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 …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. Captain Underpants
    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.

    1. Tom 38 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.

      1. Dire Criti¢
        Gimp

        I notice...

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

      2. Invidious Aardvark
        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.

        1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

          Well according to Google

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

      3. Anonymous Coward 15

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

  2. dotdavid
    Paris Hilton

    Big Tent?

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

    Sorry.

    Paris because, well, because.

  3. Z-Eden
    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...

    1. Charlie Clark 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.

  4. Anonymous Coward
    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

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      quite interested in the reason for the thumbs down here

      1. Zombie Womble

        "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.

  5. Ants V

    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.

    1. Andy Fletcher

      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.

    2. Tom 13

      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.

      1. Andy Fletcher

        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.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Brendan Sullivan
        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.

      2. Ants V

        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.

      3. Anonymous Coward
        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.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            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.

    4. Robert Carnegie Silver badge

      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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?

        1. Anonymous Coward
          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.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Re: Downvote because

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

          2. Tom 38 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.

  6. Anonymous Coward
    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.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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. Anonymous Coward
      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.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        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.

    3. Anonymous Coward
      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?

  7. Jon Double Nice
    Thumb Up

    "In Watford"

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

  8. Eponymous Cowherd
    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........

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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...

      1. Eponymous Cowherd
        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.

  9. LinkOfHyrule
    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!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      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. :-(

      1. Efros

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

        You sure it didn't return Daily Mail?

      2. LinkOfHyrule
        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?

        1. AndrueC 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. LinkOfHyrule
            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"

            1. BorkedAgain
              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

      3. Anonymous Coward
        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. AceRimmer1980
          Childcatcher

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

          Rule 34 for 'Top Trumps'?

          /childhood ruined

    2. Lord Midas
      Trollface

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

      ROFL... This

    3. hplasm Silver badge
      Happy

      Re: then what do you expect

      Er, The Mail ? No- The Sunday Sun!

    4. Anonymous Coward
      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. teebie

        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?"

      2. LinkOfHyrule
        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)

    5. mhenriday
      Boffin

      LinkOfHyrule, on the spur of the moment I tried your suggestion

      and got a suggestion to the effect that «bolard» should be spelled «bollard» and two references to this thread. When I corrected your spelling error, I got two referrences to this thread. Help me here - what must I do to gain access to all that juicy porn ?...

      Given that we are informed that children from the age of ten or so generally have a better understanding of IT than their parents (present company excepted, of course), how effective, i e, uncircumventable, can those so-called «parental controls» really be for this age group ? For younger children, controls which block advertising for sweets or toys or things of that sort would seem to be far more relevant - are TalkTalk and the Daily Mail taking any steps to provide such relief to parents, or does the prevailing ethos of unregulated capitalism prevent them from launching so underhanded an attack on corporations' «right» to «free expression» ?...

      Henri

  10. The New Turtle
    Mushroom

    This is interesting in the light of today's DM (supplied FOC as light entertainment in our communal coffee room) which is full of tits and bums in a way that exceeds the usual levels of hypocrisy.

    I don't know what she saw on pornhub, but if the comparison was with a bit of 1980s playboy then it's hardly surprising she was shocked. While I'm hardly a connoisseur of net porn, what I have seen has convinced me that it's gone way beyond any normal, healthy expression of sexuality, while at the same time becoming (in the main) tediously formulaic. If it were not for the fact it took away personal liberty, I'd be in favour of net filtering, simply because it might release people who were unable to recognise the garbage they were consuming for what it is.

    OK, flame away.

    1. frank ly Silver badge
      Thumb Up

      I agree (upvoted)

      No flames from me, I agree with you. I've had a look at porn on the internet and have been appalled by the banality of it all. There is no plot develoment, no character analysis and exposition, not a sign of context within wider societal issues. Everything is ersatz emotions with no recognition of the tragedy of the human condition. It's always a happy ending.

      1. moiety

        Re: I agree (upvoted)

        A happy ending is sort of the point.

    2. Fibbles
      Facepalm

      I don't want to look like one of those arses in favour of censorship but modern things are different from things when I was younger and I don't like that so I would ban modern things if I could.

  11. The BigYin

    How to protect children on-line in 5 easy steps

    1) As a parent suck up the fact that YOU take responsibility for YOUR child. Period.

    2) Install/configure a web filter/net-nanny server

    3) Install/configure a net-nanny software on each client

    4) Configure the security to prevent it being diabled

    5) If you do not know how to do the above LEARN!

    There, that wasn't hard was it?

    1. Jusme
      Facepalm

      Re: How to protect children on-line in 5 easy steps

      Or if you must have a technical solution to a social problem:

      1) Register ".kids"

      2) Hand control of that domain to your favourite nanny organisation

      3) Get ISPs to offer a filtering option that only allows access to IP addresses that reverse-lookup to a valid ".kids" address (i.e. 1.2.3.4 -> cbbc.kids -> 1.2.3.4 = ok, else blocked)

      ...

      Profit!

    2. skipper

      Re: How to protect children on-line in 5 easy steps

      In reality that is quite difficult for technically challenged hands-off parents (many of which will be Daily Fail readers).

      That said, if the only PC the kids could use was in the lounge or kitchen, then their internet usage could be easily overseen. The problem being that many kids are given access to internet connected devices to keep them out of the gaze of their parents.

    3. Zombie Womble

      Re: How to protect children on-line in 5 easy steps

      My friend is a self admitted technological dunce who has no knowledge of how computers work and has no desire to use one other than occasionally browsing the internet but even he took the time to learn how to use parental filters to protect his children.

      If these 'parents' spent half the time parenting than they do whining on the Daily Mail forums then everything would be fine.

  12. Pete 2 Silver badge

    There IS a case for web censorship

    Personally I would thoroughly support any initiative that helped protect children and other impressionable members of society from exposure to the Daily Mail.

  13. McGaz
    Thumb Down

    In a world where people complain about invasions of personal privacy left, right and center. How is it that they think that asking people if they want to watch porn when they sign up for broadband is ok?

    It is the job of the parents to filter their internet to "protect" their children. The rest of the country should not be punished because someone decided to have kids and couldn't be bothered to opt in to a filtered internet.

  14. Zombie Womble

    Hypocrites.

    "She had begun her opposition to what some might label as more extreme porn by stating that her paper did not "believe in stripping away civil liberties"

    That coming from the most outspoken advocates for revoking the Human Rights Act.

  15. localzuk

    Summary

    Daily Mail - Hypocritical and stuck in the 1980s.

    TalkTalk - We're awesome, we think of the children. Everyone who doesn't is strange

    Index - Stop oversimplifying things, things aren't black and white and claiming they are is dangerous.

    Google - Same as Index, but with potential income being lost if things are being filtered.

    Of them all, I'd be listening to the woman from Index. TalkTalk's guy saying basically 'wont's someone please think of the children' instantly flags him as an idiot in my mind and the Daily Mail? Well... There's no need to comment on their stupidity.

    Daily Mail online today/yesterday? Miley Cyrus nearly busting out of her top whilst running, an athlete talking about how difficult it is to stay a virgin, Cheryl Cole's bra, a Mexican person topless on a billboard, Cambridge students' arses, Kelly Brook in a phone booth wearing very little, some unknown 'star' in a bikini, a bloke surrounded by women in bikinis, Courtney Stodden crawling around in very little being a cat, Towie women in underwear, an article about 'lazy lingerie', and at least 4 more articles about women in bikinis. And a bloke being hit in the nuts with a sledgehammer...

    1. Tom 38 Silver badge
      Joke

      Re: Summary

      Blimey, I'm going to be spending more time on the mail's website.

      Although not at work.

  16. Matt Hamilton
    FAIL

    Meanwhile, I confess that I visited the well-known Daily Mail website last night, and was "appalled" by what I found there.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      @Matt Hamilton

      Ooh, clever. You took what she said and turned it against her. Now look up trite in an online dictionary.

  17. Neal 5

    I'm flumoxed

    where the fuck did all these kids/bastards come from then?. shame that there wasn't some other kind of filtering going on pre kids/bastards arrival.

  18. dephormation.org.uk
    Stop

    TalkTalk... as an "opt-in" blocking service?

    Last time I checked, you could opt-in to the censorship... but not the surveillance. That was compulsory.

    In 2010, TalkTalk even tested it in secret on thousands on unsupecting (and unwilling) subscribers... relaying UK communications data to China for 'analysis'.

    Its illegal. Without advance consent (from both parties to a lawful communication) monitoring/censoring communications is simply a crime.

  19. Not Fred31
    WTF?

    Enough to make a tabloid blush

    "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."

    Wow...

  20. Miek
    Trollface

    Judging from the down-voting pattern going on; it would seem that at least one Daily Mail reader is feeling a bit butt-hurt. Maybe they've been trying out what they saw on PornHub.

  21. TrishaD

    Who are we protecting here?

    I think that the whole question of 'protecting children' is a trifle more complex than is being recognised here..

    Prepubertal children have no motivation to view porn - it's outside their frame of reference. It's not unreasonable then that they should be protected from accidental access via some form of filtering (either from parents or the ISP). This gives them some form of protection from exposure to images that might confuse or alarm them.

    So far so good. The problem doesnt lie with that age group; it lies with an older demographic - kids between (say) 10-16 where the motivation exists to go look at naked women or men and watch them get up to sexy stuff. The problem with extreme porn on the internet is that it presents them (certainly the younger end of that age range) with stuff that they lack the maturity to deal with. It would be very easy for a 13-14 yr old, viewing the extreme end of internet porn, to gain the impression that sex (both straight and gay) was essentially a violent and exploitative activity.

    The dilemma is that reasonably savvy kids in that age group are likely to find ways round any filtering imposed by mum or dad and probably round anything imposed by the ISP as well.

    So essentially, filtering just aint going to work for that age group.

    Difficult to know what will. Education and awareness perhaps that sex is actually a mutually enjoyable activity to be conducted with a partner rather than a fantasy object?

    Not an easy call, but sure as hell, filtering isnt going to do it...

    1. Francis Boyle Silver badge

      Re: Who are we protecting here?

      Education and awareness perhaps that sex is actually a mutually enjoyable activity to be conducted with a partner as well as, a fantasy object? FTFY.

      Or do you propose to outlaw fantasy?

      1. TrishaD

        Re: Who are we protecting here?

        "Education and awareness perhaps that sex is actually a mutually enjoyable activity to be conducted with a partner as well as, a fantasy object? FTFY.

        Or do you propose to outlaw fantasy?"

        What I propose, Mr Boyle, is that we teach children the difference between the two

        I have no problem with pornography as entertainment for adults who CAN tell the difference.

  22. Rovindi
    Windows

    You`re shitting me, right?

    Daft question, as always, but who the fuck thought the Daily Mail was a representative voice of the "people" and therefore in a position to add balance to this debate? Has the UK changed so much in the couple years I`ve been away, that the Daily Mail is now some kind of national barometer for what the "people" are thinking/feeling?

    Have you seen their website? It`s a softporn/grattons catalogue wankfest for pubescent boys and not much more. I showed some colleagues here the DM website and we compared it to El Pais. Talk about chalk and cheese. One contains news and not much else, the other appears to be mainly pictures of women in bikinis or busting out of tight fitting tops and not much else. Guess which one is which?

    As for Platell...

  23. An0n C0w4rd
    WTF?

    Quote: "seemed odd that people are advocating not protecting children".

    "Think of the children" is the cry of people who don't have a valid argument for the position they're adopting other than emotional blackmail. The above quote is pretty much the same.

    This isn't so much about protecting children as it is shifting blame. It used to be that people took responsibility for their actions, and if you weren't a good parent then ultimately the buck stopped with you. Going to default anti-smut filters is another way for people to get out of their RESPONSIBILITY as parents to raise their child/children and be involved in their development, both intellectually and morally.

    Unfortunately parents are using technology as a way of getting out of being involved with their child. Plonk them down in front of a PC or XBox and let them play rather than sit down and be involved. And then when the child stumbles upon a picture/website that is deemed "unsuitable", they blame the ISP, the government, anyone but themselves for letting this happen.

    Wake up people. Stop trying to find excuses elsewhere for your own failings as a parent.

  24. Bradley Hardleigh-Hadderchance
    WTF?

    Don't forget the dismembered body parts

    I read the Mail nearly every day. Online. I read it as a document to modern culture and a barometer. I used to watch the Jerry Springer show for the same reasons, but I grew out of that and feel I probably will throw this particular toy out of the pram soon, too.

    Today there were photos of a woman who had her breast removed through Cancer.

    I have never seen such images in my life. The thumbnail was unannounced and unsolicited.

    I clicked on the link and was genuinely shocked, not at the content, but the fact that this rag would publish something like this.

    Here it is:

    Cancer survivor's inspirational mastectomy photos BANNED by Facebook for being 'pornographic'

    It is quite simply unnecessary or in other words gratuitous. I have seen several stories where totally out of the blue they have posted autopsy level real photographs of people with their arms and legs blown off lying in pools of blood. There have been massive complaints against this unsolicited and unwarranted assault against peoples minds.

    I can imagine what a limb looks like when it is shorn off by a blast. I can imagine what a body looks like when it is shorn of a breast. But I'm funny. I don't like looking at these things and I don't like going through doors that can never be closed.

    Let's not stop there.

    Also had to admire the child pornography. Pre-teen girls in prostitute make up wearing prostitute clothes. Pulling prostitute poses for the camera. I'm not the first to say it - they rally against paedophilia, yet promote it on a mass scale. No wonder the Mail get so many daily readers (ahem)....

    The purveyors of the Mail - editors, owners, journalists, are far worse than their readership. At least some of the readers complain about this pushing of the worst kind of pornography. They are worse than rank hypocrites - they are perpetrators of the worst kind of filth. Tits and arse?

    Oh no, sir, we do not ever show that. People, still alive, with several limbs severed, crying out for help with horrific and shocked looks on their faces. Oh yes sir, sells papers.

    Someone gave these fuckers a nod and said 'ok, psyops chocks away - let's desensitize the populus'.

    That's why I read the Mail Online everyday. You're welcome!

    </Faithful Mail Online Reader>

  25. b166er

    So Daily Mail columnist outraged, check

    UK's most crap ISP cuddles up to cheapskate parents, check

    Ad driven search engine suggests letting people find what they're looking for, check

    45million british people sigh, check. (the other 20million are too young to give a monkeys)

    OK, of course I have no proof of the last one, but the vast majority of people think there are more important things to be dealing with I reckon.

  26. This post has been deleted by its author

  27. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Simple rule, really

    Everybody follows a simple rule, really:

    "What *I* have isn't porn, it's erotica.

    Anything milder than what I have is just pictures.

    Anything I don't like is porn.

    Anything harder-core than what I have is extreme porn."

    So from her perspective, "ladies in bikinis" is just pictures.

    I'll leave inferences about the other items to the reader.

  28. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Aaand in other news..

    ASCII text based pr0n makes a comeback.

    Good luck blocking that one.

    AC/DC

  29. Graham Marsden
    Megaphone

    Won't Someone Think of the Parents!

    How *DARE* these Porn Merchants expect Parents to take responsibility for the upbringing of their children!

    How *RIDICULOUS* to expect people to have to *install* new software on their computers in order to block this filth!

    Don't they know that the interwebs are just the latest form of childminding as TV and Videos and DVDs have been before and it's the job of the Government and the Broadcasters and the Programme Makers to ensure that little kiddies don't see anything that might disturb them!!

    I am ABSOLUTELY FLABBERGHASTED that anyone could believe things like this and I shall be writing to my MP in the *STRONGEST* terms right after my nurse gives me my medicine!!!

  30. JohnMoser

    Porn

    Just to be technical, Playboy is erotica not pron.

  31. Paul 87

    I actually agree with the idea of an ISP based filtering service, providing that it's opt-in for customers (heck, why aren't the ISP's offering this as a chargeable add-on I'll never know). Not everyone in the world is technically literate, and anything that makes it easier for parents to make valid choices for their children is a good thing.

    Unfortunately, this moderate middle ground is getting swamped by the "Censorship is evil" vs "Porn is evil" battle, and both sides are ignoring their chance to compromise.

  32. Seb123
    WTF?

    Let's get real

    There are 12 year old kids having children of their own so I don't think pornography is going to shock them too much. Nor does pornography have anything to do with that particular issue. You have the government to thank for making it attractive to have children and, in particular, if you're single. It's practically like winning the lottery.

    If somebody really wants to "think of the children", then perhaps it's time to start looking where the actual problems are, instead of going after the easy pickings and low-hanging fruit?

    Seriously. Why is it that the average person can't see through this bullshit? The UK has real economic and social issues and it's not going to get better. It won't be fixed by censoring pornography.

  33. alcockell

    Non-technical proponents still thinking per-user authentication

    Could it be the case that most of the proponents of this (the nontechnical ministers/MPs etc are still thinking in terms of per-user authentication? Still in a Prestel/AOL-type mindset, where IIRC there would be an admin user and other linked accounts with the rights managed by the account-holding "admin" user? And each user would establish a connection, log in as themselves, then kill the session at the end?

    Not realising that with a router-to-router account, multiple comms paths and sessions are riding that? Could this misunderstanding be evidenced by how they talk about "logging onto Internet"?

    While filtering to mobiles is technically feasible - this is only because the mobile phone is essentially a single-user device, so a SIM card identifies a specific named user, as opposed to a network pipe (which is the lowest level of granularity you have on a router's login name and password). Hence the only place you can feasibly implement per-user authentication and filtering is at the customer's end. Would also mean maintaining RADIUS authent on the local Wifi access point.

    I suppose this could be designed into a local product... but it means understanding about running and administering local networks. Although an out-of-the-box solution could be developed and marketed...

    Wired router - content filter - small domain controller/authent server - wifi access point. DHCP handled by the wired router...

    S'pose what throws the more "paranoid" or less technical users was that initially the walled-garden providers (AOL etc) initially rode the phone line, then just rode a TCP/IP substrate. but people still logged in with their "screen name".

  34. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I think a network-level filter should be available

    at the time of sign-up. Possibly with an extra charge as it will cost ISPs in staff and equipment. None of this redefining the meaning of 'opt-in' bullshit- a choice of filtered or unfiltered, with no default ticked, or you can't proceed to the next page of the form. Then later on the account holder can change their mind in their account settings or with a phone call, in a similar way to changing your speed/download package.

    And it should be made clearer that you may be unable to access the National Lottery (which you can play in a shop at 16) and the weather for when you visit your aunt in Dildo, Newfoundland.

  35. JDX Gold badge
    FAIL

    it "seemed odd that people are advocating not protecting children".

    AAAAAAAAARRRRRGH!

  36. Lamont Cranston

    1. Apply to ISP for service

    2. ISP agrees to provide service, and asks if you would

    a) like them to filter your internet access, explaining that the intent is to prevent children accessing undesirable content

    b) like them to provide you with unfiltered internet access

    3. If you express a preference for option a), it should then be explained to you that it is not a 100% effective method of protecting your children (should you have any), and so you might wish to take extra steps (as your children are your responsibility, not the ISP's), and it may block access to some content that you might otherwise wish to view; if you express a preference for option b), it should then be explained to you that it, if you will be sharing your connection with minors, you might wish to take steps to filter the internet for them (but that decision will be left up to you, as your children are your responsibility, not the ISP's)

    4. You make your choice, and pay your money; world keeps on turning, no one's rights are infringed upon, everyone is happy

    This, to me, is how an opt-in system would work, and I have no problem with that. Given that not every adult can be expected to know what a DNS is, or how whitelists work, it seems perfectly reasonable to require ISPs to offer assistance to those who request it.

  37. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Talk Talk's great filltering system

    Doesn't Talk Talk's system work by recording all their customers browsing history (even the ones who are not using the filters), so Talk Talk's 'bad content' detector can search through the web pages later and add them to Talk Talk's filter list, if needed?

    That's hardly a good model. Network filters for some customers at the cost of the privacy of all customers. That does not sound like a good bargain to me.

    Wait a minute, doesn't the government want to start monitoring browsing history. And the only system that does filtering at the moment, collects that as part of building their filters. That's convenient. Strange both these pieces of legislation are happening close together.....

This topic is closed for new posts.

Biting the hand that feeds IT © 1998–2019