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. )

Article from yesterday's Sunday Times by Eleanor Mills whcih might be of interest - copied as can't link (paywall):

The other day my friend Jenny was helping her daughter with her homework. The eight-year-old was doing a school project about the moon, so they were clicking around the internet trying to find some images to download. Striking lunar gold, they tried to enlarge some pictures on the screen but, with one wrong click, suddenly a series of incredibly graphic group sex scenes filled the screen. My friend, who is 41 and has knocked around a bit, was shocked; she?d never seen anything like it. Frantically, she grabbed the mouse and tried to get rid of them.

But her daughter had already got a serious eyeful of the kind of adult content that would make even the most worldly of us blush. Jenny tried to explain it away. Rather resourcefully, I thought, she said it was just ?grown-up naked wrestling? and told her daughter to just forget it. Unfortunately that hasn?t happened. The little girl is obsessed. Every day since then she has asked her mother what was happening, why people do that to each other. Despite Jenny?s ingenuity, there is no way she can turn back the clock. My friend is distraught at this sudden loss of innocence and knows nothing can erase those images from her daughter?s brain.

Jenny?s experience is far from an isolated incident. It is ridiculously easy to access porn on the internet; these days you don?t even have to get out a credit card ? the sex equivalent of YouTube, RedTube, offers any possible flavour of sexual congress in moving Technicolor, free of charge and just a click away.

Now don?t get me wrong. I?m not approaching this as a latter-day Mary Whitehouse ? what adults want to watch in the privacy of their bedrooms is entirely up to them. No, my particular beef with internet porn is the ubiquity and the way that material that until recently required a trip to a sex shop is now piped into all of our homes.

I don?t think it?s right that a child should stumble upon XXX-rated images while researching the moon. I?m sick of worrying every time my daughter logs on to look up the Romans for her history homework that she?s going to get an eyeful of a pornified toga party. And the convergence of internet and television means such worries won?t be confined to the home computer: we will soon all run the risk of XXX pop-ups on our sitting-room tellys. This is a growing concern. A poll by YouGov last week found that 83% of British adults thought it was damaging to children to see pornographic content on the internet.

So what?s to be done? We can?t just ban our kids from going online; the internet is a fantastic resource and is now completely interwoven into all our lives. Sonia Livingstone, professor of media and communications at the London School of Economics and author of Kids Online, found that 93% of children aged 9-16 in Britain are online at least once a week, 60% go online every day and 49% do so on an unsupervised computer in their rooms. Parents are amazingly ignorant of what their kids are up to; a third of 10-year-olds have viewed pornography on the internet but only 8% of their parents knew that.

Until now, the only way to try and stop children accessing porn was to install a filter. But all that is set to change Adolescent culture is awash with porn ? teenagers are increasingly adopting porn-bald privates, as the journalist Rachel Johnson described in an article for Vogue last week; pubescent girls pose provocatively on Facebook; and, perhaps more worryingly, the brutality of much of the material on the web is giving many boys a ?rape-like? view of what sex is, according to a study by the respected Witherspoon Institute think tank.

Until now, the only way to try to stop children accessing such content ? either intentionally or innocently ? was to install a filter on your home computer?s search engine, such as Google SafeSearch (which bans access to certain sites) or to download software such as Net Nanny, which does something similar.

But these solutions are fiddly, and I don?t know about you, but my kids are a damn sight more adept with the inner workings of our family computer than I am. Most teenagers would have the skills to disable or go around such blocks.

So is there a way to turn off the porn tap at source? Claire Perry, an MP who is the mother of two young girls, has been campaigning to make internet service providers (ISPs) do just that. For a long time the ISPs have said this was impossible, pleading technical problems and an unwillingness to start censoring customer content. But that won?t wash. I can?t help feeling that the real reason for their reluctance to take action is that they are worried it will be bad for business; after all, 87% of men admit to looking at porn on the net and one in four clicks is thought to be sex-related.

But all that is set to change. Tomorrow the ISPs will hold a round-table meeting with ministers, Perry, the NSPCC, Mumsnet and sundry others to discuss how they might stop porn being beamed into our homes. The good news is that one ISP (interestingly the only one run by a woman) has broken ranks. TalkTalk, headed by Dido Harding and a board of directors that is 50% female, is to launch a service that would allow households to opt out of any porn being delivered to their home computer network.

The service would be free. Customers will be able to have all adult content removed from the broadband feed that comes to the house. The beauty of this is that it means all devices that work on the home broadband ? televisions, games consoles, laptops ? would be covered.

It sounds amazing, but technically it is possible. TalkTalk is working with companies that already trawl through the internet and block or remove any sites that show child abuse; a similar technique would work to block other adult-only content. This is not censorship; if you want porn, you can have it. It would mean peace of mind for parents: no more XXX surprises or boys trawling through every conceivable sexual fetish before they?ve even had their first kiss.

So will people choose the service? YouGov found that 58% would sign up for such a porn opt-out, while 26% said they wouldn?t. That is quite telling. Let?s not forget how popular porn is. But even men who do indulge in a little virtual titillation still don?t want to expose their children to it. This might be excellent business for the ISPs. They could even get double subscriptions: clean family broadband for the household and a secret little adult connection for the adults who want it. Everyone wins.

Thanks for feedback. Hope you've started to feel better, Justine.

I am a bit surprised at the internet-ready TVs at 25% in USA, but then again, cable is more widely used there [ thus giving higher speed internet connection and making streaming of videos more easy than much of UK - even Spotify cannot offer the full quality audio tracks as they know we in the UK would have speed problems when attempting to stream just music ] and terrestrial TV sigs (the ones I've seen at least) seemed pretty poor in cities).

It is quite a different situation with some areas still not getting DSL service or for a person to be just too far from the exchange (the case for a friend in Northridge, close to Los Angeles, so he had to go with RoadRunner cable until he moved home).

I will re-read the MNHQ posts tomorrow - was up at 04:00 this morning.

Katie, thanks for the update.

I think the distinction between "porn sites" and "adult sites" is the critical issue and one that needs clarification.

Here's my prediction: this will become a moral campaign to filter all non child-friendly Internet content under the banner of it being about protecting children from porn. At which point it would remain to be seen how many of your favourite sites are regarded as "safe".

Jennys Mum (RE: times article)didn't have filters on the famly PC then, or did they, and it got through the filters anyway?

This is cock and you know it.

You researched the trial in Australia right?

I despair.

Your cutting your own throats.Have you noticed the swearing round hear?

Australian satire on the attempt to block

Over and out.

Aaagh, so I had to come back to see if there was an update didn't I? I'm de-registering after this post and blocking myself from here (with computer based filtering!!)

That article is a joke.

• With computer end filters, that wouldn't have happened.

"So what?s to be done?"

Oh I don't know, maybe try supervising kids? Stopping really young kids from having computers in their bedrooms? Bothering to learn about filters? Or pushing for easier filtering software?

As for TalkTalk? They can't even block spam email! They are also struggling with losing users since their Tiscali takeover (worse than Tiscali, now that's an achievement)

Also, if you are going to link to an article that is pro this, maybe you might want to try finding one that explains how it is technically possible, rather than relying on emotional hand wringing. Except there aren't any, are there?

I can't even find a Talk Talk explanation. Just one line in a Guardian article about how other ISP's need leaning on. I'll take them seriously when they starting saying something solid instead of acting like a school child whining "miss, miss, the other ISP's wont play!"

To all the other geeks on here, hi, I'm sorry I can't stay and fight. Got too much other shit to deal with right now :( and this is one more thing I just cannot waste my energy on. I'm easy enough to find online though if any of you want to stay in touch.

KM

I don't believe that article for one minute.

What the hell search terms were they putting in to find sex sites with looking for pictures of the moon

As even with safe search turned off (no parental controls on this computer - so just relying on the google safe search)

It was moons all the way until about page 6 when I found \link{http://www.hollywood-celebrity-pictures.com/Soleil-Moon-Frye-6-Picture.htm\this) (which is photo of a women in a bikini, lying on a furry rug, trying to look sexy I guess). Ok not great - DS1 would probably have a little stare at it in that "mmm girls are getting interesting" type way - but as a one off image don't think it'd scar him for life.

Page 7 then has one more similar type picture.

So that story doesn't quite sit with me......

I believe that the "standard" filters would block content such as Mumsnet.......

Even I am tech-savvy enough to know that the incident described in that Times article wouldn't happen if very basic already-existing protection was being used.

And kitchgoth's point is a good one: "if you are going to link to an article that is pro this, maybe you might want to try finding one that explains how it is technically possible, rather than relying on emotional hand wringing."

Justine, are you prepared to think about being more careful about distinguishing between your own views/actions as MN's owners and the views/actions of your talkboard? When you say "We're backing his call" in your copy re the default filter, "we" will clearly be taken to mean Mumsnet, and in the public mind that means the talkboard. You need a term (like the use of the term 'MNHQ' within MN threads) to distinguish between what your company does and what the talkboard has 'concluded'.

Otherwise you are at risk of advanced Thatcher Syndrome -- "We are now a grandmother"

Ok, let me try to take some of the points in the above post in turn:

...but Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution, and that, as a comparison, seat belts were only used, when there was a law change.

That is perhaps the worst analogy I have ever heard. To compare a seatbelt with the Internet. A better analogy would be to pass a law requiring BT to filter out anyone using the word "bomb" and "terrorist" or any "objectionable" words.

But these solutions are fiddly, and I don?t know about you, but my kids are a damn sight more adept with the inner workings of our family computer than I am. Most teenagers would have the skills to disable or go around such blocks.

Really? So downloading a program, clicking on Next half a dozen times and setting a password is "fiddly"? If you can't do that then I suggest you are either incredibly lazy or are too stupid to own a computer.

And your answer to the fact your kids are more adept than you are on the computer at circumventing blocks is to erm....block? Wouldn't a sensible solution be to watch them or at least sit in the same room? That's what I do. The kids surf in the same room as me and that's despite me having a filter. It's just common sense.

TalkTalk's optin service would be free".

Firstly I have to say I support an opt-in service. If people want a leaky half-baked solution to lull themselves into a false sense of security, go to TalkTalk. No problems. What I don't support is state mandated blocking. Secondly nothing is truly free. The costs of running their system is simply hidden inside their monthly prices.

87% of men admit to looking at porn on the net

So assuming us "men" want to carry on looking at porn, we'd call up our ISP, get the block removed and bingo.....we're back at square one. But assuming I'm a sensible parent who wants to protect my children online, what choice would I therefore have? That's right.....I'd install a filter on my own PC!

@Eleison

Justine, are you prepared to think about being more careful about distinguishing between your own views/actions as MN's owners and the views/actions of your talkboard? When you say "We're backing his call" in your copy re the default filter, "we" will clearly be taken to mean Mumsnet, and in the public mind that means the talkboard. You need a term (like the use of the term 'MNHQ' within MN threads) to distinguish between what your company does and what the talkboard has 'concluded'.

Otherwise you are at risk of advanced Thatcher Syndrome -- "We are now a grandmother"

We refer you to one's earlier point "Switching the default to off is an idea that has been supported on MN boards when it's been discussed in the passed. The objections voiced here are about the feasibility/practicality of achieving the desired aim, rather than the aim itself. "

This is not about my views - tis about the views that have been expressed here (though not so much on this thread admittedly). As you know, my personal views are irrelevant - I am merely a plaything...

The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.

I see our role as one of keeping the pressure on the relevant authorities to make sure the issue is addressed in the best way possible and not swept under the carpet - accurately reflecting (I hope) the broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry.

Of course there is a "broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry"

But there isn't a broad consensus about a mandated "default to off" which is the policy you say that MN is backing.

You might as well say that Cameron is simply enacting "a broad consensus that the economy should be on a sound footing"

Don't you worry about having what seems like a significant amount of influence without any real means of accurately reflecting the opinions on the board that is the pretext for your influence? There is no consensus except of the very very broadest sort.

'Ed Vaizey felt parents needed a 1-click solution'

This is the problem - 'Give us a button to make it all go away'

There is a common belief amongst non-techy types that if you want a computer to do something, you just put in a Magic Button and it Does What You Want. Sadly, it doesn't work like that. There are sound technical reasons why ISP level filtering is a deeply flawed idea. kaloki has done a brilliant job of explaining these on her blog. What a shame she's left over this .

In this case, especially, it's understandable that people want a Magic Button. It's not nice to have to think about what's out there and the discussion, which must be had, about where to draw the line, what's OK and what's not and, crucially, how to define it, is not a comfortable one.

I think we need to get over our squeamishness and give parents better education about the dangers their children may encounter online and what they can do about it. I'd like to see regular internet safety sessions for parents in all schools, focussing not only on porn but on the whole range of risks - violent material, disclosure of personal info, bullying, grooming, pro-suicide and pro-ana sites, illegal downloads, ID theft ... I'd also like to see effective, easy to use, configurable, free client-side software made widely available, perhaps installed by default on new machines and/or installed as part of internet connection.

The Magic Button solution will not work and when it doesn't, people will just switch it off. It will be as useful as a smoke alarm with no batteries.

The Sunday Times article is a load of bum gravy.

And lol at being 'merely a plaything'. I think it is the talkboard that is becoming a plaything.

@Eleison

Of course there is a "broad consensus expressed by users of this site that widely available hardcore porn is a worry"

But there isn't a broad consensus about a mandated "default to off" which is the policy you say that MN is backing.

You might as well say that Cameron is simply enacting "a broad consensus that the economy should be on a sound footing"

Don't you worry about having what seems like a significant amount of influence without any real means of accurately reflecting the opinions on the board that is the pretext for your influence? There is no consensus except of the very very broadest sort.

Well, we're only backing it if it's feasible obviously, as said. At least one ISP seems to think it might be but folks have raised valid arguments against here which we reflected yesterday - as Katie said the ISPs have gone away to think on. We are absolutely prepared to modify "the ask" based on their response. But the fact is Mumsnet is in a good position to ask the question - why not block it at source? It's very easy to start from the premise that "There's nothing to be done". What matters here is the outcome and raising the question helps focus everyone's mind on how best to achieve it, we believe.

Our general view with campaigns is that we can do a good job of raising issues and starting a discussion that are good outcomes in themselves - as with Let girls be girls. I disagree that a broad consensus isn't worth reflecting. The issue of widely available hardcore porn is really worth reflecting if it means it's more likely that something gets done, isn't it?

@Eleison

And lol at being 'merely a plaything'. I think it is the talkboard that is becoming a plaything.

If so, I've had better ones.

'The point here I think it that there seems to be broad agreement that very easily accessible hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, is undesirable. So it comes down to what's the best way to stop it, which is clearly not a decision that should be made by Mumsnet.'

Then why are you backing Ed Vaizey's call? ...

'We're backing his call for internet service providers to filter adult content by default'

I suppose we are even more exasperating than Playmobile assembly.

That Sunday Times article is bollocks. Even I as a not particularly geeked up person can see that.

I do not have any kind of child safe program on my computer and have never, in the 10 years of owning a home PC, accidentally clicked onto a porn website. Never.

If she has an 8yo DD and does not have safe search enabled then she it is her fault, not the ISP or the governments.

I have a separate account for the DC with stricter controls.

Just a brief note to point out that in the thread in Campaigns about "blocking porn at source" (well, by the ISP at least), one poster (Niceguy2) suggested readers try a search for "how to bypass school filters"

Go on, try it. I suspect exactly the same will be done with any ISP block that might be put in place, it's really so easy it is frightening. Even if there are blocks put in place to stop attempts to link to these proxy services, it won't stop use of public libraries (OK, moot point if your local library is closed) to search for alternatives.

There will be some which just get used via an IP address. Yes, that can be blocked too, but it will be a game of "cat and mouse" to find them all. Anyone unscrupulous could rent a server and sell access.

On the last part of that article where ISPs "could even get double subscriptions" and suggesting a secret second connection... however you would either need a second phone line (costly and difficult to justify) or have filtering under user (parent) control.

I know of one service which had a firewall under user control (Metronet offered it before it was bought by PlusNet) so if Dad could disable the block via an ISP menu, odds are that he will forget to re-enable it one day anyway!

It's this emphasis on hardcore porn that worries me. This is about protecting children from images and sites that are damaging to them yes???

This whole "campaign" seems to be focussing solely on porn.

Do you want your children to see a photograph of a decapitated body, and then another of the head??

Yes, I'm going back to my "gruesome" example again. I have 3 boys, 2 of them are mad on Horrible Histories - it's very popular and they publish "Gruesome Guides" - so not infeasible that a child would search for the term.

What I described above is show - in full colour on a website, no not rotten, or 4chan as previously mentioned in this thread.......but on an African News webpage.

AND the google safe search set to strict throws those 2 images up in the first 3 results on the images page.

They are extremely disturbing images. Which I doubt many adults want to see, let alone let their children see.

So - either this campaign is about "porn" - or it's about protecting children.

The issues with a "switch on/switch off" system that covers all adult material has already been discussed. But if it's a general "protecting children from harmful material" then they will apply.

Another thing that I have just thought of.

Presuming that this went through and we lived in UK. Hypothetical situation:

MmeLindt uses the computer, safe in the knowledge that there are no nasties able to pop up unexpectedly.

LindtEnfants use the computer, safe from harm

MmeLindt is less strict about whether she can see the DC, as the government has made it safe. She can relax and MN with a cup of coffee

MonsieurLindt is not happy because he cannot look at porn. He is not particularly techy so when he mentions it to a friend, friend says, "you just have to phone your ISP and tell them to unblock it".

So the block is taken off. And the children are more exposed to nasty porn that before.

You are also going to see a lot of threads along the lines of "AIBU to be furious that he has taken the porn block off the internet?".

"If she has an 8yo DD and does not have safe search enabled then she it is her fault, not the ISP or the governments.
"

TBH MMeLindt, having had a good google myself both last night, and again this morning the safe search is irrelevant here anyhow. With it switched off, and no parental controls. I was able to find more than enough information and pictures about the moon without coming across a single porn image (aside from the woman on rug I linked above).

Of course if they'd accidentally typed in "mooning" instead the results would be somewhat different - although naked bums not the worst thing in the world (was in Much Ado About nothing - the movie that started with lots and lots of naked bottoms???) and although I'm sure if I scrolled further down I'd find more questionable ones - if the parent in the article was looking for "moon" it would have been obvious without looking any further they'd mis-typed