Why you shouldn't support legislation blocking internet porn

[Andrewjh]

Ed Vaizey and Claire Perry and a number of other politicians are trying to force ISPs to block adult content under the pretence of "think of the children", however this will have the opposite effect and could lead to children being exposed to far greater problems.

• Children these days are very tech savvy, especially with regard to the internet. And they need to be - the UK is the largest internet economy in the world. To succeed in the UK in the future, you'll need to know your way around a computer and around the internet from an early age.

• What happens when ISPs block sites is something called the Streisand Effect. Basically by banning it, they generate a huge amount of publicity and support for the sites. The Pirate Bay site last week got blocked in the UK, and it received traffic increases of 12 million users downloading millions of pounds worth of software, music, films and games. Blocking something increases its internet traffic, its exposure, and suddenly 30 times more people know about it than did before.

• What also happens when you block these sites is a huge amount of internet users figure out free and easy ways around the blocks. ISP's don't have the resources to stop this, and in most cases, it is impossible for them to do so. anyway. The Pirate Bay blocks can be got around within 20 seconds, and that is just googling "how do I get around pirate bay blocks".

• Many of the methods employed by users to get around the Pirate Bay blocks so they can illegally download files will also be posted as guides to get around porn blocks. These are accessible through any search engine (google, bing, yahoo).

• The problem is that tech savvy children (it only takes one to find out how from the internet or an older brother, then tell his friends, who tell their friends etc) can easily find out how to get around it. I mean it is as easily as it is to look up something for their homework, if not easier.

• The other more dangerous issue is that whilst once they've gone through those guides, they can easily find links to far darker sites which host horrific viruses, hackers, as well as references to drugs, drink and other adult content. They can also find links to anonymous chatrooms where they could meet anyone without you knowing.

• This is the danger that opt in and blocking poses. They will give you a sense of security when there is none.

• This is also based on the assumption that the block actually blocks all porn. They rarely ever do, and sites posing as sex education sites which don't get blocked get through with adult content. So you'll be under the illusion that the internet is safely blocked when it isn't.

Think of it like this. Imagine the internet is a cliff, and we are having a picnic at the top of the cliff. It's a mostly beautiful view, but if you let your guard down, you could fall off. You wouldn't let your child play near the edge. Installing the opt in system is like putting a strong looking but flimsy fence in place. You could be fooled in to thinking it was safe but left to their own devices your child, could easily fall through. We can't put a brick wall there otherwise it spoils the natural beauty of the view (the educational benefits of the internet).

So what to do? Firstly don't support legislation calling for blocks. It doesn't work, its been shown not to work in the past as well as more recently. Children can easily find a way around it, and in doing so find a far darker side of the internet.

Secondly: If you are concerned, use censoring software on your computer, but don't be content with just that. Use Browser tracking software like this - www.any-activity-monitor.com/free-browser-history-recorder.html so you can accurate tell what your child has been viewing, even if they delete it off the browser. There are also many simple, free and easy tutorials written online on how to better protect your computer and your child.

Thirdly: Take some time to talk to your child about internet use. It can be an amazing tool but it can be dangerous. They need to know that right and wrong, safe and risky, they all still apply online (something easy to forget I assure you). They'll avoid things if they know its wrong. They will be curious about things if its only blocked.

Lastly, don't be fooled by people using the "think of the children" line. It's an alarmist appeal to emotion. There is very little danger so long as you use your common sense and only allow a child a sensible amount of time on the internet. As a politics student, I have to question whether this has been saved up till now to gain support for the government after an miserable turn in recent polls.

Thanks very much for reading, I hope you'll consider your position.

Animation. I suspect the vast majority of parents such as yourself will draw the same conclusion as you have. And I can totally understand why. You read the newspaper, it says government is planning to block porn to make kids safer and on the surface who can be against it.

How the Internet works isn't your area of expertise. Just in the same way as you probably (like me) don't have a clue how your car works. You just use it. Fair enough. But if I have a problem with my car, I take it to an expert and listen to what he says.

And yes, what a nice government. Caring enough to make our kids safer. That's exactly what they want you to think. Unfortunately the plans don't work. But your average parent won't understand that.

If the government REALLY cared about children's online safety they'd not only ask for ISP blocks (which is what is proposed) but they'd be talking to computer firms about ensuring computers arrive with parental filters pre-installed. They'd be mounting an education campaign like we do for smoking, crossing the road, drink driving about the dangers of not supervising your kids. They'd be heavily promoting the free parental filters already available. Perhaps asking schools to distribute them and/or organising lessons for parents on how to install & configure them.

Where are all those actions? Are they even proposed? No. Nothing, nada, zip. Just a quick win to grab a headline.

All this is, is a cynical ploy to pull the wool over the minds of parents. Fool them into thinking the government cares whilst taking advantage of the fact you don't really understand. Bugger the fact that virtually all IT people are united in saying it won't work and is a bad idea. Naturally we're all just nerds who want our porn fix.

God forbid that there should be any sort of restriction on porn.

What is the world coming to!

Our freedom to have filmed sexualised and racist violence against women all over the internet is under threat. It is the thin end of the wedge I tell you...

Oh and just to add, let's take an earlier poster's example where she lives in a country which does have state controlled blocks. They not only block porn but a wide range of topics which the government have deemed 'inappropriate'.

Surely the kids are safe yes? Well even in that country, all kids need to do is go to thepiratebay.se/ and type in what they want. xxx? porn? Just type it, click on what you want and wait for it to appear.

Yes....that was hard wasn't it?

The internet will probably break and the world ground to a halt if porn isn't all over the shop.

Nobody will be able to access sex education or look at nudes by Picasso on the internet dontcha know.

I don't care how they do it but it should be possible in 21st century to have a system where a DC can't access porn with the greatest of ease and in complete secrecy.

Niceguy - wow, how have you got so cynical about the governments motives here!

Could those in favour of state control of the internet explain to me how you're going to block porn, please? ISTM that several of those arguing against the blocking are doing so from a technical standpoint. As a full-time geek I agree with them. Blocking porn is technologically impossible without disconnecting the UK from the rest of the internet.

But those in favour of state control need to outline to those of us what technology they think can be used to achieve this, because everyone in favour of state control has used the morality argument and hasn't explained how it could be done.

exoticfruits - it is possible to have system where DCs are somewhat more protected from porn, although it would need to be a package of measures and would not be 100% effective. Unfortunately, the government's proposals aren't the system you are looking for.

Does anyone else remember the raging success known as the Dangerous Dogs Act - a piece of legislation rushed through as a knee-jerk response to several widely publicised attacks on children. With hindsight it is clear that children and adults are still suffering horrific attacks, many dogs have been put down (without having attacked anybody) and the general feeling is that the Act has been a bit of a disaster and was a wrongly thought out sop to public opinion. So no, I don't think niceguy2 is being overly cynical.

Niceguy and piprabbit - are you both saying then that the government is too currupt and just doesn't really care about children at all, and that's the reason we shouldn't support their legislation blocking kids viewing porn?

Where did I say they were corrupt and don't care about children at all, what a ridiculous inference.

Just because they are the Government doesn't meant they are immune from making ill-judged, hasty decisions.

I will concede that it is difficult but I still don't think people should wash their hands of it and say it can't be done so no point in trying. I bet if there was a lot of money involved someone would get a solution.

Ok, here is a really radical idea.

Porn producers are legally obliged to sign up to a xxx register. Only users who have opted in can access material on this register.

Any porn that is published on the internet in the normal fashion (ie not on the opt in register) will be considered illegal and deleted from the open access public domain.

It is possible exotic. It's possible right this second. Go to K9 Internet protection, download the software and install it on your own PC. Inside of 10 minutes your PC will be pretty well protected and you can filter categories to your hearts content. And it's FREE!

Or like me just put the computer in a communal area of the house. Job done! This helps not just with porn but ensuring my DD doesn't spend too long on Facebook or gets cyberbullied etc.

Beachcomber, my opinion is nothing to do with my freedom to use porn and implying as such is just a very ignorant statement based upon your own personal prejudices. It's merely pointing out that the current proposals won't work and worse still will actually put children at risk because their parents will naively assume they are protected.

I'm not even arguing we need something 100% effective. Few things in life are. But surely if we are serious about protecting children from porn then there needs to be a range of measures and the first & foremost thing is parental supervision. Without that, no amount of government legislation will help.

Piprabbit - because you said Niceguy wasn't being overly cynical about the governments motives...I was assuming you agreed with his opinion.

But why should I have to supervise my children to make sure they don't stumble across violent sexualised images in a public space? (I do of course do this, as I have no other choice currently, as few people seem to think that graphic representations of racism and misogyny are an issue worth bothering about).

It should be the porn hounds responsibility to refrain from exposing my children to such material.

They wouldn't be allowed to show their films in the street or have images from them up on billboards, so why are these people being allowed to run free all over the internet?

What is that about?

I'm not saying the govt are corrupt. Just their motives are not as altruistic and certainly not based on sound technical advice. It's a quick headline grabber to win votes which no voter should be overly surprised about.

Beachcomber. And how do we legally oblige a porn company in the US setting up? And given the might of the governments in the world havent managed to stop Piratebay since 2003 despite changes to Swedish law (where the site is) I don't think it's really as simple as that.

In fact, Harriet Harman famously in 2009 declared war on a website which reviews prostitutes. She declared to thunderous applause that she'd get the site closed. The result? Well firstly Arnie (governor of California) told her to sod off. Something to do with freedom of speech.......and then the website in question found themselves more popular than ever thanks to the free publicity boost.

I do broadly agree - that governments rarely act from pure and shining motives, the picture is always more complex and muddy than they would like us to think. That doesn't make them corrupt or uncaring - just that they are politically motivated.

This notion that There Is Nothing To Be Done and we must all put up with porn all over the internet is ridiculous.

Do people have the same attitude to porn that involves children or images of racial violence?

Create a register for the porn hounds (professionals and amateurs), either you respect the rules and sign up or you get kicked off the net.

But why should I have to supervise my children to make sure they don't stumble across violent sexualised images in a public space?

Well for the same reason as I watch my young kids when they cross the road despite the fact that running my child over should be illegal. Because shit happens and you can pass all the laws you like but it will continue to happen.

The correct response is to supervise our kids when they are too young whilst teaching them how to deal with it when they are old enough.

The wrong response is to relax your guard because there's a law which says it's illegal. Especially when it doesn't work!

"I'm not saying the govt are corrupt. Just their motives are not as altruistic and certainly not based on sound technical advice. It's a quick headline grabber to win votes which no voter should be overly surprised about."

Sure there might be some secondary gain or extra vote or two - but so what.

If they get the job done and tackle this problem, (however they chose to do it) - I'm happy, and I support them.

Nothing trumps internet freedom and freedom of expression. It is at the core of how we want England to be. They start these restrictions with some populist reason such as "mothers against porn" (although in fact many are very much in favour of porn anyway).

Then they use the law to bring in other limitations and soon we get to a position as in Iran or China where all kinds of issues are blockedon-line. It is a thin end of a wedge.

Look at what freedoms we have lost under the pretext of prevention of terrorism... extradition of businesspeople to the US under laws supposedly to stop terrorists.

This issue is not about parents who choose not to control their chidlren or are too lazy to do so having the nanny state do it for them.

It is a thin end of a wedge which I hope most mumsnetters would oppose.

" First they came for the communists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a communist.

Then they came for the trade unionists,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a trade unionist.

Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a Jew.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

"

No one is saying There Is Nothing To Be Done.

Please don't think that opposition to this ill-thought out proposal means people think nothing should be done.

I'm all in favour of restricting access to porn for DCs, of course.

However this proposal isn't effective, and will harm society overall.

Yes let's do something to restrict DCs access to porn, but not this! It won't work!

Let's try to find a way that actually will work, without restricting access to legitimate sites and the free flow of knowledge. It won't be straightforward, because this isn't a simple problem. Part of the appeal of this proposal I think is that they are describing it in simple terms - they say they'll just switch off access to it. But that's a lie, it's not a simple problem at all!

I have no interest in porn but I am wholly against this proposal!

So you don't care what they do, or if their actions are effective, so long as they are seen to be doing something (anything)?

Would it not be better if they amended their proposals to include some of the other actions which would also help protect children? Or should we just accept that their plans are flawed and not bother to ask them to come up with a better approach?

Xenia I'm pleasantly surprised. Our politics are usually poles apart!

But that was post was spot on, I agree absolutely!!

What has road safety got to do with this?

Do you think hardcore sex films should be available in standard cinemas with billboards advertising the films and it should then be up to me to make sure my kids don't walk down the streets such cinemas are on?