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?"

8 of 265 comments (clear)

  1. What Is The Story here? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:What Is The Story here? by hcdejong · · Score: 5, Insightful

      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

  2. Screaming so loud we can't hear you anymore by BadAnalogyGuy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    There is no mention of the DOJ anywhere in the articles you posted.

    But according to the article, it works well and doesn't filter out health-related websites. It also doesn't work for black and white images, but the majority of online porn isn't b&w. Or so I've heard.

  3. Which, in turn... by kahei · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
  4. Re:Reversal by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    If you're having trouble finding porn on the Internet you're doing something wrong...

  5. Need programers ? by lemonjus2 · · Score: 5, Funny

    I wonder how many hours the poor programers worked in order to test this thing :)

    Looking for porn that the filter cant handle...

    What those meetings must have looked like.

  6. It's the Slashdot Fallacy ... by rkcallaghan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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

  7. Re:Inconceivable! by ettlz · · Score: 5, Funny
    I would buy this software if it could filter me from seeing that ever again.

    Or you could train your mind, as I have. My occiputal lobe no longer processes Goatse as it "should", and substitutes a fuzzy blur in its lieu. I literally cannot see it!

    Unfortunately, this is not without side effects. For instance, it's no longer safe for me to drive through tunnels.