+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 LastLast
Results 151 to 165 of 193
General Chat Thread, Cameron is at it again..... in General; Originally Posted by edutech4schools except in my case little johnny is only 6 years old and does not know what ...
  1. #151

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,759
    Thank Post
    870
    Thanked 672 Times in 441 Posts
    Rep Power
    502
    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.
    Any child adept at using Google will quickly learn what a VPN / ISP is.

    My son for example is 6 - and very inquisitive - for that reason he is already restricted when he goes online.
    But given how widespread advertising is for ISPs (Billboards, Magazines, Radio, TV, etc, etc) my son knows a lot about ISPs (even if he doesn't know the term itself)

    He doesn't yet know about a VPN but he knows about the internet and wireless and windows, etc purely by being around us and through his own initiative he has learnt about stuff we haven't told him - We've found him on sites like Argos and Smyths and with toys added to the shopping basket!

    Children soak in information like a sponge - hell he can find his way round Windows 8 better than I can!
    The Little Johnny scenario is not that far from the truth..

    it comes back to Education - the more we educate our children about the dangers the more they will be aware of them.

    Children choke on food - we don't ban them - we educate the child on how to eat it safely
    Children get knocked down - we don't ban cars or buses - we educate them on how to cross safely at crossings.
    Children can drown in a paddling pool - do we ban them? no we don't - again we EDUCATE the child and we supervise the child whilst they are playing.
    Children can get kidnapped - bugger all we can do about banning other people - we EDUCATE them on not talking to strangers, on what do do/say if someone tries to take them (We say to scream very loudly, make a lot of noise and if possible find a policeman)

    Ergo, we should be doing the same with Pr0n - we should be deciding whether to have a filter on or not, we should be educating our children on the dangers of what they see online, on how to be safe - we should be watching what they are up to..

    Complacency is a very dangerous thing...

  2. #152

    X-13's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    /dev/null
    Posts
    9,458
    Thank Post
    628
    Thanked 2,108 Times in 1,448 Posts
    Blog Entries
    19
    Rep Power
    881
    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.
    And my case, "little Johnny" is 24. [It's also not my name on the internet bills, so I can't just turn it off.]

    Forcing filtering "to protect children" in a household WITH NO CHILDREN is ridiculous.

  3. Thanks to X-13 from:

    CAM (23rd July 2013)

  4. #153
    flyinghaggis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    1,046
    Thank Post
    105
    Thanked 76 Times in 59 Posts
    Rep Power
    116
    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.
    For the record I'd have no issue with this policy if it wasn't for the the default on / opt-out nature of it. Is it really so hard for parents to phone up their broadband provider and say "I'd like you to turn on website filtering for my connection to prevent my child accessing innapropriate content" ?

    Is there anywhere else in Europe that has a similar policy because most of the countries I know of who pro-actively censor the internet aren't places I'd like to live!
    Last edited by flyinghaggis; 23rd July 2013 at 12:49 PM.

  5. #154
    CAM
    CAM is offline

    CAM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Burgh Heath, Surrey
    Posts
    4,285
    Thank Post
    868
    Thanked 394 Times in 305 Posts
    Blog Entries
    60
    Rep Power
    287
    Quote Originally Posted by X-13 View Post
    And my case, "little Johnny" is 24. [It's also not my name on the internet bills, so I can't just turn it off.]

    Forcing filtering "to protect children" in a household WITH NO CHILDREN is ridiculous.
    This. I am single and provide a broadband connection to a family of 5 adults, why should I pay for a filtering system so some lazy parent down the road who can't be bothered to activate parental filtering by clicking a Yes button gets nannied by the state? I have a choice; I leave the filtering on and force it on everyone else or I remove the filtering to stop false positives and end up on "the list." Either way my broadband cost goes up because now everyone is using the filtering system when they don't need to.

  6. #155
    MikeGilbert's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2013
    Location
    Taunton
    Posts
    100
    Thank Post
    3
    Thanked 17 Times in 13 Posts
    Rep Power
    5
    Quote Originally Posted by sonofsanta View Post
    To quote a US High Court judge - "I know [hardcore pornography] when I see it". And that's the problem with all these sweeping censorship rules.
    To quote chief prosecutor Mervyn Griffith-Jones QC from the Lady Chatterley’s Lover trial in 1960: "is this the kind of book you would wish your wife or servants to read?"
    Last edited by MikeGilbert; 23rd July 2013 at 01:06 PM. Reason: Correcting a guessed quote.

  7. #156

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,267
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 242 Times in 193 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    74
    Kids today are no less smart than we were. VPN tor shell etc are point and click these days. Some of the stuff they do to bypass our filters is jaw dropping (pdfs calling embedded dlls that contain wrapped tor entry points and a portable browser launched using the 'bypass applocker' switch - for example.) This stuff comes from the darker side of the internet, the places that most kids don't go at the moment. It would be extraordinarily naive of ministers, civil servants and ISPs to believe that a prohibition will do anything other than increase the number of people learning how to break it.



    There is sufficient nasty/objectionable stuff out there not covered by porn filters that even if they get this idea through, the internet will still not be a safe place to leave a child unsupervised.

    They must launch a public information campaign on sky virgin and the beeb about the risks (after the watershed and aimed at the parents) coupled with a 'be nice, be tolerant, and don't take any pleasure in watching people be nasty to each other' message aimed at the kids. In this context the 'porn' filter could be *part* of the solution.

    The solution isn't hard. It needs to be holistic.
    Last edited by psydii; 23rd July 2013 at 01:18 PM.

  8. Thanks to psydii from:

    IrritableTech (23rd July 2013)

  9. #157
    DrCheese's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2008
    Posts
    1,035
    Thank Post
    97
    Thanked 161 Times in 110 Posts
    Rep Power
    60
    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.
    And that's *still* not my problem. If a parent can't be bothered to do the research then it's STILL not the states problem to sort.
    Stop expecting other people to raise your kids. Take the computer *out* of their bedrooms if your worried.

  10. #158

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,125
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,539 Times in 1,974 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by edutech4schools View Post
    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
    Ah, but that analogy would mean "allow the 1% who want the filtering enable it, but leave the 99% alone"...

    How does hitting a no button intrude on your liberties?
    The ISP will then have a log of who you are and that you want access to porn (well, that's how the government will look at it). The government may not do anything with that data right now, but in the future? Government has form for doing stuff like that.

    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.
    Sorry, but we can't negatively damage the rights of society because some people are crap parents. If there are crap parents, they need to be helped instead. If you have crap drivers, you don't ban every driver from the road - you target the bad ones.

    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.
    Why not educate your sister to do things herself? She has a responsibility to do so, rather than expecting the government to do it for her.

  11. #159

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,267
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 242 Times in 193 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    74
    I actually know a High Court Judge. He did not know Hardcore Pornography when he saw it. He had to take expert advice (from his grown up children)...

    They were pretty liberal (and this was over 10 years ago, they'd not grown up with the internet and were only just getting broadband).

  12. #160

    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    London
    Posts
    1,267
    Thank Post
    112
    Thanked 242 Times in 193 Posts
    Blog Entries
    1
    Rep Power
    74
    I am a parent.

    If they passed a law that said: "all parents must ensure they have considered internet filtering from their ISP" and that all ISPs were required to ship routers that did transparent filtering as an option, I would not object, in fact I would be for this; for a start, it would save me time rolling my own!

    But control needs to be with the parent, and so does the decision, and the record of that decision. The state has no right to know, because once they know and have control of a national level filtering service, we are not a free people.
    Last edited by psydii; 23rd July 2013 at 01:13 PM.

  13. #161
    maark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    leicester
    Posts
    478
    Thank Post
    90
    Thanked 76 Times in 67 Posts
    Rep Power
    39
    an interesting article in favour on the register PHWOAR! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, Prime Minister makes some good points.

  14. #162

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,125
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,539 Times in 1,974 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by maark View Post
    an interesting article in favour on the register PHWOAR! Huh! What is it good for? Absolutely nothing, Prime Minister makes some good points.
    Doesn't make any good points to me - it just brushes over all the criticism by referencing the flawed filtering on the mobile networks, ignores the categorisation argument, laughs at the concept that the government would use opt out information for whatever reason, and generally just repeats the flawed arguments of Cameron.

    It doesn't even mention the false sense of security or educating parents aspect of it all.

  15. #163

    Gatt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    6,759
    Thank Post
    870
    Thanked 672 Times in 441 Posts
    Rep Power
    502
    I thought the filters for mobile networks was aimed more at trying to stop people running up huge bills, rather than keep naughty content at bay?

  16. #164

    localzuk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Minehead
    Posts
    18,125
    Thank Post
    522
    Thanked 2,539 Times in 1,974 Posts
    Blog Entries
    24
    Rep Power
    875
    Quote Originally Posted by Gatt View Post
    I thought the filters for mobile networks was aimed more at trying to stop people running up huge bills, rather than keep naughty content at bay?
    Nah, they have always been marketed as adult filters as far as I can tell. They have also always been massively flawed. My old Orange contract constantly blocked websites, until I had it taken off. Not to mention many porn related things getting through (usually porn ads on forum sites and the like)...

  17. #165
    Sdrawkcab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    uk
    Posts
    323
    Thank Post
    9
    Thanked 104 Times in 58 Posts
    Rep Power
    55
    Do we know what form the blocking system is going to take anyway? The current DNS blocking they're doing (i'd assume with Cleanfeed but I don't know) relies on you using DNS servers provided by your ISP. If you set your PCs DNS to Google DNS (8.8.8.8/8.8.4.4) you can get around it that way and still get access to blocked sites like The Pirate Bay and KAT with no problems. If this is how they're planning on blocking porn too, I can't see it being very long before kids start figuring things like this out.

    This needs to be made opt-in, otherwise non-techy parents will just get complacent about things like this. To those of you saying they won't opt-in, surely they have had to fill out a form or talk to someone to sign up for their broadband service in the first place? Why can't that person say "Do you want a porn filter?"

    MUCH more focus needs to be placed on education as a means of prevention rather than looking for technological solutions. The problem is, that would mean openly discussing pornography with people. Most people don't really want to talk about that sort of thing, especially not with their children, and would rather just pretend it doesn't exist. Also discussing porn like this means accepting the damage it's done, which is something people will also find hard to deal with as they have probably enjoyed porn themselves in the past. It's much easier to pretend that the government has it all covered and not think about it. Self deception is something that we as a species are extremely good at.

SHARE:
+ Post New Thread
Page 11 of 13 FirstFirst ... 78910111213 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
  •