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:
SpringchickenGoldBrass · 22/07/2011 01:16

Censorship is a Bad THing. Censorship of the Internet is always going to remaim pretty much technically impossible. That's a Good Thing.

Tee2072 · 21/07/2011 14:54

Snerk SGB.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 21/07/2011 14:45

While some have views that ISP-based filtering is still a 'solution', the point is that it's a flawed solution, for a number of reasons, not just the technical ones of how easily overcome the filters might be.

To remind parents and encourage them of their options for limiting access seems a better method, but has not been taken on board by Government, so far, insofar as they would need to make policy and (fund) the schools passing on details to parents.

OP posts:
SpringchickenGoldBrass · 20/07/2011 17:30

Has your obession with internet porn and the banning of same started hairs growing on the palms of your hands yet?

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 19/07/2011 21:11

Channel 4 has just started series 5 of the Sex Education Show, this time from Redborne School, with a piece about what teens have seen which rather shocks the parents.

Good to see the show pushed parents as needing to discuss porn and getting more aware of parental controls and moving computers out of bedrooms.

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 20/05/2011 10:50

Thanks for the link. Saw one in Geeky Stuff, but of course this was related to the issue. Will have a look at the 'In the News' one now.

OP posts:
MNHQ
RebeccaMumsnet · 20/05/2011 10:37

Hi NetworkGuy,

Justine posted on a thread about this yesterday, here it is.

Best
MNHQ

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 20/05/2011 10:28

Sorry - meant to make that a LINK to The Register piece mentioning JR (Justine :) )

OP posts:
Original poster
NetworkGuy · 19/05/2011 18:02

From The Register 19-05-2011 (small extract - should be no problem over copyright)

When it came to the issue of porn, Roberts said Mumsnet, and presumably its legion of members, was not suggesting legal porn be removed from the internet.

"Lots of people on Mumsnet are very keen on pornography," she said. Apparently late on Friday night is the best time to verify this, Roberts said.

"We're not saying we need regulation," said Roberts. Rather, she continued, parents needed to be given tools to control what's coming into their homes.

I know Justine has previously stated that MN is not in favour of censorship, concerning what can be legally viewed/bought, but I think the wording could have shown a little less "keen interest" and that statement might have been better prepared as "We have no wish to censor legitimate erotic material and on a Friday discussions may enter that area of life"...

Rather different from portraying MNet as a hotbed of porn-lovers (which I think many would dispute) - one thing to say a portion of the users, another to say "many", but perhaps I'm just veering towards the level which might be more acceptable to more of the regulars (or do so many sneakily enjoy porn and I've missed a few thousand threads about the likes and dislikes in suburbia ?)

:)

OP posts:
muckypupster · 15/02/2011 17:44

oh

Motherfunster · 15/02/2011 00:24

Pippa Smith and Miranda Suit watch a lot of porno as part of there work with safemedia.

They showed examples I think to the Westminster conference.Wonder where they got it all from.

Did they surf it at home,(Where Miranda has teenage kids) or do the image surf there hard core porn from the office.

Fly on the wall of safemedia:

"Oh my GOSH Pippa, just look at THIS, how the heck do you do that with a parking cone!"

"Oh no Miranda dear,you must look at this, she has just defecated into a cup, you MUST see this, it disgusting!"

They must wear clockwork orange type eye clamps as they are watching it perhaps...

maryz · 14/02/2011 15:38

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

maryz · 14/02/2011 15:37

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Niceguy2 · 14/02/2011 13:46

Is this woman for real?

Pippa Smith, co-chairwoman of Safer Media, the Christian group behind the campaign for anti-pornography filters to be switched on by default, said: "I am surprised that parents would be critical of the campaign because the idea is to help parents. If internet users have to opt in to view pornography parents don't have to worry about protecting their children from it?I think there has to be censorship to protect children. If you're over 18 you won't be censored [under the proposals]".

She's right in so far as there should be censorship to protect children but the point she's completely missing is WHERE that censorship should occur. What we're saying and she's avoiding is that filtering at the ISP level is wrong.

Her last point that if you are over 18 you won't be censored is twisting the truth too. If you have a parent who has removed the block, your kids are still unprotected.

Its just another pressure group using fear, uncertainty and doubt to promote their objectives.

I'm pleased MN has listened to its members and isn't too proud to change its position when needed.

BadgersPaws · 14/02/2011 10:11

":) Steven Seagal"

I'm sure I've said at one point that these people are nutters :)

But what's worse is that they're the people that Mumsnet is/was (depending on what the new campaign will be) working alongside...

Motherfunster · 13/02/2011 22:41

Smile Steven Seagal

BadgersPaws · 12/02/2011 00:45

That telegraph story has a typical example of the sort of nonsense that supporters of the filters come out with:

"If internet users have to opt in to view pornography parents don't have to worry about protecting their children from it"

That completely misses the point that no filter can be totally accurate, porn will still get through and parents will still have to worry about their child's safety.

But that does illustrate the mindset of the people that back these filters. They're utterly deluded as to what is technically possible.

Still that's from the co-chair of the group who think homosexuality is a deviation, sex education is bad, censorship is better than informed choice, the Chinese are a great example of how to censor the internet and, perhaps most worryingly, that Steven Seagal is an influential actor.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 11/02/2011 21:30

Full credit to s Kaloki, BadgersPaws, Niceguy2, and Snorbs (in no particular order) as theirs were the posts I saw when looking at the thread in Talk/mumsnet_campaigns

Mine was a critical eye when seeing the myopic politicians' fantasies about controlling the anarchy which exists within online services - just like giving 'age certification' to each web page which was proposed a while ago under Labour.

I suspect Childnet and some other organisations are similarly blinkered in their outlook, and only today I saw in clear public view a page devoted to offering users a few notes on how to avoid IWF blocking of certain web sites. (I assume those who are using such notes are actually not after child porn, but the IWF can block almost any site on a whim so it helps to know ways around such blocks!)

OP posts:
BaroqueAroundTheClock · 11/02/2011 18:28

Agree the register article though rather snotty - is a much more realstic account of events. Telegraph is just Hmm.

Yes - thank you MNHQ for listening,

and NetworkGuy, Kaloki and others who spent a long time explaining it all to those of us less technically savvy and knowledgeable.

maryz · 11/02/2011 15:16

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

catinthehat2 · 11/02/2011 12:38

Just seen the article in the Telegraph.

Good & sensible call by Justine.

tokyonambu · 11/02/2011 09:31

Here's a simple explanation of why it won't work.

Let's say that a good hallmark of unsuitable website are those that discuss anal sex. So, let's say that any site that throws up a decent number of hits when you google for

"anal sex" site:.dom.ain

is a candidate for blocking by an ISP filter. So, let's try an example.

"anal sex" site:.mumsnet.com

Well, it gets 87 unique hits. That's quite a lot, isn't it? So we'll be blocking Mumsnet/Talk, especally as those hits are strewn over a variety of forums.

Because (and here's what Justine et al don't understand) the block applies to the connection, not any one computer, any mother who wants to access Mumsnet/Talk will need the block turned off for their house. Problem, er, solved.

What about Amazon? Over a thousand hits, and many of them have salacious covers, too. Guardian? 866 hits. Telegraph? Only 136: clean living country folk versus decadent urbanites, I guess. bbc.co.uk? 198. NHS.uk? 858. And so on. So those are the websites that'll be being blocked. Indeed, if you just google for "anal sex" the top two hits are Wikipedia and netdoctor.co.uk.

So, with a simple filter, you can protect your children from all that icky bumsex stuff if you block Mumsnet, the BBC, all major newspapers, the NHS and Wikipedia from being accessed in your house. Good luck.

Niceguy2 · 10/02/2011 23:24

For anyone interested, the article is here:

The Register

Usual sarcasm from the writers but accurate as usual.

mrsgordonfreeman · 10/02/2011 21:19

NetworkGuy, you have clearly never handled a gravity gun.