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.

Excellent post, Starwisher.

You do realise blocking porn will do nothing to protect your children from the dangers of grooming don't you??? Your desire to be able to abrogate your parental responsibility to the state seems a little naive.

Children who are far too young to view porn are not allowed secrets in my book and nor was I taught to keep secrets from my parents when I was a child.

No-one is suggesting that parents abrogate their responsibilities. Parents should work in partnership with the state to protect not only their own children, but all children.

You didnt keep secrets from your parents did you....

YET YOU WERE BOASTING EARLIER ABOUT LOOKING AT USA SITES BEHIND THEIR BACKS!

For THREE months might I add!

No I said as a 12 year old I was calling bulletin boards which are electronic notice boards back in the day with no idea that a phone bill cost money especially to America. I was naive not to know that the numbers were long because they were international. They knew every meal time what i was doing but not that I was telephoning the USA for hours at a time. One page of 40 character across text took minutes to receive. Do you know just how slow 9600 baud is???

Why do you feel the need to twist and turn every phrase I use Starwisher. I feel you seem to have a personal agenda against me just because I don't adhere to your point of view?

Starwisher you are really missing the point here.

I don't think this will protect our DCs.

I don't think the government are serious about protecting DCs either. If they were, they'd be listening to the experts and putting together a much more comprehensive, workable plan. Some great alternative suggestions from niceguy on this, upthread.

Personal agenda?

Thats paranoid talk. However it also very rich considering you have the audacity to talk about that when:

Your first post was about Christians looking at naked children on the beach, which a few people commented was odd, but it was ignored other than that.

But more importantly you use maries country she lives in as tool to attack her personally. Bad form.

Whats "this" threeleft?

Been lurking with interest but felt I had to comment on the child's rights aspect.

As adults we surely have rights and responsibilities. I am sure children can behave responsibly, but always with the caveat that they are children therefore surely should not expect complete a significant amount of privacy to exercise their judgement until they are well into their teens.

I object to the suggestion that adults should have their right to enjoy a relatively uncensored internet because of children's rights to freedom.

Would the same posters who support this (I believe there was an easier thread on public spaces) allow their pre-teens unsupervised access to a big city centre? To satellite or digital television? (Babestation and their ilk are not just post-watershed). To a public library?

Yet somehow the internet is should be child friendly at the expense* of adults when in every other space parents are expected to set boundaries, educate and supervise.

• I say expense but I should actually say annoyance because these measures will not work. Stuff will get through that shouldn't & meanwhile because it's a blunt instrument perfectly legitimate sites will end up blocked.

People should spend some time researching effects of porn on children. Its horrific.

Then come back and tell us if you still adults rights to freely available porn (not a ban) trumps our childrens rights not to suffer ill effects.

No I said the censorship debate is being driven by the christian zealots which I showed you with the Claire Perry study being sponsored by Premier Media which is a christian broadcasting organisation.
i asked you where do you draw the line with nudity and you never ever answered. I used the example that some people are offended if children run around nude at the beach or a communal pool especially if you have ever visited the US you may know this already. In spain no one bats an eyelid what children are wearing except lots of sun cream usually. But you refuse to answer that.

Are you coming at this with a religious anti-porn viewpoint?

"All DCs should be protected from porn- end of"

I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with that.

The question comes down to how.

Now, the united techie view is that the current Government proposals simply do not offer protection.

There are lists of types of protection that are vastly more effective and, importantly, available now.

So the simple question is: do I want my DCs protected now in the best technical ways possible and will I step up to the mark in age-appropriate supervision and education? If so, follow the tech advice earlier in the thread. It's all there.

What is currently proposed is, most importantly, less effective than other solutions, and is more expensive, is not yet available and carries a high likelihood of unintended side effects.

(Though those who like the "holey condom" approach can already have a version of this too, via TalkTalk - though I note not a single opt-in poster, despite the question being posed earlier up the thread, has confirmed they use the service).

Novack go back and read your first post on here. It was very odd. It made no sense.

it makes sense it was sarcasm

Parents actually having to take responsibility for parenting when they normally turn it over to the nanny state is too much to ask for.

Please stop deflecting and just answer my question. I have happily answered all yours for the last few days.

What is your question?

1. I asked you where do you draw the line with nudity and you never ever answered. I used the example that some people are offended if children run around nude at the beach or a communal pool especially if you have ever visited the US you may know this already. In spain no one bats an eyelid what children are wearing except lots of sun cream usually. But you refuse to answer that.Are you coming at this with a religious anti-porn viewpoint?

1. Are you coming at this with a religious anti-porn viewpoint?

I have answered. Its not nudity thats an issue, its the act.

No, im coming this at a I dont want children to be damaged POV.

Anymore questions cos i reallllly need to get on with RL now....

Starwisher but the thing is I am not talking about an adult's right to view porn. I'm talking about an adults right not to have their legitimate use of the Internet curtailed by a clunky, heavy handed solution that will prevent easy access to legitimate content.

As others have commented upthread, the proposed solution would either be flimsy (offering little in the way of real safeguards) or would have to be very heavy handed and thus result in lots of false positives.

This has been talked to death Queen. See my answers above.

Anyway, toodle pip x

by "this", starwisher, I meant "a much more comprehensive, workable plan". Surely that was obvious from the post?

You would do well to actually read posts and have a think about what they mean before posting. You seem to have a really hard time grasping why people would have an objection to the current government proposals.

"People should spend some time researching effects of porn on children. Its horrific."

This is totally irrelevant, because no one is arguing that DCs should have access to porn!

Why is that so hard to understand?

What people are saying is:

1. that the current government proposals don't adequately address the problem

1. the proposals will have lots of unintended consequences (for example censoring a whole load of valuable knowledge, which is nothing to do with porn).

1. that if what you want to do is limit DCs access to porn then there are much better ways to go about it.

1. The problem isn't as simple as banning porn from the internet - as it's not easy to do, in reality (whether you want to or not) and a more considered and complex solution is needed.

1. The government should listen to the experts who are saying that their proposals are unworkable

1. The government don't really care about limiting access to porn for DCs (if they did they'd be listening to the experts and trying a bit harder!). What they want to do is grab headlines and pull the wool over gullible people's eyes; people who like the simplicity of the idea, and will think the government is doing something about it when in fact they're really not trying that hard.

Can you understand that? Please tell me you've at least tried!

Networkguy you asked me this upthread; "Oh please, dear IT expert, Beachcomber, enlighten me on how my internet access is already controlled?"

Don't patronise me and don't call me dear.

I used to work for Google - there are people employed to check and update the referencing system in order to ensure that the results of a search term are relevant and in a logical order. The job also entails flagging illegal images and porn that comes up in a non porn search.

What you can see on the internet is controlled by the owners of the search engines. I flagged up pages all the time that were then closed down because they contained illegal content. Other pages would have their position in the search results adjusted due to pornographic content in a non porn search.

If there weren't people doing this work pretty much every search term you put in would come up with pages of porn results. A lot of porn pages have a hidden frame page with keyword stuffing (which google doesn't allow) - pages like these would be considered spam and against google's rules, they would be closed down too. Yahoo, Bing, etc have similar systems.

Oh and we had a very clear definition of what is considered porn - nobody got confused and flagged images of people frolicking on beaches or women breastfeeding, as porn.

Oh holy crap! 10 pages to read?!

Shall post this and then go back and read it all..

The way I see it, an ISP filter could actually potentially expose more children to the unsavoury side of the internet.

Think of it this way, as it currently stands there are essentially two groups of parents. The ones who do care what their children view online (and take steps to guard them), and the parents who don't (and who do nothing).

Put the ISP filter in place and there'll be no change to the parents who don't care (obviously), but with the parents who do care will be split into two groups.

One group will still use their own filters and keep an eye on their kids, the other group will (possibly through lack of knowledge) assume the ISP filter is the whole solution and so will not bother with additional filters/watching what their kids access.

So, you'd end up with more kids having access to dodgy content. Because even with the ISP filter in place, it cannot block all porn, and it also will not block the other dodgy content online. (Eg. violence, racism, etc)