+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast
Results 136 to 150 of 193
General Chat Thread, Cameron is at it again..... in General; Originally Posted by edutech4schools is this not aimed at stopping young children from accidentally viewing indecent images. Most of the ...
  1. #136
    Pyroman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,200
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 140 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    is this not aimed at stopping young children from accidentally viewing indecent images. Most of the posts above are complaining that it will infringe on their online habits.

    I have a 6 year old who browses the internet and I do use parent filters but I am very much in a minority and dread to think what some of my sons class mates get to see by accident while at home. Will this not protect them from accidentally viewing some very bad stuff?
    In all honesty, probably not. But it will lull parents into a false sense of security that it IS being blocked

  2. #137

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    17,680
    Thank Post
    516
    Thanked 2,451 Times in 1,897 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    832
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    is this not aimed at stopping young children from accidentally viewing indecent images. Most of the posts above are complaining that it will infringe on their online habits.

    I have a 6 year old who browses the internet and I do use parent filters but I am very much in a minority and dread to think what some of my sons class mates get to see by accident while at home. Will this not protect them from accidentally viewing some very bad stuff?
    It might. It might also block legitimate stuff and let bad stuff through. That's the point. It won't work in the 'if its on, your child is safe' way that Cameron is trying to say.

    Schools all run filtering, and I'm pretty sure we've all dealt with situations where stuff got through, on non porn searches. I remember when the word Bicycle returned some rather interesting results on Google Images...

    The issue is the false sense of security, the infringement on everyone else's right to privacy who doesn't want this system, the potential for abuse (cleanfeed was just for child porn related things, and when people brought up the potential for it to be used for other things as an argument against it, it was mentioned in parliament that 'it would never happen'. What do we see now? Copyright infringing sites are blocked by it...), the potential for those people who opt out of filtering to be targeted as being deviants or something etc...

    So, whilst there is potential for good, that potential is far outweighed by the negatives.

  3. Thanks to localzuk from:

    LosOjos (23rd July 2013)

  4. #138
    DrCheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,028
    Thank Post
    97
    Thanked 158 Times in 107 Posts
    Rep Power
    58
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    is this not aimed at stopping young children from accidentally viewing indecent images. Most of the posts above are complaining that it will infringe on their online habits.

    I have a 6 year old who browses the internet and I do use parent filters but I am very much in a minority and dread to think what some of my sons class mates get to see by accident while at home. Will this not protect them from accidentally viewing some very bad stuff?
    So what? It's not the job of the state to protect your child from "very bad stuff" It's *your* job to educate your child in responsible Internet browsing and what to do if they accidently come across such content.

    The real world is not a nice place and hiding our children from it will just stunt them. They *will* come across reality eventually.

  5. #139
    Pyroman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,200
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 140 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    73
    Quote Originally Posted by DrCheese View Post
    So what? It's not the job of the state to protect your child from "very bad stuff" It's *your* job to educate your child in responsible Internet browsing and what to do if they accidently come across such content.

    The real world is not a nice place and hiding our children from it will just stunt them. They *will* come across reality eventually.
    Exactly, you wouldn't let your kids into a magazine shop and say have fun, you'd point them at the kiddies magazines and make sure they didn't climb up onto the top shelf

  6. #140

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,038
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 187 Times in 154 Posts
    Rep Power
    83
    Exactly, you wouldn't let your kids into a magazine shop and say have fun, you'd point them at the kiddies magazines and make sure they didn't climb up onto the top shelf
    Yes but if the magazine shop came to your sons bedroom would you not want the xxx mags removed from the pile before your son gets to view them. And do not say the parent should be the one to remove the xxx mags as 99% of parents have no idea how to stop internet porn being viewed by kids.

  7. #141

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,951
    Thank Post
    862
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 991 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    Yes but if the magazine shop came to your sons bedroom would you not want the xxx mags removed from the pile before your son gets to view them. And do not say the parent should be the one to remove the xxx mags as 99% of parents have no idea how to stop internet porn being viewed by kids.
    99% of people don't know how to fly a plane. WE SHOULD BAN FLYING.

    Any reason to curtail civil liberties is a poor reason, but stupidity especially so.

    Education is a better response than legislation.

  8. #142

    dhicks's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2005
    Location
    Knightsbridge
    Posts
    5,624
    Thank Post
    1,240
    Thanked 778 Times in 675 Posts
    Rep Power
    235
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    is this not aimed at stopping young children from accidentally viewing indecent images.
    I've been following PC Pro's coverage of this over the past few weeks, and they seem to have done a good job of explaining what, exactly, is being proposed here. There are two sets of Internet filters: a government-mandated one (if I understand correctly) that blacklists sites which hold illegal material (child abuse, etc) and ISP-provided ones that most ISPs offer as a service to parents and so on who might want to put some sort of parental controls on their connection. At the moment, most ISPs don't switch on those controls by default, but the government is asking them to change to on-by-default settings when you set up your account (they also want every existing ISP account holder to be asked whether to switch on parental controls or not).

    I'm not sure who, exactly, runs the government blacklist or exactly what material it's blocking but it seems to be a relativly small list of really bad sites, and it seems to be well-maintained with few false-positives (i.e. an actual human is involved in deciding to block a site, and that site has to actually hold illegal material). The ISP filters are your standard blacklist-based filters, with those blacklists updated by random people (probably underpaid students or similar) and with no real oversight or, in many cases, even a mechanism to reprot a false positive.

    The reason all this has come to politician's attention is that, in some people's opinion, your average teenager these days has rather too easy access to pornography, and in some cases that's giving young people the wrong ideas / attitudes about sex in general. I'd tend to agree with that opinion, although I don't think this is the correct way to go about fixing the issue. The goverment has passed up a good opportunity here to get pornography vendors to implement a proper age verification system and payments system, something I get the impression those vendors would be quite happy to see in place - randy 15-year-olds are not, after all, actually good customers, not having credit cards. Yesterdays annoucement mostly seems like random waffle with very little content, instead of actual, proper goverment policy intended to make changes for the better.
    Last edited by plexer; 23rd July 2013 at 12:18 PM.

  9. #143

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,659
    Thank Post
    858
    Thanked 646 Times in 429 Posts
    Rep Power
    498
    Banning Pr0n leads to curiosity of Pr0n
    Curiosity of Pr0n leads to circumvention of net filters

    Banning also leads to complacency - give it a few months until Little Johnny is found looking at Pr0n that has supposedly been blocked.
    Queue outraged parents demanding to know why their Little Johnny was able to access Pr0n that should have been blocked.

    Behind closed doors, Little Johnny has done one of 2 things:
    1) Got hold of daddy's ISP username and password and opted out
    or
    2) he has been trawling the net and found how to bypass the filters (VPNs for example)

    End result:

    ISPs get even more grief for something that was never their fault to begin with.

  10. #144

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,038
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 187 Times in 154 Posts
    Rep Power
    83
    99% of people don't know how to fly a plane. WE SHOULD BAN FLYING.
    let the 1% who have passed their flying lessons fly, and for the other 99% they can be looked after and flown around the world by someone that does know how to fly

    Any reason to curtail civil liberties is a poor reason, but stupidity especially so
    How does hitting a no button intrude on your liberties?

    Education is a better response than legislation.
    and for those poor children who have parents that do not give a sh*t they will be expossed to images that might send them on a path that is rather dark and twisted.

    I am trained in IT and will be choosing to disable the filtering and use my own filtering but my sister who is not trained in IT will be very grateful to have some filtering for her children even if it is only partial, as partial is much better than nothing.

  11. #145

    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    2,038
    Thank Post
    83
    Thanked 187 Times in 154 Posts
    Rep Power
    83
    give it a few months until Little Johnny is found looking at Pr0n that has supposedly been blocked.
    Queue outraged parents demanding to know why their Little Johnny was able to access Pr0n that should have been blocked.

    Behind closed doors, Little Johnny has done one of 2 things:
    1) Got hold of daddy's ISP username and password and opted out
    or
    2) he has been trawling the net and found how to bypass the filters (VPNs for example)
    except in my case little johnny is only 6 years old and does not know what a vpn is what an ISP is.

  12. #146
    Pyroman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Posts
    1,200
    Thank Post
    433
    Thanked 140 Times in 105 Posts
    Rep Power
    73

  13. #147


    Join Date
    Sep 2008
    Posts
    1,766
    Thank Post
    323
    Thanked 258 Times in 211 Posts
    Rep Power
    120
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    Yes but if the magazine shop came to your sons bedroom would you not want the xxx mags removed from the pile before your son gets to view them. And do not say the parent should be the one to remove the xxx mags as 99% of parents have no idea how to stop internet porn being viewed by kids.
    As a new parent I know there will be things that my child will want to do as they go up. I also know that some of these things I will be able to help with some of which my wife will be able to do. But I know there will be things that we do not have a clue about at which point we will either seek guidance or learn what to do to ensure that our child is as safe as she can be. The argument that parents do not know how to stop porn is a bit stupid really, if you don't know how to do it ask someone for help. There are enough facilities to limit the exposure of content of the internet already available, but the biggest thing that would help is putting the computer in the front room and ensure your child learns to use it properly. Educate them about what to click on and what to do should something unwanted appear on screen and they will learn how to use internet access on any device. Putting a default on filter from the ISP will just mean parents will still NOT know how to stop porn being viewed by kids and will remain non the wiser about potential dangers on the internet.

    My child will soon be crawling and then walking and I know I need to put locks on the kitchen cupboards to ensure she doesn't get into them. I do not want someone coming round to install them because I have a kitchen, I will do it because it is MY responsibility to ensure MY childs safety and bring them up to the best of my ability. Don't get me wrong, I don't want any child to see the content they are talking about here, but I don't think a blanket filter for everyone is the right way of doing it. In my opinion all it will do is keep people uneducated about how to use the internet which is the exact opposite of what they are trying to do.

  14. Thanks to penfold from:

    Pyroman (23rd July 2013)

  15. #148

    LosOjos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    West Midlands
    Posts
    5,452
    Thank Post
    1,439
    Thanked 1,170 Times in 798 Posts
    Rep Power
    707
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    except in my case little johnny is only 6 years old and does not know what a vpn is what an ISP is.
    At 6 years old, he also won't be curious enough to find out. That will change. Fortunately, you have filters in palace and protection and presumably will be educating Little Johnny on the dangers of the Internet - like every parent should. As for your sister, why don't you explain to her how to setup filters if she doesn't know? It's so easy to do especially with the likes of windows Live Family Safety available completely free of charge.

    The point you are clearly missing/ignoring is that government cannot be trusted. Today, we give them the power to filter pron "to save the children" - tomorrow, who knows? Rather than spending time and money forcing ISPs to take on unnecessary responsibility to look after our children, that time and money would be much better spent educating parents how to filter their own connections, what exactly they should be looking out for and the same for children (which to be fair they have started in the way of e-safety lessons in schools).

    And the parents that don't give a crap will continue to not give a crap - that's just the way it is; you need a license to do a great deal of things in this world, giving birth is not one of them.

  16. #149

    m25man's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Romford, Essex
    Posts
    1,625
    Thank Post
    49
    Thanked 460 Times in 336 Posts
    Rep Power
    139
    As soon as the kids get home they will be using the same proxies they were trying at school that day!
    We are all professionals here we know how hard it is to lock these things down whilst still maintaining Status Quo.

    The bottom line is filtering at the ISP will involve a cost in both implementation and support, especially support.

    ISP call centres will have to handle hundreds if not thousands more calls every week and that will only result in increased charges for the basic service.

    Agreed, we need to simplify the system and make it easier for the unknowing to control their connection but to force the ISPs to do it where am I? China? Iran?

    Make it law that all Adult sites must register and operate through a specific domain suffix, let ISPs offer a controlled DNS service (peered OPENDNS type).
    Make it easy for users to opt in.

    There is a lot can be done at minimal costs without throwing the baby out with the bath water.

    Finally, this announcement by Mr Cameron came at peak news time along with the news that the Princess had gone into labour...

    Just as it was announced that 2.8m was to be paid to 144 members of the Olympic Delivery Team as redundancy payments (evidently they were on permanent contracts for the 2012 Olympics)....

    It seems like smoke and mirrors to me, a good day to bury bad news.... That moronic waste of 2.8m is more of a story but conveniently diluted in the other matters of the day!

  17. #150

    sonofsanta's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Lincolnshire, UK
    Posts
    4,951
    Thank Post
    862
    Thanked 1,443 Times in 991 Posts
    Blog Entries
    47
    Rep Power
    616
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    How does hitting a no button intrude on your liberties?
    Because I don't trust the government - this one or any other - to act honourably or keep to promises. I might have the option to say "no" now, but once the technical capability is in place, how long before it becomes compulsory? Or my opting out gets my name added to a list? (on that note, one of my techies said he was listening to an interview with Cameron when someone phoned in and asked if this would happen - he refused to answer)

    We already know that the filter won't just be used for its currently stated purpose - as said earlier, the CleanFeed system set up to block child abuse images is now being used to block sites that private industry say are hurting them.

    No, not every parent will bother to invest the time in understanding the issue. Nor will some bother to invest the time in stopping their children smoking, drinking, stealing... It is not the state's job to raise children, and to have a Tory government of all governments propose it is bordering on the surreal.

    If you don't want children to get the wrong idea about sex from pornography, don't ban the pornography, reintroduce the sex education lessons they seem to have quietly scrapped. My 12 year old daughter hasn't had anything yet beyond a biology lesson - and that's not helpful when you genuinely have teenagers believing you can get pregnant if you swallow, or that you can't get pregnant if you have sex standing up. Those are both conversations I have overheard in schools.
    Last edited by sonofsanta; 23rd July 2013 at 12:35 PM.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 10 of 13 FirstFirst ... 678910111213 LastLast

Similar Threads

  1. Gloria is at it again
    By ayoward in forum Yorkshire & Humberside Grid for Learning (YHGfL)
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 22nd November 2012, 11:14 AM
  2. [Pics] The Daily Mail is at it again...
    By Arthur in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: 27th January 2012, 03:16 PM
  3. America is at it again
    By glennda in forum General Chat
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 21st April 2011, 03:54 PM
  4. [Website] top Gear at it again - James May Crash!
    By rad in forum Jokes/Interweb Things
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 13th October 2009, 02:57 PM
  5. TES Forums: They're at it again!!
    By Dos_Box in forum General Chat
    Replies: 63
    Last Post: 10th April 2008, 12:23 PM

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •