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?"

Comments

What Is The Story here?

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:What Is The Story here?

[hcdejong]

there are several problems with a .xxx domain:
- you'd have to get every country in the world to go along with this
- how would you decide if a site needs a .xxx domain? There are lots of edge cases. Would collegehumor.com qualify?
- you'd have to create an 'internet police' to enforce compliance

Re:What Is The Story here?

[Alex P Keaton in da]

Hmmm- I agree with you, but I also think an online/real world comparison is in order. There are many sex shops- they are usually near the airport in my state anyway (Ohio). These are adult destinations, don't hide what they are, and are easy to identify. Unless you are looking for erotica, there is no reason to enter one of these places. These would be the .xxx
But then there are the gas stations that sell porn mags behind the counter. These places have porn, yes, but someone who has an aversion to erotica may have a compelling reason to enter the gas station, even though it contains porn. Would these places be .xxx?(Actually, my local Borders also has fairly hard core, non airbrushed, OBGYN type view, porn behind the counter)
Then there is the library. I can find pictures of bare breasts, and vaginas, and butts etc. There may not be any hardcore pics (unless you count the sex advice picture books), but you can see nudity. You have to seek out the porn (both literally, because it isn't in the main room, and figuratively, because you have to decide that a photography book is beat off material). What happens when the "libraries of the internet" get slapped with .xxx? Could this happen?

Re:What Is The Story here?

[hcdejong]

There is one reason why sites wouldn't want to be restricted to a .xxx domain: to get around filtering software.

hmm

[DrSkwid]

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.

Re:hmm

[geoff lane]

I'm stunned that a bit of software can both read and understand the law and interpret it exactly as a real judge would.

Why isn't this amazing AI advance being reported?

Which, in turn...

[kahei]

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...

Re:Which, in turn...

[badfish99]

But surely the reason that people call for "the government to do something" is not that they want to be protected against porn themselves, but that they want laws put in place to force their own views on everyone else. It's not "I don't want to see this", it's "nobody should be allowed to see this, even if they want to".

False Positives

[michaelhood]

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.

Re:Errors abound

[BeardsmoreA]

But how many employees will come to their BOFH complaining that they couldn't look at their neighbours halloween photos? On their work machine? In work time? Irritating if you're the employee, but not likely to keep employers awake at night I'd have thought. Lets be honest, 90% of most employees work surfing is probably less than work related, and if you really do have a job that involves looking for pictures online a lot, you're probably a prime candidate for whitelisting from the whole thing.

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.

It's the Slashdot Fallacy ...

[rkcallaghan]

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

A History of Violence

[digitaldc]

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.