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.

just went on to mediawatch-uk.blogspot.com/ and my employer's filter blocked it as 'The web page download (HTML, 112 KB) was restricted by the rule 'TextCensor Rules\Scan and block pornographic content'

made me chuckle

Sorry, I'm with snorbs too. Too wishy-washy. I'm an advocate of survised internet surfing and see it as a parent's responsibility to ensure what they view online is ok. That's why mine can't use PCs alone, it's in the front room (bar the 16 yr old, she's old enough to choose imo).

I do find it embarrassing to tell people I use mumsnet because of supporting these campaigns and such like.

Suggesting that filtering content at ISP level is viable, is a joke, one that will cost a fortune and be of no use. It is also not laudable for the many reasons posted previously. An ill thought out proposal from an ill-informed MP.

I am concerned with knife crime amongst the younger people too. I will write to this MP to ask to abolish the manufacture and importing of all knives. Er except for the ones used in surgery, oh and for kitchens but definately the ones young people use, for stabbing, but not for eating their dinner.

Oh maybe parents should keep a count of knives in the drawer and tell their children that knives can be dangerous.

strawberrycake - on Monday (I think, losing track this week) MNHQ "pulled" the campaign page that said they supported this. There is still a small item on the main /campaigns section, but after some lengthy discussion in "Site Stuff" (title "recent decision by MNHQ") they are rethinking how to express a level of support for child safety, but until we see what they come up with, it will be unclear how close to giving support to Ed Vaizey and the other groups they will appear.

Incidentally, seeing the last posts before mine were on 8th February, did anyone know that was "Safer Internet Day" ? I only found out via a news item on ThinkBroadband.com and feel there had been very poor publicity beforehand.

There are some points that I think are worth (re)stating here about this topic. The question is 'Should Mumsnet support a voluntary filtering system run by ISPs that could block pornography before it comes into the home'

Lets put it another way - would you object to your ISP being able to offer you such a service that you can choose to turn on and off, and if not, why object to a campaign asking for them.

TalkTalk Poll - TalkTalk paid for a representative poll to be carried out last week (2nd Feb). Their CEO is a woman, Dido Harding. This poll showed that 77% of women indicated they would use an ISP level filter if it was available.

I understand that TalkTalk are developing some kind of voluntary filtering system, so I guess it must be technologically possible to do!

These would be voluntary giving the parent control over them. Therefore this is not censorship of any kind. You are free to have the filter turned off if you want.

Are they Possible?
Blocking sites is possible, both at the PC and ISP level. Some countries force ISPs to do this. PC level blocking systems include K9, SafeEyes, NetNanny etc.

None of them are perfect, but they help do a job. Would an ISP level filter be perfect? No. Is that a reason why they should not be available for those who would like them? No. Give us the option to choose and see. No other filter is perfect either.

The advantages of voluntary ISP level filtering would include:

1. Greater and easier power for parental control over the entire home at one point. Remove the burden of having to install, monitor etc each PC in the home individually.
2. Protection for ALL web enabled devices in the home. Including those for which device-level filters are not available such as games consoles, blu-ray players, TVs with more to come.
3. Increased protection from malware attacks. Many of these originate from pornography sites.

Mumsnet Support?
So, should Mumsnet support a campaign that will give us an additional tool to help us exercise our parental responsibility with greater ease (acknowledging it will be as imperfect as all the others), giving us more control of what goes on in our homes?

I would suggest that the answer is yes.

Rockhound - all the software on your PC is not the question. If you have this on your pc you do not need ISP filtering.

How many of the 77% would go on to not bother installing software on their PC? The ones that dont are putting their children at risk.

Which countries offer IPS filtering? China? Australia? - both useless.

Why limit all the access devices in your house? What if you only want to limit your childs computers?

No mention of cost and overhead to traffic. I think other people on this thread have explained quite well why technically it is a bad thing, and why practically it leaves more children at risk.

Cost: TalkTalk Group interim results to September 30 - £27m pre tax profit. Small compared to BT with £781m (guardian.co.uk, Thursday 11 November 2010)

Looks like there is money there to put this in place.

Actually, I'd like to find out more about what TalkTalk are planning.

With the can't be done argument, if the mobile phone industry can (and in many cases, does) then why not the ISP's. Indeed, Indonesia forced Blackberry to do this or loose their license. From that article:

'Setting up filters to block access to certain Web sites typically isn't difficult. Indeed, most countries require ISPs to offer content filtering, said John Pescatore of research firm Gartner Inc.'

I agree that it may be difficult, but not impossible to set something up.

And for covering costs - why not charge those that want access to porn for it? It is what TV adult channels do, and indeed many porn sites themselves, so there could already be a business model to cover that one.

Rockhound, I don't think anyone's said it can't be done. You could block all access to everything except those on a very short list of regularly vetted sites and you're pretty much guaranteed to have blocked all porn.

The problem is that doing it at the ISP means that it will be done poorly compared to other methods. ISP-level blocking will be inflexible and easily circumvented.

There are also big worries over whether this proposal really is about only blocking porn or whether it's more to do with blocking all sites that you wouldn't want your children to see. There's a big difference but some of the pressure groups that seem to be driving this are really after blocking everything that isn't guaranteed child friendly.

But I'm glad that Talk Talk are trialling this. It will be very interesting to see how many people who actually want ISP filtering move to Talk Talk and actually turn the thing on. It will also be very interesting to see how many subsequently turn it off because they can no longer access sites that they want to even though they may not be porn.

This is the way it should be done. If an ISP thinks there is demand for a filtering service then they can offer it (maybe at extra cost to cover the equipment the ISP will need to buy) and people can vote with their wallets. People could do that today as there are ISPs that offer filtering. What I object to is that Vaisey wants ISPs to do it "voluntarily" and if they don't then he'll introduce legislation to force them.

So Rockhound, as you seem to feel that ISP filtering is worthwhile and beneficial, can I ask if you with an ISP that offers filtering? And if not, why not?

I had a look at what TalkTalk are actually offering - it's not great. I posted about it here

@DepartmentOfCountingTheMoon - Yes, I am with TalkTalk. Did not realise that they had launched something already in a test phase. Will try it out and see what happens.

A limited number of people here have given then very strong impression that this is pretty near impossible to do. That seemed to have dominated the debate away from whether they would be a useful and desirable addition to what we already have. It was this point that I wanted to raise again.

@PlentyOfParsnips - Thanks for that link. It may not be fantastic, but do give them credit for making a start, and also remember this is a trial at the moment, so the final system may be more flexible and controllable in the end. I am sure if enough people use it and comment it will develop over time!

So here is an interesting question:
If an ISP-level filter were in place, what functionality would you like it to have, how would you like to use it?

I wouldn't use it at all quite frankly. I would continue to user filter at home which means that I can have different levels of access depending on who is using the computer at the time.

So DS3 is limited to Cbeebies etc

DS2 can have a few games websites,

DS1 can have the above plus sites that would cover puberty, and probably a little news as well (Newsround etc)

Then I would have a much looser setting (or as I do at the moment none) for my own personal use.

A filter at ISP level wouldn't allow this. it would be "on" or "off" - meaning I would still have to use software at home rendering the ISP filter useless.

I would want the filter criteria to be different for different people in my house. Eg, I want to be able to access mumsnet because I'm an adult, but I don't want my DCs to be exposed to the bad language and sex talk on here.

It would be very helpful if there were a range of filtering categories I can pick and choose from to form the basis for each user's filter list which I could then customise as required.

I would also want to be able to add and remove sites from the filter lists quickly and easily.

Plus I would want easily-accessible reports that show which person in my house is accessing which websites and when.

Department - and ISP run filter couldn't do that though. You would either have to have it "off" or "on".

So if, like me, you have 2 computers in the house and you wanted your children to go on one while you were on the other. They both use the same ISP connection. If you wanted to access mumsnet - then an ISP filter would either block it for all of you, or allow it for all of you.

Software on your units at home can do all you want.

Baroque, I know. That was my point - what I want is simply not achievable with an ISP filter.

Like Baroque, I would like something that's a lot more configurable than the simple on/off of an ISP filter. I'd also like it not to put me on an 'I

Hi, sorry to barge in briefly but I just wanted to register my opinion as a parent of two young girls. I'm not great with the technical stuff and it worries me not so much for my own children - I will be able to monitor carefully as they grow older what they can access - but the children they come into contact with. I cannot monitor what their future friends/boyfriends look at on the Internet and I'm of the opinion that porn, like drugs, can be addictive meaning that you need to see more and more hardcore stuff to keep you interested. I'm worried for all children, not just my own. Watching porn does not teach us how to maintain healthy, long term relationships. Surely we want the next generation to be able to do this?

It is the responsibility of everyone to protect our youngsters- if the ISPs can do this then they should and I think that Mumsnet should support anyone who tries.

"if the ISPs can do this then they should and I think that Mumsnet should support anyone who tries."

But that's the whole point, ISPs cannot do this (go and look at China who have put more effort and money into this than we ever could).

And, what's worse, in pretending that it can be done they'll further reinforce the ideas that there's nothing that parents can do about this. The filters will fail, porn will get through and parents won't be any the wiser about what they genuinely can do to protect their children.

@PlentyOfParsnips - no, I do not have a commercial interest in this at all.

@BaroqueAroundTheClock - there was never a suggestion that an ISP filter could, or should, provide the ability to give the control you are asking for.

However, that does not mean that they do not have a place. What I personally would like an ISP filter to be is:

Voluntary system that I have complete control over, with no government influence or control now or in the future. Therefore, no use for censorship (beyond stuff like the web-based child sex abuse that exists currently)

Adjustable so that I can logon to my personal ISP account and free / block specific URLs / domains as I choose.

Sensible applying the best practice of stuff like K9, Safeeyes etc, but allowing me to do this for the whole house in one go.

Knowing / Learning the difference between pornography and sites like Wikipedia / Mumsnet etc. The fact that MN has several references to anal sex should not cause the domain to be blocked by any sensible system, and I think suggestions that it would automatically cause problems are unfounded. Does it with PC based stuff?

Timed preferably allowing account holder to set it to automatically turn off at a personally set 'watershed' time if desired.

Easy to use having simple, click-button methods to add new sites, simple ways of unblocking desired sites etc.

Again, as said before, for many this could be a useful tool to help provide a first line of defence for a whole household. My experience with PC filters is that they too can be quite frustration, block the wrong stuff, be imperfect and slow down systems.

I accept all the statements about individual PC control, and this would not negate that if you wanted it.

I also grant that NetworkGuy comments re routers makes a lot of sense too, as quoted in PlentyOfParsnips thread. However, I still believe that the ISP filter has a place and part to play as a tool in all this.

"Adjustable so that I can logon to my personal ISP account and free / block specific URLs / domains as I choose."

But every PC in your house would have the same limitations? You could not have different settings for you and your children.

"Knowing / Learning the difference between pornography and sites like Wikipedia / Mumsnet etc."

And that's where things really become impossible. You believe that the Mumsnet uses of "Anal Sex" are OK, but many others would actually disagree with you. In the end it all comes down to context, and context is incredibly difficult for computers to even begin to understand. Any automated filter would almost certainly block Mumsnet as there really is no way to logically differentiate between a porn story featuring anal sex and a discussion between adults of the same thing. The only way for things like this to work is for their to be human intervention. And as for Wikipedia we've already seen the IWF block it once by "accident" and the only way that China can manage it's censorship it just to block the whole thing. And the Chinese are on the cutting edge of internet censorship, so if they can't manage it what hope have we? So wave goodbye to Wikipedia.

"Easy to use having simple, click-button methods to add new sites, simple ways of unblocking desired sites etc."

So every home has their own list of potentially thousands of exceptions to the millions of sites on the black list?

On the one hand great, you've generated a massive amount of work for people like me in the IT industry. On the other hand bad for you, you'll be paying our wages and putting up with the drastic slowing down of your browsing that this is going to cause you.

"I accept all the statements about individual PC control, and this would not negate that if you wanted it."

But good individual PC level control would completely negate the need for the expensive, speed impacting and unreliable ISP level filter.

One thing I don't understand, if it can be done centrally for images of child abuse, why can't it be done for legal porn images?

"if it can be done centrally for images of child abuse, why can't it be done for legal porn images?"

Child abuse is a very obvious thing, there's no need for debate about whether it's a "Mums net bum sex" type of conversation of a "Hardcore porn bum sex" type of story.

There's thankfully a small enough quantity of it about that the IWF can rely on members of the public to report individual pages and they can be checked by a real person before being added to the black list.

The IWF has to manage less than a thousand pages on it's black list, a reasonable number to work with.

A porn blacklist on the other hand would have millions of entries on it and would need something many times bigger than the IWF to deal with. There is so much porn on the internet that the idea that humans could even check each address before blacklisting it is almost certainly an impossibility. And even then you've got the debate over what is and what isn't porn.

And the IWF, despite it's thankfully small and clearly defined task, is not with controversy.

Despite it's very clear legal definition and small number of pages to investigate it still managed to block the entire Wikipedia web site.

And not every ISP uses the IWF blacklist for those very reasons, it's not particularly reliable and is open all sorts of problems.

"And the IWF, despite it's thankfully small and clearly defined task, is not without controversy."

Stupid fingers...

Rockhound, what you have asked for may not be achievable with ISP filters.

You say that you want to be able to add/remove sites as you see fit. That is something that you can easily do on a PC-based filter but it does not scale up well to an ISP-class site blocking system.

I note that the TalkTalk trial will limit people to only 10 modifications to the default filter list. That's because the overhead in keeping track of which user wants to be able to access which site, multiplied by tens or hundreds of thousands of users, is a considerable burden. I've run these kinds of systems in a corporate context and I know how much of an impact this can have. If you're not careful the thing takes so long to check whether it should allow a certain user to access a certain site that it noticeably slows down Internet access for everyone. The Australian trial demonstrated much the same issue.

Your "sensible" requirement is problematic as well. Orange does blocking of non child-friendly sites by default unless you prove you're over 18. The default Orange filter blocks mumsnet. As well it should, to be honest - the language on here can be fucking appalling and I don't allow my children to visit this site. But I want to. An ISP-level filter could not offer that level of flexibility as an ISP level filter can't tell if it's you or your DC on the computer.