Cameron hardens stance on UK web filth block Prime Minister David Cameron has again waded into the debate about protecting kids from pornography online by personally stepping up pressure on ISPs to block smut websites by default. His intervention comes during a torrid time for the Tories, with the party suffering heavy loses in local elections across the UK today. The …
because now the internet is full of people learning how to evade Virgin Media's implemented block of Pirate Bay (using Cleanfeed I have heard)
Previously if you had asked "How can I bypass the cleanfeed block" everyone would know you were a kiddy fiddler - now hundreds of thousands of non-geeks are learning how to avoid IWF blocks.
...if I am to be prevented from viewing a website I want it to be because that website has been proven to be illegal in a court of law. NOT because some useless political cretin leans on my ISP to block anything which might be thought to be "naughty" by some flunky at either employed by the ISP or wearing a Mary Whitehouse "for the public good" badge.
Make it opt in only, it's the responsibility of the parents to apply to their ISP and have it switched on for their connection. The parents need to start taking some responsibility for raising their own children instead of dumping them in front of the TV/PC/iPad and expecting the government to supervise them.
"Make it opt in only..."
Unfortunately, the Mary Whitehouse brigade have redefined 'opt-in' to mean 'opt-out'. They say people should have to 'opt-in' to being able to access porn. An Orwellian twist, which really means 'opt-out' of filtering.
The result is that when you call for it to be 'opt-in', they can say, "Yes, that's what we're calling for: an opt-in system where you have to opt-in to having access to porn. We're glad you agree."
She was a barking old bat, but Britain was very fond of her - both curtain-twitchers and non-curtain-twitchers alike.
Why? Simple - *because she had no power whatsoever*. She was just a noise. What she did do was provoke debate on the subject of obscenity amongst people who (unlike her) were balanced enough to engage in it.
Very well said. I personally don't agree (much) with Mary Whitehouse at all, but I am very glad that there was someone like her to challenge opinions in general. As many commentators on the Reg seem to miss: If there is no contrary opinion, there can be no debate.
Mary stood up for her beliefs and wasn't afraid to shout about them, in a not-really-that-mad kind of way. Compare that to any controversial debate on a site like this where it degenerates into abuse and shouting about how things should be, while taking no action in the real world whatsoever.
Also, she was excellent for satire a la spitting image. I also remember one of the Goodies saying that when they found out she liked their program, they went all out to get her to complain about them.
"As many commentators on the Reg seem to miss: If there is no contrary opinion, there can be no debate."
And as you seem to have missed: If there's no contrary opinion then everyone is in agreement and there's no need for a debate. Having politicians and media commentators "debate" an issue is not a good in and of itself.
One of the most important things we can do in order to get parents to do their job is to remove the expectation of, and the need, for both parents to work, at least fro the first six or seven years. That means essentially paying one parent to stay at home for that time.
Rampant capitalism means rampant children.
This is being used to force ISP's to put the infrastructure for content monitoring in place, I don't have any restrictions on my internet and don't want any.
I wish MP's who have no idea about how monitoring and filtering software works would stop telling people that we wont be able to view whats in 'your data', if you cant see whats in it you cant block it unless you rely on IP and address blocking which will by no means be a realistic method of blocking porn.
Its like the Royal Mail filtering your post without opening it???? Its not possible.
Then send her a kind letter:
Good Morning,
I felt it necessary to email my views regarding the current proposals about the Online Safety Bill and seeing as you seem to be championing it I though I would vent my concerns at yourself.
After reading the details of the Bill (HL Bill 137) and researching the views of other MP's, ISP's and like myself other ICT related workers I find it amazing at the complete lack of knowledge and sense the government and MP's are showing.
1. Duty to provide a service that excludes pornographic images
My ISP has one duty and that it too provide me with an Internet Connection for my use and for use by persons I choose which may included my children, I expect that feed to be unmonitored, unrestricted and private. I don't expect my ISP to breach my privacy by intercepting every request I make and then checking the contents are 'safe' according to the standards laid out by the government. Please don't insult my intelligence or tech knowledge by telling me that wont happen because it must for the filtering to work other wise it would be like royal mail filtering your post without actually opening the letter which would be impossible.
(3) The conditions are—
(a) 10the subscriber opts-in to subscribe to a service that includes
pornographic images;
(b) the subscriber is aged 18 or over; and
(c) the provider of the service has an age verification policy which has been
used to confirm that the subscriber is aged 18 or over.
Whilst I appreciate this is required on a Mobile Device as children could be the end user, you have to be over 18 to be the bill payer of a Land line as such that is my confirmation I wish to receive this service.
2. Duty to provide a means of filtering online content
Virtually all devices come with Contenting Filtering, Firewalls and Time Restrictions built in, failing that there are many systems available to consumers both free and paid.
3. Duty to provide information about online safety
ISP's already provide this information as do many public bodies, charities and business.
A final word....
I'm extremely concerned by this bill and I intend on campaigning against it along with many of my colleagues in the IT sector, these measures will do nothing to restrict children's access to questionable material not to mention the doors it leaves open for future blocking of websites, this bill alongside the recent blocking of other sites by a judge without the site owners being allowed to represent themselves in court is setting a dangerous precedent which could see many legitimate sites being blocked under false pretense.
This 'debate' and the 'consultations' are a waste of time, the emphasis needs to be on parents monitoring their children rather than the government and ISP's. I also seriously question the credentials of the people used as 'expert witnesses' during the consultation on this bill:
Deidre Sanders, “Agony Aunt” - Complete hypocrit who makes her money by working for a company that thinks it right to have a topless woman on the 3rd page and its paper on the bottom shelf.
Justine Roberts, Founder of Mumsnet - Raised a group of women who now think they have a complete knowledge of technology and internet because they are on 'a forum' which rather shockingly is one of the worst places for bullying online.
'Mumsnet reported that a survey of their site users found that 84 per cent were concerned that easy access to internet porn' if they werent so busy on Mumsnet they could probably monitor the kids internet habits instead.
I could carry on but I doubt you will actually get this far, so I'll wrap it up.....
1. My ISP should only provide my a transmission channel without any interception or monitoring.
2. I should govern what content is allowed over it whether for myself or my children.
3. The government should get back to running the country not parenting.
4. If you are set on Opt-Out mechanism can you please campaign for an Opt-Out of junk mail from Royal Mail, Op-Out of receiving rubbish from my Local MP and an Opt-Out of aggressive phone calls urging me to vote every election and offering me a lift to the polling station as I currently wouldn't vote for any party
I look forward to your response.
Feel free to copy, paste, edit and forward that email to your local MP or Claire Perry herself. So far i've sent a number of emails and letters, they all resulted in a pretty standard we'll have to wait and see as no formal proposal has been worded for either this bill or the real time monitoring
They truly are setting us up for a full blown V for Vendetta style government in multiple ways at the same time, and the masses are buying into it whether they think its because porn should be blocked, piracy should be stopped or we should read everyone's email on the hope of catching a terrorists. Rather than attack them one by one so they get the full attention of the media instead they are drip feeding details about each at the same time probably hoping one of them will slip through unopposed by the public.
@SJRulez - A generally very good email, I would also suggest posting it, a physical letter gets much more notice of an MP than an email. This is basically because of the sheer volume of emails that most MPs get. I would also suggest CCing the letter to your constituency MP.
With regard to the letter itself: When writing to an MP, never say anything like "I could carry on, but I doubt you'll get this far", that will gain an automatic binning of your letter. You make a couple of seemingly innocuous comments about "debate" and "consultations" using inverted commas, don't do that, it will turn the reader off you, because it says you've already made your mind up about what they will achieve. You say that Diedre is a "complete hyporcite", instead say that she "hypocritically says". Also, don't slag off the parenting skills of a (wrongly IMO) influential group of voters (mumsnet) instead question the unintended consequences of their actions. I would also loose 4 because you can do those things already and rephrase 3 to say that the government's duty it to run the country, not to interfere in families parenting decisions.
I don't criticise the content of your letter, at all, just that I have a few friends who work for MPs/political parties and they say the things that I have mentioned will be what makes your communication stand out.
Best of luck...
This is what I wrote to her a few days ago - much less beligerent since I assumed she would be getting many adversarial e-mails already. I tried to make it sound like I was sort of on her side (at least at first)
Dear Mrs Perry,
Whilst I applaud your desire to protect children from harm on the internet I believe your opt-in filter will actually have the opposite effect. I agree that pornography may have the potential to psychologically damage children and that they should be protected from such images. However there are other dangers on the internet which have already resulted in children suffering real physical harm, including rape, murder and suicide.
If your campaign to implement an opt-in filter for pornography succeeds parents could feel that it is OK to allow their children access to the internet unsupervised. Unfortunately this is unlikely to ever be safe.
The internet is not like television in any way. It is built on an entirely different paradigm. Just because we can now stream mainstream media content over the internet you shouldn't assume it is in anyway similar because that ability is not limited to oligarchs and large corporations.
I could set up a website url which anyone could access showing the live stream from my webcam in just a few minutes for example. In addition that website url (and even the underlying IP address) could be changed to a new one within a few seconds if someone decided to try & block the content.
Even then, any blocking put in place is trivial to circumvent in a number of ways; proxy servers, https protocols and virtual private networks for example. All of these technologies are vital to e-commerce and international business and so can not really be regulated against without severely impacting the economy and usefulness of the internet as a whole.
In addition the internet is much more than the web (http /https protocols) there are peer to peer networks, ad-hoc networks, ftp, smtp, ssh, and hundreds of other protocols for communication.
If I can give you an example - Virgin Media have already implemented the recent court order to block The Pirate Bay. Websites, forums and chat rooms are already full of trivial 2 minute work-arounds that enable virgin media customers to access the site instantly. This is despite Virgin Media using BT's Cleanfeed system which is used by the IWF to block child pornography. I think you can see this has another detrimental effect, which is that now hundreds of thousands of people are learning methods to circumvent the Cleanfeed system potentially exposing thousands more to Child Pornography.
The Real Danger
The real danger to children is simply the ability to communicate with billions of strangers from all over the world, not just by text (e-mail,forums,social networks, instant messaging, IRC servers) but also voice over IP and webcams. Allowing a child unsupervised access to the internet is like allowing them to wander through the backstreets of any major city in the world.
In real life we tell our children not to talk to strangers, but by allowing unsupervised access to the internet parents are encouraging their children to do just the opposite. How many reports are there of teenagers (and in fact adults) being harmed by going to meet strangers online? Or being blackmailed to perform on webcams? Or being groomed by paedophiles in chat rooms? These are not the result of being able to access pornography but simply the same social manipulation that humans have used on each other since we developed language.
The only real way to keep children safe on-line is to control their access to the internet as a whole. Obviously there is no effective means of doing this, however by introducing legislation which bans children under a certain age group from using the internet unsupervised you would at least be sending the right message which is that the internet is an adult environment not suited to unsupervised children in an way.
If I can summarise my points
Opt-in pornography filter
huge cost to ISPs - and eventually consumers
ineffective and trivial to circumvent
gives parents a false sense of security
while learning to circumvent this filter, they also learn to circumvent child pornography blocks
children pass information in other ways, it only takes one to bypass the filter & then everyone can.
Law banning under 18's from unsupervised access to the internet
probably impossible to enforce.
sends a message that the internet is not safe for children.
I find it almost impossible to believe that no experts haven't already pointed out these issues to you, but I haven't seen, heard or read this points discussed in any media coverage and would like to know how you intend to deal with the social manipulation aspects of freely allowing your child to communicate with billions of stranger without supervision?
Your faithfully, etc...
Although my blog is less understanding of her viewpoint...
http://www.janimania.com/2012/05/01/internet-censorship-porn/
Thanks for the support and i must admit your letter is far more elegant. As for the AC's comments above, thanks for the advice but if u feel this is a passion you may follow please feel free to amend the letter and forward it too persons you feel may be able to make a difference!
See that's the strange thing. The Tories are generally content to let "the market" and private enterprise sort this stuff out. If there were such a demand for a "clean" Internet, an ISP offering such a service would have formed by now and would be raking it in. Probably called Think Of The Children ISP. Presumably there isn't that much of a demand, so would kindly request that they jog on and sort out the economy instead of inventing half-ass proposals in response to parents that can't be arsed to parent.
I do love our governments approach of repeatedly asking the question until they get the right answer. Or just ramming it through regardless.
This post has been deleted by its author
So elt me get this straight they want each ISP to create a "Perv List" of "opt ins"?
So what happens when said opt in person is a doctor or teacher, MP, someone who works with vulnerable people, etc. Then the information on the list gets out? I think they could kiss their jobs goodbye in the moral outrage...
Seriously what is wrong with haveing a p0rn opt out? If you want to block it on your connection CHOOSE to block it!
Anon because, well Big Brother is watching.
I am opted "in" on my mobile connection.
Because the cycling forum I frequent is blocked otherwise...
It's really rather sad that any politician thinks that this filtering is anything like a good idea. I'm not keen on the overt sexualisation of kids which is being promoted through all the media.
Nor the rampant increase in sexual imagery being shown over all media. The internet isn't different from other media - yet I don't see restrictions on TV or print media.
There is no justification for this censorship - there is justification for education, particularly of parents. This could fairly easily be done by schools/leas - who necessarily have contact with children's guardians.
When my kids start to be able to use the computers on their own then I'll implement some filtering at home, but more than that we'll supervise them, talk to them.... No technical filter is ever perfect.
For it to be a complex problem it needs to be a problem in the first place and frankly it isn't. To turn "their" usual argument against them - it didn't do me any harm. In fact I'd go as far as saying that having unfiltered access to porn and access to communicate with others who share common interests actually made me a much more confident and productive individual.
Also - quite hilarious how those that are most adamant about blocking sick Internet filth are usually the same ones who want to have teachers commit acts of sado-masochism (caning) on their kids. Crazy world ain't it.
...Cameron and his blue-rise brigade offensive. Please place them on an automatic "opted-in" block list. Think of the children! While you're at it, add the LibDems and Labour to the same block.
Seriously, if you are worried about what your children can see on the Internet the you need to protect your child. By either being with your child, or censoring your connection.
If you do not know how to protect/care for your child, why the hell should I pay (through a loss of freedom) for your ignorance?
Net-Nannies/filtering is not that had, either learn, buy a tool or pay someone to sort it out for you.
"If you do not know how to protect/care for your child, why the hell should I pay (through a loss of freedom) for your ignorance?"
Through your wallet too, how do you think the ISPs will cover the extra costs of an opt-in administration and filtering system and of course a dedicated legal team playing whack-a-mole
I totally agree janimal, but this is just another sign of people expecting "someone" to do things for them, to be to blame, to carry responsibility. I pay a mechanic to do the jobs on my motorcycle I cannot (either due to tooling, skills or time), I pay a plumber/electrician/joiner to do the jobs on my home I cannot do; why should a household Internet connection be any different?
Parents, take some responsibility for what you brought into the world!
As I've just posted in another El Reg forum, they did.
See http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/bt-blocks-direct-access-to-telephone-porn-lines-personal-code-will-be-needed-for-adult-premium-rate-numbers-1494484.html
It was eventually revoked, but by that time there were other services accessible.
I didnt baffle him with science, and the why it wont work, and the how to get around any blocks... Because thats not going to win us any arguments. We'll get 'oh you're just not trying!' thrown back in our faces. 'We can put Men on the Moon, you must be able to deal with this!'.
So.. I took a differnt tack, one you've hinted at in this article.
I said, "why should I have to put my name on a list to access legal adult content? And when my name is on that list, and an annoymous hacker gang releases that list to the internet... People like teachers, nurses, politicians will be called PERVS!! Someone think of the children!!"
Scare them with their own game! Thats my thought.... Many of them think it'll be fine to add their name to the lists, because really its 'just harmless adult pron'... but when they're the one on the front page of the Daily Fail, they'll soon realise it was a bad idea.
... what happens to my business?
As I've posted in the past, I run a legltimate, legal and successful business making affordable leather products for the (ahem!) discerning adult ;-)
I already have my site signed up to Net Nanny, Cybersitter, Surf Watch etc so that *responsible* parents can install appropriate blocking software and stop their children accessing it.
But if this stupid proposal comes into force, I'm probably going to find my business on the blacklist meaning that anyone who wants to be a customer has to ask permission from Nanny first which is not going to be good for trade.
What next? Having to opt-in to being able to visit Ann Summers shop on the high street...??
At the moment ISPs enjoy Common Carrier Immunity, whereby they are not responsible for what the end user sees or receives from the Internet. If this heavy-handed censorship is implemented, it is very hard from my non-lawyer perspective to see how this immunity could be maintained; the Government is overtly forcing the ISPs to implement the censorship that the Government deems will protect kids from seeing pornography, therefore it could be argued that if a kid does see pornography whilst this censorship system is in place, then someone is liable for the breach.
At this point it would become a mad game of pass-the-ticking-timebomb as the ISP, Government, censorware-supplier and pretty much everyone else would immediately try not to be the person left liable for the failure. This is not a hypothetical situation; this WILL happen at some point if the censorware is implemented. At that point someone's going to land in court and get sued.
Odds are the person who ends up liable is going to be the censorware supplier, and if a muggins such as I can see this, the legal departments of all the prospective suppliers will also be very, very aware of this possibility. Therefore before taking up the contract, they are going to make certain that the Prime Minister himself signs a legal indemnity to prevent them being liable for any such damages, and as this would prove very damaging for the Government, I doubt it would get signed.
This alone would doom the project, I think.
Actually there are other places - but don't get too excited (no pun etc.)
I used to work for a company providing VOD content including dozens of pron channels, and due to the dodgy sound quality of much of the content we had people who did just that and watched everything before it went life. These poor people spent 7 hours a day sat in a special office with no external windows.
The staff turnover was incredible - especially when the same people were expected to watch both 'straight' and gay porn.
So be careful what you wish for.
Dear Mr Cameron
I am offended by pro-gun web sites. Guns which are illegal in the UK are being promoted in other countries as something which people should be allowed own. Outrageous! Please tell me how you intend to make those sites part of your opt-in policy. And of course any other web sites which encourage people to break our laws (albeit not their own laws) should be similarly put onto the opt-in list. Immediately!
By the way, apparently it is legal for people to watch porn in the UK, at least if you're over 18. Can I not simply tell my ISP that all occupants of my household are over the age of 18 instead of specifically putting a tick in the 'I want to watch porn' box?
Will I also have to opt-in to watch ads for alcohol, given that it's a product no child should be learning about? What else will be added to the opt-in list, or is it just the viewing of consensual sexual activity by adults?
Yours, etc.
that this MUST have been formulated by the (surely by now) failing Jazz-Mag industry as a last attempt to prop up their now outdated business model. Let's face it, when was the last time there was a major sighting of the now fabled 'Pornographicus Hedgii'
A bit like the thrashings of the music industry after their failure to see the potential from downloadable music.
And before anyone jumps in with "no music upset little kiddies", I would suggest that you need to broaden your musical horizons.
Ultimately though
YOUR internet connection - Your responsibility, not your ISP's, Not the scumvernment, or some faceless censor.
In a nutshell, technically pig-ignorant politicians, who know nothing about how the internet works (and would still probably know nothing, even if it was explained by Berners-Lee himself), should stop poking their noses in where they don't belong. Yes, Mr. Cameron, I AM talking about you! I am getting more and more exasperated by reading (almost daily) reports of various governments trying to regulate the net in one way or another or playing straight into the hands of BIG ENTERTAINMENT. Do we all not live on the same planet, for goodness' sake? What IS the matter with everybody?
If we are 'protecting the children' why is it always porn which faces the censor's wrath? Surely ALL content suitable for adults only should be opt-in. Do you like video games which are 18-rated? Sorry, you'll have to opt in if you want to see reviews, clips, etc. Horror, violence, any movie with an 18-rating - opt in or you don't get to see it.
What if a 10-year-old clicks on a trailer for 'The Hunger Games' (rated 12A)? Opt in only! What if the household has kids under 5? Shouldn't parents have to opt in to receive content which isn't suitable for pre-schoolers? Think of the damage those TV shows for 8-year-olds might do to a toddler. Think of the children!
Here's an idea. Assume that the default setting is 'no Internet at all'. Then use an opt-in method for the whole thing. All of it. Give this opt-in a special name, something like, oh I dunno, 'service contract' and pay for this opt-in 'service' month by month using an adult-only payment method - a credit card for example. That person could then take responsibility for the viewing habits of the household, because of course what's suitable for Dad might not be okay for little Jimmy.
What? We do that already? Who knew?
Which of these would the average person most like to take part in: sex, violence, torture, death? And yet the portrayal of which one of these is the only one the opt-in will cover?
It's not really about stopping children viewing content which is not age appropriate is it? It's just porn. Bad old corrupting old porn. Bad old LEGAL old porn (because the illegal stuff is ALREADY blocked). Sorry, if porn is bad and must be kept away from children, then so must all other adult-rated content. Cover it all with an opt-in or cover none of it, but don't just pick on porn because... well, why DO they just pick on porn?
Terrible election result, throw a PR announcement at the news as a distraction. Quiet news day (other than election) so should get a mention. Keep the blue-rinse wing of the Tories on line to stop them defecting to UKIP, and this sort of story always can get into the news (because anything sex related gets in the news).
How many stories have there been about Cameron related to this? Remember last june there was the story about the government banning clothing with suggestive slogans to children in shops? Didn't happen. Same story repeated in December last year. Didn't happen. Claire Perry has been banging this drum since last year, then Cameron banged the "opt-in" drum in October. We had only a week or two ago, Cameron talking about putting age limits on music videos (despite the fact they already have age limits).
It's just Cameron guff. He's a spineless, unprincipled PR man who would much rather tell people about the things he's going to do than to put in the effort to deliver them. The ISPs will come up with some little gesture (like sending out a leaflet about parental filtering) and that'll be the end of it.
"It's just Cameron guff. He's a spineless, unprincipled PR man who would much rather tell people about the things he's going to do than to put in the effort to deliver them. The ISPs will come up with some little gesture (like sending out a leaflet about parental filtering) and that'll be the end of it."
Actually looking at the new Euro age-based authentication system announced by the BBC this afternoon http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-17952259
It looks a lot more like a concerted effort by multiple governments to seize control of the net from the proles, the only obvious angle is the save the children one, however a europe-wide onlline age verification ID system is what is being proposed to keep the kiddies safe.
It is now sounding a lot less like a simple resurgence of the age old "this new fangled medium is too much fun for everybody to be tolerated" and more like a "hmmm how do we ensure that we can monitor every persons every action on the internet so that we can enforce the laws that the massie corporations want us to enforce"
Claire Perry said "We regulate this on the Television, so why can't we do it for the internet". The obvious response is that the internet is not run by oligarchs feeding the masses only what they want us to see. It looks like there is some big money that intends to change that.
Time for some immediate and decisive discussion right Brian?
"At home, four years ago, I sat in front of the computer with my two young daughters looking for information on the internet about their favourite dolls.
When I entered the term ‘American Girl’ in the Google search box the images that popped up had nothing to do with the innocent toys they loved to play with."
Has anyone challenged gobitician Clare Perry over her claims, and whether they're applicable/relevant now ?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/article-2134210/Im-fan-nanny-state-evidence-need-start-protecting-children-depraved-imagery.html
Again everyone focuses on the practicality and feasibility, Who cares, its only a matter of time before they have the infrastructure technology that can do practically anything they wish. So as argument based on a diversion, this is road to ruin.
Which brings us to the real fight against the police state then, so forget technical feasibility for this is immaterial, we should be focus on Cameron and his police state agenda, freedom of speech. If he wants china, then he should go and live there. Dont bring china here.
As a 12 year old can probably Google for and follow instructions on how to bypass the filter, I suggest that the filter is only suitable for protecting the under 12s. Therefore, any site that is not child friendly should be blocked. This will provide maximum protection for "the kids", whilst ensuring that most people opt out!
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
