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

[sonofsanta]

What I don't understand is how this issue becomes a national issue which the PM has to then wade in on, and arrange consultations? It just seems to be a minority of people shouting loudly getting lots of airtime when those people who actually look at it logically are ignored or demonised as being complicit or worse.

 

Because the PM has taken a hammering recently over Jeremy Hunt and his boyfriend Rupert Murdoch (these gay scandals keep cropping up for the Tories, don't they), the double dip recession whilst the rich are richer than ever, selling access to him for private lunches in his flat, the petrol panic buying shenanigans... and being involved in something For The Kiddies seems like a safe way to try and restore some of his damaged image.

 

And I'm absolutely opt-out, because of the way we're already seeing CleanFeed abused. Wouldn't be much of a stretch before some parents somewhere have campaigned for 18-rated film websites/trailers to be blocked, so then you can't see that, and then they'd be after b3ta for inappropriate content, and then any games website would be blocked because video games make kids violent (it's true, you know, my friend told me of his sister's boyfriend's cousin's son who played Call of Duty for 36 hours a day and then punched his Mum when he was told to come off it and go to bed)... so yeah, I'll stay at the top of Freedom Hill while everyone else goes for the slippery slope.

[X-13]

That would just end up being a national scandal. Site full of people working in schools calling for porn to be available to children?! The Daily Mail would have a field day!

 

Even though we wouldn't be calling for "porn for children".

 

We be calling for "Parents for children".

 

 

Although... I'm sure a "porn for children" campaign would be fun to attempt.

[localzuk]

Even though we wouldn't be calling for "porn for children".

 

We be calling for "Parents for children".

 

 

Although... I'm sure a "porn for children" campaign would be fun to attempt.

 

It wouldn't matter what our actual arguments were/are, the media would take snippets of what was said and paint us as evil demons.

[X-13]

It wouldn't matter what our actual arguments were/are, the media would take snippets of what was said and paint us as evil demons.

 

Of course they would.

 

How else can they distract from whatever scandal is affecting [effecting?] their chosen party?

 

It's not like the scandal is a scandal for a reason...[/sarCHASM]

[sonofsanta]

Of course they would.

 

How else can they distract from whatever scandal is affecting [effecting?] their chosen party?

 

It's not like the scandal is a scandal for a reason...[/sarCHASM]

 

Affect is the verb, effect is the noun. So you affect something to have an effect. Right first time, in other words.

 

/should really just get on with fixing this live migration nonsense this morning

[localzuk]

Affect is the verb, effect is the noun. So you affect something to have an effect. Right first time, in other words.

 

/should really just get on with fixing this live migration nonsense this morning

 

Although... xkcd: Effect an Effect

[X-13]

Although... xkcd: Effect an Effect

 

YOU'RE NOT HELPING!

[zag]

"Opt In"

 

Finally some common sense from the government!

[X-13]

"Opt In"

 

Finally some common sense from the government!

 

Opt in... to view adult material.

 

 

It's still on by default.

 

 

Common sense is the rarest thing ever.

[zag]

Sorry I got confused with my opt in's and opt outs.

 

I must admit I would rather have it off by default. It should be up to parents to decide.

[X-13]

Sorry I got confused with my opt in's and opt outs.

 

To be fair... They've got it wrong.

 

I'm thinking intentionally, to disrupt the outrage. But, that may be because I have my tin-foil hat on.

[localzuk]

I must admit I would rather have it off by default.

 

Giggity?

[JJonas]

Sorry I got confused with my opt in's and opt outs.

 

 

Me too, perhaps that is part of the plan so the MP's dont know what they are voting on.

[X-13]

Me too, perhaps that is part of the plan so the MP's dont know what they are voting on.

 

Sadly, this sounds about right...

[sonofsanta]

Relevant to the thread and on-going debate in general: BBC News - ORG: Mobile filters censor innocent content

 

Its report found that 60 websites were incorrectly blocked by mobile filters designed to prevent children viewing adult content. The affected sites included political commentaries, personal blogs and community websites.

 

Mobile phone man also says

"...mobile operators are happy to remove the filters when customers show they are over 18 and will re-classify websites when misclassifications are pointed out to them"

But how many people, realistically, are going to mess about reporting a misclassified website? Almost none. They'll go back and pick the next Google result. Even if everyone religiously reported every misclassification, new content appears so quickly that dynamic filtering is the only viable option, and dynamic filtering will continue to get it wrong.

[Arthur]

dynamic filtering will continue to get it wrong.

There are too many false positives...

 

On the Difficulty of Autonomous Pornography Detection « Crucial Security (SFW)

[X-13]

There are too many false positives...

 

On the Difficulty of Autonomous Pornography Detection « Crucial Security (SFW)

 

Strange thing is... I can access that page, but there's nothing on it.

 

BUT, the next and previous posts get filtered.

[sonofsanta]

Strange thing is... I can access that page, but there's nothing on it.

 

BUT, the next and previous posts get filtered.

 

So your web filter's automatic engine has erroneously filtered it? How fitting

[X-13]

So your web filter's automatic engine has erroneously filtered it? How fitting

 

Quite.

 

Also, tech_guy's thread offering beer for drivers is blocked when you go via google [web based chat], but not if I access it from here...

 

This filtering is fubar. F.U.B.A.R, I SAY!

[sted]

There are too many false positives...

 

On the Difficulty of Autonomous Pornography Detection « Crucial Security (SFW)

 

you mean like how policy central does (or did) flag up every time someone types in princess for example

[X-13]

you mean like how policy central does (or did) flag up every time someone types in princess for example

 

wut...

[sted]

wut...

 

policy central detects when people type in certain words and screen dumps it to the server. The default settings (until you build up an "ignore list") include words like princess so if a class are writing in word about princesses you get a load of false positive hits granted it also records kids typing in expletives but you have to get past all the false positives to find them).

 

Any compulsory filtering would probably err on the side of caution in the same way so has the distinct probability of blocking legitimate content so assuming the same default rules as policy central you couldnt look at sites containing details of say royal weddings for instance.

 

Unexpected consequences of a simple rule see Langton's ant - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia for a trivial example of a simple rule having unpredictable consequences

[X-13]

policy central detects when people type in certain words and screen dumps it to the server. The default settings (until you build up an "ignore list") include words like princess so if a class are writing in word about princesses you get a load of false positive hits granted it also records kids typing in expletives but you have to get past all the false positives to find them).

 

But why is "princess" of the watch list?

 

That's what I'm not getting...

[sted]

But why is "princess" of the watch list?

 

That's what I'm not getting...

 

search me it just is by default. Thats just the first example i could think of

[alan-d]

But why is "princess" of the watch list?

 

That's what I'm not getting...

 

It's a Predatory term.