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.

Well imagining the legisation has passed that only sites that comply with new UK rules that porn has to be credit card access only, then easy- you would be blocked.

Countries can block other countries- have you never tried to , say get on website to access and American TV show only to have a message saying "this content is available to viewers in the USA only"?

It would be in your favour to comply because you will miss out on income of course.

Why 18 when the age of consent is 16 in the UK and younger in other european countries? The average average of loosing virginity is well below 18. Indeed Scotland is thinking of reducing the voting age to 16.

You have to be 18 to have a credit card.

But not for a debit card or to pay via sms.

But you're still assuming that legislation = effective blocking.

I have a colleague who's a bit hooked on American TV. He has no difficulty bypassing the 'available in the USA' block - you just use a proxy server.

So as my imaginary German porn king, I decide I'm not that arsed about UK revenue, at least not the legit type. Small proportion of my income & anyway everyone in the UK knows how to get round the 'block' - all you have to do is google.

Still not doing the credit card thing. Still available to any under 18 who knows how to use google.

"I think all porn should be restricted through credit card sign up to ensure the viewer is over 18."

Yes, you've said it more than once, but the counter to that suggestion is a simple one: "How will UK government force xyz.com to add a requirement to use a credit card" if the owners of xyz.com are in USA / Japan / Australia etc ?

There's no single authority restricting what is or is not on the internet. That's why someone used the example of Uzbekistan and your website, because it's a direct parallel with the situation of UK government bringing in a requirement but 99% of the porn sites not being aware of the UK 'law'... so how do you expect those other sites to be forced to impose an "over 18" policy with use of a credit card as the "test" ?

(sorry, can see thread moved on quickly!)

Your average internet user either

1. Wont know how to get about using proxy servers
2. Wont really be bothered and go to one they can find easily.

Its like saying don't bother making it age restrictive to purchase alcohol. I could argue the same line- kids will get fake ids, older people to buy it, some shopkeepers wont care and sell it anyway etc etc

Yes that is true that some kids on the odd occassion will find devious way around under-age drinking (hell knows I did) - but for the majority of the time it works, cuts back on underage drinking but paramountly- send the message that you need to be mature to drink alcohol.

Networkguy

You can restict sites from other countries coming into the UK and vice versa

Yes, you could learn how to mask your IP address, but at least it would make it difficult for kids.

Do you believe our:

Legislation
Technology

Will be forever frozen as they are in 2012 without advancment? I bet there are firms out there who know technology that could implement this for the right price already. Even if not now, then one day.

Have you met any teenagers recently? They network, online, a lot.

How you get to a proxy server is like this:

Someone sends you the link. You click the link.

The situation won't be much different with or without your filter, for a teenager who wants to access porn - although it's likely to make using the internet without bypassing the filter so slow & cumbersome (I know, I've borrowed dh's laptop which is filtered to buggery) that even porn-haters like me will bypass it as a matter of course.

False sense of security = more lax parents not actually downloading more effective filters or monitoring internet use.

"but at least it would make it difficult for kids."

sorry, the proxy server info is widely published and easy to find.

As raven pointed out, it will only need 1 or 2 bright youngsters to tell their friends how to do it, and one will tell his younger brother, and you have lost any "difficulty" (apart from on some mobile phones if the network is attempting to block).

Incidentally, while testing out the laptop with filtering installed, I see it blocks plenty of websites but not some 'new' ones (adult dating) which presumably have never been added to the block list. That's from a firm which presumably depends solely on filtering for its turnover, offers only subscription services (but to businesses, education and families) and dedicates its time to updating its list of domains and whether they are "safe" or not, for family viewing.

The Guardian article (I think) says that the advice from a major firm (5m turnover) which does filtering, is that it won't work reliably on the scale needed for filtering every household's data.

"Have you met any teenagers recently? They network, online, a lot"

Which harks back to my earlier point about how its absurd to expect a good talking too will do the job at stopping kids trying to access porn.

They will try and find a way to look , so the more we try to stop underage children being exposed at the source , then the better it is.

Think of it like taking the pill and wearing a condom to have a good baby- free shag! Its double precaution.

Its not watertight, its just playing it extra safe.

X-posted Networkguy

Yes I agree with what you say which is why my point of people trying to blame the parents for being crap if their kid finds x-rated material, is not a reasoned one nor logical.

But I didn't suggest a good talking to - I said it was worth explaining why porn isn't a good thing.

Your argument basically consists of: We can't persuade this moth not to throw itself at the candle flame, so we'd better put a barrier around the flame. What do you mean the barrier's made of Dairy Milk? My fingers are in my ears! I can't hear you!

I'm not going to think of it as like taking the pill & wearing a condom, because both of those are effective. It's more like sticking the condom over the nearest mop handle & expecting sympathetic magic to 'protect' you.

I'm not entrusting my family's safety online to something as obviously unworkable as this, is the bottom line. You'd have to be a complete idiot to put any faith in it whatsoever.

So I'll continue to keep a bit of an eye on my dc when they're online, make no secret of my views on porn, & accept that at some stage they'll probably be curious & look at something I'd rather they didn't. I can't prevent that, nor can the government, & it'd be naive & lax to assume it was anyone's responsibility other than mine & dh's.

Are you sure Proxy servers is as easy as just clicking a link?

I have looked at an article on it and its seems a lot more complicated than that?

Raven, what a strange turn of character. Shame.

Goodnight.

No idea how complicated it is to set up a proxy server - I'm not at all knowledgeable about computers, I just know a bit about how kids tend to use them - but it's that straightforward for the end user, yes.

Mildly bemused by your last post, but I'm sure it made sense to you at the time!

Goodnight & thanks for the discussion.

You were rude and ranty which seemed out of sync with you other polite and level headed posts.

Calling me an "idiot" and "naive and lax" insuitating Im a bad parent for wanting a extra measure in place is wholly unjustified and adds no credence to your argument

I didn't call you any of those things Starwisher, & I'm sorry if you thought I did.

I said: 'You'd have to be a complete idiot' - a lazy generic 'you', not anyone else on the thread. I should maybe have said 'One would have to be a complete idiot'!

& then I said that it'd be 'naive & lax' of me to expect anyone other than myself & dh to take responsibility for my dc's use of the internet.

I'm certainly not insinuating anything about what sort of parent you might be on the basis of one specific thread online, anymore than I'd take you seriously if you told me I was a good/bad/indifferent parent on the same basis!

I think your 'extra measure' is a total folly that will never get off the blocks, & if it ever did, would be a complete liability, but I certainly don't need to resort to personal insults to argue that.

Sorry it came across as 'rude & ranty', though. I'm working through the night to write a series of assemblies & was dipping in & out of MN - you might just have caught me in curmudgeon mode. Sorry if so.

I said that it'd be 'naive & lax' of me to expect anyone other than myself & dh to take responsibility for my dc's use of the internet.

So, bearing in mind that currently in the UK porn is just a few clicks away, and (according to the techies on here) for every safety measure ever invented, there is a way around it... I am assuming that you supervise every single second of your DC's internet usage? What do you do if you need to go to the loo whilst your DC are on the internet? Do you take all your DC with you? Do you take the computer with you? Or disconnect the electricity supply?

Please answer my question, as I am genuinely interested.

Well, I don't let them anywhere near my nice new laptop.

Ds(7) sometimes uses my old one to skype SIL or BIL.

No, I don't supervise my dc online every second - why on earth would I need to? They're unlikely to have completely unsolicited porn leaping out at them tbh, given that it's never happened to me in umpteen years of using t'internet.

You are extremely naive, ravenAK.

Oddly Marie, that was the word that came to mind when I read your earlier contributions to this thread!

I teach teenagers, my own children are younger. I've a realistic knowledge of how I can keep my own dc away from the nastier bits of the net - & how easily, within a few short years, they'll have the knowledge to run rings round any security I set in place.

ultimately, I'm NOT naive enough to be complacent about imaginary solutions to real problems.

I doubt we'll agree on this, given that you're coming at it from somewhere where they've certainly given the filtering thing as good a try as it's ever going to get. & yet it's common knowledge that it still doesn't actually work.

With respect ravenAK, you don't live here. If you would rather believe the biased opinions of a couple of IT support guys who, incidentally, don't live here either, then that's up to you.

What does surprise me is your 'I'm alright Jack' attitude. As long as your kids are properly supervised (which actually it doesn't sound like they are!) you don't give a monkey's about anybody else's. Given that you are a teacher, I find that utterly despicable.

And again we are back to the other argument about censorship.

The UAE may have a partially effective filter in place. But even assuming I wanted filtered internet I would not like to live in the UAE with its other many restrictions. Internet filtering is the start of the slippery slope which leads to the UK becoming like the UAE which is not a pleasant prospect.