Uk Goverment to block Internet porn by default

[thinfourth2]

lauda said:

I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about to be honest. The government isn't going to stop any adult from looking at porn if that's what you want (and personally, I do!). It's a removable filter, not full-on censorship.

And to be honest, I think the ease of availablility of hardcore porn on the internet probably isn't doing much good for kids' understanding of what a real sexual relationship is like. There was an article in the Sunday Times yesterday looking at the impact of porn on kids and teenagers and there does seem to be some fairly convincing evidence that early exposure is normalising some quite 'niche' behaviour and practices. As with a lot of other things (films generally and videogames), a child's ability to assess porn within the context of broader social norms is less well developed than an adults.

Would anyone here really propose the removal of age ratings for other films, or is it ok for a 10 year old kid to watch Saw? Unfortunately, most porn is consumed via the internet and that is much more difficult to regulate than over the counter DVD sales or entry to a cinema. Therefore whilst the proposal may seem intrusive, ultimately it doesn't limit any adults freedom to access porn on the internet and may help to keep unsuitable, and potentially harmful, material away from kids. So I really don't have a problem with it.

Having said that, some parents should perhaps take a bit more responsibility for what their kids look at on the internet.

Spoke creep

It will start as porn and will move onto other things

[oldbanger]

lauda said:

Surely it can't be that complicated/expensive? My company has a filter on our internet connections which blocks out 'unsuitable' content and I'm sure a lot of other companies do. Is it not just a case of applying such software at the internet service provider level rather than at the local network level?

And by the way, I know next to nothing about computers so am more than happy to be corrected if it is much more complicated than that!

We have a filter system at work, and it's a nightmare. I need to be able to use the internet as part of my job but the filter blocks stuff at random e.g scientific meterology papers have been blocked due to "adult nudity" (pdf articles with text and charts etc). I regularly get stuff blocked due to "offensive" or "adult" content, particularly newspaper articles. About half of wikipeadia is blocked, also online dictionaries. I spend half my time emailing IT explaining what I was doing looking at said banned sites and why I really need them unblocked. It doesn't help that a colleague's role is partly to analyse all web surfing by employees to ensure compliance with the web usage policy.

[plasticpig]

hairykrishna said:

lauda said:

I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about to be honest. The government isn't going to stop any adult from looking at porn if that's what you want (and personally, I do!). It's a removable filter, not full-on censorship.

And to be honest, I think the ease of availablility of hardcore porn on the internet probably isn't doing much good for kids' understanding of what a real sexual relationship is like. There was an article in the Sunday Times yesterday looking at the impact of porn on kids and teenagers and there does seem to be some fairly convincing evidence that early exposure is normalising some quite 'niche' behaviour and practices. As with a lot of other things (films generally and videogames), a child's ability to assess porn within the context of broader social norms is less well developed than an adults.

Would anyone here really propose the removal of age ratings for other films, or is it ok for a 10 year old kid to watch Saw? Unfortunately, most porn is consumed via the internet and that is much more difficult to regulate than over the counter DVD sales or entry to a cinema. Therefore whilst the proposal may seem intrusive, ultimately it doesn't limit any adults freedom to access porn on the internet and may help to keep unsuitable, and potentially harmful, material away from kids. So I really don't have a problem with it.

Having said that, some parents should perhaps take a bit more responsibility for what their kids look at on the internet.

My problem with it is that it won't work and they'll likely piss a bunch of public money up the wall finding this out for themselves. If people don't want their kids looking at porn they should sort out their own filters. They won't work either for half way bright kids but at least they won't cost me money.

The only solution I can see working is a twofold solution. Website blocking and an anti-virus type solution that detects and blocks potential pornographic images using a skin tone and humaniform pattern recognition system. You would still get false positives and false negatives but it would stop the vast majority of images.

[hairykrishna]

plasticpig said:

The only solution I can see working is a twofold solution. Website blocking and an anti-virus type solution that detects and blocks potential pornographic images using a skin tone and humaniform pattern recognition system. You would still get false positives and false negatives but it would stop the vast majority of images.

Website blocking will stop some - there's a enormous number of websites though and it's easy to bypass, kids aren't stupid. Image recognition software that blocks only porn is a pipe dream at the moment. Everything available is rubbish; it's not a trivial problem to recognise the right stuff to block.

[hairykrishna]

lauda said:

Surely it can't be that complicated/expensive? My company has a filter on our internet connections which blocks out 'unsuitable' content and I'm sure a lot of other companies do. Is it not just a case of applying such software at the internet service provider level rather than at the local network level?

And by the way, I know next to nothing about computers so am more than happy to be corrected if it is much more complicated than that!

Most filters are easy to bypass. It's made harder on work PC's by not allowing local administrator access, so the things you need to change are unavailable. I think that these proposed filters will be easy to bypass by even slightly computer savvy kids, who will then place the info everywhere for the benefit of less savvy kids.

[lauda]

Marf said:

lauda said:

I'm not really sure what all the fuss is about to be honest. The government isn't going to stop any adult from looking at porn if that's what you want (and personally, I do!). It's a removable filter, not full-on censorship.

The fuss is about being treated like fking children and the possibility of having to call your fking ISP cap in hand "Please sir, I want some porn".

fk that. It should be an opt in system, not opt out. If parents want to block the internet, they should have to take action themselves, not treat the entire nation like fking children.

You're right, in an ideal world, parents would be able to take responsibility for their own kids. Unfortunately, the majority of procreation seems to be going on amongst the mouth-breathing, knuckle-draggers who can't take responsibility for anything. Their kids are likely to end fked-up enough as it is so anything that might help protect them is alright by me.

In this context, I'm not sure a phonecall or email to my ISP is that big a deal and as I've previously said, this proposal doesn't limit any adult's right to view porn on the internet if they want to and therefore I don't see it as any infringement of my freedoms or liberty.

[Marf]

We'll have to agree to disagree then

[lauda]

Marf said:

We'll have to agree to disagree then

Done!

[plasticpig]

hairykrishna said:

plasticpig said:

The only solution I can see working is a twofold solution. Website blocking and an anti-virus type solution that detects and blocks potential pornographic images using a skin tone and humaniform pattern recognition system. You would still get false positives and false negatives but it would stop the vast majority of images.

Website blocking will stop some - there's a enormous number of websites though and it's easy to bypass, kids aren't stupid. Image recognition software that blocks only porn is a pipe dream at the moment. Everything available is rubbish; it's not a trivial problem to recognise the right stuff to block.

I wouldn't say it's a pipe dream. I understand it isn't a trivial problem. The main problem is that at the moment to get a decent result too many algorithms have to be used for an application involving real time image viewing. I have seen pretty good results (<2% false positives) on scanning saved images using a mixture of different techniques. Pattern recognition techniques are being improved and refined all the time. I wouldn't bee too surprised to see an acceptable commercial solution being launched in the next couple of years.

[Marf]

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063

"Government plans to block pornography "at source" are unlikely to prove effective, say ISPs.

The proposal to cut off access to pornographic material was floated by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times."

[thinfourth2]

Marf said:

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063

"Government plans to block pornography "at source" are unlikely to prove effective, say ISPs.

The proposal to cut off access to pornographic material was floated by Culture Minister Ed Vaizey in an interview with the Sunday Times."

Its not the fact that they can or can't do it that bothers me.

Its the fact they want to do it.

Nothing has changed other then tie colours