not."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have had that style of argument from non-parent friends of mine about this kind of thing and it's not an easy one to refute.

"You can also then check the filtering software reports to see what sites your DCs have attempted to access."

That is very true - parental supervision is obviously the key thing - however, in any real life situation (especially if you have more than one child) you simply can't phsyically be sat watching them every single second they're on there. Unless you drag them off every 5 minutes while you go and do something briefly in another room (I could imagine how well that would work when a slightly older child is trying to do research for homework or similar...)

Really stupid question probably, but is there any prospect of technology that can assess images rather than words, and filter by image? It seems possible that image-based filtering would generate far fewer 'false positives', and so make an at-source bulk turn-off more attractive.

Exactly. Either way it won't achieve what they're claiming it can do.

That's why filtering software on the PC is the way to deal with this as it's so much more flexible. You can set different access levels for different people, and you can make sure it's not just porn that's being blocked.

You back that up with parental supervision to individually block the dodgy sites that leak through the filter and to individually unblock legitimate sites that are erroneously being blocked. You can also then check the filtering software reports to see what sites your DCs have attempted to access.

You won't be able to do that kind of picking and choosing with an ISP-level filter just as you can't with Orange or Vodafone's mobile filtering.

verity, that's a very good question. It might well be like Orange's (and Vodafone's) filtering where anything not considered suitable for children - mumsnet included, as you have found - is filtered out unless you opt to get it all.

This is even more problematic for home broadband than mobile phones though, as Orange-style filtering will affect everyone who uses your home broadband connection. You won't be able to set it up so that you as an adult can get access to mumsnet and all other "adult" sites but your DCs don't. It's on for everyone in your house or it's off for everyone.

Or it might just be filtering hardcore porn, in which case appalling (but non-porn) sites like rotten.com will be allowed through. In which case it's a largely pointless exercise as children would still be able to easily access non child-friendly stuff on the Internet.

The answer to this question - will it only be filtering porn, or will it be filtering all non child-friendly material - is a crucially important one. I hope that MNHQ will ask it at the meeting on Monday.

don't worry maryz - I'm repeting myself too.

Well given how many many underage smokers and drinkers I see around here I'm not sure that the "expectation" is working......

but goldenticket - what you are suggesting there isn't an ISP block on dodgy material - but parental control