Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Peer Pressure Porn Filter

timothy posted more than 11 years ago | from the this-could-be-misused dept.

The Internet 1051

Highwayman writes "Wired magazine presents one man's approach to stopping online pr0n 'Instead of relying on filters, the approach, which NetAccountability has been pitching primarily to religious groups, calls for Web users to share records of their online activity. Users pick a friend, spouse or other confidant who receives a regular report showing which sites they visit, highlighting potentially objectionable material.'"

cancel ×

1051 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Yes, this is so cool (5, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486983)

Think of it as a new way of recommending sites to your friends :)

Re:Yes, this is so cool (3, Interesting)

cpct0 (558171) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487042)

Yep. I know exactly a few people who might be really interested in the sites I visit. ^_^

Besides, I wouldn't have to send them my new "discoveries" (either pr0n or not). They would be able to find those themselves in the wad of stuff I visit.

One objection, though. Suppose I go visit one site that is so highly objectionnable there is even a virus in the site. Would that mean I would automatically infect people whom I trust because they too will go look at that site? Nice!

"Don't go visit Goatse! It's a virus! Yeah, I tell ya!"

Mike

Really? (4, Funny)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487100)

They would be able to find those themselves in the wad of stuff I visit.

Too easy...

3rd post! (-1)

thr0d ps1t (641973) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486986)


This thr0d ps1t is brought to you by the Sirius Cybernetics Corporation's Model Thr00 Thr0d Ps1t Generator.

Share and enjoy!

Similar article (-1, Flamebait)

Mdog (25508) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486991)

There was a very similar article posted recently on Tubgirl tech archive [tubgirl.com]

hmm.... (1)

greenskyx (609089) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486992)

I already thought the government was going this for us.... on a more serious note... HAHAHAH HAHAHA HAAHAHA!

What a stupid article (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487081)

Only Ned Flanders and his kids would use the service. What moronic douchebag thinks this methodology would work? Religious right no doubt.

yeah, but... (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5486994)

why would someone willingly subject themselves to this? I mean, we're all human, we all have urges, and if any of us have gone out and looked at pr0n somewhere, how does that make us a bad person?

Re:yeah, but... (4, Funny)

bill.sheehan (93856) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487040)

That's just what we'd expect a filthy disgusting moral leper of a pervert to say.

Re:yeah, but... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487137)

What Qualifies as immoral content. Does that mean they are gonna see my Everquest sites(that whole false idol bs) and bitch at me for that? I like the idea as a concept. It would probably have practical application with those who are addicted to porn or gambling. However I do not necessarily share the same moral views as my neighbor or even my brother. So for keeping me morally straight that is crap cause i would just argue that EQ is not evil. Then come back from afk to fulfill my eq addiction :P

Re:yeah, but... (1)

truenoir (604083) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487146)

Some people have issues for one reason or another with looking at this stuff. It doesn't mean that they're a bad person now or whatever. However, this is a decent idea. I've known people that moved their computers into the living room or stopped having a net connection in their room in an attempt to stop looking at pr0n.

Re:yeah, but... (1)

Bvardi (620485) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487162)

Maybe this could be a whole new type of internet perversion.... getting your kicks by having people watch you surf porn! Actually I can see the point where it comes to religious groups, and it does allow for better accountability than simply blocking sites (so it might work better at work for example where nobody is going to mind you surfing work related things, but it won't block legitimate sites that just happen to run afoul of an overly-generous filtering mechanism) All in all it provides a better option under certain circumstances than a blanket filter controller by a service who won't release what they actually filter in the first place.

Good for finding porn? (0, Redundant)

Monkey42 (53334) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486995)

Wouldn't you be able to "team up" with a group of fellow porn fans and use it to find good stuff? (good thing)

or, couldn't child pornographer use it the same way?(bad thing)

Big Difference (5, Insightful)

danheskett (178529) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486996)

There is a big differnce between [a] man's approach to stopping online pr0n and what is actually going on here. The description makes it seem like he is trying to end online porn. Like kill it, dead. In fact, he's just trying to get men to stop looking at it via shame/peer preasure.

Big difference between self-censorship and attempted big-brother censorship.

Re:Big Difference (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487029)

shut up.

Re:Big Difference (5, Insightful)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487049)

Big difference between self-censorship and attempted big-brother censorship.

I was just about to post this same thought, and I noticed you beat me to it. There is a huge difference between people who are trying to monitor and clean up their own online surfing habits (for whatever reasons) and what the headline and story description said.

This is just a way for people to keep them accountable in a way described in the Bible. Of course, knowing Slashdot, this will be made fun of to no end. People attempting to live their lives according to an external and somewhat objective standard is just so medieval.

Re:Big Difference (4, Funny)

llamalicious (448215) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487069)

Hmmm, and to think that I and my friends look pr0n because we enjoy it.

Oh the horror!

Re:Big Difference (1)

mlush (620447) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487165)

There is a big differnce between [a] man's approach to stopping online pr0n and what is actually going on here.

Patent: Doctor Doctor It hurts every time I do this (wiggles head in strange manner)
Doctor: Well don't do it then. Next!

It could work both ways... (0, Redundant)

benst (531969) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486997)

If you receive regular reports of four friends browsing behaviour, you could also use this to find the GOOD pr0n links.

Religious Groups (0, Flamebait)

Changer2002 (577488) | more than 11 years ago | (#5486999)

So much for not judging others...

Re:Religious Groups (5, Insightful)

M.C. Hampster (541262) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487074)

I'm beginning to find that half of my posts have the following question, but I'll ask it anyway:

Did you read the article?

This is about people who voluntarily are wishing to help clean up their own surfing because of a moral code they wish to live by. Why do you say they are "judging others"? They are judging themselves. Yes, they are getting help from others who have that same moral code, but that is exactly what the Bible tells these people to do. Don't turn this into something it's not.

Re:Religious Groups (1)

bmj (230572) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487091)

So much for not judging others...

This isn't really about judging others (though it _could_ be. One of the concepts of the modern (or post-modern, if you will) reformed Christian churches is group support. Your friends aren't there to just point fingers. You go to them and say *I've got a problem with this* and they keep you accountable by checking up on you. And if they're good friends, you're probably keeping them accountable in their life too.

Whoah. What a concept... (5, Funny)

Fesh (112953) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487002)

Big Brother might actually turn out to be your big brother...

On the brighter side (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487055)

Your bro probably has the same preferences

Not mine... (2, Funny)

stardeep (66237) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487169)

I think my two straight brothers would be quite bored by the porn sites I visit...

I can hear them now: "Where are the girls!?" *grin*

Re:Whoah. What a concept... (1)

IPFreely (47576) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487059)

Yeah, but MY big brother knows all the best sites. Where do you think I got them from.

Pornoholics Anonymous? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487007)

Is it such an addiction?

Bollocks (1, Flamebait)

wiggys (621350) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487008)

Er, maybe I've missed something here but if you're a Catholic priest and you want to look at kiddy pictures then you're hardly likely to hand your logs over to someone are you?

Re:Bollocks (5, Interesting)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487071)

There is always a way to hide your smut surfing. These solutions are aimed at people that want freedom from this addiction by getting help from friends that understand the issue or were once addicted themselves.

Just like with any 12 step program, you have to be willing to come to the meeting. For this app, you have to be willing to set up the accountability with a friend(s).

robi

Re:Bollocks (2, Interesting)

Jaysyn (203771) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487171)

addiction... I hate how carelessly that word gets thrown around these days.

Jaysyn

Re:Bollocks (5, Interesting)

thomas.galvin (551471) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487099)

Friends of mine actually use software like this; I would, as well, if I had a net connection at home.

The basic idea is "Install this when you are clear-headed and have moral convictions, and let it guide you in the moments of passion." Or something like that.

The programs that I have seen tie into or replace WINSOC, so there really isn't a convinient way to bork the system. Yeah, for those of us in the know, we could get around it, but the average guy can't, and even the average computer guy would have to put some serious effort into it.

The programs automatically generate and send a report on a regular basis, and this is transparent to the user. There is no "Click here to let your firemds know that you've been browsing younglove.com," it just quietly sends an email.

Actually, I think you will find a number of church officials requiering that those in their employ install such software. Couldn't hurt.

Question (1)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487130)

(flame suit on) Why buy the cow when you get the milk for free? :) (/flame suit)

it won't work (-1, Flamebait)

loveandpeace (520766) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487009)

filtering is just such an ineffective idea, no matter how it's implemented.

Re:it won't work (1)

C0LDFusion (541865) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487054)

RTFA. It's not a filter. It's you sending a record to others frequently, so people can see if you look at pr0n. It's supposed to shame you into not looking at pr0n. Unfortunately, for guys who aren't married, odds are you have friends who are into pr0n, too.

Re:it won't work (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487065)

Good thing this isn't filtering, huh? RTFA

Re:it won't work (1)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487123)

This doesn't interfere with any surfing or usenet traffic at all. It just logs it, sends the reports to a server where people you designate check up on you.

You are free to surf as much of whatever sites as you want.

This is a great idea. (5, Funny)

Upright Joe (658035) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487011)

Knowing the guys I work with, this technology could possibly allow me to build the best list of free porn sites ever.

Re:This is a great idea. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487122)

I agree. This is the most idiotic plan I've ever heard of. Bound to fail.

OK, I agree to send a list of all sites I visit each day to ... yer mom.

It's been done (3, Informative)

dopefish3 (251821) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487142)

http://www.thehuns.com/

Just for the record. Don't shoot me! ;P

Invasion of Privacy (1)

destroyingworld (621666) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487017)

Wow This has to be one of the worst ideas i've ever heard for censoring ever.

Re:Invasion of Privacy (2, Insightful)

truenoir (604083) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487109)

Except this is voluntary, and actually a pay service. It's not for people that are okay with porn. It's for people that are addicted and want to stop. Of course, if used by a boss or a parent, then it's a little different. However, that's still just helping to enforce rules created by someone other than this company.

Privacy Shouting (1)

joe630 (164135) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487018)

Why don't these people just give their records up to EVERYONE? WHAT ARE THEY HIDING?

Everyone know that privacy is only needed because it's hiding things that are illegal or immoral.

Re:Privacy Shouting (1)

SirSlud (67381) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487051)

You mean, privacy is needed before its hiding things that you consider immoral, but I do not.

Privacy helps us escape mob-lynches, but like everything else, the possible pitfalls of granting too much privacy to individuals can be seen lots of places online (yes, I'm talking to you, Anonymous Cowards ;)

Hmmm... (1)

cmallinson (538852) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487019)

IE for the tame stuff / Mozilla for everything else?

Yeah, I'll sign up.

Goatse (0, Redundant)

Kaa (21510) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487023)

Yes! This is a perfect way of sharing the goatse links!!

good idea for other reasons (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487026)

This is a very good idea. It could potentially weed out other sorts of people as well. For example, I visit Slashdot about eighty times a day. I am embarassed about this addiction. If I could notify someone who cared about me, then I might be able to get support to stop it.

Addiction to websites is a serious matter. Online gambling is on the rise, pornography is problematic, and addiction to chat forums like Slashdot and ICQ NSync channels is a big problem for people. As an additional plus, this could be used to recognize and weed out subversive political and religious views, and stop people from looking at questionable material in those veins.

Their Motto (1)

mlknowle (175506) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487028)

... is : NetAccountability - Because Lots of Little Brothers are Beter than Big Brother

Reminds me of what happened to a friend of mine (4, Interesting)

Raul654 (453029) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487030)

He calls up our University's tech services to report his internet connection sucked. It fixed itself within a few hours. The next day, he gets a call saying that his connection should work now, and that he had visited some "interesting" sites and that the network is for "academic use only", but that they had monitored his activity only because he had complained.

Apparently we have yet to understand... (1)

Metalhead01 (587101) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487031)

the mystical powers of the "History" button

This product is a load of crap, pure and simple. All it does is make the information in the browser's history preety, with bar graphs and whatnot. A total waste of time and money designed by a reactionary group of religious zealots.

Already done... (1)

onthefenceman (640213) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487032)

Anyone who works at a major corporation is probably sharing their web use records with the HR dept whether they know it or not...

Dude, (4, Funny)

quintessent (197518) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487034)

You surfed goatse, like, 20 times this month!

Who would trust a guy named (4, Funny)

Xiarcel (451958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487036)

"Chuck Swindoll"?

It sounds like a bad Simpsons joke...

Re:Who would trust a guy named (5, Funny)

mrjive (169376) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487124)

I've sold porn filters to Ogdenville, North Haverbrook, and Brockway, and it sure put them on the map!

Re:Who would trust a guy named (1)

Penguinoflight (517245) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487144)

Actually, he's a big big radio preacher. so, to answer your question, LOTS of people will trust him, and lots will be disappointed.

It's not the first time he's been wrong, but he's not all that bad either. He just didn't research this one very well.

Re:Who would trust a guy named (1)

Xiarcel (451958) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487167)

So what you're saying is "With a name _like_ Swindle, he's gotta be trustworthy"?

This ... (-1, Offtopic)

B3ryllium (571199) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487039)

This ... is ... just ... typical.

Nobody expects the spanish inquisition!

Love Those Links (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487041)

What happens when you go to a site that has links to banners from objectionable places???

You'll get my web logs from me when you pry them from my cold, dead computer.

Block porn? (1)

Per Wigren (5315) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487044)

Why would I want to do that?

They'd be surprised how quickly (1)

fudgefactor7 (581449) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487046)

nobody will participate. If I *knew* I visisted a pr0n site, would I willingly let someone else see my web use log knowing that they'd be displeased? That's mental! I call this idea fux0r3d.

Re:They'd be surprised how quickly (1)

ceejayoz (567949) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487145)

The way I understand it, it's for people who have a genuine desire to not visit these sites... and this is their way of shoring up their willpower. If they want to give in and surf porn, knowing that their best friend / spouse / etc. will see that could stop them.

Sophomore Chem Class... (4, Funny)

somethingwicked (260651) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487047)

Teacher hands out quiz...

Scribble on paper briefly...

Ignore for 20 minutes...

Teacher-"Trade quizes."

End result:
Jason-"Yeah, Chris got a 98"
Chris-"Jason got a 96"

Yeah, this should be effective *grin*

great! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487048)

right on! now i can figure out with my friends where the good nekkid pix are no more wasting time with crap sites just look for multiple visits! woo!

The perfect name (1)

inkswamp (233692) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487050)

They should call this the Gladys Kravitz filter.

Freshmeat again! (5, Funny)

orthogonal (588627) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487057)

"You prev! I see from the NetAccountablity log you've been "browsing" FreshMeat again!"

"But honey, it's all about software! Honest!"

"Software, hardcore, whatever, it's all dirty!"

Re:Freshmeat again! (-1, Flamebait)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487114)

its a shame I don't have mod points to day, I'd drop you a funny point.

Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... (2, Insightful)

sfe_software (220870) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487062)

...for many reasons.

First, the whole "my religion doesn't allow me to look at porn" argument is just nuts. If you truly believe this, you won't need your big brother (or whomever) to watch you.

Second, what about self control? Okay, you don't want to look at porn. So the only way you can stop is to have your PC report which sites you visit to Grandma?

Finally, if you want to look at porn, look at porn. If your religion forbids it, well, that sucks... but otherwise, who the hell cares if you look at porn? I enjoy it, am not ashamed of it, and I certainly don't need anyone else (or any religion) scrutinizing what sites I visit.

So next we'll be CCing our Visa bill to someone, to curb excessive spending; faxing the grocery list/receipt to help with over-eating; and so on. Do these people actually need a babysitter? If so, what are they doing living on their own, let alone surfing the 'Net without supervision?

Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... (4, Insightful)

DataPath (1111) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487148)

some people view porn as an addiction like alcohol or smoking. They WANT to stop, but they don't have the self control. Think of it as an AA for porn. No one's asking you to participate, so let them do their thing.

And about the decision personal or religious not to look at porn... a lot of people's wives arent' too fond of their husbands looking at the stuff.

Re:Dumbest thing I've seen in a long time... (4, Insightful)

buckthorn (40295) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487151)

Well, think about addictions. There are plenty of people who want to kick addictions to drugs, alcohol, food, hell most anything really. They want to quit, but their willpower is weak. So they turn themselves into rehab, sign up for Weight Watchers (where you weigh in as a group once a week), that sort of thing. I mean there are honestly people out there, and I'm one of them, who really try to get away from online pr0n but find the addiction too seductive sometimes to resist. It's the nature of addiction and temptation; it wouldn't be addictive and tempting if you didn't enjoy it. It's easy to enjoy things that you know are wrong.. the hard bit is stopping. This is legitimate help for some people.

accountability? (2, Insightful)

Azathoth!EDC (222280) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487064)

Man, if I'm watching some porn and my girlfriend walks into the room, she just shakes her head and laughs. And vice versa. People are prudes.

WTF? (1)

trianglecat (318478) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487066)

People who have something to hide or wish to have thier privacy respected (or really dig pr0n) would never opt in. Those that don't...might.

so whats the point here?

'nuff said.

Won't work (1)

spellcheckur (253528) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487072)

I mean, seriously... if I was susceptible to peer pressure, I never would have become a programmer.

I'd have skipped school with my friends, spent my days in the arcade and ignored my homework, fantasizing about how I'd write better games than...

oh. wait. that's what happened. nevermind.

Type for new linux distro. (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487082)

Pornix, a bootable linux cd with a stripped copy of xfree86, kde, konqueror and mplayer. All history tracking will be sent to /dev/null, your files will be stored in a special encrypted partition that needs a password to boot the cd, and a password to access the partition. A panic key which quickly loads http://www.yahoo.com is also included.

For all normal uses, you can surf without the cdrom. Don't forget to keep it safe.

huh? (1)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487084)

This makes no sense to me at all. Filters are supposed to keep other people (your kids, your patrons, your employees) away from using your machine to see porn, but this scheme is about your own habits. If you don't want to see porn, don't go to porn sites. How is sending someone a list of what sites you view going to help you do that?

Unless you buy into the silly idea put forth by some on the wacko fringe of the religious right that porn is somehow "addictive", and this is suposed to be like an alcoholic having a friend keep an eye out to make sure he doesn't drink...even then, why would you pay this middleman?

Re:huh? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487163)

People with an addictive/compulsive behavior pattern can become addicted to most anything. www.ncsac.org

Think of it as being caught red handed. (1)

nesneros (214571) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487092)

Or rosy palmed.

self-censorship! yayness. (3, Insightful)

buckthorn (40295) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487093)

Not a bad idea, really... but it's only as effective as any other form of self-censorship is. If there's any way to turn it off... unless it works on a double-key system, wherein you need two separate passwords.... or it just can't be bypassed completely. At any rate, glad to see that the concept of self-censorship is alive and well. And it wouldn't be such a bad thing to just have a regular way to track your internet usage for your own personal information anyway. Just the other day my wife lamented the lack of a game timer on The Sims Online..

Seems like when we're online, sometimes self-awareness goes out the window. Nothing new to most of us, but I think we'd all be shocked at how much time we actively spend online, where we go, that sort of thing. Bring it on.

Line from the report (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487094)

Brother Taco, http://goatse.cx, 127 visits in one hour

~~~

side effects? (1)

Hepkat (78639) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487095)

I don't think I want people knowing that I read slashdot....

Only a niche audience... (1)

elflet (570757) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487101)

This won't have any impact on the vocal minority who want to impose content filtering on public access points (e.g. libraries), since they want to "protect the innocent" by all means, including force.

Speaking of libraries, there's already a peer-pressure effect. My wife works as a librarian and reports she doesnt't have trouble with people surfing "objectionable" sites because all of the machines are well in the open with plenty of patrons passing by. (She works in the Children's room, but also sits on Adult Reference and has a clear line of sight to most machines.)

This has got to be... (0, Flamebait)

talks_to_birds (2488) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487103)

...about the stupidest thing I've heard of in a long time.

"...The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions..."

Further proof that people who worry about "sin" and "sinful" are getting just exactly what they deserve: a big, fat neurosis

t_t_b

DIBS! (1)

GLowder (622780) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487108)

I've got dibs on Hugh Hefner as who I'd have my report emailed to!

Here is mine (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487117)

Slashdot [slashdot.org]

Sublime

Information Overload (1)

Woil (25266) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487119)

It'd take someone a freaking long time to filter through all of the places that I view in one day.

Add to this approach a method of collaboration, so that all sites that are approved by the *monitors* would then gain points where sites that are not approved would lose points. Then allow the *monitors* to auto approve anything that is above certain point levels.

This might cut down on the amount of data to crawl through.

Now if I could just find a decent source of audio-porn. You #(*$& visually oriented people... ;-)

This makes one HUGE assumption... (1)

Gudlyf (544445) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487120)

...that the person sending their log of sites visited gives a rat's ass if people know he's looking at porn.

Re:This makes one HUGE assumption... (3, Insightful)

robi2106 (464558) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487150)

Correct. If you don't want to stop alcoholism, then you don't go to an AA meeting. If you don't want to stop doing cokee, you don't go to rehab.

If you don't want to stop pornography addictions, don't use these types of services.

It isn't like someone is forcing you do do this.

robi

Give me the e-mail addresses of the Xian Right... (1)

scubacuda (411898) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487126)

...I would be happy to e-mail them my surfing habits.

How does this account for snail mail? (0, Insightful)

GhettoFabulous (644312) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487129)

I mean really, if the only reason you want to block pr0n is because you don't want your family to think you are a perv this wouldn't work at all.

Who's to stop you from picking up a couple of mags at a 7-11 on your way home from work? Who's to stop you from checking out the adult novelty shop? Or a stripbar? Or an that hottie from the other department? Or a crackwhore with HIV?

Sexual repression will just lead to real problems. If people want to get there kicks off on the net, then whats the big deal? You can't get pregnant or diseased from the net. The worst I can see is a high VISA bill or maybe, but unlikely, an online text-based affair.

This just seems like another halfassed scheme to profit off of morality freaks to me.

That Bill guy is nuts. It'll never work. (1)

Scratch-O-Matic (245992) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487131)

If somebody wants to sneak a quick drink one night, is he really going to share that with a group of semi-strangers at the next AA meeting?

It'll never work.

Defeats the point. (1)

Zone-MR (631588) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487132)

If someone wants to look at porn they will just do so w/o sending 'reports' to anyone, or they will edit their reports.

This 'idea' will only be used by people who have nothing to hide, dont look at porn, and therefore wont be helped at all by it.

And I strongly believe that internet activity is PERSONAL and should be kept private. There are hundreds or reasons other than porn why you might not want to share your records with other people.

Subtext... (2, Insightful)

aiken_d (127097) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487135)

"I wan't to stop looking at porn, but can't control myself, so I'll make it so that if I do look at porn someone will know that I did and I'll be embarassed."

And you just know that people will share tricks for getting around the monitoring software, which adds a whole new layer of dishonesty and self-contempt to the whole exercise.

Wouldn't be a whole lot easier to either 1) just stop looking at porn, or 2) admit that you like porn and get on with things?

Cheers
-b

Ug... (2, Funny)

spoonist (32012) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487139)

I've already explained to my wife that Freshmeat [freshmeat.net] isn't a pr0n site. Now I would have to explain that to someone else too? Great...

(As a side note: my wife's actual comment was "Freshmeat? A porn site? Cool! Let's see!")

Even better... (2, Insightful)

Petronius (515525) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487140)

why don't we make people that surf questionable material wear a distinctive mark? Like a yellow star, a pink triangle or something... Oh, wait. It's been done before.

You've Got to Be Kidding.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487152)

This isn't going to stop pr0n. It will just give nutcases another excuse to lecture their fellow-travelers ("Brother John, aren't you ashamed of looking at 'Slipp'ry S'xy Shiksas twelve times a day? And you're not even Jewish...)

Crazy (2, Interesting)

FattMattP (86246) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487154)

The idea, according to Cotter, is that people will choose not to visit "sinful" websites if they know a close friend or family member will be aware of their actions.
I think that people who would subject themselves to this have psychological problems. Seriously. If you want to view porn then view porn. If you don't want to, then don't. You have a problem if you feel that you can't control your own actions and must have someone watch over you. I hope that they eventually see how unhealthy such actions and attitudes are and seek counseling. Healthy adults take responsibility for their own actions and act accordingly.

What is equally distrubing is that these are probably the same people that think the rest of us have the same problem and must be saved from ourselves. They lobby to get laws passed because "someone must watch over us" to protect us from ourselves.

It's only as effective as your peer group... (1)

terradyn (242947) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487155)

You do realize if your peer group is primarily guys, this may turn out to have negative consequences (read - porn swapping engine). =P

Typical Responses (4, Insightful)

stoolpigeon (454276) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487157)

This guy comes up with a system that imposes nothing on others. It is a tool for people who decide that they would like to use. But it gets slammed by so many here because so many slashdotters are not about freedom. They are about freedom that they agree with.

It is not invasion of privacy if you install it on purpose.

It is not religious judgement of others if people use tools that monitor their own activity.

This is an example of someone having an idea that ought to be welcome here. Rather than removing choices or limiting activity- people are given new choices to use if they so wish.

Those of you who think pornography cannot be destructive are unaware of the fact that it can ruin some peoples lives. If they want help with that- what is the harm?

Could limit Slashdot usage (2, Funny)

PizzaFace (593587) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487160)

Hell, if people saw their own Slashdot usage, they'd be appalled.

Did this once. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 11 years ago | (#5487166)

Back when I was in college, a friend and I were sitting in our freshman dorm investigating this wonderful operating system called "Linux."

Naturally the dorm used hubs instead of switches, so when we discovered tcpdump, we were treated to a display of the entire building's internet traffic.

We watch for a while, barely able to make out anything as the packets flew by. Suddenly, we both said "Whoa...."

Hit ctl-C and found the IP address, and filtered it. The guy was visiting certain sites like they were going out of style. The traffic kept increasing, and increasing....

Finally we reversed his IP address and found his username, looked it up in the photo directory, and found his room phone number. I picked up the phone and dialed: "Hhh-hello?" "Yes, hello, is this so-and-so?" "Uh..*pant*...yeah?" "Well, I'm from the computing center, and we are aware that you have been visiting some inappropriate sites. Are you familiar with the school network use pol---"

At that point I lost it and and had to slam the phone down. Ever since that time it was the best I could do to not laugh when passing that guy in the hall.

This reminds me of a joke (3, Funny)

bperkins (12056) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487168)

Why do you always bring two Mormans fishing?

Because if you bring one, he'll drink all your beer.

Spam (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 11 years ago | (#5487170)

I see the future, and it's full of spam saying "I consider you my friend and I report that I visited http://spamvertizedsite.com/".

mmm well, ok, half will be spam, the other half will be worms that in the name of someone infected reports "visited sites" to all in their outlook contact list.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>