[Dfey-nw-discuss] [Fwd: Re: [ORG-discuss] Web content 'disturbing children']

[Tim Dobson]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Dfey-nw-discuss] [Fwd: Re: [ORG-discuss] Web content 
'disturbing children']
Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 22:51:58 +0100
From: Chris Hilliard <address@hidden>
To: address@hidden
References: <address@hidden>

Web filtering should be stopped at all costs. That's my 2c and I've
been on TV to that effect.

Web filtering allows for the person in control to curtail freedom of
speech through the removal of information, such as LGBT sites,
religions other than the prescribed state religion (this has happened
far too often in the USA), political activist websites (the arab
states are known for this) and anything that the administrators feel
is 'unsuitable'. This goes for adult and child web filtering.

The other problem with web filtering is that while to an extent it
provides some what of a barrier to the miscreants of the world, what
it actually provides is a false sense of security - there is no
un-hackable web filter in the world and there are a dozen different
ways to get around each one, from using a simple http or https proxy
server to learning a new language (something that every child is
taught at school). Not only is this true, but there are several
different ways for website designers to design sites to avoid filters.

Web filters provide a false sense of security at best, and in the
worst case scenario they are dangerous to the nations freedoms, rights
and liberties. The internet its very self is the embodiment of
international cooperation and freedom of speech, as well as being a
true and just look into who we are as a society. To cut this off or
narrow it in any way would be a knife into the very heart of the idea
of democracy.

What needs to replace the web filters of the world is, certainly in
the case of children, adult supervision, education for both the adults
and children about the internet and open and frank discussion between
parents and children about what they have been viewing on the internet
and if they came upon anything that may have caused them distress in
any way, and to talk through that.

I, myself have seen many disturbing things on the internet - current
affairs, the war in Iraq, the new laws coming into place. However, not
one of those would I want to be filtered in any way shape or form.

Also, does the NSPCC say what type of things the children saw that
disturbed them? At a young age, Bambi disturbed me, especially the
moment where his mother is shot, however, nobody thought to step
in-front of the screen and filter that moment out for me. The
evolution of a person demands that sometimes we are disturbed,
otherwise we don't grow as a person. We need the fear to understand
the joy, otherwise we will feel nothing as a society.

I hope that isn't too much of a rant :p

ttfn,
badspyro


On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 7:09 PM, Tim Dobson <address@hidden> wrote:
> After our discussions about content filtering yesterday, what do you think
> about this?
> Do you think that more Content filtering software is a good idea?
>
> Personally, I really despise content filtering software on a variety of
> levels but I'm interested in other people's opinions...
>
> Tim
>
> -------- Original Message --------
> Subject: Re: [ORG-discuss] Web content 'disturbing children'
> Date: Mon, 20 Oct 2008 15:43:32 +0100
> From: David Gerard <address@hidden>
> To: Open Rights Group open discussion list
> <address@hidden>
>
> 2008/10/20 Rob Myers <address@hidden>:
> > On Mon, Oct 20, 2008 at 9:19 AM, Caroline Ford
> > <address@hidden> wrote:
>
> > > http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7679119.stm
> > > NSPCC lobbing for compulsory filtering software - thankfully only on
> > > computers not on the network.
>
> > I propose compulsory filtering of nebulous NSPCC publicity seeking.
> > Some sort of email filter that blocks communication with news desks
> > and the editorial teams of TV soap operas should do it.
>
>
> According to a recent survey undertaken by NSPCC, a leading charity
> promoting the cause of publicising itself, nearly 75 percent of kids
> in UK have been disturbed by images which they saw on the Internet.
>
> NSPCC policy advisor Zoe Hilton said, "Children are just a few clicks
> away from innocently stumbling across upsetting or even dangerous
> pictures and films, such as ones about NSPCC claims that satanic
> ritual abuse existed. And also, give us money or you're a paedo."
>
> Ms Hilton also stress on the need for manufacturers to incorporate
> advanced parental controls and protection mechanisms in computers.
> "Children can best be protected by installing a meter that takes 20p
> per page viewed and sending the money to the NSPCC. Or you might as
> well be raping and killing them yourself. You sickening shitbag."
>
> The NSPCC adds that video hosting and social networking sites should
> monitor content posted on their sites and remove all offensive
> material. "That this is impossible means we'll just have to keep
> demanding it. You filthy bastards, molesting children through their
> eyes. You vile fuckers should be lynched. But bung us twenty quid and
> we'll say no more, eh."
>
>
> - d.
>
> _______________________________________________
> ORG-discuss mailing list
> address@hidden
> http://lists.openrightsgroup.org/mailman/listinfo/org-discuss
>
> --
> www.tdobson.net
> ----
> If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
> still has one object.
> If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
> has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw

--
www.tdobson.net
----
If each of us have one object, and we exchange them, then each of us
still has one object.
If each of us have one idea, and we exchange them, then each of us now
has two ideas.   -  George Bernard Shaw