Q&A: Should the IWF block porn and file-sharing sites too?

"...as soon as you’re into trying to define what is harmful and innaproriate, then there isn’t any definitions there we can work to."

Jeez... pity the IWF doesn't regulate grammar and spelling too.

By Noghar on 17 Mar 2011

Oh, FFS - can't we decide what we want to browse anymore?!?!

Blocking child pornography is a fantastic goal.

However, blocking anything else - as long as it's LEGAL - is NOT on.

We as internet users should be able to do what we want on the web, surely?

And I am of the opinion that file sharing ISN'T by definition illegal...

By skooptech on 17 Mar 2011

@Noghar

It clearly says that PCPro 'spoke' to the interviewee, so I am quite prepared to let a few verbal slip-ups be allowed. I certainly don't speak with perfect grammar (nobody does) all the time and it isn't for journalists to re-write what someone says to make it scan better. If it is presented verbatim, you can at least be sure about what was actually said! Anyway, that aside, I think the position of IWF is quite sensible. Their current remit is very straighforward with little chance of confusion over whether something is illegal or not. It wouldn't be so easy to make clear and simple decisions on copyrighted or adult material due to the huge grey areas of what is/isn't legal or permitted.

By JGray on 17 Mar 2011

My worry is today its file sharing and porn - tomorrow it'll be filtering politically incorrect content.

By cyberindie on 17 Mar 2011

@JGray

Did the interviewee use the word 'innapropriate'? Did he spell it for the interviewer? Did he say 'there isn't any definitions' or did he say 'definition'? When sub-editing a piece it is permissible to tidy up an interviewee's grammar. And it's customary to spell his words correctly.

As for the article, it seems to be stating the bleeding obvious, rather repetitively at that.

By Noghar on 17 Mar 2011

Pastor Niemoller couldn't spell either

I am appalled that the first thing anyone can think to say about this is to nitpick away about irrelevant rubbish. We have explained here time and time again how the law of unexpected consequences seems to predominate when it comes to centralised filtering & blocking, and the net experience it delivers staggers from the ludicrous to the absurd, never even getting anywhere NEAR the suggested intention and instead casually dragging the most innocent user into the murky, nasty world of guilty-until-innocent automated accusation. My own experience of this, where I couldn't surf for information on a nasty medical complaint on my smartphone because a "smart filter" was in place and had decided for me that because the condition had one potential root cause that was sex-related, therefore the whole topic was out of reach, is a particularily stupid and unintended consequence of all this pious nonsense. If those who actually know how this stuff works (and doesn't work) sit around searching for bloody grocer's apostrophes then frankly you will end up with the net access you deserve.

By Steve_Cassidy on 17 Mar 2011

Pastor Niemoller wrote this article?

What on earth has Pastor Niemoller got to do with sloppy sub-editing? I merely pointed out that the last paragraph of the article was misspelled and badly edited. Poor communications skills never enhance a story and I expect higher standards from PCPro.

By Noghar on 17 Mar 2011

I can understand filtering child porn but as far as I understand regular porn is perfectly legal as is file sharing.

Now illegal file sharing as the article says is another matter however determining whether a shared file is legal or illegal is down to law and therefore still requires the courts and not relying on money grubbing music/record company execs.

By koshthetrekkie on 17 Mar 2011