New 'We The People' Petition Demands UK-Style Porn Filtering
from the aspiring-to-be-the-nation's-conscience dept
M.G. in Greenbrae, CA must have been inspired by UK Prime Minister David Cameron's quest for a porn-free Britain. The Prime Minister's idealism has resulted in an insistence that all internet providers make access to porn "opt-in." Anti-porn filters are on by default. For the children.
As the Daily Dot points out, M.G.'s petition for online porn blockage is likely to be severely short on support. For one, the US government has been generally opposed to regulating the internet in this fashion. Not that there aren't plenty of little instances where legislators have imposed their will on internet communications, but by and large, a nationwide censoring of certain content is highly unlikely. For another, it's highly unlikely a majority of Americans would be supportive of a plan that makes them ask, in writing, for their internet porn tap to be turned back on.
That being said, it's a large nation with 300 million people, a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their morality on others. 100,000 signatures isn't completely out of the question. (Not that this will guarantee an administration response…)
But what is M.G. asking for, specifically? Here's the entire petition, which is mercifully brief.
Require Porn to be an "Opt In" feature with Internet Service Providers rather than a standard feature.Hang on. Let's deal with the title first. I don't believe any ISP offers porn as a "standard feature." Yes, your internet access will provide you with a gateway to porn, but it's not on the feature list right after the breakdown of your underachieving (but overpriced!) connection speed. So, "porn" isn't a standard feature -- it's just something that's available on the internet. And it's far from the only thing.
OK. here's the entire petition.
In its current state, Internet porn seeks out users by email solicitations and massive amounts of free content throughout Internet browser searches. The average person, even children, can type in the word "cat" or "home" or "soup" and instantly be inundated with offensive and disturbing pornographic images. Parents and individuals have to go to great lengths to install Internet filters that often don't weed out all porn. We are asking for greater protection and responsibility from Internet Service providers and our country. We are asking that people who are interested in porn should have to seek it and choose it. They should have to "Opt In" for it by making arrangements to receive it with their Internet Service Provider. Everyone else should be free from it and assumed "Opt Out".It would appear that M.G. has clicked through on some very questionable ads and linkbait and, worse, provided some sketchy forms with his or her email address. I have yet to receive a porn email solicitation -- or at least, I haven't received one in years. Anyone using a halfway competent email service will find these sorts of solicitations routed directly into their spam folder without ever being made aware of porn's apparent ubiquity. Perhaps what's sketchy here is M.G.'s email provider.
Following up this dubious assertion that "average people" (including children, which is what this is all about, innit?) can stumble across porn using words like "soup." And "home." You can, if so inclined, perform some iterations of everyday words that will allow you to "inadvertently" conjure up pornographic images, but for most people, using common words will return common search results, especially considering most search engines provide a "safe" search by default. Sure, you may find some edge leakage, but for the most part, searching for "soup" will net you soup-related images and links, not porn.
And then M.G. tanks the whole thing by complaining that parents have to make an effort to protect their average children from accidentally accessing soupporn, and notes that even these so-hard-to-use filters don't even filter out all of the bad stuff. But then, M.G. ignores this gaping (soup) hole in his/her plan and arrives at a pair of bad conclusions.
1. ISPs are supposed to "protect" users. What?
2. The government can make a perfect porn-proof filter, even if private companies cannot. Wat.
This sounds like someone who wants to look at porn, but believes he (or she) shouldn't and feels this "responsibility" should be entrusted to higher powers in order to protect he/she from his/her vices. Anyone can be almost completely free of porn (edge leaks excluded) with a minimum of effort. What M.G. wants is something that prevents users from accessing porn, even if they want to. Signees want the government to force ISPs to be their conscience, so to speak.
Don't believe that? Check out the list of signatures. One state is hugely over-represented.
Utah.
Now, I won't paint everyone in Utah with the same brush, but the state does have, shall we say, a prevailing religion. Now, like most religions, Mormons believe porn is "wrong." Thus, it would follow that they'd like to see it blocked. But why would they feel the government should get involved, what with church and state and all that?
Because Utah can't help itself.
A study by a Harvard Business School professor shows that Utah outpaces the more conservative states -- which all tend to purchase more Internet porn than other states…All speculation, of course, but this looks a whole lot like a bunch of people want assistance curbing their vices. This puts the onus (a word that only sounds dirty) on someone else to put them on the path to righteousness. More "evidence?" The next two states listed most frequently are Idaho (Utah Lite) and Texas (a state that elected Rick Perry, someone who still makes political hay complaining about the disappearance of prayer from public schools).
Utah has the nation's highest online porn subscription rate per thousand home broadband users, at 5.47, while the nearby states of Idaho and Montana showed the lowest rates of 1.98 and 1.92, respectively, according to the study.
Now, the petition is gaining new signatures at a slow but pretty steady pace, making it a long shot to make 100,000. But not impossible. So, there's a slim chance the administration may have another petition to ignore (or talk around) by the end of November.
Conversely, if you're one of those people completely unaffected by this sort of moral panic, you may be finding your internet is woefully inefficient when it comes to delivering the porn-y goodness. Good news! Someone out there, also inspired by David Cameron's porn blocking, has compiled a bit of scripting to help you properly filter the internet [possibly NSFW - "denial" page contains hand-drawn penises] by swiftly separating the porn wheat from the overly-inhibited chaff (via Egg Miliband) by using a porn filter against itself.
The filter is a dns server which checks all queries against the OpenDNS FamilyShield DNS server. Any request that is denied by OpenDNS is then allowed by our DNS server, and any request allowed by OpenDNS is blocked by us.Here's a brief video explaining the HOW. [Again, NSFW - penis drawings]
The server itself is built using the python Twisted framework which handles both the DNS requests and acts as a simple web-server to host the denial page.
Happy surfing!
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: petitions, porn filters, us
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
This begs the question: What has MG been up too? Naughty little fapper ;)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Utah.
Now, I won't paint everyone in Utah with the same brush, but the state does have, shall we say, a prevailing religion.
Wait. Isn't that big barn for harvested haystacks from the NSA being built there? Wouldn't such a filter, installed at the ISP level, allow easier surveillance? /conspiracy-nut-or-is-it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What I find most amusing..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: What I find most amusing..
No, because the Invisible Market Fairy has already created many free and easy to use internet filters to fill this need.
Problem solved.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Sorry M.G...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The big problem
ISPs do not, and should not, decide what content you can and cannot access. Period.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: The big problem
The cause of this is mostly overzealous DNSBLs (black lists implemented using the DNS protocols) that block whole ISPs because a few spammers use them.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The big problem
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Troll petition?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Filter Religious Radio
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Religion first
Ban that first, THEN move on to porn.
Make love, not war.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Religion first
We all have seen religious nuts and scientific nuts advance their own agenda's religious style without regard to either truth or sanity. When people organize, it really is the same as a church of thought, be it science, or even sporting event where people will antagonize or even outright murder oposing fans.
The only way to BAN religion is to flat out destroy all life.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I just want to know what search engine they're using??!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nationwide Censorship
It's a dirty secret, but I'll let you in on it: By and large, a majority of Americans would prefer censorship.
Take, just for instance, one of the more recent pronouncments on the first amendment, United States v Stevens (2010). That case got decided by the Supreme Court because Congress passed a law. The politicians in Congress passed that law because they thought it would help them get re-elected. They did not think it was an unpopular measure.
Censorship has popular support.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nationwide Censorship
Prove it.
The only censorship I see mass support for is that of those who broadcast their message without any warning available prior to accessing the broadcast. Even there, we tend to see voluntary ratings systems crop up as opposed to censorship rules.
Other forms of censorship are fought against and overturned fairly often.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Nationwide Censorship
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ack
Stop using Bing. I know Google doesn't do this. Just be careful about image searches, I've seen nudity in those, but not porn; but some people get confused between the two.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Is this guy on drugs? Searching Google Images (with SafeSearch off even) for "cat" produces page after page after page of...um...cats.
I'm with Grumpy Cat on this one:
http://cdn.memegenerator.co/instances/250x250/39603752.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
But I'm left wondering: is it even possible for "soup" to result in porn in any context?
Actually...er...I probably would rather not know. Rule 34.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
View at your own peril http://i.imgur.com/Tv7G9Ka.jpg
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's only true for people who have a Google account and are logged in when they search.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Of course, even without a cookie, there is other fingerprint data they can use to identify a visitor. So they can still track your search history and customize future results. To what extent they may use this, I don't know. But you certainly don't have to give them a username before they start profiling you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
Because you kids think that YOU are the authority who can impose "unable to opt out" on everyone else, seems a good time to deflate you with this laugh I just ran across:
Mike claims "a consistent Technorati Technology Top 100 rating":
http://www.techdirt.com/about.php
But that was LONG ago. Down to 5946 at the moment (actually a slight increase of late). To find out what it means, look what sites have the same "Technorati Authority".
http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/overall/page-242
5946. That VideoGame Blog Recent: Metal Gear Rising: Revengeance gets ...
......
5946. Techdirt Recent: Aussie Security Research Hacks Music ...
......
5946. The Onion Recent: Financially Ruined Executive Still ...
......
5946. Lolcats 'n' Funny Pictures of ... Recent: Gravity Can Either Work with You or ...
Check it for yourself, kids! Techdirt today has the same authority as "The Onion", and "LOLcats"!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
What's wrong with Opt-In?? How about I want to preserve my anonymity and have no need for the ISP/Government to track my occasional indulgences in porn?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
Anybody can set up their own filter on the Internet; one option being Linux and Dans guardian. Any organisation could set up a proxy server filter for their members. So if you want a filtered internet, it is easy to arrange, and does not requires forcing your morals down others throats.
By the way, ISP provided filters on mobile broadband in the UK are notorious for blocking perfectly reasonable sites, like a site about wind power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
The alternative that is being proposed is leaving that up to the ISP, which will do a terrible job - as always - blocking legitimate sites.
You see, rules derived from blind morality - often disguised with the pusrpos of being "for the children" - favour overzealous enforcement, because if you are not overzealous, and something happens to slip by, people will accuse you of "hurting the children". And that is just bad PR. So ISPs will always err on the side of censorship.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
Tons. Once again Blue, the devil is in the details (you know, those little things you simply ignore).
1) How would you define porn? And how would you filter for something that even the Supreme Court can't define but "knows it when they see it"?
2) ISP's are supposed to be "dumb pipes" and now you'd have them filter content? (pretty weird stance for someone is all crazy about Google scanning email and tracking web use)
3) A opt-in solution would remove anonymity. (also a pretty weird stance for someone who trolls constantly with a pseudonym.)
4) ....I'm sure there's more, but I not spending any more time on this.
Because you kids think that YOU are the authority who can impose "unable to opt out" on everyone else...
What the hell are you talking about? Anyone can "opt-out" from seeing porn now. SafeSearch, parental filters, DNS filters, etc. The chances of seeing porn doing "normal" stuff on the internet is already pretty slim these days.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
ootb fails on understanding the very basics of the concepts he's attacking? Quelle surprise...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
Pull the plug attached to your PC out of the wall.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
If those dumb people weren't protected from learning experiences, maybe they'd be a bit smarter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
Opt-in is what we have right now! If you want a censored internet, you can have it, right now, without turning the ISP into a censor for everybody.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: And "a certain percentage of which enjoy imposing their IMmorality on others."
http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/overall/page-242 "
Oh dear, you're even too stupid to do your own debunking.
What you linked to - as noted in the URL - is the OVERALL ranking. The claim made in the about page is the TECHNOLOGY ranking. It's true that it's no longer in the top 100 (current ranking 3228, a rather crowded position alongside such blogs as GeekSugar and the official UK XBox 360 magazine - http://technorati.com/blogs/directory/technology/page-133/). Not that anyone actually cares about this metric nowadays but you almost had a valid criticism to deflect with for once.
But you overplayed your hand and look like an idiot. You can't even use the real facts to debunk things that are actually wrong, even when you have to attack a page that probably hasn't been updated in the majority of the time you've been here. You scraped the barrel to even find something to attack, and even then you failed. You really are a complete moron.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmm...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
(Google image search no filter)
The deviant term "pussy" however was quite the honeyhole!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Porn?
Even if - IF - you ban porn, the kids that want it will find it somehow. Teaching your children the difference is more important than trying to ban something. Remember how well Prohibition against alcohol work and how it created underground criminal organizations to supply what America wanted?
Learn from history so we don't repeat it. I know that's a lot to ask...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Right back at you
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
once the internet has been handed over to these industries and then given to the USG it will be too late to start whining. it should never have been allowed to get to this state in the first place. it's gonna be almost impossible to stop now and even harder to change tack!
try to imagine, if you will, the greatest communication and sharing facility ever invented being in the charge of Hollywood, the US entertainment industries in general and the USG! then imagine what else will happen. Germany are already talking about starting their own internet. if that trend expanded, look at the detriment to the rest of the world. everywhere having their own little portion and no one speaking to each other or exchanging anything. what a disaster that will be and who is to blame? an industry that relies on the imaginary and one that is so selfish, so unchanging and so embedded in the past that to not have 110% control of as much of that imaginary item(s) is unthinkable and must not happen, regardless of what else is fucked up or stopped on the way!! what a disgraceful attitude!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alternate interpretation
Things have changed quite a bit since the days of Brigham Young. Less than half of Utahns are Mormons, and a good percentage of those who are are "cultural Mormons" only, who don't actively participate in the religious aspects.
Despite this, they do wield a good degree of influence in local and state politics, and one point where this is quite evident is that various vices are much harder to obtain in Utah than in other states. If I had to interpret the figures given above, I wouldn't pin the high rates of porn consumption on the Mormons at all; I'd say it's almost certainly the rest of the Utahns, who have trouble finding more local sources of satisfaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
drawing the wrong conclusion
It's 2013. Who pays for porn anymore?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My idea is better!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cat
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
......
http://t.co/RyK2ray65f
The above are two links to the the Motion to Appeal as a Pauper to the Eighth Circuit that includes a request for summary judgment on the following complaint with all laws and references linked live in HTML.
http://theendofpornbywire.org/Complaint.html#8
The second link above goes to page eight which includes links to searches producing results the Western District of Arkansas would not scan into the record because of being called "obscene and indecent".
See in the order from the FCC.gov mirror of docket #18.
http://apps.fcc.gov/ecfs/document/view?id=7521749649
I believe looking at porn anonymously is the same as contributing to the delinquency of a minor and must be outlawed.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]