internet content watchdog

darkpagandeath

http://www.irishexaminer.com/ireland/parents-survey-to-inform-internet-content-watchdog-262320.html

Looks like were back to this again. It keeps cropping up I wonder How long until the save the children types will be back on the news. Seems every opportunity is taken to blame the interweb for any ill that happens no personal responsibility is taken anymore. Johnny did this or Johnny did that Johnny was 14-18 but still it was the internets fault. I think it’s more to do with people over their late 40s with a fear of technology And lack of understanding. I think most younger parents would have more of a clue in how to curtail internet usage when needed. Yes that probably is a generalisation and you have plenty of young ones too but still. I think it’s high time people took responsibility for what their children are doing. You cant blame the internet if that's who you rely on bringing your child up for you. If you/they have a fear of the internet don't try and ruin it for the rest of us.

OwenM

from you own link:

"Its job will be to consider emerging issues around internet content and its impact on children and young people. "

It's just a talking shop Quango for ministers to appoint friends onto.

Dravokivich

Why are parents being surveyed? Surely we'd be amongst the least qualified to have such a major input on the issue.

Tzardine

Sure its for the best.

I saw a boob once on the t'internet.

darkpagandeath

Tzardine wrote: »

Sure its for the best.

I saw a boob once on the t'internet.

Still have a phrase from one of these groups in my head.

"Nipples are unsuitable for children."

flutered

the politicos everywhere are doing their best to take control of the web, they control tv stations, radio stations and newspapers, how to control the tinternet is their main agenda, not fighting poverty etc, the thechies and hackers doing massive scripts etc for nothing is beyond their comprehension, as they have neve,r nor will they ever do anything for nothing, they need to have the people interested in their way of thinking, nothing else.

flutered

Tzardine wrote: »

Sure its for the best.

I saw a boob once on the t'internet.

are you sure it was a boob, not a baby dinner.

mikom

Never gets old......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHoI5Zum2ek

Duggy747

I say we should ban children, that way everyone wins.

Muise...

This problem is as old as time. Old monsters, new technology. What did they charge Socrates with? Corrupting the youth.

I particularly like the anti-bullying/suicide brigade - it's the medium destroying the kidz, is it? Not the little fcukers being dragged-up human beings.

darkpagandeath

mikom wrote: »

Never gets old......

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uHoI5Zum2ek

hahaaha no mater what you do on the internet you leave a digital footprint on facebook. :pac:

Tzardine

I cant play that video, I am in work, but is it for real.

Is she really part of a group called GOWL ?

Rented Mule

Tzardine wrote: »

Sure its for the best.

I saw a boob once on the t'internet.

There you go. This is a perfect reason to police the inter-webs.

They should always come in pairs.

darkpagandeath

Muise... wrote: »

This problem is as old as time. Old monsters, new technology. What did they charge Socrates with? Corrupting the youth.

I particularly like the anti-bullying/suicide brigade - it's the medium destroying the kidz, is it? Not the little fcukers being dragged-up human beings.

Easy to blame everyone else for their own failings as parents. As I said no one seems to be responsible anymore everyone else is to blame. Is more disturbing the government jumping on every chance to sensor the internet especially in a democracy.

hatrickpatrick

I'm not too worried, attempts in the UK to censor the internet have proven utterly futile. There is a committed enough culture of internet anarchists who reject all forms of regulation and are ready to step in and fight it if it comes up - Managing to get SOPA shelved in the US when it was supported by the corporations which bankroll the US congress was an incredible achievement, and other forms of attempted censorship have been thwarted by the likes of Tor etc.

The only way to censor the internet would have been to lock the stable before the horse escaped. People are used to an unregulated internet now and many regard any attempt at restriction as a challenge to be overcome. Technology will always be one step ahead of politicians.

I'm not suggesting that I'm not appalled by the attempts to regulate it, I'm simply saying I no longer have any real fears that any of them will be remotely successful. Internet censorship will only work when those committed to circumventing it give up, and from the looks of things, that's not going to happen any time soon.

Custardpi

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not suggesting that I'm not appalled by the attempts to regulate it, I'm simply saying I no longer have any real fears that any of them will be remotely successful. Internet censorship will only work when those committed to circumventing it give up, and from the looks of things, that's not going to happen any time soon.

The problem is however that as efforts to censor the internet increase the likelihood is that an ever decreasing amount of people will actually be capable of such circumvention. Anyone can type "[Banned Site] + Proxy" into a search engine & be there in just a few seconds longer than previously. However, if it gets to the stage where one has to use a relay of 16 different proxies & type web addresses in Klingon in order to access an uncensored net then most people outside the hardcore hacker culture will just give up & accept whatever version of the web Google, NSA & the Helen Lovejoy Brigade deign to give them. We are currently lucky that those crying for censorship are mostly computer illiterates like Healy Eames. I wouldn't count on that always being the case.

catallus

These measures are needed to protect people from themselves. Read your Kafka people!

mikom

catallus wrote: »

These measures are needed to protect people from themselves. Read your Kafka people!

Can't............ it's been blocked.

catallus

And rightly so!

Scotty P

I do think that you should have to prove you're over 18 to have a certain level of access to the internet. I don't have kids myself, but wouldn't want my nephews and nieces having access to everything online that an adult currently has access to, that's for sure.

I understand that kids will most likely find a way around restrictions, as I did when getting my hands on Over 18s films when barely a teenager myself, but still think the best effort should be made to have some sort of age restriction in place.

darkpagandeath

Scotty P wrote: »

I do think that you should have to prove you're over 18 to have a certain level of access to the internet. I don't have kids myself, but wouldn't want my nephews and nieces having access to everything online that an adult currently has access to, that's for sure.

I understand that kids will most likely find a way around restrictions, as I did when getting my hands on Over 18s films when barely a teenager myself, but still think the best effort should be made to have some sort of age restriction in place.

It's the parents job to monitor what their own child does. Fairly simple concept if parents are worried about the internet put the pc in the sitting room. Don't allow any devices like tablets to be used out of your sight. And who decides what adult content is ? Sexual health information to some groups would be adult Conflicting religious beliefs art. if you start censoring you will get different lobby groups wanting different things filtered to save the children.

catallus

Maybe the local priest should be given administrator controls over the internet access.

As for the idea that parents can control what kids look at without some concrete action from the ISPs, well...... that's just ignorance.

Scotty P

darkpagandeath wrote: »

It's the parents job to monitor what their own child does. Fairly simple concept if parents are worried about the internet put the pc in the sitting room. Don't allow any devices like tablets to be used out of your sight. And who decides what adult content is ? Sexual health information to some groups would be adult Conflicting religious beliefs art. if you start censoring you will get different lobby groups wanting different things filtered to save the children.

Then why have a legal age for anything?

Cinema, alcohol, smoking etc, all have age limits as we as a society realise that the good intentions of parents just isn't always enough and so we have legislation in place to make sure that children can not access these things until they are 18.

Not all Parents are savvy enough with technology anyway and it would be quite hard for them to prevent their 11 year old from accessing PornLeak, LiveTube and the like. I think all IPs should require some kind of ID before they allow access to adult content.

extra gravy

Scotty P wrote: »

Then why have a legal age for anything?

Cinema, alcohol, smoking etc, all have age limits as we as a society realise that the good intentions of parents just isn't always enough and so we have legislation in place to make sure that children can not access these things until they are 18.

Not all Parents are savvy enough with technology anyway and it would be quite hard for them to prevent their 11 year old from accessing PornLeak, LiveTube and the like. I think all IPs should require some kind of ID before they allow access to adult content.

Getting really tired of this excuse. "Oh sure all this technology wasn't around in my day, how am I supposed to know how it works". They could try learning about it like the rest of us did.

darkpagandeath

Scotty P wrote: »

Then why have a legal age for anything?

Cinema, alcohol, smoking etc, all have age limits as we as a society realise that the good intentions of parents just isn't always enough and so we have legislation in place to make sure that children can not access these things until they are 18.

Not all Parents are savvy enough with technology anyway and it would be quite hard for them to prevent their 11 year old from accessing PornLeak, LiveTube and the like. I think all IPs should require some kind of ID before they allow access to adult content.

Its not about legal age. Its about responsibility , How do you propose the ISP implement this age check ? If you don't want them watching stuff on TV you don't call the TV provider and demand they block TV shows by default for everyone do you. They tried blocking content in Australia and it was broken in half an hour by a 16 year old and posted on social media for all the other young people to use that method.

MS.ing

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Its not about legal age. Its about responsibility , How do you propose the ISP implement this age check ? If you don't want them watching stuff on TV you don't call the TV provider and demand they block TV shows by default for everyone do you. They tried blocking content in Australia and it was broken in half an hour by a 16 year old and posted on social media for all the other young people to use that method.

mmmmm chocolate delicious irony..

Stavros Murphy

Tzardine wrote: »

Sure its for the best.

I saw a boob once on the t'internet.

Link please. I find this statement hard to believe. Standards must have slipped if this were to be true.

Tzardine

Stavros Murphy wrote: »

Link please. I find this statement hard to believe. Standards must have slipped if this were to be true.

Here you are

http://www.losebellyfatreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/man-boobs.jpg

Caliden

Scotty P wrote: »

Then why have a legal age for anything?

Cinema, alcohol, smoking etc, all have age limits as we as a society realise that the good intentions of parents just isn't always enough and so we have legislation in place to make sure that children can not access these things until they are 18.

Not all Parents are savvy enough with technology anyway and it would be quite hard for them to prevent their 11 year old from accessing PornLeak, LiveTube and the like. I think all IPs should require some kind of ID before they allow access to adult content.

In short, lazy parents who want someone else to do their parenting.

Potatoeman

Scotty P wrote: »

Then why have a legal age for anything?

Cinema, alcohol, smoking etc, all have age limits as we as a society realise that the good intentions of parents just isn't always enough and so we have legislation in place to make sure that children can not access these things until they are 18.

Not all Parents are savvy enough with technology anyway and it would be quite hard for them to prevent their 11 year old from accessing PornLeak, LiveTube and the like. I think all IPs should require some kind of ID before they allow access to adult content.

Kids can access alcohol if they are unsupervised and its not controlled. Do you lock up all your alcohol?

You can buy over the counter software to block unwanted content.

Dravokivich

Potatoeman wrote: »

Kids can access alcohol if they are unsupervised and its not controlled. Do you lock up all your alcohol?

You can buy over the counter software to block unwanted content.

Exactly, if a kid is motivated enough, they'll do whatever they think is possible for'em to do. As a parent, I can only try to teach my kid about being responsible and out laying consequences if ever he does anything irresponsible.

hatrickpatrick

Scotty P wrote: »

I do think that you should have to prove you're over 18 to have a certain level of access to the internet. I don't have kids myself, but wouldn't want my nephews and nieces having access to everything online that an adult currently has access to, that's for sure.

I understand that kids will most likely find a way around restrictions, as I did when getting my hands on Over 18s films when barely a teenager myself, but still think the best effort should be made to have some sort of age restriction in place.

Why, exactly?

Scotty P

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why, exactly?

Have already said why.

darkpagandeath wrote: »

Its not about legal age. Its about responsibility , How do you propose the ISP implement this age check ?

You act like it is not possible. Some ISPs in Ireland already do it.

If you don't want them watching stuff on TV you don't call the TV provider and demand they block TV shows by default for everyone do you.

Watershed.

They tried blocking content in Australia and it was broken in half an hour by a 16 year old and posted on social media for all the other young people to use that method.

I have addressed this point already, indeed, I was the one to make it. Of course kids will find a way, I did myself when young when trying to get my hands on Over 18 flicks, but so what? Kids will also find a way to purchase alcohol, smokes etc etc, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up as a society and say 'what's the point' and allow a free for all and so it should be with internet access.

Potatoeman

Scotty P wrote: »

Have already said why.



You act like it is not possible. Some ISPs in Ireland already do it.



Watershed.



I have addressed this point already, indeed, I was the one to make it. Of course kids will find a way, I did myself when young when trying to get my hands on Over 18 flicks, but so what? Kids will also find a way to purchase alcohol, smokes etc etc, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up as a society and say 'what's the point' and allow a free for all and so it should be with internet access.

The best control is parental sepervision.

As for the watershed, it always seemed like a heavy handed approach. A TV is not a babysitter and many adults have to work early and cant stay up late.

RoboRat

Faceboards and twitting are too unregulated, they need to be monitored.

Dravokivich

Scotty P wrote: »

I have addressed this point already, indeed, I was the one to make it. Of course kids will find a way, I did myself when young when trying to get my hands on Over 18 flicks, but so what? Kids will also find a way to purchase alcohol, smokes etc etc, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up as a society and say 'what's the point' and allow a free for all and so it should be with internet access.

Can I ask, why is it societies problem in the first place?

seamus

This all boils down to the issue that some parents don't want to have to take responsibility for their child's welfare and would rather someone else did it.

"I don't need to worry about the internet, the government's got my back".

Even the most technically inept parent can protect their child by doing a few simple things. Namely, computer(s) only allowed where there is no privacy and only when a parent is about. No smartphones and if you're going out or away and leaving the child behind, take the router with you. All routers can be plugged out and then plugged back in without even needing to be literate.

Once they're 16, they need less protection, they're fairly capable of handling most online content.

Stavros Murphy

Tzardine wrote: »

Here you are

http://www.losebellyfatreport.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/man-boobs.jpg

I stand corrected. Boobs, on the interweb. Who knew?? I'm off to write a letter of complaint to Bill Gates. I believe he owns this portal of iniquity.

Dravokivich

seamus wrote: »

This all boils down to the issue that some parents don't want to have to take responsibility for their child's welfare and would rather someone else did it.

"I don't need to worry about the internet, the government's got my back".

Even the most technically inept parent can protect their child by doing a few simple things. Namely, computer(s) only allowed where there is no privacy and only when a parent is about. No smartphones and if you're going out or away and leaving the child behind, take the router with you. All routers can be plugged out and then plugged back in without even needing to be literate.

Once they're 16, they need less protection, they're fairly capable of handling most online content.

Oh how behind the times you are Seamus! With UPC you need to take the tv box :P

darkpagandeath

Scotty P wrote: »

Have already said why.



You act like it is not possible. Some ISPs in Ireland already do it.



Watershed.



I have addressed this point already, indeed, I was the one to make it. Of course kids will find a way, I did myself when young when trying to get my hands on Over 18 flicks, but so what? Kids will also find a way to purchase alcohol, smokes etc etc, but that doesn't mean we throw our hands up as a society and say 'what's the point' and allow a free for all and so it should be with internet access.

That does nothing sending an email to get adult content on your smart phone. Most people would jail break their phone.

Scotty P

Dravokivich wrote: »

Can I ask, why is it societies problem in the first place?

Because society should protect the vulnerable, as it already does in many instances.

Or do you think we should let kids buy cigarettes? Or let them into Over 18 films at the cinema?

I fail to see how it's fine to restrict some things over here but once someone suggests that there should be a similar restriction when it comes to accessing unsuitable material in cyberspace.. that seems to be a step too far, and if the the parents fail to prevent it from occurring.. tough shit.

I of course believe parent's have the ultimate responsibility here, but that shouldn't be the be all and end of all of protecting children from accessing unsuitable material online, for the simple reason that some kids have assholes for parents.

Caliden

Scotty P wrote: »

Because society should protect the vulnerable, as it already does in many instances.

Or do you think we should let kids buy cigarettes? Or let them into Over 18 films at the cinema?

I fail to see how it's fine to restrict some things over here but once someone suggests that there should be a similar restriction when it comes to accessing unsuitable material in cyberspace.. that seems to be a step too far, and if the the parents fail to prevent it from occurring.. tough shit.

I of course believe parent's have the ultimate responsibility here, but that shouldn't be the be all and end of all of protecting children from accessing unsuitable material online, for the simple reason that some kids have assholes for parents.

Do you actually believe that no kid under the age of 18 has ever been sold cigarettes / got into an 18+ movie?


You're making the wrong comparison also, it should be akin to holding the newsagent responsible when a child sneaks a peak at the nudy mag...

Dravokivich

Scotty P wrote: »

Because society should protect the vulnerable, as it already does in many instances.

Or do you think we should let kids buy cigarettes? Or let them into Over 18 films at the cinema?

I fail to see how it's fine to restrict some things over here but once someone suggests that there should be a similar restriction when it comes to accessing unsuitable material in cyberspace.. that seems to be a step too far, and if the the parents fail to prevent it from occurring.. tough shit.

I of course believe parent's have the ultimate responsibility here, but that shouldn't be the be all and end of all of protecting children from accessing unsuitable material online, for the simple reason that some kids have assholes for parents.

But you are looking for the removal of responsibility from parents.

A child is not vulnerable on the basis of being a child either.

darkpagandeath

Plenty of software out there that is really easy to setup and will take care of the problem till say the kids are into the teens. People either have some dilution that it's really hard to setup or don't even know about it. If your able to go online and shop your able to setup the software pretty much just ticking boxes. My major issue on this as well is creating any filter on the internet slows that down for everyone using it. Like diverting a sea into stream only so much can go through. It’s stupid that the government even considers it. Ireland provides 12.5 percent of online services. And they want to create bottlenecks ....

hatrickpatrick

Scotty P wrote: »

Or do you think we should let kids buy cigarettes? Or let them into Over 18 films at the cinema?

Cigarettes cause directly measurable, provable, statistical harm. Sexual content, as far as we know, does not.
For the record, I for one don't approve of film censorship anyway.

I fail to see how it's fine to restrict some things over here but once someone suggests that there should be a similar restriction when it comes to accessing unsuitable material in cyberspace.. that seems to be a step too far, and if the the parents fail to prevent it from occurring.. tough sh!t

Government, if given any control whatsoever over the Internet, will abuse it. Therefore regardless of good intentions, there are those of us who will fight any and all such control. Previous attempts at censorship around the world on the basis of protecting kids from predators have also blocked everything from lgbt support groups to "obectionable" political blogs - government simply cannot be trusted with that power. The Internet is one of the best chances we have today to take control away from the establishment and give it back to ordinary people - allowing them a foothold in controlling it would negate that.

I of course believe parent's have the ultimate responsibility here, but that shouldn't be the be all and end of all of protecting children from accessing unsuitable material online, for the simple reason that some kids have assholes for parents.

Who defines unsuitable? The government? :rolleyes:

hatrickpatrick

Scotty P wrote: »

Have already said why.

Actually you haven't. You've said that there are things on the Internet that you don't want kids seeing without going into any detail at all about specifically which things you mean.

shruikan2553

Bunch of idiots. If you dont want your children wandering to the shops you dont get the government to set up checkpoints along every road. You prevent them from leaving the house yourself. Simple software installed can solve this issue. I actually have an idea of how to implement some software that would solve nearly every issue with children and computers.