recent decision by MNHQ

Have only just found my way here via the Register article as I don't tend to read site-stuff very often.

Fully support what NetworkGuy and all the others have been saying and thank goodness that the campaign seems to be on hold...for the time being. It worries me that MN went into this based on what one ISP (who are in deep financial trouble and undoubtedly saw it more as a publicity tool than anything else) was saying and flying in the face of other technical opinion.

Just the simple fact that people think they can police the internet in this way shows how little understanding there really is of how it works. Experience from other countries (the Great Aussie Firewall fiasco) and the IWF etc should show this is not the way forward. Throw your weight behind better education for parents, better awareness for children etc but not behind this kind of crap which is really nothing more than a way for extremist groups to worm their way into the mainstream and politicians to win votes using the good old 'won't someone think of the children' line.

Alternatively if you really think you're this powerful how about campaigns for mandatory chocolate fireguards, lessons for all in herding cats and juggling jelly etc.

The story found its way onto The Register this morning.

Just for the record, the IWF list is trivially easy to bypass.

Network Guy, that's a crusty old urban myth about radar cooking birds. If only, I could have dined off microwaved seagull during my last Costa cruise.

Eek.

It is all so frightening.

Can I suggest that the best protection might be throwing salt over our shoulders, or staring at the computer whilst performing an aggressive haka? All this is bringing out the terrified primitive in me.

Oh god NetworkGuy, something like that sounds very useful. I would love to customis my Belkin router to alow wiFi access only at certain times, or to categorise users. Would save the pitched battle around DS1's lapdop/PS3. He probably wouldn't even work out what had happened.

absolutely BadgerPaws - I attempted to write a post similar to yours earlier this morning, but ran upstairs to be sick in the middle of it so gave up

Basically I was looking at their 2009 report \link{http://www.iwf.org.uk/accountability/annual-reports/2009-annual-report\here} which shows the sort of numbers of sites they dealt with it, and the issues they face in finding the stuff and/or having it removed.

Plus their mission

"To work in partnership with internet service providers, telecommunication companies, mobile operators, software providers, the police, Government and the public to minimise the availability of online criminal content, particularly child sexual abuse images."

Shows that

a) they're dealing with criminal content, as objectional as hardcore porn, or photos of mutiliated bodies may be - it's not actually illegl.

b) They rely on a huge number of people to be able to do their job - and as BadgerPaws has said - not without mistakes......and they are dealing with a much smaller number of sites

JustineMumsnet
"Right now there's an organisation called the Internet Watch Foundation which sifts through everything on the net (not a jolly job) and slaps a label on a lot of very horrible illegal stuff which the ISPs then filter out."

And that a crucial misunderstanding of how the IWF operate that perhaps illustrates why you seem to believe in filtering.

The IWF rely mainly on people reporting bad sites and then they block them. They don't "sift" the whole internet and they're working with a very clearly defined definition of what they're trying to block.

But even then they make big mistakes. A while ago they managed to block the entire Wikipedia web site because of the image of one album cover.

And a number of ISPs refuse to operate the IWF black list simply because of their concerns over how accountable they are and the errors that they make.

And all of those issues are for one small group dealing with a comparatively rare and well defined category based upon public reports.

Imagine the issues with a huge group, dealing with a staggeringly common yet legally ill defined category based upon their own automated discoveries.

Well actually you don't have to imagine it, go and research Australia's experiments.

Or look at China, who the people who seem to have inspired Clare Perry MP hold up as an example of how to censor the internet, who despite unquestionable commitment and huge resources still can't manage automatic filters and simply block entire web sites that "might" have disagreeable content on some pages.

"We certainly don't want to, nor would, back anything when a significant group of Mumsnetters object to us backing it."

Well with this campaign that's exactly what you've done. So please let your reconsiderations lead to you dropping the idea of ISP level filtering and instead push for education of parents.

Actually I agree with MmeLindt. I'm glad MN are having a rethink about this.

The point Justine made about "some who are more expert than we are have told us it's possible and some others more expert than us, who have posted here, have said it's not."

I think its important to note that the people who say that "its possible" are proposing a solution which is so easy to circumvent that its practically useless. But they have a vested interest and have calculated that they can make money this way and using technical ignorance and powerful "child protection" mantra to make it happen. Just in the same way that a salesman would sell you a used car highlighting all the good bits without mentioning that actually the engine will break in about 2 days.

Those who say it cannot. Well we have nothing to gain from it really. Worst case is we either have to call up our ISP and unblock our porn or just use a simply bypass.

I think the TV watershed is an ideal way to demonstrate the flaws in this plan.

If the proposal is only to block porn, then that's analogous to saying that Shaving Ryan's Privates wouldn't be on TV before 9pm but your child might turn over from CBBC to find Pulp Fiction on at 4pm.

Or, if the proposal is to block all non-child friendly sites, then it would be like having a non-stop watershed until you get fed up of not being able to watch How To Look Good Naked or Charlie Brooker, so you turn the filter off and then it's Debbie Does Dallas and Aliens Versus Predator on TV all day every day.

Actually, that gives me a (possibly silly) thought. How about if they did an option where you have the full child-friendly filter during the day (so no porn, no gore, no swearing) but then the filter automatically turned off after 9pm? And you could still have the opt-out facility for those who don't want any filtering at any time.

mrsgordonfreeman
I am actually quite happy with how MN are handling this. They have taken on board the comments on this thread, they have taken our misgivings to the panel set up to debate this issue. They have taken down the initial campaign page and are re-thinking it.

They are caught between those pushing for this and those against it, and will have to find their way through all the technical advice and details.

Thanks for the apology/rethink Justine.

Justine, if you want to put the weight of Mumsnet behind a campaign, it should be one to encourage parents to get technically literate enough to control or monitor what their children see on the internet.

If a 7 year old can operate a computer, that 7 year old's mother or father should be able to manage to install a web filter and a whitelist (for very young or vulnerable children).

It is really, really not difficult. I feel like tearing my hair out that you think full censorship is the way to deal with this!

The TV watershed is irrelevant and bordering on obsolete these days, Justine. And yes, it is highly paternalistic and I do object because I don't live in the 1950s.

Would I use the PIN on my sky box to stop my daughter watching dodgy films? Yep.

And, Baroque, I'm afraid I reached that conclusion by reading the thread.