Skip to comments.Web Browser Image/Video Content Filter
Posted on 12/20/2009 10:37:51 AM PST by chrismac
It's possible to legislate so that Web Browsers have to use an IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute that defines the promiscuity or Content Filter level of each image or video, between 1 and 10 or a similar rating, in the HTML code of each website.
Websites which don't include this attribute for each image/video would be blocked by gateway internet filters - similar to what Squidguard or IPCop-URLfilter do, or the Australian filter, and the filters can limit the level of promiscuous images for selected domains. Child porn, violence, beastiality, etc can then be most readily filtered out, particularly for children.
If websites don't meet the image/video ratings of the most used blacklists (following) then the gateway filters might blacklist the whole domain, rather than rely on blocking just a certain level of promiscuity. http://www.squidguard.org/blacklists.html http://cri.univ-tlse1.fr/cgi-bin/squidguard_modify.cgi
Those websites which don't rate their images/videos, using the IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute, can have their text passed to the browser, while the images aren't passed (perhaps having place holder images, though that's not essential).
So if you were in the US, then websites from Netherlands, etc, those with non-compliant content, would still be viewable as html text, but their images/videos wouldn't make it through the internet filter, since they're not rated images/videos, ie are noncompliant with the new web standard requiring an IMG/EMBED/OBJECT rating attribute.
Additionally, the Apache webserver (and others), most commonly used, could also check the Browser ID string which includes a new Content Filter attribute, and only serve images/videos to the Browser that comply with the promiscuity setting the end user sets, using the mentioned IMG/EMBED/OBJECT attribute to determine which images/videdos comply. Again, this wouldn't stop the passing of html text, and is in addition to global filters.
Write me about any problems, there probably are potential solutions; if you want to be anonymous use the WriteToUs form at god-help.org .
Excellent! I will get paid to redesign websites to comply with the new law.
I’m still waiting for the ADA regulations to include web accessibility mandates. Boy howdy, I’ll make a bundle on that!
Didn't Obama surrender control of the internet?
look at NoScript.
Or else just switch to encrypted/secure websites. If I wanted the government to tell me what to look at I would move to Saudi Arabia.
This probably won’t work. Most sites will provide the metadata and just lie.
And it smacks of Nanny-statism. Who will decide if Michelangelo’s David is porn or art?
If they supply the metadata and lie about image/video ratings, their whole site get’s blacklisted - eventually, until they comply, (perhaps using the form for those blacklists mentioned/linked to). It’s a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites that don’t conform with “no-child-porn, beastiality, violence”. That body would be accountable to the public for websites blacklisted.
>>If they supply the metadata and lie about image/video ratings, their whole site gets blacklisted - eventually, until they comply, (perhaps using the form for those blacklists mentioned/linked to). Its a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites that dont conform with no-child-porn, beastiality, violence. That body would be accountable to the public for websites blacklisted.<<
You don’t seem to have a handle on the problem. Your self-styled “Internet Morality Police” would have to review thousand, maybe millions of sites. The numbers would be overwhelming. And of course, there would have to be appeals, all kinds of gray areas clarified, etc.
Not only fascist, but unworkable.
Reviewing websites is already done by the mentioned blacklist maintainers, links previously provided, its a simple matter for a publicly elected body to review sites being put on the blacklist for non-compliance. even libtards can see this.
Entirely workable, is already partly in use by schools, and soon to be in use in Australia in a variant form.
I don't know about libtards, but fascists sure can.
Entirely workable, is already partly in use by schools, and soon to be in use in Australia in a variant form.
Schools don't determine what I, an adult US Citizen, can or can't see on the Internet. They can and should err on the side of caution.
You want a world-elected body? We have one, it is called the UN and it is the most corrupt organization in the history of the world.
You want to try to establish a blacklist on the world? You are as nutty as you are power-hungry.
Not to be too pessimistic, but just based upon common knowledge of recent history, has there ever been any government, anywhere, at any time that could do anything (other than corruption) with "100 percent accuracy"? Government databases are the most error prone and misused. Why will this one be any different?
Labor will introduce legislation next year requiring all service providers to ban "refused classification" material hosted on overseas servers.
Let's see. Pass legislation and expect the rest of the world to comply with it? Build a wall so the rest of the world will comply, and then be amazed at just how that wall has eliminated the entire rest of the world from your little kingdom, with all the economic devastation that it entails by telling the rest of the world to comply with your little law or FOAD. Yup, that'll work. And like the Chinese have found, people will still find a way to get around that wall. What next? Kill the violators?
Communications Minister Stephen Conroy says RC material includes "child sex abuse content, bestiality, sexual violence and the detailed instruction of crime and drug use".
Translation: First we start by banning all those things that we could convince a majority to go along with, then little by little, add in "Christians, biblical references, conservative political speech, any opposition speech..." Well, you get the idea. The list of 'banned' materials will multiply exponentially.
"There's no way to rule innocent men. The only power government has is the power to crack down on criminals. When there aren't enough criminals, one makes them. One declares so many things to be a crime that it becomes impossible for men to live without breaking laws."-- Ayn Rand
"Most Australians acknowledge there is some internet content which is not acceptable in any civilised society," Senator Conroy said in Melbourne after giving the mandatory filter the green light.
Therefore every Australian will comply with what I think is best for them. Whether they like it or not.
"It is important that all Australians, particularly young children, are protected from this material."
Yes, after all, it's for the poor chilrun. Weren't we warned about this like, say, maybe 230 years ago?
"Good intentions will always be pleaded for any assumption of power... There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters."
-- Daniel Webster
The list of banned sites will be maintained by an independent body "at arm's length from the government".
Ah, yes, the "independent body at arm's length from the government". Bet we can all think of at least one colossal failure of that kind of setup, can't we?
Senator Conroy said the list would be "compiled through a public complaints mechanism", but the government would add sites containing "known child abuse material" obtained from "highly regarded international agencies".
Ummm, wait! Just where did this "independent agency" suddenly disappear to? I thought that he said something about being "at arm's length" from the government. Then maybe that wasn't quite truthful. Which in common circles is called... wait for it... A LIE!
The Australian Communications and Media Authority is now responsible for issuing take-down notices for black-listed content hosted in Australia.
Pray tell, is that "an independent body at arm's length from the government"? Has it been "100 percent accurate with neglible impact"? Please Senator, tell us how that has been working, or how this proposal will work even better?
The Government yesterday released the results of a filtering trial, claiming it proved blocking sites was technically feasible.
News Flash: Germany 1933. The government has released the results of a cleansing trial that proved that it was technically feasible to cleanse entire races or religions from the country. Poison gas contractors gearing up for economic boom. Film at eleven.
Need I continue? Unfortunately this is just Australia now, but this will be coming to a city, state or country near you. Soon.
Sieg Heil, Senator Conroy!
No? Then what about turning all of your surfing decisions over to Kevin Jennings lovely organization? After all, "Kevin Jennings, GLSENs founder, is recognized as a leader in both the education and civil rights communities."
Hmmmm, not quite the type that YOU would want regulating what YOU are able to access, read, view, see or hear. Right?
Then WTF gives you the libtard, fascist notion that YOU or your organization should be the arbiters of what the rest of US view or read? What makes you think that YOUR view of God or morality is the same as mine? Or anyone else's for that matter?
Maybe you forgot that a bunch of rebellious renegades pledged "our Lives, our Fortunes, and our sacred Honor" to setup this little backwater experiment in Freedom. [And many, if not most, of them lost the first two while never giving up the third.] Which, based on THEIR principles has become the greatest nation on the face of the earth and in the history of mankind.Please forgive me if I continue to have this retarded and seemingly out of date notion that "Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both".
And also please forgive me if I don't feel at all comfortable having someone like YOU, or whatever organization you are affiliated with, claim to want to protect me from things you find or determine to be "objectionable". If I wanted that kind of "protection", I could easily move to any muslim or communist/fascist country and enjoy that "protection". I neither desire nor will I accept your "protection" of my morals.
"In every country and in every age, the priest has been hostile to liberty. He is always in alliance with the despot, abetting his abuses in return for protection to his own." --Thomas Jefferson to Horatio G. Spafford, 1814
"Freedom is fragile and elusive, for rarely does the appreciation of it exceed the pleasure of being able to tell others what to do."
-Terry Rossio, screenwriter
As well as an additional attribute for IMG/EMBED/OBJECT, we can require an attribute in the HTML BODY header which gives an overall Content Filter rating. Absence of this would cause the documents images/videos to not be passed by the internet filter, or browser.
Those who want the whole of society to practise their published immorality, saying nothing is objectionable about child porn, violence, or beastiality, really have little to contribute, and freedoms of such is akin to freedom of the violent/embezzelers or thieves/and those with little regard for others. The right to publish such materials isn’t freedom but chaos. Rights go hand-in-hand with responsibilties in civilized nations.
A public body of disciplined people, such as judges/police/ JP’s/teachers/& other pillars of the community/s, who understand that rights-and-responsibilities are partners, would oversee the blacklisting of websites that publish chaos as though it were acceptable.
Why, John Ashcroft of course. Silly you.
And pretty soon after, any of your “conservative” comments will be filtered, and the sites where they are posted blacklisted.
You gullible fool.
I tried Squidguard. All kinds of squid porn still got through.
I never look at that stuff.
Will it filter out fascist posts like this?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.