I thought "safe" was a nice word for "not porn". I.e. it will not prevent kids from accessing pages with racially discriminatory content, but rather, it would prevent kids from accessing porn. If the porn industry really wanted to respect the wishes of the adult population, then they would see this header and reject the user, similarly to how now they have a prompt asking whether you are older than 18.
2014-08-26 4:41 GMT+12:00 <[email protected]>: > On Monday, August 25, 2014 1:54:30 PM UTC+2, [email protected] wrote: > > I like this, but I feel that the administrator should be able to turn on > Parental settings for an account, but not have it percolate to Firefox. The > reason is that Prefer:Safe gives more information to the websites which > track you, and, more importantly, it helps scammers tweak their scams to > suit their visitors. > > I'm with Manish here (well, the bug and the request, not the 'I like > this'), but I want to continue from there. > > 1) This header sends information to every server and there seems to be no > way to opt out, for the responsible person (that's Manish's bug). Right now > it would leak information, potentially allowing server operators to > identify minors easily. It's a privacy leak, you're sharing information > behind the back of the parents and admins (let's face it: If it's a feature > that you turn on by default, most of the people out there wouldn't notice > and start sending this mess). > > 2) This header is utterly useless, because it cannot do anything of value. > If I turn on parental controls that means that I explicitly restricted a > machine in a very specific way. It doesn't mean that I want to share that > fact with the world, nor does this mean that the (internet) world should > change randomly. I question the whole idea here. What would you have > websites do when this header is sent? YouPorn should redirect to > disney.com? I - as the admin of my network, as a father - might be > absolutely fine with a 16yo to watch porn and might consider a block like > that stupid, but use parental control features to make sure that the > computer isn't keeping that teen awake at 3am. I might consider sites like > the NRA offensive (Where should they redirect, what should they hide?). > > 2 boils down to "There's no moral value system that you can encode in a > bool". Restricting a Windows machine to disallow running certain games > ("You did something wrong, son. No more Awesomenauts for you for a week") > doesn't mean that the internet should know about it and should have _zero_ > consequences on the content online (If I wanted that, I'd restrict stuff w/ > a filter/proxy). > > The whole IETF draft is nonsense, and that's easy to see by its use of > quotation marks around "objectionable" and "safe". There's no consensus > what that means here. Discussions elsewhere about this announcement/this > "feature" in Fx quickly lead to 'COPPA' being used as an excuse, but that's > quite a US/NA centric view. Nudity isn't a huge deal in large parts of > Europe and a nipple seems (not that I'm an expert of foreign moral systems, > but .. hey, neither are you or the website operators) to cause a major > scandals in the US. During the Soccer Worldcup in Germany there was a flyer > going around that helped US tourists prepare themselves for quite some > cultural differences and "Things that you consider okay might be too > violent" was on that list, together with the nudity reference before, i.e. > "Expect a certain amount of nudity on TV, even during family times". > > I summarized this feature elsewhere as asking the YouPorn admins to help > with my parenting, to ask the internet to guess my moral boundaries. A "My > parents didn't allow me to see unspecified things, take your guess" header. > How can that NOT fail? > > I'd be glad if you could reconsider this .. feature or at least postpone > the introduction until Manish's bug is fixed. That'd still be a wrong > opt-out (if you keep the announced behavior) thing instead of a more > sensible opt-in - like Do Not Track, but it would be a lot more tolerable. > > (Parent of two, although they're too young to browse the net yet: That is, > they cannot grasp the concept, the older's not quite two. I'm not keeping > them away from it in my role as a parent and discussing the future with my > wife usually ends with "We won't do that" - ignoring punitive measures like > I listed above, the "So you came home late, no FB for 10 days" way. > Education and enlightment > Relying on random people online respecting a > random header and doing what I think is best for my kids) > _______________________________________________ > dev-privacy mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-privacy > _______________________________________________ dev-privacy mailing list [email protected] https://lists.mozilla.org/listinfo/dev-privacy
