MP calls on ISPs to police internet 'smut'

[NetworkGuy]

Link to BBC News story

Devizes MP Claire Perry has proposed that all UK-based ISPs should implement an opt-in age verification system to gain access to internet porn.

Views anyone ?

There is a lot of scaremongering, which makes it really difficult to explain to people what their best course of action is.

Tbh, it is fairly easy to avoid porn online. For the most part the people supplying it have no interest in children seeing it (no bank accounts) And there are different methods out there to lower the chances of seeing it further. Programs that block certain websites etc.

I didn't do everything my parents told me, no. But with disincentives in place it does limit (in most cases) what actually gets done.

Another silly MP who doesn't understand how the internet works.

The only way to block 'bad stuff' on the internet is to use whitelist software, and even then a smart enough teenager can get around that without too much hassle.

"can I ask are you both parents?"

"Can I also ask did you always do everything your parents said"

Do the answers to either question suddenly mean that a technically ignorant, technically unworkable, massively expensive, easily fooled system is somehow OK?

Either this is a bad idea or it's not.

And believe me it's a bad idea, it's a very bad idea, being put forward by very bad people and championed by an MP who's either too witless or too selfish to care that it would put our children in more danger while she seeks to boost her own career at Westminster.

"some assistance would be welcome"

Exactly, genuine assistance, something that will really help protect people online.

This pathetic and ignorant proposal will not do that, it will put children more at risk as people will think the problem has been solved. It won't have been. We'll still need to educate our children, still need to protect our own computers and all the while we'll be paying a hefty fee on top of our existing broadband charges for a system that does nothing.

I accept that it's difficult to keep up, I work in this field so I know about it through that, and I can see that it's tempting to leap upon something that some, as it turns out, very silly people are saying will provide the fix.

No amount of wanting to do something, no amount of wanting to protect our children, no amount of wanting them to be safe will make this idea a good one.

And the more that the people behind this learn that they can abuse our desire to keep our children safe to achieve their own somewhat twisted objectives the more they will try and push this forward.

This proposal only delays the day when we need to take the steps to correctly educate parents and children and only that will genuinely help protect people online.

"This pathetic and ignorant proposal will not do that, it will put children more at risk as people will think the problem has been solved. It won't have been. "

That's a point. There are enough parents already that are allowing their children access to inappropriate media (18+ movies and games, FB etc). By putting the onus on ISP's to deal with it (which, even if they wanted this job, isn't possible), it just means that more parents will believe they don't need to keep track of their children's internet activity. And it means more hysteria when, shock surprise, children still get access to "smut".

If this gets pushed through then I wouldn't blame ISP's for refusing to take on customers with children, just to save themselves from dealing with claims that they allowed poor little children to go on porn sites.

It's worth remembering that the extremists who Claire Perry has signed up with to further her career at the cost of endangering our children have bigger aims than just porn.

In the end they want vast swathes of the internet classified as being 18+ and inaccessible unless you request permission to get at it. And when you can get at it they somehow want it labelled with "cigarette style health warning". Yes that is technically complete nonsense once again, but these people are not operating from any sort of real world position.

And their definition of 18+ is going to be far away from what most people think it might be, sex education information and Steven Seagal are going to be high on their list of what is "unsafe".

So if this "Porn" firewall fails, which it will, then they'll respond saying that clearly it needs to be expanded, expanded to include where they really think the internet should be.

These are people who, in the end, see the Chinese regime's attempted censorship of the internet as actually being laudable where as most of the world sees it as one of the grossest assaults on the free spread of information in the world.

Claire Perry MP wants to "be part of Safermedia?s dream for the media and society", it gets her Ministerial attention and that will have a positive effect on her job prospects.

SafeMedia believe that "arguments about freedom of speech and ?artistic expression?" are "outdated". No they're not, especially when you want to give up those things for absolutely no benefit and at the cost of harming our children's safety and empowering a group who would tell any homosexual child of mine that they are "deviant".

Please go and read the founders of SaferMedia's closing presentation to the conference that Claire Perry sat through before signing up to this. You can get to it here:
docs-eu.livesiteadmin.com/66aa7366-ec55-4e18-b6e2-67158fc2dd69/safer-media-presentation-97-2003.ppt

BadgersPaws, what is your link in this field, what is your area of expertise?

I still don't understand why the principle in itself of asking for the ability to control what comes into my home is such a bad idea.

In principle. Not if it is practicable (and I don't buy the 'impossible' argument), but in principle. Suppose it were possible, would you welcome it?

As for impossible, if so then how come the CEO of TalkTalk is behind the idea?

And as for educating parents, sure that argument still remains. We need still reminding about how no system is perfect, either current or future (except pulling the plug). We still need to recognize that the greatest influence comes from the home.

The ISP level filter would be another tool. For some the most easily manageable. What objection is there to the principle of that?

As, probably a poor, analogy - it is not yet possible to eradicate malaria, but in principle it is, by most, considered a good aim and worth pressing ahead with.

Oh yes, and this 'in principle' question applies to a system that is voluntary, giving us the control to turn on and off.

"BadgersPaws, what is your link in this field, what is your area of expertise?"

I work in the technical side of IT, understand how the internet works, understand network security and have been following the examples of China and Australia's attempts at ISP level filtering for some time.

"I still don't understand why the principle in itself of asking for the ability to control what comes into my home is such a bad idea"

Because:
a) It won't work, the filters will still allow a lot of inappropriate material through.
b) Due to 'a' you will still have to maintain security in your own home.
c) The filters will incorrectly block many legitimate web sites by "accident".
d) The filters will be expensive and those costs will be passed on to home users perhaps pricing people off of the internet.
e) Parents will not be aware of 'a' and will think, incorrectly, that internet security is now dealt with, 'b' will therefore be further from their minds and their children will be in harms way.

The key point is probably 'b', even with the filters in place you will have to maintain your own protection at home, you will not be able to trust the filters.

And if you have to maintain protection at home then why bother funding the creation of an unnecessary filter? People like me will benefit from the cash flooding in our direction but it will be utterly pointless. Why not just spend the money on actually educating people about what their going to have to do anyway?

"I don't buy the 'impossible' argumen"

Go and look at the Chinese example, this is an example that is actually being put forward by the proposers of this scheme as showing how censorship of the internet can be managed.

The Chinese have spent far more time and effort than we could ever afford trying to control the internet at the highest of levels. And it doesn't work. The only way they can even attempt to cope is by blocking vast swathes of the internet that generates content quicker than they can keep up with, so no blogging sites or Wikipedia for example. And even then they've had to push for compulsory software to be installed at the PC level which is an admission that top level filtering is a disaster waiting to happen. The internet was built to survive a nuclear way blowing away vast chunks of it's infrastructure, it can deal with a few religious/political fundamentalists trying to block bits of it.

And that's the Chinese example, which is probably the most successful, and that's a very relative term when it comes to censoring the internet.

The Australian example has been even less successful and is surely closer to what we as a democracy with limited funding and a healthy respect for human rights would be able to achieve.

Filters won't work and won't remove the need for parents to be made more aware of how to protect their children. So why not focus time and money on that latter point and do something that will make a difference rather than just putting endless amounts of cash into the IT industries pocket?

Rockhound, I work in IT too. In fact directly in the networking area.

If you look at the actual details of what TalkTalk propose, anyone with a modicum of knowledge would realise there are so many holes in it that it resembles a sieve.

Naturally they gloss over these details in favour of a mix of parental concern and ignorance to sell this for them.

So for example their scheme only blocks direct access using a browser. Switch to another tool like Frostwire, Bittorrent, FTP, MIRC & many other methods and their scheme simply doesn't work. Ah but browsers are what kids know right? Erm...no. When they closed Limewire, it was my teenage daughter who told ME what the workaround was.

You can of course block up to 9 sites yourself. That's right....a whole 9 sites! Heaven help you if your teenager finds a tenth.

TalkTalk are a business and are simply jumping on the bandwagon whilst burying the detail in the smallprint where most parents won't read.

Given that there are free tools already available & you accept that the need for parental education would remain I have to ask what is wrong with the principle that concerned parents use existing tools which are more effective rather than reinventing the wheel and ending up with it being square?