UK seriously considering opt in policy for online pornography.

[drater]

www.dailydot.com/news/uk-internet-opt-in-porn/

Am I the only one who thinks this is ridiculous? I hate the way that public figures are trying to make out that the Internet should be child safe. It's an adult place, with adult content, and if you want your kids to venture into it, you make them safe by using Netnanny or similar tools or by, and here's a radical idea, supervising them. You wouldn't (or shouldn't) go shopping in an adult store and expect to take your kid in there with you and have them cover everything so little timmy doesn't see some tittays, so don't let your kid meander round the Internet without some form of supervision.

Shouldn't it be a parents job to survey their children's internet use rather than a nanny government limiting it for everyone?

Not sure that's not a reason to have an opt-in though - normalised porn is damaging on a societal level. That certain individuals will find their way around something/ be given a smart phone at a younger age than they should, is not a reason to not have an opt/in IMO.

The reason against is that it makes parents dangerously complacent.

It's not 'certain individuals'. I have a tutor group of 30 perfectly nice 12 year olds. They all know how to circumvent the school firewall & access blocked sites. Even the ones who have no particular interest in doing so. It's the sort of information that just...spreads.

The UAE tries to implement the sort of thing Rantzen's endorsing. Not terribly successfully.

answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20120425071801AApkUvm.

It's not about the desirability of keeping children away from normalised porn (couldn't agree with you more!) - it's just a massively dumb & counterproductive way of trying to do it.

There's nothing it does that YOU can't do now, better, via say, netnanny.

It's a bit like expecting the government to set up a toddler-repelling forcefield around your barbecue. If they said they could do that, you'd know it was total bollocks, & you'd safeguard your child yourself...

Am I missing the point? This doesn't look much different from browsers installing with the content filter on Safe as default, which I think they all do these days.
Fine by me.

I'd like the policy to be graded, so I can opt into low-level stuff and alter my preferences when I want. I don't actually think it'll work unless this list is going to be updated every ten minutes, but have no problem with the principle.

Unless I've missed the point ...

IMO though it's not just just about children - although that's a good enough reason. It's about the easy accessibility of porn on-line/ I hate it. I'm not technical at all - I have no knowledge of the technicalities of this - although my dh would. I'm arguing purely ideologically.

BTW, I use Open DNS, which has sophisticated blocking levels based on user feedback. Way it works: You tell your device to use their DNS resolvers instead of your router's. DNS is the system that tells computers where to find the websites. I've got half a dozen sites blocked - my computer thinks they can't be found, so I never see them.

Come to think of it, the govt could bung Open DNS a few quid instead of setting up working parties 'n' shit. It'd save money and be a whole lot more efficient :)

Agree Sabrina. Children are a big factor but not the only one. I hate porn since I became educated about it....now...if they have an opt-in policy, porn will become a talking point in relationships...people will need to discuss it more.

All for opt ins.

And yes, the porn industry is damaging on many levels. Who wants it.

children can freely download hardcore porn onto their mobiles

Mobile phone operators in the UK are already obliged to provide an opt-in facility for porn, gambling and other adult services.
Are you suggesting that such opt-in proposals don't work?

There have been several very long threads about this, pointing out why it doesn't work and MN dropped its support of the "campaign" some time ago because of the strength of that position.

The supporters of this are a couple of MPs who play to the DM audience, and the DM itself. That newspaper seems to be the one most linked-to on this site, and therefore I've tended to assume it is the most read and agreed with.

Unfortunately, they are just plain wrong on this, though I can see the appeal of "we must do something, this is something" and also the naive idea that there can be a tech fix to human behaviour.

"Mobile phone operators in the UK are already obliged to provide an opt-in facility for porn, gambling and other adult services.
Are you suggesting that such opt-in proposals don't work?"

Yes. This doesn't exist in UK (as an obligation). Those who believe it works can already opt for providers who provide some filtered content.

" I'm arguing purely ideologically."

I am not arguing ideologically at all.

This is not about porn, at heart. It's about a technological measure which will not offer what its believers say it will and which offers all the increased dangers of false reassurance

scaevola, honestly all UK mobile operators really are obliged to offer opt-in for adult content. It's an industry code of practise backed by OFCOM.

Does everyone have the same definition of what porn is? Whose definition are you happy to go with?

I'm on Orange. I have the option to opt in for filtering - it is not on by default.

SabrinaMulhollandJones

Not sure that's not a reason to have an opt-in though - normalised porn is damaging on a societal level.

Really? How do you define societal and who's to say what's damaging? It's clearly your view - and that of other people - that porn is 'bad' and therefore 'bad' things must be made to go away. But there doesn't seem to be any research supporting your claim that 'society' is 'damaged' by naked people being visible all the time.

That certain individuals will find their way around something/ be given a smart phone at a younger age than they should, is not a reason to not have an opt/in IMO.

There are plenty of good reasons not to have an opt in. There is the libertarian argument which you mentioned briefly, which is one of the most significant. What right has the government to decide what is 'appropriate'? Secondly, once you have a content filtering system it will be abused by the government in order to limit exposure to embarassing stories. The internet is a tool for freedom, and only dictatorships filter the internet. Thirdly, there is the sheer technical impossibility of the task. So many people with no technical knowledge think that it's possible to just pull a plug out and change some settings on 'the internet' to get rid of all the naked people. But it isn't.

As mentioned we've been down this path several times.

Is porn a bad thing for children? Yes.
Does that mean an opt-in ban is a good answer? No.
Why? Because...

1. It creates many problems such as sites being wrongly branded.
2. Kids quickly learn to circumvent bans.
3. Adults who lift the block lift it for the entire house. The kids are no longer protected.
4. Increases complacency. Adults wrongly and naively assume their kids are protected. Let their little ones run amock with a laptop in their room when the kid just learns 2) from kids at school
5. This opt-in plan covers web sites only. It does nothing to stop porn being distributed via torrents, FTP, newsgroups or many other methods which you can bet your child will quickly find.

Contrary to popular belief countries like Australia and UAE who have bans, they don't work. I spoke to my friend in the UAE and asked how he accessed adult materials and other such sites like torrents and he laughed and said everyone just uses a proxy.

The only 'successful' country to impose an effective censorship regime is China. I don't want that sort of Internet in my country thankyouverymuch.

But what usually happens is anyone who tries to point out why a blanket ban won't work will be shouted down as a porn apologist who condones the exploitation of women and isn't thinking of the children.

NiceGuy In my opinion some sites being wrongly branded is easily sorted out....they just need to inform the governing body there's been a mistake.

Adults who,lift the ban will also be able to select some filters for their children

I think adults can be trusted to be responsible without complacency...there is already plenty of that about the abuse of women anyway.

Torrents etc....that's a different problem....I don't think most children will be actively seeking porn. Just older ones who need educating.

And...you can't compare this to China where they're hardly allowed to watch anything.

People will kick off about this because they like porn. That's not enough of a reason to NOT have a ban.

Adults who,lift the ban will also be able to select some filters for their children

You're wrong. If you have home broadband and you opt-in to access adult content, then that opt-in would apply to all users of your home broadband service. Your broadband service provider has no way of knowing if it's an adult accessing the content or a child. It's on or off, that's it.

The only way to have selective filtering (eg, an adult can access an adult content site, a child can't) is to put the content filtering on the PC. Which is what you can already do now, for free, if you wish - eg, Microsoft's Family Safety Center.

I want the moon on a stick.

Meanwhile, K9 is quite good.

NiceGuy In my opinion some sites being wrongly branded is easily sorted out....they just need to inform the governing body there's been a mistake.

Really NC? It's that simple? How do you know that you've been blacklisted? Actually you don't until you lose a large chunk of traffic. Most small websites would never ever know as you don't have the tools to monitor.

So let's say you are HMV you've been accidentally blacklisted. You notice after a half a day. You report it straight away and it takes the powers that be 48 hours to turn this request around since they have hundreds, if not thousands of other queries and of course they need to check.

Who compensates you for the loss of 2.5 days of business? What about customers who turn to Amazon instead and never come back?

What about if your website is in say....Thailand? How do you even know whom in the UK has blocked you. In fact, do you even know you've been blocked?? Again...if it was a mistake that has cost the website some serious money, do we compensate them for that error?

And that's the point. These blanket bans are full of holes with many questions which haven't been answered. But politically it's a safe bet for politician's. After all....who can argue with saving children from porn? Doesn't matter if it works or not. MP's don't want to be associated with saying no because like on here, you are branded some porn apologist.

NCForNow

And...you can't compare this to China where they're hardly allowed to watch anything.

China is a very good comparison. It's a good comparison because the technology to filter the internet in the UK would be very similar to that in China so it's a useful case study.

People will kick off about this because they like porn. That's not enough of a reason to NOT have a ban.

On the contrary, it's you who has to make the case for banning it. You're stripping people of their liberty, and there has to be a cast-iron case for that. You haven't made it so far.

But what usually happens is anyone who tries to point out why a blanket ban won't work will be shouted down as a porn apologist

People will kick off about this because they like porn

I rest my case.

My objection to this is because I don't think it will work and is littered with risks. I know enough to be able to bypass the filters even if they were mandatory. I am technically literate enough to understand the risks and I can if so desired already lock down my internet link sufficiently so my kids are protected. It won't affect me in the slightest.

My resistance to this idea is not because I like porn!

When it comes to the abuse and exploitation of women there IS NO LIBERTY FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT IS OK.

NCForNow

When it comes to the abuse and exploitation of women there IS NO LIBERTY FOR THOSE WHO THINK IT IS OK.

Those 'abused and exploited' women will still be in the same position whether or not the UK has a porn filter.

It's not a reason, it's an excuse.