British Telcom are filtering illegal child porn sites, they are blocking 20,000 attempts each day.
No doubt people who are much brighter than me will debate the pros and cons of ISPs filtering/censoring the internet, but there is one quote from the BBC article that will surprise a lot of bloggers, particularly those who have pictures of their child on their sites.
Home Office minister Paul Goggins said the figures revealed by BT were “deeply shocking” and he said he hoped other service providers would take up the offer of using BT's blocking technology.
He told the Today programme: “Every image of a child that appears on the internet is an image of a child that's abused.”
20 thoughts on “BT Filtering”
Heh, remember this is from a minister in the same department that thinks ID cards are a Really Good Idea 🙂
Goggins is my local MP. It's not his fault he's so dim. It's tha fault of the person who appointed him. (Blunkett or Blair?)In the words of Mrs Goggins from Postman Pat “Ee, it's a bad job”.
now you know what I mean about being dim….
“It's tha fault of the person who appointed him”That would be you then. Maybe you should write to him and his opponents, and spread information amongst your local community about what a fool you lot elected.
Oh, dear. The person in your Trackback quoted on INSERT COIN, though, should get a grip. Anyone who posts on the web high quality pictures in glorious Technicolor of their children is, in my view, completely insane. Particularly if the children are identifiable. Don't these parents know the alternative uses to which these stills are put?Anyway, what I really wanted to say was (before I saw the INSERT COIN thing): couldn't most of those 20,000 “attempts” be people's mail programs helplessly fetching the URLs embedded in spam advertising child pornography? I have had three of these in the past seven days, all of which I forwarded to the Internet Watch Foundation.
Poor Goggins sounds like he could do with a rubbish quote checker inserted between his mouth and brain. Or a better Pa who can go over his announcements.On a more serious note. BT blocks sites reported by the IFW. The IFW only reports sites which breach current UK legislation. I doubt there are too many innocent stills on those (I cannot remember the exact wording of the IFW emails to isps – it's been a few years since I last saw one – but it ain't please remove the following from your server as it contains cute images of kiddies blowing bubbles).
Okay, every single parent I know on Xanga posts pictures of their children. Honestly, that's as dumb as saying every picture of a woman on the internet is pornography. Paedophiles are a tiny, tiny, over-blown minority and I'm not going to stop sharing pictures of my family with my large number of overseas friends because of a dozen people who can somehow sexually enjoy pictures of fully-dressed children.
I'm really sorry for not being a more effective campaigner. OK?
Vodafone are doing something similar with pr0n. However someone has reported that the content filter is also stopping them from looking at Sky news mobile site, when questioned Vodafone said “it may contain content unsuitable for people under the age of 18″… it's a news channel. Some people do take things a bit too far sometimes.
Not necessarily directed at anyone in particular, but you can contact your MP at FaxYourMP.com, and see what they have been up to at TheyWorkForYou.com. Two very good links to how to start influencing stuff.Besides, you don't always know your MP is insane until after they get voted in.
But if you follow that arguement, then shouldn't we be covering our children in Bhurkas, so that they don't arouse the wrong sort of person? (Which is what the Koran states veils/bhurkas are actually for Koran fans, to protect women from men).What about the school photos printed in local newspapers?
I'd hardly say those children are abused, even though their pictures might be used by some very sick people.
I've also had similar emails, and agree that this could be, in part what is happening. I've also had emails telling me that my order of child porn is on the way, and that I should 'click here' in order to cancel it. Not a problem in a single person household, but picture that arriving in a family house…
And this is the worry about censorship (along perhaps with 'who decides what to censor'). At the moment I don't think anyone can really argue with the blocking of sites that contain illegal child porn, but the worry of course is that this is the thin edge of the wedge. As I've said in my main post I'm not really smart enough to debate that particular subject, there are people much better suited for that.
I have sent the pictures of my children that are on my website to Paul Goggins asking him if I should turn myself in to the police. perhaps others would care to do likewise.
OK, I can wait. I can wait and see if your reaction changes when/if ever you recognise the head on a child pornography still. Sorry, I didn't want to have to say this, some sites just use the head (ditto of coloured photos of women, on adult pornography sites – when I have to include a photo of a woman on a web site, I like others make it greyscale).Rachel
Star prize of the week, for Wasting Tax Payer's Money (in dealing with your message and those of anyone else who emulates you).Rachel
> What about the school photos printed in local newspapers?As you may know (and I don't necessarily agree with this), a number of schools have prohibited parents from bringing their own cameras to sports days.
Anyway, what is the potential circulation of a local newspaper, and what is the potential “circulation” of a child pornography web site? The latter is vastly greater than the former.
So then (he says taking up the run of the argument) it is 'alright' to only have a few paedophiles look at your childs picture rather than many of them?How many is 'too many'?
That is, I think the basis of your argument that school photos are alright but internet photos aren't?
Then why put anything on the internet? My face might end up on the body of some gay hunk (for example), my pictures of my boots might end up on a foot fetish page, and my pictures of crashed ambulances might end up on a 'Crash Fetish' site.I am unlikely to recognise any childs head on a child porn image – because I don't look at them and I don't search them out.
I'm not an expert, but why would they use image manipulation when they have their own victims photos? I mean, that is the whole point of abuse, that the victim is being abused, and as far as I know photoshopping someones head isn't 'abuse', it's definitely wrong, but it's not really abuse is it?
Let me put it this way, if I put a picture on this site of (my fictional) child, would I be abusing them?
Which is what Goggins seems to believe…
Why?I mean, would it be a waste of time to write to Goggins and ask him if he was quoted accurately (which would probably be ignored) or this 'stunt' which is almost certain to grab his attention?
MP's are supposed to engage us in dialogue, and this is one form of dialogue…
“Poor Goggins sounds like he could do with a rubbish quote checker inserted between his mouth and brain.”Placed midway between the two that would be in his stomach then.
That's OK. I'm a tax payer, so it's my money I'm wasting.