[news] BBC News - "MPs call for better porn filters to protect children"

[X-13]

I see what your saying but I don't think you quite understand how the talk talk filter works.

 

You can add it to your broadband package when you buy it. On top of that you get granular control over the blocking categories if needed via a web interface. Parents can decide what to filter and what to allow if they are indeed technically minded. You can turn it on or off at will, its not mandatory. I expect most parents will simply ask for the adult filter to be applied upon buying the service. That's what really makes it work, its as simple as a phone call.

 

It really is an excellent system and one I wish more ISPs would adopt.

 

 

You're starting to sound like you're advertising...

[localzuk]

I see what your saying but I don't think you quite understand how the talk talk filter works.

 

You can add it to your broadband package when you buy it. On top of that you get granular control over the blocking categories if needed via a web interface. Parents can decide what to filter and what to allow if they are indeed technically minded. You can turn it on or off at will, its not mandatory. I expect most parents will simply ask for the adult filter to be applied upon buying the service. That's what really makes it work, its as simple as a phone call.

 

It really is an excellent system and one I wish more ISPs would adopt.

 

Your proposal still means that parents will need to know what they're doing, and ask for a filter to be put in place, but it means that the cost for that has to be covered somehow, and I doubt Talk Talk are charging individual customers for the service, but are spreading it across their entire customer-base. Why do Talk Talk not provide it as firmware on their routers they ship to people, which they can enable locally on their connection via a web interface?

 

The Talk Talk system only works well because so few people use it I'd guess, as the hardware required for mass filtering is expensive to say the least - just look at the kit needed in a school for a 100Mbit connection.

[zag]

The talk talk filter is free as far as I know and has not added to the cost of their products in any way.

 

I think this quote sums it up quite well:

 

'Of course, it’s not a silver bullet and it doesn't absolve parents from the responsibility of knowing what their children are up to online. But our research shows parents understand this. They don't want their ISP to control what content they can or can't access online – they just want their ISP to give them the power to implement settings that are right for their family,' said Tristia Clarke, a TalkTalk spokesperson.

[X-13]

But our research shows parents understand this. They don't want their ISP to control what content they can or can't access online

 

Well, according to mumsnet [who represent all parents for some reason] they DO want ISP level filtering. [referenced in the report]

 

So, either TalkTalk are lying or Mumsnet are trying to force legislation to allow them to keep being lazy.

 

 

But, it's proving my point. There are enough things around to do this already. ISP level filtering isn't needed.

 

 

Also, TalkTalk not charging for filtering != it's free

 

It just means they're getting the money for it another way.

Edited April 19, 2012 by X-13

[zag]

Mumsnet =

 

I dont think any legislation is needed as the original article states.

 

It just needs the optional products from the ISP's to be made available like talk talk have done.

 

EDIT: I forgot to say that if anything is made mandatory I would be marching up the street with placards with you all

Edited April 19, 2012 by zag

[localzuk]

The talk talk filter is free as far as I know and has not added to the cost of their products in any way.

 

I think this quote sums it up quite well:

 

Nothing is free. Talk Talk have servers in place to support that service. They will have to cover the costs somehow, so they'll be charging all customers to do so. If they didn't have those costs, and they maintained the same profit margins, they would charge customers less. Simple economics.

[X-13]

Mumsnet [ATTACH=CONFIG]13680[/ATTACH]

 

If you think about the children too much, you're going to meet Chris Hansen.

 

 

I forgot to say that if anything is made mandatory I would be marching up the street with placards with you all

 

If it's made mandatory, I'm figuring out how to bypass it and handing it out to everyone.

Edited April 19, 2012 by X-13

[CAM]

It's called a proxy server (another thing that any national net filter would need to block to be effective).

 

The entire ISP responsibility argument is flawed though. Imagine if one of your students used your LA E-Mail system to make phishing attacks and you got nicked for it because it's your network?

[CyberNerd]

Mumsnet = [ATTACH=CONFIG]13680[/ATTACH]

 

 

edugeek is just a geekier version of mumsnet; check the content filter posts

[pooley]

So 9 out of 10 14-16 year olds access porn regularly at home, well I wonder how much money they spent finding that one out? Of course they look at porn, all teenagers (boy's mainly i'd of thought) have done and will do. It's part of growing up,it's been a while since I was a teen and I didn't have the enjoyment of the internet back then, had to rely on the random finding of a porn mag that had been stashed in a bush, or one passed down from an older brother or older friend. Kids access porn, whether it be on the internet or in a magazine, you can't stop it, why would you want to? It's part of growing up... Edited April 19, 2012 by pooley

[localzuk]

I read a few comments by the CEO of Talk Talk earlier, pointing out that they had spent £20m on their content filter system. £20m that will have been passed on to their customers in the form of charges.

@pooley I agree with you there - basically 'boys will be boys'. I remember magazines being passed around in my high school for example. Those lads who looked old enough, or had brothers who were old enough had a ready supply of porn from their local newsagent.

 

However, the argument doesn't really hold up as one against this sort of filter as it's basically an appeal to tradition, which is flawed from the start.

[sonofsanta]

So 9 out of 10 14-16 year olds access porn regularly at home, well I wonder how much money they spent finding that one out? Of course they look at porn, all teenagers (boy's mainly i'd of thought) have done and will do. It's part of growing up,it's been a while since I was a teen and I didn't have the enjoyment of the internet back then, had to rely on the random finding of a porn mag that had been stashed in a bush, or one passed down from an older brother or older friend. Kids access porn, whether it be on the internet or in a magazine, you can't stop it, why would you want to? It's part of growing up...

 

To quote from the opening page of the report (honestly, everyone here should at least read the opening two pages to get a feel for the tone of the report)...

Freedom from prying eyes, human imagination and zero barriers to entry have led to an explosion of pornographic creativity with every possible sexual act represented online including many that are deeply degrading, disturbing and violent.

They're not just going for a Mary Whitehouse "nudity is bad, we must stop the children seeing it!" approach - they are acknowledging, and I can't disagree, that the internet has made previously niche material much more widely available and has a more distorting effect on the normal image of sexual activity than your older brother's copy of Razzle once did. Just think about those two girls and their one cup - how prevalent was that? And scatophilia wouldn't have been in any magazine you could've bought at your local train station even a decade ago.

 

They do also state, in the opening paragraph,

Underpinning the system are core principles - almost religious tenets - of decentralisation and freedom which mean that every piece of information and content is available and accessible somewhere. It would be anathema to see these principles compromised.

So they are not trying to maul your civil freedoms here.

 

With regards to built-in Windows filters etc., and this is a genuine question as my daughter has such a phone now - how do any of you regulate internet access on smartphones? I don't know of any domestic-size filtering boxes (Smoothwall@Home, make it happen) that would let me control anything connecting through my wireless, and even then it could be circumvented with 3G connections anyway.

[localzuk]

To quote from the opening page of the report (honestly, everyone here should at least read the opening two pages to get a feel for the tone of the report)...

 

They're not just going for a Mary Whitehouse "nudity is bad, we must stop the children seeing it!" approach - they are acknowledging, and I can't disagree, that the internet has made previously niche material much more widely available and has a more distorting effect on the normal image of sexual activity than your older brother's copy of Razzle once did. Just think about those two girls and their one cup - how prevalent was that? And scatophilia wouldn't have been in any magazine you could've bought at your local train station even a decade ago.

 

They do also state, in the opening paragraph,

 

So they are not trying to maul your civil freedoms here.

 

It has made things easier, however, security by obscurity doesn't work. All it requires is for a single kid to have access to something they shouldn't and they can download it, and send it by email, mms etc... to their mates.

 

With regards to built-in Windows filters etc., and this is a genuine question as my daughter has such a phone now - how do any of you regulate internet access on smartphones? I don't know of any domestic-size filtering boxes (Smoothwall@Home, make it happen) that would let me control anything connecting through my wireless, and even then it could be circumvented with 3G connections anyway.

 

iPhone - How to Setup Parental Controls on iPhone & iPod Touch | Mobicip Blogs, Discussions & Help

Android - https://play.google.com/store/apps/details?id=com.vlobe.smartappcloud.android.parentalcontrol&hl=en

Home - stick OpenDNS on your router as its DNS.

[X-13]

With regards to built-in Windows filters etc., and this is a genuine question as my daughter has such a phone now - how do any of you regulate internet access on smartphones? I don't know of any domestic-size filtering boxes (Smoothwall@Home, make it happen) that would let me control anything connecting through my wireless, and even then it could be circumvented with 3G connections anyway.

 

OpenDNS?

 

Looks like it installs on the router itself.

 

 

Le EDIT: [censored], Ninja'd.

Edited April 20, 2012 by X-13

[sonofsanta]

It has made things easier, however, security by obscurity doesn't work. All it requires is for a single kid to have access to something they shouldn't and they can download it, and send it by email, mms etc... to their mates.

 

But they couldn't have in the past - that again is something the internet is enabling. And no, security through obscurity isn't a valid approach - but when considering quantities, uncovering some of the seedier stuff back in the day would've required commensurate effort and impress upon the finder how unusual it must be, and outside of the norm. Now you could spend an entire evening and see nothing but bestiality or $otherDeviancy and when you're surrounded by it like that, it starts to normalise expectations around the extremes - such depravities become the new average, not outliers, and you soon end up like Stan's Dad in season 12 episode 6.

 

 

OpenDNS is a good approach (if too complicated for the majority of people - I know DNS is easy, but how many people do you know who are afraid to try anything different on a computer in case it all goes wrong?), but then how do I go about getting to all this stuff?

[sted]

With regards to built-in Windows filters etc., and this is a genuine question as my daughter has such a phone now - how do any of you regulate internet access on smartphones? I don't know of any domestic-size filtering boxes (Smoothwall@Home, make it happen) that would let me control anything connecting through my wireless, and even then it could be circumvented with 3G connections anyway.

 

a lot of mobile operators filter their 3g feed now on orange i couldnt get on edugeek as it was an adult site without a call to sustomer services and proving i was over 18 (never got round to doing it as its a work phone so im not named on it)

[sonofsanta]

a lot of mobile operators filter their 3g feed now on orange i couldnt get on edugeek as it was an adult site without a call to sustomer services and proving i was over 18 (never got round to doing it as its a work phone so im not named on it)

 

Now that I didn't know. Which is unsettling - I would prefer an opt-in system, an opt-out system as discussed or used there is still alright, so long as they tell you about it. Not knowing that it's being filtered is a bit iffy.

[localzuk]

a lot of mobile operators filter their 3g feed now on orange i couldnt get on edugeek as it was an adult site without a call to sustomer services and proving i was over 18 (never got round to doing it as its a work phone so im not named on it)

 

Yup. I've had this problem too. Perfectly legitimate websites being classed as adult. That's the problem isn't it with these systems - who decides what is adult? If its an on/off system like the MPs are suggesting, that means that more often than not families are going to find sites blocked that they want to access, meaning they end up turning it off anyway.

 

Without a per user/granular approach, it is a useless idea.

[gmj]

And here comes the Daily Fail:

 

How internet porn turned my beautiful boy into a hollow, self-hating shell | Mail Online

[localzuk]

Why on earth did that 11 year old boy have unsupervised access to a laptop in their own room? I wasn't even allowed a TV in my room growing up, let alone an internet connected PC.

[X-13]

And here comes the Daily Fail:

 

How internet porn turned my beautiful boy into a hollow, self-hating shell | Mail Online

 

 

So much fail.

 

Also:

 

His internet history showed he had also watched 'vile, paedophiliac images' presented in cartoon form

 

 

Is it bad that I know what that is?

 

It's also illegal in most countries [This one for example.]... despite not actually involving ANY real people. It's a cartoon, for [censored] sake.

 

 

Why on earth did that 11 year old boy have unsupervised access to a laptop in their own room? I wasn't even allowed a TV in my room growing up, let alone an internet connected PC.

 

Exactly.

 

People. Need. To. Look. After. Their. Own. Damn. Kids.

Edited April 20, 2012 by X-13

[LosOjos]

It's also illegal in most countries [This one for example.]... despite not actually involving ANY real people. It's a cartoon, for [censored] sake.

 

Although I see what you mean by not involving real people, I'd be seriously concerned about anybody who watched even cartoon paedophiliac images - it's still the intent to view paedophilia, real or not, and so I think it's rightly illegal.

[sonofsanta]

And here comes the Daily Fail:

 

How internet porn turned my beautiful boy into a hollow, self-hating shell | Mail Online

 

And they still managed to get in a dig about computer games

I knew his new friend was encouraging Charlie to play the violent video games that I hate so much and have always banned.

[X-13]

Although I see what you mean by not involving real people, I'd be seriously concerned about anybody who watched even cartoon paedophiliac images - it's still the intent to view paedophilia, real or not, and so I think it's rightly illegal.

 

On my list of things to be outraged by, cartoons are pretty low on the list.

 

Also, these kind of things get round it by claiming the character is over the age of consent.

 

I was watching some anime the other day [non adult] and one of the characters looked like a child. Despite being described as an adult of around 30. [i think they were supposed to be about 30.]

 

 

I've always been of the opinion that, if no-one is being harmed, I don't give a [censored]

 

See also; Adult babies and furries.

 

 

Le EDIT: Clarifying before rage.

 

Once the transition from cartoon to real is made THEN I'm morally outraged.

 

And unless a causal link can be show. Proving definitely that cartoons lead to actual abuse, then I will continue to not give a single [censored].

Edited April 20, 2012 by X-13

[CyberNerd]

On my list of things to be outraged by, cartoons are pretty low on the list.

 

Also, these kind of things get round it by claiming the character is over the age of consent.

 

I was watching some anime the other day [non adult] and one of the characters looked like a child. Despite being described as an adult of around 30. [i think they were supposed to be about 30.]

 

 

I've always been of the opinion that, if no-one is being harmed, I don't give a [censored]

 

See also; Adult babies and furries.

 

I somewhat agree and disagree. realistic images could be both distasteful and offensive, hence being banned without anyone being harmed in their production