Internet porn may be blocked at source

[David51]

Communications minister Ed Vaizey is working on plans designed to prevent children gaining access to internet pornography.

He hopes to introduce a system that would enable parents to ask internet service providers (ISPs) to block adult sites at source, rather than relying on parental controls that they need to set themselves.

Adults using the internet connection would then have to specifically 'opt in' if they want to view pornography.

Full story:

www.metro.co.uk/news/850896-new-porn-controls-for-children-on-internet-planned-by-government

Mumsnet PLEASE think about doing a campaign about this. Or at least keep us posted on if & when the government decides to ask for our views.

In the meantime maybe we should all contact our current ISPs to ask what they plan to do and letting them know what we want as their customers.

The thing is, a child or young person who is being brought up by sensible parents to have a reasonably healthy attitude towards sex and human relationships will not be harmed by a glimpse or two of porn. A child being brought up by people who have a dysfunctonal attitude towards sex might actually benefit from seeing some porn at least in realising that his/her partners warped attitudes are not universal.
There are plenty of things that young people and children might see (on line or elsewhere) that can cause them distress: news reports on particularly upsetting incidents - the witless overbombing coverage of Madeleine McCann being an excellent example of this; immense distress was caused to a lot of children who saw this coverage and began to be afraid that they, too, would be snatched from their beds at night - but encouraging the Government to introduce more censorship is never a good idea.

"Time for the IT industry to take some responsibility. After all they didn't have a problem in developing the technology to distribute pornography over the internet."

No we developed the technology to have a computer network that survives a nuclear war.

It was never meant to be about central control, it was meant to be survivable and flexible.

And that, in part, is why it's now so hard to govern. It's meant to live with it's head chopped off.

It is the government's responsibility to protect children

Something not working very well doesn't automatically mean it shouldn't be used at all, but it might mean that it shouldn't be used at all. I wouldn't be keen on getting on a plane that didn't work very well. It depends, per my example, on how important the function is, and how bad the downsides of not working well are.

For sure IT improves over time. And SafeSearch has done just that, it has far fewer false negatives and positives than when it launched back in 2000. But it's for a specific use-case search results. It would require tech that has not been invented to deal with webcams, torrents, private networks such as Facebooks etc.

This is not about perfection -- it's about saying that there's no benefit in kids having access to "only" 20bn porn images instead of 200bn images. Even though the filter's kept out 90% of the stuff you don't want them seeing, what's left is just mindboggling in quantity.

And there are significant downsides, which you may be willing to put up with b/c the cost-benefit tradeoff seems right to you, but which a large fraction of the population is not. These include the immense cost, the slowdown of access, the risk of mission creep from porn out to other topics, and the unintended blocking of all sorts of non-porn materials that then must be laboriously unblocked by hand. The problem is the scale of the content -- there are hundreds of thousands of sites with sexually explicit but not pornographic material on the internet, eg sex ed / sexual health sites, art sites etc.

By the way, I don't know that people who think this particular proposal is rubbish are content to leave things exactly as they are. For example, I've mentioned malware above, and I was quite a fan of the idea of a xxx top-level domain, as a large fraction of porn merchants would have voluntarily migrated.

I don't think anyone's saying "we can't fix everything so we wont fix anything", Apostrophe.

People have already stated that there are ways to filter this stuff - but it has to be managed at a micro level. This works. Doing it in the way China have tried, doesn't.

x-post slhilly yy wrt mission creep. I agree, a xxx domain would be a very good idea. Has that idea been dropped now?

yy wrt mission creep. And I agree, a xxx domain would be a very good idea.

"Yes, I think you just need someone/a group of people who is/are committed to solving the problem."

China are committed to censoring the internet, they can't do it.

The US Government are committed to censoring WikiLeaks, they can't do it.

The entertainment industry is committed to ending illegal file sharing, they can't do it.

This is nothing about commitment.

"Do you agree with the hypothetical idea at least BadgersPaws, even if you don't think it's technically possible."

If there was some way to guarantee that my children did not see porn and it had no down side then I would be up for it.

But there's not, and given the current technology there never will be, China proves this, you just can't do it.

So rather than chase the impossible I'd rather do what we can to make the internet safer, and that is about educating people, that will help, that will make a difference and that will protect my children.

"£30 per household, when households buy internet services that cost £30 per month or more is not actually that much."

That's just to kick it off, not to finish it. Heaven only knows what the final costs are. But that's my point, to which you haven't really responded, you cannot doubt the Chinese commitment to this and yet they cannot do it.

"I agree, a xxx domain would be a very good idea. Has that idea been dropped now?"

It's a brilliant idea, a very easy way to block access to those sites.

Get the latest here:
www.theregister.co.uk/2010/12/10/xxx_domain_objected_to_by_governments/

In short various Governments keep blocking it as they think it will encourage porn.

The adult industry also has it's reservations as they think it will make censorship easier.

So it's a way away yet...

Dittany, lots of things in IT are just too hard. Whether commercial or not, IT projects fail all the time. Look at the National Programme for IT (the NHS computerisation). There were more than "just a group of people who are committed to solving the problem" there -- individuals, tiny companies, huge companies, enormous conglomerates all tried to make various bits of it worked, and they've all come unstuck. Why? Because the solution they were trying to deliver is one that is technically extremely challenging, but the customer wasn't willing to listen.

I understand you might be dubious about whether this is really about "will" but it's not. It's not even about "skill". It's about what is technically possible.

'Also, are you Don'tlet, and posting under two names, because that post was directed at her not you.'

No, I'm not Don'tlet but you were ignoring my questions so I thought I'd just jump in. It's a public conversation.

"Oh I think there was a bit more development after its creation don't you. It didn't arrive fully formed."

Of course there was.

But the thing that makes it hard to control and regulate goes right the way back to the very beginning in the 60s.

Different things have then come along that ride on the back of those basic principles but the heart and bones of it are the same.

So by trying to bring in control you're trying to overcome something that's right at the very heart of how it all operates, and that's why it's destined to fail.

This whole "debate" reminds me of what I face on a day to day basis.

Dittany's stance is like my managers. "But surely something can be done..... and something is better than nothing!"

and IT's response is "erm...yeah we can do SOMETHING....but it'll cost a fortune and not really gonna work....here is a list of reasons why."

"But but...think of the childreennnnn!!! Surely something can be done.....something's better than nothing!"

Just because you can....doesn't always mean you should.

Oh and whilst we're at it, IF this ever became a real plan, you'll find no end of IT companies like mine rushing to provide a "solution".

Why when we are saying we can't do it? Because the salesmen & exec's all get HUGE bonuses. They'll have made millions by the time the govt finally realise they've bought an absolute dodo but by then all they can do is throw more money at it or face embarassment in public. This happened for the CSA system, court system & NHS project (which I consulted on).

The .xxx domain has been muted for years, and certainly would assist - so, already you see there is a technical solution after all. I realise still not 100%, but then what is?

This is ultimately I think about an argument to protect the perceived freedom on the Internet and the 'interfering of governments' in our lives. It is nothing to do with the technical issues, it is technically possible - maybe not commercially viable, but possible (with the caveat again that it is not 100% protection)

The China issue is a total red herring again - they are BLOCKING permanently a lot of different content over a lot of criteria, not just porn, and there is no opt in option. It is a totally different system to what is being discussed here.

On the categorisation thing, there are already companies doing this and have been for over 10 years - they have techniques and technology to be able to assess and categorise over 90 million websites at the moment. Again I know they do not claim to offer 100% protection but this is also about collective response. To give you an idea of their categories, here is some detail:

Adult Material
Parent category that contains the categories:

* Adult Content - Sites that display full or partial nudity in a sexual context, but not sexual activity; erotica; sexual paraphernalia; sex-oriented businesses as clubs, nightclubs, escort services; and sites supporting the online purchase of such goods and services.

* Lingerie and Swimsuit - Sites that offer images of models in suggestive but not lewd costume, with semi nudity permitted. Includes classic 'cheese-cake,' calendar, and pinup art and photography. Includes also sites offering lingerie or swimwear for sale.

• Nudity - Sites that offer depictions of nude or seminude human forms, singly or in groups, not overtly sexual in intent or effect.

  • Sex - Sites that depict or graphically describe sexual acts or activity, including exhibitionism; also, sites offering direct links to such sites.

  • Sex Education - Sites that offer information about sex and sexuality, with no pornographic intent.

Every large organisation in the UK filters what is available to staff members - what for? Their protection? As adults?

I see no reason why we should not afford the same protection to children. There are some things that are in our collective best interests.

I will say that this proposal may not be the best proposal there is to afford some protection to children, but I don't see anything else on the horizon and I for one am pleased it is being discussed.

"The China issue is a total red herring again - they are BLOCKING permanently a lot of different content over a lot of criteria, not just porn, and there is no opt in option. It is a totally different system to what is being discussed here."

China is not a red herring, it's a centrally maintained blocking of internet content, this is exactly what is being proposed here without an opt in/out option. Other than that switch technically behind the scenes it works how any system here would be needed to work.

In fact China is so absolutely relevant that MediaWatch (who egged on Claire Perry, who egged on the Minister) cite it as an example of how internet censorship can work.

And once again they can't do it.

Even with the legal right to just block entire web sites they can't do it.

They've even had to admit that they can't filter centrally at the ISP and have to put software on each and every computer.

"Every large organisation in the UK filters what is available to staff members - what for? Their protection? As adults?"

And that doesn't work very well either.

Lots of genuine content is blocked.

Lots of bad content gets through.

And each company has the ability to decide how strict they want to be and fine tune their filters to an enormous degree.

A solution at the ISP level would not have such flexibility.

"I will say that this proposal may not be the best proposal there is to afford some protection to children, but I don't see anything else on the horizon and I for one am pleased it is being discussed."

It is just not a good proposal.

It won't work, it will be expensive and parents will still have to control the computers at home.

And if you're not saving parents from having to do that then why bother? Why not just educate the parents so that can do the blocking effectively?

Maybe I should be backing a scheme that would put a pretty much endless pool of money into the hands of the IT industry as they are paid to chase the impossible.

But my interest here is the safety of children. And this proposal will not only fail to do that but it will make the situation worse as people think the problem has been dealt with.

LadyBlah, no-ones arguing about if its possible to block. Plainly it is. But the issue is around if it is good enough.

At work we deploy these blocking categories. We also actively block all other traffic except web and other authorised applications. In other words we only allow http traffic which we then filter.

THIS IS NOT POSSIBLE FOR THE ISP WHOSE BUSINESS IS TO PROVIDE THE CIRCUIT!

The closest analogy I can think of is to ask BT to give you a phone line then using technology to filter all swearing in case children swear. They would then have to deploy technology not only to monitor English swearwords but every other language too. And that's before we argue about what is a swearword and what if someone changes the word from say fuck to frack.

I really don't see why we need a big brother system which every techie will happily tell you won't work when there are better FREE alternatives around which YOU the parent can control?

"I really don't see why we need a big brother system which every techie will happily tell you won't work when there are better FREE alternatives around which YOU the parent can control?"

And China with all it's willpower, resources and lack of respect for freedom have had to concede that putting that software on the actual computer is something that you have to do if you're going to be at all effective.

So skip the wasteful, impractical and unreliable blocking at ISP level and tackle the problem at that level.

Setting up a technical panel that would review, rip apart and issue guidance on how to use all the filtering software that is available to parents would be something that would genuinely make our children safer.

Of course there won't be a massive gravy train of public money slooshing around for various people to get their hands on but the children will actually be safer, and that has got to surely be the point.

Your analogy is useless.

You constantly try and divert this discussion with useless comparisons. You now say it is possible to block, as I have been saying all along, but badgers still insists you can't.

With regards to you saying (in capitals) that it is not possible for the ISP to filter traffic, well that is not true either. There again is technology to be able to do this (as you are) - the product I cut and pasted information on before can filter more than 100 protocols in 15 categories. And you could do this at ISP level - and yes, those that provide the circuit. Please note that 90% of UK content comes from 5 tier 1 providers.

On the note above from SGB about it not mattering if a child sees a bit of hardcore porn so long as they are from a loving background, well I would like to disagree with that. The harm done by hardcore violent pornography is progressive and sometimes addictive.

Studies are virtually unanimous in their conclusions: When male subjects were exposed to as little as six weeks' worth of standard hard-core pornography, they:

* developed an increased sexual callousness toward women

* began to trivialize rape as a criminal offense or no longer considered it a crime at all

* developed distorted perceptions about sexuality

* developed an appetite for more deviant, bizarre, or violent types of pornography (normal sex no longer seemed to do the job)

* devalued the importance of monogamy and lacked confidence in marriage as either a viable or lasting institution

* viewed nonmonogamous relationships as normal and natural behavior 

And it doesn't matter what background you come from.

Which study was that, LadyBlaBlah? Have you a link?

It is the point to make children safer, yes badgers, although I would question some of the comments on here as to whether they wanted to make children safer

The problem with this "it's the parents fault" argument is that the parent cannot feasibly do all of this on their own - even you, who work in IT are saying that you get 'stuff' through that shouldn't be coming through. The ISPs cannot be simply "connectivity providers", that is wussing out. They all host masses and masses of porn (there may be one exception to that that I know of) in their deepest darkest vaults, and they need to have some responsibility for it.

@Dittany. "You know what porn is, I know what porn is, porn users know what porn is."

That's not the question I asked.

"You now say it is possible to block, as I have been saying all along, but badgers still insists you can't."

I've been saying that it's not possible to block reliably or completely. Any blocking will many false positives (things you don't want blocked but are) and many failures (things you do want blocked but aren't).

That is exactly what China has discovered, and that's why they've had to go for mandatory filtering at the computer side.

I will however not disagree about the harm pornography can cause to children.

It's just that I reached the same conclusion as China did without having to spend a huge amount of money and years trying another approach. Successful filtering and protection has got to be done at the level of the individual computer.

Anything else just gives a false sense of security and is about as much use as a chocolate fireguard.