blocking internet porn...

[NetworkGuy]

Just a quick "heads up" about a couple of (long) threads which those who regularly look in on geeky_stuff may not have spotted.

First is this thread in Mumsnet Campaigns where there was a request for MN to support Minister Ed Vaizey in his proposal for ISPs to be asked to block porn, and if not on a voluntary basis, being in legislation.

The idea from the Minister being that porn sites (estimated to be about 12% of the approx 250m, ie 30 million sites) would be blocked to limit the possiibility of anyone gaining access. Those households which did want access would have to "opt in". The cost of filtering would have to be borne by the ISP, which of course, dear reader, means the customers will pick up the cost, and with endless upgrades and admin costs, that means there would be an increased fee forever, whether one wanted/ needed this filtering or not.

On 31/01/2011, MNHQ decided it would make this a Campaign issue. From the wording near the end it looks as if MN had suggested it, as there's a 'What Now' heading and then the following:

"Parental controls just aren't working ? it's time to try another approach. We're delighted that Ed Vaizey agrees - and now we'd like him to increase the pressure on the industry to act."

[NetworkGuy]

I know this is an old thread, but just recently spotted that OpenDNS offers their "FamilyShield" free for personal use. See their web page... *> www.opendns.com/home-solutions/parental-controls/

[NetworkGuy]

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.

[NetworkGuy]

MNHQ (Justine) has posted (14:12)

But clearly we have not framed our argument particularly well [understatement]. So we shall take down the page and start again...

[NetworkGuy]

"I think MNHQ need to do a lot of thinking, and come up with a plan for what they represent, how they represent, and how they present what they represent."

Adding a poll facility would be a step in the right direction, but unfortunately the questions need to be sufficiently unbiassed and open (to cater for answers not laid down by a small discussion in MNHQ offices), so one could get the silly situation of needing a discussion about the questions for the poll to determine the options that would be supported on some campaign

[NetworkGuy]

Justine's response to Eleison 08-Feb-11 12:07:51 says of TalkTalk's solution that:-

"blocking hardcore porn at source - is indeed completely feasible."

a) it is not "at source" (those websites are often abroad) but "by the ISP"

b) it is not a complete block - I am sure that using a proxy server like www.hidemyass.com or www.the-cloak.com anyone could visit porn sites despite this filtering/blocking in place.

c) even with such a block, it goes only part way - and that's what seems to have been missed. If they only block porn, what about violent web site content ? What about items which some parents would want to block, such as Facebook, at least while they have under-12s ?

The principle idea sounds good. The fact that ISP based blocking is only a partial solution makes it (to me and several others) a 'white elephant' as the family still needs some protection / filtering.

Oh, and let's not forget parents needing education and to care about what sites are being seen. The education aspect is high up the list because so many are so busy and teenagers will run rings around them (and me, for a while, if I was asked to tighten the net).


---

So what would the ISP block achieve ? Some level of "comfort" that the worst porn sites may be inaccessible, but with no guarantee those cannot be accessed via some proxy.

No more, no less, and it still leaves other sites untouched.
---

Further - some of the other bodies which went to the meeting may have rather different aims. Would MNHQ support a block on sex education sites ?

MNHQ says this is not a censorship wish, pornography itself would not be banned, just made inaccessible, yet I bet some others would wish to go further.

---

So my complaint is more about MNHQ supporting a campaign where the participants probably have very different motivations, and giving ("blind") support (in technical terms at least) to Ed Vaizey.

Many posters with IT backgrounds can point to flaws in possible solutions, but another major gap is a lack of specification as that's still flakily defined at best, for now, and if it changes over the course of months before implementation, we could end up with a super-firewall to block all sorts of websites, on the Chinese model !!

[silverfrog]

"but it does pretend to be us, in the sense that everything they do is said to be based on consensus on the talkboard."

I think this is a very interesting discussion.

MN has thrown itself in at the deep end recently across a whole range of issues.

For a lot of these issues, there has been nothign approaching "consensus", and certainly not the one pushed by MNHQ.

I think it is worrying.

Is this a by-product of MN getting bigger? or of MNHQ wanting to be seen as no "steering" the board in any one direction, even though tey do that each time the speak for the boards in a campaign?

I think MNHQ need to do a lot of thinking, and come up with a plan for what htey represent, how they represent, and how they present what they represent.

there has been a loss of support/advice on the SN boards due to similar issues (MN pushing one view, and ignoring contrary advice, deleting opposing opinion etc)

a shame. because the more niche areas of MN were always somewhere you could go and find good solid advice. and that is being eroded.

[BadgersPaws]

"but it does pretend to be us, in the sense that everything they do is said to be based on consensus on the talkboard."

In that case it's even more important that if you disagree with this campaign that you register your disapproval clearly. So please join in the boycott.

[Eleison]

"MNHQ is not us and doesn't pretend to be us"

-- but it does pretend to be us, in the sense that everything they do is said to be based on consensus on the talkboard.

[BadgersPaws]

Justine says "we can modify our ask based on discussion", I don't believe that.

There was plenty of discussion before that campaign was kicked off, and as far as I recall all the technical advice was that this was a very bad idea that would lead to more children being harmed.

But all of that was completely ignored.

And there's the assumption that the technical advice was that "There's nothing to be done", which is totally untrue. I think everyone was pushing for more education and understanding of how our children genuinely can be protected.

MNHQ just doesn't appear to be listening. Now fair enough MNHQ is not us and doesn't pretend to be us, but we enable Mumsnet by talking on here, and that's got to stop.

[NetworkGuy]

There has been an update in Site Stuff from MNHQ.

[BadgersPaws]

"UK ISP BT has announced that it plans to launch new internet safety advice in March 2011 for parents."

And that's the sort of thing that will make a genuine difference and help our children to be safer.

If they were willing to put a fraction of the amount that a firewall destined to fail would cost into education imagine how much would change.

Instead it's another pointless IT scheme that won't work and will only put money into the pockets of IT consultants while children continue to be harmed.

[NetworkGuy]

I don't think they (BT) want ISP-based blocking either, BP - they have challenged blocking provisions of the DEA, and as
Motherfunster wrote on 05-Feb-11 at 18:38

"UK ISP BT has announced that it plans to launch new internet safety advice in March 2011 for parents. The provider will also offer its FREE Family Protection (McAfee) parental-control software as part of an automatic install process for new broadband customers. A major new campaign ..."

(there's another paragraph about who will receive it and they will have a printed booklet for customers too).

[BadgersPaws]

"Some small ISPs probably run on hardly any margin at all"

And these proposals could favour the big companies by basically forcing the smaller competitors of business due to either the cost or the IT infrastructure require to support this scheme.

Call me cynical but a part of BT has got to realise that they've got the muscle to ride out the changes this scheme would introduce where as their smaller competitors would not.

[NetworkGuy]

Hopefully with BT launching their own software there will be no central blocking, or they (and some others) will fight it. Also, it may be that only the 6 "big names" will be pressured to adopt a voluntary code - the cost will be higher for them than for small ISPs but if all 6 put good technical arguments against it, maybe the Minister will not insist.

Some small ISPs probably run on hardly any margin at all (UKFSN is run by a guy whose consultancy is keeping a roof over his head, and the ISP business is effectively a not-for-profit as funds are donated to the Free Software Network - hence the FSN part of UKFSN.org).

I hope small ISPs could get an exclusion, eg on only supplying business connections, so no children would be able to have unsupervised access anyway.

[BadgersPaws]

"One person has already sent a p.m. to say she has left MN over this."

Now is not the time to fade away quietly.

Now is the time to make quite clear that despite it not our children who will put put at more risk and that despite the possibility that as an IT professional I could profit from this this is wrong and I won't be seen to support it.

[NetworkGuy]

One person has already sent a p.m. to say she has left MN over this. I tried to persuade her to stay on the grounds that it was too early (Thurs/Friday) to know what MNHQ might say at meeting today.

Great shame that on Site Stuff there was no further input from Justine after Thursday night to know whether she was even reading comments, let alone considering comments seriously.

I'm still trying to stay optimistic, but didn't really like the fact Justine said the Tech staff were "obviously" sceptical (my quotes) as if she (a) expected them to be, ie they were minded to have similar views to those expressed in MN user contributions and (b) that she could dismiss such views very easily.

[BadgersPaws]

"If you want to get noticed, try a thread in AIBU or feminism"

I was trying to get some technical support from the people who opposed this, and gave good technical reasons why, as a first step.

In the end looked at shallowly this seems like a good idea, protecting kids from porn is an admirable aim.

And when people trust MNHQ and put faith in the idea that what they're trying to do has a sound technological basis then it's easy to just be dismissed as porn loving child safety hating loons.

It's like the "Patriot Act", it's hard to argue against "Child Safety" and not come across looking shifty.

So maybe if we can build up some support from hopefully trusted techy users, who people might have seen help them or others in the past, we can begin to chip away at the trust for this proposal and reveal that it's based on technical ignorance.

But the first step is just purely and simply about me not wanting to be a part of something that will make many children substantially less safe.

[PlentyOfParsnips]

If you want to get noticed, try a thread in AIBU or feminism

[BadgersPaws]

"TBH, I think except for the people needing help, nobody would notice such a strike. The geeky topic is not exactly busy."

Possibly not.

But I simply cannot stand by and do something that I feel might help create the impression that there is technical support for what MNHQ is trying to do with it's campaign.

If enough people band together maybe it'll get noticed.

If not at least we'll know that we tried.

[BaroqueAroundTheClock]

NetworkGuy - Amazon do seel some such stuff...\link{http://www.amazon.co.uk/s/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=vibrator&x=8&y=13&tag=mumsnet&ascsubtag=mnforum-21#/ref=nb_sb_noss?url=search-alias%3Daps&field-keywords=sex+tools+women&rh=i%3Aaps%2Ck%3Asex+tools+women\for example}

not exactly an Ann Summers collection - but a few bits on there

(and no I didn't know before - I just searched now)

[PlentyOfParsnips]

TBH, I think except for the people needing help, nobody would notice such a strike. The geeky topic is not exactly busy.

[BadgersPaws]

"with Ofcom looking into the blocking idea wrt piracy related sites to answer the Culture Secretary who questioned the viability of blocking under the Digital Economy Act, in the case of porn, the Minister Ed Vaizey might have to do a fast U-turn and MNHQ may well be forced to do so, too."

That's presuming we'll see joined up thinking, and I'm not sure that we will.

The quicker MN drop this campaign the better, these things are best stalled when there is little momentum behind them.

At the very least I do think that we need to take a stand and try to do something to show that MN does not have any technical support for doing this and is, in fact, ignoring a wealth of arguments against what they are trying to do.

The idea of having a stock response is a good one, and I'll be giving it to a genuine thread that I would otherwise have answered.

So, please, before this campaign gets any bigger, if you are genuinely opposed to this then make that opposition clear, join the strike and try to make other Mumsnet users notice what is being done in their name (yes there is no direct representation, but Mumsnet only has the weight that it does because of it's users, if enough say "no, listen to the technical advice" then MN's campaign has got to collapse).

Maybe I'll look foolish over this and be the only person doing it, but at least I know I'll have done what little I could to stop this dangerous idea goign any futher.

[NetworkGuy]

I would (somewhat reluctantly) support a strike, though with Ofcom looking into the blocking idea wrt piracy related sites to answer the Culture Secretary who questioned the viability of blocking under the Digital Economy Act, in the case of porn, the Minister Ed Vaizey might have to do a fast U-turn and MNHQ may well be forced to do so, too.

I'm willing to give them 10 to 20 days to see how things develop, but after that I'd like some form of words to indicate "would have loved to help, but MNHQ doesn't seem to cope with technical information that goes against their well-meaning but sometimes unsuitable choices, and in the light of their decision, I've suspended my use of MN and unfortunately that includes answering geeky queries"

Hope my wording will be improved upon, but that's the essence of how I may respond if MNHQ continue down their current path.

[BadgersPaws]

"On 31/01/2011, MNHQ decided it would make this a Campaign issue. From the wording near the end it looks as if MN had suggested it, as there's a 'What Now' heading and then the following"

I can't believe that they've done this, after all the comments from technical people given reason after reason as to why this was impossible they've completely. They've completely ignored all of that and gone ahead with pushing for this.

I can't support Mumsnet over this, they're doing something that will put our children in more harm, won't fix the problem and falling in with a dangerous religious group.

I'm going to propose a strike from all of the technical people on here until Mumsnet backs down from this. So no more help from those that are opposed to this ridiculous plan until Mumsnet listen to sound technical advice and realise that they're asking for the impossible, and the dangerous.

Yes it means that people won't get the help that they need, but to be frank this is about trying to make our children safe and that's got to take top priority.

[BelleDameSansMerci]

Yes, that was a rather hastily typed comment reflecting my thoughts rather than accuracy. Not for the first time, I suspect.

Again, agree with your comment re those against filtering being seen as somehow being in favour of porn.