recent decision by MNHQ

That's why I think the free CD would help, would take the research out of it for you. There could also be the option for computer manufacturers to ship machines with the CD.

lessnarkypuffin, exactly - everyone just holds their hands up and says "not our problem" and parents once again have to become an expert in yet another field.

I don't know, I hear what you're saying and to a certain extent agree with it but I think you seriously underestimate the hours of research necessary for a non-techy person to get even a small handle on things. The fact that computers and phones are shipped with all the controls switched off just seems massively unhelpful to me.

Golden very true, educating the parents and children, plus giving the household individually the tools to deal with this would seem the solution.

Network is right about this being something that was an issue with the last Gov as well.

I think that the real problem is that most children are a lot more tech savvy than their parents and the companies don't help. It's very easy to feel out of your depth.

Microsoft could have prevented your problem Goldenticket with one pop up warning on installation. Phones can usually be limited quite easily. It's about presenting the information clearly and readily. You shouldn't have to wade through booklets or search for it.

Goldenticket - the problem is with how they will decide which sites to block. If they only block "dedicated" porn sites that's one thing, but it will not hide all porn. In order to hide all porn - that would be a complex procedure. Hopefully the link in my post above explains why.

Quickly added to my original post, hopefully this isn't too full of jargon and so makes sense. Here.

Have added a little to it, and will add more if people don't mind me quoting them? I figure it's easier having it stand alone rather than everyone wading through very long threads.

I think the thing is for non-techy types is the sheer number of gadgets in the house that can now access the internet. I've got 3 kids, 3 computers, an iphone, ds wants an itouch, I've seen that we'll soon be able to access the internet on our TVs etc etc. If I want to keep my kids physically safe, I shut the front door - job done. But the internet, for all its many fantastic good points, can sometimes feel like this toxic smoke that seeps in under the doors without you noticing. FWIW, we had parental control filters in place then updated our computer to Windows 7. We didn't realise that doing this would wipe out all parental control settings, so when ds was told to look at a site by a friend (which he did in the 30 minutes after school before I got in from work), our computer was completely unprotected .

I wouldn't see a scheme like this as a replacement for anything I would try and do to protect my kids online, but rather an acknowledgement of how hard it can be to do the right thing and a helping hand in the right direction, however clunky.

Does that make sense?

They're definitely off piste.

snorbs - sort of on topic - but not quite - but you may be able to help me. As I've seen you mention Windows Live Family Safety. Which is great on my laptop Windows 7

However, - problem is that the PC runs on XP.....and it doesn't appear to work on there.

Are there any other similar alternatives. Currently have a different filter on the PC (can't remember which one - had it on there ages) but would really like something for multiple computers in the same household with remote access - like Windows one

I am not flavour biased when it comes to loathing cheap attempts to gain favour by political groups. They all do it.

I loathe the presumption that we're so easy to win over. But apparently we are MNHQ!

Thank you

I am bloody angry that MN is supporting this.

It's a pathetic attempt by the coalition to get mothers on side. It's knee-jerk and there are there a shedload of technical issues with it. There isn't broad support on MN for this.

It is Mary Whitehouse style reactionary bullshit.

Quite, so all this will do is make it a pain for those who want to use the net their own way.

What isn't being thought of is, yes we could opt out of the filtering, but we couldn't opt out of the higher prices and slower access.

MrsDimitri You have to phone them, possibly using 333, but I cannot remember what exactly - do remember it being a frustratingly long process.

The problem is this solution wont help those kids either, as their parents are more likely to opt out totally anyway and still not censor what their kids see.

Unless they are going to refuse to let anyone registered as having kids in the house opt out?

I wrote this earler but my conection went down ,the ironey..

Proper filtering would require the classification of material found on the internet.

That?s a bit of a massive undertaking. It is estimated that around 30,000 police are employed in China in censoring the internet. And people still manage to get round it.

The private sector involved with internet providing could not afford to do this in this country. The only body in this country with the means to do this would be the government.

Its not so much should you or shouldn?t you filter the internet, it?s just that when it comes down to it, you cant, unless you slow everything down and turn off big chunks.

Lenin, Iv got a feeling the phone filtering is probably awful plus kids dont usealy do there homework on a mobile phone.

Kalok like the idear of the free cd.

I think mumsnet is throwing its back behind something both almost imposable in theory and political in practice.

Sorry, slight hi-jack, Kaloki how do you opt in on 3? Do you have to ring them? I have a blog account that's (self)rated NC-17 and I can't access it on my phone, but I can't see how to change it.

FWIW, I find the idea of a blanket ban discomforting, for all the reasons above. I dislike the idea of being labelled as a 'porn user' in order to access adult rated web sites. I would worry that people on that kind of list were opening themselves up to some Big Brother style additional scrutiny.

Snorbs Hang on.. back up.. it allows 4chan???? Wha???

maryz Yes, I think it will mean more people not supervising their kids (possibly from younger ages) and then blaming the ISP's because they couldn't be bothered to actually parent their kids.

Actually, I think the solution is pretty simple. Though not hugely popular as it means people taking some responsibility instead of expecting someone else to do it for them.

I also think this solution works out cheaper - free CD's of filtering software to all households (open source software for example), with maybe a centralised database of known porn sites - possibly maintained by an official body (if that makes people feel better). That then means that everyone can add in their own tweaks if need be.

• Which solves the problem of people thinking different things are inappropriate.
• It also takes the strain off the servers, which means that everyone's net connection doesn't suffer.
• It also means no extra cost to the user.
• It is also known to work, and isn't a big expensive risk with many technical flaws.