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.

The 'clever folk' can. But you just won't like the solution. It's very simple. You ban every Internet site then allow selected government 'approved' sites through the firewall. And anyone who uploads dirty/nude photos onto 'approved' sites such as Facebook is arrested and thrown in prison for a long time.

I agree that as part of a SERIES of measures then it could be effective. But the problem is that the government are not proposing a series of measures. Nor are they even up front with the limited benefits of this system.

And we return straight back to what us techies are saying in the first place. The current proposals are ineffective and that ISP level blocking is the wrong place to do it. Nothing replaces proper parental supervision and with that in place you don't need the block in the first place.

Putting your faith in a chocolate fireguard ISP block and then allowing your young/older child loose on the Internet because you can't be bothered to supervise properly is simply lazy parenting and abdicating your responsibilities. And I don't think its fair the rest of us have to be inconvenienced or sound like a pervert ringing up our ISP's to unblock our lines because some parents are too lazy.

What? There are men here? Good lord!

"What? There are men here? Good lord!"

I'd like to vote on some legislation to split the country up, all the stupid and lazy people who can't be arsed looking after their own kids, saying no when they moan for a smart phone or otherwise treating kids like kids instead of spoiled brats, then blaming everyone else for their behaviour can all be put in one area of the country controlled by the nanny state.

The rest of us sensible people who don't allow the kids to vanish off to the bedroom with the family PC, don't give them smart phones because they bitched they wanted one etc, all the people who want to live life on their terms and bring kids up in their way without interference can have another part of the country with minimal rule where the emphasis is on common sense.

In 20 years time we can all compile our data to see which part is capable of looking after themselves perfectly well and which half is full of stupid morons barely able to wipe their own arses.

The thing is, the children that are not supervised on the Internet will end up affecting those children that are. They may be our children's future boyfriend or girlfriend. And if the majority of children are accessing hardcore porn then this will filter down into attitudes of society as a whole over the years.

franke4 your right cause those kloggie Dutchies are the scourge of the western world with their hardcore porn etc. for the last 40 years.

'So why do the school filters work then? It is very difficult to access educational websites from school computers - multiple forms, etc. far less anything dodgy. It can be done and no child has managed to work round it yet.'

I'm sorry, but I've just spaffed wine down my nose at THAT one.

I can walk into any classroom at work & call out 'OK, who knows how to get on to .'

Ten hands will go up & another ten won't, because they do know but are slightly more cunning & don't want to drop themselves in it.

Not to mention the 'dodgy' content I've seen them inadvertently turn up by googling innocuous phrases...

School filters DON'T work.

Coincidentally I was talking to my 15yr old DD today about something and I suggested she stayed at school and use the school computers to do some research. Her response was "Yeah right, I can't get on half the normal sites even the ones we need. Why would I do that?"

School filters are a blunt tool which at least are under the control of the school's IT dept. It's then a matter for them to decide what is accessible and what is not. How big a hole to punch in their firewall/whitelisting system.

If my DD's experience is anything to go by, it's blocking a lot more sites than they intend in a school of 1000 kids. I'd hate to see what happens if you apply this on a national level.

And parental control filters which are the equivalent of the school filters are what I'm saying is a better idea. Still not perfect but a far better idea than a ill thought out hammer to crack a nut solution of a national block.

Just because something isn't perfect doesn't mean it shouldn't be done and the technology to block will only improve.
Any effort to quell the pervasiveness of porn is a good thing

Yes, the technology to block porn will improve. At the same time, the technologies to circumvent censorship in all its forms will also continue to improve.

You may not see the proposals for porn blocking in the UK as censorship and, as the proposals stand right now, I'd agree with you. But censorship and lack of free speech is an issue on the Internet as a whole in repressive regimes such as China, Syria, Saudi Arabia, Iran etc. So people working on technologies which circumvent such censorship (eg, Onion Routing) see that their work is important for fundamental human rights.

And then there's the people who are working on other technologies that can be used to distribute large amounts of data in a very efficient way (eg, BitTorrent) who are doing it either as an interesting technical exercise, or to solve a particular file distribution problem (BBC iPlayer's Download Manager uses a BitTorrent-like protocol), or because they want to be able to pirate games and DVDs.

It's an escalating arms race between the blocking/filtering technologies and the anti-censorship/file-distribution technologies. Pervasiveness of porn and its effects on children is a social issue. It's difficult to solve social issues with technology.

Any effort to quell the pervasiveness of porn is a good thing

Like I said earlier. Based on that line of thinking, condoms with holes in them are not perfect either but you consider them to be a good way to prevent pregnancy/STD's yes?

For me the censorship argument is secondary. My primary concern is that it's an unworkable policy which prays on the public's fear of their child viewing pornography just to score a few cheap political points, inconvenience the masses and do nothing to really protect children at all.

If the proposed ISP block formed part of a comprehensive government strategy then I'd be more in favour of it. But there's no strategy.

To me this proposal is as stupid as the previously proposed ID card system under Labour. Ah yes, we'd pay for a very expensive biometric ID card which would be unbreakable. Anyone who opposed this was a terrorist sympathiser or must have something to hide. Bugger the fact that the government weren't planning on buying the flipping biometric readers! So your biometrics were stored....but go into a bank/post office/whereever and they can't use the damn thing and have to use the photo! Was that also a good idea? Or again...is any effort, even a piss poor idea better than no effort?

Many many women who are mothers are very much aganist the proposed block. It is yet anoth chipping away at our rights and freedoms. I have been going on about it in various places.

It also is effectively saying - we the nanny state are in charge of your family; we know best; we decide how to bring up your children. It in effect saying mothers are useless. If you support the change you are effectively agreeing with this that mother does not know best, but the sate knows best.

The state usually gets most things wrong and is the last person you want in charge of things.

I thought that you went to great lengths on other threads Xenia to say that most mothers are useless! I actually think that a lot are and therefore I think that it is something to support.

"Surely that should be the other way round, exoticfruits? Current (unfiltered) service, ordinary price; additional filter, higher price?"

I'd agree. The extra work involved is why such a so-called "clean feed" does cost more. However, even a firm with 5m turnover and 100 employees admits that such filtering cannot guarantee a complete block, and I posted a link just a day or two ago when I saw it (on one of the earlier-mentioned threads).

Those who want to could switch to *> So Internet

Because ministers are not technically minded and don't really care enough to arm themselves of the facts. Just like your average voter.

They weigh up the message they will send to the press and what the parents will hear and to hell with reality. I suspect their thought process goes something like this:

Pro ban makes me sound like I'm on the side of parents.
Anti-ban makes me sound like I like to watch porn.

As for the thin end of the edge argument I do understand that and there are many instances of that happening. We're now using technology designed to block child porn to block piratebay and Newzbin. The latter is case in point at how futile it is because they just set themselves up as Newzbin2 and carried on.

The government have also used laws designed for anti-terror purposes to track parents who they suspect have lied to get their child into a school. The police have threatened to arrest photographers for taking photos also using anti-terror laws.

How long after we've blocked porn will it take before it's proposed that the block is extended to sites glorifying violence? Then maybe gambling....that's not good for kids.....then what about dating sites? They're inappropriate for kids surely. The list goes on.

I thought that Claire Perry, the MP behind it actually has about 4 children herself and her general belief (probably she has only spoken to parents and not read MN)is that parents welcome it and think it long overdue.

I'm ALL in favour of the government intervening and putting blocks in place.

Absolutely in favour!

It might not work for all kids but what kind of argument is it then to do NOTHING. Hopefully as time goes on such a system will be refined and improved upon.

And if you're a kid who is determined to find porn - no doubt they will.

But most kids have a look because it's SO damnedy easy to do so.

Just type "PORN" and you're in!!!!

No, the alternative to an ISP-based filter is not "do nothing".

The alternative is "install a PC-based filter because that will block a lot more than porn while being a lot more flexible plus monitor what your DCs are doing online because that will have the biggest benefit".

Claire Perry's "independent" review onto this topic was funded by one Christian pressure group and written by another (Safer Media). Both have stated aims that they want to see the Internet purged of anything they regard as unnecessary, and that includes bad language. Thin end of the wedge.

Snorbs - yes we can do that as well.

I LIKE the fact the government are concerned enough to want to do something more to ensure kids don't see this stuff... I find it reassuring that they care about this problem on the internet. And it's a BIG problem!

It is state control. The English do not ilke a nanny state. We bring up our own children as we choose. Many mothers are against this plan. It should be assumed we support the idea there shoudl be this interference in fundamental rights and freedoms. It is not the vote winner Cameron thinks it is. They were voted in to rid us of all the restrictrions on our freedoms labour had brought in and are not doing well at getting rid of them.

How do we know it isn't a vote winner? It sounds on here as if most people are against it, but it is a minute sample. I am all for it, I am not bothered about the DC s who have responsible parents, I am glad that someone cares about the rest. As Animation says, it is simply too easy at the moment.

I think this is something that SHOULD be state controlled - I want the govrnment to interfere as much as possible to ensure kids can't log on to porn even if it means restricting the adults viewing. And I don't much care if adults fundemental rights to view porn is restricted at all - whilst the situation is made safer for kids.

Here, here, Animation.