Why David Cameron's war on internet porn doesn't make sense

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jul/21/david-cameron-war-internet-porn

by ollysb • 13 years ago

83 44 13 years ago

moocowduckquack2• 13 years ago

"Dear All,

I am emailing to ask for some specific action which the prime minister plans to announce shortly. This follows a meeting yesterday at No 10 yesterday to discuss a range of child internet safety issues including parental controls and filters. The prime minister would like to make some further specific requests of industry and his office have asked us to ask you when you could deliver the following actions.

1. Implementing browser intercept

I understand that Talk Talk will be trialling a "browser intercept" to force existing customers to choose either to proceed with parental controls (pre-ticked), choose their own settings or turn them off completely. The prime minister wants to announce that by the end of the year, every household with a broadband internet connection will have had to make a decision to "opt-out" of installing filters. Will the other three ISPs consider making a commitment to adopting this approach - even before it has been trialled?

2. Age-verification systems/closed-loop

The prime minister expects customers to be required to prove their age/identity before any changes to the filters are made. I understand that you will all be implementing "closed-loop" systems which will notify account holders of any changes that are made to the filters and that you have robust systems in place but please could you all confirm the precise information that is required to enable customer to access, set-up and change their filters?

3. Awareness campaign for parents

I understand that it was agreed at Claire Perry's meeting a few weeks ago that Talk Talk, BT and others would undertake some further research to establish what the focus of the campaign should be. The prime minister would like to be able to announce a collective financial commitment from industry to fund this campaign. I know that it will be challenging for you to commit to an unknown campaign but please can you indicate what sum you will pledge to this work that the PM can announce.

4. Using the phrase "default-on" instead of "active-choice +"

The prime minister believes that there is much more that we can all do to improve how we communicate the current position on parental internet controls and that there is a need for a simplified message to reassure parents and the public more generally. Without changing what you will be offering (ie active-choice +), the prime minister would like to be able to refer to your solutions are "default-on" as people will have to make a choice not to have the filters (by unticking the box). Can you consider how to include this language (or similar) in the screens that begin the set-up process? For example, "this connection includes family-friendly filters as default [or as standard] - if you do not want to install this protection please un-tick the box" (obviously not intended to be drafting). Would you be able to commit to including "default-on" or similar language both in the set-up screen and public messaging?

We are all aware of the really excellent work that you are doing and but there are a number of specific areas that the prime minister thinks need further immediate action. You are likely to receive a further message from colleagues in DCMS and the Home Office regarding tackling illegal images but given the short deadline for this work we thought it better to give you some time to work on these issues in the meantime. I need to report back to No 10 by the end of the week on these points so I would be grateful if you could consider this request as a matter of urgency and respond by midday Friday.

Apologies for the very tight deadline and grateful for your help with this work."

They should have signed it "Sir Humphrey Appleby".

user24• 13 years ago

I had to check that that was a real letter.

moocowduckquack2• 13 years ago

According to the BBC news it is, at least that's where I copied it from. It does read like satire though - Jim Hacker News, perhaps.

ordinary• 13 years ago

For the record, the above is a (real) letter sent by the PM's office to the UK's 4 largest ISPs: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-23312579

brown9-2• 13 years ago

What are they going to do when an ISP says no?

RossM• 13 years ago

This isn't the impression that the campaign website[0] gives - see the "Our Plans" section. It sounds as if new customers will be opted in by default, and existing customers will be enabled, and then have to disable the filter.

[0] http://protectingourchildren.co.uk/

kristofferR• 13 years ago

Aw, that's cute. Just 65 tweets and 7 Facebook likes, not exactly the most successful social media campaign...

transfire2• 13 years ago

Soon you will be required to have a title, register your computer annually and be insured against liabilities just to surf the net.

alan_cx5• 13 years ago

Oh man. Never thought about that before. I think you might have a point. Like a TV licence for a MAC address. What a revenue earner. Evil, but logical, and possible.

FFS, keep this idea quiet.

tomelders• 13 years ago

Tor. This whole thing is pointless because of Tor.

I don't think anyone is stupid enough to think this will work, not even that smug faced fop in downing street who somehow managed to luck his way into running my country.

So in reality, this is just a thinly veiled attempt to get people's names onto a list to be used against them at a later date.

I think we should brace ourselves for an avalanche of this Neo-Puritan fuckwittery.

JonnieCache• 13 years ago

You don't even need tor - just a SOCKS tunnel to a random vps. There's no way they're getting industry ISPs to play along with this.

corin_• 13 years ago

Most kids looking for porn are going to find it easier to install Tor than to set up a VPN to proxy through.

borplk• 13 years ago

Tor is the last resort. Things like this should not be happening in the first place. Just accepting whatever they do and moving on to some work-around is not a battle you can sustain and why should you have to?

Not to mention 99% of population can't be bothered or get their head around things like Tor. We are blinded by our hacker skills and constantly over-estimate the ability of the general population and under-estimate their unwillingness of learning technical things and their fear of technology.

haakon• 13 years ago

If things like Tor were the only way to get porn online, I truly believe that a large portion of the population would bother. (And then the Tor network would collapse under the load)

transfire2• 13 years ago

"We – children and adults alike – need to learn about the damaging psychological, social and physical effects of online porn."

Let me tell you where the real damage comes form... Parents and holier-than-though leaders traumatizing children by constantly telling them to be ashamed of their bodies and sexuality. Children aren't generally interested in porn. They see it, say "eeewww" and move on. There are no "effects" until the adult in the room freaks out.

xupybd• 13 years ago

LOL I call bs on that comment. I'm not too sure any 13 year old boys are going to say eeewww.

alan_cx5• 13 years ago

Indeed. Back in the day we had paper rounds. The best ones were were some "old perv" got a monthly porn mag with his paper. On that day, lads would be last for school, due to exhaustion...

nemof• 13 years ago

whilst I strongly disagree with the filtering, it's utter bs, it's also untrue that porn isn't having an affect on younger generations.

The real thing that needs to be happening is an honest and frank discussion about sex and sexuality, which is a pretty tall ask in the UK as we're quite prudish in some respects. We'd rather legislate against smut then talk about it.

As to the affect that I alluded to. When children get their sex education from porn, you get teenage boys thinking that anal's the norm. This isn't just a theoretical, this is something I know teacher friends have had to deal with in school, getting approached for help by teenage girls having to cope with this kind of thing.

Also, I've no idea where you get the idea that children aren't interested in porn. Perhaps not when they're 7, but when they're 12 or 14 they definitely are.

jeswin2• 13 years ago

Most 14 year old boys would have watched porn. Some of them might regularly watch porn. Amongst my friends I can't think of anyone negatively influenced or affected by this. No big deal.

michaelt• 13 years ago

The Radio 4 series Analysis [1] had an interesting episode on this - still available as a podcast, title "Pornography: what do we know?"

I encourage you to give it a listen as it's an interesting program. To vastly simplify and summarise, the reporter's conclusion is the evidence to show it causes serious and direct harm is weak.

[1] http://www.bbc.co.uk/podcasts/series/analysis

benjamincburns• 13 years ago

the war on online porn

Is there a version of Godwin's law that applies to declaring war on things? Something like "by declaring war on something that is not a country or other similar political enemy, the delcaree and his/her organization automatically loses said war?"

alan_cx5• 13 years ago

I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in. No reason this cant be a tick box in the router. Just an option for parents if they want it.

I have 6 kids. My two daughters have suffered grooming attempts online. No one can stop grooming online. I would never filter. No point.

Camoron is pandering to the anti gay marriage lobby and the Daily Wail nut jobs, while distracting from his disastrous policies of austerity.

untog4• 13 years ago

I honestly have no problems wit this as long as the default is unfiltered, and any blocks and filters are opt in

But we already have that in the form of installable software that blocks online smut. It baffles me that the government thinks they have a place to get involved here.

alan_cx5• 13 years ago

Sure, but mucking around with software, on each machine, is a lot harder and more daunting than a simple tick box at the router. Harder to manage too. Easier for the kids to get round or just destroy. Most concerned families are not geeks. They need it simple.

If the gov want a simple tick box opt in on the routers, I cant possibly see a problem with that.

Note: I am uber liberal on this. I would never tick the box. But I only speak for me, I understand the net and have my own views on porn etc. How ever, I dont seek to impose my liberal views on others. I simply want us all to have a reasonable choice, that we make our selves. I want "wet" parents to have their option, so that I can have mine. Their freedom to chose is as important as mine.

14113• 13 years ago

The problem isn't the blocking - I'd be happy for Cameron to enforce blocking at the personal router level. The problem for me is that it's at the ISP level. It requires deep packet inspection, and starts a slippery slope to them being able to block anything for any reason.

gesman• 13 years ago

David Cameron just reignited the new wave of interest to online porn of all sorts. Way to go!

nicholassmith• 13 years ago

Nice way to try and Jedi mind trick it. It's a ridiculous idea that has so many flaws that'll cause it to fall apart in large exposure, add on the fact that ISPs will require a new set of processes and administration and kick the cost back onto customers, which always helps drive internet usage when people who can barely afford it now won't be able to afford it at all.

Anyone vaguely intelligent enough to search 'hide connection' will be able to find out how to setup a VPN pretty damn quickly, thus rendering it moot. Unless using a VPN becomes an act of suspicion and puts you under monitoring, because surely you must have something to hide then. Next up, a war on curtains.

kenthorvath• 13 years ago

I suspect this is a distraction to direct the public's attention away from PRISM and the NSA controversy.

astrange• 13 years ago

Your comment makes it difficult to tell whether or not you realize the UK and USA are different countries.