recent decision by MNHQ

[NetworkGuy]

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. )

you see - I'm worried that this is all about blokcing/banning porn - and not about actually protecting children from harmful/disturbing material.

WHY is it only porn that's being discussed if the issue is actual protecting children from stuff we don't want them to see??

Child porn is covered by the Internet Watch Foundation receiving reports of sites hosting such images. It then distributes a list of sites to block to the UK ISPs.

It doesn't work very well as evidenced by the frequent prosecutions of people in the UK who are still being found with child porn on their computers. And the IWF's job in policing child porn is still a simpler proposition than that of policing porn in general, if only for the sheer scale of the task.

"Anything and everything can be bypassed, and no-one is talking about preventing access to anything an adult wants."

I'm not sure that's true. As far as I am aware, the filtering services that are available in the UK today - such as those enforced by mobile network providers unless you prove you're over 18 - aren't just filtering porn, they're attempting to filter all non child-friendly sites. VerityTheBrave mentioned earlier that she had to prove her age and opt out of her Orange network filtering because, otherwise, she couldn't get to mumsnet.

If this proposal really is just about hardcore porn, then even the filtered connections still won't be anywhere near safe for children to access unattended and without a more specific filter on your PC. So what would we have really gained for all the expense?

If this proposal is actually more about making the Internet safe for children in general and not just about porn, then you as an adult will find that your access to adult, non-porn sites will be greatly affected.

I'm puzzled by the emphasis on children's accidental exposure to porn. Perhaps because my children are older I am way more concerned by their experimental seeking of porn and other stuff I wouldn't want them to see.

It is easy to keep young children away from porn using parental controls. Even without them (i.e. just with google safesearch)the very 'worst' accidental exposure I have had is a picture with some erect penises. The most offensive things I have seen has been as a result of knowingly following MN links to explicit stuff. And most of those have been links to what I think might not even be classified as porn by those with the power to classify on society's behalf: 'soft' images of young women presented as targets for fantasy, along the same lines as nasty pop videos and Hooters waitresses.

(The absolutely worst thing I have seen wasn't porn at all but a purported case of a lion killing a man on youtube.)

TBH accidental exposure to porn seems only a corner of the problem. I am much more concerned with deliberate porn-seeking behaviour in adolescents.

I can access half a dozen WiFi connections from my home (I don't though, I hasten to add). Probably at least one of my neighbours would remove the porn filter. FFS I would remove the porn filter!

Controls need to be applied at the home/device/user end of things. Relying on ISPs is ridiculous.

I agree that accidental exposure to porn seems to be hard to come by. Google safesearch (on the whole it would appear) does indeed filter out most of the stuff we wouldn't want our children to see on the porn front.

However, it certainly isn't anywhere like as good at filtering out other totally undesirable images that - well quite frankly I wish I hadn't stepped into DS1's mind and thought about "gruesome! (as in horrible histories) and done an image search DON'T DO IT it's really really quite horrific what shows up with the safe search on strict - I'll be frank and say I'd rather one of my children came across a picture with someone with a penis up their arse than those

The chance of my DS1 "accidentally" (or on purpose) coming across porn even with just the most basic of safety measures in place - is really quite low. the chance of my DS1 coming across other extremely undesireable images is much MUCH bigger it would appear - and really rather frightening.

Everything I've read indicated it would be an "on" or "off" setting - no picking and choosing.

So what you're basically saying is it's totally up to parents and it's unreasonable of them to expect any kind of help from Govt/ISPs/manufacturers etc

And presumably because some 13 year olds smoke and some 13 year olds can bypass filters, we just shouldn't bother with trying to regulate either?

Everything can be knocked down with a few choice examples (Uncle Harry smoking 90 a day and living until he was 105 etc) but surely it's worth trying to protect the many knowing that a few will slip through the net rather than just not bothering?

No - I'm saying that I believe "blocking porn to protect children" is a red herring.

What good is regulating porn going to be if a 13yr old can still access what seems to be an even bigger selection of disturbing/damaging images/videos of other nature?

How many 18+ DVD's have you watched that were 18 (rightly so) because of the sex content and how many because of the violence - how many of you would let your children watch "Saw"???? I know I certainly wouldn't - yet images such as those contain in "Saw" are extremely easy to find.

If a parent who is too lazy/too technophone/hasn't got time etc etc thinks that their job is done for them by keeping the "porn" filter on - which I suspect would happen. Then yes - your child may be safe at home (presuming you've also added on the PC filters to combat other undesirable material) but that doesn't mean that at their friends house (also with "porn" filter on - but no/limited filtering of other stuff because they think they're now "safe") they're not going to find stuff.

I agree maryz and I've actually changed my mind on this through reading and participating in this thread. But some posters seem to be saying that because the www is very big and fast moving and some 13 year olds are complete computer whizzes, we should just throw our collective hands up and do bugger all.

No-one is saying that at all goldenticket - we're saying that ISP blanket blocking/allowing porn isn't the answer.

Parents need educating. and it needs to be made simpler for those parents that do care (because quite frankly those parents that don't care will just have the block removed with no thought as soon as they find they can't access anyone particular website they want - hardcore porn or just unfamily friendly).

I'm fairly clued up on internet safety and the likes. And (almost) can cope with setting up and filter on an indvidual basis for my children - and I understand that even a "block" on porn wouldn't mean my children are safe.

However, a lot of parents don't know that. My BF is very new to the WWW. (she only learned how to switch a computer on 3yrs ago!). And struggles with techy things quite a lot (I often get panicked phone calls about little things . It's not that she doesn't care, or doesn't have time, or can't be bothered. She's on a steep learning curve, but the current technology for parents to use to protect what their children see it mostly quite complex.

When you're struggling to work out why you can't see the thumbnails of pictures when you're trying to insert one in powerpoint (she had the view set as details instead of thumbnails it turned out) - setting up current filtering systems is a minefield.

The answer for people like her isn't - just block it at the ISP - because as has been pointed out - we're only talking about porn for this blocking and

a) porn isn't just available on "porn" websites

b) it won't protect from the other "nasties" we want to protect our children from.

So then - parents like her are back to square one - trying to sort out software on their individual PC's which is complex, and often isn't compatible with all the OS's in the household.

Our Junior school did recently offer an "internet safety" evening (I didn't attend) - which covered various aspects of internet safety for children - including parental blocks. I know of several parents - with genuine concerns over what their children find online - who found it immensely useful.

Who has said you should do bugger all ?

My view is that the filtering/blocking must logically be at the household end of the connection, so on Mum's laptop she can use Mumsnet and if she wants to look at Ann Summers, and DC would have a more restricted set of sites, because porn and violent and any other "objectionable" site (Viz, Nuts, etc) could be blocked.

Having porn blocked at the ISP end, if that is what is decided, does not prevent DC frrom viewing 'rotten.com' and could lull many parents into no longer considering just what can be accessed by their DC.

Now, let's for a moment imagine the DC had a 200 quid netbook for their birthday. At home, the ISP connection is blocking porn (but not violent sites etc) and on a sleepover, 2 streets away, the DC finds his netbook can connect to an uncensored, unencrypted wi-fi connection (even though the household's internet link is also filtered like at home). So porn can be viewed, images downloaded, there's a bit of a laugh (or embarrassment) and neither set of parents is any the wiser. What has ISP filtering achieved in this case? Given the chance of "forbidden fruit" the DC may well hunt for it.

If the netbook had some software on it, then whether it is at home or at school or in a cafe in town, the blocks stay the same, and logging of what has been accessed [if that is included] also takes place.

Personally I feel any DC where logging of what they do is in place should be told that is the case, but that's only because I feel they need to know how they are "under scrutiny" 24x7.

OK, so I agree with you now re the ISP blocking but I don't see why the onus cannot be put on the manufacturers to ship their products with protection already installed (and one of the first screens you see could be "customise your protection"). That way, the parent will still need to be aware and amend as needed but the default protection is on (and this must be possible otherwise how does K9/NetNanny do it?)

I brought up the smoking analogy because a retailer discovered selling cigs to an underage child will be prosecuted - surely if manufacturers were threatened with similar for selling unprotected hardware, we'd see a change pretty quickly?

yes - goldticket - that idea has I believe already been voiced above (or similar).

Still doesn't help the millions of households who already have equipment, - so better education is needed.

The other problem is that not everyone buys their hardware from the UK........we can't legislate to prosecute a manufacturer in Holland selling a netbook to someone in the UK that is unprotected.

You also want the protection on your new hardware to be comptaible with your other (old) hardware - which is a major issue for many too.