nav search
Data Center Software Security Transformation DevOps Business Personal Tech Science Emergent Tech Bootnotes BOFH

back to article
Oxford Uni boffins say internet filters probably won't protect teens

Silver badge

hmm

Parenting. Who has time for that? Surely its up to the gov to dictate our childs upbringing. This has so far done wonders for our kids in school.

34
0
Silver badge

Re: hmm

You forgot the /sark tag.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: hmm

"Parenting. Who has time for that? Surely its up to the gov to dictate our childs upbringing. This has so far done wonders for our kids in school."

On the one hand helicopter parents; on the other parents who expect schools, or the donation of regular IT equipment updates to replace parenting.

Government solution: Over-regulate state schools or leave private schools to do what they like, and rely on IT equipment to fix the resulting problems.

Pots and kettles.

6
0
Silver badge

Re: hmm

Private schools are far from doing what they like.

We have exactly the same child protection and e-safety problems as any other school, plus a bunch of pushy parents threatening to remove funds all year round if their darlings don't pass standardised exams with top grades every time.

With the ISI etc. breathing down your neck as vehemently as Ofsted.

2
0
Silver badge
Thumb Up

Re: hmm

"You forgot the /sark tag."

I think we're beyond that now. It's time for El Reg to introduce a new icon, maybe Alexei Sayle as Damage?

0
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: hmm

... not to mention cries for your abolition (or at least culling) from politicians/advisors who send their own children to private or selective schools ...

0
0
Silver badge

Re: hmm

"Private schools are far from doing what they like."

Yes, sorry, terminological inexactitude. I was referring to the "free schools" who have been teaching fundamentalism and employing unqualified teachers, and the illegal private schools which are not being effectively dealt with despite, in some cases, not even teaching English. I spent 6 years teaching in an HMC school, I tend without thinking to make a distinction between Public (HMC) and private (everything else not part of the State system).

3
0

Re: hmm

"Parenting. Who has time for that?"

There's got to be an app for that.

1
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Education is better than walking around with a blindfold over your eyes. Who'd a thunk it?

21
0
Bronze badge

Having just found out what a goatse is, I'm reminded of the fact that internet filters wont stop people from seeing the goatse in real life either.

Anyway what do Oxford Uni know? They obviously dont have access to the same info GCHQ have, so is this an expertly flawed study by so called Experts?

1
6
Silver badge

Showing each other disgusting pics to observe the reaction is a favourite teenage pasttime.

9
0

Scott Adams knew this 20 years ago

http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-01-24

23
0
Silver badge

I was thinking of this one: http://dilbert.com/strip/1996-01-23

8
0
Anonymous Coward

Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

I don't have any filter on my broadband connection at home, whilst my kids (eldest 9) could potentially run into naughty content they don't search for it. There was a time where malware (thnx roblox gone for good now) decided to pop up some undesirable content, my kid clicked it away and came and told me when it happened again.

It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content.

Waiting for the teenage years with some apprehension, god knows how I would respond to this in a few years time !!!! WISH ME LUCK !!!

31
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content."

This. Right here.

I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl. No photos in those days, just the best of imagination etc to work out what she looked liked - plus put in to context what was being said. i.e. "I walk in to your room without a bra on ( . Y . )".

Sister found out, and her being younger than me told my parents. They went nuclear on me, and looking back I can see why. I was young, had no real idea who I was talking to etc, and they just didn't want me in danger. My 13 year old self didn't know that though, and for as long as I was at home I was super careful when going on to different websites etc so I didn't get caught.

That's not the way to go about it, but when I knew my parents were that dead against me using the internet you had to lie to get on to it. We had dial up, and I needed to get permission to go on it. They'd ask me what I needed to do. "Homework" I'd say, and my dad would scoff and go "Yeah, sure I bet. What are you really doing?". You get the idea.

Fast forward 16 odd years, my girlfriend's sister is 14 and told her mom some lad was sending her photos of himself and she sent one of her bum. Her mom went mental, the sister wouldn't talk about it because she was ashamed of what happened. I told her mom what happened when my parents did the same thing - she didn't listen. So I spoke to the sister and I explained in real terms what lads of that age want and expect, but never at any time did anyone think less of a girl for not sending those photos back. She's a smart kid, and hormones get in the way of everything. We all know this.

Going nuclear at a child about something they're curious about or slip in to doing isn't going to disuade them from carrying on. They're turning in to adults, and if you're honest with yourself you know what you were like at that age. They're a generation that is new to everything that's in the world, and instead of using fear as a tactic to prevent harm you need to educate them on what can happen.

To finish my story, the girlfriends sister deleted snapchat when I showed her how people can take screenshots without the sender knowing. Whether that still works on Snapchat now I don't know, but it did back when this happened.

20
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

I do have filters, but they are for time-wasting and viruses. Not for "naughty" content.

My primary worry as a parent is that they will spend the afternoon glued to GooTube or SilverGames instead of doing their homework.

The second is that they will drag a computer STD in.

Only the third is that they will see something inappropriate and in that case they will probably come and talk to me first.

12
0
Anonymous Coward

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

Pretty sure el reg isn't a hotbed of SJW.

I'm just glad I grew up in pre-regulation era of the internet. Cruising though cyberspace, hacking phones and pwning noobs. Pointless talking to parents because they literally have no idea what the internet is.

Kids these days are a bunch of pansies.

9
6
Anonymous Coward

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

It isn't one yet, but the creep is already happening.

10
1
Anonymous Coward

The Rules

> I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl.

Rule 30: There are no girls on the internet. It was probably a bloke. Or a cop. lolol

> To finish my story, the girlfriends sister deleted snapchat when I showed her how people can take screenshots

WIN.

6
0

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

Well yeah, hormones but also, kids don't process anything like an adult -or at least very little. They can't, their brains are still developing, especially young males they are not even on same planet some would argue.

Treating adolescents like smaller adults demonstrates a lack of empathy, if anyone has the answers i'm all ears, but shoehorning them into adult constructed pigeon holes is probably going to do more harm than good.

They are not fully grown yet, they will be, but as far as young folks are concerned they are always correct 10ft+ tall and bullet proof. This kind of behaviour should be expected i guess.

ib4 back in my day rants.

We can always do better looking after young people, and getting them ready for the future.

Just look at what religion has done to them.

2
0
Silver badge
Facepalm

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

I'm more concerned about avoiding people who use the term SJW!

10
2
Bronze badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

@wolfetone

You talk a compelling argument, I agree parents going ballistic is not the answer but thats their hormones, whilst also perhaps showing parents are actually viewing their kids as possessions, and are just treating them like a pet dog.

I see the reasons for using a filter, and a filter has its place, I also see the reasons for not having a filter, because of this simple fact: Would you like to educate them on the aspects of human behaviour virtually or for real in a chance encounter which could have increased life threatening risks?

Obviously there is a psychological risk to even virtual exposure like cyber bullying/sextortion/what have you, but there is a trace that exists which doesnt necessarily exist in the real world, beit the school playground, or around town, even though GCHQ would prefer to not admit this trace exists and is more detailed than you & most other people perhaps realise.

The reasons the Govt/GCHQ lie to you are for the same reasons, you lie to your kids about Santa Claus.

Think about it. Who can handle the truth when they have been lied to all these years, cognitive dissonance is very anger inducing?

From a law enforcement point of view which would you rather have? Some clues or no clues?

0
4
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"I walk in to your room without a bra on ( . Y . )".

You're not going to get any action with a half-arsed pose like that. Put some effort into it, show that you can at least write decently.

---

Suricou approaches, and joins you upon the sofa - not to sit, but instead to fall over backwards over the arm and land forcefully sprawled across it with the cushions softening her landing. She shifts herself along until she can rest her head in your lap and look up towards you. Comfortable there, in that casual closeness. A little more shifting gets her feathers safely flattened, and her feet hanging over the end of the sofa with those long bird toes curled in the air. "Much better."

---

If you're going to do it, do it with pride.

1
1
Anonymous Coward

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

Filtering is dumb - it's like putting all your porno movies in the bedroom cupboard. Sure the living room collection looks good but when the kids find the movies in the bedroom they will watch all of them and invite their friends over to see them.

Store the porno in the general collection and all they do is look at the box and go, "Ewww, that's gross"

1
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"You're not going to get any action with a half-arsed pose like that. Put some effort into it, show that you can at least write decently."

I wasn't wearing the bra!

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

It really is as simple as teaching your kids that's ok to come and speak to you if they are unhappy with the content.

Absolutely right. And anyway, what I find hypocritical (if not downright disturbing) is the focus on blocking sexual content. I find violent content far more upsetting than sexual. After all, sex is a natural experience which aims to be pleasurable to all sides involved (if it doesn't we are talking violence again), whereas violence might be natural, but certainly doesn't aim at being pleasurable (unless some seriously deranged people are involved). I still would prefer talking about violent content (which could simply be news footage from war zones) with my kids than blocking it.

4
0
Silver badge
Joke

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"I was 13, and went on to chat rooms and started talking to this 16 year old girl."

as pointed out before, probably "a 45 year old unshaven fat guy in his underwear"

And I'd like to add a list of the best possible comebacks for teenagers (directed at clueless parents):

a) I'm doing my gynecology homework

b) I accidentally clicked on the wrong link

c) someone from Nigeria sent me this

d) I think I misspelled a word in my google search

e) it's just the way that web browsers work under Linux

f) I was told that Playboy doesn't do porn any more

g) I accidentally typed "4chan" and this is where I ended up

h) Facebook is a LOT worse

i) I was looking for information about [insert ethnic group] culture

j) someone said a word that sounded [insert foreign language here] and I wanted to know what it meant

k) I thought it was a web site about cartoons/Disney/Pokemon

2
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"If you're going to do it, do it with pride."

I put on my wizards hat and robe!

3
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

We don't either, we even had my daughter's iPad locked down.

One day my Missus walks in to find my 12 year old daughter immediately hiding something on the screen, a bit of arguing and I hear my wife literally screaming at our daughter 'cos she's followed some link to porn, sitting there watching it! Cue extraordinary family meeting where I have to act as arbiter to stop my wife deafening our daughter by screaming at her for what's she's done!

We've never covered anything up about sex or body parts, we had "the talk" with our daughter when she was 8 years old just in case her monthly's kicked off early. We openly discuss any medical issues at home, we've always encourage our daughter to discuss anything she wants with us. Still, but still she did what teenagers do and decided to find out for herself.

We discussed it, we said it's perfectly alright for people to watch porn, both men and women but that it's for people over 18 to watch as we could be in trouble if anyone finds out she watched it, the threat of having to go live with the Aunt she dislikes if Social Services got involved was enough to make her think seriously about doing it again.

So no matter what you do or don't do, kids will be kids!

2
2
Bronze badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

@Michael H.F. Wilkinson

Unfortunately, violence (and more generally degradation, humiliation and objectification) towards women is pretty much the norm for internet sex; pleasure doesn't really seem to enter into (not even for the men). If you're to be serious about blocking/discouraging violent content, or even just talking about it with your children, then (without being Grundy-ish) you'll de facto have to target internet sexual content.

0
2
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"Unfortunately, violence (and more generally degradation, humiliation and objectification) towards women is pretty much the norm for internet sex; pleasure doesn't really seem to enter into (not even for the men)."

Porn is an industry built on niches and targeted appeal. No matter what your taste, there exists a site somewhere that will fill it. It is simply that violence and degradation are popular subjects, and so made in corresponding quantity. If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable.

1
0
Bronze badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable.

No doubt; but I don't see my 15 year old son doing that (should I urge him only to access tasteful, non-exploitative porn?) Anyway, my point is that an overwhelming majority of porn is degrading and humiliating towards women. If that's demand-driven - and I imagine it is - I guess that says something depressing about the male of the species.

The approach I take with my son is to stress that sex on the internet is (in general) nothing like sex in the real world - or certainly shouldn't be - insofar as it totally lacks a few ... um ... crucial aspects like love, joy, passion, fun and mutual respect. I might even suggest that he may want to get out there and talk to some real-life girls.

0
0
Silver badge

Re: Anon for reasons - Basically to avoid the SJW'ers

"Porn is an industry built on niches and targeted appeal. No matter what your taste, there exists a site somewhere that will fill it. It is simply that violence and degradation are popular subjects, and so made in corresponding quantity. If you put a little effort into searching you will have no trouble finding something a bit more acceptable."

IOW, to quote a sleazy pimp in Transmetropolitan: "If it ain't kind of creepy and dirty and mysterious and forbidden, guys don't get off."

0
0
Silver badge

Shades of grey

Usually it's a bad idea to cast the world in black and white, but when it comes to 'acceptable' content in media, it might be helpful to stick to the question whether something is criminal or not. If it's criminal, then the police should go after the criminals. If it is merely unpleasant for the cultural sensitivities of some audiences (young / old, conservative / liberal, diverse ethnic groups, or the nudist neighbor upstairs), then those audiences should try to avoid this content -- and I don't think they'll need help from the government to do it.

I remember with great pleasure the look on the face of the US grad students when they first encountered topless sunbathers at the Blatterwiese. I am sure you can find the same embarrassed look on the face of many Arab refugees when they encounter the first short skirts. I assume most get beyond the shock and move on to a productive life.

18
0
Silver badge

Re: Shades of grey

"I remember with great pleasure the look on the face of the US grad students when they first encountered topless sunbathers at the Blatterwiese. I am sure you can find the same embarrassed look on the face of many Arab refugees when they encounter the first short skirts. I assume most get beyond the shock and move on to a productive life."

And if they DON'T? What if they go stark raving mad (or worse, religiously militant--or was that militantly religious)?

0
0

>> young people seeing things that may frighten or upset them.

Just the other day my nippers saw a govt minister talking about "cyber strategies". I tried to protect them by lying that it was just a Dr Who mockumentary bit, but I couldn't head off the tears once they realized that this was truly how our Lords & Masters think and that this is the world they're inheriting

30
0
Anonymous Coward

Daddy I had a nightmare about Theresa May

Sorry son, but monsters are real.

22
2
Silver badge

Well who would have thought it, parenting and taking an active role in your kids lives is something you actually need to do.

12
0
Gold badge
Unhappy

", parenting and taking an active role in your kids lives is something you actually need to do."

Probably the crazy Tory MP who thought this bo***cks up in the first place.

0
1
Silver badge

I often wonder why parents have children if they are not prepared to put the necessary work in to raising to live in the world with all its problems.

8
0
Silver badge

So should people need a license to be a parent? Perhaps reversible sterilization?

2
0
Silver badge

Alternative facts

I suggest that perhaps the best answer would be to flood the Internet with good quality sex education. With explicit pictures. Teenagers are going to look for this stuff. Give them a chance of finding things that are informative and realistic. But this would involve a level of detachment and common sense rare in politicians.

13
0

Re: Alternative facts

"Dad! Were you and Mum so awkward when you first, you know..."

"ooooo yup! But probably just a bit less embarrassed, since we were definitely drunker than they are! So clumsier but cockier!"

"oh.... Man, imagine if my mates saw me looking so lame! I'd just die... Never going to film myself doing it..."

/me beams with pride that lesson so cheaply learnt

7
0
Bronze badge
Boffin

Re: Alternative facts

IIRC, one of the porn sites is _actually doing this._ Can't remember which one, and can't access it because I'm at work (which frowns upon that sort of thing)

1
0
Gold badge
Big Brother

"there will now be three separate statutory instruments "

I doubt this is any accident.

The favored instrument of the Dark Lord Mandlescum.

Handy for gradually tightening the noose on the information flow.

9
0
Anonymous Coward

Block Facebook & Twitter

or whatever social networks the kids are on these days. Filters won't protect them from toxic people (such as SJWs).

5
3
Silver badge

Re: Block Facebook & Twitter

Facebook is for the parents. Twitter still has some youth appeal. Snapchat is very big in the teen demographic. Instagram, whatsapp, but certainly not facebook any more. And pretty much no-one of any age uses google+.

1
0

In other news

Pope Catholic, ursine feces found in woods...

"accidental" censorship or step one on the road to having the capabilities in place and generally accepted.

3
0

Most filters are useless

I do have a internet filter at home from Virgin Media and have configured Google so it does SafeSearch only, however, both can be bypassed in seconds. You can simply start an incognito window, go to Google Image Search and type in sex. The returned results are nothing spectacular, but enough to keep a teenager busy for hours. With a bit more effort the filter can be completely bypassed by simply using a Google DNS server. On the laptop I can lock this all down by revoking admin rights, however, on Android phones this can be simply achieved by installing an app. Also do not forget public WIFI, some of them are horrendously bad at filtering anything at all.

4
0
Bronze badge

Re: Most filters are useless

I think we should ban the clever people who have made cosmetic surgery acceptable for those who are psychologically inferior in mind about their looks, as all this surgery is just body harming by proxy, a profitable form of Munchausen syndrome. Yet all these boob jobs are forcing some men who like small breasted women as its indicative of fitness & running levels to search ever younger age groups if they havent been on the pill.

At what point do you start investing in your future other half?

Of course with all this spying, hacking and extortion, I can see why Israel would be one of the best hacking countries in the world, it would be wise to invest in innovative new methods to hunt for and target the next future Hitler.

Do laws keep you stupid in harms way by not being able to form your own opinions, arguably a form of education which shouldnt stop when you leave, school, college or uni?

1
0

Page:

POST COMMENT House rules

Not a member of The Register? Create a new account here.

  • Enter your comment

  • Add an icon

The Register - Independent news and views for the tech community. Part of Situation Publishing