Porn Filters

I got that too I seem to recall

(20-08-2013 05:29 )munch1917 Wrote:  confronted by a page asking if I wanted to activate the filters

I haven't seen that yet, but I guess they'll get around to me sooner or later. I do get an email from them every now and then telling me about the filters and how useful they are if you have children.

They pop up every so often on Talktalk and have done so about 3 times over the last two years for me. No problem though selecting off.

It's been stated in this thread by a couple of people that applying the filters would slow the internet down, but from what I've heard about Talktalk they deny this. What do current Talktalk users think, if you've tried it?

Whether or not it slows things down, someone has to pay for equipment that can quickly filter website requests from thousands of online users and subscribe to comprehensive porn lists. That's not just a request each time you click on a new page, its a request for each bit that calls out to separate pages - the google ad trackers, links to Facebook and Twitter, scrolling ads, embedded images and so on. A single web page can have 20 embedded elements, all of which need to be checked. Your browser might prefetch pages you never visit.

Checking all that takes computer power, and guess who will pay for that?

Won't it just filter by URLs and site names?

(20-08-2013 18:58 )admiral decker Wrote:  It's been stated in this thread by a couple of people that applying the filters would slow the internet down, but from what I've heard about Talktalk they deny this. What do current Talktalk users think, if you've tried it?

I don't know specifically how the talktalk system works, but my understanding of these type of systems in general is that all switching it on does is actually block the sites in the database. In other words, ALL traffic passes through the system regardless, and gets checked. So if it is going to be slowed down, ALL traffic would be slowed down whether the filter is switched on or off.
Bear in mind that most, if not all, isp's use a caching proxy system as well. Although this is designed to try to speed up browsing by delivering common pages from a local cache instead of fetching them each time, it is yet another layer for your page requests to pass through, not unlike the filter system, so again, another potential slower downer applied to ALL your traffic.
Most likely this is all pretty negligable though in practice, probably the biggest bottle necks will be on your own pc. That ad blocker you run intercepts and reformats the page before your browser renders it, and maybe you run a 'do not track me' extension as well, which also slows the page load slightly. Maybe the cache in your browser is full, so it needs to empty content before the new page can be loaded in, that takes a little time.

So, if the system is configured and running properly, I don't think it is likely to produce any real noticable significant slow down in normal browsing, at least no more than your own browser/pc does by itself, or indeed the server that is sending the web page to you.


As for talktalk denying that it slows things down, well they would say that
They also say I have unlimited broadband at up to 12mb/s speeds, yet I actually get just over 6mb/s most of the time, and I'm subject to an undefined 'fair use policy'

Still has to be paid for, by you and me.

An unaccountable non Government body will decide what is and is not on the banned list. They will also decide what is on the list of sites that are either totally banned or result in a notification being sent to police child protection teams - the consequences of incorrectly adding sites to that list are unpleasant, and it will probably only be the site owner who will be able to challenge the ban, only they will not know, and if based abroad, will not be bothered. Bad news for parents wanting to get factual information from official Thai government/charity websites about the risk of child sexual exploitation before letting their 16 or 17 year old go off and do voluntary work for summer.

The scope for error was illustrated this week when the British Library mobile ap blocked access to Hamlet, stating it was too violent. Only a glitch, but that is supposed to be mature technology. How many times would you want your name passed to child protection authorities in error? You might not even know about it, but would just keep getting rejected for jobs.

Another issue is that it gives the account holder control over the entire household. Imagine if one person in your home could block adult channels irreversibly. Imagine they were blocked to start with and you had to ask a relative for them to be unblocked. Imagine you had control but it was very obvious to your significant other, parents, children, guests, the Vicar, that your set up had unblocked adult channels - unlike most homes - because they were listed every time you used the program guide. The web equivalent is having porn websites included on Google searches (even if you don't click on them).

Cue frosty "I thought we had agreed to block those" conversation.

Far better to have proper antivirus software on every connected device and set different parental controls for different users.

I am more relaxed than most about maximum speeds. After all my car, a 1982 Vectra has a top speed of 120 and the M25 has a top speed of 70 even during the rush hour, but I have never achieved either. In neither case is lack of speed due to the provider blocking me.

On the other hand "fair" use policies are the spawn of the devil. If the ISP cant define it, it is not a policy. If they can define it but conceal the detail, how can customers be properly informed about the contract they are signing, and how can they avoid breaking it?

On the plus side, porn filters might block government websites as they are full of crap and references to illegal porn.

Check this out http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/loo...ew-2073954

12 Reasons Why Porn Filters Won't Work - from The Guardian

1. It's impossible to filter what you want
The most restrictive filters blocked 91% of adult material (let 9% through) but blocked 23% of clean web pages.

2. Filters cant cope with context
Filters fail to distinguish between porn and advice on sexual health, relationships, etc. (I read somewhere authoritive that David Camerons site get blocked).

3. You cant be clear about what you filter

4. Its not as simple as blocking a website
What about peer to peer, instant messaging, file sharing, etc?

5. Many children are more tech savvy than their parents
Filters have to be easy enough for technologically illiterate parents to use but prevent tech savvy kids guessing the password.

6. There are ways round

7. It provides a dangerous illusion of safety
Parents might be less vigilant as a result.

8. Filtering at router level (or ISP) is inflexible
Same settings for every computer and mobile phone in the home.

9. It sets a precedent for restricting legal content

10. Its not cost effective
Money would be better spent on bolstering police resources. (CEOP funding has been cut. Most detected child porn access is not investigated.)

11. It hasn't happened yet
Identical plans were unveiled in Oct 2011 but have not been implemented. That suggests it is too difficult.

12. Its a gimmick, not a solution

And 3 reasons it might work (its from The Guardian)
1. Its already happening in lots of businesses

2. Other countries have similar systems
(Unclear which ones)

3. Some research suggests filters can be made to work
Some? Suggests? Not actually happened yet?
The Australians dropped similar plans.

http://www.theguardian.com/politics/real...or-against