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. )

Back on that 'bypass the filtering' idea...

Some of the services I have seen offer multiple IP addresses with new ones being added every month or two.

I doubt there would be much cost involved in setting one of these services up (eg free 'open source' solution or low cost software) and if one had 100 customers paying 1 pound a month, while costs total 25 pounds, you can see that it would be easy to make 75 quid a month from 25 pounds outlay.

Hit 1000 customers and you make 750/month, hit 10,000 and you make 7,500 pounds a month... and all costing end users just 25p a week, while making a profit of 75 pounds per 100 users.

Billing is automated, even if some didn't pay you could afford to allow them access for up to 3 months before going through the 'non payer list' and killing their ID off the server.

How many men do you think would be willing to spend more than a pound a month to 'bypass the ISP filtering' so they can look at any site they wish ? I'm thinking a few million.

It could be a strong temptation to set up some servers for this, and once cash is rolling in, you would rent (or buy) whole servers and not be under another hosting firm's rules at all.

Most guys would find out from a friend, rather than any advertising which would be equally visible to partners and authorities, so there would be easy profits. Anyone fancy living in the Caribbean for the rest of their days, while the ISPs try to block some series of IP addresses ?

On a technical issue, IP addresses are likely to need to change in the next 5 years.

Here's a note from someone with far more knowledge than myself on the subject:

"Ipv6 is the next in the advancement of IP?s. Compared to Ipv4 which allows for only 4,294,967,296 unique addresses, Ipv6 uses a 128-bit system will hold 340-undecillion (34, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000, 000) addresses. This number is so vast that there are more unique IP addresses than stars in the universe, as we know it."

hsha NetworkGuy I read that last post of yours nodding my head all the way until your last bit - the quote from someone else - and then my brain fried

As Baroque says

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

If it is the former, as Claire Perry MP was asking for, and has been in the headlines of the articles published about this on news discussions and the campaigns overview page says "Default online porn filters" while the individual campaign page is titled "Mumsnet and default pornography filters"

Pornography is only a portion of the problem. Switching it off may be described as 'easy' though technically I have many doubts it will be blocked.

Protecting the young is on a different scale, and these "one size fits all" 'solutions' are still poor.

Filtering needs to be done closer to home. If that means ISPs have to replace the wireless router so the replacement has built in filtering, to protect against the "internet ready TV" being used for viewing sites with porn or violent content, so be it.

Only when there is a per household level of filtering can the tailoring be done to meet the needs of individual families. What is proposed so far blocks only porn. Should Facebook be available to all in a household ? What about 'rotten.com' (don't look) ?

---

Unfortunately the more the 'filtering' moves from purely pornographic sites to others with 'adult content' the closer we get to a situation where an authoritarian regime could add whichever sites it deemed necessary (eg opposition parties, freedom of speech campaign sites, international news).

Yes, that is very speculative, and deliberately chilling, because filtering porn is not really enough, and central filtering which decides on which sites contain "adult content" could be easily adapted to lose all freedom.

An extreme political party getting into control could be handed on a plate the easiest way of blocking all sites (change the filter function from blacklist to whitelist and only their authorised sources of information would be visible with no workaround for proxies or by IP address, and no opt-out of filtering).

@PlentyOfParsnips

'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'

Because we think it is an effective way to focus the mind and get the outcome we all want. But as said, we are more than happy to modify the ask based on feasibility. This is the advantage of being a discussion site - we can modify our ask based on discussion. I don't care if we end up saying, OK based on the submissions of all the ISPs it seems there's a better way of achieving this - as we've always said we are not the experts here. The point is to try to achieve the outcome.

Following on from Snorbs' post:

My prediction is that there will be complete chaos.

As a parallel, BT manages the telephone directory database and provides access to all firms on an equal basis (and that includes the directory enquiry portion of BT - the database updating is kept separate).

The database team provides filtered data to other companies, based on some criteria so if "ex directory" details "get out" there is a possibility that such data is no longer provided to a specific 118xyz business.

In the case of filtering out adult web sites, as per the TalkTalk method, using some database of web addresses, one has to wonder if that will be shared with other ISPs or whether each will have to trawl themselves, or use the same or other companies to trawl for adult sites.

What we could end up with is either

a) if they do not share results, each ISP attempts to block all adult content but achieves (say) 95% which is different to the next ISP, or

b) if they share results, they all block around 95% of sites, but feel they are blocking more.

Either way, using a proxy server overseas could provide a free or cheap way to bypass any filtering the ISP puts in place. Remember, many businesses offer/ require employees to connect using an encrypted connection. Using some of these proxy services will appear in almost all ways to be identical to a connection to an employee's company network. That means you cannot simply block encrypted connections, in case it is someone working from home. You cannot decrypt their data as the main idea with encryption is to make that hard, but even if it was easy, monitoring the content of such a data stream could amount to a "wire tap" and be illegal.

So we are back to that "cat and mouse" game, where some under 18 could make a connection to an IP address and the ISP would have no way to know whether this was being used for accessing a web site usually blocked on "adult content" grounds, or something quite innocent, like a connection to their office server to pull a document to work on.

Trouble is, Justine, reading that campaign page, it really sounds like MN has decided that Ed Vaizy's proposals are the way to go ...

'We're backing his call, and we'll be pressing him to ensure that ISPs comply as soon as possible.'

'We're delighted that Ed Vaizey agrees - and now we'd like him to increase the pressure on the industry to act.'

I'd feel a lot less uneasy if it was rewritten to reflect the more cautious stance you are taking in this thread. 'Be careful what you wish for ...' and all that.

"get the outcome we all want."

What is the outcome you want though?

Campaign against pornography? Or child protection?

Or as I am suspecting....campaign against pornography using child protection as the excuse?

Besides which I suspect the BEST case scenario of any centralised blocking would be to stop kids from accidentally viewing porn.

Even before I put filters on our computers and given I use the Internet every day, i've yet to have porn "accidentally" appear on my screen.

If you are talking child protection then the rather sensible step of parents actually caring is WAY more effective than a block. It's also free!

Oh gosh this is where it starts to get really complicated NiceGuy, and where I feel like parting company with you a little bit. I don't really think that MN is using this as a pretext to campaign against porn, though clearly there is an overlap with the campaign against 'pornification' that is a large part of the appeal of the LGBG thing.

Clearly, though, one's stance on the filtering is likely to be influenced by one's stance on porn, even though there is a superficial disconnect between issues of principal and issues of technology.

My own feeling is that porn is one issue, pornification (the creeping of porn values into mainstream culture) is another issue. on balance I'm much more afraid of the latter -- which this internet safety campaign doesn't touch.

As a father myself to a teenage daughter, I totally understand how you feel about pornification and agree that it is worrying.

But like you say, that's a different subject to what we're discussing here.

My main objections to this are:

1. It doesn't work & cannot work, so the result is merely a false sense of security.

2. Who decides what is "objectionable material"? The government? The very government ran by MP's many of us wouldn't spit on if they were on fire?

3. That there's a plainly much more effective way which is educating, promoting & supporting parental responsibility. Whatever next? Do we restrict sales of bikes to kids in case someone's parent doesn't care enough to supervise their child on it?

it also doesn't seem to touch violent images on sites, and in a post a few days ago, Justine was setting the threshold a bit higher, to block hardcore porn sites.

The Minister and some of the bodies need to make clear whether it is just porn sites, or will anything else be "slipped in" (eg sex education sites) and how does a family get what they want

Family A (with all DC under 10) don't want any sex education sites because of the graphic images some might hold, and don't want FaceBook

Family B (with two teens, one of each gender) does want sex education sites available, plus FaceBook is used by teens and Mum too.

Does family A have Channel 4's website blocked ? With "sex tips" shows on BBC 3, Channel 4, Five and perhaps other stations at times, do all these websites get blocked ?

I'm going to leave this discussion running a few hours while MNHQ can formulate their ideas on how much this is anti-porn and how much it is about protecting children, and if the latter, how do families A and B get different results (apart from the obvious, where they have filtering controls AT HOME).

I agree - I'd like 'the outcome we all want' to be a lot more clearly formulated.

@Niceguy2

"get the outcome we all want."

What is the outcome you want though?

Campaign against pornography? Or child protection?

Or as I am suspecting....campaign against pornography using child protection as the excuse?

We want to stop hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, from being readily available on the internet. Don't you?

Yes of course he does, Justine. It isn't fair to suggest that disagreement with what you are doing here is a lack of commitment to that aim -- though equally it was unfair of NG so suggest you were 'campaigning against porn.

NG - that's a good point re the difference in family needs.

I have 3 boys - there's 6yrs between the older and the youngest. My oldest is 10, his voiced already cracked and dropped a couple of tones last year, though has settled again. Given our family history on both sides I'm sure it's only a matter of time before he starts properly hitting puberty.

I want him to be able to get onto sites aimed at children/boys his age going about puberty and sex. Yes I talk to him, and we've talked about some of these issues already. But I remember being a teenage girl going through puberty - no way would have I wanted to ask my dad about some of the "finer details" - even if he knew that answers. It would have been too embarassing. I want DS1 to have the additional option of being able to have a private read on his own about questions hehas.

However, DS3 is 3 (soon to be) and will be starting school this year - therefore going to be learning to read. I don't want him to be able to get onto those sites. Cbeebies and similar is quite enough for him.

I am doing a degree in Health and Social care. Some of the topics I've covered so far (only just at the start of the process) I've had to look at websites with information on that I don't think are appropriate for any of them to view/read. Some of the websites I came across when I did my first (LEvel 1 - so very generic) course, and used for my TMA's could quite well have been blocked under a wide ranging "family friendly" block.

If were to have the block lifted so that I can do my coursework, and DS1 can access informationn to help him through his up coming changes - then it would leave everything (including the hardcore porn) "open to access" on my computers for all of us.

UNLESS I set up a parental filter on my own computers..........in which case I wouldn't really have needed them to block for me in the first place.

The issues are complex and fluid. Just as we can't easily define porn for the software, we have difficulty defining it culturally: there is for example way more tolerance of porn amongst women on MN than I can tolerate it myself. For that reason alone it is just wrong to think that MNHQ can embody some sort of actionable consensus, just by prolonged immersion in MN discussion, rather than by fairly extensive online polling.

And the same is true on other issues that you campaign on

@Eleison

Yes of course he does, Justine. It isn't fair to suggest that disagreement with what you are doing here is a lack of commitment to that aim -- though equally it was unfair of NG so suggest you were 'campaigning against porn.

Ok so what I find bizarre here from the is that folks here are so willing to discount the fact that one of the major ISPs has said that this solution - blocking hardcore porn at source - is indeed completely feasible. I mean I don't pretend to be an expert but I'd suggest that if it's possible for one ISP, it's possible for them all. Maybe we should get Talk Talk on to talk it through...

@Eleison

The issues are complex and fluid. Just as we can't easily define porn for the software, we have difficulty defining it culturally: there is for example way more tolerance of porn amongst women on MN than I can tolerate it myself. For that reason alone it is just wrong to think that MNHQ can embody some sort of actionable consensus, just by prolonged immersion in MN discussion, rather than by fairly extensive online polling.

And the same is true on other issues that you campaign on

As you've said yourself - no one disagrees with the aim of this campaign - isn't that a consensus?

"We want to stop hardcore porn, that kids can stumble across unwittingly, from being readily available on the internet. Don't you?"

Firstly - I use google a lot, especially images, and a recent project of mine involved the topics of trafficking, child soldiers, women's rights, war and numerous other similar subjects. I spent hours (actually days ) scouring the internet for images to illustrate the comments I was putting in my project. The only porn I came across was when typed in "domestic slavery" with the safe search on google totally off. Even then it was dotted among images of the nature that I was actually looking for. I am not entirely convinced that it's that easy to stumble across hardcore porn.

Yes there's the common "Prince Albert" and such like which can throw up interesting results even on "strict". But hardcore porn I have never "stumbled" across with my own searches so I'm not sure that children would - unless they were looking for it.

To answer your question - yes I want to stop them accessing hardcore porn, along with violent graphic images.

Blocking Hardcore porn by my ISP won' protect my children from other even easier to find material which on a "disturbing and damaging" scale I believe is on a par with hardcore porn (and in some cases exceeds it)

To protect my children adequately I would still need a filter on the computer to protect them from material which is unsuitable and damaging. My filter would do exactly the same job as the ISP "porn block" so the ISP block would be pointless.