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.

But I thought we were protecting the children Poulay?

Also, which version of the filtering would you prefer?
a) Blocking all dedicated porn sites (but allowing user content driven sites to remain, so porn is still googleable)
b) Blocking anything which contains keywords related to porn (including MN, sex ed websites, educational resources etc)
c) Blocking all porn totally (by only allowing select websites through the filter and not allowing user driven content websites like facebook, MN, youtube etc)

Which one of those solutions is worth a try?

On top of all this, while we are expecting ISP's to do the parenting block porn, surely the parents will still need to monitor what their kids are doing in case they access other inappropriate material eg. images or videos of graphic violence? Or do we get the ISP's to block that too?

Wasnt MN going to support this, and now they're not, having looked into it? I'm sure I remember a thread a few months ago where one poster explained why it actually wouldnt work (niceguy perhaps??)

I seem to remember that the only way it would realistically work without mis-identifying sites leading to filter leaks or unnecessary blocking) would be for adult sites to have a different tag (like .org) for charities (.sex or something), but that would have to be voluntary and they're not going to play.

I've been drawn into this one a few times re: underage FB use, for example.

I've had discussions with people who sincerely believe they've 'banned' their child from FB, when of course the kid in question has registered an account at a mate's house & is merrily using it via their phone. Or they have 'the account mum knows about' & the one she doesn't.

I teach in a school that firewalls Youtube, amongst other sites. No prob, I can download any video I want to use in class within a few minutes using zamzar...or just ask any of my year 7 tutor group which proxy site they're all using this week. Bless the little monkeys - they're always one step ahead of IT support blocking them.

We were burgled last week. Dh borrowed a work laptop, which restricted him to the work network & half a dozen 'approved' sites. Five minutes later, he'd got round that nonsense, much to the satisfaction of his immediate boss, who'd been grumping for months that he didn't understand how come he kept issuing supposedly protected machines to minions who then unaccountably managed to fill them with games & porn.

Neither of us is particularly skilled in IT; I'd sincerely hope my kids will be smarter when it comes to this sort of thing! It's NOT rocket science. Often it's not much more than a spot of googling.

OP is correct: it's a laudable idea but utterly unworkable.

"I seem to remember that the only way it would realistically work without mis-identifying sites leading to filter leaks or unnecessary blocking) would be for adult sites to have a different tag (like .org) for charities (.sex or something), but that would have to be voluntary and they're not going to play."

Sort of. Two problems with that though.
1 - a lot of porn is accessed via sites with user generated content, and as they aren't used solely for porn it'd be debatable whether they needed to have the porn tag or not
2 - There is a .xxx tag now, but not all porn sites are interested in signing up to it, and of the ones that do they are likely to have a non .xxx tag as well. Plus it's really easy to register a new domain name, so is easily got around. And you would need an international law to enforce porn sites only using the .xxx domain.

Raven I agree, and maybe the only way is to talk to our kids about this stuff rather than trying to convince ourselves we can stop them accessing it if they're really determined to. I guess it comes down to everything being "not all good or all bad" and whilst the internet has been a positive force, it also has negative sides. The fact that it crosses international boundaries makes it more useful, but also more difficult to control.

Empusa yes, sorry, should have added that this suggestion would only work if everyone, incl porn sites agreed to it, and that would still leave the issue of hybrid sites/ user generated etc.

Not convinced, sorry. I live in a country where porn is blocked. I am glad that my kids do not have access to it. If they need sex education, I will talk to them, or buy them a book.

marie All your kids need to do is download a VPN. They'll figure that pretty soon I'm sure.

You see this is the thing that gets me every time, Marie.

'My kids don't have access to '

Honestly, they do. They might not have any interest in whatsoever, but they'll have zero difficulty accessing it if they choose to do so.

The issue is that rightly or wrongly, the reason there is so much porn on the internet is that there is huge demand for it, and the anonymity of the internet is preferable to when one had to walk up to the counter in WHSmiths with Penthouse hidden under one's FT and brazen it out.

The demand will not go away with censorship, so workarounds will be developed, and these workarounds will often be more sophisticated than the blockers.

There is someone on here who designs paywalls for a living- pretty straightforward you'd think, but apparently not. There are loads of ways to get round them which are very hard to prevent.

marie All your kids need to do is download a VPN. They'll figure that pretty soon I'm sure.

VPNs are banned here also.

They can just get someone to send them the download file via a file sharing service or post on a USB. That's how I did it anyway.

I think you're in Dubai. Believe me when i say that if you dont have a VPN in Dubai, you are in the minority.

I shd add, most people in Dubai are not getting them to get around porn restrictions- when I was there they were getting them so they could get Channel 4 on demand/ BBC iplayer and Skype.

I am bloody glad I don't have a VPN. And I am glad that porn is banned here. I still keep an eye on what DS is doing on the computer, but I am grateful for the restrictions.

I just don't see what the big deal is about opting-in.

Marie You're missing my point. If there was an effective way for all commercial porn sites to be neatly classified as such and have an opt in option, I'd be reasonably enthusiastic. However, there is no point in this legislation, which will be expensive and time consuming to pass (thereby taking away parliamentary time from more pressing concerns), because the legislation will be ineffective. I am far from tech savvy (the average 12 yr old could probably tell me a lot) but I can find workarounds quite easily just by asking people or googling my problem.

You are saying there's no porn in Dubai. I'm saying there is, and gave you a really simple way in which anyone can get it if they want (via a VPN). I also pointed out that whilst most people have a VPN (which they downloaded onto their laptop whilst on business/ holiday in another jurisdiction), this doesnt mean they got them so they get see porn- they prob got it so they can Skype their mum without paying international call fees or because they want to watch Panorama, but an unintended consequence is that they also just got around the censor. What I was trying to demonstrate is that censoring the internet rarely works- people can always find ways to get around them, and sometimes do even if they didnt intend to.

Better to accept that this is the case and educate your children, that allow yourself to believe that an opt in package can prevent your children seeing porn.

I support Claire Perry and others. It is long overdue and I can't see why we have waited so long.

OP is assuming that all DCs have responsible, technically proficient parents. They don't. I am frankly surprised that anyone could be using MN to want us to make it easy for our DCs to access porn.
It is much easier for us as adults not to access it by accident but I have no wish to opt in, even without DCs.

exotic I dont want to make it easier, but I dont see the point in wasting parliamentary time to make it maybe 10% harder (but still far far far from impossible). One thing the british have done reasonably well (with the recent exception of the hunting bill) is to avoid passing legislation that is unenforceable, because it makes everyone look like a dick and undermines the law.

It's not the lack of tech savviness of the parents you have to worry about, but the tech savviness of the kids.

The risk is that this legislation gives people a false sense of security ("oh my kids cant access porn because I havent opted in"). But not all porn will get caught in the opt out, or if it does, it will have to be such a broad censor that it will catch sites that even mention sex (eg MN)

I can see that where this legislation may help is by preventing, say, a 7 yr old accidentally stumbling on a porn site. however, where I dont think it will help at all is preventing a curious 12 yr old from finding porn should he so wish to.

I can see that where this legislation may help is by preventing, say, a 7 yr old accidentally stumbling on a porn site.

Surely that is reason enough?

I dunno. depends on the frequency with which this "stumbling" still happens (now that search engines are more sophisticated). I remember my mum (primary school teacher) having issues with a search engine that kept bringing up cross dressing sites for searches about "queens" but this was 10 years ago. I have personally not noted any inappropriate content on searches for years now although it did used to happen back in the old days- "Ask Jeeves"- remember him?

The other thing is that compiling and maintaining a list of banned sites will cost the ISP's money and that cost will get passed onto the user across the board, so basically, everyone pays because some parents CBA to monitor their kid's internet use.

My DS fed in Whitehouse when he was 10, because of Mary Whitehouse masses of porn sites came up. It would save that sort of thing so I am all for it.

The other thing is that compiling and maintaining a list of banned sites will cost the ISP's money and that cost will get passed onto the user across the board, so basically, everyone pays because some parents CBA to monitor their kid's internet use.

That's a bit unfair on the parents, don't you think? And how can you put a price on protecting young children?

I don't care how much it costs us- it is worth every penny and should have been done from day one. DCs are priceless- I hate the thought we can't protect them because it might cost us slightly more. I back Claire Perry every step of the way.

I don't care how much it costs us- it is worth every penny and should have been done from day one. DCs are priceless- I hate the thought we can't protect them because it might cost us slightly more.

Absolutely agree.

Opt in is censorship for a start. Drawing parallels to tv channels isn't logically correct. Porn TV Channels are pay per view and pay a broadcasting licence, websites offer content free and don't.
Opt in is censorship like saying any website that criticises the government is opt in. It's like saying information about gay rights is opt in. It restricts the amount of information available to the general public. That is censorship. It is not like television. If porn can be legally censored then so can anything else.

Better solutions are as Empusa points out, individual software so you can tell exactly what is blocked. The government would also do a lot better if it pumped the resources towards educating Kids about porn in the same way it does about cigarettes and alcohol. I'm a politics student, but when I went through school, we were never told anything about porn.

The Censorship agenda is as NovacknGood points out, being pushed by the religious right who would also be up for banning information about gay people, other religions and anything else they don't like.

I find it interesting why anyone would want this. Porn can already be filtered by many free and effective pieces of software. Having the government forcibly block it has no effect but invite invitations for more and more increasingly valuable things to be opt in and make people feel falsely secure. There are bits of cities that you wouldn't let a child walk around alone, you wouldn't make the bits of those cities fenced off with an age restriction. You'd simply act on your own initiative and teach your child it is dangerous to go there.