Feeds

back to article Jimbo Wales: ISP smut blocking systems simply 'ridiculous'

Wikipedia founder Jimmy Wales has attacked "absolutely ridiculous" network-level porn-blocking systems that are being introduced by the UK's biggest telcos over the course of the next few months. Tory MP Claire Perry, who has pushed hard for content to be filtered by ISPs, took to Twitter on Sunday to moan about the comments …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

I'm not sure which is more surprising/shocking: the fact that I actually agree with something that Jimmy Wales has come out with or that Clare Perry is yet another shining example of an MP expressing opinions on something she knows precisely fuck-all about.

Must be Monday ...

72
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Indeed. You can't 100% block every adult image (legal or illegal) any more than you can stop every person from breaking the law or swearing.

To assume that adding a filter to the Internet will be reliable and 100% is crazy. It is just like adding a burglar alarm to your house and assuming you won't ever get burgled.

Allowing kids to use the Internet without supervision is like letting them walk around the streets alone late at night.

27
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Silver badge

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

@ Simon Ward:

'me too'

I was going to comment, but you basically wrote exactly what I was going to write - especially about Jimbo, and the mp

14
1

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Actually Jimbo is incorrect here. We already have a filter in place to block child abuse images, the IWF filter so switching the new porn filter to "off" will not allow a pervert to access blocked websites that contain child abuse images.

The filter is wrong because it's not an ISP's duty to monitor what kids watch online, it's a parents responsibility, they are just passing the buck and will now happily let their kids sit in their room unsupervised watching porn which is illegal in the UK, with the parents blissfully unaware because they ticked a fucking box.

HELLO PARENTS! If you don't want your kids to watch porn on the internet, monitor them yourselves, keep the computers/tablets where you can see what your kids are doing, and guess what, the kids won't be watching porn whilst you can see what they are doing, 100% more effective than a placebo porn filter.

But yes, Jimbo is incorrect in his claim that turning the filter off will allow access to child abuse images, so let's focus on that and not on the fucked up plan for a porn filter which 98.7% of people will turn off the moment it blocks the BBC website or some other website we use which isn't actually porn.

9
1

This post has been deleted by its author

Anonymous Coward

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

fraid he wasn't wrong, you didn't read what he said correctly. The ignorant MP is suggesting that any porn is a gateway to illegal desires and that we all need it filtered to stop us from becoming child pornographers. his point was that was not only ridiculous but that they could turn THAT on, not child porn. (which incidently wont be blocked in the slightest if they are swapping it encrypted over networks like tor)

7
1
Bronze badge

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Naghhh it'll never work, and your just grasping for straws in La-La-land...

I'm sure there'd be less Youth Crimes too if Parents, actually started to ya know BE PARENTS?!

2
1
Silver badge

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Filtering can't possibly work however they do it. If they do it by site then it's a constant game of whack-a-mole and there are more people capable of cloning porn sites than there are government employees to add the sites to the list...they are simply outnumbered. Filtering by keyword can't possibly work either, and additionally will probably drop the poor bastards in Scunthorpe off the net again.

8
1

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Having porn available 24/7 with no competent age verification is like saying lets put extreme porn on terrestrial television all day with no lockout facility. If children happen to stumble upon it the fault is with the parents not the television licensing board.

Most parent don't have the know-how to install filters on the home machines and these do not even work for portable devices.

Extreme content should have adult verification so that children cannot access it. This stuff is damaging and will cause trauma to any ones mind.

0
10
Bronze badge
Thumb Up

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

@ moiety: that link is excellent

1
0
Stop

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Extreme content should have adult verification so that children cannot access it. This stuff is damaging and will cause trauma to any ones mind.

What constitutes "adult verification"? I can't think of any viable way of verifying that a person is an adult on the internet.

2
1
Vic
Silver badge

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

> Most parent don't have the know-how to install filters on the home machines

Most parents don't have the know-how to set broken bones, should one of their little darlings have an accident. It is their *responsibility* to find someone who can.

But in the case of internet filters, it's a trivial matter to learn ho to set them up[1]. That they do not speaks volumes...

Vic.

[1] At least as effectively as anyone else would...

2
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

We are doing this all wrong.

Why can't we just have access to Clare Perry's surfing habits and logs (and those of everyone else in the government) just to make sure nothing untoward is going on?

The people have a right to know.

0
0
Pirate

Re: MP in 'completely clueless' shocker ...

Because the HoC use of the internet has already been shown to to be in a large part porn sites, facebook and betting sites. She would not like the disclosures to be more specific as some of her colleagues may be surfing porn or laying a bet while she speaks.

0
0

Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

If only even a little.

The people complaining about the filters aren't the ones confusing child pron with adult content filters.

We all agree the *illegal* content should be removed and those responsible prosecuted. Using the existing laws.

The issue is that those in positions of influence keep using "protecting the children" as an excuse to inflict impractical and shoddy solutions on those of us accessing *legal* content.

Who defines that its something adult? By the sounds of it, it depends on what commercial package each individual ISP has installed. That could end up in dozens of different implementations.

What about sites that are incorrectly classified as adult? If you're running a commercial online site, that has some content that some may argue is adult (safe sex advice?) then what happens to your business when you're suddenly branded as adult. That could put some businesses bankrupt. Or do you go to each ISP in turn, begging them to re-catogorise your site? You're not their customer, what reason do the ISP have to help you out at all.

Perhaps the Netflix, iPlayer, other on demand services could be listed as Adult. But what if the ISP hosts its own streaming service? It could easily list the others as adult and use that as a commercial nudge to get its customers to subscribe to its own service. Which just so happens it doesnt list as adult.

What happens if a legit site is hacked, as found with the recent spike in hacked sites hosting child pron. Does that suddenly fall into the adult content? Never again to be allowed to be listed as normal, even after being cleaned?

What about sites that children actually want to use? But become the targets of 'grooming'. If youre there to protect children are you going to start listing popular kids sites as adult when they are found to have adults grooming children on them?

The only people this wont effect are the people that want to get access to pron. VPN, Tor, Proxies, or simply just phoning the ISP and openingly saying. "Make pron appear please!"

Go search for the epetition and sign up, please folks :)

26
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

He has failed to do so on more than one count.

Filtering equipment always has a logging function. All you need to take the log and Teresa May dream has just come true _WITHOUT_ pushing the legislation through. All you need is a (secret) court order to have access to the log. Check, Mate.

The whole porn bruhaha was nevers about porn. It was, is and always shall be about extending surveilance.

32
2
Silver badge

Re: Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

>"The whole porn bruhaha was nevers about porn. It was, is and always shall be about extending surveilance."

Nonsense. It was, is and always shall be about winning votes.

11
2
Anonymous Coward

Re: Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

"What about sites that are incorrectly classified as adult?"

the people doing the classifying should be named, and be held personally liable for any mis-classification, including repaying any lost revenue as well as a fine for slandering the site owner in saying the site is "inappropriate". It certainly should never be paid from public funds; the people paid to do a job should pay the fines if they do the job wrongly.

But far more importantly, the criteria for classifying a given site in a given way need to be public and debated - and not just by clueless MPs and assorted publicitly seekers

7
0

Re: Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

"What about sites that children actually want to use? But become the targets of 'grooming'. If youre there to protect children are you going to start listing popular kids sites as adult when they are found to have adults grooming children on them?"

I suppose blocking facebook would be one positive outcome.

7
0
Bronze badge

Re: Just maybe he'll be able to educate them

> Nonsense. It was, is and always shall be about winning votes.

They don't need to win votes. All political parties are about total surveillance and total control of the citizenry peasants for the benefit of the élite who pay their bribes campaign contributions.

2
3
Silver badge
Flame

Curious as to how they'll try to spin this ...

Especially since Cameron made great play of being a really "in with the geeks" Tory, by appointing Jimbo in the first place.

And as for that Perry ... it really does seem she only opens her mouth to change feet.

It would be funny if we weren't paying for it.

23
0
Silver badge

Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!! Cue outraged howls of indignation from men...

Predictable. No doubt she'll come under a hail of abuse on Twitter from Trolls soon.

Well I for one am going to stick my neck out and support MP Clare Perry. She is absolutely right on this issue. Kids are using the internet more and more and we absolutely need to stamp out unsuitable material. We also have to deal with the problems of internet trolls. Clare Perry is absolutely right that we need filters in every device that will block this stuff out. Shame on anyone who disagrees.

3
72

Don't feed the trolls

Sexism allegations: Check

Think of the children: Check

Supporting the Tories: Check

Incorrect use of Internet Trolls inspired by the BBC: Check

34
3
Silver badge
WTF?

Re: Don't feed the trolls

Oh Dan please, how can I be a troll??? I didn't insult or threaten anyone!

2
24
Anonymous Coward

You've just made the same mistake. You've put protecting children and stamping out unsuitable material in the same statement. These are two different issues.

11
1
Silver badge

"Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!! Cue outraged howls of indignation from men..."

Or, alternatively:

"Oh no a *complete idiot* has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!! Cue outraged howls of indignation from *knowledgeable people*..."

FTFY.

48
1

Re: Don't feed the trolls

Nice try... I was beginning to think you were genuine for a second there

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Don't feed the trolls

I don't think NomNomNom is a troll; I think the part of his brain that is supposed to critically evaluate the world doesn't work, and he has compensated by replacing it with editorial from the Daily Mail.

17
0
Bronze badge
Happy

Re: Don't feed the trolls

Exactly! You even included a nice 'Welcome To Facebook' sign with your message.

0
0

Where to begin with that...

That's a little sexist isn't it and an unfair accusation to make.

Okay there is a clear male majority of commentards (affectionately meant - I love you all) on El Reg due to the history of the IT industry. (Time is changing)

However the "outrage" isn't to do with the MP being a women.

Its to do with decisions being made by those who are very ignorant of the area they're making decisions on. Though this isn't a unique or new and has happened since time immemorial; in the context of the internet it effects a very large proportion of the population.

As already stated adult content != child abuse content but this correlation is being made stronger all the time.

The true problem isn't the internet, the web or computers. Its people. Those who make this content and commit the abuse. I listened to an interview on Radio 4 not so long ago. They had an analyst from the IWF discussing their job. The analyst then made this throw away comment of "I've taken down this image and the child is now saved". This sums up the problem; removing content from the internet doesn't undo the abuse a child has just suffered in the production of said content! The child has still been raped and/or indecently assaulted.

17
1
Silver badge
FAIL

Concept and Implementation

Concept - children should be shielded from inappropriate material. No sane person can disagree with this broad statement. And it is a very broad statement. It doesn't include the word sex or internet, it covers a multitude of sins, and doesn't mandate HOW the children should be shielded.

Implementation - we need to enforce censorship on everyone so that they think we are shielding their children from sex on the internet. Oh this fails on so many levels. Technically useless and entirely unethical.

In some ways I agree with the CONCEPT of ISP's providing a filtering service on each connection - if it stops 90% of kids reaching an inappropriate site (by accident or by curiosity) then it's probably doing good. But the high horsed Daily Mail reading "we must BAN it" does NOTHING to really protect anyone, and the cross-party proposal fails to address the issue, the concept.

Where do we stop - ban topless bathing at the beach, ban bikinis and budgiesmugglers, ban mini skirts, ban the X-Factor and Strictly Come Dancing. Perhaps the simpler answer would be to require all children to wear blindfolds unless supervised directly by their parents...

6
1
Mushroom

Eh!

It has nothing to do with her lack of a penis and everything to do with the fact she has absolutely no idea what she is talking about.

As for stamping out unsuitable material, thats a rather broad brush term open to abuse by a government with a penchant for mission creep.

After all, today its an opt in for porn, tomorrow its certain political viewpoints and news channels which will be deemed "unsuitable"

If you have kids then you have a responsibility to monitor online behaviour, if you cant control them, dont have them, it really is that simple.

13
0
FAIL

misguided strategy

I may be wrong but i think the vast majority of people agree that taking some action to stop innocent users stumbling upon pr0n on the internet is a good thing, however the use of device installed filters will technically just not work and while clair perrys et al's intentions are admirable their obvious lack of technical knowledge is the main problem. The strategy which the government is following will just not work, unless they also propose to remove the 1000's of instruction videos from youtube and the likes providing step by step instructions as to how to bypass the filters that will undoubtedly spring up overnight

1
1
FAIL

Don't feed the troll?!?

Ohh so many trollish things writtten in one short post...

>"Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!"

Sorry but I don't give a rats ass what you have between your legs its what between your ears that counts...

>"Kids are using the internet more and more and we absolutely need to stamp out unsuitable material."

No, no-no-no since the kids are so much more tech savvy than their parents and the government a technical solution will never work. Anyone with children knows that the only absolute foolproof way of getting children to do something is to tell them that they should not and not explain why. What is needed is parental guidance. You have to surf the shadier sides of the web with the kids and explain to them the do:s and the don't:s this will also have the added benefit of getting young grown ups that don't have hard core porn as their only reference when the time comes for them selves to try some cuddling out.

>"Shame on anyone who disagrees."

taking the moral high ground only works if you have a clue what you talk about and using such a phrase should really fall under the "Godwin Law" together with Nazi references. and if you dont know what the Godwin Law is then pls refrain from commenting on the internet until you have read up a bit.

Bloody well hanging my coat up and staying!

BR

10
1
FAIL

Re: misguided strategy

why shield innocent users from porn on the internet when its at every top shelve in every gass station and magazine store?

the best thing is not to shield at all, if you dont want to see it click away, if you do feel free.

The biggest problem with filters is that it hides illegal activity, when nobody stumbles upon kiddie porn, nobody can report it to the authorities. And the pervs know where to find it anyway

0
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

Nomnomnom, wrong wrong wrong

“Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!! Cue outraged howls of indignation from men...”

Everyone is saying the same things about ‘Call me Dave’ Cameron as they are Claire Perry, yet because she is a women you feel the need to defend her and not him and say the reason people are having a go at her is because they are sexist?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hypocrisy

“Predictable. No doubt she'll come under a hail of abuse on Twitter from Trolls soon.”

An internet “Troll” is someone who posts comments on pages and threads to either disrupt, trick or annoy, example - posting a topic on a forum titled

“Can someone help please? I don’t know if I should I feed live crickets and bugs to my baby...”

Once clicked on full text is seen

Can someone help please? I don’t know if I should I feed live crickets and bugs to my baby snakes, or should I stick with dead ones until they are older, and at what age can they ‘hunt’ them at?

The ‘Troll’ uses the character limit in the topic header to turn what could be seen as a normal post into something that plays a joke on the users of the forum,

Another simpler example is in computer games when pretending to be a novice gamer, asking silly questions, example

Troll – How do I find the (item) to complete the (name of) mission?

Helpful Gamer – Its located in the (place name)

Troll – How do I get there?

HG – Look on the map

Troll – How do I get the Map?

HG – Press the M key

Troll – Whats a “M” Key?

Other gamer – Lol Don’t feed the trolls

What you are describing on Twitter when people post vile threating posts are bullies and in some cases are breaking the law

“Kids are using the internet more and more and we absolutely need to stamp out unsuitable material.”

No, We need to stop kids from viewing unsuitable material, not remove it, child pr0n is already illegal, this filter will not make even the smallest amount of difference when it comes to child p0rn, it doesn’t work like that, pedophiles don’t use Google to find images, it doesn’t work like that.

The ‘unsuitable material’ this will filter out is pretty much anything, for example I can’t use my mobile phone to find information about problems with my mobile phone because Orange think ‘Sony Mobile Web Forum Help’ is unsuitable because as a ‘web forum’ they don’t know what the content is, so it’s blocked.

So what can we do? If only there was some kind of parental control on that can be ‘activated’ to not allow your kids access adult content, oh wait, most internet providers have this option, all it needs is the parent to turn it on.

The difference is that currently if I want to stop kids using ‘my’ internet to view ‘adult content’ I have to say so, I have the choice.

when they go ahead with this stupid idea if I want to use ‘Sony Mobile Web Forum Help’ I have to contact my ISP and be put on a list to say I am a pervert who likes watching the most degrading smut filled snuff films.

“Clare Perry is absolutely right that we need filters in every device that will block this stuff out. “

As said before, we already do, people just need to be told to how to do it.

“Shame on anyone who disagrees.”

Shame on anyone who thinks this will a) Work, b) make any kind of difference c) absolves them of having to take responsibility in their parenting

In other words, we need to Educate, not Regulate.

9
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Don't feed the trolls

"Oh Dan please, how can I be a troll??? I didn't insult or threaten anyone!"

2013 revisonist !

Suggest last century's - Absolute Beginner's Frequently Asked Questions

http://www.dickgaughan.co.uk/usenet/guide/faq05-trol.html

2
0
Anonymous Coward

"Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!! Cue outraged howls of indignation from men..."

Gender has nothing to do with this. Kneejerk ignorant authoritarian pandering to lowest common denominator tabloids does, however.

You, sir/madam/other, are a waste of skin.

9
0

Re: misguided strategy

last time i checked a ten yr old kid couldn't reach the top shelf but they sure can click a mouse. your point is ridiculous.

0
8
Anonymous Coward

Her sex is irrelevant.

I think folk are not annoyed because she's a woman, but because she's clearly completely clueless when it comes to the subjects she's talking about and,more worryingly, involving herself in the legislation of.

4
0

@NomNomNom

Excellent example of trolling sir, for people who need reminding what it means.

10
0
Silver badge
Pint

Re: @NomNomNom

Yes indeed, the trolling was surprisingly successful.

1
0
Bronze badge

Congratulations. An excellent satire of mumsnet.

3
0
Anonymous Coward

@mark darwen

Last time I checked a 10 year old kid could type in a proxy address...

A headmaster friend of mine has this issue with their school, they are constantly playing catch up with the proxy addresses! As soon as they block one, the kids use another..

If kids are already doing it at school, what will stop them at home?

And VPN's, they won't be blocked on a home network..

Nothing they can do will stop kids finding porn if they want it, this is just about censorship, pure and simple...

2
0
WTF?

@NomNom

Well said - spot on.

Children occasionally get sun burned - ban them going outside.

Children are occasionally knocked down by cars - ban road vehicles.

Children sometimes fall off bikes - ban bikes for under 18s

Children occasionally drown - Close all swimming pools.

Children occasionally get fiddled with in the park - Close all parks

Children occasionally see post watershed TV- ban TV after 9:00pm

Yes, it's so clear now NomNom.

No, wait, I have a better idea, why not expect parents to behave in a responsible way. You could be really radical and call it "raising" their children, rather than featherbedding children so they have no idea of how to assess risks, make judgements or live lives so they reach adulthood unable to cope, maladjusted and naive.

No, actually, now i come to think of it, shame on you....

11
1
FAIL

@NomNomNom:

Worried about what your kids do on the internet?

Fair enough, it's a sensible worry. The thing is, making someone else deal with the problem is STUPID. Yes, all-caps degree of stupid.

The smart thing to do is learn about how you can control their access to services, and do so. Don't just let them have TV/games console/DVD players in their room. Aside from anything else, you do realise that smut and assorted other inappropriate stuff exists on DVD, Blu-Ray and even paper format, yes?

Or were you expecting Dave's Magical Bullshit Internet Filter to sort all that out as well?

I'm not against women having opinions on technology; I have a strong objection to uninformed vote-seeking muppets having opinions on technology, especially if they try and ignore advice from the experts on why their suggested solutions won't actually work to solve the problem they claim to be so worried about.

For an analogy: You remember all those idiot parents who decided that, based on complete bullshit masquerading as science from one attention-seeking doctor, they weren't going to get their kids vaccinated because OMG ASPERGERS? (If you don't, Google Andrew Wakefield, read what those parents did, then try very hard to do the opposite as much as humanly possible). What Perry is doing here is analogous to what those parents did. Experts who know the technology and understand the problem have all pointed out that it's an expensive and stupid approach to a problem, that conflates legal pornography with child pornography for no other reason than to attempt to silence disagreement. But there is nothing about an internet filter that will stop the creation or dissemination of porn, legal or illegal - in the case of legal porn because the problem of kids seeing porn is down to Crap Parenting (compounded by Lack Of Support For Parents From Government), and in the case of illegal porn because only the very stupidest of potential paedophiles goes to Google and searches for their fix.

3
1
Bronze badge
FAIL

@ NomNomNom

If it were possible to "stamp out unsuitable material" it would have been done long ago.

Sadly this is just another stupid comment from someone who doesn't have a clue what they're talking about.

1
0
Silver badge
FAIL

"Oh no a woman has dared offer her opinion about the future of the internet!!"

You really can be a right dick at times!

Vivienne Redding doesn't seem to get the abuse you seem to think all reg readers reserve for women with opinions related to the 'net.

Maybe you ought to step back and consider if it's what Ms Perry says rather than her gender which might be the problem. This being the woman who keeps conflating illegal porn with "adult" content by mentioning them in the same breath then denying there's any link.

1
1

Re: @mark darwen

your agreeing with my initial point, i was replying to another reply to my initial "misguided strategy" post, confused.com

0
1

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.