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."

[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.

[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]

"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.

[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.

[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 !!

[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]

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]

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]

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/