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

Tuesday 14th March 2017 22:04 GMT J. Cook

Agreement with filters being mostly useless...

... unless you have an IT staff that constantly monitors it and keeps on top of the filtering configuration.

Granted, the one I'm in charge of is at $work; it's partly to keep the amount of pink off the monitors, but also to block failbook and other social media sites from the masses to keep productivity at acceptable rates. Finally, it also acts as a reasonable malware blocker.

Ironicly, the one they put in charge of the nanny filter is the one who is opposed to censorship on almost a religious level; but I understand and accept the business's reasons for it.

2 0 Reply
1. Tuesday 8th August 2017 18:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Agreement with filters being mostly useless...
  
  Have you considered maintaining a whitelist instead, so that strange sites are blocked by default and new sites have to be inspected first to be accepted?
  
  0 0 Reply
Tuesday 14th March 2017 23:40 GMT Anonymous Coward

"clear evidence for whether they are effective"

Evidence? Evidence before doing something? Are you out of your mind? The authorities have to be *seen* to be 'tackling' nonces and terrorists. It doesn't matter if what they do actually works.

Just to switch off the sarc for a sec, why the fuck isn't Dr Victoria the Minister for the Interwebs? Shit, why isn't Dr Victoria the Prime Minister? "It is a well known and much lamented fact that those people who most want to rule people are, ipso facto, those least suited to do it."

1 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 00:06 GMT DiViDeD

Protecting our young uns?

You know, I can (barely) remember being a teenager, and I don't remember ever, ever, hoping to be 'protected' from the possibility of viewing smut.

Actively seeking it out in order to ogle now, that's quite another issue.

How long should we protect children from learning there is unpleasant stuff in the world? Their 30s? 40s? Hope they die without ever learning what those naughty things in their keks are able to do?

2 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 04:55 GMT Rattus Rattus

Filters aren't needed

Just logs, detailed ones. And make it clear to your offspring that you regularly review their contents.

0 1 Reply
1. Wednesday 15th March 2017 05:42 GMT Charles 9
  
  Re: Filters aren't needed
  
  And if they're smart enough to hack the logs? Like how kids are smarter than the parents re: the V-chip?
  
  And just why won't filters be effective? Because the kids can get around them or because the content can get around it?
  
  1 1 Reply
2. Wednesday 15th March 2017 11:04 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: Filters aren't needed
  
  "Just logs, detailed ones. And make it clear to your offspring that you regularly review their contents."
  
  The outcome of helicopter parenting is often not good. The outcome of Stasi helicopter parenting is likely to be much, much worse.
  
  3 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 07:59 GMT Anonymous Coward

Wait Oxford..

Oxford are saying that censorship doesnt work.. even though they are one of the worst offenders for censoring free speech on their campus?

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/results

http://www.spiked-online.com/free-speech-university-rankings/analysis

2 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 08:44 GMT Anonymous Coward

Such awkward times...

When some people actually feel the need to study what society would generally consider to be plain out obvious. Worse yet: getting paid for it too.

What's next? Study which learns that forcefully forbidding your teenager kid to drink alcohol can very well drive them to do so behind your back. A lesson which the whole US has learned the hard way.

Who would have known all these things?

Reminds me of that "iBabe" scene in Movie 45. iBabe: an MP3 player which looks like a naked woman and to add insult to injury it has a high powered ventilator placed in a "certain private spot" resulting in obvious nasty issues. And the board of directors: "We could never have seen that coming, who would have known people would try to "mate" with an mp3 player?".

No shit sherlock :)

1 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 08:58 GMT CAPS LOCK

"Think of the children!"

Yea, that's what got me on a register in the first place.

1 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 10:42 GMT nilbud

Milo

The porn these days is much stronger than the porn of the parents generation. I remember the olden days of worldwide shock at two young ladies and one plain old cup, ankles and the like. Your average eight year old could well sprain their brain with internet notions.

0 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 10:57 GMT Anonymous Coward

Filter?

OK. Just make sure any filtering is clearly marked and the user can tell whose filter (who made it and who controls it) with contact details for who is responsible for its behaviour, with a duty on them to respond to any queries with exactly why it is filtered (under which Act, not just ministerial whim) and meaningful penalties for filtering stuff that should not be filtered.

2 0 Reply
Wednesday 15th March 2017 13:23 GMT WaxOnWaxOff

I Object

why have you used the term Boffin to describe the source of this pile of "State the Bleedin Obvious" claptrap from a bunch of "Researchers"...

I was under the impression the term Boffin was reserved for proper white coat wearing shiny headed brainboxes who look down on rocket scientists...

0 0 Reply
1. Wednesday 15th March 2017 18:53 GMT Anonymous Coward
  
  Re: I Object
  
  "I was under the impression the term Boffin was reserved for proper white coat wearing shiny headed brainboxes who look down on rocket scientists"
  
  I was under the impression that you aren't a boffin until a sergeant in REME or equivalent branches of other services has called you one. Its use is therefore restricted to the fields of science which come under the purview of these excellent ladies and gentlemen.
  
  0 0 Reply
Tuesday 8th August 2017 18:07 GMT samzeman

Speaking as a recent-but-no-longer teenager, the teenagers in this survey these days are desensitised. It's not that they don't see disturbing content, it's that anyone who's been online since they were 13 or less has already seen it, so it's not disturbing.

0 0 Reply