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

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

Claire's tweets are still up, Guido's lawyer will write to her pointing out they're libellous. (Am familiar with the story, didn't follow links)

[niceguy2]

Well that just confirms what I already suspected. And that's our politician's are creating laws without really understanding the blindest bit about technology.

If someone doesn't understand the difference between a screenshot and a hyperlink then they clearly shouldn't be responsible for government policy on technology.

It'd be like getting a plumber to fit you a new shower and he doesn't know the difference between a tap and a spanner. You'd be worried wouldn't you?

[NotGoodNotBad]

Guess I don't think trying to block internet porn for children is an extreme measure on the part of the government, since I would be perfectly happy if all porn were blocked for everyone. Can't say I view porn as a human right or anything.

[AKissIsNotAContract]

Notgood: you are missing the point. The technology isn't there to implement this. So what if, along with blocking some porn, sites containing information about breast feeding, sex education, sexually transmitted infections were also blocked. You still don't see a problem?

[OldLadyKnowsNothing]

I have a very simple idea, and it's free to introduce. How about we ban web use by under 18's? I do realise it won't happen, but if you don't want your dc to see porn, don't give them access. There is no need for dc to have a phone that does anything more than make calls and texts, and home access should be closely monitored. By parents.

[NotGoodNotBad]

Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues - I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care.

[ravenAK]

Notgood: no-one has said the Govt. trying to reduce accessability of internet porn for innocent kiddywinks is a bad thing, y'know. We are all in favour of that.

Just that their existing proposals are about as much use as a chocolate fireguard, will waste lots of money & will actually be counter-productive as IT-illiterate parents will wrongly believe their dc to be protected & not bother taking measures that would work.

So the Govt. should go away & listen to someone who actually knows their links from their screenshots.

[ravenAK]

I'm afraid 'Not addressing the technical issues' = 'No, sorry, I really do want that unicorn. Gimme unicorn!'

[AKissIsNotAContract]

I'm not addressing the technical issues

Is that you David?

[BoneyBackJefferson]

NotGoodNotBad

"Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues"

Its not that you are missing the point, it is that you are avoiding it all together

[MurderOfGoths]

"I'm not addressing the technical issues"

We are talking about a technical solution, you can't just stick your fingers in your ears and say "lalala" every time someone mentions the technological side of it.

"I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care."

Right.. and this ISP filter wont solve that either.

[niceguy2]

Ha ha. Just out of interest I changed my settings to 'block porn' on my ISP filter. (I use TalkTalk)

Thought I'd see how long it would take to bypass it and view porn. My challenge was I wasn't allowed to install any software or do any hacking that a 10 year old child couldn't be reasonably expected to do.

It took about 10 seconds.

1. Go to translate.google.com
   
2. Change language to translate to say Dutch
   
3. Type in URL
   
4. Click on it. er...that's it.
   
   And how did I learn about this 'hack'? My 12yr old son mentioned a while back as the way they all bypass the school's filters.
   
   The only way to block that now is to block Google translate. And of course that's not the only one. We'd have to go block all language translation websites like Google's.
   
   OMG...won't somebody please think of the children!
   
   Ironically my kids haven't managed to figure a way around having a computer in the same room as me. The hovering dad filter is tougher to crack and totally free! I let my 16yr old daughter take a laptop to her room now. The younger kids. I say 'no'. Fancy that!?! Saying no instead of expecting the government to police them (badly) for me!

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Where I work there are three different filter sets at work:-

the LEA
The School
and the classroom

All three are reactive, (filtering generally has to be), due to the heat the school system has basically disappeared.

Due to the heat and the effect that it is having on the servers the classroom network filter is system is more disruptive than not using it (it constantly refreshes the connection to the pcs so that the screens flicker).

That leaves the LEA filter, any blocks that are put on it have to come from the school to the LEA and can take up to 3 weeks to be implemented.

The LEA filter is the easiest to get around because using a proxy just stops it from working.

Of course we could block them using a filter but how do you keep in front of changes that could just be http to https, or .co.uk to .com, or .it to .au?

then you have the translation issue that niceguy puts forward, if you block the word game do you also block it in other languages. remembering that in German

Game = Spiel
Games = Spiele
to play = spielen

Turkish

Game: Oyun
Games: Oyunlar
To play: Oynamak
I'm playing: Oynuyorum
He/she is playing: Oynuyor
They are playing: Oynuyorlar

You block the base word and you run the risk of blocking any related words as well.

[flatpackhamster]

NotGoodNotBad

Guess I don't think trying to block internet porn for children is an extreme measure on the part of the government, since I would be perfectly happy if all porn were blocked for everyone.

I asked you, on this thread, whether you supported filtering of adult content (sex and violence) on televisions and I am still looking forward to your reply.

Can't say I view porn as a human right or anything.

I don't think anyone ever claimed that it was, so that's a strawman argument.

Not missing the point, AKiss, as I'm not addressing the technical issues - I'm discussing the suggestion made my many posters that education of parents will solve the issue. It won't, because too many parents don't care.

You can not discuss this issue without addressing the technical issues. The technical issues are inseparable from the issue of porn filtering.

[NotGoodNotBad]

flatpack

• sex and violence on television. Yes, I'd be happy to have this filtered. More accurately, I'd say I'd be happy not to have it there in the first place (along with swearing in every other programme). So many channels, so much sex and violence. Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand, when films like Clockwork Orange were not banned at the cinema, never mind in your house, did anyone really suffer from not having instant access to this stuff?
  

• viewing porn as a human right
  

Well no-one has said this on this thread perhaps, though I've not read every post, but I've seen and heard it plenty of times elsewhere. It's not a strawman argument, as if we didn't accept the argument that people have a right to view porn/violence etc., and we did accept the argument that it can be harmful, we wouldn't have it in films and TV programmes in the first place. Internet is another matter as it is less controllable and can be produced by individuals rather than corporations. Of course, the "harm" argument is another one that proponents will argue against, and is difficult to prove either way, and we could debate till next century about exact definitions of porn and violence.

• can't discuss this without addressing the technical issues. OK, fair enough. Maybe it can't be done. It's just that I don't think the "education" that people are pushing is any kind of answer, or we wouldn't have gambling/alcoholism/drug use/obesity and many others of society's problems.

[BoneyBackJefferson]

Notgood

"Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand"

There is no "going back" to the "good old days" especially when the "good old days" weren't actually that good.

[flatpackhamster]

NotGoodNotBad

flatpack
- sex and violence on television. Yes, I'd be happy to have this filtered. More accurately, I'd say I'd be happy not to have it there in the first place (along with swearing in every other programme). So many channels, so much sex and violence. Back in the old days of channels you could count on the fingers of one hand, when films like Clockwork Orange were not banned at the cinema, never mind in your house, did anyone really suffer from not having instant access to this stuff?

Well, at least you're consistent. But I wonder if you can tell me whether or not you think that generations of sexual repression was good for people. That is, after all, what you're proposing - a return to the 1950s.

I don't particularly disagree with you about the violence, which I think is far too prevalent but I do about the sex.



- viewing porn as a human right
Well no-one has said this on this thread perhaps, though I've not read every post, but I've seen and heard it plenty of times elsewhere. It's not a strawman argument, as if we didn't accept the argument that people have a right to view porn/violence etc., and we did accept the argument that it can be harmful, we wouldn't have it in films and TV programmes in the first place.

Why wouldn't we? Since when did the government become the expert on what was best for everyone?

Much of the problem I have with your argument is that you assume that government is kind and benevolent and acts in our best interest and in my experience that really isn't the case. You're relying on the 'right' decision being made by a group of people who have self-selected through being better at backstabbing each other. They aren't selected on the basis of wisdom, intelligence or ability. And you want them to decide what people are allowed to watch on their TV and on the internet.

Internet is another matter as it is less controllable and can be produced by individuals rather than corporations. Of course, the "harm" argument is another one that proponents will argue against, and is difficult to prove either way, and we could debate till next century about exact definitions of porn and violence.

Indeed, and that is yet another of the problems of this 'porn filter' nonsense.

- can't discuss this without addressing the technical issues. OK, fair enough. Maybe it can't be done. It's just that I don't think the "education" that people are pushing is any kind of answer, or we wouldn't have gambling/alcoholism/drug use/obesity and many others of society's problems.

I like a drink. I know it's supposed to be bad for me. But I still like it. I, as a functioning, thinking rational human being have made that apparently irrational choice.

At some point you have to trust people to just get on with their lives, and stop interfering and treating them like children. If they make decisions that are bad for them - that's their bag.

[niceguy2]

@Notgoodnotbad

The fundamental issue here isn't that blocking porn is bad. Clearly it's not. The issue is that the proposed plans make no sense.

So let's say you wanted to build a dam. And I propose using a large sieve. Would you think that's a good idea or would you be arguing that it's better than nothing?

Because that's exactly what these proposals are. A sieve to hold back a flood. As I've clearly demonstrated above, you can bypass ISP filters in around 10 seconds as taught to me by a child.

[MurderOfGoths]

No one said that education was the be all and end all. All we've ever said is that it's the most useful solution, the least useless.

A combination of educating parents about

• childrens safety online
  
• using filters
  
• supervising children
  

And educating children about

• safety online
  
• sex ed
  
• relationship advice (ie. how much porn doesn't represent a healthy relationship)
  

No, it won't magically fix every thing. Of course not. But it'll do a damn sight more than an ISP filter.

Actually thinking on that, you know how many people do the whole, "hmmph so a porn filter is too hard let's just give up shall we?" discussion as a reason why we should do the porn filter? Got to wonder why they don't see that they are using the same logic by saying, "educating is too hard and takes too long, let's not bother and rely on a pretend fix instead"?

[MurderOfGoths]

So let's say you wanted to build a dam. And I propose using a large sieve. Would you think that's a good idea or would you be arguing that it's better than nothing?

Good analogy.

[niceguy2]

Not the best sentence I've constructed but the point is clear.

And to extend that analogy a little further. What if instead someone suggested that instead of building a bloody expensive sieve that you use freely available sandbags to protect your home. Something you can use as much of or as little as you feel comfortable with.

Which would you prefer?

As I read in another forum. Bear in mind that these 'child protection' proposals are being championed by someone who forgot his own child and left them behind in a pub!

[ComtesseDeFrouFrou]

Apologies, I have come to this thread late via the newsletter, but I have several objections to this proposal.

It won't work - as someone has already pointed out, what will the filter use to judge what is porn and what is not? If I want to watch a video of childbirth will that be blocked because it contains too much flesh and a shot of a vagina?

It lulls the technically illiterate into a false sense of security.

But my main objection is that I would have to tell my ISP whether or not I want to look at porn online. Why is that any of their business! What they're proposing is that users are automatically opted out of access to porn, unless they opt back in manually. Why, as an adult, should I have to tell my ISP that I want look at porn? Porn is legal. My privacy is being seriously compromised.

Obviously no-one objects to anyone trying to block images of child abuse, but that's a separate issue and not something that is best dealt with by filters.

[Green18]

If it reduces the chances of my children stumbling across something awful, then i'm right with you Mr Cameron!

[niceguy2]

. Yep, Green you can stand right next to Mr Cameron looking for the magic unicorn.

That certainly is your right.