UK "default on" ISP censoring will include "web forums" by default

We've replied about this on ORG's blog.

We've replied about this on ORG's blog.

Thanks Jim, you've said a lot that I strongly agree with.

I'd go further though, using the NSPCC's own figures (which are as good as any we've got) http://www.nspcc.org.uk/Inform/resourcesforprofessionals/sexualabuse/statistics_wda87833.html ...

1 in 20 children have been (are being) sexually abused, and 90% of those abused know their abuser.

Simply, the original source of this "protect the children" thinking stemmed from the argument that we needed to protect children from paedophiles, without at any point noting that the source of the vast majority of sexual abuse comes from within the family, the close friends, and are consequentially abuses of positions of trust.

If the government truly wanted to protect the children, then the government should focus it's efforts on the 90% of sexually abused children who are abused by relatives and those close to the family.

The issue seems far less about "protecting the children" from accessing porn. In fact the argument seems to have morphed... if one asked "what are we protecting the children from?", the answer was (hysterically) "paedophiles!". Achieved by limiting their access to child porn online. Once it was obvious this would be circumvented, the answer suddenly became "online porn and an over-sexualised society"... and now seems to want to by-default limit societies access to all data to be only the family-friendly data.

Of course the sick bit is that sexual abuse, given the stats... seems to be the family friendly bit. The broad censorship does nothing to actually help those who really are being abused and being subject to sexual violence.

And yes, the collateral damage in all of this, are things painted over by the broad brush... web forums.

I wonder how effective that particular filter will be when the very parents who would want it enabled will also want to access mumsnet.

Who's going to be the first person to write a worm/trojan to reset the filter settings everywhere?

Who's going to be the first person to write a worm/trojan to reset the filter settings everywhere?

That's the kind of thing owners of web sites could do really easily.

I reckon you just perform a POST to http://192.168.0.1/ParentalFilter.asp and turn everything off.

Or turn them all on so that people complain the internet is broken.

^^^ I admit to not following what politicians have actually been saying, but I assumed the porn filter was not to do with direct abuse of children (which is widely known to be in the vast majority of cases carried out by relatives and friends of the family - despite the tabloids pretending otherwise - and certainly all politicians should know this). but that it was a fear that children are damaged through viewing porn. every so often someone gets their knickers in a twist about the over-sexualisation of children. I share some of these concerns. however I do not think legislation is an appropriate way of dealing with a complex social issue. and if we are talking about the over-sexualisation of children, I do not think that viewing porn is the biggest problem. If that's the line of thinking, then to me it's obvious that next down that slope is limiting sex education. or making it hugely moralising. I'm not talking about the collateral damage or the logistics of filtering etc, I'm simply thinking about the intention "to protect children from on-line porn". I think it's fucking fantastic the resources that are available to teenagers and young people, online, about sex and sexuality. this naturally includes porn. I find many commercial adverts far more problematic.

Child porn, terrorism, the foreign devil - these are are conveniences for the censorious to hang their coats on.

The porn filter is nothing to do with anything other than prudes that don't like porn trying to impose their views on the general populace. As it ever was, as it ever shall be.

Their only cogent argument that stands up to any scrutiny is "I don't like it, so I don't want you to be able to view it".

That's the kind of thing owners of web sites could do really easily.

I reckon you just perform a POST to http://192.168.0.1/ParentalFilter.asp and turn everything off.

Or turn them all on so that people complain the internet is broken.

I, of course, wasn't suggesting anyone do such a thing, merely that I wondered who the first would be, as it seemed like something easily possible. :)

They start by introducing a porn filter. But that's just so they get the filtering enabled (basically everywhere because it defaults to ON).

Then they can, quite conveniently and quietly, filter out whatever they want.

Someone getting a little too vocal about a dodgy government policy? Let's just add them to the blacklist for a while to turn their public volume down.

It's all about getting government control over the internet because the internet scares them because it hasn't been controllable.

Everyone was like "oh wow look how the Syrians used twitter to overcome their shitty government". What would've happened if that same government had wide-ranging filtering abilities for the whole country?

http://zedkat.wordpress.com/2013/07/31/on-banning-pro-ana/ Is a really good blog on the pro-anorexia sites, and why banning them might make things worse. I don't think that the author has picked up that the sites would be caught under 2 of the categories.

Also, has anyone seen anything around/asked anyone as to what a Web Forum might cover? I'm thinking that anywhere that allows you to leave a comment under an article is technically a web forum...

The decision on what is / what isn't to be filtered / censored will be left down to some unaccountable quango / NGO.

My guess is that ISPs will point their DNS servers to the next incarnation of the IWF (who will no doubt be receiving plenty of funding, and are probably balls deep in this already - follow the money, and all that), who will operate an OpenDNS-style service.

The decision is so monumental, I could only imagine someone like Tipper Gore having the nous to make it.

We certainly don't want all the gore the Internet tips into children's bedrooms.

l X l - Awful and laboured puns.

l X l - ASCII art/diagrams

Steve McCabe MP (Lab) replied with:

A balance must be found between protecting children and ensuring individual freedoms are preserved.
You do however raise some very interesting points in relation to other websites which to some may prove very important. I
intend to raise your points with the Prime Minister and will be back in touch once I receive an adequate response.
So a bit better than Diane.

(points raised were Bothwells, thanks!)

They start by introducing a porn filter. But that's just so they get the filtering enabled (basically everywhere because it defaults to ON).

Then they can, quite conveniently and quietly, filter out whatever they want.

Someone getting a little too vocal about a dodgy government policy? Let's just add them to the blacklist for a while to turn their public volume down.

It's all about getting government control over the internet because the internet scares them because it hasn't been controllable.

I thought that this is what it was really about?

Package a content blocker that allows you to restrict what the public gets to see in nice fluffy "won't somebody think of the children", and get everyone on board.

How to take away liberties and have the people love you for it exercise 101?

Steve McCabe MP (Lab) replied with:
So a bit better than Diane.

(points raised were Bothwells, thanks!)

This is a better response than the big sack of nothing I got from Chuka Ummuna MP

I don't expect much back from Andrew Rosindell either.

I've got nothing from http://www.angiebray.org.uk/news/issues

When did it stop being a parent's responsibility to protect their children and become a government's perogative?

I was protected from pornography as a child by not having a computer in my bed room and my father regularly checking under my bed / mattress / back of wardrobe etc.

This has never been about children. I doubt my MP will respond to me.

When I were a lad the only way to see porno were to find old bag of dirty Razzles in bushes.

They were some sweet, sweet finds.

^^^ BrambleMags

http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2013/aug/01/government-tracking-google-searches