The case for mandatory internet filtering

Forums › ICT Policies and Regulation › The case for mandatory internet filtering

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1768921 22-Apr-2017 14:33

shanehobson:

All filtering solutions can be circumvented and so any filtering tools applied need to accompanied by education, regulation & legislation. You're unlikely to implement porn blocking on your home internet without also having a discussion with your teenage son about what you're doing and why you're doing it.

In the examples you have seen, what has the education aspect looked like?

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

PhantomNVD

2619 posts

Uber Geek
Inactive user

#1768932 22-Apr-2017 14:57

I'd say there is definitely a good case for this as an opt in/out option in a ' normal' home (ie one where the kids have more IT knowledge than their parents). As geeks we (mostly) have the knowledge, expertise and conceptual understanding of how to use technology to support our ethical stance on our home internet censorship.

However, is say 95+ % of parents would likely opt IN on such a scheme in order to protect their own children as they are not personally equipped and able to do so personally (and probably quite happy to admit this).

Another worthwhile idea is to simply make it opt OUT as then people who don't even know it is an option would also be 'protected' but easily presented this option when calling their ISP to report a 'fault' page (which could easily be programmed with user friendly information about how to get the block removed... much like interleaving I guess? If you don't know they're doing it and you can't see a difference then there's no worries, but for those that know and decide to have it switched off, they bear the consequences?

antoniosk

2358 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1768953 22-Apr-2017 16:08

freitasm:

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.

QFT.

???

________

Antoniosk

toyonut

1508 posts

Uber Geek

#1768955 22-Apr-2017 16:17

antoniosk:

freitasm:

Rikkitic: As the Washington Post says, Democracy dies in darkness.

QFT.

???

Quoted For Truth

Try Vultr using this link and get us both some credit:

http://www.vultr.com/?ref=7033587-3B

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1769005 22-Apr-2017 19:24

I would be for an opt in system. Eg for families with children and teenagers etc. but I suspect not too many would take it up, and if people want to do it, they already can. But there are many things such as problems with guns and drugs, as well as society problems in general with things such as bullying, that I see as far higher priority in this country.

freitasm

BDFL - Memuneh
79250 posts

Uber Geek

Administrator

ID Verified

Trusted

Geekzone

Lifetime subscriber

#1769008 22-Apr-2017 19:35

Why single out porn? Why not filter religious material?

Not all porn is bad. There isn’t anything illegal about porn. I am not sure the OP ever mentioned a specific topic of filtering/censorship.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1769016 22-Apr-2017 19:49

I don't think it's possible to have an intelligent debate on this until there's a proposal to look at. Some people will cheerfully state that they don't mind the govt filtering out child porn and snuff videos, and others will fixate on the slippery slope argument ending up with legitimate news sites blocked.

The appropriate level of mandated filtering is somewhere in the middle of that but any rational, sensible positions are going to be ignored or shouted down by the zealots at either extreme. It'll be amusing to watch at least.

It should be noted that participation with the DCEFS is still voluntary. Personally I'd be happier if it was compulsory so that all providers were on an even footing for the next time they choose to block something outside their mandate. (Or when it happens due to a breakdown in their processes)

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

JimmyH

2886 posts

Uber Geek

#1769048 22-Apr-2017 20:57

Talkiet:

The appropriate level of mandated filtering is somewhere in the middle of that but any rational, sensible positions are going to be ignored or shouted down by the zealots at either extreme. It'll be amusing to watch at least.

Sorry, but the appropriate level of filtering is not somewhere in the middle.

In any society claiming to be free and democratic, the ability to freely exchange and impart information and views etc is a cornerstone of that society. Censorship directly attacks that freedom. Therefore the bar has to be set incredibly high, in terms of actual provable and widespread harm, before it can be justified. For child porn I personally feel that test is met. For other stuff, not much. Grubby pictures and video made by consenting adults, horror movies, novels, euthanasia and suicide discussions and political tracts certainly don't meet the test. The fact that you or I might find some views, discussions, artworks (which is in the eye of the beholder) or entertainment unsettling, unpleasant or even stomach-churning doesn't mean they should be banned. To do that, you have to prove serious harm, and you have to do so beyond any reasonable doubt. This isn't zealotry, it's a defence of fundamental civil liberties and the cornerstone of a free and democratic society.

Or as Voltaire is oft claimed to have put it: "Monsieur l’abbé, je déteste ce que vous écrivez, mais je donnerai ma vie pour que vous puissiez continuer à écrire." (Monsieur l’abbé, I detest what you write, but I would give my life to make it possible for you to continue to write).

You only have to look at countries like Iran, East Germany, 1980s Romania, Venezuela, Saudi Arabia, and North Korea to see what happens when free speech is substantially suppressed.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1769051 22-Apr-2017 21:01

I rest my case.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

mattwnz

20141 posts

Uber Geek

#1769056 22-Apr-2017 21:06

It all depends on peoples standards, cultures and religious background (if applicable). Many people find online shopping on Christmas and Easter offensive, so should they be able to filter out shopping websites on those days? If the government were to filter at a top level, it would be a very slippery road to government censorship. Already our news is full of fake news, so if filtering is done on content, it could be open to abuse, so the government only lets you see what they want you to see. It also potentially blocks free speech. If you look at some forms of social media platform, they have a lot of power to potentially filter news, and only let people see what they want them to see.

Rikkitic

Awrrr
18657 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1769091 22-Apr-2017 22:22

Talkiet:

I rest my case.

Cheers - N

What case? All you have said is that filtering should be mandated at a level ('in the middle') guaranteed to exclude as many people as possible. Why go for the lowest common denominator? My specific proposal, since that is what you demand for a rational debate, is that there be no mandated filtering at all and that people be trusted to decide for themselves what they should and shouldn't see. Or do you feel that certain sectors of the population are incapable of making such choices, meaning you have to decide for them?

Plesse igmore amd axxept applogies in adbance fir anu typos

1eStar

1604 posts

Uber Geek

#1769093 22-Apr-2017 22:26

I wish I could filter on Geekzone.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1769096 22-Apr-2017 22:38

Rikkitic:

Talkiet:

I rest my case.

Cheers - N

What case? All you have said is that filtering should be mandated at a level ('in the middle') guaranteed to exclude as many people as possible. Why go for the lowest common denominator? My specific proposal, since that is what you demand for a rational debate, is that there be no mandated filtering at all and that people be trusted to decide for themselves what they should and shouldn't see. Or do you feel that certain sectors of the population are incapable of making such choices, meaning you have to decide for them?

Well you're nit-picking but my choice of words was pretty poor... More accurately I should have said "somewhere between those 2 extremes"... And yes, some sectors of society are incapable of making appropriate choices. In any case, if you support mandated filtering for ANY instance (child porn) then you already aligned with my view.

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1769126 23-Apr-2017 08:52

Talkiet:

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

Yes it is conceptually very different in practice. It may have been possible in the past for a censor to individually review and classify every book or magazine, movie print for release, or DVD coming in to the country.

It's not physically possible for a censor to individually review and classify billions of web pages. It's futile because those pages can change, the worst offenders (kiddy porn etc) would probably continue to do what they do on the internet now, essentially unimpeded except for possible risk of being caught by "sting" operations or surveillance, they're also probably using other than the WWW.

People can also bring terabytes of data into the country in person on devices. Would be very nice - but practically impossible - to "search" every device and flash memory chip coming in, if you wanted to wait years in a line while customs/immigration at the border checked every device from every passenger on an A380, demanded keys to every encrypted file then examined the contents.

If there was to be some government regulation filtering access to content, my preference would be that all ISPs should offer "family safe" filtering as an option, that option is on by default, and that service should carry no additional charge.

Talkiet

4792 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#1769127 23-Apr-2017 08:55

Fred99:

Talkiet:

How is this conceptually any different from video and printed media censorship? Sure, internet based stuff is MUCH harder to police and far more transient, but is it really intrinsically that different from current legislation around censorship and objectionable publications?

Yes it is conceptually very different in practice. It may have been possible in the past for a censor to individually review and classify every book or magazine, movie print for release, or DVD coming in to the country.

It's not physically possible for a censor to individually review and classify billions of web pages. It's futile because those pages can change, the worst offenders (kiddy porn etc) would probably continue to do what they do on the internet now, essentially unimpeded except for possible risk of being caught by "sting" operations or surveillance, they're also probably using other than the WWW.

People can also bring terabytes of data into the country in person on devices. Would be very nice - but practically impossible - to "search" every device and flash memory chip coming in, if you wanted to wait years in a line while customs/immigration at the border checked every device from every passenger on an A380, demanded keys to every encrypted file then examined the contents.

If there was to be some government regulation filtering access to content, my preference would be that all ISPs should offer "family safe" filtering as an option, that option is on by default, and that service should carry no additional charge.

Fair enough. We disagree then.

Cheers - N

Please note all comments are from my own brain and don't necessarily represent the position or opinions of my employer, previous employers, colleagues, friends or pets.

1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | ... | 11