Meet the Other Phone. Flexible and made to last.

Meet the Other Phone.
Flexible and made to last.

Buy now

Please or to access all these features

News

See all MNHQ comments on this thread

Why you shouldn't support legislation blocking internet porn

899 replies

Andrewjh · 07/05/2012 00:21

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.

OP posts:
Starwisher · 14/05/2012 18:49

They are better than ISP, but they are not enough as stand-alone implementation.

I agree with you that parents would be foolish to entirely rely on ISP filtering. Conversely, I also think naive to rely entirely on educating and monitoring your child at home.

EdithWeston · 14/05/2012 19:18

I don't think anyone has suggested just supervision and education (though I suppose it would be easy to miss some posts on a thread this length).

Starwisher · 14/05/2012 19:50

< whispers > Edith.. Thats pretty much what every single one of your posts says...

NetworkGuy · 14/05/2012 22:23

Starwisher

Do you think if you keep copy and pasting your methods your going to wear us down and get us to blindly agree with you?

"Or you could advance your argument and consider there are still issues that need to be tackled"

Or we could just stick to the subject of whether the proposed ISP filtering is a good solution or not.

"It is odd to me people have focused on the pornography aspect of this."

Perhaps because that's where the politicians have made most noise, and because "sex sells" - hence the 'other stories' highlighted on that page. I saw :

  1. 'Revenge porn' site IsAnyoneUp.com closed and sold to anti-bullying group

  2. Husband watching internet porn comes across film starring his wife

You can see that the paper is making full use of such interest (perhaps more from men than women, who knows, or maybe younger rather than older readers) and in a similar way, even though the Daily Mail appears to be in favour they were happy to go on (with photos) about some 'celeb' spotted with her bikini top a bit low... they know people will gawp.

TalkTalk chooses to publicise the fact they have already created their own filter purely to promote their service. Other, small ISPs which don't have the advertising budget or ability to support large influx (if they had 50,000 new customers this month) cannot compete with TT so despite offering a "clean feed", don't get a mention.

Starwisher · 14/05/2012 22:58

Method? I am pointing out is foolish to rely soley on ISP filtering, and conversely it is foolish to rely soley on home monitoring and education.

Which part of that do you object to?

EdithWeston · 15/05/2012 12:28

If you read my posts, you will see I am talking about three measures, not two. Please do not overlook the many times I have recommended device (not ISP) based technical measures and have referred to the links in the thread to free software.

Starwisher · 15/05/2012 12:30

Yes, they are not overlooked; hence home monitoring (under the umbrella of).

flatpackhamster · 15/05/2012 18:20

The supporters of content filtering should take a look at the Open Rights Group's report on the success (or otherwise) of mobile content filtering.

Their report indicates that perfectly legitimate websites can be content-filtered without the knowledge of the website owner and that 'over-blocking' is the consequence of the Safety mentality that pervades. This means that your business, your social group, or your political blog may end up blocked by a company and you have no right of reply and no process to get it unblocked.

Xenia · 15/05/2012 21:52

We certainly do not want any of this blocking stuff. Many mothers are against it.

exoticfruits · 15/05/2012 22:16

And many mothers are for it.

exoticfruits · 15/05/2012 22:17

Without a poll we haven't a clue.

TheQueenOfSheba · 16/05/2012 03:51

This means that your business, your social group, or your political blog may end up blocked by a company and you have no right of reply and no process to get it unblocked.

Then you introduce a system whereby you can ask for a website to be unblocked if you believe it has been blocked in error. This is what they have in other countries. It works.

flatpackhamster · 16/05/2012 07:49

Could you show me some examples of it 'working' in other countries then?

niceguy2 · 16/05/2012 08:30

Well yesterday it appears my ISP has blocked Piratebay. So out of interest I decided to see how long it would take me to circumvent. The answer was about 10 mins.

2 mins was spent using a proxy like Hidemyass before realising they'd also blocked it. Another 2 mins trying a couple of proxies/mirrors via the link at the bottom and the remaining 6 mins downloading TOR and installing it.

So now not only am I able to surf the very site which is banned, I can now do it completely anonymously with all my traffic encrypted.

Brilliant.

TheQueenOfSheba · 16/05/2012 08:52

Could you show me some examples of it 'working' in other countries then?

Yes, here in the UAE. Sure, it's possible to circumnavigate the systems, but most of these methods are outside of the expertise of the average small child (and adult, for that matter). And take time. And will be noticed by parents.

So, SmartFilter + vigilant parents = safer[er]children.

niceguy2 · 16/05/2012 11:32

But the method's certainly are not beyond your average teenager and I would argue most Internet savvy adults.

Which then goes back to my point about parents whom assume this filter will protect their child and instead is actually making it worse since your teenager is now using a workaround which involves encrypting and covers your own tracks so you've even less chance of knowing than before.

And i've tried hard not to comment on the freedom aspect of this but certainly I don't want to have any system in place like the UAE's which not only blocks porn but lot's of other sites which the government has deemed 'inappropriate'.

I suspect many people who support the ban simply have no clue how the Internet works and are perhaps way too trusting of the government not to scope creep the filtering system over time.

flatpackhamster · 16/05/2012 11:37

TheQueenOfSheba

You haven't explained to me how you can get a legitimate site unbanned. So how does one do that in the UAE?

And your argument seems to be 'This dictatorship achieves censorship, therefore your democracy can achieve it'. Yes, we could, if we wanted to be a dictatorship.

How much liberty should we be prepared to sacrifice, in your opinion?

TheQueenOfSheba · 16/05/2012 12:17

You haven't explained to me how you can get a legitimate site unbanned. So how does one do that in the UAE?

When you attempt to go on a banned site, a screen flashes up telling you that it is banned. A message reads: "if you think this site has been banned in error, please contact us" and gives an email address. They are very good at unbanning sites quickly and without fuss.

And all that stuff about censorship is a red herring. This is a thread about whether the technology is available, nothing else.

TheQueenOfSheba · 16/05/2012 12:19

But the method's certainly are not beyond your average teenager and I would argue most Internet savvy adults.

But you are kind of missing the point. Adults don't need to 'get around it', they can just opt-in, under the proposals. Teenagers obviously require a different kind of surveillance from their parents than younger children.

flatpackhamster · 16/05/2012 12:26

So have you ever successfully had a site unbanned?

No, this is not a thread about whether the technology is available. This is a thread about whether it is the right of the government to censor. Censorship is not a red herring, it is key to Liberty and without Liberty we aren't free to act or think or write.

TheQueenOfSheba · 16/05/2012 12:28

Yes. People get sites unblocked all the time.

But it's not censorship, is it? You will have the freedom to Opt-in.

flatpackhamster · 16/05/2012 17:13

Hahaha. The 'freedom' to opt in to the freely accessible material. What magnificent doublethink.

You can keep your dictatorship, thanks.

niceguy2 · 16/05/2012 17:21

The example of UAE's filter is almost the perfect example of why we shouldn't do it.

It demonstrably doesn't work and only gives the ignorant a false sense of security. At the same time the government are using the same technology to block all manner of categories they have deemed 'inappropriate'.

Can anyone who is in favour of the ISP filter explain to me why it is better than local parental controls?

evilgiraffe · 16/05/2012 18:53

Indeed, flatpackhamster. The idea that people will support the goverment in restricting freedom of information is really quite frightening.

evilgiraffe · 16/05/2012 18:59

Incidentally, regarding whether or not "most mothers" are for or against this legislation, please don't forget that this doesn't just affect parents of young children. This will affect every internet user in the country, most of whom are adults, and many of whom have no children, or who have adult children. It is for parents to monitor/supervise what their children see or read, and make their own decision on what is or is not appropriate for their children to view.