Comments on: Do Web filters protect your child?

A renewed federal push for an antiporn law raises questions about just how effective filters are.

[Michael G.]

How About Fingerprint Scans?

I've written about this before on a different article, and last time I had a couple of people write in to contradict me. I suggested that fingerprint scans would be an excellent way to go, when it comes to porn sites. While web filters are practical, kids can cheat any internet filter with enough knowledge. But fingerprint scans are quite difficult to cheat. They are also relatively inexpensive---I've seen a Microsoft keyboard for under $100.00, that has a fingerprint scanner.

Fingerprints are a clear way for people to identify themselves on a computer. It would seem they would be good for banking and other sensitive transactions as well. In porn sires, they would allow for identification without disclosing sensitive information, such as credit card numbers.

The people that wrote in to contradict me seemed to suggest that the idea would open up the door for intense governmental interference, and loss of privacy. But I believe that if the fingerprint identities were located on each person's individual computer(just as names are, when people log in) it would cause no problems. I.E.-You place
your fingerprint identity in with your name and your age when you first log onto your computer. It would be the responsibility of parents to ensure that their kids log in the first time with their correct age. The computer would identify by fingerprint after that, and set the rules accordingly.

[techguy83]

but

how many parents are actually going to do that? Only the concerned. Most will do what they continue to do already: give the kid the computer and let them do whatever.

Also, how long before the kids with enough knowledge pull a bit from national treasure where they get their parents' fingerprints and use them to surf where they want to go?

[Gayle Edwards]

Why "finger-print scanners" are a bad idea...

Actually, "fingerprint scanners" are planned to be part of Microsofts "Trusted Computing" scheme. In fact, "Vista" (the next version of "Windows") will have integrated APIs (Application Programmers Interfaces - how software talks to the Operating-System) to do just that.

And, if the technology were simply used by me, the computers-owner, to control access to my own computer, ...that would be fine.

However, the overall plan is primarily designed around the eventual idea of a "Trusted Computer" being able to "attest", to both "local-software and services" and "external-devices", what software is being used (down to installed service patches and drivers), ...who is authorized (licensed) to use the computer, ...and to allow "remote-identification" of "acceptable uses".

...And yes, that would include being able to identify, and therefore externally-log the activities of each individual-person who uses a computer.

Many industry-analysts have stated that the primary uses of such technology would be, ..."locking" consumers into Microsoft-controlled technology, ...imposing "DRM" restrictions, ...extracting revenue from any technology-company that wished to produce anything which runs on a PC, ...and allowing the "tracking" of virtually all "online-activities".

Furthermore, based upon current and past actions, its hardly a stretch to expect that the government would consider this a "minor loss of freedom" in the name of "protecting the citizens of America" from any number of, "...threats to our way of life".

So, finally, why should I be forced to show ID to use my own computer? Why should I be forced to cough-up an extra one-hundred dollars (your figure) for a computer? Why should I be forced to pay Microsoft, if I want to create, or sell, any computer-product? And, why should I accept being BIO-Metrically "identified", and most certainly "tracked", whenever I use the Internet?

In short, based upon recent business, and government, events, ...why should I risk any of this..?

[TheTechKid]

Not the way to go

Fingerprint scanners are relly cool and in fact to get into school each morning I have to use one. For this reason, I happen to know that when you need to get access to whatever the fingerprint scanner is protecting the most, it won't work. Secondly, just because you're using a fingerprint to gain access to a site does nt neccessarily mean that the website does not get your credit information or know where you live. If fingerprints were ever adopted for this purpose, they would most certainly be linked directly to all of this information to provide ease of use. This is because whenever you only give whats needed(a router can deal with data like this) while it ends up being more efficient as opposed to giving out all available data and letting the end user decided if its needed or even for them(a hub) it presents the problem of the main storage (The government) needing a more complex network of people to deal with it. The complexity of this efficient but complex model is exactly why the government would not choose it but rather choose the inefficient model so that if something goes wrong they can blame it on someone else and not themselves.
In summary, while fingerprints could make identification easier it would not be any more secure. Also, it would be implemented improperly by the government and therefore instead of securing our data it would rather invade our privacy.

[Michael G.]

How About Fingerprint Scans?

I've written about this before on a different article, and last time I had a couple of people write in to contradict me. I suggested that fingerprint scans would be an excellent way to go, when it comes to porn sites. While web filters are practical, kids can cheat any internet filter with enough knowledge. But fingerprint scans are quite difficult to cheat. They are also relatively inexpensive---I've seen a Microsoft keyboard for under $100.00, that has a fingerprint scanner.

Fingerprints are a clear way for people to identify themselves on a computer. It would seem they would be good for banking and other sensitive transactions as well. In porn sires, they would allow for identification without disclosing sensitive information, such as credit card numbers.

The people that wrote in to contradict me seemed to suggest that the idea would open up the door for intense governmental interference, and loss of privacy. But I believe that if the fingerprint identities were located on each person's individual computer(just as names are, when people log in) it would cause no problems. I.E.-You place
your fingerprint identity in with your name and your age when you first log onto your computer. It would be the responsibility of parents to ensure that their kids log in the first time with their correct age. The computer would identify by fingerprint after that, and set the rules accordingly.

[techguy83]

but

how many parents are actually going to do that? Only the concerned. Most will do what they continue to do already: give the kid the computer and let them do whatever.

Also, how long before the kids with enough knowledge pull a bit from national treasure where they get their parents' fingerprints and use them to surf where they want to go?

[Gayle Edwards]

Why "finger-print scanners" are a bad idea...

Actually, "fingerprint scanners" are planned to be part of Microsofts "Trusted Computing" scheme. In fact, "Vista" (the next version of "Windows") will have integrated APIs (Application Programmers Interfaces - how software talks to the Operating-System) to do just that.

And, if the technology were simply used by me, the computers-owner, to control access to my own computer, ...that would be fine.

However, the overall plan is primarily designed around the eventual idea of a "Trusted Computer" being able to "attest", to both "local-software and services" and "external-devices", what software is being used (down to installed service patches and drivers), ...who is authorized (licensed) to use the computer, ...and to allow "remote-identification" of "acceptable uses".

...And yes, that would include being able to identify, and therefore externally-log the activities of each individual-person who uses a computer.

Many industry-analysts have stated that the primary uses of such technology would be, ..."locking" consumers into Microsoft-controlled technology, ...imposing "DRM" restrictions, ...extracting revenue from any technology-company that wished to produce anything which runs on a PC, ...and allowing the "tracking" of virtually all "online-activities".

Furthermore, based upon current and past actions, its hardly a stretch to expect that the government would consider this a "minor loss of freedom" in the name of "protecting the citizens of America" from any number of, "...threats to our way of life".

So, finally, why should I be forced to show ID to use my own computer? Why should I be forced to cough-up an extra one-hundred dollars (your figure) for a computer? Why should I be forced to pay Microsoft, if I want to create, or sell, any computer-product? And, why should I accept being BIO-Metrically "identified", and most certainly "tracked", whenever I use the Internet?

In short, based upon recent business, and government, events, ...why should I risk any of this..?

[TheTechKid]

Not the way to go

Fingerprint scanners are relly cool and in fact to get into school each morning I have to use one. For this reason, I happen to know that when you need to get access to whatever the fingerprint scanner is protecting the most, it won't work. Secondly, just because you're using a fingerprint to gain access to a site does nt neccessarily mean that the website does not get your credit information or know where you live. If fingerprints were ever adopted for this purpose, they would most certainly be linked directly to all of this information to provide ease of use. This is because whenever you only give whats needed(a router can deal with data like this) while it ends up being more efficient as opposed to giving out all available data and letting the end user decided if its needed or even for them(a hub) it presents the problem of the main storage (The government) needing a more complex network of people to deal with it. The complexity of this efficient but complex model is exactly why the government would not choose it but rather choose the inefficient model so that if something goes wrong they can blame it on someone else and not themselves.
In summary, while fingerprints could make identification easier it would not be any more secure. Also, it would be implemented improperly by the government and therefore instead of securing our data it would rather invade our privacy.

[DannyJock]

The Clean Internet Is the Solution!

People should have a choice not to have a choice.
In other words Porn is also bad for adults.Look how many marriages it has broken.(Besides the terrible sin of masturbation) Many people want to use the internet but without the temptations. I would rather have an option where I could get a service provider that filters the internet before it arrives to my house or business. There is a huge market where people are willing to pay extra premiums instead of worrying about what enters their house. Also in the contract it will be that nobody can change there contract and suddenly allow porn.

[schubb]

It already exists

There is a christian ISP I saw last week advertising on television.
Search for family ISP in google and at least 3 church based ISP's are returned, do the work yourself, do not ask the gov't to do it for you.

[DannyJock]

The Clean Internet Is the Solution!

People should have a choice not to have a choice.
In other words Porn is also bad for adults.Look how many marriages it has broken.(Besides the terrible sin of masturbation) Many people want to use the internet but without the temptations. I would rather have an option where I could get a service provider that filters the internet before it arrives to my house or business. There is a huge market where people are willing to pay extra premiums instead of worrying about what enters their house. Also in the contract it will be that nobody can change there contract and suddenly allow porn.

[schubb]

It already exists

There is a christian ISP I saw last week advertising on television.
Search for family ISP in google and at least 3 church based ISP's are returned, do the work yourself, do not ask the gov't to do it for you.

[wbenton]

Flawed article

I don't see Cyberian mentioned in this article at all but I feel that their content rating (including sub-levels and multi category) are by far superior to the list of vendors mentioned here.

But regardless, even if a .xxx or a .sex domain was created... it still won't 100% solve the porn issue.

As for spending money to prove that those content filtering software on the market today is a waste of money... EVERY SINGLE CONTENT FILTER MAKER... Cyberian inclusive has the same problem.

Images are stored in bits and bytes. And there is NO WAY to program a computer to display Bambi the deer but not Bambi the stripper because the file name is Bambi.jpg. And how is the computer supposed to determine what is and what is not porn when it can't even be defined in words... much less programming language looking at images.

The best description I've seen for pornography is: I know it when I see it. But that's not programmable into computers... even when fuzzy logic is used.

That said... proving current content filters don't filter out 100% is a waste of unnecessary money which could be better used elsewhere.

Anybody can create a home page (corporate or personal) and anybody can create a blog (corporate or personal). Once the site getsw a [Business] rating... all it takes is one hack o rone employee to spend a few minutes uploading porn or swapping out ligitimate pics with porn pics and wala... NONE of the content filters work.

And then you have the problem of cache servers where even if the pornography site is blocked... Google, Yahoo and or any other cache server site will still retain a copy of the pornographic image in it's cache. And as Google, Yahoo or any other business site is rated as [Internet] or [Search Engine], occasionally pornographic images can be retrieved from those cache servers.

Bottom Line: Domain names won't stop porn... nor will content filters guarantee 100% porn free sites.

So where does that leave us... in a world where parents should be allowed to set up their own safe-sites White List.

Anything outside of that is considered pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes.

Walt

[DannyJock]

As I said before - Clean Internet

The only solution is to filter it from the server side. If it reaches the home the internet content filter will always be capable of overriding. I think a clean internet database
should be formed in which only sites which fulfill its standards would be included and otherwised fined or taken out of the list. If it is a webshop or mall that sells lingerie that part of the shop should be clearly distinguishable from the rest of the website so it can be blocked from the clean internet.

[wbenton]

Flawed article

I don't see Cyberian mentioned in this article at all but I feel that their content rating (including sub-levels and multi category) are by far superior to the list of vendors mentioned here.

But regardless, even if a .xxx or a .sex domain was created... it still won't 100% solve the porn issue.

As for spending money to prove that those content filtering software on the market today is a waste of money... EVERY SINGLE CONTENT FILTER MAKER... Cyberian inclusive has the same problem.

Images are stored in bits and bytes. And there is NO WAY to program a computer to display Bambi the deer but not Bambi the stripper because the file name is Bambi.jpg. And how is the computer supposed to determine what is and what is not porn when it can't even be defined in words... much less programming language looking at images.

The best description I've seen for pornography is: I know it when I see it. But that's not programmable into computers... even when fuzzy logic is used.

That said... proving current content filters don't filter out 100% is a waste of unnecessary money which could be better used elsewhere.

Anybody can create a home page (corporate or personal) and anybody can create a blog (corporate or personal). Once the site getsw a [Business] rating... all it takes is one hack o rone employee to spend a few minutes uploading porn or swapping out ligitimate pics with porn pics and wala... NONE of the content filters work.

And then you have the problem of cache servers where even if the pornography site is blocked... Google, Yahoo and or any other cache server site will still retain a copy of the pornographic image in it's cache. And as Google, Yahoo or any other business site is rated as [Internet] or [Search Engine], occasionally pornographic images can be retrieved from those cache servers.

Bottom Line: Domain names won't stop porn... nor will content filters guarantee 100% porn free sites.

So where does that leave us... in a world where parents should be allowed to set up their own safe-sites White List.

Anything outside of that is considered pulling the wool over the sheep's eyes.

Walt

[DannyJock]

As I said before - Clean Internet

The only solution is to filter it from the server side. If it reaches the home the internet content filter will always be capable of overriding. I think a clean internet database
should be formed in which only sites which fulfill its standards would be included and otherwised fined or taken out of the list. If it is a webshop or mall that sells lingerie that part of the shop should be clearly distinguishable from the rest of the website so it can be blocked from the clean internet.

[zanxxx]

warped sense of reality?

Where are all these former children that are harmed by porn's "warped sense of reality"? More likely they are harmed by religious indoctrination and governmental propaganda that has little if any connection to reality. Consider the endless barrage of reality distorting commercials and sanitized violence an average child is subjected to! The amazing thing is that most children have a very good built-in bullsh** detector.

[System Tyrant]

We like our children...

gullible, nieve, and stupid until about the age of 18 when we then throw them to the wolves we call reality. We somehow assume that by doing all this protecting that we are preparing our kids to be model citizens. I think we are just breading more idiots who end up drug addicts with no real way to cope with the reality of hard living.

Every secret becomes a fantasy or a perversion.

[David Arbogast]

I tell you where they are

<<Where are all these former children that are harmed by porn's "warped sense of reality"?>>

The grew up to become welfare-sucking, single parent, left-wing liberal fanatics with no father, no college education, no working understanding of capitalism, a hatred for American government, and no clue about International affairs.

J/K...
Don't beat me up too bad...
;)

Seriously, though... it is up to every parent to determine what type of content is right for their children. Just because you or I can't come up with difinitive proof that something is dangerous doesn't mean we can take away a parent's right to raise their children they way they see fit. Additionaly, distribution of this content is already governed under law, so if you truly believe that it does no harm, then the proper recourse is to petition for a repeal of the law.

I disagree, however. Children are not mentally developed enough to handle adult entertainment. If I sent my child to 1st grade and other kids were talking about or mimicking adult movies, I'd sue the school and move my child. I would never want my child to form opinions and beliefs about adult relationships while they are still having trouble contemplating the difference between right and wrong.

[zanxxx]

warped sense of reality?

Where are all these former children that are harmed by porn's "warped sense of reality"? More likely they are harmed by religious indoctrination and governmental propaganda that has little if any connection to reality. Consider the endless barrage of reality distorting commercials and sanitized violence an average child is subjected to! The amazing thing is that most children have a very good built-in bullsh** detector.

[System Tyrant]

We like our children...

gullible, nieve, and stupid until about the age of 18 when we then throw them to the wolves we call reality. We somehow assume that by doing all this protecting that we are preparing our kids to be model citizens. I think we are just breading more idiots who end up drug addicts with no real way to cope with the reality of hard living.

Every secret becomes a fantasy or a perversion.

[David Arbogast]

I tell you where they are

<<Where are all these former children that are harmed by porn's "warped sense of reality"?>>

The grew up to become welfare-sucking, single parent, left-wing liberal fanatics with no father, no college education, no working understanding of capitalism, a hatred for American government, and no clue about International affairs.

J/K...
Don't beat me up too bad...
;)

Seriously, though... it is up to every parent to determine what type of content is right for their children. Just because you or I can't come up with difinitive proof that something is dangerous doesn't mean we can take away a parent's right to raise their children they way they see fit. Additionaly, distribution of this content is already governed under law, so if you truly believe that it does no harm, then the proper recourse is to petition for a repeal of the law.

I disagree, however. Children are not mentally developed enough to handle adult entertainment. If I sent my child to 1st grade and other kids were talking about or mimicking adult movies, I'd sue the school and move my child. I would never want my child to form opinions and beliefs about adult relationships while they are still having trouble contemplating the difference between right and wrong.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

Todays news

Google today announced cooperation with the Chinese government giving authorities the right to censor search results delivered to Chinese customers. So much for the Google mission of "Doing no evil". China plans initially to censor sites about such topics as Tianneman Square and individual liberties. George Bush is seeking the same sort of authority over US providers.

[206538395198018178908092208948]

Todays news

Google today announced cooperation with the Chinese government giving authorities the right to censor search results delivered to Chinese customers. So much for the Google mission of "Doing no evil". China plans initially to censor sites about such topics as Tianneman Square and individual liberties. George Bush is seeking the same sort of authority over US providers.

[jzsaxpc]

Just silly, you cannot defign porn!

How can anyone actually say what porn is? A few points--

A) Guess what, teens, or kids (hey, remember this starts at like age 12) are not scarred for life just because they see some "lude" photo. As for them being "unprepaired" for the outside world, well, yes and no, do you think some Amish girl is going to know anything about it? No. So there are all these searches for porn on the internet, which means someone is LOOKING for it, porn does not attack, people go search for it.

B) You cannot pick and choose what porn is. Is it topless? I mean, saying something in a sexy way or something? You cannot deside, and besides, whatever you say will clearly violate anyone's rights. What, should we not take our kids to an art gallery? Oh, there is a naked painting, ohh, I'm scarred for life. The porn industry has just as much right to opperate as Hollywood. Porn sites are REQUIRED to have an warning, if you are under 18, get out, just like movies that have "lude" sceens are rated "R", or NC-17, or whatever.

C) You cannot restrict porn to the .xxx domain. To do that is to censor them, the web should not be censored, otherwise you got China, ****, China then is the best country in the world then right? Saving all their people from all the evils that lurk outside (like Democracy, I mean, look how well it worked in Palistine! They peacefully voted a listed terrorist orginiaztion total power in their country, thats good old USA freedom!).

I say if you want to sensor your content, go ahead, that is the PARENTS CHOICE! PARENTS CHOICE, just like parents don't let their kids watch rated R movies, your DVD player comes with that kind of parental controls, as does your TV. So if you don't want your kids watching it, block it. The government has NO PART whatsoever to play in this. I don't know when this crusade against Porn started, but it is the governements job to make sure that freedoms are upheld, no matter who's they are, NOT to take them away. So Government, get your head out!

Countries that censor their internet are all the same, they wish to control their people. Last I recalled, the internet was a GLOBAL network, why does the US government think they can just all of a sudden restrict everything to .xxx, they don't own the internet, only about half of it.

[jzsaxpc]

Just silly, you cannot defign porn!

How can anyone actually say what porn is? A few points--

A) Guess what, teens, or kids (hey, remember this starts at like age 12) are not scarred for life just because they see some "lude" photo. As for them being "unprepaired" for the outside world, well, yes and no, do you think some Amish girl is going to know anything about it? No. So there are all these searches for porn on the internet, which means someone is LOOKING for it, porn does not attack, people go search for it.

B) You cannot pick and choose what porn is. Is it topless? I mean, saying something in a sexy way or something? You cannot deside, and besides, whatever you say will clearly violate anyone's rights. What, should we not take our kids to an art gallery? Oh, there is a naked painting, ohh, I'm scarred for life. The porn industry has just as much right to opperate as Hollywood. Porn sites are REQUIRED to have an warning, if you are under 18, get out, just like movies that have "lude" sceens are rated "R", or NC-17, or whatever.

C) You cannot restrict porn to the .xxx domain. To do that is to censor them, the web should not be censored, otherwise you got China, ****, China then is the best country in the world then right? Saving all their people from all the evils that lurk outside (like Democracy, I mean, look how well it worked in Palistine! They peacefully voted a listed terrorist orginiaztion total power in their country, thats good old USA freedom!).

I say if you want to sensor your content, go ahead, that is the PARENTS CHOICE! PARENTS CHOICE, just like parents don't let their kids watch rated R movies, your DVD player comes with that kind of parental controls, as does your TV. So if you don't want your kids watching it, block it. The government has NO PART whatsoever to play in this. I don't know when this crusade against Porn started, but it is the governements job to make sure that freedoms are upheld, no matter who's they are, NOT to take them away. So Government, get your head out!

Countries that censor their internet are all the same, they wish to control their people. Last I recalled, the internet was a GLOBAL network, why does the US government think they can just all of a sudden restrict everything to .xxx, they don't own the internet, only about half of it.

[208774626618253979477959487856]

Message has been deleted.

Internet Filtering

Ileagal pornography is proven to hurt kids, adults hurt kids because of porn access, all the proof you will ever need is at www.SafeLibraries.org Thanks.

Internet Filtering

Ileagal pornography is proven to hurt kids, adults hurt kids because of porn access, all the proof you will ever need is at www.SafeLibraries.org Thanks.

[tjomara37]

Message has been deleted.

[jeann612]

web filters

I DO BELIEVE ALL PORN OUGHT TO BE CENSORED. KEEP THE GARBAGE OFF THE NET. I AM 46 AND HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY A B/FS DEVOTION TO PORN. I AM NOT UGLY,I AM NOT OBESE, BUT PORN HAS DAMAGED ME TO THE EXTENT THAT IF I HAD THE BUTTON TO PUSH ID PUSH IT. 18? THATS AN ADULT? HOW EVIL AND SICK MINDED THIS WORLD HAS BECOME, I HAVE CHILDREN ALL OVER 18. AND IT DISGUSTS ME TO THINK THAT THE PERVERTS WHO MAKE THIS CRAP UP ARE MAKING MONEY FROM INNOCENT PRE-ADULTS AND EVERYONE IS OK WITH THIS. THANK GOD MY CHILDREN WERE RAISED WITH MORALS AND VALUES. SO SAD SATAN HAS HIS RULE NOW BUT IN THE END WHERE WILL YOU BE? PORN DESTROYS WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AS A FEW MEN, PORN RUINS MARRIAGES, RELATIONSHIPS,PORN DESTROYS LIVES.AND WHOSE EVER POCKETS ARE GETTING LINED WELL BY THE INDUSTRY OUGHT TO BE LOCKED UP AND THE KEY THROWEN AWAY. YES PORN OUGHT TO BE CENSORED AND DELETED FROM THE USA.

[jeann612]

web filters

I DO BELIEVE ALL PORN OUGHT TO BE CENSORED. KEEP THE GARBAGE OFF THE NET. I AM 46 AND HAVE BEEN DESTROYED BY A B/FS DEVOTION TO PORN. I AM NOT UGLY,I AM NOT OBESE, BUT PORN HAS DAMAGED ME TO THE EXTENT THAT IF I HAD THE BUTTON TO PUSH ID PUSH IT. 18? THATS AN ADULT? HOW EVIL AND SICK MINDED THIS WORLD HAS BECOME, I HAVE CHILDREN ALL OVER 18. AND IT DISGUSTS ME TO THINK THAT THE PERVERTS WHO MAKE THIS CRAP UP ARE MAKING MONEY FROM INNOCENT PRE-ADULTS AND EVERYONE IS OK WITH THIS. THANK GOD MY CHILDREN WERE RAISED WITH MORALS AND VALUES. SO SAD SATAN HAS HIS RULE NOW BUT IN THE END WHERE WILL YOU BE? PORN DESTROYS WOMEN AND CHILDREN AS WELL AS A FEW MEN, PORN RUINS MARRIAGES, RELATIONSHIPS,PORN DESTROYS LIVES.AND WHOSE EVER POCKETS ARE GETTING LINED WELL BY THE INDUSTRY OUGHT TO BE LOCKED UP AND THE KEY THROWEN AWAY. YES PORN OUGHT TO BE CENSORED AND DELETED FROM THE USA.

[ryleighsmom]

better than nothing

No parent should rely on filters alone to protect their children online. Trackers are helpful in monitoring what sites kids are viewing. Encouraging sites that you know to be safe is helpful. I love Neopets.com, its addictive and pretty much all she wants to do online anymore.
learn more about it at
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/255593/meet_me_in_neopia_a_safe_place_for.html

[ryleighsmom]

better than nothing

No parent should rely on filters alone to protect their children online. Trackers are helpful in monitoring what sites kids are viewing. Encouraging sites that you know to be safe is helpful. I love Neopets.com, its addictive and pretty much all she wants to do online anymore.
learn more about it at
http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/255593/meet_me_in_neopia_a_safe_place_for.html