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

Im so glad you agree with me We should all be pushing for better age verification online. This would also help protect our children in other areas such entering chatrooms were they could be groomed.

It is such an important issue. There is no point anyone simply stating the technology is not there- well that is the point, it should be on the agenda. The internet and offline are an essential part of our daily life now.

If we care enough about our children to protect them offline with age verification then common sense demands we offer them the same protection online.

Even those suspicious of OP, who IMO are using the tactic of "playing the player not the ball", might like to look at the three earlier MN threads linked in the third post of this thread. You will see the same unity of opinion, from a range of MNetters, most o whom are known posters with long histories.

The wish for a 'magic bullet" I understandable, but if you want to protect your children, it is right now necessary to accept that no such thing exists, and no such thing is on the horizon. This is not/not defeatism, it is the backdrop to what can and should be done now.

What can be done now is: use device based filtering softer (better, as explained at length above than ISP based ineffective/holey proposed stuff), keep devices in communal areas. Educate, educate, educate your DCS.

"It is such an important issue. There is no point anyone simply stating the technology is not there- well that is the point, it should be on the agenda. The internet and offline are an essential part of our daily life now."

Too important!

Starwisher - you have been THE voice of reason on this thread. Thank God for people like you.

You are a Star!

There is also an intersting article from Harvard about kba cyber.law.harvard.edu/sites/cyber.law.harvard.edu/files/IDology_ISTTFTAB_submission.pdf

There are more ideas and technology being developed all the time, it is not something anyone can write off simply as the solution is not currently available

I think "inventions I would like to see in the future" might be better as a spin off thread.

This one was started to discuss why a current proposal is wrong, and contains so much informative technical information why. There is also good advice on making the best of current technology to provide the best available protection to your children, plus constant reminders about the basics of communal areas, age-appropriate supervision and education. It would be a great shame if those points were lost or diluted.

Thank you Animation :)

We all know that technology is in a constant state of innovation. It's an exceptionally basic characteristic.

That does not mean that a bad policy of ISP-based filtering shoal be rolled out with force of law. Indeed the contrary: perhaps politicians need to be told it will always be wrong to legislate for ant technological solution to anything, especially stuff which doesn't do what it says it does, as it will be outdated in such a short time, and Parliament has other, rather more pressing priorities.

Edith. With all the constant reminders I think you can be confident any readers of this thread have not missed them or they have somehow got lost

Good! This is far too important to go off-topic.

Anyone who comes to this thread at any point because of the title needs to be aware that the sole reason, which is propounded by all the techie experts, is that the proposed ISP-block does not work, there are current technological options which offer better protection, and there are important parenting steps which will help foster safe use.

Education, as with so much, is the key thing. For once teens or young adults, DCs need to have internalized standards, towards both personal security and ethic standards.

Well Edith, I think you have just about wrapped the thread up then.

That si by no means the sole reason to stop this censorship. The thread gives a huge lot of other reasons. I have write a lot about our children's rights, freeomd of the individual and the importance of liberty. This trumps the "right2 of a lazy parent to ignore their own job and let their child watch what they prefer it not to watch, whether that be porn, women's rights videos, pro or anti hunting stuff. We are a free country and must remain so. Mothers are at the forefront of this and will fight to ensure our freedoms are not removed.

Xenia, surely it is reasonable and even imperative for parents to put some limits on children's activities. How does that erode your freedom?

Xenia only cares about her self and her children, not about anybody else in the world.
So she does not want internet porn blocked because she wants access to it so she can watch it if she wants,and may or may not control her kids watching it.

The current proposals which are in the news are not about a porn block as that is not what those measure provides

Xenia is right to point out that parents can, right now, provide far more effective protection for their children than that which would arise from the proposed measures, by using alternatives that are already freely available.

Legislating for something which is both technically flawed and also inferior to other measures already available is neither necessary nor desirable.

Dione wrote "To me, the refusal of an Opt In is once again government protection of Big Business."

Sorry, you've lost me. You suggested that the upsurge in visitors to Pirate Bay was individuals protesting about Government being supportive of Big Business (film and music industries) but how does the sentence above relate?

Are you still meaning film and music industries, or the public simply protesting against a proposition from Government, or something else ?

I thoroughly object to this I cannot bear this increasing govt surveillance/mollycoddling and tbh its a slippery slope. I can block things I don't want myself and will continue to do so.

Starwisher - 23:24:42 - "There will be bidders who do have the technical know-how and solution finding skills."

I've no doubt there would be a half dozen big firms (EDS spring to mind as one which gets involved in tendering for Government IT projects), but however many times such a 'blocking' project is carried out, there will be clever(er) programmers (geeks) who will break it just for the fun of the challenge.

As has been proved time and again, Government IT projects are overdue, over priced, and may meet the specification, but specifications from the suits at Whitehall are rarely flexible enough to cope with the ever-changing demands of end users.

If they do make the spec flexible enough, then blocking porn wouldn't be the only thing it could do, and on a national basis it would be like opening the way for a thought police where any site could be blocked, though originally welcomed as a 'beneficial' plan.

"I dont think my propsol to enforce websites to put measures into place to prevent under 18s is exactly the wacky idea you seem to believe. When I was a teenager this is what you had to do to access porn. It already used to be like this you know once upon a time."

The internet has changed since then.

The video sites which are not behind paywalls now are the user content driven ones. They never used to exist. No one had the connection speeds to watch streaming media, webspace was also more expensive so fewer sites hosted videos and those that did needed more than ad revenue to keep running. This is why they were behind paywalls by default.

There were obviously plenty of websites which weren't behind paywalls which hosted photos though.

So at no point have all porn sites been behind porn sites.

As Edith W says it is a parent's job to determine their own way to bring up their children. We want to avoid a nanny state.

Also those of us against this proposal (whch is dead in the water anyway so the thread is a bit pointless) are much more altrustic than those in favour of it. We are guarding fundamental issues of human freedom which protect our children and ensure they live in a country where they retain rights, rather than some kind of notionally free state where the Government tells you how to bring up a child.

"So at no point have all porn sites been behind porn sites."

Behind paywalls even.

God, can you tell I've had no sleep?!

What about vulnerable children, the ones that are not parented well.
You dont care at all what happens to them, so dont see the need for Government to step in and "protect" them.

You dont want vulnerable children protected do you?

The ISP filter wont protect vulnerable children either. Don't you want to protect vulnerable children?

amillionyears, as the proposal will do nothing about violent and gory images on the Internet you don't want vulnerable children protected either, do you?

Or maybe we could move this debate on from the immature and unworthy "If you don't agree with this then you must want children to be abused!!!!" type of discourse and instead look at this more rationally.

Children of parents who don't parent well won't be protected by this proposal because the parents will simply opt out of any filtering the minute they realise they can't get to the websites they want to. And, as this proposal is more than a bit vague about its definition of what pornography is, those websites the parents want to get to may be no more dubious than The Sun or FHM. But because ISP-level filtering is, by necessity, very inflexible there will be no capability to say "The parents can get to FHM.com, the kids can't".

This measure does not offer worthwhile protection to any child because of the technical flaws. This is not about pleas on behalf of any specific children. It is about why it is wrong to support a measure which, although trying to portray itself as a "porn block" is actually no such thing.