DoJ Following Porn Blocker Advances? 265
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?"
What Is The Story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
hmm (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Which, in turn... (Score:5, Insightful)
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...
I don;t get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
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 !
False Positives (Score:5, Insightful)
This won't go anywhere for a long time, until image recognition technology catches up.
Marality and AI (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:Marality and AI (Score:3, Insightful)
And more interestingly, what's the difference between a nipple on a nudist shot and not?
Nudism wasn't illegal in any modern country I know.
There are plenty of even less grey area cases like these that would be problematic, mentioned by a poster above. Art, both as for paintings and photography, etc. If we simply forbid the human body out of religious reasons and whatever, isn't that admitting Satan got what he wanted?
Re:Errors abound (Score:3, Insightful)
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 ... (Score:5, Insightful)
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
Re:hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Why isn't this amazing AI advance being reported?
Solution? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:2, Insightful)
You must be American
Leave the Government out of this, thank you. (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
A History of Violence (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re:Which, in turn... (Score:2, Insightful)
Yet for many - they expect government to be that first line of defense against the "undesirable" and refuse to help themselves. Of course after so many years of public "education" this shouldn't be a surprise.
Re:I don;t get it. (Score:3, Insightful)
You think it's a charcter flaw not to kill for property?
Re:what is the problem with .xxx domains (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
- you'd have to get every country in the world to go along with this
- how would you decide if a site needs a
- you'd have to create an 'internet police' to enforce compliance
Re:hmm (Score:3, Insightful)
Erm, surely the filter is set up to filter based on the wishes of the person who installs/manages it, not legislature. It's not interpreting anything but the image.
Re:Which, in turn... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:3, Insightful)
You need to filter out the crap. (Score:3, Insightful)
I welcome this new technology!
It's the fencing that's the problem. (Score:1, Insightful)
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.
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:3, Insightful)
1.Who decides what is required to go under
2.What do you do with a site like, hypothetically, www.hotgirls.co.uk (made up name)? Do you create www.hotgirls.xxx.uk and force them to move? Or do you move it to www.hotgirls.xxx? (and then what about www.hotgirls.com? where does that go?)
3.How do you deal with people having to find the sites once they move? How does someone used to going to www.hotgirls.com find www.hotgirls.xxx?
4.How do you deal with something like (again made up) hotgirls.vhost.net or www.someisp.net/~hotgirls/? (forcing the ISP or vhost to get a
5.Who polices the internet looking for sites that are breaking the rules (and who pays for that)
6.How do you enforce
7.What do you do when decides to block
8.Who is going to pay for all this? (the costs for everyone to get a
9.Having a
and 10.Having a
I think that a
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:4, Insightful)
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
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
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:3, Insightful)
Except they won't. They'll continue to whine about rude words on TV and violent video games, even when they have all the tools they need to do something.
You're following the wrong model. You wouldn't let the children wander around downtown and put cardboard over the inappropriate things, would you? You should be assembling lists of kid-safe sites. If you like, I'm all for having a .kids domain or similar for them.
Or get together with other groups who have similar goals, and use the web rating systems we already have [w3.org] to rate which sites are appropriate for kids, and program your filter from that.
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:2, Insightful)
why is porn so special.
Hows about this.... we completly and utterly drop the entire subject until the people who are so offended by porn can actually show that we have some compelling interest in treating it as special.
Som,ething more than "for the children" like actually proving that viewing porn effects children negativly.
I first saw porn when I was far to young to undertsnad what it was, and like EVERY OTHER KID I KNOW, started to look at porn when I was about 12....
the simple fact is, kids will find porn, kids will look at porn. They did it long before the internet, and now that the internet is around, they will use the internet for it.
Viewing porn never hurt anyone, and never will. This entire subject of
-Steve
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Why? (Score:2, Insightful)
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.
Re:What Is The Story here? (Score:2, Insightful)