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?"
I see nothing in this article that the DOJ is about to do anything. This is just a review of a a product that can block some images that would be useful for some families.
I don't understand why this summary has to bring the government into this or speculate that they might do something. There's no evidence of impending censorship, no political issues at work here. It's just a review of a product. Why does Zonk continually try to troll politics on slashdot? He's turning into worse than Michael ever did.
So does it filter out Rubens
Would Michelangelo's David be filtered out
How about anatomy/autopsy pictures ?
I would RTFA but it is 404, perhaps my ISP filters out stories about filtering.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on technological progress
In other news, today I successfully opened a can of Diet Coke -- which highlights the retarding effect regulation has on quenching thirst. Man, if I'd waited for the government to open that can for me, I'd still be thirsty now!
If only there were a more effective way to highlight the retarding effect that obsessing over the complete works of Ayn Rand has on independant thought...
Whence? Hence. Whither? Thither.
First we shout the Govt. to get Off our backs on this issue, and when they actually fail to come up with any solutions (because we told them NOT to), we wham them for not guiding us/providing us with any solution.
What a load of cr*p !
On one hand we shout at the ineffectiveness of Govt's first real action in decades to counteract this problem (by yahoo, msn and google searches), and then we shout at them for NOT providing a solution at all.
You tie both my hands behind my back, then you blame me for not shooting at the thief !
"Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
This thing will be ruined with false positives. Swimsuit photos, maybe pictures of animals (similar color tones), etc.
This won't go anywhere for a long time, until image recognition technology catches up.
So what they are really doing is trying to teach an AI morality? Does anybody know how they do this. What is the difference between a nipple and a cherry (the fruit) to a computer. In some point in the future will are goverment be able to make computeres see thier motrality and then tell them to go enforce it?
quis custodiet ipsos custodes
OTOH,For something like a home machine that you wanted to configure for keeping the kiddies safe, yes, this might not be a great solution yet.
I simply don't get it.
... and you fell for it.
First we shout the Govt. to get Off our backs on this issue, and when they actually fail to come up with any solutions (because we told them NOT to), we wham them for not guiding us/providing us with any solution.
You are failing to realize that the same person is not talking in both cases. Also, while Slashdot as a whole leans to the left, the same issue can have articles written by, and about people on, both sides. The only thing that is happening here is that someone thought a discussion about a software for image identification and its future impact on us would be a good thread, and here we are.
You tie both my hands behind my back, then you blame me for not shooting at the thief!
The fallacy lies in missing that the ties hands speaker is not the same speaker as the one doing the blaming.
Make more sense now?
~Rebecca
For there to be a solution, there has to be a problem. I don't see a problem except moral panic and one groups willingness to impose their sense of morality on everybody else.
First of all, I am under the belief that it is NOT the governments job to tell us what we can and cannot see. I do not care what it is, the government should take no part in forcing its citizens to look at one topic vs another. Secondly, us as adults and responsible human beings need to start taking responsibility for things and not wait for father government to step in and tell us how to think. It is YOUR responsibility has an adult to view what you want to and if you come across something offensive how hard is it to hit your 'back button' on your browser? If you have children, it is still YOUR responsbility to censor what you find offensive so your children do not run into it.
Ugh, the more and more we fall into this mentality of relying on our government the more and more we let our freedoms and rights slip through our fingers. Please people start thinking for yourselves, and be not afraid of public opinion or the governments opinion.
Funny how they make very effective filters for pr0n, but violence is AOK.
You can bomb, shoot, maim every night on the nightly news, but God forbid you show a naked breast...people might be harmed!
There are hypocritical cultural 'norms' in the USA.
He who knows best knows how little he knows. - Thomas Jefferson
Personally I'm offended by stupidity propagated on the Internet. I'd like to see a new top level domain .stupid for these domains. Google would be so much easier to use then.
Free Me! (http://www.freeme.org/)
Sixteen is not a universal age of consent. There are places that set that age higher, and places where it's lower. In either case it has nothing to do with the appropriativeness of watching porn.
"Oppression and harassment is a small price to pay to live in the land of the free." -- Montgomery Burns.
I mean, I don't want fat chicks or gay porn or anything with animals, but I do want midgets, bungee-cords and lesbians!
I welcome this new technology!
Blar.
You identified the very problem with such domains: they allow them to be fenced off easily. While doing so may be the "solution" to your "problem", it does indeed limit free expression.
The best solution to your problem of good sites being blocked is to not use such filters, regardless of how much the parents bitch and moan about what their children may see on the Internet while at school. School is a place for learning, and that includes learning about what some people might deem offensive.
Take me for instance: ;)
at 14 i found my first porn magazine, and began looking at pictures downloaded on my older brothers computer. I quickly progressed to downloading animated gifs, jpegs and IIFs. between 15 and 18 i would have considered masturbating 3 times a day a slow day. now at 30 years old i still look at porn, but NOTHING substitues for being with a real woman. different strokes for different folks
i will let my children look at porn, because i understand they will find it no matter how hard i try to shelter them from it. i want to make sure when they find it they know they can come to me and i will be comfertable discussing it with them, instead of trying to pretend it doesnt exist.
thats pretty much my best post ever. I spent like 3 hours typing it.