Meet the Other Phone. Child-safe in minutes.

Meet the Other Phone.
Child-safe in minutes.

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:
NicholasTeakozy · 16/05/2012 19:10

Niceguy2, out of curiosity I decided to try to get on The Pirate Bay. It kicked me out so I enabled Private Browsing, switched on HTTPS Everywhere and and tried again. Bingo! :o The browser I'm using is Firefox.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 16/05/2012 19:26

My ISP is not blocking PirateBay - shame I don't use it :-D

If it is blocked what happens? Does it tell you its blocked or just bring up a 404 error.

NetworkGuy · 17/05/2012 05:24

IAGTBF - if blocking is done "properly" one would just get no response, so the browser would give a timeout report.

Xenia · 18/05/2012 08:12

evl, yes and plenty of people choose not to have children. Why should they be blocked? We need much less nanny state, not more.

evilgiraffe · 19/05/2012 18:54

I know, Xenia Confused I am agreeing with the OP.

alWaqi · 21/05/2012 23:04

I don't have enough knowledge of the field to be able to contribute anything beyond what's already been said but just wanted to add to LtEveDallas' thanks to all the techies on this thread :) Despite having no strong opinions one way or the other when I started I've now read the whole thing with interest - as an aspiring computer science geek Grin - and not only am I completely persuaded but your un-patronising explanations were much appreciated. I definitely feel more informed about this legislation (and the internet in general) thanks to all of you, so ta for that!

(I wouldn't normally be so arse-licky but I thought you deserved at least some credit for sticking out this argument for 35 pages Wink)

Jux · 22/05/2012 23:22

I got a nicely laid out message saying that Virgin won't let me on to Pirate Bay. I'm sure if I really wanted to I'd get around it, but I can't be bothered. Mind you, I'm a bit peed off that some of you can get it when I can't. Not that I've ever used it, now I come to think of it. But still. It's the principle. Grin

exoticfruits · 23/05/2012 06:51

I would have thought that it was only responsible to block illegal sites.

niceguy2 · 24/05/2012 13:14

A concise summary of why Internet blocking is bad

BBC News Link - Online Pornography & Internet Filters

theodorakis · 28/05/2012 18:42

We have fully filtered internet in Qatar. I am sure people can find ways around it if they want to but I have to say it is nice not to be bombarded with all that shit all the time. If I lived in the UK, I would like to have the choice to switch a filter on but I can appreciate that any step toward censorship is dangerous.
BF sites are all blocked though!

Snorbs · 28/05/2012 22:01

Qatar also has what is effectively a dictatorship plus a pretty poor track record on human rights. Hell, it only got round to giving women limited voting rights in 1999.

There is a significant correlation between repressive regimes and widespread Internet censorship that cannot be ignored.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 03:24

Well I know where I would rather live

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 07:43

Yeah, somewhere that doesn't have the death penalty for apostasy or public floggings would be my choice. There's a lot to be said for representative democracy, too.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 10:07

Public floggings? Yeah right dear, get your facts right

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 10:19

If you want to slag off my country start a new thread. This is about censorship not ignorant comments about subjects you clearly know little about. Hiding this thread now and back to my job as a senior manager in an all male company.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 29/05/2012 10:32

" As of 2005, certain provisions of the Qatari Criminal Code allowed punishments such as flogging and stoning to be imposed as criminal sanctions. The UN Committee Against Torture found that these practices constituted a breach of the obligations imposed by the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[30][31] Qatar retains the death penalty, mainly for threats against national security. As of 2005, certain provisions of the Qatari Criminal Code allowed punishments such as flogging and stoning to be imposed as criminal sanctions. The UN Committee Against Torture found that these practices constituted a breach of the obligations imposed by the UN Convention Against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment.[30][31] Qatar retains the death penalty, mainly for threats against national security."

I agree Snorbs came across a tad agressively, but the fact remains that countries with censored internet e.g Qatar, UAE, China have questionable attitudes to other freedoms. Freedom of access to information is very, very important and many people would not choose to live in the sort of society that believes censorship is right.

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 10:42

I suggest you google the name "gavin sherrard-smith".

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 11:02

I hardly think people who live in a society that has funded recent wars and subsequent suffering can comment, despite what the Guardian tells you.
IT WAS IN 1993! Get over it. Pathetic. In the last 19 years has the Uk not had one negative report?

If you want, i can use my computer and google Uk human rights violations since 1993, incidently 10 years before you even invaded anyone. Subject closed.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 11:03

And any expat who sucks the tax free salary and lifestyle but breaks the laws of the country deserves whatever punishment that country has. Poor little expats, feel so sorry for them.

Crumblemum · 29/05/2012 11:32

Hi

I've tried to read the whole thread and don't think this has been covered, so can I ask a question?

How is talktalk homesafe working? Is it going well. Surely if it is, that means they've managed to overcome the nuances of filtering porn but leaving sites like Mumsnet accessible?

Would be great if one of the IT bods on this thread new the answer to this.

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 11:59

I note the change in tone from saying that I was flat-out wrong about Qatari floggings to "that one happened a long time ago and, anyway, he was just an expat who deserved it". Nice moving of the goalposts there.

There have been lots of other people sentenced to flogging of course. Gavin is just one whose name I happen to know (he's a friend of a friend).

Has the Emir repealed the flogging laws? No. Has he repealed the death penalty for apostasy? No.

I'm sure you could find a lot about human rights abuses in England through Google. That's because we have a free press that reports such things and a Freedom of Information law that allows such information to be released. Qatar doesn't. Al Jazeera has a lot of freedom to report on what happens outside of Qatari borders but it's subject to much greater censorship pressure when reporting about what happens in Qatar itself.

Incidentally, has the Emir signed the much-heralded press law reforms that he said he would sign back in 2010? You know, the ones that would No? Quelle surprise.

But I can understand your enthusiasm to defend the Emir's woeful human rights record. It could be positively dangerous for you to be to be found out to be bad-mouthing Qatar on the Internet.

ItsAllGoingToBeFine · 29/05/2012 12:00

crumblemum AFAIK the talktalk system works reasonably well (although googling "talktalk homesafe problems" throws up a lot of results). However, this reasonably well is within the parameters of this thread ie it is not anywhere near 100% accurate.

But this is not the point. If people want to use Homesafe they can choose to sign up with TalkTalk and accept their pricing and filtering decisions and all the relevant disadvantages as discussed in this thread.

This is not the same as the government requiring all ISPs to impose filtering and all the associated costs, government filtering decisions and disadvantages on everyone.

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 12:18

I am not scared. I JUST DO NOT CARE A FIG! I do not care if flogging is used as a punishment, I do not care if you do not think it should be. I do not care if you think our press in censored, I do not care if your friend was flogged. It is a good place to live and far, far morally superior to many places that are so called 'liberal'. What an unbelievably tedious argument from a person who does not know very much about something. I am seething so had better leave before I get censored by this oh so British website.

Snorbs · 29/05/2012 12:29

OK, you go back to your safe little cocooned life where the Emir gets to decide which websites you can see, where the Emir decides what you're allowed to read in the newspaper or see on the TV, and where the Emir hand-picks everyone in the Advisory Council and then gets to ignore what they recommend anyway.

I'm sure the Emir only has your best interests at heart Hmm

theodorakis · 29/05/2012 12:39

This reply has been deleted

Message deleted by Mumsnet for breaking our Talk Guidelines. Replies may also be deleted.