Feeds

back to article Google warns against ISPs hard on web filth

Google may not be willing to comment on how much money it makes from pornography online, but the search giant's UK public policy head Sarah Hunter has unsurprisingly urged caution when it comes to ISPs filtering content over their networks. Speaking at Google's annual Big Tent event in Watford this morning, Hunter gently tussled …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

Meh

Someone from the Daily Mail making comments one would expect only from a complete & utter gobshite?

I AM SHOCKED. SHOCKED AND ASTOUNDED, I TELL YOU.

27
1
Silver badge

"""

Meanwhile, Platell confessed that she visited the well-known PornHub website last night, and the Mail columnist added that she was "appalled" by what she found there.

"""

I know the feeling Amanda, pop onto PornHub for a 5 finger shuffle, and it's just stuff you've already seen. Appalling indeed.

15
0
Gimp

I notice...

...that it wasn't made clear as to how long it was she stayed there!

0
0
Childcatcher

She goes to PornHub and is appalled to find porn there? What was she expecting, pictures of fluffy kittens doing cute things will balls of wool?

In other news, I visited the news agent and picked up a copy of the Mail and was appalled at what I found there. Someone should censor this rubbish before innocent children pick it up and mistake it for a newspaper.

15
0
Bronze badge

Well according to Google

Pornhub features "Free porn sex videos & pussy movies" so maybe yes.

4
0

And in other news, a politician was found to have attended parties where cannabis was smoked. But he didn't inhale, honest!

0
0
Silver badge
Paris Hilton

Big Tent?

Is that a big tent or are you pleased to see me?

Sorry.

Paris because, well, because.

8
0
FAIL

Hmm. Wonder if the daily mail puritan is equally shocked by the appalling language put out by one Paul Dacre not mentioning his general treatment of other staff. Hypocrite sounds too mild a word...

14
0
Silver badge

To paraphrase On The Hour*

Disgruntled and suspicious El Reg Forumista:

"Hypocrite sounds too mild a word"

Forthright and upstanding Daily Mail columnist:

"Hypocrite is not a word in my dictionary.

* Originally the use of "approximate" was ascribed to a Mrs Virginia Rumbelow when discussing care of the elderly. Along with the memorable quote: "We are giving the people the right to care. Now, personally I don't care but that is my choice...." obviously miles away from sainted columnist.

1
0
Anonymous Coward

I have no problem with people opting into a filtering system as long as it doesn't impact me in any way including financially, but also in things like ping and speed (yeah, ok, and porn).

But why should it?

There's already loads of ways to opt-in to a 'safer' internet

OpenDNS and MetaCert seem to be favourite at the moment. I guess they're hard to opt in to because, you know, you have to click the mouse and shit

24
1
Anonymous Coward

quite interested in the reason for the thumbs down here

2
0

"quite interested in the reason for the thumbs down here"

I got the impression that someone went through the comments early on and downvoted many of them that criticised the proposals and/or the Daily Mail.

So it looks like some of the downvotes require Daily Mail type thinking which is well beyond my grasp.

3
2

TalkTalk's Heaney

Quote: He countered against Hughes' concerns about censorship by saying that it "seemed odd that people are advocating not protecting children".

It seems odd to me that people are advocating that "protecting" children from "filth" is the responsibility of someone other than their parents.

32
3

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

Notwisthanding that what he says:

"seemed odd that people are advocating not protecting children" is not anything like the same as "people aren't too keen on having their freedom of choice (earned at so great a cost) impinged upon"

which I would hope is what most web users want to get accross. I know I damn well do.

8
1
Silver badge

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

And it seems entirely prudent to me that some parents in the fight to protect their children would engage professionals who understand the ins and outs of the internet far better than they do to block things they don't want their kids to see. Parents should be experts in parenting, not how to block things on the internet. The point is not to have the government make the decision, and always have it as an opt in not an opt out arrangement.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

@Ants V: "It seems odd to me that people are advocating that "protecting" children from "filth" is the responsibility of someone other than their parents."

One of the basic tenets of all people groups is to act to protect the weak and vulnerable among them. Many people extend their sense of care and responsibility to all children. If they see a child at risk, in danger, or being harmed/exploited, they will intervene to protect the child whether they are related or not. And we have plenty of laws for those who don't. If someone exploits a child, they are held responsible and punished accordingly. Saying "the parents are responsible" is not a defence (although the parents might also be held accountable if negligence is a factor).

Keep in mind that being a parent can be a very difficult juggling act, and your role constantly changes as your children grow and mature. You constantly have to walk a fine line between sheltering and guarding, but also permitting freedom to explore, discover, and become responsible for themselves (and to make mistakes). They will ultimately become entirely independent, but it's a gradual transition rather than an abrupt handover. As you allow the child increasing freedom and independence, you share some of that responsibility with the entire community (hoping that they won't cross paths with the few who will betray that trust).

But the Internet is different. It's not really 'community' in the sense that it's impersonal. A child would be prevented from entering a strip club or brothel, but no one sees or cares if this happens online. Nor is there any differentiation between public and private as there is in physical buildings and communities. I have no idea how that problem will play out in future or which direction we could take, but I do know that society as a whole will (and should) act for the common good of all children. I'm concerned that the amazing freedom of communication afforded by the Internet will ultimately be undermined by the exploitive and selfish actions of a few.

2
5

Downvote because

It's widely accepted in the UK that children should not be allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes even with their own money, and that it is rightly illegal to sell those items to minors. Not universally accepted, since there still are shopkeepers selling, and, of course, children buying.

I think there is a good argument that for younger children, in particular, their Internet experience should be restricted, as a norm - if not the actual law. But also I don't think that adults should normally be denied the freedom of general Internet access, including, yes, there seems to be quite a lot of pornography there to look at if you want.

We seem to have agreed that children also shouldn't be exposed to excessive advertising for toys, or for unhealthy food and drink items - which seem to be the only food and drink items that anybody wants to advertise to children.

13
0

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

@Tom 13 Sorry Tim, I find your logic flawed. In your argument adults can't buy alcohol because we aren't sure they know it's not supposed to be supplied to children.

I've got three of the little blighters myself. Absolutely, 100%, no argument it's my job to be responsible as to what they have access to virtually or otherwise.

7
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Downvote because

Children are prevented from buying alcohol or cigarettes because there is a simple authentication mechanism: no ID, no sale. Adults must present a suitable token of age - but the key point is that the token is effectively anonymous - the shopkeeper doesn't note down your name and address every time you want to buy a bottle of gin or a packet of fags. It's also IIRC an offence to buy such age restricted items on behalf of children. It seems to me that parents buying a broadband connection then allowing their children access to porn etc, are in just the same moral position as parents buying alcohol for their children to drink. The Daily Mail proposals are so unsatisfactory because they transfer the moral duty away from those directly responsible i.e. parents who should be requesting ISP filtering, onto another group i.e. consumers of adult material who do not necessarily have anything to do with children and who also - and this is a key point - are a target group for harassment by the Mail's puritan ideologues. I'm sure it wouldn't be long before we start to see headlines like "The girl's landlord was known to have requested porn on the internet..." Did anyone ask TalkTalk how long they thought it would be before the Daily Mail had a copy of their "opt-in" list?

3
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Downvote because

"It's also IIRC an offence to buy such age restricted items on behalf of children. It seems to me that parents buying a broadband connection then allowing their children access to porn etc, are in just the same moral position as parents buying alcohol for their children to drink."

And there you're opening a whole can of unpleasent worms, if you're a parent who lets your kid watch the odd bit of porn, and it brings its friends around while you're out and they all watch porn are you then guilty of distributing porn to the poor innocent litte shits?

Fuck children, and the people that have them, they deserve no special consideration from me.

Why should I have to sign up to the naughty list to gain unfettered access to the net just so some gobshite can feel safe and secure. It's collective punishment for all, coz you just know some one's gonna get the bright idea of using the naughty list for ECRBs (oh Miss Jenkins I see you like porn, tell me again why you think you should be a teacher/nurse/doctor/politician/social worker/police officer/door to doo salesman/taxi driver/gas man?)

Alsom Why is this talk talk person such an outragous t--- if his service is so great and so greatly in demand by parents, why on Earth would he want the government to enforce it on everyone? OH becouse most people don't want it, and it isn't popular, and he wants every service to be as shit as his! Good stuff.

The whole save the children crap is just a way to get stupid gullible people to support greater censorship and greater invasion of privacy and more power to the state, that's all. Nothing more.

Also what would they block, all porn, "bad" porn, hardcore porn, extreme violence, radical opinion, technical information (of use to terrorists, if a teenaged wannabe terrorist can't find out how to make a trigger...), contraception, abortion, sex education, drama, youtube, social networks, your uncle Jim... When do you stop "protecting" people? The safest thing to do with a kid is drown it once it pops out of its mother, that way nothing bad can ever happen to it. I mean even if you lock it in a cushioned room it may still swallow its tongue. Though I suppose you can cut their tongue out too? Blind and deafen them then they'd never be exposed to anything that may pervert them! That's the solution a world of deaf, blind, mute people locked in cages.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Downvote because

Oh it occurs to me, we now have our own Tartan Taliban, what should we call them?

0
0
Stop

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

An inability for parents to effectively monitor their children's behavior and activities is not an excuse to restrict, in any way, the freedoms of others to access material of their choosing, it is an argument to provide parents with educational material and tools so that they can more easily or effectively monitor and control their children.

Any measure which defaults to preventing access to otherwise legal materials is impinging on freedoms of speech and expression. Protecting a child requires that the burden of whatever actions or tools are needed fall to the parents first and foremost, to do otherwise is unfairly burdening the rest of society in order to cover for the parents limitations.

4
0
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Downvote because

"""

if you're a parent who lets your kid watch the odd bit of porn, and it brings its friends around while you're out and they all watch porn are you then guilty of distributing porn to the poor innocent litte shits?

"""

Er, "Yes"? Seems pretty clear cut that one.

0
0

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

@Tom 13: products to filter content on computers have been available and widely advertised by their vendors since before most people in the UK had probably heard of the internet, and easy-to-use parental controls have come bundled with many of the off-the-shelf "Internet Security" products such as Norton, McAfee, F-Secure for as long as I can care to remember, which if you aren't terribly computer literate you should have installed anyway.

@Ralph, I appreciate your point about collective responsibility, and I agree that there is certainly some - especially in meatspace, but also online. But parents taking an active interest in what their kids are doing on-line is the best source of defence against unpleasantness. I actually think that many parents (especially non-techie ones) may pay less attention to what their kids are doing with either network or client-level filtering, which would be dangerous.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

Ralph 5,

"But the Internet is different. It's not really 'community' in the sense that it's impersonal. A child would be prevented from entering a strip club or brothel, but no one sees or cares if this happens online."

Well, except their parents, of course.

The reason we have laws about the age at which children can buy cigarettes, alcohol or DVDs is that we accept that it is good for children to have some independence before the age at which they can buy certain things. It is society doing the job of protecting children in the absence of parents being around to do so.

So, when a child is at home, that's the parent's issue, not society's. You want to stop your kids watching porn? Set up the family filters. Microsoft have training videos of how to do it. It takes a matter of minutes. If you can't do that, take your PC, throw it out and preferably move to a less developed part of the world where you'll fit in better.

No-one would accept the same excuses about booze. If someone's kid was nicking their Chivas Regal out of the drinks cabinet, no-one would blame Tesco, or accept the excuse that they couldn't spend the money on a locked cabinet, or that they couldn't find out where to buy a locked cabinet. No-one is suggesting that parents have to opt-in to Tesco before they can get booze delivered.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

@AC: "So, when a child is at home, that's the parent's issue, not society's. You want to stop your kids watching porn? Set up the family filters."

The gaping hole in that theory is simply that the Internet is not just something that appears "when the child is at home". If filtering is the only answer, it's got to be at a national level.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: TalkTalk's Heaney

@Ralph 5

Filtering is NOT the only answer. An NO it doesn't have to be at a national level.

0
0
Silver badge
Childcatcher

Protecting kids from online filth

It seems to me that war, famine, poverty and disease are far worse for kids than smutty pictures. How about we ban those things first and then worry about naked tits and arses.

35
4
Silver badge
FAIL

Re: Protecting kids from online filth

Downvoted? It must have been a supporter of war, famine, poverty and disease for kids. Or a disgruntled representative of the child labour and dirty drinking water movement. Or some religious nutter.

20
5
Anonymous Coward

Re: Protecting kids from online filth

Like with the "can't the prosecute real crimes" lot: As a society we don't sort things out in order of badness.

I personally don't really care about children seeing T&A, but that's not what a lot of Internet porn is about. It's perfectly fine for adults to see (should they want to) but I would not want a child to see the sort of porn which is available at sites, such as the one referred to by the Daily Mail journo. To liken Internet porn to the sort of "hedgeporn" that I picked up when I was young - playboy, mayfair, etc. etc. is a nonsense.

2
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Protecting kids from online filth

"Re: Protecting kids from online filth

Downvoted? It must have been a supporter of war, famine, poverty and disease for kids. Or child labour and dirty drinking water."

If you are going to whine about being downvoted, don't post.

And how about YOU do something about " war, famine, poverty and disease for kids" or child labor or dirty drinking water instead of smugly complaining that other people aren't, and wasting your time by writing superficial, moralistic comments.

2
19
Anonymous Coward

Re: Protecting kids from online filth

And why should everyone suffer becouse parents are to thick to tick the box that says "filter my content" ? Most popular providers ask when you set it up.

If they're that stupid take the kids away and turn them into thought assasins or something.

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Protecting kids from online filth

"...war, famine, poverty and disease are far worse for kids than smutty pictures. How about we ban those things first"

Exactly. The sooner people in general get to see far more realistic images of what is actually going on in the world, the sooner that will be possible. Currently, TV news censors graphical content for their viewers "own benefit". If people could see the real heartaches, there would be far more concrete action to prevent/stop the problems.

But we can't have anything affecting ratings, can we?

0
0
Thumb Up

"In Watford"

They hate it when you say that. Even though it quite plainly is in Watford.

0
0
Silver badge
FAIL

Shocking smut

"Meanwhile, Platell confessed that she visited the well-known PornHub website last night, and the Mail columnist added that she was "appalled" by what she found there."

Oh? And what did she expect to find on a site called PornHub? Reruns of Teletubbies?

Its like opening a copy of the Daily Mail and being surprised at the complete bollocks written by its columnists........

34
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Shocking smut

Strange how there seems to be no concern that you go to the Daily Mail to find "news" and find porn whereas you go to google and you dont find porn unless you request porn.

I find that pretty insidious...

18
1
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Shocking smut

"Strange how there seems to be no concern that you go to the Daily Mail to find "news""

There bloody well should be concern. Anyone who goes to the Fail for "news" should be sectioned.

11
0
Joke

she was "appalled" by what she found there

Well if you type into Google "Lesbian robot vomit scat rotten turnip insertion rubber suction tube infected mudchute BDSM spanking breath-control electrocution concrete-bolard-dildo-fisting muff-stuffing bukkake party hardcore extreme mega uber porno" then what do you expect!

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

"Your search - Lesbian robot vomit scat rotten turnip insertion rubber suction tube infected mudchute ... - did not match any documents."

Aww... shame. :-(

5
0
Trollface

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

ROFL... This

0
0

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

You sure it didn't return Daily Mail?

2
1
Joke

@ Anon 2012 12:07 GMT

It now returns this very page so I win!

Mahahahaha! My plan worked! But why do I keep getting adverts for concrete bollards and organic turnips?

8
0
Silver badge
Happy

Re: then what do you expect

Er, The Mail ? No- The Sunday Sun!

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

The word "BDSM" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

The word "dildo" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

The word "fisting" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

The word "bukkake" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

The word "hardcore" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

The word "porno" has been filtered from the search because Google SafeSearch is active.

Your search - Lesbian robot vomit scat rotten turnip insertion rubber suction tube infected mudchute ... - did not match any documents.

Suggestions:

•Make sure all words are spelled correctly.

•Try different keywords.

•Try more general keywords.

•Try fewer keywords.

What's so appalling? Perhaps that disabling safesearch wasn't one of the suggestions?

1
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: @ Anon 2012 12:07 GMT

>why do I keep getting adverts for concrete bollards and organic turnips?

You don't have an ad-blocker installed?

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: What's so appalling

I'm not appalled, but there is an argument that it would have been more helpful to say "For the love of god, try different keywords. Why would you enter those keyword? Why? Why?"

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

Give it a few days. You can always rely on rule 34 to come up trumps.

1
0
Paris Hilton

Re: she was "appalled" by what she found there

I don't get that problem - I always search bareback (with safe searched switched off)

0
0
Happy

Re: You don't have an ad-blocker installed?

No I do have AdBlock, I was "Joking" hence the "Joke Alert"!!! It was an excuse to make a very bad joke, I learned how to do it from reading lots of Register headlines over the years!

Why do I get the feeling my fellow comentards only take me serious when I am being firmly tongue in cheeks!

I'm going to have to get a life at this rate and find something better to fill my afternoons with. Like auto-erotic asphyxiation using a scrunched up Daily Mail as a ball-gag. Would love to see them report my death if it goes titsup "Dead pervert choked on Daily Mail bigotry"

3
0
Thumb Up

Re: You don't have an ad-blocker installed? @ Link

"I'm going to have to get a life at this rate and find something better to fill my afternoons with. Like auto-erotic asphyxiation using a scrunched up Daily Mail as a ball-gag."

POIDH

1
0

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.