ISP level pornography ban in NZ

Forums › Off topic › ISP level pornography ban in NZ

kiwiyan

30 posts

Geek
+1 received by user: 3

#126932 24-Jul-2013 12:59

This is following the recent news about James Cameron proposal to bring restriction on access to ponography at ISP level. As a parent of teenager even with a level of geekyness kids are now-a-days are too smart and they can access porn in the web. Thinking of the general public most of the parents doesn't know even the abc of computer leave alone the internet. I think in my opinion NZ also should follow UK in imposing restriction at ISP level. Please post your view/opinion/suggestions.

This is a filtered page: currently showing replies marked as answers. Click here to see full discussion.

CYaBro

4708 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 1182

ID Verified

Trusted

#865182 24-Jul-2013 16:01

surfisup1000:
wasabi2k: As a step-parent to a 14 year old and someone who was a teenager with internet access - why do you want to prevent them looking at porn?

I totally understand little kids not being exposed to stuff, but your kid shouldn't be using the internet unsupervised before 12-13 in my opinion.

Censorship of the internet is not a good thing.

It is not censorship as there is an opt out.

Why would you want your 14 year old to be viewing the most degrading porn out there? There are lots of reasons, just google "harmful effects porn teenagers". The longer you can delay them the better I think.

It is impractical to 100% supervise 3 children simultaneously across a variety of devices such as desktops, notebooks, tablets/smartphones. And, they can just go over to their friends house and you have no idea if they supervise internet access. So, an ISP block sounds more encompassing to me.

This is a good thing, to block accidental and basic attempts by curious children to find porn.

I think it this is more aimed at pre-teens -- teens will probably find a way to circumvent via proxys/vpns or whatever but at least it is an obstacle.

And at their friend's house dad has opted out of the porn filter so what good is the ISP filter then?

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

SaltyNZ

8865 posts

Uber Geek
+1 received by user: 9543

Trusted

2degrees

Lifetime subscriber

#865767 25-Jul-2013 12:04

surfisup1000:

Expensive? Really? So tell me how much this would cost? You have no idea do you?

Alright, maybe he doesn't (I don't know him) - but I do, since we've had quotes for generic DPI, and that's before we think about adding filtering. Just doing DPI for the purposes of enabling charging (for example, to allow Facebook Zero for free) costs in the millions for capacity up to hundreds of megabits. Adding filtering is about the same again.

Then on top of that you have to at least double the hardware capacity because DPI adds such a huge hit to performance, so depending on what gear you run, there's another half a million easily.

So even a relatively small ISP can expect to be spending the best part of $3-4M on a feature that gains them nothing other than increased operating overhead and more places for things to break.

Edit -- and before anybody disagrees with me, yes, I know it depends on your starting point. If you have some of the right gear already or a big capacity margin on the 'wrong' gear, maybe it's less, although really it's still not because it just means you bring forward your next upgrade. If you don't, it might be more. Either way, it's a lot of money.

iPad Pro 11" + iPhone 15 Pro Max + 2degrees 4tw!

These comments are my own and do not represent the opinions of 2degrees.

PaulBags

809 posts

Ultimate Geek
+1 received by user: 184
Inactive user

#865810 25-Jul-2013 12:38

surfisup1000:
AppleJackXD:
How do you accidentally stumble upon porn ? I have never had porn acidently end up on my screen for the almost 20 years i have been using internet.

Well, a 7 year old daughter of a friend was looking for pussycats on the internet.

How on earth would she have known?

Google with safe search on (default setting) returns nothing but cats for the term 'pussy cats'. Bing with moderate safe search on (default) specifically blocks the searching of images with that term because "The search pussy cats may return explicit adult content and has been filtered by your Bing SafeSearch settings.". Yahoo shows no porn for 'pussy cats', and blocks image results.
Bing does however return pornography sites for the term 'pussy', but refuses to display images (???). Yahoo does just as poorly as bing for the term pussy. Google specifically returns no results at all for 'pussy', and only mentions the filter, not sex at all, in it's explanation.

Even if there was an internet filter it would still allow search engines to be used, even if the resulting page links were blocked. Therefore children could still read the website descriptions, and you'd still have children asking parents what any part of: "FREE photos of pussy, pornstars, cougars, asian girls, amateur teens and more!" meant.

I think that if you purchase a computer that your child will be using you should complain to the store you bought the computer from and/or microsoft when their default search engine on their default browser doesn't filter inadvertent pornography properly. So long as you mention that you plan on letting your child use the computer when you buy it, and ask if it's suitable for that. If they say 'yes' and then the default browser pops up with porn, then it's not fit for purpose as they claimed and you have recourse available to you under the consumer guarantees act. If you order an internet service and specify that you wish your child to be able to use it without running into anything inappropriate, and they say that yes their service provides that and then it doesn't, bam, same thing. So, if the laws we currently have were used properly by consumers this wouldn't even be a discussion. The current laws preserve the rights and freedoms of everyone, and with rights come responsibilities. Personally I think that anyone who would petition the government to remove MY rights because they don't want to execute THEIR responsibilities is far too naive and childish to actually have children.