Cameron pushes on porn-filtering programme
David Cameron is alleged to be championing an 'education' programme that will see parents pressured into using content filtering software in the name of child protection.
Under the terms of the TV Licensing agreement, retailers who sell a device which requires a licence for its primary purpose - a TV, set-top box or video recorder with in-built tuner, for example - are supposed to ask the buyer for his or her address to be checked against the TV Licensing Authority database. Those who have purchased a licensable device but who do not have a valid licence can expect a visit from the Authority's appointed minions, inspectors - with no legal power, mark you - largely employed by Capita to check for infringing use.
According to details from The Daily Mail - granted, not the most reliable of sources - Cameron thinks that's a wizard wheeze that could be extended further in the name of child protection.
Under guidelines proposed by Cameron and his staff, those purchasing a new computer or signing up for an internet connection will be asked at the point of sale whether or not they have children. Answer in the affirmative, and they will be treated to a masterclass in installing, configuring and using filtering software to protect the little Timmys and Tammys of the world from the evil spectre of on-line pornography. Existing customers of ISPs will all be provided with the same advice.
The onus of policing this is on the shoulders of the ISPs themselves: according to reports, ministers are to ask service providers to implement measures - what measures, it is not suggested - to ensure that those fiddling with the settings of content filtering software are aged 18 or above.
According to the Mail - again, a paper not unfamiliar with sensationalism - the proposals are being championed by Cameron himself, with an official announcement expected to come from Downing Street later this month.
Although it is not made clear by the Mail's coverage, it is likely that Cameron's focus is on connection-based filtering systems run by the ISPs themselves rather than client software installed by computer owners with children. Talk from the tabloid's sources is of '[asking users] if they want to switch on parental controls' rather than if they want to install software. As a result, it's not too hard to imagine a future in which a filtered internet feed is the norm, with those who wish to view unapproved material being required to prostrate themselves before the Great Internet Gods and beg for exemption from the filtering system - a state of affairs which is already the case for the majority of mobile broadband connections and smartphone data contracts.
Previous Article
66 Comments
Discuss in the forums ReplyIn the meantime, it doesn't sound that bad to me... unless of course they use it as a template to do other things. I don't see how it should be the ISPs responsibility though. A crash course in some user software = fine.
It's not exactly hard to setup local filtering anyway, I bet there's something in a Which guide about it, :D
Porn sites that don't care who views their content wont use .xxx as they don't want their content filtered.
Prime Minister David Cameron has plans to push content filtering systems on parents, enforcing their use via 'education' at point-of-sale in a similar way to the current TV Licensing system.
Yeah, that will work well considering the majority of children know more about using computers than their parents ever will and given that many parents buy their children 18 rated games and allow them to watch DVD's and TV programmes that are meant for adults
At point of sale, "Do you have any children" replies "No"...Big Brother fails again
Rather - "Do you have any children", replies "Yes...Oh crap! I left them at the pub!"
:D Yeah, but she was eight and probably finishing her pint off
/proper old man rant
I once was on the laptop of someone I was babysitting (about 6 years ago) and I found tons on porn sites in the history of his computer. This was a 9 year old kid, he should not be considering in that way sex at that age, its just not good for you. This is not a joke and I honestly found it quite distressing.
His parents could be blamed, but I don't think that's really fair as to be honest I NEVER would have expected someone that age to need to be protected, because this should not even be on their radar.
The lines between oppression and protection are fine and dangerous to walk, but sometimes the opt in is better than the opt out, as long as there is an option.
Thing is though this is changing. The guys who were young when the internet was Hampster Dance and Geocities are growing up and having kids, in a few years this problem will become less and less of an issue as the "adult" population becomes more internet savvy... They, after all, did build it.
I understand the sentiment behind this and I too find it truly shocking. BUT it is up to the parents to attempt to filter out not just pornography, but gambling, gore, adult themes etc.
I would do this as a matter of course regardless of the age of my daughter when she starts using the internet, because you just never know what they might innocently stumble across.
I'll just add that I think forcing people to opt in at point of sale seems a non-problematic approach, those who are allowed to view this sort of material will hardly be inconvenienced by a single check box in the ordering process, or the need to provide a credit card for authorisation. The point is not to restrict access to pornography as they do with illegal themes, but simply only to allow access to those who feel they need it.
So its only a matter of time before government tells us what is acceptable for us to read/watch on the internet as well.
For a huge proportion of households this will make no difference (yes I realise that the demographic on this particular forum*might* just feel differently). It will also be a filter that could be lifted retrospectively.
To me the fact a 9 year old has his own laptop is pretty bad.
What happened to playing with lego etc?
My parents found out the hard way (as did I) that they had to try and limit what I viewed online.
I'm not a massive fan of it in general. However since a lot of sites don't have age limits, and even then they don't work, it may be ok, no different to limiting who can buy pornographic magazines etc.
True, but there will always be some parents/step parents/ legal guardians that are irresponsible and just can't be bothered or just don't care enough, I come from a background where if the internet had been available when I was a kid I could have done what I wanted on it.
I think there are just too many variables in parenting and home life for children to be able to cover every possible scenario of them accessing unsuitable material, you might be able to lock down the home PC but what about net access on phones, pads, tablets, consoles, I don't think many parents will be able to keep up with it all, you could deny your children these devices but there will always be a friend of theirs that has something to access the net on.
Tin foil hats ahoy. Seriously mate, its not that bad. When was the last time a film was actually properly banned?
Seems like a reasonable idea to me, plenty of kids have laptops/tablets nowadays and even the advertising in certain corners of the internet can be a bit rich.
because we all know she must do a few googles to look at other men because he's a boring f*rt.
His parents are to blame, frankly. They should be monitoring his laptop, whitelisting websites and so on (the poster questioning the need for a 9 year old to have a laptop also has a fair point). Of course, the way things are going it looks like it will be your government who are to blame soon.
The parents of people currently aged 18 to 30 could possibly be the last generation where the kids have the upper hand on technology for the most part. Measures like this may become unnecessary.
In that situation; do you not think this is pissing into the wind? If "carers" can't be bothered monitoring web use there are probably bigger problems coming the kids way, no?
Its not about covering every base, that is impossible, its about setting boundaries. With some hypothetical ideal kids filtering wouldn't be necessary they'd have been taught not to use certain sites but obviously this is unrealistic.
Securing the home network is the least any one should do, content filtering is simple enough at point of access and if one isn't tech savvy enough to set up a proxy then the ISP can be asked to activate the filter.
I've no problem with opt-in filters, they're a reasonably effective and responsible tool. Opt-out on the basis of "won't some one think of the children" is ineffective knee jerk nonsense which just passes parental responsibility to the government or ISP.
Maybe the husband used it so as not to get caught by the wife.
But should you really if been going through someone else's history?
Sent from my GT-I9300 using Tapatalk 2
If you really believe the media you consume isn't censored you have a bad case of denial, The only reason things are not banned now days is because people know what will get banned so don't waste there money making things that will never see the light of day.
I went to go to "hotmail" and found "hot cheerleaders" in the drop menu, so investigated.
5 years ago this problem was still under the surface so parents we're quite as aware of the dangers becoming more common and I did think that for a long time but the more I think about it, the less I think it was the parents.
And who says it was the nine-year old that done it? Might have been daddy borrowing his laptop. Either way, nine-year-olds shouldn't have their own laptop yet.
Agreed. His wife is too hot for him.
Haha, been watching a few 9/11 documentaries have we?
I believe that news corporations tell us things based on their own political agenda and also what fits into their story arch at that particular time (part of the reason I often watch Russia Today for a second opinion).
But I don't believe "they" control all the media we consume. In fact I find that when people start talking about "they" they are usually spouting reactionary BS regurgitated from a few online writers or documentaries made by teenagers.
You may think I'm in denial, I think you are naive and slightly childish
Who did you say had the tin foil hat ? even the news has to censor what they air they cant air nudity or explicit scenes, well not where i live.
I never mentioned "they"!
Censorship has a history going back to before Christ was born, Calling someone naive and slightly childish isn't a very clever thing to do when you show those traits your self by how little you know on the subject your talking about.
Back to before christ was born eh? Where did you read that one? I think most people were probably more worried about eating than censorship to be honest mate. In fact I don't think the concept existed.
You seem very sure christ was born though. Surely the new testament is the best example around of how to control people through text in history. Right up to Henry VIII re-writing it because he wanted a divorce; controlling the media so to speak.
And yes they can't show explicit scenes on the news, GOOD POINT.
Also you will make more sense when you learn some punctuation.
Before Christ is a well know time frame (in case they don't teach this in school now days),
399 BC (Before Christ) perhaps the most famous case of censorship in ancient times is that of Socrates, sentenced to drink poison for his corruption of youth and his acknowledgement of unorthodox divinities
And rolling out the old punctuation argument just goes to show your grasping at straws, very sad indeed.
real life family:
Mum is the BB account holder.
22yr old son living at home: "Mum, can you call Sky & ask them to turn on the porn"
At least there will be less old man related wrist injuries in the home then.
There's nothing I can do about what she sees at school or at a friend's house, but I'll do my damnedest to make sure that she can't access inappropriate material at home. She won't have an unrestricted web enabled mobile device until she's in her teens, and there will be one internet-connected PC she can access in a public part of the house until I deem it appropriate for her to have her own.
I was in my early teens in the early days of the web, and I saw things at a formative age that my parents couldn't even imagine today. The internet in the early 90s was a lot less policed than it is nowadays, and even a simple Lycos/Excite search often seemed to uncover sites that were clearly filled with illegal content. Things are a lot better now as most of that sort of stuff is buried deep within the dark side of the net, but it pays to take responsibility as a parent.
Many people either don't have kids or deliberately bury their heads in the sand blaming technical incompetence, but that's no excuse in my opinion.
I think the thing is personal choice, it should be the parents decision to decide what the child can and cannot see, not david cameron or any other mp.
Haha okie dokie Stephen Fry, couldnt wait to roll that one out eh. I'd argue thats a very tenuous link to censorship to be honest, at least in the context of the conversation. Interesting factoid though, well done.
Its not sad though friend, the ability to express yourself in written form does require punctuation. You seem to be a reasonably intelligent if slightly misguided chap so why make yourself look silly with childish mistakes? ;)
Agreed, but wouldn't it just be easier as the parent of a twelve year old if the ISP did it all for you? No need to worry about technicalities then, as many folks seem not to anyway.
Yup. But from what I see and hear, it seems that tragically few actually do.
I'm still struggling to grasp the issue here. Those who want porn will be in no different a position than they are now. Those who don't will by default be excluded from the club until they ask permission to join in again.
If asking one's ISP to switch a filter off is considered a hardship then I'd invite the complainant to spend a day in my shoes.
If asking ones ISP to switch on a filter is a hardship to far...
This porn switch is a supposed solution to a non-existent problem, the argument is that some parents don't care, so why will they care to turn off the porn or go without porn for the sake of their kids? A blanket wide solution that effects every net user for the sake of people that cant be bothered bringing their kids up properly ..no thanks. If a parent cannot secure the tech in their house from their kids, they should not have tech in their house. Do parents not supervise their kids any longer?
If kids/porn are a real problem ..then make it a criminal offense to let your kids watch porn & leave the net out of it.
To all the naysayers, have you ever thought about why adult TV channels are encrypted and only shown in the dead of night? Why there is still a watershed on television? Why jazz mags are on the top shelf? Why the BBFC exists? It's to help prevent small children from seeing things that they are not supposed to, things that could be damaging to an impressionable child.
If we are not going to police the internet ourselves, then what other option have we got? Or does everyone advocate having ad-funded softcore porn channels broadcasting throughout the day, never more than a few clicks of the remote away from being displayed?
I totally agree with the censorship sentiment - I would have been a very unhappy 15 year old if someone had taken my precious porn away from me - but I was 15, not 8.
The problem is that whilst all parties commenting on this thread are astute, intelligent and strong-minded individuals, the vast majority of the population are far less so. This translates into their little kids growing up too quickly, and losing their innocence extremely young. The less intelligent of them will have skewed ideas about the opposite sex, sexual violence etc.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize (sic) half of them are stupider than that." George Carlin. Oft quoted but oh so true.
I ought to just say that I would never have felt so strongly before becoming a parent, but seeing how carelessly some of my peers raise their children sickens me, and quite frankly I want the very best for mine.
And how effective is it?
What do they gain?
What does one risk?
Don't you think this would be better handled by paying ISP to send a flyer round to all their customers saying we have this filtering software you can use for free if you want? This gives parents/consumers the information to make an informed decision. If they can't be bothered to make an informed decision the kids probably have bigger problems...
I would say its fairly effective at stopping users inadvertently clicking on hardcore child porn and beheading videos ..of course you can still find these things but it takes some conscious effort.
Power.
Prosecution.
Just as many people think that teachers should police their children a lot of people seem to think that ISP's should police the internet to keep their children safe, they are your children and it's your responsibility to do as much as you can to protect your children from unsuitable material.
If Camerons suggestion was handed in as 2nd year computer science project it would receive a D- as a solution not-fit-for-purpose & failing to identify the parameters of the initial problem.
e2a: @shirty ...its good to see parents like yourself taking the time to thrash out the issues instead of leaving everything for the electronic babysitter to decide.
To be honest I can see both sides of the argument, and I'm well aware that as far as Cameron is concerned this really isn't all about the kids, it'a about appeasing some of the noisier members of the electorate.
Parents like myself and the majority on forums such as these won't be affected in the least by the proposed legislation, it's geared towards those who are unable (read refuse) to help themselves. Which is a terrifying proportion of the population.
In an ideal world education would be the best policy, and the best place to put public money. But if that could ever work then it certainly isn't at the moment - hence these sorts of knee-jerk suggestions. There has to be a better way, but no practical measures have been attempted as yet.
We never had any filtering software when I looked at porn as a teenager, but then again the internet was in its infancy and Net Nanny didn't exist, and I'm sure the attitude to porn was one of naivety; most parents probably weren't aware how easily it could be accessed back in the late 90s (mine most certainly were blissfully unaware... blissfully for me, that is).
Things have changed since then however and I think that today's parents are without excuse; it's patently obvious that children can easily access porn on a PC that is not protected by filtering software.
I agree. I'd go so far as to say the problem (in part) comes back to our nation's attitude to sex, and the business of not saying anything to the kids just spikes their curiosity and makes matters worse.
So its not actually effective at all at controlling the population, if any one can make a concious effort to get round it.
What power? You've been reading too much 1984 mate. Whilst I seriously worry for the intelligence of most of the population, what power can be made by controlling their access to the internet?
What prosecution? Has any one been prosecuted for accessing piratebay going round the the isp filters?
Extrapolating from World War II, the novel's pastiche parallels the politics and rhetoric at war's end—the changed alliances at the "Cold War's" (1945–91) beginning; the Ministry of Truth derives from the BBC's overseas service, controlled by the Ministry of Information; Room 101 derives from a conference room at BBC Broadcasting House; the Senate House of the University of London, containing the Ministry of Information is the architectural inspiration for the Minitrue; the post-war decrepitude derives from the socio-political life of the UK and the USA, i.e. the impoverished Britain of 1948 losing its Empire despite newspaper-reported imperial triumph; and war ally but peace-time foe, Soviet Russia became Eurasia.
So you think that the government will be able to implement a better one?
It is evident that if a large media organisation chooses to back a party that support can be an enormous boost, NI (The Sun) swapping to the Tories (In England). However I'm not seeing how that translates to power for any one but Murdoch. In your world the government is at worst a puppet for the media corps, but since these big corps are disappearing thanks to the web I can't see it being an issue long.
In reality people consume the news which fits their world view. Alf Garnett isn't a bigot because he reads the Daily Mail he reads the Mail because it panders to his world view.
The paradigm shift required to end up with a one party system so powerful that it can do as it pleases just because it controls the media is at best unproven, realistically more than a little unlikely. History shows us that a single group can seize power one way or another and then once in power restrict access to "unhelpful" information and blanket the country with propaganda but even that doesn't leave them with the kind of absolute power you seem to think would result. See Egypt, Syria and Libya for recent examples and the USSR for a little more history.
No I wasn't I was questioning how many people have been prosecuted in the UK for circumventing the UK's filter. To call it a firewall is to aggrandise it more than a little.
"Maybe, please follow me to room 101 and we will discuss it"
In principle yes. But to be educated you need to be willing to learn. There in lies the problem and as you say, hence these knee jerk reactions.
'the world you live in'
'reading too much 1984'
And instead go for a fact based, de-personalised, content driven discussion & maybe we will get along much better, if you scroll back to the beginning of our conversation, I took the time to answer all of your questions without any personal jibes ..it went of the rails when you started arguing when you clearly don't even have a basic grasp of the facts...like national firewalls etc; which have been in existence for years; & denying you said anything about firewalls in other countries on a time stamped thread was just silly. Nothing to do with being naive just being sloppy.