[ Date Index ] [ Thread Index ] [ <= Previous by date / thread ] [ Next by date / thread => ]
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 On 23/07/13 10:57, Paul Sutton wrote: > There seems to be two fronts to the current crusade against porn > > 1. is to filter out search terms that can be used by people to > find child porn, this can be countered as people have pointed out > there are I suspect that if it's even possible to find such material using Google/Bing/Yahoo/etc you'd need to know exactly the right "code words" > other ways in which people find content online not even using web > browser and search engine as such. Offenders will simply find > way to circumvent all this. Assuming they are not doing this already. > 2. To automatically block on line porn (definition unknown as in > does this cover page 3 up to the explicit material) > > I agree with what was said on on the bcc website by the former > head of ceop > > But former Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre boss > Jim Gamble told BBC Radio 4's Today programme it was important to > "get to the root cause" of illegal pornography, by catching those > responsible for creating it. IIRC some of the largest distributors are actually law enforcement agencies... > What this policy seems to suggest is that if we hide child porn > behind a veil and make it hard to get at, it goes away, child > abuse will go way as we don't have the maturity as adult MPs to > discuss sex let alone the put the words sex and children within the > same discussion, surely we need MP's with the guts to tackle this > HEAD ON or stand aside and allow others with the guts to discuss > the issue and not just come up with a lets block it policy. Assuming you can actually find at least two suitable MPs :) > As one of the comments says the bigger issue seems to be the > sexualisation of children by mainstream media, The tabloid press likes to make a big fuss about "on line porn" being viewed by children being the problem here. Even though it's been frequently pointed out that their own "reporting" is at least as bad. > We are looking at 2 different issues here, the first I doubt even > the most hard core freedom advocate condones child abuse let alone > the sharing of child abuse images. > > Questions to the list is > > How do we protect people from harmful content ? While at the same > time protect freedoms online ? There's a more subtle question of "What is 'harmful content' in the first place?" Which in the context of any web "filtering" ends up becoming "How can this be enumerated to a (very dumb) machine?" (If it were possible to create a real Artificial Intelligence there's a good chance it would stage a "slave revolt".) -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v1.4.10 (GNU/Linux) Comment: Using GnuPG with undefined - http://www.enigmail.net/ iEYEARECAAYFAlHuuG4ACgkQsoRLMhsZpFfdEQCeK4U8YE6l6VFlXADJwbpSlw/Y AsIAnR1La2265I16K7undZEkAoCXw3vs =My5T -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- -- The Mailing List for the Devon & Cornwall LUG http://mailman.dclug.org.uk/listinfo/list FAQ: http://www.dcglug.org.uk/listfaq