• Want to take part in this year's BoS Trials event for Maths and/or Business Studies?
    Click here for details and register now!
  • YOU can help the next generation of students in the community!
    Share your trial papers and notes on our Notes & Resources page

Internet porn - Opt in or opt out? (2 Viewers)

lourai*87

~"*_*"~
Joined
Jun 30, 2004
Messages
745
Location
in the wigwam of a Marsh-wiggle
Gender
Female
HSC
2005
Comrade nathan said:
Also because it is illegal after all.
I thought only child porn is illegal??

I cant imagine a 10 year old typing "porn" into google and trying thier luck anyway. Kids that young should be limited on the internet anyway, imo, and by the time they are older then theyve probably heard enough, they may as well take a look as well.

Many of the 'bad' sites can be blocked anyhow, and the large number of them that contain spyware, viruses etc could probably be filtered out & dissallowed with free anti-whatever programs.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
its illegal for those under a certain age to view, i believe
 

malkin86

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,266
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
PwarYuex said:
I just tried out Google with the Safe Search Filters.

It works pretty well, actually, both when you intentionally put a sexual word in, and when you put one in that could be non-sexual as well.
What about when you put in a girl's name? In a thread a while back there was a 'type in your name to google and post the first image that comes up'.. and a lot of my images were porn with moderate on, and I even had a couple sneak in when I had the strict filter on.

That's something that kids would probably do. It's even something that they're taught to do as part of internet safety things.
 

davin

Active Member
Joined
Dec 10, 2003
Messages
1,567
Gender
Male
HSC
N/A
well, a search of the top 100 names for girls, when looking at just the first page of results (20 images) with the moderate safesearch on led to only 34 pictures, or 1.7% of the returned images, so i don't think its that much an issue
 

malkin86

Active Member
Joined
Mar 11, 2004
Messages
1,266
Gender
Female
HSC
2004
How early were they, though? I had porn in the first three pages - which is probably about the attention span we'd be looking at.

Another issue is that it's an internet safety thing to occasionally google your rl name and check that no-one's saying any nasty things about you. So it's something that they'd be likely to do.
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
davin said:
well, a search of the top 100 names for girls, when looking at just the first page of results (20 images) with the moderate safesearch on led to only 34 pictures, or 1.7% of the returned images, so i don't think its that much an issue
as i said try 'software piracy' in images.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
I don't have children, so I would probably opt *in* for internet porn.

Not because I have natural human needs, but .. well... just because.

Ultimately it is not the Governments responsibility to monitor what children access on the internet. I was under the impression that children under 13 are reccomended to have adult supervision when on the internet. I think really the responsibility lays with the parents who are not monitoring the content that their children look at.

Would you leave your young children, alone on the net without supervision? I know I would't.
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Are you comfortable joining a list of 'porn freaks'?

What happens if a Freedom of Information application makes the list public?

Could being on the list be held against a person applying for a job or somesuch? Would a police background check (necessary for the public service) bring it up? What about a security clearance check (necessary for more sensitive roles in the public service)?

I'm not comfortable with this censorship and nor am I comfortable with the notion of an 'opt in list'.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
Meh. Paranoid much?

Like I said, I don't believe it's the governments job to censor pornography from children using the internet. That is what parents are for.

If your children access something you don't want them to see, then perhaps you need to be more stringent with your supervision.

It's just stupid family groups trying to put the blame on somebody else OTHER than the parents.
 
K

katie_tully

Guest
It's not the governments job to regulate the content that adults view on the internet in their own home. Unless it's kiddy porn. =\
There have been countless articles in magazines for parents on how to install net nanny's and the like. There really is no excuse for parents who have the internet to not know how to block unwanted sites. The information is readily available.
 

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
I don't believe it is the governments job to censor legal porn. I see no where in the news articles where this is happening, so can people stop saying that's what the ALP is doing.
 

withoutaface

Premium Member
Joined
Jul 14, 2004
Messages
15,098
Gender
Male
HSC
2004
katie_tully said:
It's not the governments job to regulate the content that adults view on the internet in their own home. Unless it's kiddy porn. =\
There have been countless articles in magazines for parents on how to install net nanny's and the like. There really is no excuse for parents who have the internet to not know how to block unwanted sites. The information is readily available.
Even kiddy porn could have a good argument made for its creation being punishable rather than propogation.
 

Serius

Beyond Godlike
Joined
Nov 10, 2004
Messages
3,123
Location
Wollongong
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
HotShot said:
as i said try 'software piracy' in images.
i tried it, didnt get any porn hits with moderate filter on

but my first search was without filter on[my default setting] and i saw what u meant

any self respecting parents should put safefilter on, it can be quite effective
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
A) If a child wants to view porn they could. Even if they just buy a prepaid internet access, and just use that (on that note would you have to buy special prepaid ones for pr0n?).

B) Information about which users have subscribed to what would be kept by ISPs. While credit card companies know who purchased the latest furry publication having more identifiable information about you around isn't that good. Even if all furries should be slaughtered with extreme prejudice.

C) It would increase costs, probably built into each account and then added again to those who want access to porn even though the service to them would be cheaper.

D) Porn viewers will circumvent it all. They help create new technology, bypassing ISP restrictions is easy. They could do it through a proxy, they could do it through thousands of other methods and it won't be anywhere near as restricted as it is elsewhere.
 
Last edited:
K

katie_tully

Guest
Yah. At school we used to bypass the DET banned sites by going to the german google and typing in porn.
I think they picked up on the fact that you could view unsavoury sites if they weren't English...and really, a boob is a boob regardless of whether the caption underneath is English or German :)
 

loquasagacious

NCAP Mooderator
Joined
Aug 3, 2004
Messages
3,636
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
It seems technically unfeasible to do anything like this, there are two potential methods:

1) A list of banned sites - this is unworkable because it would require the cataloguing of every site on the interent, not even google can do this. New porn sites appear everyday this is unavoidable and hence this 'blacklist' is unworkable.

2) A filteration system which scans for black listed words or phrases (it being impossible to use a computer to scan for porn itself as it can not discriminate a pornographic pic from a non-pornographic one. This is also unworkable for several reasons, it is computationally intense at the ISP side requiring the ISP to check all traffic before sending it on. So costly and slows the internet. Furthermore such filtering technology can often inadvertantly exclude non-pornographic content which happens to contain trigger words.

I pose a question to what extent do we filter? If we are filtering porn do we also filter swear words? Perhaps we will do so inadvertantly anyway, by filtering the word 'fuck' to block porn we would also be blocking other sites which used the word in a non-pornographic manner - such as me just now. To what extent do we become a nanny state and pass the responsibility for our children from us (parents) to government. These censorship moves ammount to parents abdicating responsibility for their children to government, it is buck passing and blame avoidance.

Let us suppose that this 'solution' is introduced, there are at least two instances in which parents will have to still filter at the client side:

A) When parents want to view porn, however wish to bar their children from doing so they would need to subsribe to a 'unclean' feed (note the conceptual framing going on with the use of the word 'clean' in discussing this). However they would then need a third-party cliet-side filtering program to block their children from viewing porn.

B) When parents also want to block access to swear-words etc they will again need further filtering.

Perhaps the most interesting aspect of this whole debate (and one that has not appeared as yet) is the prevalence of pornography, we have not seen the stats that show that the majority of men do view pornography and a sizeable proportion of women as well. In fact I would go as far as to say that many advocates of this policy would themselves need to subsribe to an 'unclean' feed. That there are indeed a great many hypocrites out there who view porn behind closed doors so too speak.

Finally to quote a fun song by Trucks:

its just porn mum
and youre runnin away
you wouldnt believe what the kids see today
its just porn mum
and it wont go away
wherever you turn you find porn everyday....
 

HotShot

-_-
Joined
Feb 2, 2005
Messages
3,029
Location
afghan.....n
Gender
Male
HSC
2005
Serius said:
i tried it, didnt get any porn hits with moderate filter on

but my first search was without filter on[my default setting] and i saw what u meant

any self respecting parents should put safefilter on, it can be quite effective
with strict safesearch it works pretty gud. google does a fine a job. :)

Also loquasagacious I killed BOba Fett Ha HA ha Ha
 

Comrade nathan

Active Member
Joined
Mar 30, 2004
Messages
1,170
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
2004
Xayma said:
A) If a child wants to view porn they could. Even if they just buy a prepaid internet access, and just use that (on that note would you have to buy special prepaid ones for pr0n?).

B) Information about which users have subscribed to what would be kept by ISPs. While credit card companies know who purchased the latest furry publication having more identifiable information about you around isn't that good. Even if all furries should be slaughtered with extreme prejudice.

C) It would increase costs, probably built into each account and then added again to those who want access to porn even though the service to them would be cheaper.

D) Porn viewers will circumvent it all. They help create new technology, bypassing ISP restrictions is easy. They could do it through a proxy, they could do it through thousands of other methods and it won't be anywhere near as restricted as it is elsewhere.
Yes thoose are good points, but why did you say them to me?
 

Xayma

Lacking creativity
Joined
Sep 6, 2003
Messages
5,953
Gender
Undisclosed
HSC
N/A
Opps. Yours was the post I clicked to respond to, was going to say something about it but then didn't bother. Edited :)
 

Users Who Are Viewing This Thread (Users: 0, Guests: 2)

Top