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. )

All I'm saying is ask the Techies not the politicians about the feasibility of a body that could individually classified material (Like films, games etc) and see just how much manpower would be involved in monitoring the www, or if you are mostly reliant on filtering how many mistakes like a FB breastfeeding pic blocking would occur.

Its a minefield.

Seriously..

@Snorbs

There are loads of things my DCs could get up to at a neighbour's house if that neighbour couldn't be arsed to supervise them properly. Watching porn videos or horror films, smoking, drinking, playing with matches... The list is endless. Why go to all this effort and expense to (poorly) address just one of those issues?

A parent that can't be bothered to supervise his/her children is a social problem, not a technological one.

Or another way of looking at it is - Why should I have hardcore adult material available as standard via a device that I purchase for and is marketed for the family if (can we agree this is a crucial if) it can be standard that it's opt-in, not opt-out?

Motherfunster - we will most certainly ask the techies for a techie pov. (Not Ed Vaizey )

Because:

a) if this really is only going to address hardcore porn then there is a huge range of other stuff on the Internet that is most definitely child unfriendly that kids could still access so you'd still need supervision and filtering on your PC to stop them,

b) as a result of (a) it is very likely that the scope of this proposal will expand to cover not just porn but a wider range of child unfriendly sites and that could affect adult access to adult non-porn sites (maybe even mumsnet, what with all the swearing and sex talk) which would encourage users to opt out and leave them in the same position they're in today,

and c) any such filters at the ISP level won't work very well anyway.

I've had a lot of real-world experience with the kind of Internet filtering we're talking about here, albeit in a corporate rather than an ISP context. I'm not just talking out of my hat. It was very expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and needed a lot of care and attention from expensive, skilled staff to keep it usable.

This proposal will cost consumers a lot of money for very little real benefit. You'll still need to run a PC-level filter to properly protect your children and if you're doing that anyway then an ISP-level filter is adding nothing useful. And it still won't solve the problem of parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing.

@Snorbs

Because:

a) if this really is only going to address hardcore porn then there is a huge range of other stuff on the Internet that is most definitely child unfriendly that kids could still access so you'd still need supervision and filtering on your PC to stop them,

b) as a result of (a) it is very likely that the scope of this proposal will expand to cover not just porn but a wider range of child unfriendly sites and that could affect adult access to adult non-porn sites (maybe even mumsnet, what with all the swearing and sex talk) which would encourage users to opt out and leave them in the same position they're in today,

and c) any such filters at the ISP level won't work very well anyway.

I've had a lot of real-world experience with the kind of Internet filtering we're talking about here, albeit in a corporate rather than an ISP context. I'm not just talking out of my hat. It was very expensive, clumsy, unreliable, and needed a lot of care and attention from expensive, skilled staff to keep it usable.

This proposal will cost consumers a lot of money for very little real benefit. You'll still need to run a PC-level filter to properly protect your children and if you're doing that anyway then an ISP-level filter is adding nothing useful. And it still won't solve the problem of parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing.

Again, you're not arguing against the aim - to stop kids stumbling across wholly inappropriate material - but that the the mechanism for delivering is unfeasible.

Those experts we've spoken to - who've spent a heck of a lot more time on this than we have - say filters have moved on, and that it is possible for ISPs to switch the default to off re porn. If they are wrong and you are right Snorbs, then clearly it shouldn't be done because it would be a waste of both time and money.

Think we'll have a better sense next week because obviously the ISPs will have no wish to spend lots of money...

but then doesn't it then again come back to how "porn" is defined - how it's picked up on??

Iv just had a look at Ed Vasey, he looks like a moomin.

Absolutely Snorbs.

I don't think anybody's going to afford human judgment.It will end up shonky filters on the cheep.

OR

Problem is, what happens when you may seek information on (say) "breastfeeding" and the site is blocked, either because the word "breast" caused it, or some photos

@differentnameforthis

OR

Problem is, what happens when you may seek information on (say) "breastfeeding" and the site is blocked, either because the word "breast" caused it, or some photos

First, you don't have to set the bar that low - breasts are all over the place (page 3?) I very much doubt anyone is suggesting breasts 2) Filters are more sophisticated than you're suggesting (so I'm told!)

@Motherfunster

Iv just had a look at Ed Vasey, he looks like a moomin.

Absolutely Snorbs.

I don't think anybody's going to afford human judgment.It will end up shonky filters on the cheep.

Again, humans make decisions on appropriate material for kids all the time - Film classification, watersheds, video game ratings. Why not porn?

How many people would it take to classifie the www?

@Motherfunster

How many people would it take to classifie the www?

Think you could quite quickly find a lot of the nasty stuff with a few key search terms don't you?

Or maybe we should just not bother to try because it's potentially imperfect?

I think that earlier entry's on this thread with basic technical advice is part of the solution.

A section on websafety tec advice section on NM would be a good place to start.

Fight Fire with fire, information with information.

@Motherfunster

I think that earlier entry's on this thread with basic technical advice is part of the solution.

A section on websafety tec advice section on NM would be a good place to start.

Ok well it might be the only option, I spose. We have a websafety section on MN here but as said am sceptical as to effectiveness of parental controls.

All comes down to feasibility of filtering really. Will feedback on ISP position on that next week. Night and thanks for your input. Sleep well.

Night all, me self.

well quite frankly if the google safe search on "strict" can find me an image of gruesome proportions with the term "War" (something a child could easily be searching for given they do WW2 in YR3/4).

And "Anal" on images with strict search on can give me a websites on which I can download "big wet arses" (and MUCH much more ).

And a search for Ann Summers throws up lots of articles and vouchers codes - but no (direct) link to the website, same with Love Honey.

I'm not sure I'd trust any blanket filter to do what it says on the tin.

And yes I realise the way google safe search and what is being suggested and being discussed works differently - but no - not convinced.

(but FGS is you rely on the google safe search a lot don't let your kids read "bum sex" titles over your shoulder lest they search for it) - no it's not overtly graphic (you can't see anything not even breasts) - but they are most definitely naked and I can guarantee it was raise questions ....

well quite frankly if the google safe search on "strict" can find me an image of gruesome proportions with the term "War" (something a child could easily be searching for given they do WW2 in YR3/4).

And "Anal" on images with strict search on can give me a websites on which I can download "big wet arses" (and MUCH much more ).

And a search for Ann Summers throws up lots of articles and vouchers codes - but no (direct) link to the website, same with Love Honey.

I'm not sure I'd trust any blanket filter to do what it says on the tin.

And yes I realise the way google safe search and what is being suggested and being discussed works differently - but no - not convinced.

(but FGS is you rely on the google safe search a lot don't let your kids read "bum sex" titles over your shoulder lest they search for it) - no it's not overtly graphic (you can't see anything not even breasts) - but they are most definitely naked and I can guarantee it was raise questions ....

ok - ignore the last bit - I'd accidentally switched it off instead of strict

ooooops - sorry for double post - I lost MN for 10 minutes

Justine wrote "Think we'll have a better sense next week because obviously the ISPs will have no wish to spend lots of money..."

From the announcement quote seen on ThinkBroadband, the Minister expects them to adopt some voluntary code, otherwise legislation would be used.

So the ISPs don't really have much choice, and to be frank, if it ended up costing several million, the ISPs are not going to be any worse off in the long run because they will recover the cost from the poor schmucks who are customers, a significant proportion of whom would want no extra expense and definitely want no damn filtering. (Do you really want to make the internet unaffordable for some families?)

You've already seen that merely placing a block on porn (even if that is the most supported idea from past threads) does not address the need for a "family friendly" internet service which would also block 'rotten.com' (never seen it, but two adults saying it is awful is good enough).

If this proposal manages [for sake of argument] to block 95% of porn [unless someone uses a free proxy server] it still fails to provide a "family friendly" internet connection safe from viewing 'rotten.com' and other sites which might be better not viewed by children.

No, Snorbs does not argue against any household wanting to protect against under age viewing of porn, but equally, sees this proposal as tackling only a [sizeable] portion of what is undesirable, without affording parents the level of control unless they still add some blocking software so 'rotten.com' and other sites cannot be viewed.

I don't think anyone here has ever suggested that they don't want children protected from porn, but the objections are that forcing all UK ISPs to switch some sort of filtering on, to achieve a block on porn, is going to lull parents into thinking that the job is done.

It's only a partial solution to preventing children from seeing family un-friendly material, and to do a proper job still requires parents to make the effort and if society needs to do anything, it isn't to do this 'blocking at ISP' filtering thing, but educating parents who have internet access to do more themselves.

All through this and the other thread, parents with hands-on experience of filtering software, have said that filtering at the ISP is not the solution and that there needs to be a change in attitude so parents take more interest and get on top of the technicalities.

Rather than allowing parents to abdicate their responsibility, which is how this sounds, you ought to reverse your stated position so the "other approach" is one of parental education.

You have used the excuse of probably being too busy, though I suspect that is also the case even among those with some filtering software already - there was a complaint about how much time it takes to determine what can be done for the XBox, iPod Touch, etc.

Seriously though, you put down a list of excuses reasons for why filtering might not be done, and then wrote "I just don't get what's so different here."

What's so different between film classification, protection of children from alcohol, cigarettes, and buying knives, etc, is that these are all more easily regulated and owners know they must comply or they will be fined, taken to court, or lose a licence (to sell alcohol, for example).

That's exactly the opposite of the internet, which has some limits on some aspects (some bodies control the allocation of IP addresses, domain names, and legislation at most covers the worldwide recognition of child-porn as forbidden) but for the most part, anyone can do almost anything on the internet, including move from one web host to another across borders, provide or block access to anyone they wish, and so forth. The net is as close to anarchy as you can get without there being an overthrow of capitalism and riots on every street, because it affords anyone with a little spare cash to set up a connection, build a website, and put forward their thoughts to anyone who will read / view / listen / discuss.

MNHQ campaign page says "Parental controls just aren't working ? it's time to try another approach. We're delighted that Ed Vaizey agrees"

The approach I feel you and the Minister should be pushing for is not a block at the ISP but better parental education, and encouragement or even pressure to use filtering software.

Make sure that rather than abdicate from responsibility, parents are given the tools they need to block any family unfriendly site (not just block porn). Make it as easy to get as the free anti-virus software products. Make it open source and to run equally well on Windows 7, Vista, XP, Mac, Linux and for mobile phones. Make it free to download. Make it so no parent has an excuse not to have it on every computer and mobile phone. Make it mandatory for parents to attend school events explaining how this filtering works, and how they can add or remove sites, or have their internet cut off (only kidding).

Make no sweeping decision that affects every connection like-it-or-not. Make no impact on the ISPs. Make no extra costs for customers of the ISPs. Leave adults who have no children alone.

Ignoring the IWF for a moment, the contract I have with my ISP is for me to pay a small fee each month and for them to provide me with internet access without blocking anything ... as long as I use my connection in ways which do not impact their network to the detriment of others.

The ways I might impact others would be

1. spamming, thus bringing their network into disrepute and possibly getting the ISP blacklisted for a period, affecting 400,000 other customers who may have their outgoing e-mail rejected as 'spam'.

2. downloading hundreds of GB of data (I have exceeded 200 GB, but over 2/3 was between midnight and 0800 which fits in with their policy so not a problem)

3. attempting to hack into other machines (like 1, bringing ISP into disrepute).

Overall, there are few restrictions from my ISP, and they charge me less than 10 quid a month. They reserve the right to slow down some types of traffic on my connection at different times of day (mainly 1600-2300) so that the web browsing performance for the other 400,000 customers would not be slowed by me downloading at the limit of my connection speed. It has no major effect for me, and I'd have to pay a lot more to avoid such speed restrictions.

What the Minister's proposal (which you support) intends to do is to cut access to tens of thousands of websites, based on as-yet-unknown criteria about them being 'pornographic'.

Yes, I agree you are not out to ban pornography, but by expecting my ISP to comply with this filtering requirement it will impose additional costs on me, and millions more people, including those who have no wish for filtering.

I object because unlike books or cigarettes or DVDs going through shops, where they know what stock they order and can be assured that the items are legal, and then they only have to check who they sell to is allowed to buy, my ISP has no knowledge in advance of what traffic is coming through the fibre to them and whether it may be classed as "blockable porn" so for them to even classify it and block it, they are forced to install equipment, slowing down the traffic, and will cost customers money, even if the customer sees no benefit.

I object because it goes only part way to the real goal - that of protecting children from inappropriate web sites while at the same time, making parents feel that they have nothing further to do. You're supporting a proposal that further weakens parents from seeing that filtering what can be seen must be tackled by them at home.

As families will still need to have filtering software, to cope with individual choices such as blocking other sites (say Facebook, 'rotten.com'), some might suggest there would be a pointless duplication of effort at the ISP, as the ISP only filters out part of of the traffic.

I object because the proposal assumes I will be willing to pay extra for a facility I do not wish to use and while it gives me an "opt out" choice, it does not (as far as I know) let my ISP decide to "opt out".

"Again, humans make decisions on appropriate material for kids all the time - Film classification, watersheds, video game ratings. Why not porn?"

Justine, that question is bogus. The objections aren't because people here don't care if their children see porn.

I'm objecting because filtering it at the ISP is the wrong place to do it.

(And because using the threat of legislation to get ISPs to do this is politically unsound and raises legal issues, the big concerns over thin-end-of-the-wedge over what will be filtered, loads of questions over classification of what's acceptable and what's not, the futility of using technology to attempt to solve social problems, the cost implications etc etc etc)

ISP filtering hasn't been implemented in Australia. It's been on the books for years, to great opposition, but with a hung parliament, the government has no hope of getting it through. In fact, it lost them more votes than they could afford to lose.

Just correcting that for the record.