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. )

They did do a limited trial of filtering in Australia. It did not work well. Yet despite all the significant failings identified by the trials (inaccuracy, slow performance, easily circumvented etc), the politician who had been pushing for the bill claimed it a complete success

Thanks for the reply, Justine.

I think that most MNetters would back a proposal that would limit the amount of porn that our children are subjected to - if it is financially feasible and technologically sound.

Could you ask what the alternative is?

If there would be merit in developing a free, easy to access and install parental controls - perhaps to be given free when a computer is sold.

Justine wrote:

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

You can attempt to classify, and someone could have a "tits and bums" website for 6 months but once they know it has been accepted through the filtering, change it to "all holes filled" content.

Your DVD won't change. In the main, your Game won't change (though I bet with some types of game, where the makers [like ID software, famous for Doom] allow for maps and characters to be altered, you could make a 'rude' version with nude people running around), but a website can change in minutes. It happens every night around 03:15 when instead of posting or reading, one is told 'Site is unavailable for a short while' (or similar) on MN !!

Go back to the Labour Sports, Media + Culture Minister's suggestion of classifying every page. Even automation to classify billions of web pages (let alone those which can be pulled out of historic copies from www.Archive.org) would be a massive and time consuming task, and every time a page changed, it would need to be examined again.

Where there can be uploaded content, a site can be "tame" one day and "xxx" the next.

Oh, and can you add another question to your list for discussion, please, Justine.

If an ISP promoted itself as being "Adult only" and that it was there to provide internet access for those who wanted to view porn, would they be allowed to not install filtering hardware/software ?

It is a genuine question, because I can see it happening if there is some ISP which is willing to do so and promotes itself on TVX or Playboy TV or in adult magazines. Of course they may well have higher prices than the majority of existing ISPs 'just because they can'.

The prospect of such an ISP being forced to install blocking mechanisms at a cost, and then for all customers to opt out, would be a test case for whether such legislation would be reasonable or would unduly affect competition (insofar as the costs would be unjustifiable as no one would be using this mandatory filtering, and equipment would need to be installed only because of government red tape).

Incidentally it would not be new, as there were adverts for such an ISP some years ago (though at present, despite numerous attempts, I cannot view much from the archive.org website that goes back before 2005, when there were adverts on the Paul Raymond website 'sexclub.co.uk' along with content from magazines like Mayfair. From 2005 it went to promoting mobile phone access. (I never used either mobile phone or their ISP, but then again, it may be difficult to find anyone esp on MN, who did.)

You know - I've been thinking about this again. Especially with the discussion mentionning chan4 (is it - thankfully not one I've come acrosss) and rotten etc and the decicions about on appropriate material kids with watersheds, film classification, video games ratings etc.

From what I've seen on MN (and on talking to most of my friends in RL). Parents aren't just concerned with stopping their children getting access to graphic sexual material - but violent too.

However many of the 18+ rated games or DVD's have almost no sex at all (or certainly not that I would ever class as "hardcore porn". No parent that is concerned about what material their children sets eyes on wants to let their children see violence and gruesome images any more or less than they do porn.

Think of the threads there have been about Call of Duty (COD) and similar games parents absolutely horrified at the prospect of their children getting access to them at friends houses, or watching age inappropriate DVDs/films when visiting.

This proposal seems to be aimed at getting material (porn) which is in appropriate for children to view blocked for all - but it does absolutely nothing to address other material which is also damaging for children to view. Once again placing it right back into the hands of parents to block and filter.

I have (probably foolishly) been experimenting with google safe search on strict settings. Admittedly ("hardcore") pornographic material is harder to find on there - many common search terms are not allowed - though quite a lot of what I would consider soft porn - probably with links available to "non porn" websites which contain much more hardcore stuff.

. However - when it comes to gore, gruesome pictures, these are MUCH easier to find - rather alarmingly actually. (Gruesome being a term that many children would know if they have any interesting in "Horrible Histories")

So if this proposal was just aimed at blokcing hardcore porn and protecting children that way then I'm now even more convinced that it would do virtually nothing to protect children in any real way from material that we simply DON'T want them to have access to - unless parents also install controls on their personal computers - which brings us right back to square one - and parental responsibility

Right have read through the thread and whilst I understand most of what's being said, I'm struggling with the following:

Everyone agrees that smoking is bad for children and it's therefore difficult for them to buy cigs (they're behind the counter) and illegal to sell them to children (the retailer can be prosecuted). However, adults will have no problems in buying them if they go to the right place.

Knowing that we had the technology to put a man on the moon 40 years ago, I'm finding it difficult to believe that this is such an impossible ask. Maybe all devices should be shipped with complete lockdown on anything vaguely dodgy (I would like to see a system of self-classification by website creators introduced as well - wouldn't do any harm and could be helpful). Users can then customise each device to suit their own needs and the filters are kept updated like free downloadable anti-virus software. In fact, why can't this be like the approach to viruses? Except things are shipped with it already switched on?

but goldenticket - what you are suggesting there isn't an ISP block on dodgy material - but parental control

don't worry maryz - I'm repeting myself too.

Well given how many many underage smokers and drinkers I see around here I'm not sure that the "expectation" is working......

verity, that's a very good question. It might well be like Orange's (and Vodafone's) filtering where anything not considered suitable for children - mumsnet included, as you have found - is filtered out unless you opt to get it all.

This is even more problematic for home broadband than mobile phones though, as Orange-style filtering will affect everyone who uses your home broadband connection. You won't be able to set it up so that you as an adult can get access to mumsnet and all other "adult" sites but your DCs don't. It's on for everyone in your house or it's off for everyone.

Or it might just be filtering hardcore porn, in which case appalling (but non-porn) sites like rotten.com will be allowed through. In which case it's a largely pointless exercise as children would still be able to easily access non child-friendly stuff on the Internet.

The answer to this question - will it only be filtering porn, or will it be filtering all non child-friendly material - is a crucially important one. I hope that MNHQ will ask it at the meeting on Monday.

Exactly. Either way it won't achieve what they're claiming it can do.

That's why filtering software on the PC is the way to deal with this as it's so much more flexible. You can set different access levels for different people, and you can make sure it's not just porn that's being blocked.

You back that up with parental supervision to individually block the dodgy sites that leak through the filter and to individually unblock legitimate sites that are erroneously being blocked. You can also then check the filtering software reports to see what sites your DCs have attempted to access.

You won't be able to do that kind of picking and choosing with an ISP-level filter just as you can't with Orange or Vodafone's mobile filtering.

Really stupid question probably, but is there any prospect of technology that can assess images rather than words, and filter by image? It seems possible that image-based filtering would generate far fewer 'false positives', and so make an at-source bulk turn-off more attractive.

"You can also then check the filtering software reports to see what sites your DCs have attempted to access."

That is very true - parental supervision is obviously the key thing - however, in any real life situation (especially if you have more than one child) you simply can't phsyically be sat watching them every single second they're on there. Unless you drag them off every 5 minutes while you go and do something briefly in another room (I could imagine how well that would work when a slightly older child is trying to do research for homework or similar...)

"Maybe all devices should be shipped with complete lockdown on anything vaguely dodgy"

"Vaguely dodgy" is a pretty broad term. Also, think about how this will sound to an adult non-parent. What you'd basically be saying is "Some of us parents can't be arsed to supervise our children properly on the Internet. Therefore we want legislation to make our lives easier and we don't care that it will affect everyone who uses the Internet whether they're a parent or not."

I'm not saying you're wrong, but I have had that style of argument from non-parent friends of mine about this kind of thing and it's not an easy one to refute.

re the smoking analogy.

That definitely does not work. I used to be a youth worker and every young person I worked with fro, 13 upwards smoked, and had no difficulty in obtaining cigarettes.

Re the its easy to rate dvds analogy. the internet is unimaginably huge. There is no way that individu pages could be categorize by hand.. Especially as it changes all the time. So that leaves us with computer filtering which will be inaccurate.

Those suggesting Tha sites should be required to rate themselves - remember the internet has no borders. Any uk legislation would only affect uk hosted sites and isps which is,t that many.

two other wee scanners in the works - what about encrypted data - how would that be filtered.

And do'you trust your I to keep secure their big let of people who have asked to be able to view pornography - esp as the government can pretty much access that data if they just ask

Sorry about typos am on phone and Can,t see what I am typing properly :) ...

oh, and network guy, you are my hero

Eleison, porn blocking using image analysis has been tried many times. It doesn't work. It's very hard to explain to a computer the difference between a bare-chested man and a bare-chested woman, particularly if that woman has small breasts. You also run the risk of blocking many classic paintings.

re the smoking analogy.

That definitely does not work. I used to be a youth worker and every young person I worked with fro, 13 upwards smoked, and had no difficulty in obtaining cigarettes.

Re the its easy to rate dvds analogy. the internet is unimaginably huge. There is no way that individu pages could be categorize by hand.. Especially as it changes all the time. So that leaves us with computer filtering which will be inaccurate.

Those suggesting Tha sites should be required to rate themselves - remember the internet has no borders. Any uk legislation would only affect uk hosted sites and isps which is,t that many.

two other wee scanners in the works - what about encrypted data - how would that be filtered.

And do'you trust your I to keep secure their big let of people who have asked to be able to view pornography - esp as the government can pretty much access that data if they just ask

Sorry about typos am on phone and Can,t see what I am typing properly :) ...