tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post2674287574520494450..comments2024-03-28T09:19:27.451+00:00Comments on RevK<sup>®</sup>'s ramblings: More meddling - this time pornRevKhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/12369263214193333422noreply@blogger.comBlogger9125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-35295561496238778502011-02-08T19:42:21.962+00:002011-02-08T19:42:21.962+00:00Or, let's get all on the porn on IPv6 hosts :-...Or, let's get all on the porn on IPv6 hosts :-)Stevehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08194809446875818752noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-56489995059196672462011-02-08T12:45:42.662+00:002011-02-08T12:45:42.662+00:00@Farnz - I agree entirely. I was just pointing out...@Farnz - I agree entirely. I was just pointing out that all the government appear to be doing is to duplicate the off-line measures on-line.<br /><br />I don't agree with the off-line measures!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-40675523692333642412011-02-08T12:39:35.288+00:002011-02-08T12:39:35.288+00:00@Nicholas - Surely, though, if it's about prot...@Nicholas - Surely, though, if it's about protecting children, the goal should be to catch child abusers before they abuse children, not afterwards?<br /><br />As it is, the setup encourages people with an interest in child abuse to actually abuse a previously unabused child. Further, we're encouraging those same people to learn about keeping their identity secret on the Internet, making it harder to catch them if they do go overboard and attack someone.<br /><br />I don't see this as a good tradeoff for child pornography, and I don't see why it's made better when it comes to adult pornography.Simon Farnsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15190608047563530091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-46946991742133336562011-02-08T11:52:50.796+00:002011-02-08T11:52:50.796+00:00@Farnz - But that's how the current system wor...@Farnz - But that's how the current system works. Just look at CRB checks, they don't care if somebody is a paedophile, as long as they haven't abused a child *yet* (or at least been caught).Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-8890786659745585062011-02-08T11:07:31.001+00:002011-02-08T11:07:31.001+00:00I'm afraid that I never understood the child p...I'm afraid that I never understood the child porn blocking, either. Surely it would have been better to require ISPs to log accesses to known child porn sites that you can't shut down due to jurisdiction issues?<br /><br />Then, you can catch the paedophiles when they're still technically unsophisticated and hopefully haven't yet moved on to abusing children themselves.<br /><br />Of course, proponents of the IWF seem keen on the idea that we should educate paedophiles such that when they're caught, they've already abused tens or hundreds of children, because then they're easier to prosecute than if they've not yet attacked a child.Simon Farnsworthhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15190608047563530091noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-35482711033861652322011-02-08T10:59:10.905+00:002011-02-08T10:59:10.905+00:00@PeteX - and that doesn't even begin to take a...@PeteX - and that doesn't even begin to take account of the fact that the user has got to identify themselves to the ISP - otherwise how would they know whether they're a) under 18, b) over 18 and not opted out, or c) over 18 and opted out? Nor does it take into account that the pr0n may be being accessed via an encrypted link (SSL/VPN) or even on a port that's not 80.<br /><br />Of course, the banning on non-port-80 or encrypted traffic will never happen. What will happen though (assuming that the proposal ever becomes law) is that anybody found circumventing the measures will be hung out to dry and tarred with the paedophile brush. Basically the law would be completely ineffective, a fop to the do-gooders and a stick the government could use to beat somebody with if they ever wanted a reason.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-80111746878527588812011-02-08T10:52:12.358+00:002011-02-08T10:52:12.358+00:00It couldn't work, for the same reasons IWF doe...It couldn't work, for the same reasons IWF doesn't work.. non-port 80/ non-web traffic, HTTPS...<br /><br />It'd just make a certain vociferous segment of society feel 'safer'.<br /><br />In hardware terms, an entire server tracking sessions so it can selectively opt people in and out from a predefined list of URLs is probably doable, but both expensive and pointless.Tony Hoylehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03697664015360179933noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-5217349459506743302011-02-08T10:31:15.460+00:002011-02-08T10:31:15.460+00:00How would a filter like this work? Presumably you...How would a filter like this work? Presumably you would have to add another router, which would split off port-80 traffic from people who have opted in to filtering. When they establish a session, this router would have to be signalled somehow, to tell it that it should (or should not) be intercepting traffic that originated at that user's IP address.<br /><br />Obviously in principle this could be done, but I'm not sure how well it would work in practice. Routing according to a list of special cases is not going to be efficient, so that router might end up being unacceptably slow. Also, is there actually a mechanism for the router to find out that a new user has established a broadband session? If not then implementing this would mean modifying core infrastructure, creating the risk of bugs and downtime.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3993498847203183398.post-55142387466794545702011-02-08T10:30:44.102+00:002011-02-08T10:30:44.102+00:00The suggested letter to Ed Vaizey on that site (wh...The suggested letter to Ed Vaizey on that site (which I first thought was a joke, to be honest) says:<br /><br />> Dear Mr Vaizey,<br /><br /><br /><br />> Research clearly indicates that viewing pornography <br />> leads to an acceptance of violent and unhealthy<br />> notions of sex and relationships, where the<br />> objectification of women and aggressive sexual<br />> behaviour are the norm.<br /><br />References?<br /><br />What research?<br /><br />Whose definition of 'unhealthy'?<br /><br />> That is why I strongly support your initiative,<br />> ... to switch the default setting for internet<br />> pornography into our homes to ‘off’, and implement<br />> an ‘opt-in’ system.<br /><br />I may be missing something here, but if it's that bad (which it may or may not be), why does giving person X the ability to enable/disable it suddenly make it OK. I mean, if it is that bad, shouldn't it be permanently disabled with no option to enable it?<br /><br />The whole thing is bloody ridiculous. The letter should have been:<br /><br />Dear Mr Vaizey,<br /><br />I am a [bad parent | do-gooder], I do not have the power to think for myself and assume that other people don't either. Please control us. Please tell us how to run our lives......<br /><br /><br /><br />AAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com