Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Internet Filters Don't Work - Shock Horror Expose

Posted by michael on Thu May 04, 2000 05:36 AM
from the no-surprises dept.
News
sixpints writes "The highly respected UK based Consumer's Association has revealed that in tests Internet filtering software is unreliable and that parents should shoulder the responsibility of what their kids are exposed to. Read more at http://www.pa.press.net/news/story/technology_internet_156705.html." Their full report is here, but apparently requires a subscription to get access.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Internet Filters Don't Work - Shock Horror Expose | Log In/Create an Account | Top | 5 comments | Search Discussion
Display Options Threshold:
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

  • Ahem... No kidding (Score:2)

    by Proteus (1926) on Thursday May 04 2000, @03:31AM (#1093074) Homepage Journal
    While this should not be particularly amazing to anyone with a decent technical knowledge of how these systems work, it is good to see a public source acknowledge it. Maybe this is the first step toward popular media coverage of the flaws in this type of software. Now all we need to do is use this report to make some noise, so the mainstream press will take their eyes off of the AP wire for a moment and do some real reporting!

    --
  • One has to wonder, though, why it took so bloody long for a public source to acknowledge this. I have, sitting on the desk behind me, a recent issue of PC Magazine forced upon me by my boss. There's a censorware review in there, which gives nothing but glowing praise to CyberSitter; in fact , I had to hunt pretty hard for anything remotely resembling criticism in the whole spread. Have to wonder how much the censorware companies are paying the mainstream press to sing the praises of their wares to the proles...

  • Re:Ahem... No kidding (Score:1)

    by Proteus (1926) on Thursday May 04 2000, @03:58AM (#1093076) Homepage Journal
    In regard to the glowing praise and lack of critiscism in reviews of filtering software, you wrote:
    Have to wonder how much the censorware companies are paying the mainstream press to sing the praises of their wares to the proles...
    Though I wouldn't be shocked if this were occuring, I don't think it needs to. The popular press sways toward what they presume to be the opinion most popular among their readers. Since most folks who subscribe to PC Magazine really want to believe that filtering software will "protect" their kids from the "big evil Internet", the reviews of these products will not show that they are a waste of cash.

    Although, from another point of view, you are correct: the press is concerned about its advertising income too... :P

    --

  • Suprise, Suprise, Suprise (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 04 2000, @09:06PM (#1093077)
    Why does it suprise anyone that this censorsjip does not work?

    But, this piece might be removed become some large company may threaten a lawsuit.

    MPAA did not like people commenting on DeCSS, so of course they sued [slashdot.org].

    Mattel did not like people commenting on CyberPatrol, so they sued [aclu.org]. When that www.sorehands.com guy complained about Mattel, they sued him.

  • Sued, or worse.

    Anyone remember the Solid Oak mailbomb flap? [wired.com]

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 SourceForge, Inc.