Jimbo Wales: ISP smut blocking systems simply 'ridiculous'

From the Open Rights Group - read it and weep....

Short extract ;

Sleepwalking into censorship

After brief conversations with some of the Internet Service Providers that will be implementing the UK's "pornwall" we've established a little bit about what it will be doing. To be fair, the BBC were pretty close.

The essential detail is that they will assume you want filters enabled across a wide range of content, and unless you un-tick the option, network filters will be enabled. As we’ve said repeatedly, it’s not just about hardcore pornography.

You'll encounter something like this:

EDIT NOTE: the category examples are based on current mobile configurations and broad indications from ISPs

(1) Screen one

"Parental controls"

Do you want to install / enable parental controls

☑ yes

☐ no

[next]

(2) Screen two [if you have left the box ticked]

“Parental controls”

Do you want to block

☑ pornography

☑ violent material

☑ extremist and terrorist related content

☑ anorexia and eating disorder websites

☑ suicide related websites

☑ alcohol

☑ smoking

☑ web forums

☑ esoteric material

☑ web blocking circumvention tools

You can opt back in at any time

Full article here

She isn't going to change her mind now.

The really scary thing is Claire Perry believes she is right and an ISP filter is the best solution. I don't think anybody will be able to convince her that this filter won't work in the way she thinks it will and the people that it is designed to stop will find a work around anyway.

Its too late for her to change her mind even if she wanted to without admitting she was wrong. The real target should be convincing other MP's that she is wrong and they should be voting against this proposal.

Quick TT filter test

Has anyone else tried testing one of these filters turned on?

I am with talk talk so I tried turning the filter on and setting it to max the other day, results were as expected.

Going to Google image search and typing in rude words resulted in the expected screen full of filth, clicking on the image links didn't work.

Going to youtube resulted in the whole site being blocked, but using the android app there was no block, and videos with the word explicit in the title played fine. Tumbler was also blocked at the domain level using the browser

Got bored at this point, it's obviously as bad as the critics suggest, full of holes and over blocking, how many parents will simply disable the whole thing when they want to use youtube and fail to re-apply it afterwards? And who here is confident that the systems could ever be developed to keep clever kids out, it only take one kid in each school with enough knowledge to defeat the filter and the whole school will soon know how.

I would love to see a proper test of these filters to see how well they really work.

in my day..

man, you should have seen some of the stuff depicted in the grotmags i used to find in various ditches when I was out playing as a child. the mags in question were, more-often-than-not, german in origin and hardcore in content. we're not talking about a muddy copy of escort here - i'm talking chicks-with-dicks, all sorts of multiple participant scenarios, scat etc. i used to find this stuff regularly with my mates from the age of about 7 onwards. my theory is that all these errant mags (anyone alive and a child in the 80s will know what i was talking about) were thrown out of the window by international truck drivers nearing home on their way back to the wife & kids. anyway, point is that even if you banned all porn off the internet full-stop, kids are still going to get their mitts on the stuff. they bloody well want to most of the time! go out looking for it....i know i did lol. i think we need some honesty in this debate, and we need to recognise that children actively seek this stuff out - it's not thrust (no pun intended) upon them in most cases. ban it from the interwebs and they'll go find it somewhere else.

freedom of expression and the raising of a clueless generation

What happened to freedom of expression, isnt that a human right anymore. does a government really feel that its its job to censor in this day and age?

besides, its better to have kids who know what porn is and how it comes to be, then a generation who will not knoe what to do once they reach legal age and do see porn.

What makes the internet different from the numerous rages that show porn?

What is the policy for false negatives? will the government pay for losses of income since they are the ones making it a must to opt out in the first place?

Jimbob did make at least one good point that is often overlooked because it is so bleeding obvious.

I read the article on the BBC News website... Jimbob pointed out that existing legislation is already sufficient and that he feels the money would be better spent on enforcement and prosecution rather than mucking about with filters...

Much to my surprise I found myself agreeing with Jimbo.

We have plenty of laws, we should try enforcing the laws we already have properly before creating more of them.

No need to decrypt SSL

Eventually any encrypted connection that connects to an unencrypted endpoint will leak information. From what I understand of the XKeyscore system it works by cross-referencing this leaked information to identify who is using a VPN for example.

"The WHOLE POINT is that they are not government ISP filters (excuse the shouting)"

Impressive debate technique being shown by our elected leaders there.

Do something you know to be rude or stupid and acknowledge and apologise for it in the same sentence.

Techo arrogant fool

The issue should be attacked at source (default-on filtering is morally wrong). Attacking the problem like this? Like chavs yelling at the government that speed cameras are wrong by putting up Youtube vids of themselves mounting fake plates on their tarted up Citroen Saxos then blasting through the local town centre at 90 mph.

Slight variation on the Underwear Gnomes

1: Introduce Porn Filters

2:???

3:Children are Protected

In the end it's going to be about money.

This will fail as Claire Perry et al. know. The response will be a more extreme system, which we and they know will fail. That will be followed by a white list only system. To get your site on the white list you will be required to fill out the forms and pay a fee. Initially the fee will be trivial, so no-one can object. In due course the fee will rise and become significant.

Simplest Device Ever! Great Idea, there, gyrl!

Basically it is a sign:

DOOR LOCKED.

CLICK HERE TO OPEN.

or GO AWAY.

This - THIS costs you Brits Billions?

No wonder we won the war! :)

I think a lot of people are missing the point on this. This isn't about stopping children watching porn its about winning votes in the next election. They have deliberately picked a policy that appeals to the 2.4 children family hoping that enough people will forget the abject misery they have caused. They need those middle class votes and they have done enough surveys to realise that parents worry about their kids and struggle to watch them all the time and this looks like a policy that will win them votes with the middle class. It doesn't matter if you think its wrong and it doesn't matter that it won't work because by the time anyone realises this they will have already been voted back into power.

Anyone that thinks MPs and Prime Ministers do things for the good of the people are naive they do it for the money and the perks. When the perks get removed they pay themselves more to cover the loss using "Independent" advice. If they really cared would we see all these disabled people being treated so badly by ATOS or our soldiers injured in the war losing their homes?

Some people really are very special

Although I also have a low opinion of Claire Perry, that is not who I'm talking about here.

"child abuses images should be blocked"

"spend billion of pounds"

"The issue is 100x deeper that you know."

I really hope that 'Kelly' just forgot to write [sic] in regard to those quotes, but in reality it seems unlikely since all of her articles demonstrate a similar failure to use words correctly.