One Percent of Web Is Porn

[k4kyv]

A government study finds that 1 percent of Web sites are pornographic. It also reports that filters are effective. AOL's Mature Teen filter blocked 91 percent of pornographic sites. The Justice Department introduced the study in efforts to revive the Child Online Protection Act.

The U.S. Supreme Court said technology such as filtering software works better than a one-size-fits-all censorship law.

The law, signed by President Clinton, requires Web sites to get credit card information or some other proof of age from adults who want to view material that may be considered harmful to children.

http://www.forbes.com/home/feeds/ap/2006/11/14/ap3174935.html

[kc7jty]

1% of web sites and 50% of spam E mails...opps I guess I'm outta the bag now?

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Nov. 14 2006,19:22)]It also reports that filters are effective. AOL's Mature Teen filter blocked 91 percent of pornographic sites.
If it lets one through, it's not effective at all.

This isn't a sugar cookie filter, this is porn. If they are exposed to even one, the system is no good.

[al2i]

This is one case where I want a big, strong government to help me. Kids have access to dozens of unfiltered computers even if a parent is vigilant. I even found my teenager on the DNC (http://www.democrats.org/) website recently. <Shudder>

[KE5FRF]

Dave, thanks for the DNC link.

I noticed this headline on the front page:
Quote[/b] ]Election 2006: Dean Offers New Direction for America on ABC's

That was the full headline. I had no idea the Democrats were having such a difficult time with their alphabet. Thanks Dr. Dean, keep up the good work!

[w8cbc]

Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,17:56)]Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.
Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Nov. 14 2006,20:00)]Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,17:56)]Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.
Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
TOO much info............

[n6hcm]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Nov. 15 2006,18:33)]If it lets one through, it's not effective at all.

This isn't a sugar cookie filter, this is porn. If they are exposed to even one, the system is no good.
don't depend on technology to do a parent's job. supervise your child's use of the internet.

[nz3m]

Quote[/b] (n6hcm @ Nov. 14 2006,20:10)]Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Nov. 15 2006,18:33)]If it lets one through, it's not effective at all. #

This isn't a sugar cookie filter, this is porn. #If they are exposed to even one, the system is no good.
don't depend on technology to do a parent's job. #supervise your child's use of the internet.
I agree totally about the parenting. I'm not worried about my kids.

I'm worried about the ones who think this system works.

[KD6NIG]

1% is probably actual porn, but the other 9-10% is "Sports Illustrated" level stuff.

I would ask what the definition of porn used was.

Course, with everyone and their mommy having their own personal website....I guess the percentages could be that. I wonder if they counted individual pages, because some websites have a few hundred individual pages.

[WF7A]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Nov. 15 2006,10:22)]A government study finds that 1 percent of Web sites are pornographic. It also reports that filters are effective. AOL's Mature Teen filter blocked 91 percent of pornographic sites.
Thank goodness the other 9% gets through! ;>

(...and yes, I'm joking, people.)

As for filters... *scratches my head why porn is still getting through to my computer even with an HF low-pass filter installed in the ethernet cable.*

[w8cbc]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Nov. 16 2006,02:00)]Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,17:56)]Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.
Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You read the articles too? http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[KG6YTZ]

Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,19:51)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Nov. 16 2006,02:00)]Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
You read the articles too? #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif
Sure... #As in, "Whoa, check out those articles!" #http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[N2RJ]

I thought 50% of the web was pr0n.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Nov. 15 2006,21:33)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Nov. 14 2006,19:22)]It also reports that filters are effective. AOL's Mature Teen filter blocked 91 percent of pornographic sites.
If it lets one through, it's not effective at all. #

This isn't a sugar cookie filter, this is porn. #If they are exposed to even one, the system is no good.
Not necessarily. Every day, porn spam senders find elusive and ingenious ways to defeat email filters. Certainly those filters eventually learn the email and block it, but the system is continuous -- emails that should be blocked aren't because their subjects or subject lines contain something misleading.

Certainly, you don't want your kids looking at this stuff, but it is impossible to make an absolutely 100% effective spam filter, as long as there are miscreants out there whose sole purpose is to defeat these filters.

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 15 2006,22:27)]I would ask what the definition of porn used was. #
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has this to say about pornography...


Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: -fe

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from porne prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE , CARVE

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

--------

In other words, a photo or section of text does not have to be explicit to generate the desired response. #Sports Illustrated is a classic example of what is known as "soft porn" with their annual swimsuit issue. #Certainly no private parts are bared, but very little is left to the imagination, so the photos produce the desired sexual response.

Anything, whether graphic or textual, that causes such a response, is pornography, according to the definition.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Nov. 16 2006,09:57)]Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 15 2006,22:27)]I would ask what the definition of porn used was. #
The Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary has this to say about pornography...


Main Entry: por·nog·ra·phy
Function: noun
Pronunciation: -fe

Etymology: Greek pornographos, adjective, writing about prostitutes, from porne prostitute + graphein to write; akin to Greek pernanai to sell, poros journey -- more at FARE , CARVE

1 : the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2 : material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement
3 : the depiction of acts in a sensational manner so as to arouse a quick intense emotional reaction <the pornography of violence>

--------

In other words, a photo or section of text does not have to be explicit to generate the desired response. #Sports Illustrated is a classic example of what is known as "soft porn" with their annual swimsuit issue. #Certainly no private parts are bared, but very little is left to the imagination, so the photos produce the desired sexual response.

Anything, whether graphic or textual, that causes such a response, is pornography, according to the definition.
Yeah, but I wonder if the people who did the study followed that.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Nov. 16 2006,08:57)]In other words, a photo or section of text does not have to be explicit to generate the desired response.
By that definition, a picture of a lumpy rock is pornographic to healthy 16 year olds. Of course it takes two lumpy rocks sitting side by side to provide the same stimulous by the time you hit the prime of senility. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif

[W2ILP]

As usual our government underestimates the situation. In my experience as an Internet observer I think that more than 10% of the Internet is porn...and if it wasn't, there would be 50% less computers sold in the USA.

w2ilp (Internet's Lotsa Porn)...even for free downloading without a credit card.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Nov. 16 2006,09:27)]As usual our government underestimates the situation. In my experience as an Internet observer I think that more than 10% of the Internet is porn...and if it wasn't, there would be 50% less computers sold in the USA.

w2ilp (Internet's Lotsa Porn)...even for free downloading without a credit card.
In recent years I have been suffering from severe aberrations in my erstwhile Libertarian convictions, one of them being that I want the government to clean up the public spaces of the virtual Internet World so that it is no less child-safe than the public spaces of the real World.

[KD6NIG]

And I'm betting AOL's software would be a bit improved if they used the .xxx domain.

Though if this study is true, I can see why they nixed it, they wouldn't have made as much money as everyone prophised, and I have a feeling they would have kept the old domains anyway too......

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KD6NIG @ Nov. 16 2006,09:37)]And I'm betting AOL's software would be a bit improved if they used the .xxx domain.

Though if this study is true, I can see why they nixed it, they wouldn't have made as much money as everyone prophised, and I have a feeling they would have kept the old domains anyway too......
Fighting the .xxx domain was the dumbest thing I have ever seen, and it was lead by the knownothing Christian Right. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/mad.gif

[kn0u]

I would like to hear from a few people from other countries... The US is so uptight about sex it is sickening. My children, 8, 10 and 16 are not embarrassed by nudity, they all have a good understanding about sex, what it is, how it is done, why it is done, why it needs to be done safely, how to do it safely, what the repercussions of having sex are, etc. and so on. We have talked to our children about these things, our children have seen pornography on the internet by accident, (who hasn’t). They just hit the back button and go on about their business. Maybe once in a while I’ll hear a “yuk” or something of that nature. And once in a while I am called into the room because the stupid auto popping porn windows have taken over and spawned 60 windows they can’t close, I show them how to close them all and start their search again, this time staying away from whatever site caused it. Bottom line, it’s your job to teach your kids, no one else’s. It is your job to keep them safe, no one else’s. It is your job to be responsible for them, no one else’s. It is not company X’s job to do any of this. It is not the job of the government to do this. They are your children; teach, discipline, love, protect. It is entirely your job, no one else’s.

[k4kyv]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Nov. 16 2006,01:33)]If it lets one through, it's not effective at all.

This isn't a sugar cookie filter, this is porn. If they are exposed to even one, the system is no good.
So the government is supposed to abridge the rights of the other 99% of adults to protect the "children" against that 1%?

I suppose you would also agree that it's better to tolerate the possibility of incarcerating or executing an innocent person because any justice system that runs the risk of letting even one guilty criminal go free is no good.

I'm afraid I have to agree with the US Supreme Court's decision on this one.

Besides, from my experience with teenagers, most of the "children" who search the web for porn are adolescents who are already better versed and more experienced than their parents, and probably better versed and more experienced than the supreme court justices and lawmakers (well maybe not lawmakers, in light of recent revelations), in sexual matters of every description.

The freely-available pornography that was rampant on the net when these laws were first proposed is a thing of the past. Of the sites that presently contain pornography, nearly every one is now for-profit and requires the viewer to register and pay money for access. Others that promise "free porn" are simply come-ons to glean personal information for ID or bank account theft, requiring the viewer to supply personal information in order to register for access. And randomly surfing porn sites is a 100% sure way to pick up trojans, viruses and other computer malware.

Much of the sexually-oriented material that adolescents are exposed to over the net comes via e-mail exchanges, peer-to-peer file sharing, instant messaging, and links posted on sites such as MySpace, and comes from other adolescents, not from porn merchants. All it takes is a bunch of kids equipped with a digital camera at someone's house after school before the parents come home from work... I suppose this is one of the consequences of living in a country that allows freedom of expression.

The .xxx domain, if enforced, would make it easier to build a foolproof filter against authentic pornography sites. One objection, however, has been that some countries would try to force legitimate discussion of sex-related topics such as birth control, homosexuality, and maybe even such topics as stem-cell research onto the .xxx sites. No doubt government administrations would try to use this as a weapon to get any kind of political dissent against that government into the .xxx domain which would in turn be censored in that country.



http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/4155568.stm

[WF7A]

Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Nov. 16 2006,04:04)]Besides, from my experience with teenagers, most of the "children" who search the web for porn are adolescents who are already better versed and more experienced than their parents, and probably better versed and more experienced than the supreme court justices and lawmakers (well maybe not lawmakers, in light of recent revelations), in sexual matters of every description
"Son, it's about time we sit down and talk about sex."

"Sure, Dad--whaddaya want to know?"

[KD7ZRT]

I'm surprised by the complete indifference you all have towards the first amendment.

Here, the local Multnomah County Library lost $100,000/year in federal E-Rate funds because they refused to filter their internet. They were one of the plaintiffs in a suit heard by the Supreme Court. This year when they asked voters to approve a $30,000,000/year levy, I was more than happy to vote yes, knowing my money would be used to support the free dissemination of knowledge and ideas, both in theory and in practice.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (WF7A @ Nov. 16 2006,12:28)]Quote[/b] (k4kyv @ Nov. 16 2006,04:04)]Besides, from my experience with teenagers, most of the "children" who search the web for porn are adolescents who are already better versed and more experienced than their parents, and probably better versed and more experienced than the supreme court justices and lawmakers (well maybe not lawmakers, in light of recent revelations), in sexual matters of every description
"Son, it's about time we sit down and talk about sex."

"Sure, Dad--whaddaya want to know?"
They are also much better versed in the operation of the computer and the internet themselves.

Most parents probably bought the computer, the child explains to them the need of an internet connection and the costs involved. Said parent probably gave credit card to child for the internet account signup.

And thats all the parental involvement involved. Child sets up computer, child hooks it to internet, child surfs, gets email, etc.

Parent wouldn't have a clue how to operate, check history, or anything.

Oh, and monitoring software is only as good as the technology level of the parent involved. If they don't have a clue, child installs said software, demonstrates it is installed, maybe even surfs a little with it on so it records something, then child disables it and surfs whereever.

One thing that is good is now the children who surfed on the internet when it was in its infancy are now the parents of today, and are savvy enough to see through stuff like this.

Its not too far fetched. Not that I surfed for porn when I was a kid, but if my parents wanted information on something, they came to me and I printed it for them. 5 years after I moved out (which would have made me 23) I installed a computer in my parents house, and left 3 icons on the screen: CLICK HERE TO CONNECT, CLICK HERE FOR EMAIL, CLICK HERE FOR BROWSER and let my mom try it for a while. When she got that down, I restored the desktop.

She emails everyone now, her phone bill is non existant, etc, etc.

My dad doesn't touch the thing and never will. If an email is directed to him, she prints it for him and she responds to it. Interesting article? Print it out.

The reason I think you're seeing these studies (and appropriate public outcry) is now the kids of yesterday are the parents of today, and some of them DID look around at more on the internet, and so they know whats out there.

But unless there is an expose' on the local news about it, the average older parent still doesn't have a clue. If they can't operate a cell phone easily, chances are the computer is not even touched by them.

[al2i]

Dialing my wayback machine to the late '90's, I was visiting in Fairbainks and needed to get some info off of the web, so I went to the local library, which hadn't opened yet. It was a school day and there were several 12-14 year-old kids waiting for the library to open. I naturally assumed they were doing school work or had library duties of some sort.

When the library opened the kids made a beeline for the computers, taking all four available terminals. I waited some more. Then I waited more. Finally, one of the kids jumped up from the computer scrambled her books, backpack and whatnot out the door like there was a Strategic Air Command alert.

I took the available computer. Immediately, the 12-13 year-old girl on the left of me and the 13-14 year-old boy on the right of me attempted to protect their respective screens from my prying eyes, but the way the library had the computers arranged, that was difficult.

I got my information, but not before I noticed some bizzare stuff on the sceens out of the corner of my eyes, so I spent a little longer than I needed and surreptitiously surveyed what the two little school skippers were doing.

The girl was engaged in hot and steamy sexual discourse with God knows who. The Boy was at a racist and pornographic website calling for the murder of certain people that I found myself later but I cannot find it today. Neither was doing or viewing something that would have been allowed on the shelves of the library or allowed to occur in the library common area. Nevertheless, they were doing it and viewing it at the public library.

I felt that it was quite horrific for these children to be exposed to the material and people that the 'net was exposing them to. I still feel that way.

[al2i]

A final comment: I had genuine fear and loathing of Al Gore, his "information superhighway" proposal, and his assertion that a "highway needs traffic cops."

Now he seems positively benign.

[KD7ZRT]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Nov. 16 2006,14:06)]The girl was engaged in hot and steamy sexual discourse with God knows who. The Boy was at a racist and pornographic website calling for the murder of certain people that I found myself later but I cannot find it today. Neither was doing or viewing something that would have been allowed on the shelves of the library or allowed to occur in the library common area. Nevertheless, they were doing it and viewing it at the public library.
If you're trying to get us to some conclusion from this, I really don't know what it is. Nobody is disputing the fact that unfiltered internet access gives people access to an extremely wide range of information and media.

[w8cbc]

My comment is, these kids generally go looking for it, and most of 'em are crafty enough to get around any blocks you try to put in their way. I would consider it a lost cause. It would be better to go after unsolicited email, popups, et cetera. Stopping that garbage is unfortunately an even more lost cause. I'm about to cancel an account I've had since 1995. The spambots are all over it and won't let up. Time was I could just wait out whatever e-scam was up and it would go away. Not any more.

At least, now the election's over and done with, the damned robocalls have stopped.

[al2i]

Quote[/b] (KD7ZRT @ Nov. 16 2006,15:07)]If you're trying to get us to some conclusion from this, I really don't know what it is. Nobody is disputing the fact that unfiltered internet access gives people access to an extremely wide range of information and media.
I'm am not looking for a conclusion, but rather, sharing something that has bothered me for some years.

I am in favor of a radical freedom of speech, but I see college students monitored and muzzled by PC police while millions of pre-pubescent children are led to participate in the most depraved adult fantasies.

I am of the opinion that our generation has forgotton the sanctity of genuine freedom of speech, while the next generation has lost its childhood.

[kf6rdn]

Quote[/b] (AB3BK @ Nov. 15 2006,18:01)]Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Nov. 14 2006,20:00)]Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,17:56)]Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.
Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
TOO much info............
Err... That came out ALL wrong!

http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (al2i @ Nov. 16 2006,13:22)]Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Nov. 16 2006,08:57)]In other words, a photo or section of text does not have to be explicit to generate the desired response.
By that definition, a picture of a lumpy rock is pornographic to healthy 16 year olds. #Of course it takes two lumpy rocks sitting side by side to provide the same stimulous by the time you hit the prime of senility. # http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/cool.gif
I think just about anything is pornographic to a healthy 16-year-old!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif

[n0jaa]

Quote[/b] (kn0u @ Nov. 16 2006,14:40)]I would like to hear from a few people from other countries... #The US is so uptight about sex it is sickening. #My children, 8, 10 and 16 are not embarrassed by nudity, they all have a good understanding about sex, what it is, how it is done, why it is done, why it needs to be done safely, how to do it safely, what the repercussions of having sex are, etc. and so on. #We have talked to our children about these things, our children have seen pornography on the internet by accident, (who hasn’t). #They just hit the back button and go on about their business. #Maybe once in a while I’ll hear a “yuk” or something of that nature. #And once in a while I am called into the room because the stupid auto popping porn windows have taken over and spawned 60 windows they can’t close, I show them how to close them all and start their search again, this time staying away from whatever site caused it. #Bottom line, it’s your job to teach your kids, no one else’s. #It is your job to keep them safe, no one else’s. #It is your job to be responsible for them, no one else’s. #It is not company X’s job to do any of this. #It is not the job of the government to do this. #They are your children; teach, discipline, love, protect. #It is entirely your job, no one else’s.
I think this is about the most common-sense reply and solution I have read (or heard, for that matter) in a very long time. Thank you.

[w8cbc]

Quote[/b] (n0jaa @ Nov. 17 2006,19:06)]I think just about anything is pornographic to a healthy 16-year-old!! http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/laugh.gif
Hee. Just ask any CHR (top-40) DJ how many times he's had to say, "Go away, kid, yer gonna get me in trouble." http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/biggrin.gif

[W2ILP]

I can't believe that you guys seem to think that only kids and adolesents are inticed by Internet porn. What about us "Dirty old men?"

w2ilp (Interesting Looking Pictures)...are worth a thousand swear words.

[KD6NIG]

Quote[/b] (W2ILP @ Nov. 18 2006,09:43)]I can't believe that you guys seem to think that only kids and adolesents are inticed by Internet porn. #What about us "Dirty old men?"

w2ilp (Interesting Looking Pictures)...are worth a thousand swear words.
Its because they talk about it. Kids can't do anything without telling someone. Well, at least their friends.

"GUESS WHAT I FOUND ON THE INTERNET!"

Dirty old men keep their internet activities to themselves and don't brag about it.

[N7RJD]

Quote[/b] (kf6rdn @ Nov. 15 2006,12:00)]Quote[/b] (w8cbc @ Nov. 15 2006,17:56)]Only one percent?

No wonder I can't find anything interesting with this contraption.
Well, I can keep myself occupied with it, since I don't just look at the pictures. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif
A person should always read the pictures as well as look at the articles. http://www.qrz.com/iB_html/non-cgi/emoticons/tounge.gif