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. )

Justine, do yuo really think that throwing oyur (generic, MN) weight behind a campaign that you neither fully understand (as you admitted - the technical aspect is beyond you, as it is me) nor fully support, in the hope that you might be able to change it as you go along, because your voice is "weighty" enough is a good idea?

or, as with recent events with riven, are you going to enable the media storm, add weight to it be use of the MN brand, and then stand back when it doesn't go quite right and say "well, we didn't fully support it anyway"

or maybe, as posters ehre are advocating, you could not throw your weight behind this, get some advice as to how it can be done (or not) properly, and then start a campaign, rather than yet another half-baked bandwagon rolling on.

I said 'actionable consensus': there is a level of consensus so broad that it alone can not determine action, and so you (MNHQ) have to make very substantive decisions yourself, that typically aren't discussed much or at all on the site.

I don't understand why you don't respond to the criticism that you have written "we are backing Ed V.'s call" in the face of very extensive multi-thread opposition to the call and little supprt for it.

The thing that concerns me is this: When politicians invite MN to particate in a procedure, they do it to confer legitimacy and a sense of widespread consultative endorsement on what they are doing. Just by showing up, let alone by your copy on the site supporting the default filter, you are endorsing them. That is the greater part of their reason for inviting you: not to hear what you say but to give an impression of a broad consultative base.

Justine
With all respect, the techie posters on this board are neither trying to sell us something nor have they anything to gain out of this.

If Talk Talk are the only ones who are saying this is feasible then there has to be a reason for this.

I don't know the ins and outs of the technical side of things, but I do see that there are massive issue that have been raised.

I don't understand the argument that we have to protect our children from accidental exposure to hardcore porn.

Surely the exposure to porn is much more likely to be one child downloading something and showing it to his pals on his mobile phone rather than googling "kittens" and seeing videos of sex kittens bouncing on a bed.

@MmeLindt

Justine
With all respect, the techie posters on this board are neither trying to sell us something nor have they anything to gain out of this.

If Talk Talk are the only ones who are saying this is feasible then there has to be a reason for this.

I don't know the ins and outs of the technical side of things, but I do see that there are massive issue that have been raised.

I don't understand the argument that we have to protect our children from accidental exposure to hardcore porn.

Surely the exposure to porn is much more likely to be one child downloading something and showing it to his pals on his mobile phone rather than googling "kittens" and seeing videos of sex kittens bouncing on a bed.

Well you could argue that the other way, MdmeLindt - the other ISPs are trying to sell something too...

British government and British political parties used to gain legitimacy from the electoral system and from some (admittedly ill-executed) principle that mass party membership fed up to determine party policy at the top. Both the electoral system and the party system fail now in that task, and so legitimacy is veru often sought throu consultation (often in the form of a legal obligation to consult)

In Mumsnet the politicians find something that enables them to make easy, cheap consultative gestures to validate their actions. Voluntary organisations are pervasively used in the same way, including extensively at council level. It is a farce at the best of times; but is infinitely more of a farce when MNHQ doesn't have the means (or apparently a serious will) to represent posters accurately, other than in the vaguest possible objectives.

(I owe an apology to Network Guy: when I used 'NG' just then I was referring to niceguy2. Sorry for unclarity.)

Justine
If I understood this correctly, TalkTalk are the ones saying it is possible? Are the others dragging their feet?

@Eleison

I don't understand why you don't respond to the criticism that you have written "we are backing Ed V.'s call" in the face of very extensive multi-thread opposition to the call and little supprt for it.

We have responded a number of times on this thread now saying if that if the call to block at source turns out to be unfeasible we will certainly not continue to call for it.

@Eleison

The thing that concerns me is this: When politicians invite MN to particate in a procedure, they do it to confer legitimacy and a sense of widespread consultative endorsement on what they are doing. Just by showing up, let alone by your copy on the site supporting the default filter, you are endorsing them. That is the greater part of their reason for inviting you: not to hear what you say but to give an impression of a broad consultative base.

We turn up to be part of the process/ part of the debate. That process will go on whether we are there or not. Govn is after all elected to govern - I somewhat doubt whether our endorsement makes a difference.

But you know it takes considerable time and effort to get involved. And we take considerable pains to try to give an accurate reflection of the boards. We could just say well we're not going to take part in of any of this stuff because it's all too hard. Personally I think that would be a shame because we are in a position, I think, where politicians and business find it hard to totally ignore MN and it would be a wasted opportunity to leave them to it. But would certainly make life simpler .

Yesterday we were not batting for one side or another. We were batting for the best possible solution to reach our desired outcome, on which there is a broad consensus. After the recent discussion of the issue here it seemed appropriate to raise the question of whether a block of material at source is actually feasible - as Katie said the ISPs are going away to think about that and report back. And we will modify our campaign page/ ask to reflect the current situation in the next little while.

@MmeLindt

Justine
If I understood this correctly, TalkTalk are the ones saying it is possible? Are the others dragging their feet?

Yes, sorry that wasn't very clear - what I mean is that the logical extension of what you're saying is that businesses act in a way designed to make max profit - and that goes for the others too...

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

Of course I do. But my point is that a mandated ISP level block is simply unworkable and totally the wrong place to do it.

Let me ask you this. Given there are already tools out there which are free and can do this job already. What additional benefits do you think you can gain from an ISP level filter?

And with respect, I suspect TalkTalk have crunched some numbers and are gambling that by introducing such a filter is a good money spinner for them in terms of retaining and recruiting new customers. I doubt child protection was on the top of their reasons to do this.

I bet privately they will even admit, is that their system will be full of holes that can be easily exploited and circumvented.

In short, why is MN campaigning for something which can already be done for free and customised to suit each family rather than a top down one size fits all big brother-esque policy?

I do think it is sad that some of the techie posters have gone. From what I have seen MNHQ are listening, they are asking the questions that are being raised here.

If I had not read this thread, I would have thought the proposal to be a good one. Which is the basic problem, imo.

Most people do not have the techie know how to understand what this proposal means and how it would work (or not, as the case may be).

So it is easy to say, "Great. Protection for children, why would we not get behind that" while not actually understanding that it may not actually be that simple.

"Great. Protection for children, why would we not get behind that" while not actually understanding that it may not actually be that simple."

Absolutely MMeLindt - and children don't only need protecting from hardcore porn. So a hardcore ISP block would still mean that a parent has to use software on their computer to protect their children from the other stuff. A filter that will do exactly the same thing as the parent controlled filter that they will have to install if they want to protect their children/

True, Baroque.

My DC are not allowed to watch the later Harry Potter videos, as I find them too scary.

Something as "harmless" as a HP video would not be blocked but could cause my child nightmares if he/she were to watch it.

So, I am back to blocking certain online content.

LeninGrad - re cable connection...

I know some ADSL (not cable) routers run Linux and can be made to do other things (like run a monitor for an Ebay item to place a bid just before the end time)

As all (both ADSL and cable) routers will need software changes to work with IP v6 (like a worldwide phone number change) instead of IP v4 that we use now, I think it would make sense for the ISPs and router manufacturers to work together, so filtering could be put in place, at the home end of the connection.

That's not an immediate solution - but a point where software filtering for linux, Mac, Win XP, Win 7, Windows 2015 and so on would all be covered as well as iPhone v9 using wi-fi from that home internet connection.

That filtering would be under USER control, the ISP might offer a database for download of "known adult websites" to block, but there would need to be options for customers to use any blocking or disable it if they wished.

It would need the router to be more powerful than now and to perhaps have a memory card/ memory stick inside, so there would be adequate storage for 30 million (and growing) porn sites, plus any others which exist over the next few years.

'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.'

From TalkTalk's Parental Controls 'solution' FAQ:

'2) I have different-aged children in my home; can I have different settings for different ages?

'Due to the way the service works, it provides a single group of settings across any device connected to your home broadband at the time. However, you can change the settings whenever you choose, and customise the settings as you see fit for whatever you believe provides the best balance of protection for your whole family.'

So 'no' then - same settings for 5 y/o, 14 y/o, mum who likes to MN and dad who secretly uses porn.
----
'8) Can I add sites that I personally feel are inappropriate to the Block list for my household/child?

'Yes, you can add up to nine web sites to your own custom list.'

A whole nine websites? I could probably think of more than nine off the top of my head if I tried
----
'10) In contrast, can I add specific sites I feel are appropriate, as exceptions?

'Yes, you can add up to nine custom sites.'

yay, nine ...
----
'19) I've blocked a particular Parental Controls category, although I want to visit a site in the category. I've added this into the list of specific sites to allow, but I still can't view the website.

'Some websites redirect you from their main web address. For example, www.twitter.com redirects you to twitter.com. On the other hand, Facebook.com redirects you to www.facebook.com. You can either browse directly to the redirected site (e.g. twitter.com or www.facebook.com), or you can add both variations (e.g. both facebook.com and www.facebook.com) to your "Allow" list.'

good job you can have up to nine exceptions then
----
'20) I've allowed a specific website but when I go to it, I still can't see all of it - some text appears but not the whole site.

'This is because the page you have browsed to is also pulling information from another site which is still blocked by Parental Controls at the time in question. To see the full website you will have to allow access to the other blocked site. If you wish to see which sites are being used by the page in question, right click on the page you have browsed to and select "View Source". If necessary, select the Notepad to view the file. You will see a long list of text. The name of the blocked site will be listed somewhere in there. If you still wish to allow this site, copy this site name and add this into your specific website list.'

So, these parents who are not tech-savvy enough and/or don't care enough to use the perfectly good client-side parental filters are suddenly expected to go delving into source code to find out where their embedded page content is being sourced from? Or are they more likely to just switch the bloody thing off?

These are just a few of the reasons TalkTalk's Magic Button is not the solution to the problem.

Here's what I would propose (from earlier in the thread) - I think we need to 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.

This is a very hard debate to keep up with!" Every time I make some progress through it, I click refresh, and another dozen responses come up, all worth reading. Meanwhile I am stil formulating my thoughts and responses.

However I did want to register particular approval of a few points.

1. duplication of effort. Having on/off at the ISP level means individual computers must be customised again - potentially several times - at the user level. What a waste of time and effort! Which is both an economic argument and ties neatly back into the dilemma of what to do with parents who don't/can't filter their children's viewing habits?

2. the seatbelts campaign. This comparison is either reveals a limited intellect or is simply a very disingenuous comparison. I can't help but suspect "interests" at work. Which brings me neatly to:

3. the free-riding question, discussion of which I think was prompted by that Guardian article. It is a well-known and well-rehearsed political technique, to identify a powerful constituency which you think you can pretend to represent, support it with all your might, and just coincidentally get some kickbacks for yourself. You manage to exclude the less savvy/rich but more numerous social cohort whose support got you "in". Cf the American Right and its support of strict religious mores in public (while doing some very dirty things to foreigners, the environment, the poor, etc.). Also, I know it's always a bit provocative to bring up Hitler, but can I just limit the comparison to his rise to power? There once was the National Socialist party.... which H and his ideological colleagues moved into. To put it mildly, there started to be rather a lot more emphasis on "nationality" and socialists/communist were eventually outright persecuted. Names can be fig-leaves and facades.

NetworkGuy that sounds like a brilliant idea!