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 Australian trial demonstrated much the same issue. "

This is a big point, nations have tried to censor and filter the internet already, there are examples out there to show what a disaster such an approach is. The opponents of the filters aren't making their objections up, they can point to nations that have tried this and failed.

Australia shows a democratic nations attempt at filtering out porn, and it just hasn't worked.

China shows what a more ruthless Government willing to do pretty much anything and spend almost any amount to control their populace can achieve. And that's pretty much nothing. And they had to resort to pushing for controls on each PC, which many of the opponents have been saying all along is the only real way to control what people do on the internet.

But the people pushing for filters keep on ignoring those real world examples, why?

"But the people pushing for filters keep on ignoring those real world examples, why?"

I'm guessing that, like me, they are very concerned about what our young people, who can access porn so easily (a Panorama programme recently asked a group of 14 year old boys if they had seen porn on the Internet and they all had) will mean for the future of the nation.

I have read and tried to understand what people have been saying about filters/ISPs etc and the failure of other countries to block porn and it seems a complete nightmare! However (and I realise I am not someone who has the first idea about it) surely something needs to change?

I'm just speaking personally but I don't want my girls going out with boys who have high demands of them sexually because they have "seen how it's done" on the Internet. I'm saddened that it is a complete technical and logistical nightmare to block porn more effectively.

"I'm guessing that, like me, they are very concerned about what our young people, who can access porn so easily snip will mean for the future of the nation."

I'm concerned about what our children see on the internet too, and I've no doubt that all of the other attackers of this proposal feel the same way too.

We're not saying that children should be allowed to access whatever they want on the internet. What we're saying is that the best method of protecting them is to protect them at home. And that means spending money to educate people rather than wasting it stuffing it into the money of the IT industry engaged in a never ending and futile task.

Protection at home covers by accidental discovery of inappropriate material and deliberate attempts by older children to get around the filters. It covers both the web, which is all these filters are proposed to do, and all the other usages of the internet (file sharing, chat programs, games etc. etc.) so is generally a much better option.

Plus it lets me rather than some abstract Government body decide what is right for my children and means that I can set different levels for different members of the household. It also lets me decide what is and what isn't an appropriate site. For young children you can bet that I'll be blocking just about everything, including in particular Wikipedia, but then as they grow that can be loosened off.

"However snip surely something needs to change?"

What needs to change?

Internet Filtering at the ISP level will never be right for the job and it's not for want of trying by countries like China.

What needs to change is to raise the awareness in parents that they, and they alone, have the capability to make their children safe online. And that's back to education again.

The key point is that these proposed filters won't really affect me, other than having to cough up the extra money on top of my broadband bill to fund them. I'll not rely on them one bit for my children's safety and if they slow down my internet browsing or block too many "innocent" sites then I'll just get around them.

This isn't about my children's safety. This is about your children's safety, and for their sake silly proposals like this need to be dropped and proper, sensible and workable steps need to be taken.

BadgersPaws, I see what you're saying and perhaps the 'something' which needs to change is parental awareness of how easily their very computer literate children can access whatever they like on the Internet. I agree, it seems that education is needed. My children are too small at the moment for me to worry about it but I myself need educating in how to ensure the computers in our house are protected for when they are older. I will ensure this happens for my own children and I'm sure the majority of parents will also do the same - will a little help from government education.

There are always going to be parents who are not as conscientious though and perhaps it is these children the government want to try to protect. Is there anything that can be done at all? Unless porn on the Internet is banned completely (obviously never gonna happen!) then I guess we just allow these children to get away with it? Therefore perhaps it's not just parents that need educating? Perhaps Teens need to be told themselves of the dangers/consequences of seeing porn. Then they can make their own informed decisions when they 'accidentally' come upon a pornographic image/site.

"I will ensure this happens for my own children and I'm sure the majority of parents will also do the same - will a little help from government education."

But if the Government is wasting, or charging you, a staggering amount of money for the filters then there's less money in the pot for that much needed education.

There will also be the impression that the filters replace the need for parental action.

"There are always going to be parents who are not as conscientious though and perhaps it is these children the government want to try to protect."

But the introduction of filters will not protect them and it will give parents the impression that they don't need to do anything, which puts more children in harms way.

I'll use an analogy I've used elsewhere on this subject, infant car seats in a country that doesn't have any laws on the matter.

The Government could choose to introduce a generic car seat that will be fitted into all cars at the expense of the car owner/purchaser. These generic seats won't fit all cars properly and won't safely hold all sizes of children. Therefore they won't protect most children from most impacts, children will be harmed.

And the Generic car seats will stop parents thinking that they need to hunt down a better car seat, they'll think that their Government is promoting the best option, after all they have been spending a fortune on the generic seats and why would they do that if they weren't up to the task?

Or the Government could choose to introduce an education and awareness policy so as to make parents aware of the importance of getting the right seat for their car and child. Children will then be as well protected as is possible.

So a generic policy that protects a few and reduces the chances of proper protection being put in place?

Or a policy to help protect everybody to the best extent possible?

"Unless porn on the Internet is banned completely then I guess we just allow these children to get away with it?"

No we don't. And this has to got be understood, the opponents of this scheme are not shrugging their shoulders and saying "ah well, they'll see what they're going to see".

I do not want my children seeing all sorts of inappropriate things that lurk on the internet. I will not "just allow" it, I will deal with it, and the absolutely best way of making that happen is parental awareness and control.

"Perhaps Teens need to be told themselves of the dangers/consequences of seeing porn."

There is no agreement on what the danger or consequences might be, and personally I believe that that's a very personal decision.

What matters to be is that I, not some obscure Government body, have the ability to decide what is right for my children to see and that I have the capabilities to do the best I can to make that happen.

I don't care what the Government view of porn ends up being, I don't want my children to see it, I will block it.

BadgersPaws I am with you! I was not accusing you personally of being a parent who will allow your children to view what they like - far from it! And I am strongly in favour of parents making their own informed choices as to how to bring up their children, not just in this area but all aspects of parenting! I understand your analogy of the car seat.

"There is no agreement on what the danger or consequences might be, and personally I believe that that's a very personal decision."

YouGov poll done for TalkTalk last week:
83% believe that seeing Internet pornography is damaging. www.telegraph.co.uk/technology/news/8314648/Internet-porn-regulation-could-be-the-only-answer.html

Surely if so many parents don't want their children seeing porn, then it's because it is wrong for them to see it. If it is wrong for them to see it, then there is a reason for that - it is damaging to them (how damaging is the debate I guess). Perhaps more discussion and research needs to take place as to what exactly the damage is and the extent the damage effects the future life of the child.

As I'm not technically 'gifted' or particularly clear about how much what the government plans to do would cost, I cannot really make up my mind as to what the best thing would be. All I want is for children to stop getting access to porn and I will back anything that claims to do this!

Thank you, BadgersPaws for giving me so much insight into this topic - I feel much more informed as a result.

"Perhaps more discussion and research needs to take place as to what exactly the damage is and the extent the damage effects the future life of the child."

I don't think that that's relevant to this debate, I don't think that anyone is saying that they're OK with their children seeing porn.

This isn't about whether or not children should be able to get to porn but about the best way of stopping them getting to it.

"All I want is for children to stop getting access to porn and I will back anything that claims to do this!"

Well that means that you won't back the filters as real world examples show that they won't stop people being able to get at pretty much anything.

And surely it should take more than a "claim" to do something? Surely there's got to be technical backing for a technical proposal? Surely there should be examples that back up the proposal?

"I feel much more informed as a result."

Brilliant.

And that's how children will be protected, by informing their parents not by giving people false impressions that their children will be safe with the magic filters.

BadgerPaws I can not think of a PC based filter that can not also be worked around by a tech savy and determined child. Neither can I think of one that is perfect at blocking all porn effectively and not blocking innocent sites. In fact, I know of a very simple way of working around any filter someone puts on a PC, and the PC moderator would probably not have a clue.

However, something beyond the PC based filter is needed to cope with other web-enabled devices now coming into the home, including wifi mobiles, wifi TV's, blu-ray players, games consoles and probably others.

For these devices there simply is not a device level option (that I know of).

Also, I do not think it is suggested that the government regulates or decides what is pornography or not. Again, do not most PC level filters do this, so why can't that kind of system and list be employed with in a non-device level system? I don not want government censorship (aside from he illegal), or regulation within this.

As someone else pointed out earlier (or elsewhere - I wish I could remember) there is already a pretty good definition of what is pornography to work with.

And anyway - no one would force anyone to use the ISP filter if it were available.

As for the TalkTalk filter, this was a labs test page / product in development thing, so can not be taken as the complete product, which could well be more flexible than the 10 sites or so. I am still waiting for more information from them.

"There are always going to be parents who are not as conscientious though and perhaps it is these children the government want to try to protect. Is there anything that can be done at all?"

Do you think an ISP based filter would achieve this? Really? All the parents will have to do is phone up and say, "I'd like to opt out please?" and it's back to square one.

Your only options for those kinds of parents are
a) block the internet in it's entirety
b) not allow anyone registered as having children under the age of 18 to opt out.

Do you think either of these is a good idea?

"As someone else pointed out earlier (or elsewhere - I wish I could remember) there is already a pretty good definition of what is pornography to work with."

Ok then.. define it.

In terms that a computer can understand, and terms that cannot be anything else.

'However, something beyond the PC based filter is needed to cope with other web-enabled devices now coming into the home, including wifi mobiles, wifi TV's, blu-ray players, games consoles and probably others.'

Rockhound - have a look at NetworkGuy's idea here.

"BadgerPaws I can not think of a PC based filter that can not also be worked around by a tech savy and determined child."

If a computer is locked down properly and children don't have admin rights to it then it becomes substantially trickier to get around any filtering software installed upon it.

And as to consoles or other gadget well if any gadget didn't allow some way of turning off or controlling the internet access then I would never allow a child uncontrolled access to it.

The main issue is that getting around ISP level filtering will be incredibly easy for an even slightly determined child. Home filtering is trickier and also controls all the other potentially dangerous uses of the internet that the proposed ISP filtering doesn't even begin to touch.

So why bother with the chocolate fire guard? Especially when the chocolate fire guard would put people off the proper solution to the problem.

"Again, do not most PC level filters do this, so why can't that kind of system and list be employed with in a non-device level system?"

PC level filters fall under my control and I can decide how strong/paranoid to make the filtering. So for a younger child's account I can block the internet completely, a slightly older one might have a white list of very child friendly web sites, a teenager might have talk programs enabled and finally my account can do anything. And that level of control is utterly impossible with ISP level filtering.

"And anyway - no one would force anyone to use the ISP filter if it were available."

It is proposed that the default is "on", and anyway saying that no one is used to force an expensive and futile system is no excuse for the system being expensive and futile.

This sounds to me like it is purely a way of monitoring those who indicate they may wish to view porn in the privacy of their own home if they 'opt in'. I guess many people would be embarassed to opt in, even if they weren't actually intending on viewing porn specifically, but had no real objection to having the option open to them.

This kind of censorship or spying, makes me furious, it is so ridiculous. We live in an age where we have unprecedented access to information, why do we have to spoil this by focussing in on soemthing like porn....could we opt in/out of access to sites with extreme political views? Where does it end?

To me it is simple, try to educate your child, don't let them have unsupervised access to the internet, monitor their usage and speak to them if you don't like something you can see in the history. In spite of all of this, you are not with them 24/7 and you cannot control what they have access to; but don't try and treat adults like children to compensate for this.

It is a breach of our privacy and liberty to have to declare if we wish to have the option to browse porn, or not, as the case may be.

Agreed - this is an issue so important to me as a parent. It's becoming almost impossible to protect your children from porn online as they get older. Mumsnet please support this campaign.

BTW I meant agreed with the campaign idea, not with roundtheoldoaktree. I'm sure that any little embarrassments on the part of adults is a small price to pay to help protect children, and to make it easier for parents to do so.

Anyway, the anonymity is what makes it so easy for people to access violent and extreme pornography on the internet - maybe the idea that it's not a secret will make them think twice.

Roundtheoldoaktree "It is a breach of our privacy and liberty to have to declare if we wish to have the option to browse porn, or not, as the case may be." And it's not a breach of my privacy and liberty to have extreme pornography available in my home against my will?

Have you actually read the thread, Amy? Or any of the other threads where the techy people are pointing out all the reasons why ISP filtering is unworkable and a Generally Bad Idea? There doesn't seem to be any disagreement that Something Must Be Done, but this is not the right Something.

Use your own parental filters, Amy - they work far better than any ISP level filter possibly could.

... and they can be tailored to the changing needs of a family.

Amy - I would urge you to read the discussions (it may need a few hours to go through them here on this thread, and in the Site Stuff thread 'recent decision by MNHQ')

MNHQ put a web page online (the day Ed Vaizey had a webchat) which indicated support of the outline for ISP-based blocking, and was invited to the first 'round table' discussion with other organisations and ISPs about the proposed blocking of porn at ISP level, just a week later.

Having seen the Campaigns page, with this policy getting support from MNHQ, I looked at the lengthy thread [the one we are on] where arguments against that proposal went into some significant detail as to why it is not the best way (and no, that does not mean, as some have suggested, that anyone who is against the proposal is in favour of porn, but can see flaws in the proposal).

I started the thread in Site Stuff, to alert others, particularly those who may be aware of the idea being floated back in November/December but who may not know the shortcomings of the proposed method.

After a few days of discussion, some of the points were picked up by Justine, but even then, things were quite hazy as to what should or should not be considered as 'forbidden fruit' - I quote "Maybe the bar should be set at very hardcore porn."

Filtering can be got around, and the teens (and younger) today can mostly run rings around their parents. If what they do is being logged that's one way to determine if they are attempting to avoid filters etc.

But it surely comes back to having a frank discussion about how some of the material online is not intended for youngsters to view, and there would still be a high degree of disgust if they found their adult children were interested in porn, violence, etc.

If it is blocked, then some whizz kid will find a way, someone else may have an unencrypted wireless router that allows teenagers access via their smart phones, or laptops or whatever.

It's simplistic to assume that blocking porn at every ISP will happen, as there will always be methods to avoid the filtering.

However, far more important is that by laying down infrastructure at the ISP (which could be very costly and the bill will not be paid by the government but customers), there is then an easy way to block other sites, such as Wikileaks, or a human rights site that campaigns against some future UK governments 'iron grip' (1984-style) over the populace.

Yes, it could be classed as the realm of sci-fi, but we already have the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act, which can force ISPs to divert a stream of internet traffic to government monitoring services under the 'possible terrorist' umbrella. The ISP is not allowed to divulge whether such 'black boxes' are even active, nor who is being monitored, but in theory, all traffic for a household could already be under scrutiny, and anyone telling the members of that household would themselves be liable to arrest and detention.

One ISP moved their mail servers overseas and encouraged users to ask at intervals whether there were any black boxes active. If there was an answer in the negative, we could rest easy. If there was no answer at all, then we had to reach the obvious conclusion, that the boxes were active and the ISP gagged from acknowledging it. So we're not in a society free to do what we want, and ISP-based filtering would be a massive drop in keeping what liberties we still have from being abused at some future time on a government 'whim'. They could no doubt enact legislation which would remove the 'opt out' and increase the scope of sites which could be included, and then where would we be... oh yes, in a similar position to a massive Far Eastern country which had tanks go through a main square in the capital and now has whitewashed it from its history as if it never happened.

Silly Snorbs. You're saying and doing exactly what the pornographers want you to. I suspect that a large number of them actually want young teenagers to be exposed to hardcore porn, because: a) this increases the potential for the further spread of porn addiction, b) this is part of a wider normalisation of porn which is their obvious aim, and c) much pornography itself is based around the idea of hyper-sexualised and abnormally precocious teenagers. There is far more going on here than 'free expression'. The porn industry is involved in a campaign to fundamentally alter and distort our society and our culture, so as to further increase their profits and more widely propagate their grotesque view of the world.

At present we have a situation in which whole generations of children are being exposed in some way or another to hardcore pornography. They are either coming into contact with it directly, or else it is having an effect on their peer group and the culture that they share with their peers. The current system of parental filters is clearly not working, and something far more rigorous is needed.

The basic fact is that parental filters do not always work. There are ways in which they can be circumvented, either inadvertently or on purpose. Most current ISPs also require their customers to buy additional software if they want to block porn sites, and this software can be expensive. Why should parents have to shoulder the cost and the responsibility for protecting their children?
This is like arguing that sexually explicit images are acceptable on advertising billboards in the street, and that parents who want to protect their children from seeing them should buy them special glasses to wear when they are out and about.

A further problem is that certain parents may not set up their computers to block porn, for whatever reason, leaving their child to gain easy access to it. This then leads to that child possibly passing content to others, and so on.

If children can access porn through file sharing sites, then they should be blocked from accessing those sites too. If adults want their children to be able to share files over the internet, then there should be exclusive childrens' file sharing sites on which they can do so - properly monitored and regulated.

The basic fact is that we need to establish a society in which it is extremely difficult for a child to come into contact with online pornography, and highly unlikely that they will ever do so. We should use whatever means at our disposal to make this situation a reality - filtering by ISPs at source, parental filtering, etc. We should all be united to bring about a situation in which no child, if at all possible, ever turns on their phone or opens an email or clicks on a weblink and is suddenly presented with the sort of degraded and degrading material that floats around the internet unchecked today. All considerations of 'freedom of expression' or 'censorship' should be utterly secondary to this aim.

Channel 4 has just started series 5 of the Sex Education Show, this time from Redborne School, with a piece about what teens have seen which rather shocks the parents.

Good to see the show pushed parents as needing to discuss porn and getting more aware of parental controls and moving computers out of bedrooms.

All considerations of 'freedom of expression' or 'censorship' should be utterly secondary to this aim.

So you'd accept the "Chinese method" where brute force is used to block sites (yet despite their attempts, they still don't manage to block every site they deem unsuitable).

If you would allow some body (IWF ?, Government ?) to block sites (on a whim, perhaps, in the case of the IWF) then it's not a society I would wish to live in, and far from being a step safer for youngsters, it would be one step away from having the thought police, totalitarian "big brother" situation where any opposition to the ruling party could be wiped from history, not just the internet. Freedom of the press would have gone, too..

Ell11,

I'm just speaking personally but I don't want my girls going out with boys who have high demands of them sexually because they have "seen how it's done" on the Internet.

What makes you think that they will?

I dunno I must admit I agree with a lot of what SGB has said. There seems to be a presumption behind a lot of this about all the terrible effects that seeing porn must have on adolescent boys, when there's no evidence of it having such an effect. Every piece of supposed "evidence" I've ever seen has been woefully unscientific and in most cases, clearly serving a pre-decided agenda (religious, conservative, radical feminist etc.)

And there's plenty of evidence to the contrary - like studies that showed that after the explosion in availability of porn videos in American and Denmarks in the 70s and 80s, rates of sexual crime actually went DOWN. Which makes sense in some ways, when you think about it.

The anti-porn presumption seems to also ignore the gigantic elephant in the room: the idea that before widespread porn came along, everybody had good, "moral", "healthy" sex within committed relationships and made Jesus happy. Like there were no married women who never had an orgasm in their lives because their husbands didn't have a fuckin clue of course...

I suspect part of the problem is that women largely have no understanding of how sexuality works for men (that's not a criticism - just a fact, and I'm sure the opposite is equally true), and fail to understand how compartmentalised these things can be. Relationships are complex things that people go into for all kinds of reasons, sex being only one of them. The experience of looking at porn is simply different from the experience of being with another person.

I sometimes wonder how the nature of porn use (and thus production) would develop if all the guilt and assumption and fear were dropped. Like I wonder how horny people get when they live on nudist colonies. There must come a point where you just go "meh..."

"What makes you think that they will?"

Given the high number of teens who have seen porn, there's a pretty good possibility. How do you pre-screen the boys to be sure they've not seen porn?

Explaining how so much of the porn online does not match 'real life' is something they were suggesting on C4, after showing some parents some very explicit porn... After all, it's a long way from a regular boy/girl relationship to have 3 M + 1 F "going at it", same for the other clips that were shown (not to TV viewers).

I think some of the best information (to educate, and perhaps [hopefully?] put the brakes on) was showing teenagers the effects of STIs.

Sorry networkGuy, I probably didn't put that clearly. I realise any teenage boys she goes out with are likely to have watched porn. What I meant was, "What makes you think they will have high demands of her sexually because of it?". This fear seems to imply an assumption about a specific way that porn must always affect peoples' behaviour, and I don't think that assumption has really been examined.

I don't really get the "not matching real life" thing either. Real life is incredibly varied, and people are into different things. Pretty much everything that happens in porn is something that someone, somewhere is into - indeed it must be for it to have an audience.

But no one piece or genre of porn pretends to speak for the whole of human sexuality. People erect a strawman by pretending that it does. The fact that there is plenty of anal porn doesn't mean people are going to "expect" that a particular individual likes it, any more than than the widespread availability of hamburgers leads us to expect that everyone likes them.