Page 14 | recent decision by MNHQ

NetworkGuy · 2011-02-02T23:33:00+00:00

Please, MNHQ, do have a read of this [[http://www.mumsnet.com/Talk/other/1108481/AllOnOnePage#22868954 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.^ )

differentnameforthis · 03/02/2011 23:58

OR

Problem is, what happens when you may seek information on (say) "breastfeeding" and the site is blocked, either because the word "breast" caused it, or some photos

Motherfunster · 03/02/2011 23:56

Iv just had a look at Ed Vasey, he looks like a moomin.

Absolutely Snorbs.

I don't think anybody's going to afford human judgment.It will end up shonky filters on the cheep.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/02/2011 23:56

but then doesn't it then again come back to how "porn" is defined - how it's picked up on??

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 23:52

@Snorbs

Because:

a) if this really is only going to address hardcore porn then there is a huge range of other stuff on the Internet that is most definitely child unfriendly that kids could still access so you'd still need supervision and filtering on your PC to stop them,

b) as a result of (a) it is very likely that the scope of this proposal will expand to cover not just porn but a wider range of child unfriendly sites and that could affect adult access to adult non-porn sites (maybe even mumsnet, what with all the swearing and sex talk) which would encourage users to opt out and leave them in the same position they're in today,

and c) any such filters at the ISP level won't work very well anyway.

I've had a lot of real-world experience with the kind of Internet filtering we're talking about here, albeit in a corporate rather than an ISP context. I'm not just talking out of my hat. It was very expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and needed a lot of care and attention from expensive, skilled staff to keep it usable.

This proposal will cost consumers a lot of money for very little real benefit. You'll still need to run a PC-level filter to properly protect your children and if you're doing that anyway then an ISP-level filter is adding nothing useful. And it still won't solve the problem of parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing.

Again, you're not arguing against the aim - to stop kids stumbling across wholly inappropriate material - but that the the mechanism for delivering is unfeasible.

Those experts we've spoken to - who've spent a heck of a lot more time on this than we have - say filters have moved on, and that it is possible for ISPs to switch the default to off re porn. If they are wrong and you are right Snorbs, then clearly it shouldn't be done because it would be a waste of both time and money.

Think we'll have a better sense next week because obviously the ISPs will have no wish to spend lots of money...

Snorbs · 03/02/2011 23:40

Because:

a) if this really is only going to address hardcore porn then there is a huge range of other stuff on the Internet that is most definitely child unfriendly that kids could still access so you'd still need supervision and filtering on your PC to stop them,

b) as a result of (a) it is very likely that the scope of this proposal will expand to cover not just porn but a wider range of child unfriendly sites and that could affect adult access to adult non-porn sites (maybe even mumsnet, what with all the swearing and sex talk) which would encourage users to opt out and leave them in the same position they're in today,

and c) any such filters at the ISP level won't work very well anyway.

I've had a lot of real-world experience with the kind of Internet filtering we're talking about here, albeit in a corporate rather than an ISP context. I'm not just talking out of my hat. It was very expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and needed a lot of care and attention from expensive, skilled staff to keep it usable.

This proposal will cost consumers a lot of money for very little real benefit. You'll still need to run a PC-level filter to properly protect your children and if you're doing that anyway then an ISP-level filter is adding nothing useful. And it still won't solve the problem of parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing.

Motherfunster · 03/02/2011 23:22

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 23:19

@Snorbs

There are loads of things my DCs could get up to at a neighbour's house if that neighbour couldn't be arsed to supervise them properly. Watching porn videos or horror films, smoking, drinking, playing with matches... The list is endless. Why go to all this effort and expense to (poorly) address just one of those issues?

A parent that can't be bothered to supervise his/her children is a social problem, not a technological one.

Or another way of looking at it is - Why should I have hardcore adult material available as standard via a device that I purchase for and is marketed for the family if (can we agree this is a crucial if) it can be standard that it's opt-in, not opt-out?

Motherfunster - we will most certainly ask the techies for a techie pov. (Not Ed Vaizey )

Motherfunster · 03/02/2011 23:08

All I'm saying is ask the Techies not the politicians about the feasibility of a body that could individually classified material (Like films, games etc) and see just how much manpower would be involved in monitoring the www, or if you are mostly reliant on filtering how many mistakes like a FB breastfeeding pic blocking would occur.

Its a minefield.

Seriously..

maryz · 03/02/2011 23:08

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Snorbs · 03/02/2011 23:06

There are loads of things my DCs could get up to at a neighbour's house if that neighbour couldn't be arsed to supervise them properly. Watching porn videos or horror films, smoking, drinking, playing with matches... The list is endless. Why go to all this effort and expense to (poorly) address just one of those issues?

A parent that can't be bothered to supervise his/her children is a social problem, not a technological one.

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/02/2011 23:03

but the problem of seeing it at the neighbours doesn't go away - I personally don't know if either of my neighbours watches porn - but I'd hazard a pretty good guess that at least one of them does.......actually probably the teenage (adult) boys on the other side probably do too.

Unless I go around and ask all my friends parents if they

a) watch porn

b) have had to have the porn filter lifted so that they can look at another (non-porn - but adult) website

Then my children will be no safer.

I would also question how hard it would be to ask to have the porn filter lifted.

I recently (at exH's request) rang up my ISP and using his account details, and his password, stopped a planned disconnection at one address, and postponed the reconnection a the new address...... We have been separated for almost a year now........the acounnt was in his name - I just said I was "mrs his name"(legally speaking I still am) and they just asked for the main security details (which I knew anyhow) and his password)

If it to be done on the phone (having it lifted) what is to stop a determined teenager also getting it lifted?

gaelicsheep · 03/02/2011 22:56

So who's going to be the first person who finds their ISP blocking images of women breastfeeding a la Facebook, I wonder?

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/02/2011 22:55

oh god yes Snorbs - rotten - I have stumbled across it years ago (agree if you don't know of it - don't go there - I still have some of those images imprinted on my brain years after seeing them ). I think to be perfectly honest I would be more concerned if one of my DS's stumbled across Rotten than of a naked woman with a dildo up her ass. Obviously niether is good - I wouldn't want them seeing either - but if I had to choose which to block - it would - in all honesty be Rotten.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:52

@NetworkGuy

Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn.

Justine - now you're getting to a secondary aspect - who says that what the organisations agree is the 'level' is acceptable or unacceptable to every parent.

Kaloki has suggested that parental controls be at the house end of the link and the simpler and more widely available, the better (eg open source, make whatever package run on Linux, Mac, XP, Vista, Win 7, and mobile apps for mobile phones if there is some dispute over what the networks will limit).

Make it downloadable too, since not everything has a CD/DVD drive. Distribute it at minimal cost/free (if Google can give away Chrome and Microsoft puts hundreds of MB of files into a security update then a 20 to 50 MB application is not going to hurt).

Just like anti-virus software, the porn-block software could download updated lists of hardcore porn sites but the parents could also add their own block lists.

This type of facility has been done as add-on for Firefox (to block advertising sites) so why not lists of sites blocked because they carry porn ?

ISPs would not need to invest in analysis of the traffic or web links, but could provide the software for download and the database of known-to-hold-porn websites. Parents could then add as many extras as they want, such as Facebook, etc.

Gets away from some 'body' deciding what is acceptable and what isn't. That is guaranteed to satisfy a few % of the parents, with some thinking Nuts is OK and others thinking Ann Summers is off limits.

But NetworkGuy (and Motherfunster) - loads of people just won't do it - because they're technophobes, because they're lazy, because they're apathetic, because they're just too busy and they forgot (that would be me, probably). So we're back to the problem of your kid seeing it at the neighbours'... We - as a society - i.e. some recognised body or other (usually chosen by democratically elected parliament) decide things all the time about what is appropriate for kids and what isn't. I just don't get what's so different here. If there's a whiff of opportunistic censorship the net would go apeshit. (Hell we'd go apeshit ).

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:49

I think Justine went off to troll hunt, or bed, or somewhere else, anyway...

OP posts:

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:49

"where else in the world this has worked"

Wonderful, Motherfunster.

OP posts:

Motherfunster · 03/02/2011 22:45

You need humans to make judgment calls Justine and theirs a lot of www out there , the ISPs couldn't cope with provide such massive coverage.

Two quotes for you:

"Nicholas Lansman of the U.K.'s Internet Service Provider Association said that controlling access to online content "should be managed by parents and carers with the tools ISP's provide, rather than being imposed top-down." He also predicted that such a ban could end up blocking access to sites like Flickr and Tumblr, which sometimes carry adult content.

"This is the wrong way to go. If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it," said Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group. "This is not about pornography, it is about generalized censorship through the back door."

I have a bit of a soft spot for MN now as I seen it a force for good .I think aligning to this could be very problematic for MN and a mistake.

Just ask at the meeting, where else in the world this has worked.You will have your answer there.

Snorbs · 03/02/2011 22:45

It's a related question but it's not quite the same.

For instance, a site like rotten.com (trust me, you don't want to go and look) has many grotesque and horrifying images on it - autopsies, accident victims etc. I wouldn't want my children going anywhere near it. It's horrible. But it's not pornography by any sane definition of the term.

So as rotten.com isn't porn, would the proposed ISP-level filtering block it or allow it? If it's blocked on the grounds that it's tasteless (and it is), what else would be similarly blocked? If it's allowed on the grounds that it's not porn, you'll still need PC-level filtering to block the crap that the ISP-level filter will be letting through.

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:41

Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn.

Justine - now you're getting to a secondary aspect - who says that what the organisations agree is the 'level' is acceptable or unacceptable to every parent.

Kaloki has suggested that parental controls be at the house end of the link and the simpler and more widely available, the better (eg open source, make whatever package run on Linux, Mac, XP, Vista, Win 7, and mobile apps for mobile phones if there is some dispute over what the networks will limit).

Make it downloadable too, since not everything has a CD/DVD drive. Distribute it at minimal cost/free (if Google can give away Chrome and Microsoft puts hundreds of MB of files into a security update then a 20 to 50 MB application is not going to hurt).

Just like anti-virus software, the porn-block software could download updated lists of hardcore porn sites but the parents could also add their own block lists.

This type of facility has been done as add-on for Firefox (to block advertising sites) so why not lists of sites blocked because they carry porn ?

ISPs would not need to invest in analysis of the traffic or web links, but could provide the software for download and the database of known-to-hold-porn websites. Parents could then add as many extras as they want, such as Facebook, etc.

Gets away from some 'body' deciding what is acceptable and what isn't. That is guaranteed to satisfy a few % of the parents, with some thinking Nuts is OK and others thinking Ann Summers is off limits.

OP posts:

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:31

I am pleased to see the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) is not on that list of attendees. If they get involved it appears secret lists are used so who knows what they block, or why, and to whom are they accountable ? Nobody, it seems. They may be doing a public service but so are MI5, MI6, SAS, and what they do doesn't get very much public airing, either.

I suspect I am going to go down the VPN route to remote services just so any proposed blocks put in place without my consent are bypassed. $4 a month is little enough for me to not feel the effects of random organisations determining what I am or am not allowed to visit on the internet (and no, child porn is not of interest, but avoiding petty censorship is).

OP posts:

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 03/02/2011 22:27

"Is this proposal specifically about filtering pornography and only pornography, or is it about sites that aren't child-friendly in general? "

Surely that then refers back to the point that MF makes in the post above yours - how is pornopgraphy defined.

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:27

(Horrific and according to what evidence there is and most of the experts extremely damaging.)

MNHQ

JustineMumsnet · 03/02/2011 22:25

@Motherfunster

Justen, it boils down to how or who defines pornography.

And that is for now out of the range of even the most advanced computing as in certain areas, this remains subjective.

I thought it boiled down to it being unworkable? Re. defining porn - we define all sorts of things when it comes to children - we classify dvds, we have watersheds etc etc. No one's saying ban porn - we're saying there is some porn that shouldn't be stumble-able across. Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn. Quite frankly that would something. Some of the stuff that is easily accessible to young children quite by chance is horrific.

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:25

Re problems of blocking sites, see the original news item at ThinkBroadband (concerning copyright/piracy) :-

www.thinkbroadband.com/news/i/4558.html

[ PS they took on board my suggestion that long URLs like :-
www.thinkbroadband.com/news/4558-site-blocking-provisions-of-the-dea-to-be-revisited.html

could do with shortening. Hence the /i/4558.html version shown in bold.

Can your Tech friends see if there is a similar shortcut method that could be used for MN URLs please ? ]

OP posts:

Original poster

NetworkGuy · 03/02/2011 22:24

Thanks Justine. You'll see from my post at 17:24 that there is a question mark hanging over the plan to block piracy promoting websites (copyright music, films). Sounds like the technical problems will be similar for porn.

Unfortunately, if they ever suggested combining such functions it would only need some future totalitarian government to force additional website entries into such a blocking system to exclude political opponents, civil rights organisations, LGBT groups, any religious groups they chose, etc....

OP posts: