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.

Of course we can, and should, work to protect or children from the nastier side of the Internet. And that's not just porn but grotesque images of bodies etc.

The question is where to do that. The ISP is the wrong place and the way that the UAE erroneously blocks innocent sites is not unimportant.

The PC is the right place for filtering/blocking as it allows much more control and monitoring. And that should be augmented by parental supervision.

It is difficult to see how blocking a (smallish) proportion of porn sites can constitute an effective ban. If you're happy with such a flawed and permeable system, then that is of course your prerogative.

But from what you've posted about it, what the techies have said about it, and what is readily available via Mr Google, it is important to realise there is a huge difference between "most of what this system blocks is porn" and "this system blocks most porn". And that doesn't even begin to cover content which is not obviously porn. The system offers false reassurance on the back of a poor level of protection.

So what is the big deal about having to opt-in? I just don't understand why you're all making such a fuss about it. If it was up to me, I would have a system whereby you had to opt-in using a credit/debit card. Maybe with a nominal charge of $1 so you could see if someone has borrowed your card to do this. I would then have something in place that made it obvious if a computer had been 'porn-enabled' in this way.

It is fine for parents to sit beside their children everytime they use the computer when they are 8 years old, but less practical when they get to their early teens.

I don't think the fact that it is difficult should just mean that people abdicate all responsibility and don't even try.

Great idea Marie.

exoticfruits, I think "I don't think the fact that it is difficult should just mean that people abdicate all responsibility and don't even try" could just as well be, if not even better, applied to the parents who can't be arsed to keep an eye on what their children are doing on the Internet.

The issue here is that even if this proposed block were introduced it would not turn the Internet into a safe place for children to roam otherwise unhindered. There are websites out there that show graphic pictures of the aftermath of road accidents and bombs.

The point here is that this proposal has a lot less to do with protecting children from porn and a lot more to do with a combination of three things:

1. Certain religion-backed pressure groups pushing for anything that their religion doesn't agree with to be blocked. Porn is just the start (and Claire Perry herself has revealed this isn't just about porn but all "adult" websites. Mumsnet is a website aimed at adults.)

2. Pressure from US-based copyright holders to ensure that ISPs in the UK are forced to install the technology required to make it easy to block access to anything that they claim is infringing their copyrights. And don't forget that this is already happening.

3. Pressure from within the government and security services to easily block access to anything they want to claim as giving aid to terrorists or being a risk to state security. Eg wikileaks.

A cry of "protect the chiiilllldrrrruunnn!!!!" has become a very powerful smokescreen for governments to introduce laws that are actually about restricting freedoms.

I totally support the ban and don't know why something similar hasn't been introduced before. I think there are likely a lot of mumsnetters lurking on this thread (and previous ones on the same topic) who agree but aren't willing to go head to head with the people claiming techie superiority who are dominating this conversation.

Banditqueen. Sorry if it sounds like we're dominating this conversation. I hope people do not feel daunted by us and don't reply. Debate is good.

But I fear the fact that the word 'porn' is distracting enough MN's such as your good self into thinking this is a good idea because doing something is better than nothing. Using the same logic, having sex with a used condom with a couple of holes in it is better than nothing. But it doesn't make it a good idea! My fear is that parents are fooled into thinking it's good protection when in fact it's not.

As another poster remarked earlier. If you are a caring parent who wants to protect their children then you will still need parental controls, still need to watch and teach. The ISP block is therefore rather irrelevant. And if it is such an important feature then why are more parents not flocking to ISP's like TalkTalk who offer this already.

This is the equivalent of forcing BT & Virgin to install swear filters by default so children are protected from hearing swearwords. You can call up and have the swear filter removed.

A reasonable person would ask how much such an infrastructure would cost.

A reasonable person would realise that if I call up have the block lifted, the next time my child used the phone, the protection is no longer there.

A reasonable person would realise a teenager would quickly find a way around this by changing the swearwords. Blocking is no different. The browser is only one of many ways of looking at porn. People were downloading porn way before the Internet browser was invented.

A reasonable person would say it's a parents job to teach a child the rights/wrongs of swearing, mandating the use of a swear filter is unneccessary, over the top and nanny state.

A reasonable person would wonder if it would work in reality.

I'm not arguing for or against porn. That's a stupid argument here. It's about whether or not these proposals are effective. And in my professional opinion it is not.

Marie. I don't object to the idea of having to opt-in. I object the way it's portrayed. That it's an effective tool to protect children from the dangers of pornography.

The credit/debit card thing is also far from effective. Many people don't have such cards. Cunning children can also borrow their parents card. Given it costs about $10 for 100 credit card numbers on the Internet, i doubt that's effective either.

Lastly and this is the important point and why I keep saying that I fear parents will be lulled into a false sense of security. It's not the computer which is 'porn enabled', it's the CONNECTION. You authorise the entire circuit, not the computer. So your child can now surf porn from any computer, phone or tablet.

Every parent already has the tools available to them to control their child's access to porn. These tools are free, or relatively cheap and are at least as effective as asking ISPs to block porn. I say "at least as effective" as neither solution will offer 100% protection from a tech-savvy child bypassing filters.

The question is, should parents be encouraged and educated to make best use of the tools already available or should the Government legislate (at great cost and complexity) to force the ISPs to carry out this task instead so that uninterested parents can continue in blissful ignorance of the very real risks their children are exposed to online even with a block in place.

I am also saddened to see that some posters feel that anyone who thinks that the block would be an ineffective, misleading use of resources must be some sort of porn apologist or perv. This assumption is exactly why I do not want to have to declare my desire to 'opt-in' to access to adult sites just so I can see mumsnet and similar sites.

I object the way it's portrayed. That it's an effective tool to protect children from the dangers of pornography.

Niceguy2, it will help. Obviously it is up to us as parents to supervise our children at the computer when they are young, and to check up on them once they are older. However, some in-built protection (looked after by clever technical folk in the government) would be very welcome.

I don't live in the UK, but if I did, I would be very concerned that my DS would be just a few seconds away from viewing unregulated pornography. I have been unfortunate enough to see some of the stuff on the internet, and I must admit I am probably scarred for life. I want to protect my kids from this.

Marie - so you spend 10 minutes setting up some parental controls. Job done to at least as high a standard as an ISP porn filter. No need to rely on the lovely government tech people or wait around for legislation.

Having been to the the UAE many times I can say without a shadow of the doubt that the vast majority of expats living their and their children get around internet and alcohol restrictions quiet easily and whilst some parents have their heads in the sand about it the reality is drinking parties and plenty of sex.

Wherever you are, you are only a few clicks away from seeing porn. Yes, in UAE too, so your level of concern would be the same in any location (except perhaps North Korea).

The only way to avoid the "holey condom" scenario is to provide effective protection and sound education at home.

Yes Marie, I actually agree. It will help. But at what cost? And how effective is that 'help'.

Like I said, having sex with a used condom with a hole also 'helps' prevent unwanted pregnancy. It doesn't make it a good idea does it?

I find it interesting that the countries who "ban porn" are the countries that have the most appalling human rights records in the world.

Let's not kid ourselves that Dubai bans porn for the protection of children - it has more to do with power and control and sensorship of that which it believes Islam would not approve of. This is the same country where cohabiting is illegal, where homosexuality is illegal, where it is illegal to kiss or hold hands in public, where adultery is illegal and if a woman commits adultery she is sent to prison (not the man though) and where upon divorce custody of the children is automatically awarded to the father. Oh yes, I think Britain should be just like that.

About 30 years ago my dad worked in Saudi. Alcohol there is illegal. Everybody drank though! You just ensured you didn't get caught.

I am genuinely confused as to why people who already look out for their children's internet safety think this will do anything.

I agree, wannaBe. It is done here for religious reasons. My argument isn't that the UK should be like the UAE and ban everything, it was merely to illustrate that the technology works. I cannot see porn on my computer.

a) You could if you wanted to

b) How much else of the web are you being blocked from seeing under the pretence that it's porn?

Snorbs,

a) Yeah, I could, if I left the country, downloaded a VPN to a laptop, brought it back, illegally downloaded it to my PC... how many kids are capable of that? Without their parents noticing?

b) I don't know. I have never had a problem viewing reproductive sites or plastic surgery sites, so I am not sure. Is there anything in particular you had in mind?

Marie. Does the UAE block torrent/magnet sites? Gnutella? What about newsgroup servers? What about FTP servers? I bet they don't block FTP servers.

This is the point. You think a block will work because when you click on www.bigsexsite.xxx is blocked but in reality there are many many ways to download porn. Using the browser (http) is only one of them.

niceguy2, I honestly don't know, as I don't know what those things are. I shall try to find out. The only way that I know that you can view porn, is to download a VPN.

They are very strict out here, but it isn't just about porn. They ban lots of stuff. There is also a very real concern about terrorism. They keep an eye on what we are doing on our computers, and if it is suspicious, they will arrest you.

I am not saying that the UAE is the perfect model for internet censorship, far from it. I just think it gives food for thought when looking at ways to do things in the UK.

but still no-one who is in favour of this is able to give a valid reason for it.

What the government is proposing is something that each and every one of us is able to do from our own homes anyway, and would have to continue to do regardless of an opt-in feature due to the fact we should still ourselves be responsible for our own children's safety online.

The reasoning that people who don't do this for their children/don't have the knowledge etc is invalid. Many of those people will themselves be in the habit of viewing porn (I'm not judging that, that's just a statement of fact) and so will in fact opt into the feature anyway, so their children won't be protected. All of our children will have friends whose internet safety is not on a par with our own, whether this feature exists or not, so even if we protect our children at home there will be times when they go to others' houses where those protections are not in place. And if an opt in feature exists then our children will have friends who will have opted in, and so the same lack of safety will apply.

The fact is that it's not possible to fully protect our children against seeing this stuff, and so we have to educate them.

I don't want my child viewing porn online either, and so I have parental controls on the computer. But he will need to be educated to know that there are certain things that are not for appropriate viewing, just as he needs to learn that you don't give out personal details on club penguin and the like.

The problem is that technology like this holds no fear for our children. They have grown up with it, whereas with us it's come along in our lifetime - there is a difference.

Marie. Actually I can answer the question for you. UAE does not block torrent sites. Nor does it block proxies and VPN sites.

I know because i've just had a chat with an old friend who also lives in the UAE. He laughed and just said that he uses Piratebay, other torrent sites to download his porn. And if he wants to watch Youporn then he just bounces off a proxy. He can also use a VPN to the USA too but he doesn't need to.

Still think the UAE is a good example of how to filter & block? Because from where I'm standing it's more akin to my chocolate fireguard example earlier.

And if you take into account the rest of the blocking the UAE is doing which is non porn related then I actually think it's a very very poor model of internet censorship and a model I don't think any of us want to have.

Each and everyone of us may be able to, but quite clearly it isn't happening.

OK, fair enough niceguy2, but most of that is outside the capabilities of smaller children. Sure, older kids could work it out, which is why you need to keep an eye on them. But I think the harder it is, the less likely they are to access it. It is not instantly available within a few seconds like it is in the UK at the moment.

I see Opting In as one of a series of measures designed to protect our kids. Sure, parents need to do their bit. I also wish the clever folks could find a way of preventing the very worst porn, but I suspect they have no interest in doing so.

I haven't read this whole thread but I can see that a man has come on mn as he knows that it is a very influential site and wants to get all the mums on his side!

Within a few clicks children can access hardcore porn which could be very damaging for them. Eg. sites called teen and abused.

Parental control filters are not the answer as so many children now have smartphones which access the internet. Many parents are not aware that their children can access such sites on their phones.

I know that education is important, but that does not mean it should be freely available. If alcohol or drugs were freely available to children, no amount of education would compensate.