That bloody ISP porn filter bollocks is back again

[MurderOfGoths]

BBC News article

And because I can't be bothered to type it all out yet again, here's a load of reasons why it's a load of bollocks

Why it's wishing for a unicorn

[FlowersBlown]

Littledire, Unfortuately it is true that very many men do enjoy pornography, more so than women. If men didn't have these desires than there wouldn't be porn on the Internet so I suppose you could say I am blaming them, but really I was just making the point that in most households there will be people who don't want the filter on. Therefore it will be useless.

[RocknRollNerd]

Just the journalism about this shows the problems - half the articles are using pornography (adult, not illegal) interchangeably with 'child porn' (images of child abuse, illegal) and chucking 'adult content' in as well as a general catch all which given the articles which then talk about 'family friendly filtering' could imply that anything to do with betting, alcohol, tobacco etc could also be filtered.

It can't be done - the fact that they're being gloriously vague about what they want to filter (content, search terms, adult porn, self-harm, child abuse) shows that they haven't even worked out what they want to do on a piece of paper never mind got the technology to use it.

We don't need government by soundbite and kow-towing to the Daily Mail (and its audio counterpart the Jeremy Vine show); we need better education of parents as to how to use the tools already available to manage internet access at home; better sex and relationships education in schools and a government that knows its technological arse from its elbow.

[lljkk]

Ooh, Goody, I just read the unicorn press blog entries, and I'm even more convinced that the proposed changes are a good thing. Nothing on the unicorn website worried me in the slightest. Hooray!!

[PlentyOfPubeGardens]

What's good about the proposed changes lljkk? What do you imagine they will achieve?

[NoComet]

Am I honestly the only parent that long ago decided that their DCs have to live in the Internet world and that they may as well learn not to click on things they don't want to see.

Filters are pointless, they don't for example, stop things like a gory two headed kittens appearing on an image search, because it was a vets mag photo.

DCs who are interested in porn will seek it out and those who aren't won't.

Personally I'd rather My DDs could watch pawn than let big brother near the Internet.

[NoComet]

Porn not pawn, watching chess really is dull.

[MurderOfGoths]

lljkk It wasn't meant to worry you, but to explain the technical issues. So go on, what are the advantages to an ISP based filter as opposed to home based filter plus supervision. What can an ISP do that the others can't?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

I have a bridge that I would like to get rid of, this seems like a good place to sell it.

[MurderOfGoths]

boney Can I ride my unicorn over it?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Murder of course you can, but you will have to be quick as I think that it will be bought soon. :)

[fromparistoberlin]

I am sorry I shouted earlier BTW (OP and others). I was in a place of frustration I guess

as noted...these fuckers are clever

need to focus on something happier, Kate has had a baby boy!

[MurderOfGoths]

fromparis Don't worry about it, can understand your frustration - feel it myself.

[SideshoBob]

They've been pretty clever to put normal pornography in the same league as child abuse (which is already banned anyway) which has vastly reduced the amount of opposition. It's a VERY slippery slope the second you start censoring things that are perfectly legal. Either it'll be a pointless gesture to win brownie points or it'll be the end of the internet as we know it with lots of innocent sites getting banned, regardless of which normal porn is not a crime anyway, and its not the ISP's job to be parenting children. There's plenty of programs out there that do the same job already.

[wanderings]

DC is someone who has lived in a bubble of wealth and privilege all his life, and hence knows nothing about the world the rest of us live in, and thinks anything is possible if you know the right people. Here is yet another example to prove it. (From the Prime Minister in Love Actually: "The SAS are absolutely charming, ruthless killers, just a phone call away.")

I'm sure that in the style of "Yes Minister", the Humphreys of the civil service will do absolutely nothing (if only because they don't want to be affected!).

I'm sure it's not a coincidence that this big idea was mentioned on the royal birthday: "crackdowns" often are buried in this way.

[exoticfruits]

At least it is a start- I am all for it. You have to start somewhere.

[Tau]

It's a completely stupid idea.

I once, in the distant past, tried a filter. Couldn't look up any information on the Sex Pistols anymore... so I got rid of the filter and implemented common sense and parental supervision/teaching as protection methods instead.

There's no saying what Cameron's beloved filters will result in keeping away from us.
A few years ago I had worries about a child, and I searched extensively online for things related to signs and symptoms of sexual abuse. How much of the (some very helpful) information that I was able to access will be filtered out now, making it harder for people to find that information?

And as mentioned already, articles/web pages related to |(sexual) health and art will certainly fall victim to the filter.

And will it help? I doubt it. Abusers know how to hide their stuff - well, at least the ones who don't get caught do.

And from my personal experience again: The only time that I accidentally ended up on a very awkward porn page was when I was searching for a lego bionicle with my son. Will bionicles also be filtered?

[SoupDragon]

You have to start somewhere.

Yes. Somewhere like using your own parental controls.

[SoupDragon]

It simply means that all customers will be offered a filter.

Won't it mean that all customers will be given a filter unless they opt out? That's not quite the same.

I thought there were two separate issues though - the one about ISPs being better at stopping images/searches about child abuse and the blanket filter.

[exoticfruits]

You are assuming that all parents are responsible.

[CokeFan]

If this was going to be a filter that would block out all porn (if everyone could agree on what exactly that is) and only porn then it would be useful to protect children. Unfortunately I don't think it's achievable and I'd have to "opt in" - not because I want to watch porn but because I know it will block things that don't need to be blocked.

If every image that someone uploaded had to be tagged "porn" or "not porn" then it would be simple - that's not going to happen though is it? Who decides and who polices something tagged "not porn" when it actually is without having to manually look at every image? It's not a safety net.

The only way to block everything that you might find objectionable for children to see is to have a whitelist system - prove that your content is ok. We have this for my 4 year old.

Blocking keywords is problematic because there are so many false positives - financial advice websites trip gambling filters, names of body parts on medical sites trip obscenity filters and the Scunthorpe effect.

I know someone who has a "flesh" filter on their work internet. Basically if an image contains too many flesh tones then it gets automatically blocked and someone in their IT department has to look at it and "OK" it. I sent her a picture of my DD as a baby (fully clothed) and it tripped the filter. How much work does that create for someone to police?

If you've got unfiltered access at home and filtered at work then you've probably already experienced pages being blocked for silly reasons. It's only because you know (through your unfiltered access) that the site is innocuous that you realise that you were "missing" something. (MN, NHS website etc.). If it's all filtered then you'd just never know it was there.

[Quangle]

I'm all for it. I don't think anyone should be pumping porn into my house unless I've actively asked for it. How we let this happen in the first place is beyond me. The child abuse reasons are another issue in my mind but it's very weird to me that default = porn.

And saying that this is the parents' issue to resolve by implementing their own filters is the wrong way round. I personally don't know how to do this (though I could find out). My 73 year old mum certainly doesn't - and the children use her computer when they stay there. If this is a consumer choice issue then it should be for the people who want it to go out and get it rather than for the people who don't want it to erect barriers to stop it getting in to their homes.

It also doesn't matter particularly that technological limitations make this difficult. It's just about making sure that porn is not the default. I agree that if you want porn you should have the choice but the problem is at the moment, whether you want it or not, it's there.

This is no different to putting mags on the top shelf. They are there if you want them but you have to reach for them.

[exoticfruits]

I agree Quangle- you should have to go and get it- I don't want it. It might block a few innocent things but it it is a minor inconvenience.

[exoticfruits]

Yes, but you are actively saying that you don't want to reach it and you don't want it handed out. It makes sense for that to be the default and then people can choose to reach it and be in line when it is handed out.