recent decision by MNHQ

Yes I'm still here. I got myself a laptop lol! Now I have time to surf study, do my paperwork, email etc etc.

Life just rather busy and with the children getting older many of my main reasons for being on MN don't really exist anymore.

And the advent of Sky Atlantic.... far too much good TV

isn't giggling honest guv

how do you know what OS a phone is using

Mars!!!!

I didn't realise you were still here - I've not seen you around for ages!!

Also marking my spot as I have just read the entire thread (that has probably been added and added to whilst doing so).

The duplication of something that already exists is a nonsense. And don't you dare suggest that I am not concerned with pornography and my children's ability to access it. Of course I am concerned and as such have one family computer that is in the most public room. I use the internet parental controls that my ISP provides. I look at the history from time to time. I talk to my children etc etc.

I do not wish to have this imposed on me from the top down. My own website contains pictures of breasts. My clients give birth and breastfeed. Some of their testimonial stories include pictures of them breastfeeding their children. I have a small resource of breastfeeding pictures.

It is completely disingenuous to say that some people don't take parental responsibility and therefore it has to be done for them and how bloody patronising. There are so many things that we have laws for that are put in place because some people don't do what "all people should". These laws are still broken.

Parental responsibility is the key issue. It is there that the campaigns need to focus. Free parental controls with each device with simple instructions. Yes via download so that it is accessible for all.

I do not lend my support as a Mumsnetter to this campaign and I resent the implication that I do.

I do not wish to leave MN but I do not want my name associated with this ill-thought through campaign. As MarsLady is my internet name for everything (too lazy to think up other names) I shall change my user name here.

(now to go and have the lunch I didn't eat because I was busy reading. Thank you knowledgeable posters btw. How wonderful to see such arguments.)

NetworkGuy that sounds like a brilliant idea!

This is a very hard debate to keep up with!" Every time I make some progress through it, I click refresh, and another dozen responses come up, all worth reading. Meanwhile I am stil formulating my thoughts and responses.

However I did want to register particular approval of a few points.

1. duplication of effort. Having on/off at the ISP level means individual computers must be customised again - potentially several times - at the user level. What a waste of time and effort! Which is both an economic argument and ties neatly back into the dilemma of what to do with parents who don't/can't filter their children's viewing habits?

2. the seatbelts campaign. This comparison is either reveals a limited intellect or is simply a very disingenuous comparison. I can't help but suspect "interests" at work. Which brings me neatly to:

3. the free-riding question, discussion of which I think was prompted by that Guardian article. It is a well-known and well-rehearsed political technique, to identify a powerful constituency which you think you can pretend to represent, support it with all your might, and just coincidentally get some kickbacks for yourself. You manage to exclude the less savvy/rich but more numerous social cohort whose support got you "in". Cf the American Right and its support of strict religious mores in public (while doing some very dirty things to foreigners, the environment, the poor, etc.). Also, I know it's always a bit provocative to bring up Hitler, but can I just limit the comparison to his rise to power? There once was the National Socialist party.... which H and his ideological colleagues moved into. To put it mildly, there started to be rather a lot more emphasis on "nationality" and socialists/communist were eventually outright persecuted. Names can be fig-leaves and facades.

'Ok so what I find bizarre here from the is that folks here are so willing to discount the fact that one of the major ISPs has said that this solution - blocking hardcore porn at source - is indeed completely feasible.'

From TalkTalk's Parental Controls 'solution' FAQ:

'2) I have different-aged children in my home; can I have different settings for different ages?

'Due to the way the service works, it provides a single group of settings across any device connected to your home broadband at the time. However, you can change the settings whenever you choose, and customise the settings as you see fit for whatever you believe provides the best balance of protection for your whole family.'

So 'no' then - same settings for 5 y/o, 14 y/o, mum who likes to MN and dad who secretly uses porn.
----
'8) Can I add sites that I personally feel are inappropriate to the Block list for my household/child?

'Yes, you can add up to nine web sites to your own custom list.'

A whole nine websites? I could probably think of more than nine off the top of my head if I tried
----
'10) In contrast, can I add specific sites I feel are appropriate, as exceptions?

'Yes, you can add up to nine custom sites.'

yay, nine ...
----
'19) I've blocked a particular Parental Controls category, although I want to visit a site in the category. I've added this into the list of specific sites to allow, but I still can't view the website.

'Some websites redirect you from their main web address. For example, www.twitter.com redirects you to twitter.com. On the other hand, Facebook.com redirects you to www.facebook.com. You can either browse directly to the redirected site (e.g. twitter.com or www.facebook.com), or you can add both variations (e.g. both facebook.com and www.facebook.com) to your "Allow" list.'

good job you can have up to nine exceptions then
----
'20) I've allowed a specific website but when I go to it, I still can't see all of it - some text appears but not the whole site.

'This is because the page you have browsed to is also pulling information from another site which is still blocked by Parental Controls at the time in question. To see the full website you will have to allow access to the other blocked site. If you wish to see which sites are being used by the page in question, right click on the page you have browsed to and select "View Source". If necessary, select the Notepad to view the file. You will see a long list of text. The name of the blocked site will be listed somewhere in there. If you still wish to allow this site, copy this site name and add this into your specific website list.'

So, these parents who are not tech-savvy enough and/or don't care enough to use the perfectly good client-side parental filters are suddenly expected to go delving into source code to find out where their embedded page content is being sourced from? Or are they more likely to just switch the bloody thing off?

These are just a few of the reasons TalkTalk's Magic Button is not the solution to the problem.

Here's what I would propose (from earlier in the thread) - I think we need to give parents better education about the dangers their children may encounter online and what they can do about it. I'd like to see regular internet safety sessions for parents in all schools, focussing not only on porn but on the whole range of risks - violent material, disclosure of personal info, bullying, grooming, pro-suicide and pro-ana sites, illegal downloads, ID theft ... I'd also like to see effective, easy to use, configurable, free client-side software made widely available, perhaps installed by default on new machines and/or installed as part of internet connection.

True, Baroque.

My DC are not allowed to watch the later Harry Potter videos, as I find them too scary.

Something as "harmless" as a HP video would not be blocked but could cause my child nightmares if he/she were to watch it.

So, I am back to blocking certain online content.

"Great. Protection for children, why would we not get behind that" while not actually understanding that it may not actually be that simple."

Absolutely MMeLindt - and children don't only need protecting from hardcore porn. So a hardcore ISP block would still mean that a parent has to use software on their computer to protect their children from the other stuff. A filter that will do exactly the same thing as the parent controlled filter that they will have to install if they want to protect their children/

I do think it is sad that some of the techie posters have gone. From what I have seen MNHQ are listening, they are asking the questions that are being raised here.

If I had not read this thread, I would have thought the proposal to be a good one. Which is the basic problem, imo.

Most people do not have the techie know how to understand what this proposal means and how it would work (or not, as the case may be).

So it is easy to say, "Great. Protection for children, why would we not get behind that" while not actually understanding that it may not actually be that simple.

We want to stop hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, from being readily available on the internet. Don't you?

Of course I do. But my point is that a mandated ISP level block is simply unworkable and totally the wrong place to do it.

Let me ask you this. Given there are already tools out there which are free and can do this job already. What additional benefits do you think you can gain from an ISP level filter?

And with respect, I suspect TalkTalk have crunched some numbers and are gambling that by introducing such a filter is a good money spinner for them in terms of retaining and recruiting new customers. I doubt child protection was on the top of their reasons to do this.

I bet privately they will even admit, is that their system will be full of holes that can be easily exploited and circumvented.

In short, why is MN campaigning for something which can already be done for free and customised to suit each family rather than a top down one size fits all big brother-esque policy?