BLOG VIEW | HEADLINE VIEW

ALL

GEEK

The Strange, Strange Saga of SmartFilter, BoingBoing, and Adult Babies

WEDNESDAY MARCH 8 2006 4:14 PM

Submitted by seanbonner. Edited By seanbonner.

Wildly popular blog BoingBoing was recently blocked in many places around the world after being classified as a "nudity site" by SmartFilter, which is censorware from a company called Secure Computing.

In their efforts to determine why their site had been mis-classified, the editors at Boingboing did some research, and discovered that SmartFilter has a 99.5% false-positive rate, and a rather uncooperative staff: Though a statistically miniscule portion of BoingBoing's pages contain SmartFilter-described "nudity" (like photos from Abu Graib, or Michelangelo's David) SmartFilter tagged the entire site as contaning nudity, and put the burden on BoingBoing to specially mark the so-called offensive pages.

In response, BoingBoing published a Guide to Defeating Censorware for people who want to get around these wildly innacurate filters, and launched a campaign encouraging other bloggers to post artistic nudes (like images of "David") on their blogs in protest. The New York Times just wrote a piece about this situation including a quote from one of the people at Secure Computing who decides what to block.

In an e-mail message to Xeni Jardin, another of Boing Boing's chiefs, Tomo Foote-Lennox, a director of filtering data for Secure Computing, asked why the bloggers were starting a war. "We discussed several ways that you could organize your site so that I could protect the kids and you could distribute all the information you wanted," Mr. Foote-Lennox wrote.

(Emphasis mine)

Please note that Mr. Foote-Lennox seems to imply that he has to protect the children.

Now, let's do a little research on this man who is so concerned with children, shall we? Googling his name turns up some rather . . . interesting . . . results. There are several messages on the alt.sex.diapers newsgroup (a group for Adult Baby fetishists) that come from someone named Tomo Foote-Lennox. Is it the same guy? (searching for his name on this page seems to make the connection.) In one of these messages he's inviting people to a party and then later posting a review of that party.

I am still in the process of locating the AB's in Minnesota. People are pretty private here, but I contacted several in time to invite them to the party. Several people hoped to drive in from Chicago, but at the last minute, plans fell through. People from as far away as New Jersey and San Francisco were attempting to make it, but didn't pull it off this time. We ended up with a nice, intimate gathering of seven with even gender balance. I hope for more next time.

Pam was new to being a baby, but willing. She chose a bubble sun suit with a bib top from Kitten's wardrobe. After being powdered and diapered, it just took some pigtails to make her look positively adorable.

Clinton brought some really, really thick diapers. Though there was some talk about having an all baby girl party (we had enough cute little baby frocks), Clinton and Erich ended up being baby boys. Since we had Mommy Kathy and Daddy Mike to run the party, I decided it would be more fun to be a baby. Often I am a baby girl, but at the birthday girl's request, I was baby boy this time.

You are following this so far right? So is noted sex educator and author Violet Blue who is currently working on a book about sexual fetishes and this this has her more than a little worried. She writes:

I've lectured on panels with AB practitioners and pro-doms who specialize in AB play. This, however, is a particularly disturbing context for an AB fetishist. This is exactly the problem we're facing; people like Lennox are likey *dangerously* confusing fantasy with reality. The important thing to remember, though is that AB and diaper fetishists are typically not sexualizing babies, though it is a very, VERY extreme type of fetish play that you need to really be articulate about. In my strong opinion, it is not a fetish that someone who works for, or with, children should be doing; how can anyone ever know where fantasy and reality merge in their minds?

Look, I don't think it's anyone's business what someone does to get off in their private lives. But it's a HUGE red flag when the person aggressively "protecting children" is into AB play; I'd way rather have a medical fetishist or a human pony -- something neutral. Or at least a dominatrix, who spends her professional time negotiating the differences between fantasy and reality (often explaining these distinctions to AB's). Now no one can ever know if Lennox knows what it means to be a responsible adult (especially one who can keep a fetish on a low profile). Either way, AB's have a very different way of seeing children and childhood than the rest of us. The key thing with most ABers is that they typically don't sexualize children -- the want to *be* children in the worst way, and it's usually the mommy figure that's sexualized.

She has more on this as well as a great deal more info about ABs in general. Kathryn Cramer has also been looking into Smart Computing and what they are blocking and has had some e-mail exchanges with Mr. Foote-Lennox which she's posted. Violet says the bottom line is "YIKES" and I agree whole heartedly.

22 Comments

PAGE:

1 | 2

Dark_Templar

Auburn, CA

June 2004

MAR 08, 2006 05:50 PM

Sorry you can't see naked people, their spawn of the devil

Wierdos

attn_ho

Brooklyn, NY

February 2004

MAR 08, 2006 06:02 PM

ho
lee
crap.

um...

who diapers the diaperers?

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

MAR 08, 2006 06:15 PM

I really don't agree with them bringing the private fetish of "a director" into this in order to tarnish the whole company. In fact, I really think it's bullshit.
Especially when the same people who are normally all about "respect" and "tolerance" are now dropping inuendo and hints about other adult's fetishes without any basis in fact.

Keith

Oklahoma City, OK

August 2002

MAR 08, 2006 06:22 PM

I mean, really, their entire "logic" here is:

Secure Computing makes SmartFilter, which is designed to prevent children from accessing adult material on the internet. Tomo Foote-Lennox has a diaper fetish, which concerns pretending to be an infant child. Tomo Foote-Lennox also works for Secure Computing, which makes SmartFilter... bad somehow?

Because I'm sure Tomo Foote-Lennox personally decides every site to be included in SmartFilter.

And I'd love to see them hold up the alias someone uses in newsgroups as evidence in court. I, for example, have been known to post as Martha Stewart@living.com in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bootlegs

barking_rhino

San Francisco, CA

October 2004

MAR 08, 2006 06:23 PM

I for one welcome our new adult-baby overlords.

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA

October 2005

MAR 08, 2006 06:39 PM

Fuck you, Violet Blue.

trestria

Knightdale, NC

October 2004

MAR 08, 2006 07:02 PM

Keith said:
I mean, really, their entire "logic" here is:

Secure Computing makes SmartFilter, which is designed to prevent children from accessing adult material on the internet. Tomo Foote-Lennox has a diaper fetish, which concerns pretending to be an infant child. Tomo Foote-Lennox also works for Secure Computing, which makes SmartFilter... bad somehow?

Because I'm sure Tomo Foote-Lennox personally decides every site to be included in SmartFilter.

And I'd love to see them hold up the alias someone uses in newsgroups as evidence in court. I, for example, have been known to post as Martha Stewart@living.com in alt.binaries.sounds.mp3.bootlegs

I couldn't have said it better myself.

whitepuma

Australia

March 2004

MAR 08, 2006 07:58 PM

In their efforts to determine why their site had been mis-classified, the editors at Boingboing did some research, and discovered that SmartFilter has a 99.5% false-positive rate, and a rather uncooperative staff: Though a statistically miniscule portion of BoingBoing's pages contain SmartFilter-described "nudity" (like photos from Abu Graib, or Michelangelo's David) SmartFilter tagged the entire site as contaning nudity, and put the burden on BoingBoing to specially mark the so-called offensive pages.

Please note that Mr. Foote-Lennox seems to imply that he has to protect the children.

I think this is the main points that need to be taken away from the article. In my opinon its not up to big business to look after kids its up the parents and only parents to be held accountable for there kids up bringing.

Hooraydiation

Boston, MA

October 2005

MAR 08, 2006 08:02 PM

whitepuma said:

I would consider making use of a Net Nanny kind of program to prevent kids from accessing adult content on the internet to be responsible parenting. It's not the sort of thing to be completely relied upon, of course, but it's a useful tool.

quagmirething

I'm lost

June 2005

MAR 08, 2006 08:09 PM

Yeah, attack the message, not the messenger.

Classing the statue of David as dangerous to children is a bit odd. For last few thousand years most of our cultures have been fine with that sort of thing. There's been a huge naked guy in the middle of my town for the last 60 plus years, so to speak, without any problem.

Chitin

New York, NY

December 2004

MAR 08, 2006 08:50 PM

I'm more concerned with their sale of their software to totalitarian governments for the restriction of free speech than anything else.

MisterLinguist

Birmingham, AL

October 2005

MAR 08, 2006 08:57 PM

Okay so the guy fucked up in his message. Does that mean he can't be an Infantilist?

seanbonner

NEWSWIRE

Los Angeles, CA

MAR 08, 2006 11:40 PM

Actually the point is that he is in fact the one deciding what gets blocked and what doesn't - there's been countless e-mails with him as sited in the links above. While there's nothing at all wrong with having a fetish, and more power to him, if he has a fetish that is contributing to him deciding what entire countries are allowed to see on the internet that is an issue that should at the very least be noted.

ChrisMidweeker

Great Britain and Northern Ireland

July 2002

MAR 09, 2006 07:07 AM

Um, am I the only one who sees the enormous humour in this? Essentially we have a load of people who are moaning because they can't slack off and read the this site on the internet while they're at work! Then fucking get back to work and read it when you get home, you workshy fops...

Heh. No, seriously, what's the point attacking this guy, or even his company? If he or they weren't there, there'd be someone else doing it, if they make it illegal for American companies to supply filters to countries like Bahrain and China, then they'll get them from Russia or Taiwan or even Japan. There are always going to be companies doing this stuff, it's when they start trying to censor the net in the Western world that we need to worry. And it's happening now...