P2P companies say they cannot filter its network content

I just posted the article P2P companies say they cannot filter its network content.

  A  group of peer-to-peer file-sharing application companies have told the US  Congress in a detailed letter that it is not possible for them to filter or  block copyrighted or inappropriate...
Read the full article here:  [http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7631-P2P-companies-say-they-cannot-filter-its-network-content.html](http://www.cdfreaks.com/news/7631-P2P-companies-say-they-cannot-filter-its-network-content.html)

Feel free to add your comments below. 

Please note that the reactions from the complete site will be synched below.

Actually they are wrong - they could implement filtering in “parential control” way . If enabled client check each download before it starts against some server that contain signatures or/and names of known “problematic” files. This way parents will be able to control what their children download - this is the only possible and desireble way to control of cause everyone who switches “parential control” off will be able download everything. Will make me , senate and perents happy , probably not the children :slight_smile:

That’s great if it was built into the software, but if they built it into the software, custom software would be out within a week. There’s nothing there to stop a few programmers from hacking any restriction controls right out of a program or creating their own custom P2P client. Piracy started on the net and they started to regulate it so P2P came out. If you find a way to regulate P2P guess what, something else will come out and we’ll be right back where we started. Filtering content doesn’t work. We all know how well software works that filters porn sites off the net. Some porn sites still show up and some sites that have nothing to do with porn can’t be reached because the filters don’t work that well. Filters stop some spam but not all of it. Sometimes spam filters block mail that isn’t spam at all. I believe content should be labeled. For example HTML could have a profanity tag. If you have profanity on your web site you could have it inside a profanity tag. If you turned profanity off in your web browser anything in that tag wouldn’t show up. Instead you would have an alternate tag of text that would show up. But if you wanted to see profanity you could just tell your web browser to display that. Or you could have a porn tag and the HTML inside it wouldn’t show up unless you had that option turned on in your browser. Or you could have a tag that told your web browser this material isn’t suitable for people under a certain age. All content should be labeled this way perhaps. However, it would still be the author?s responsibility to make sure their content was labeled properly. However, if they don?t want to be responsible there?s nothing you can really do, they will always find a way around it. But at least my method isn?t total censorship, for the people that want to see it, they would see it. For the people that didn?t, they wouldn?t have to. It?d be sort of like movie ratings for your Internet data.

Or to make it even simpler, put a software on your computer to disable Internet access while you’r not home. Or pull the plug so your kids can’t access internet at all. Or maybe sell your computer or send the kids to relatives :slight_smile:

Why not just lock them up in a room, with no tv, stereo, radio, internet or nothing that could warp their fragile little mind. If you think about it, a kid would go crazy being deprived of things like that before they would go crazy experiencing it.