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 - re Govt "I like the fact they're they're giving it a damned good go."

Oh dear. They're not giving it a damned good go ... they're politicians saying what they think the public want to hear. It appeals to the "think of the children" brigade and it is a sop. There's no substantive information, just a woolly proposal without any real thinking behind it.

Not that long ago a different Minister, under Labour, proposed that every web page should have it's own "certificate" (like the film rating system, PG, 12, 15, etc, whatever they are now).

Unworkable, of course,
a) because a page isn't a static object, on many sites, as new content could move it from PG to XXX and then if site owner deleted some content, back to PG
b) because of the number of web pages
c) because there would never be enough processing power to routinely monitor to see whether a certificate was still valid, as that would need to be done on a regular (hourly? daily? weekly?) basis for every individual page on the net.
d) where would the 'rating' be stored? Would there be a massive index of all the world's web pages (including those hidden behind membership by payment websites?)

That one was seen as a dead end quite quickly by observers. As someone else said, however many technical people point out the flaws, those in favour of this method seem to think it will just take longer and cost more (when in fact it would be doomed to never succeed) and give it the nod as the other options don't get an airing.

I'd hope someone from MNHQ could give us some input about whether the Minister took on board any of the (technical) challenges when he invited discussion back in February? Everything went quiet until just recently of course, when Mrs Perry, and then the government suggested this idea again.

Hopefully it will not happen for the sake of the children and their rights and liberties. Mothers will fight censorship to the death...

The thing its all very well doing what you can for your own family in your own household, but thats where the power stops.

I care about ALL children access to porn underage and I dont want any of them exposed to it.

If a child really wanted to see porn, where there is a will there is a way. They will find a way around parental controls. If we make it as hard as possible to access this by making sites 18+ members only this goes a long way to helping our kids at least not being exposed to images harmful for them as it at least one barrier is put up.

Animation "if I google "PORN" - how come I can??"

If you see any results, then you don't seem to have used the 'safe search' option - see *> here

Animation "if I google "PORN" - how come I can??"

If you see any results, then you don't seem to have used the 'safe search' option - see > here < and set it to strict.

NetworkGuy - you've caught me out there! My laptop has no strict settings.
My issue is WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is it so easy without implementing strict settings.

The responsibility lies 3 ways - there needs to be an 18 censorship, the porn sites need a code of ethics, and computers need settings to block this stuff out unless the consumer wants it.

"I want it to be members only."

I want it to be members only too!

I agree with Starwisher.

The Christian right in this country are becoming far too pervasive with their so called 'independent' studies about sexualisation and porn etc.etc. They claim there is a war against them and they believe they are in some kind fo spiritual battle.

Well no one is burning down your churches in fact we all are subsidising them with your tax free giving. You are responsible for your children. If you do not want them to see porn set up your computer simply and easily. By a Mac. If you have a problem with children running on the beach without clothes on, look away and avert your eyes so you don't have your sinful thoughts. If you dont want sinful thoughts from a naked person on the net then avert your eyes look away and for goodness sake take responsibility for you and you alone. And stop foisting your beliefs onto the general public. We do not live in a theocracy.

"I want it to be members only."

:o:o:o:o:o:o:o

Oooooh what a strange post from Novack.

Very strange- I didn't understand it.

Hmm, very strange.

I do not support blocks. They give a false sense of security.

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

The objection aren't about restricting porn, they are about what else will be restricted by accident (or on purpose).

"^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.^"

I already covered this, you couldn't enforce it. Not unless you made it international law, and even then it'd be almost impossible to police the sites posting porn on non .xxx domains. Bearing in mind about 2.4 million domains are registered per month, a lot would slip through the net.

ExoticFruits
"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."

There are plenty of filtering programs that can be installed on computers.

"Am I being too naive but why can't all computers come with a built in filter and then you simply take it off if you don't want it?"

That makes much more sense, it'd be easier to make adjustments to what people needed access to. I'd totally support that!

FlatPackHamster
"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."

Exactly!

Animation
"And how about we encourage and educate the porn makers and consumers to steady on a bit"

The thing with this it that all the dedicated porn sites have no interest in making porn to easily accessible, they normally have the majority of it behind a paywall. How else would they profit from it? Consumers are a different matter, and probably more to blame for the easily accessible stuff. It's them who are most likely to put porn on user generated content sites.

Starwisher
"I want it to be the same, though the sites could remain free the credit card is a tool to prove you are over 18. I dont want tube sites (i.e the pornographic answer to Youtube). I want people to have to sign up to pornographic sites."

I imagine most porn producers agree with you, they are hardly going to be keen on free porn!

NetworkGuy
"Not that long ago a different Minister, under Labour, proposed that every web page should have it's own "certificate" (like the film rating system, PG, 12, 15, etc, whatever they are now). "

Wow! I hadn't heard that! How daft! You've got to wonder if these people ever try thinking about things?

Arse, italics failure. Hope that's not too hard to read!

Empusa "Italics might have worked" if the ^ was outside the quotes!

Think Beachcomber's comment "God forbid that there ..." was tongue in cheek, as a tiny criticism of anyone who doesn't want a block by default.

Would agree with you, E, that the porn sites have no wish for there to be lots of free porn - it means their profits are hit - but it would seem some of the "tube" sites are showing "teaser" clips to advertise the full, uncut versions, and probably then get a commission from anyone clicking the links to those other paid-membership sites. So there's some of the content out on display for free.

However, there's no way to force any of these sites to comply with what UK law makers want, even if the bulk of "membership" sites already have warning front pages needing someone to lie about being old enough. I criticise those who are willing to let under-13s onto Facebook by letting them lie about their age, because if it's "OK" to do it for one site, why not another ?

NetworkGuy Oh sssh! And to think I can write CSS in my sleep..

"I criticise those who are willing to let under-13s onto Facebook by letting them lie about their age, because if it's "OK" to do it for one site, why not another ?"

That's a fair point.

CSS is something I should spend some time on, though PHP and MySQL are higher up my list right now.

Animation wrote "NetworkGuy - you've caught me out there! My laptop has no strict settings.
My issue is WHY WHY WHY WHY WHY is it so easy without implementing strict settings."

If you went to the link I posted, you'd see the setting is done on the Google search engine itself. It presumably stores a cookie to indicate the user has requested 'strict' on that PC with that browser (so if you have Internet Explorer and Firefox, for example, then you'd need to make 'strict' the setting on both browsers else one would show different results).

Seems like your criticisms could be directed to those who have set up the search engines, that they should implement "safe searching" by default.

However, bear in mind that (like ISPs) they are offering a general service. The Internet grew in an unregulated and somewhat chaotic way, and different search engines will often display different results for the same search terms. The fact some have adapted the search tools to include a "safe search" is recognition that many families may want that option.

Anyway, I see the Guardian has now linked to this thread from their article about the issue...

Good point made there by Jules Hillier of Brook Advisory (site was blocked on mobile phones) when she asked who makes the decision on what is acceptable and what is blocked, because (in her words) "not what telephone companies or internet service providers are for"

Surely the only reason children have mobiles that can access porn is because their parents signed the contract in the first place and didn't point out if was for an under 18 year old. I think all mobiles have filtered data to under 18 year olds if they are told that when you purchase them? Of course that does not stop the children making and sharing happy slapping or sexting videos does it which is the parents responsibility to ensure does not happen

Alternatively if people want a filtered ISP then with the free market, if a company actually offers that service it will either prove popular or of insufficient demand to be profitable.

You wouldn't walk into the British museum and expect them to have everything hidden or the musee, Conde de Chantilly and not expect to see the 3 Graces but you can decide not to take your children there and stick to disneyland.

People need to exercise their responsibilities much more.

If they have a phone they only need a very basic pay as you go anyway.

The people who complain about the net now seem to never have been on it when it was all alt. or talk. usenet groups and finding anything that wasn't bizarre was a real problem.

pasttimes1

It just doesn't work that way. The ISPs aren't "supplying porn". Even if you got a worldwide agreement that all porn sites went on the .xxx domain and all ISPs banned the .xxx domain unless users chose the opt-in, the naked people will leak out.

Let me give you an example. There are sites which allow you to store your files online. A popular course of action is to pirate a heap-o-porn, place it in to an archive with a different name (which means it doesn't appear to be porn) and then link to it through a discussion forum with some thumbnail pictures.

How does the system block that? Do you block all discussion fora? Do you block thumbnail pictures? If you do, you'll close down MN and Ralph's Morris Minor Discussion Group and so on.

I am still waiting for the pro-blockers to outline to me a technical argument which shows how this can be done, because all I'm seeing is people saying "but it must be possible". Sorry, it isn't.

flatpackhamster, that would be outside the capabilities of most younger children.

The way I look at it is this as an analogy... I am arguing for the 'adults' mags to be kept behind the counter in the newsagents, out of the reach of children. You (those who are against Opting-in) are arguing that the adults mags should be on the middle shelf, in full view of kids, and it is up to us as parents to ensure our kids don't look at them. If we don't supervise them every second we are in the newsagents, we are negligent. Your argument is effectively that keeping the mags behind the counter does not protect children, because they can get around that, for example by asking another, older, child to buy them, or stealing them, for example.

I hope that makes sense.

Good article NetworkGuy.

Worse, they argue, it could lull parents into a false sense of security and make them believe they need to take no further action.

This is exactly what I've been trying to say.

"Opt-in", they believe, is the best there is.

No it's NOT! Computer-side parental controls is a much more effective tool not just against porn but all other questionable material out there.

The problem is that most parents have no clue such things even exist let alone that it's free. So instead of imposing big brother blocking, let's educate people. We don't ban smoking or drinking even though our children smoke & drink sometimes. Instead we seek to educate people on the dangers. This is no different. Tell people they do have a choice and let them decide for themselves.