recent decision by MNHQ

Watching this with interest. Have to admit to being a bit techy-thick, and generally thought the opt in idea was a good one. I'd not considered all of the very good points raised about categorising etc.

Excellent point, Eleison.

I am too technically ignorant to assess the issues that are discussed here. I support the objectives behind the policy MNHQ is endorsing, but I don't know whether or not it is a good policy technically.

I do really strongly wish that there was some means for MNHQ to distinguish in the public mind between what it supports, as the owner/management of a talkboard, and what the talkboard supports. Failure to make that distinction amounts to lying.

Another danger of segregating the internet is that if you "opt in" (in order to be able to access grown up content which is not "adult" content in the censorship sense), you might be confronted with even more stuff.

So much porn-like material comes in the form of spam these days (not even images, but keyword-composed scenarios that I personally find disgusting), yet censoring our e-mail is an even scarier step than censoring "the internet" (that is, the stuff which is "out there" rather than the stuff being pushed into inboxes.)

I totally agree about making censorship social. For children, the censorship will be external (carrying out their own browsing publicly, interaction with their parents about general life "content"). For confident adults, censorship can be discretionary. For example, I examine the search results of Google and don't click on what I'm not sure of. Norton Antivirus also lets me know which sites are freighted with computer threats. If there is a grey Norton Antivirus symbol opposite a site I think I do need information from, I use Google's "cache" of the page, so don't ever hit the unknown server. Incidentally, this accessing sites through the cache is a technique used by people under authoritarian regimes which filter internet pages.

Sites which promote hatred, spread lies, cause harm (e.g. porn or torture sites which promote images created by harming someone) and invade privacy are a SEPARATE ISSUE.

and discretionary (once individuals have been socialised to know what level of swearing or smuttiness they can handle).

At the moment Bluecoat rates mumsnet as a safe site. But someone could report mumsnet as an adult-only site and point the reviewer to some of the more salacious threads. It might get re-rated to something less child-friendly. They might do that for malicious or genuine reasons.

After all, I don't let my DCs read mumsnet, mainly due to the fucking swearing and the graphic threads about sex. That's why I keep an eye on what my children are up to on the Internet rather than relying on dubious technical solutions to social problems.

ahhh yes - I did read the whole thread - but eyes were glazing over a bit by the time I came to Kaloki's explanation.

So basically it would be that if I wanted to opt-in so that I could put something together on traffiking and slavery in the 21st century (I did something similar recently actually) - many of the websites that contain good quality information on the issues surrounding it are, sadly, by nature some what on the graphic in descriptions (and also some images ). Also google images got most confused over "domestic slavery" and I had to take the safe search off

However, in order to do that to do a decent project for adult viewing.........I would then have to allow any "porn" material through - nice!

I wonder what the swearing on MN would do to a filter?

How the Australians have approached this

www.guardian.co.uk/world/2010/mar/29/google-yahoo-australia-internet-filter

Who is John Naughton? en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Naughton writes for the Obsever and is professor of the Public Understanding of Technology at the Open University.

Hes Director of the Wolfson College, Cambridge Press Fellowship Programme, also Academic Advisor to the Arcadia Fellowship Project at Cambridge University Library and an Advisory Board Member at the Open Knowledge Foundation.

He wrote 'A Brief History of the Future: Origins of the Internet'

sorry have posted on the other thread - I'm unclear (despite reading the entire thread) would this be a blanket "yes to porn" "no to porn" thing - or you could ring up and ask for access to certain websites??

As

" I'd be quite happy for my ISP to filter out anything dodgy for my computers which are accessed by my children. "

Mumsnet would be filtered out......(in either situation)

memex.naughtons.org/archives/2010/12/23/12629 interesting bit of writing by John Naughton on the matter.

Moral panic historically has been used as a covert way of devising the mechanics of political censorship of any new media.

As a kid in the 80s we found porn dumped in bin bags in hedges and other kids I went to school with got abused.

Take it back a few thousands years and there drawing nobs in charcoal by the light of a mammoth oil impregnated torch.

Parents must take responsibility for where there kids are on the internet, Just like when there out side in RL.

I don't let my DD have a FB account till shes 14 and I monitor where she is because she only surfs in the same room as me until she old enough to wonder around in there by her self.

They will be talking a bout a internet kill switch next.....

Worryingly, I've just been playing around with the link in my previous post to see what Bluecoat would and would not block.

4chan.org - a site that has got some appalling images and text on it - is rated as both "newsgroups/forums" and "open/mixed content". The former is the same rating as many entirely innocent forums, and the latter is the same rating as, eg, YouTube.

I think this quite clearly demonstrates the issues surrounding this idea.

It's unclear, as yet, who or how they will be defining what would be blocked and what wouldn't. They'll probably use a commercial system such as those offered by Websense or Bluecoat. Let's take an example based on Bluecoat (as used by Vodafone's under-18 content filtering system):

You're an adult woman who wants to buy a vibrator. You've heard, courtesy of many recommendations on mumsnet, of a great web site called lovehoney.co.uk. You try to access that site to buy some vibey goodness.

You find that access to lovehoney.co.uk is blocked because it's classed as adult/mature content.

You've now got a choice. You can either decide that there will be no vibration-based loving in your life unless you visit Ann Summers in person.

Or, you decide to contact your ISP and ask for access to 18+ services to be turned on. They do so. Maybe they also make a mental note that you must be some kind of sicko porn-hound. Who knows?

You can now access lovehoney.co.uk and buy your buzzy toy of joy. But now anybody accessing your Internet connection such as, eg, your children, will be able to access any and all kinds of porn on the Internet. ISP-level filtering cannot distinguish between what you as an adult want to do and what your child who happens to be using the same Internet connection should be limited to doing. It's either on or off.

If you have filtering software on your home PC rather than an ISP-level filter, you can set it up so that different users on your PC will get access to different sites. You can also add or remove sites from that list yourself. An ISP-level filter will not and cannot be that flexible. It will either be on for everyone using your Internet connection, or off.

If you want to find out what a Bluecoat-based system would likely block, put your website addresses in here. If it's rated as adult, an ISP opt-out filter will almost certainly have to block it. Bluecoat's ratings can be regarded as representative of the content filtering industry.

I'm missing something I think - I'd be quite happy for my ISP to filter out anything dodgy for my computers which are accessed by my children. Opt in sounds a great plan.