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:
Niceguy2 · 08/02/2011 11:18

"get the outcome we all want."

What is the outcome you want though?

Campaign against pornography? Or child protection?

Or as I am suspecting....campaign against pornography using child protection as the excuse?

PlentyOfParsnips · 08/02/2011 11:15

Trouble is, Justine, reading that campaign page, it really sounds like MN has decided that Ed Vaizy's proposals are the way to go ...

'We're backing his call, and we'll be pressing him to ensure that ISPs comply as soon as possible.'

'We're delighted that Ed Vaizey agrees - and now we'd like him to increase the pressure on the industry to act.'

I'd feel a lot less uneasy if it was rewritten to reflect the more cautious stance you are taking in this thread. 'Be careful what you wish for ...' and all that.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 08/02/2011 10:59

Following on from Snorbs' post:

My prediction is that there will be complete chaos.

As a parallel, BT manages the telephone directory database and provides access to all firms on an equal basis (and that includes the directory enquiry portion of BT - the database updating is kept separate).

The database team provides filtered data to other companies, based on some criteria so if "ex directory" details "get out" there is a possibility that such data is no longer provided to a specific 118xyz business.

In the case of filtering out adult web sites, as per the TalkTalk method, using some database of web addresses, one has to wonder if that will be shared with other ISPs or whether each will have to trawl themselves, or use the same or other companies to trawl for adult sites.

What we could end up with is either

a) if they do not share results, each ISP attempts to block all adult content but achieves (say) 95% which is different to the next ISP, or

b) if they share results, they all block around 95% of sites, but feel they are blocking more.

Either way, using a proxy server overseas could provide a free or cheap way to bypass any filtering the ISP puts in place. Remember, many businesses offer/ require employees to connect using an encrypted connection. Using some of these proxy services will appear in almost all ways to be identical to a connection to an employee's company network. That means you cannot simply block encrypted connections, in case it is someone working from home. You cannot decrypt their data as the main idea with encryption is to make that hard, but even if it was easy, monitoring the content of such a data stream could amount to a "wire tap" and be illegal.

So we are back to that "cat and mouse" game, where some under 18 could make a connection to an IP address and the ISP would have no way to know whether this was being used for accessing a web site usually blocked on "adult content" grounds, or something quite innocent, like a connection to their office server to pull a document to work on.

OP posts:
LeninGrad · 08/02/2011 10:59

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 10:54

@PlentyOfParsnips

'The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.'

Then why are you backing Ed Vaizey's call? ...

'We're backing his call for internet service providers to filter adult content by default'

Because we think it is an effective way to focus the mind and get the outcome we all want. But as said, we are more than happy to modify the ask based on feasibility. This is the advantage of being a discussion site - we can modify our ask based on discussion. I don't care if we end up saying, OK based on the submissions of all the ISPs it seems there's a better way of achieving this - as we've always said we are not the experts here. The point is to try to achieve the outcome.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 08/02/2011 10:53

As Baroque says

So - either this campaign is about "porn" - or it's about protecting children.

If it is the former, as Claire Perry MP was asking for, and has been in the headlines of the articles published about this on news discussions and the campaigns overview page says "Default online porn filters" while the individual campaign page is titled "Mumsnet and default pornography filters"

Pornography is only a portion of the problem. Switching it off may be described as 'easy' though technically I have many doubts it will be blocked.

Protecting the young is on a different scale, and these "one size fits all" 'solutions' are still poor.

Filtering needs to be done closer to home. If that means ISPs have to replace the wireless router so the replacement has built in filtering, to protect against the "internet ready TV" being used for viewing sites with porn or violent content, so be it.

Only when there is a per household level of filtering can the tailoring be done to meet the needs of individual families. What is proposed so far blocks only porn. Should Facebook be available to all in a household ? What about 'rotten.com' (don't look) ?

Unfortunately the more the 'filtering' moves from purely pornographic sites to others with 'adult content' the closer we get to a situation where an authoritarian regime could add whichever sites it deemed necessary (eg opposition parties, freedom of speech campaign sites, international news).

Yes, that is very speculative, and deliberately chilling, because filtering porn is not really enough, and central filtering which decides on which sites contain "adult content" could be easily adapted to lose all freedom.

An extreme political party getting into control could be handed on a plate the easiest way of blocking all sites (change the filter function from blacklist to whitelist and only their authorised sources of information would be visible with no workaround for proxies or by IP address, and no opt-out of filtering).

OP posts:
BaroqueAroundTheClock · 08/02/2011 10:30

hsha NetworkGuy I read that last post of yours nodding my head all the way until your last bit - the quote from someone else - and then my brain fried Grin

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 08/02/2011 10:23

Back on that 'bypass the filtering' idea...

Some of the services I have seen offer multiple IP addresses with new ones being added every month or two.

I doubt there would be much cost involved in setting one of these services up (eg free 'open source' solution or low cost software) and if one had 100 customers paying 1 pound a month, while costs total 25 pounds, you can see that it would be easy to make 75 quid a month from 25 pounds outlay.

Hit 1000 customers and you make 750/month, hit 10,000 and you make 7,500 pounds a month... and all costing end users just 25p a week, while making a profit of 75 pounds per 100 users.

Billing is automated, even if some didn't pay you could afford to allow them access for up to 3 months before going through the 'non payer list' and killing their ID off the server.

How many men do you think would be willing to spend more than a pound a month to 'bypass the ISP filtering' so they can look at any site they wish ? I'm thinking a few million.

It could be a strong temptation to set up some servers for this, and once cash is rolling in, you would rent (or buy) whole servers and not be under another hosting firm's rules at all.

Most guys would find out from a friend, rather than any advertising which would be equally visible to partners and authorities, so there would be easy profits. Anyone fancy living in the Caribbean for the rest of their days, while the ISPs try to block some series of IP addresses ?

On a technical issue, IP addresses are likely to need to change in the next 5 years.

Here's a note from someone with far more knowledge than myself on the subject:

"Ipv6 is the next in the advancement of IP?s. Compared to Ipv4 which allows for only 4,294,967,296 unique addresses, Ipv6 uses a 128-bit system will hold 340-undecillion (34, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) addresses. This number is so vast that there are more unique IP addresses than stars in the universe, as we know it."

OP posts:
BaroqueAroundTheClock · 08/02/2011 10:22

"If she has an 8yo DD and does not have safe search enabled then she it is her fault, not the ISP or the governments.
"

TBH MMeLindt, having had a good google myself both last night, and again this morning the safe search is irrelevant here anyhow. With it switched off, and no parental controls. I was able to find more than enough information and pictures about the moon without coming across a single porn image (aside from the woman on rug I linked above).

Of course if they'd accidentally typed in "mooning" instead the results would be somewhat different Wink - although naked bums not the worst thing in the world (was in Much Ado About nothing - the movie that started with lots and lots of naked bottoms???) and although I'm sure if I scrolled further down I'd find more questionable ones - if the parent in the article was looking for "moon" it would have been obvious without looking any further they'd mis-typed

MmeLindt · 08/02/2011 10:15

Another thing that I have just thought of.

Presuming that this went through and we lived in UK. Hypothetical situation:

MmeLindt uses the computer, safe in the knowledge that there are no nasties able to pop up unexpectedly.

LindtEnfants use the computer, safe from harm

MmeLindt is less strict about whether she can see the DC, as the government has made it safe. She can relax and MN with a cup of coffee

MonsieurLindt is not happy because he cannot look at porn. He is not particularly techy so when he mentions it to a friend, friend says, "you just have to phone your ISP and tell them to unblock it".

So the block is taken off. And the children are more exposed to nasty porn that before.

You are also going to see a lot of threads along the lines of "AIBU to be furious that he has taken the porn block off the internet?".

BaroqueAroundTheClock · 08/02/2011 10:13

It's this emphasis on hardcore porn that worries me. This is about protecting children from images and sites that are damaging to them yes???

This whole "campaign" seems to be focussing solely on porn.

Do you want your children to see a photograph of a decapitated body, and then another of the head??

Yes, I'm going back to my "gruesome" example again. I have 3 boys, 2 of them are mad on Horrible Histories - it's very popular and they publish "Gruesome Guides" - so not infeasible that a child would search for the term.

What I described above is show - in full colour on a website, no not rotten, or 4chan as previously mentioned in this thread.......but on an African News webpage.

AND the google safe search set to strict throws those 2 images up in the first 3 results on the images page.

They are extremely disturbing images. Which I doubt many adults want to see, let alone let their children see.

So - either this campaign is about "porn" - or it's about protecting children.

The issues with a "switch on/switch off" system that covers all adult material has already been discussed. But if it's a general "protecting children from harmful material" then they will apply.

Original poster
NetworkGuy · 08/02/2011 10:08

Just a brief note to point out that in the thread in Campaigns about "blocking porn at source" (well, by the ISP at least), one poster (Niceguy2) suggested readers try a search for "how to bypass school filters"

Go on, try it. I suspect exactly the same will be done with any ISP block that might be put in place, it's really so easy it is frightening. Even if there are blocks put in place to stop attempts to link to these proxy services, it won't stop use of public libraries (OK, moot point if your local library is closed) to search for alternatives.

There will be some which just get used via an IP address. Yes, that can be blocked too, but it will be a game of "cat and mouse" to find them all. Anyone unscrupulous could rent a server and sell access.

On the last part of that article where ISPs "could even get double subscriptions" and suggesting a secret second connection... however you would either need a second phone line (costly and difficult to justify) or have filtering under user (parent) control.

I know of one service which had a firewall under user control (Metronet offered it before it was bought by PlusNet) so if Dad could disable the block via an ISP menu, odds are that he will forget to re-enable it one day anyway!

OP posts:
MmeLindt · 08/02/2011 10:03

That Sunday Times article is bollocks. Even I as a not particularly geeked up person can see that.

I do not have any kind of child safe program on my computer and have never, in the 10 years of owning a home PC, accidentally clicked onto a porn website. Never.

If she has an 8yo DD and does not have safe search enabled then she it is her fault, not the ISP or the governments.

I have a separate account for the DC with stricter controls.

LeninGrad · 08/02/2011 10:00

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

Eleison · 08/02/2011 09:58

I suppose we are even more exasperating than Playmobile assembly.

PlentyOfParsnips · 08/02/2011 09:57

'The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.'

Then why are you backing Ed Vaizey's call? ...

'We're backing his call for internet service providers to filter adult content by default'

LeninGrad · 08/02/2011 09:55

This reply has been deleted

Message withdrawn at poster's request.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:53

@Eleison

And lol at being 'merely a plaything'. I think it is the talkboard that is becoming a plaything.

If so, I've had better ones.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:49

@Eleison

Of course there is a "broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry"

But there isn't a broad consensus about a mandated "default to off" which is the policy you say that MN is backing.

You might as well say that Cameron is simply enacting "a broad consensus that the economy should be on a sound footing"

Don't you worry about having what seems like a significant amount of influence without any real means of accurately reflecting the opinions on the board that is the pretext for your influence? There is no consensus except of the very very broadest sort.

Well, we're only backing it if it's feasible obviously, as said. At least one ISP seems to think it might be but folks have raised valid arguments against here which we reflected yesterday - as Katie said the ISPs have gone away to think on. We are absolutely prepared to modify "the ask" based on their response. But the fact is Mumsnet is in a good position to ask the question - why not block it at source? It's very easy to start from the premise that "There's nothing to be done". What matters here is the outcome and raising the question helps focus everyone's mind on how best to achieve it, we believe.

Our general view with campaigns is that we can do a good job of raising issues and starting a discussion that are good outcomes in themselves - as with Let girls be girls. I disagree that a broad consensus isn't worth reflecting. The issue of widely available hardcore porn is really worth reflecting if it means it's more likely that something gets done, isn't it?

Eleison · 08/02/2011 09:46

And lol at being 'merely a plaything'. I think it is the talkboard that is becoming a plaything.

PlentyOfParsnips · 08/02/2011 09:42

The Sunday Times article is a load of bum gravy.

PlentyOfParsnips · 08/02/2011 09:41

'Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution'

This is the problem - 'Give us a button to make it all go away'

There is a common belief amongst non-techy types that if you want a computer to do something, you just put in a Magic Button and it Does What You Want. Sadly, it doesn't work like that. There are sound technical reasons why ISP level filtering is a deeply flawed idea. kaloki has done a brilliant job of explaining these on her blog. What a shame she's left over this Sad.

In this case, especially, it's understandable that people want a Magic Button. It's not nice to have to think about what's out there and the discussion, which must be had, about where to draw the line, what's OK and what's not and, crucially, how to define it, is not a comfortable one.

I think we need to get over our squeamishness and 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.

The Magic Button solution will not work and when it doesn't, people will just switch it off. It will be as useful as a smoke alarm with no batteries.

Eleison · 08/02/2011 09:22

Of course there is a "broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry"

But there isn't a broad consensus about a mandated "default to off" which is the policy you say that MN is backing.

You might as well say that Cameron is simply enacting "a broad consensus that the economy should be on a sound footing"

Don't you worry about having what seems like a significant amount of influence without any real means of accurately reflecting the opinions on the board that is the pretext for your influence? There is no consensus except of the very very broadest sort.

MNHQ
JustineMumsnet · 08/02/2011 09:15

@Eleison

Justine, are you prepared to think about being more careful about distinguishing between your own views/actions as MN's owners and the views/actions of your talkboard? When you say "We're backing his call" in your copy re the default filter, "we" will clearly be taken to mean Mumsnet, and in the public mind that means the talkboard. You need a term (like the use of the term 'MNHQ' within MN threads) to distinguish between what your company does and what the talkboard has 'concluded'.

Otherwise you are at risk of advanced Thatcher Syndrome -- "We are now a grandmother"

We refer you to one's earlier point "Switching the default to off is an idea that has been supported on MN boards when it's been discussed in the passed. The objections voiced here are about the feasibility/practicality of achieving the desired aim, rather than the aim itself. "

This is not about my views - tis about the views that have been expressed here (though not so much on this thread admittedly). As you know, my personal views are irrelevant - I am merely a plaything...

The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.

I see our role as one of keeping the pressure on the relevant authorities to make sure the issue is addressed in the best way possible and not swept under the carpet - accurately reflecting (I hope) the broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry.

Niceguy2 · 08/02/2011 09:14

Ok, let me try to take some of the points in the above post in turn:

...but Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution, and that, as a comparison, seat belts were only used, when there was a law change.

That is perhaps the worst analogy I have ever heard. To compare a seatbelt with the Internet. A better analogy would be to pass a law requiring BT to filter out anyone using the word "bomb" and "terrorist" or any "objectionable" words.

But these solutions are fiddly, and I don?t know about you, but my kids are a damn sight more adept with the inner workings of our family computer than I am. Most teenagers would have the skills to disable or go around such blocks.

Really? So downloading a program, clicking on Next half a dozen times and setting a password is "fiddly"? If you can't do that then I suggest you are either incredibly lazy or are too stupid to own a computer.

And your answer to the fact your kids are more adept than you are on the computer at circumventing blocks is to erm....block? Wouldn't a sensible solution be to watch them or at least sit in the same room? That's what I do. The kids surf in the same room as me and that's despite me having a filter. It's just common sense.

TalkTalk's optin service would be free".

Firstly I have to say I support an opt-in service. If people want a leaky half-baked solution to lull themselves into a false sense of security, go to TalkTalk. No problems. What I don't support is state mandated blocking. Secondly nothing is truly free. The costs of running their system is simply hidden inside their monthly prices.

87% of men admit to looking at porn on the net

So assuming us "men" want to carry on looking at porn, we'd call up our ISP, get the block removed and bingo.....we're back at square one. But assuming I'm a sensible parent who wants to protect my children online, what choice would I therefore have? That's right.....I'd install a filter on my own PC!

Swipe left for the next trending thread