Slashdot Mirror
DoJ Following Porn Blocker Advances?
GreedyCapitalist writes "A new filter called iShield is able to recognize porn images based on the content of the image (other filters look at URLs and text) and according to PC Magazine, it is very effective. The next generation will probably be even better -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on technological progress - if we relied solely on government to ban 'inappropriate' content from the web, we'd never know what solutions the market might come up with. Will the DOJ (which argues that porn filters don't work) take note of filtering innovation or continue its quest for censorship?"
Would Michelangelo's David be filtered out
How about anatomy/autopsy pictures ?
This excerpt answers these pretty well:
So it's business as usual. If PC Mag's quick checks revealed innocent sites being blocked, I hope this never sees the light as anything with a mandatory use anywhere. I think missing to spread information is worse than actually even showing human intercourse. Yes, even if there's a vagina there. I hope the kids aren't traumatized for life if they'd stumble over such things and the dirtiness of our anatomy.
Oh, also watch out for the new Pumpk1n Pr0n:
The article says IE would crash more with this tool in use too, but I'm not sure anyone would notice the difference from before and after.
I would RTFA but it is 404, perhaps my ISP filters out stories about filtering.
Just use the Mirrordot version.
Beware: In C++, your friends can see your privates!
Your 6-year-old may mistype his favorite cartoon's URL and wind up at a porn site; a 16-year-old may reach the same site deliberately
Why should the sixteen year old be stopped from looking at porn? He's over the age of consent, what's wrong with letting him look at some naked women? He's probably thinking about sex all the time anyway, that's just what teenagers do.
There are two seperate and distinct "solutions" for people who have issues with porn. The first "solution" is government censorship of the inernet. The second "solution" involves local filtering installed by the computer owner, and there are at least two flavors of this "solution". There are bastard situations where various non-federal governments (including libraries) own the computer or the network which get REAL complicated. There are also situations where ISPs and networks censor access.
Government Censorship: There are wing nuts who want the US government to censor the internet, usually with cries of "think of the children" or "help fight terrorism". People who know how the internet works generally realize that this is a stupid "solution".
Local Filtering: There are several different way that this can be done and all of the currently available local filtering "solutions" have problems. TFA was about a new local filtering scheme, which COULD be better than the existing methods.
Local filtering vs. government censorship is, I think, where you see the contradiction. It really isn't a contradiction for people to say NO to government censorship (including local filtering in public libraries) and to also have some of the same people wanting the government to get involved in improving local filtering technologies.
If it wasn't for porn on the internet, war, gay marriage, and abortion; you couldn't get anybody to go to the polls.