Cameron's Anti-Porn Program Tells ISPs To Do The Impossible: Only Block Bad Content; Don't Block Good Content

from the stop-not-controlling-things-you-can't-control! dept

The Great Internet Porn Firewall of Britain is now in full effect and, contrary to earlier reports, the no-porn filter will be mandatory even for smaller, "boutique" ISPs. How this will play with Andrews & Arnold, the ISP inviting customers seeking internet filtering to check with North Korea, remains to be seen.

All "questionable content" boxes are to be pre-ticked to provide maximum sanitization, per UK policy, and if someone wishes for a less censored internet experience, they'll have to go through the trouble of informing their ISP that they are indeed a responsible adult capable of handling NSFW material.

In addition, the UK government wants a guarantee that legitimate content won't accidentally get sucked into the filter. How it imagines this will be accomplished remains a mystery. I doubt anyone in Parliament will be staying up late trying to solve this problem as the government has decided to "allow" the ISPs to figure it out on their own.

Finally, DCMS demand ISPs give them magic beans (“We want industry to continue to refine and improve their filters to ensure they do not – even unintentionally – filter out legitimate content”) and threaten them with regulation if they do not answer to future demands, or “maintain momentum”.

There's nothing quite like a faith-based technological platform crafted by a crack team of professional busybodies and bureaucrats, especially one that assumes the only fuel needed is good intentions and the "momentum" will sustain itself into perpetuity. OR ELSE.

The not-so-veiled threat on the end really drives the point home. What happens if the ISPs fail to deliver the impossible with their inability to prevent something that is by definition unpreventable? What are the consequences of failing to "maintain momentum" or "proactiveness" or whatever term the government is using to redefine "doing what they're told?" The "strategy guide" spells it out this way.

And while Government looks to the industry to deliver, through the self-regulatory mechanisms already established under UKCCIS, we are clear that if momentum is not maintained, we will consider whether alternative regulatory powers can deliver a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access that is easy to use.

Jesus. That's frightening. If ISPs don't march in lockstep with Cameron's orders, they'll simply be beaten into shape by restrictive government mandates that ensure "a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access." If that doesn't sound like a slightly kinder, gentler version of any totalitarian regime's homegrown "internet," then I didn't just throw up a little in my mouth while typing out that quote.

Why would the government threaten to set up its own internet, one dangerously low on a.) blackjack and b.) hookers? For the children, of course. Every form of media, not just the internet, is subject to these guidelines.

This should be underpinned by a basic, common set of media standards, building on existing standards that already apply in many places. We would expect this to include:

• Protection of minors: including protecting children’s exposure to material that seeks to sexualise them, strong sexual content, violence, imitable and dangerous behaviour, any specific health priorities, safety of children in content and protecting against commercial influence.

Well, Cameron might want to contact the Daily Mail and ask if it's willing to stop sexualizing minors, something it's never been shy about doing even if the front page is making all sorts of noise about rampant child pornography. I'm sure Cameron will also be clamping down on advertisers who push products pretty much anywhere they can aimed at the wide open wallets of teens and tweens (or ultimately, their parents). (P.S. Have the cast of Jackass shot.)

The UK government's neverending quest to turn the internet into a Disney-esque wonderland where no one sees anything they don't want to and are never even mildly insulted is pathetic. And disturbing. Cameron's plans infantilize the nation's children and adults, treating them both as precious bundles of stupidity too incompetent to make their own decisions on appropriate content.

If Cameron's ultimate goal is to govern a nation of infants, he's well on his way. But he's going to find the behavior behind the disturbing images will continue on unabated. His solutions will work about as well as slapping band-aids on someone bleeding internally. At some point down the road, he or his successors will triumphantly point at the unstained bandages as proof of their effectiveness. And if something should actually mar the surface, the call will out go out for bigger bandages -- and more of them.

Filed Under: david cameron, errors, filters, porn, uk

A 'Watershed' For The Internet, An Invitation To Use A N. Korean ISP And Other Fallout From The UK's Porn Filtering Plan

from the who-knew-people-having-sex-could-be-this-much-trouble? dept

It's been a rather eventful weekend as David Cameron's porn vendetta (porndetta?) is now completely underway. Just in the past week, we found Cameron blaming search engines for child porn, claiming topless women in British newspapers were NOT porn and that the UK government had outsourced its filtering system to a company headquartered in China.

In other, non-Cameron news, a self-appointed Guardian of Purity, Claire Perry, had her website hacked, goatse'd and referred to in a blog post. Perry's response? To blame the hacking on the blogger reporting the news and threatening to call his editor and discuss... well, something, I guess. Long story short: Perry is now facing a possible defamation suit for calling the blogger a hacker.

Over the weekend, the inadvertent gift kept on giving.

First off via Slashdot, the Polish Minister of Justice got swept up in the anti-porn spirit and declared Cameron's filtering system to be just the sort of thing Poland needs. This set off a debate which, unlike many, was resolved by the end of the day, when the Polish Prime Minister Donald Tusk (along with the Minister of Administration and Digitization, Michal Boni) took the idea 'round back and had it shot.

We shall not block access to legal content regardless of whether or not it appeases us aesthetically or ethically.

That's PM Tusk leaving zero room for argument with a firm statement. Boni, showing he's one of the rare politicians who understands how the Web works, added:

I would like to find solutions that are effective and at the same time do not cause concerns regarding surveillance of Internet users or over potential of erroneous limiting our Internet activity. (...) Filtering does not remove the content.

It's a sad statement on the world's political leaders when a little technical know-how is enough to set you apart from your peers. Claire Perry's grasp on "hacking" seemed to rely on the "fact" that screenshots and hyperlinks are interchangeable, as well her assumption that reporting on a site hacking is the same as hacking the site.

On the plus side, Perry's lack of knowledge still puts her ahead on another anti-porn crusader, Rhoda Grant of the Scottish Parliament who, back in June, posed this question:

“If there’s a watershed on the TV then why isn’t there one for the internet?”

O....K.....

Absolutely, Rhoda. We'll get right on it. We'll send a letter down to The Internet (a.k.a. "Google") informing it of the 10 PM cutoff. Once the kids are in bed, Google The Internet is free to resume its regularly scheduled programming of porn and sweary bits. But not before 10 PM. (P.S. That includes Image Search.)

Speaking of obtuseness, Deborah Orr at the Guardian has a lengthy editorial wondering what's so bad about filtering porn and why are so many people outraged.

[I]t's irksome to me that I've had to write this piece, which is essentially an appeal for calm in a climate that says, with a baffling disregard for the view of the vast majority, that the right to porn must be universal and that access to it must be protected from all possible inhibitions

There's a lot more to it than that, although if you're paying attention, you already know she's arrived at the wrong conclusion. Orr spends time attacking every argument against Cameron's filtering, including the censorship argument.

The most shrill complaint against Cameron's wheeze is that it's "censorship". This seems to me like saying that not placing a copy of Anna Karenina in every home, pre-web, was censorship against Russian novels. No one is telling people that they aren't allowed to access porn on the web. They're saying that in order to do so, you have to tick the box pretending that you've read the terms and conditions. And why not? Even in the highly sexualised public spaces of contemporary Britain, there's still broad agreement that footage of people humping shouldn't be up on a screen at Piccadilly Circus. There's absolutely no reason why the internet should be any different.

But it is censorship, Deborah, even if it's a low-flying, somewhat malign, "opt-in" version of censorship, one that proves Cameron's not above using the bodies of murdered children as a platform. With Cameron's plan in place, a person's internet is now filtered by the government (routed through a Chinese third party). No one's expecting porn to come bursting out of their computer unbidden, but people would still like to believe they can use the web un-fucked with by the government.

Illegal images, such as child porn, are already blocked. So is other illegal material. At this point, the government is treating adults like children in order to protect children from adult images. This makes no sense.

The worst part about Orr's editorial is that she seems completely unaware this really isn't about porn. That's the just a way to get a governmental foot in the door. "Kids shouldn't be exposed to porn, right?" it asks and then hands out a list of pre-checked boxes that cover a whole lot of non-porn territory.


If you can't read the photo, here are some of the other types of content that are filtered:

- Dating sites
- Drugs, alcohol and tobacco
- File sharing sites
- Gambling
- Suicide and self-harm
- Weapons and violence

This is the slippery slope. Block a crowd-pleaser like pornography and you can set up shop in the public's internet service, ready to toss filters on anything else deemed "offensive." People aren't fighting for porn. They're fighting against government intrusion. If they're not doing anything illegal, the government should be willing to let individual responsibility be the watchword, rather than lurking in the background reading over the public's shoulder.

If that's how you want your internet, Deborah, by all means, support this plan. Most people don't. Most ISPs don't. UK ISP Andrews & Arnold has no interest in offering a filtered internet and it's released a statement making its feelings clear on Cameron's plan.

Active choice is NOT a choice

The government wants us to offer filtering as an option, so we offer an active choice when you sign up, you choose one of two options:-

Unfiltered Internet access - no filtering of any content within the A&A network - you are responsible for any filtering in your own network, or

Censored Internet access - restricted access to unpublished government mandated filter list (plus Daily Mail web site) - but still cannot guarantee kids don't access porn.

If you choose censored you are advised: Sorry, for a censored internet you will have to pick a different ISP or move to North Korea. Our services are all unfiltered.

Is that a good enough active choice for you Mr Cameron?

The ISP also offers a very thorough Q&A/fact sheet at the same site detailing the flaws with this plan and offers advice for those who want to offer a safer Internet for their kids, leaving the decision in the hands of the consumers. As it should be.

Finally, via Boing Boing, Jeremy Hardy of BBC's The News Quiz, asks the question everyone's afraid to ask:

"A porn filter is all well and good, but who's going to empty it?"

Filed Under: censorship, claire perry, david cameron, deborah orr, donald tusk, free speech, internet, regulation, rhoda grant, uk

UK's Anti-Porn Filtering Being Handled By A Chinese Company

from the we-didn't-want-to-appear-censorious-so-we-outsourced-it dept

UK Prime Minister David Cameron's anti-porn activities have been well detailed here recently, including his insistence that search engines enable child pornography and that ISP-level porn filtering should be on by default. Despite lacking the comprehension of the technology he's regulating or the inherent limitations of his proposals, Cameron has boldly moved on into the porn-free future, all the while claiming these moves have nothing to do with government censorship.

(We can also start taking bets on whether "opting in" to porn [by contacting your ISP and asking to be placed on the perv list] will have an effect on UK divorce rates -- after all, the filtering begins at the pipe and isn't something you can have available on some devices but not others. Let the awkward conversations begin!)

There's no censorship here, Cameron claims, while touting the porn filtering wonders of Homesafe, a filtering system built by TalkTalk and... Huawei.

On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011.

TalkTalk told the BBC it was comfortable with its relationship with Huawei, and that the service was very popular.

Homesafe is a voluntary scheme which allows subscribers to select categories - including social media, gambling and pornography - that they want blocked.

Customers who do not want filtering still have their traffic routed through the system, but matches to Huawei's database are dismissed rather than acted upon.

That's right. Huawei, a Chinese firm, is performing the actual filtering for UK web traffic. No one knows filtering better than the originators of the Internet Great Firewall, and even though Huawei is not a state-run company, due to its nationality, there will always be questions as to its overall allegiance. Huawei, to its credit, has been very open about its operations and has invited critics, including the US government itself, to investigate it if it thinks Huawei's such a threat to national security.

The UK government has had its own issues with Huawei.

But Huawei's position was recently the subject of an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report. It criticised the lack of ministerial oversight over the firm's rapid expansion in the UK.

The committee said "the alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State are concerning, as they generate suspicion as to whether Huawei's intentions are strictly commercial or are more political" - but added that it had not found any evidence of wrongdoing.

So, it's more or less above board, apparently. Should UK citizens be concerned their web traffic is being filtered by a company from a filter-heavy nation? Or should they be more concerned that control over content is being handed to a third-party private corporation rather than an independent organization that would be ultimately accountable to Parliament? Either way, it doesn't seem like this revelation will endear the new filtering system to the British public.

TalkTalk certainly recognizes the potential downside of this relationship as is evidenced by some earlier tap dancing it did around the subject.

Initially, TalkTalk told the BBC that it was US security firm Symantec that was responsible for maintaining its blacklist, and that Huawei only provided the hardware, as previously reported.

However, Symantec said that while it had been in a joint venture with Huawei to run Homesafe in its early stages, it had not been involved for over a year.

TalkTalk later confirmed it is Huawei that monitors activity, checking requests against its blacklist of over 65 million web addresses, and denying access if there is a match.

Interesting. While it's unfair to declare Huawei synonymous with the Chinese government, it's not unfair to question why the politicians pushing for this filtering system weren't more concerned about who would be handling the dirty job and perhaps steered the monitoring away from a contractor that would give the system the appearance of being more censorious than it is already.

But not to worry, Cameron's keeping an eye on the whole thing:

Mr Cameron said that the actions of ISPs would be monitored to ensure filtering is done correctly.

What.

The ISPs are being forced to implement this filtering. They're not in charge of "doing" the filtering. The actual filtering is being done by third parties, one of which is a Chinese company. It looks as if Cameron's more concerned ISPs might treat some customers like adults and flip the switch without making them fill out the appropriate "I HEART PORN" paperwork (which may include divorce papers), or just wants to be in a position to pounce if someone's underage eyes catch a glimpse of x-rated skin.

Giving the appearance that the UK government is hiring censors to help with its censorship apparently isn't as much of a concern.

Filed Under: censorship, china, david cameron, filter, uk
Companies: huawei, talktalk

An Open Letter To UK Porn Minister, David Cameron

from the don't-mess-with-the-internet,-it-messes-back dept

We've had a few posts now about UK Prime Minister David Cameron's nutty idea to censor the internet with an unworkable porn filter (complete with a "porn license" so that if you want to get around the filter, you have to "register" your desire not to be censored). Of course, this all makes perfect fodder for musician Dan Bull, whose music we've featured plenty of times. His specialty areas tend to be songs about politicians, internet freedom and video games. This one hits on two of the three, so here he is with his open letter to David Cameron, the Porn Minister.

Filed Under: censorship, dan bull, david cameron, filter, regulate the internet, uk

UK Anti-Porn Crusader Responds To Website Hack By Threatening Blogger Who Covered The Story

from the a-screenshot-is-a-hyperlink-and-reporting-is-hacking----got-it dept

One of UK Prime Minister David Cameron's anti-porn advisers (Claire Perry) recently had her website hacked and goatse'd. This story was picked up by one of Britain's more infamous bloggers, Guido Fawkes, who accompanied his post with a SFW screenshot of Perry's hacked site.

Perry, who has been instrumental in the push to regulate the web, porn-wise, took to Twitter to accuse Guido Fawkes of hacking her website.

Perry's first tweet shows she doesn't understand the difference between a link and a screenshot.

That well known responsible campaigner @guidofawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website

That well known responsible campaigner @guidofawkes has been hosting a link that distributed porn via my website

— Claire Perry (@claire4devizes) July 23, 2013

Her second goes further, accusing Fawkes of "sponsoring" the hacking of her site.

Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with

Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes - proves so clearly what we are dealing with

— Claire Perry (@claire4devizes) July 23, 2013

Fawkes suggested Perry should "withdraw that defamatory claim immediately." Perry responded by threatening to call his editor at the Sun in order to inform his superiors that their contributor "gleefully publicises" the hacking of an MP's website. That's a very different claim than her first two, but Perry so far has refused to withdraw her claim that Fawkes was directly involved with the hacking.

Perry's threats are without merit but still a concern, as the pseudonymous Unity points out at the Ministry of Truth:

[T]hreats of this kind are absolutely characteristic of the would-be bully who fails to get their own way on the internet and a key reason why so many bloggers have, over the years, chosen to write under a pseudonym, particularly those of us who write about controversial subjects and issues.

Fawkes has chosen to fight back and will be pursuing a defamation case against Perry, a decision he's basing on the results of his online poll. (As one does these days...)

The people have spoken. Nearly three thousand of you voted in Guido’s consultation on whether he should sue Claire Perry for defamation after she accused him of “sponsoring” hackers to post porno pictures on her website. 2,404 co-conspirators said Guido should sue Claire Perry…

This has the possibility to be vastly entertaining, but a commenter named "Darrow" very succinctly sums up this "strategy."

A man who takes legal advice from a poll has a fool for Lawyer.

Whatever does result of this, it's obvious that Perry doesn't possess the technical knowledge she needs to act as an unofficial sidekick to Cameron on his anti-internet porn crusade. (Her actual position is Parliamentary Private Secretary to Phillip Hammond, the Secretary of State for Defence. In MoT's words, a "glorified bag-carrier" for a completely unrelated department.)

Remember, this is the same MP who ran her own sham ‘inquiry’ in online safety, publishing a report that most definitely was sponsored… by a Christian radio station, in order to inveigle her way into her wholly unofficial position as Cameron’s chief ‘doing it for the kids’ advisor – and by no coincidence whatsoever, Perry’s ‘report’ relies to a considerable extent on the exact same bullshit zombie porn ‘statistics‘ that I’ve since comprehensively debunked.

The Ministry of Truth also notes that Perry hijacked a recent summit between the Culture Secretary and internet service providers to push her agenda (and Cameron's). According to an insider, Perry took control of the meeting away from the Culture Secretary in order to pose lots of "if you can block this, why can't you block this" questions, ultimately turning the summit into a waste of time for everyone involved.

The insider claimed that little progress was made toward developing practical solutions to child abuse. “The Home Office opened with some encouraging noises about international efforts, but generally speaking the politicians there fundamentally – or wilfully – misunderstand the technical and legal aspects.”

“Little discussion was given to the measures put forward by industry, and any discussion of practical steps was closed down.”

The lack of "practical steps" hasn't stopped Cameron from proceeding with his plans, which apparently involve demanding search engines and ISPs do "more" but remain largely vague on what "more" should actually entail. (The few details actually nailed down on "more" seem to be redundant filtering efforts that do little more than allow Cameron to take credit for them.)

Perry's inability to understand the technology she's abetting David Cameron in regulating is par for the course for public servants. I'm sure part of the reason discussions between the government and tech companies fall apart so quickly is this lack of understanding of even basic terms. When government officials don't understand the terminology or the infrastructure, they tend to believe they're being misled or directly lied to when what they're hearing doesn't jibe with how they imagine it all works. This defensiveness leads to a lot of demands being made by frustrated politicians rather any actual progress towards a working relationship.

Even if Perry can't be bothered to nail down some basic internet terminology, the Ministry of Truth points her in the direction of one term she might want to familiarize herself with before firing off any other regrettable tweets.

What I would suggest, however, is that Perry really should take the time to acquaint herself with the meaning of the words ‘Streisand effect‘ before she starts trying to bully, threaten and libel bloggers.

Filed Under: anti-porn, clair perry, david cameron, defamation, guido fawkes, hack, uk

UK Prime Minister More Interested In Regulating The Internet Than Regulating Porn

from the the-internet-is-for-smiling-politely dept

By the end of next year, every person connected to the internet in the UK will be subject to a government-mandated porn filter. The filter will be on by default at the ISP level, and if subscribers wish to be unblocked, they have to contact their providers by the end of this year and opt-in. Otherwise, it's gone.

Prime Minister David Cameron also recently made a series of unintelligible statements aimed at search engines, claiming they were the third part of a "triangle" that "enabled" child porn producers to find an audience. His proposed "solution" was to make search engines (and ISPs) filter the web and search results according to a government-approved blacklist. These bold "for the children" statements ignored the fact that both ISPs and search engines already actively block illegal images and supply info on these images to investigative agencies.

Cameron has had a hard-on hatred for porn for quite some time. But when recently cornered about the Sun's notorious Page 3 topless photos, he revealed his porn concerns are strictly limited to the Wild West Internet.

David Cameron has said he would never support a ban on topless images on page 3 of the Sun newspaper, as he set out plans for greater regulation of online pornography.

Pressed to explain the distinction between his proactive position on online pornographic images and his laissez-faire stance on topless images in newspapers, he said that it was up to consumers whether or not they wanted to buy the Sun.

"This is an area where we should leave it to consumers to decide, rather than to regulators," he said in an interview on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour.

So, what's the distinction? Why should some offensive images be regulated and others graciously allowed to be subject to consumers' desires?

"We have to always ask the question where should we regulate and where shouldn't we regulate, and I think on this one I think it is probably better to leave it to the consumer," Cameron said. "In the end it's an issue of personal choice whether people buy a newspaper or don't buy a newspaper."

If that question actually gets asked as often as Cameron makes it sound, I'd be surprised. And if it does, the first question receives a lion's share of the affirmative answers. And he's right, it is a personal choice if people decide to purchase a newspaper containing gratuitous nudity. It's also a personal choice if people decide they'd rather have unfiltered access to the web. But only one of these choices is being actively limited by the guiding hand of government.

If Cameron wants to be against porn, then he should be consistent in his views. If he wants to be for letting the public decide, then he should do that across the board. Hypocrisy is annoying enough without the weight of a government mandate behind it.

It could be argued that "opting-in" for open online access to porn is equivalent to making the decision to purchase the Sun, thus leaving the fate of both strictly in the consumers' hands. But this argument is wrong, even if the difference between the two is barely noticeable to the consumer. Dropping a mandatory porn filter on ISPs adds an extra expense and a regulatory/liability burden these companies didn't have previously. Associated costs will be passed along to subscribers and whenever something goes wrong with the filtering software, it will be the ISP, not the government, that has to deal with it.

Meanwhile, porn is available at newsstands (and browsed at the parliamentary estate), unrestricted by Cameron's anti-porn crusade and free from regulation. Choosing to ignore one form while using the other as a whipping boy just sends the message that Cameron's more interested in controlling the internet than solving the porn "problem."

Filed Under: david cameron, internet, porn, regulations, uk

Prime Minister David Cameron: Google, Bing and Yahoo! 'Enable' Child Porn

from the look-how-furrowed-my-brow-is,-dammit! dept

"I'm going to try to regulate [insert concept or technology here] because I really have no idea how it works," said no politician ever. "Bad things are happening and we're going to do something about it!" said too many government officials to count.

UK Prime Minister David Cameron is at it again, fretting about child porn and saying grumbly things about holding search engines responsible for the actions of others. This is one of Cameron's favorite hobby horses: porn on the internet, both legal and otherwise. He's pushed for mandatory porn filtering on every new computer and insisted any business offering open wi-fi block access to the nasty stuff.

Child porn is the new focus, thanks to the recent high profile trial (and conviction) of Mark Bridger for the kidnapping and killing of a 5-year-old girl. Bridger's computer showed he had viewed pictures of child sexual abuse shortly before the kidnapping.

Despite the efforts already being made by search engines and ISPs (including Google's new child porn database that it's sharing with competitors and law enforcement), Cameron is insisting these just don't go far enough.

David Cameron will tell internet companies including Google they have a "moral duty" to do more to tackle child abuse images found by using their websites.

In a major speech on Monday he will call for search engines to block any results being displayed for a blacklist of terms compiled by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (Ceop).

Strange. I would have thought the "moral duty" lay with those creating and viewing the exploitative material, not the inadvertent go-between whose job it is to index web content. Complying with a blacklist seems like a good idea, but there are two problems with that idea: determined people will get around the blacklist and blacklists tend to inadvertently block legitimate searches.

Why these search engines need to comply with the blacklist in Britain is a mystery, considering every major UK ISP already filters the web using this list, according to the head of the CEOP.

Jim Gamble, chief executive of the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP), said the blacklist currently used to filter the vast majority of UK internet connections had been a "fabulous success".

At that point (2009), only small "boutique" ISPs had yet to adopt CEOP's filtering and the Home Office estimated roughly 95% of internet users were covered. But Cameron insists that more needs to be done, even as ISPs voluntarily comply with most government recommendations -- like "splash pages" that warn users they are attempting to view illegal material.

[T]he prime minister will call on firms to go further, with splash screens warning of consequences "such as losing their job, their family, even access to their children" as a result of viewing the content.

Everything already in place just isn't good enough. Apparently, it all needs to be bigger and bolder and subject to brand new laws created in the climate of panic and paranoia that usually follows high profile criminal activity. Cameron won't be satisfied until he tames the Wild West.

"I'm concerned as a politician and as a parent about this issue, and I think all of us have been a bit guilty of saying: well it's the internet, it's lawless, there's nothing you can do about it.

"And that's wrong. I mean just because it's the internet doesn't mean there shouldn't be laws and rules, and also responsible behaviour."

But, when Cameron says "responsibility," he means it in the governmental sense, which has nothing to do with personal responsibility and everything to do with the government acting as a national conscience and finding someone to hold responsible for the child porn problem. It won't be child pornographers or their audience, however.

"There is this problem ... that some people are putting simply appalling terms into the internet in order to find illegal images of child abuse.

[W]e need to have very, very strong conversations with those companies about saying no, you shouldn't provide results for some terms that are so depraved and disgusting...and that, I think, there's going to be a big argument there, and if we don't get what we need we'll have to look at legislation."

Do it or we'll make you do it.

"So it's about companies wanting to act responsibly. If you think about it, there's really a triangle here. There are the people uploading the images. We've got to go after them. There are the people looking at the images. We've got to go after them. But there is also in this triangle the companies that are enabling it to happen, and they do need to do more to help us with this."

Hi, I'm a seach engine. I index the web and bring you the results you ask for. I don't create child porn, nor do I consume child porn, but please, hold me responsible for the actions of others. The legal team at Google, Bing or any other search engine is always easier to locate than a child pornographer. It's the path of least resistance and taking on "tech giants" on "behalf" of the people makes government officials feel big. Win-win.

Cameron wants the search engines to return no results in response to CEOP's blacklisted terms. It seems like such a little thing to ask, and Cameron is certainly pitching it that way. They just need to "do more to help us." But what happens when law enforcement, intelligence agencies or the government itself decides other search terms are a problem, perhaps coming from an angle of "combating terrorism" or "preventing hate crime?" Almost everyone agrees those are "bad," but do they really want their search results censored and filtered and sorted according to secret blacklists? Probably not, but it likely won't matter. Agreeing to this allows the government to get a foot in the door.

On top of the collateral damage, there's the fact that filtering search engine results is going to make a lot of headlines but do very little to curb the trafficking of child pornography. Jim Gamble of CEOP feels we've already maxed out the effectiveness of web and search filters -- something he pointed out back in 2009.

At the frontline, web filtering is now viewed as a peripheral issue. Gamble agreed with the charities that filtering is useful, but added it was ineffective against "hardcore predators" who swap material over peer to peer networks and for whom "the internet has moved on".

"I believe filtering is good to avoid inadvertent access that will disturb or damage a young person, or deliberate novice access," Gamble said.

The pros don't bother with public web sites and search engines. They go P2P and circumvent every filter put into place by government intervention. Gamble realizes this and has already shifted the agency's focus to peer-to-peer networks. Unlike Cameron, Gamble doesn't waste time constructing stupid "triangles of responsibility" in order to pin the blame on the biggest, easiest target.

Gamble, a former intelligence chief in the Police Service of Northern Ireland, was however keen to head off accusations of an attack on peer to peer technology itself. "We can't blame technology - it's people," he said.

"Peer to peer is a valuable resource for the online community. Our focus is on child protection."

Maybe Cameron should spend a little time actually discussing his plans with CEOP before using the agency's name in vain in order to attack search engines for being search engines. CEOP seems to have a handle on the problem -- the real problem. It's too bad Cameron's more interested in publicly displaying how deeply concerned he is than making actual progress against child pornographers.

Filed Under: blocking, child porn, david cameron, filters, search, search engines, secondary liability, uk
Companies: google, microsoft, yahoo

Why Do Politicians Continue To Insist That A Magic Button Can Make Porn Disappear Online?

from the collateral-damage-on-the-way dept

It appears that UK Prime Minister David Cameron is announcing that any place in the UK that provides WiFi to the public must block porn. This is wasteful and pointless for a variety of reasons. Of course, it's being pushed under the "for the children" banner, but that's rarely true or accurate. The problem, of course, is that (1) such filtering tends not to actually block plenty of porn and (2) it regularly leads to collateral damage, including plenty of legitimate sites being blocked. Plus it's just costly.

The Prime Minister said: “We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t.”

But that's not what they're doing. The internet won't be clean. It'll just be a nuisance. Furthermore, is the unexpected appearance of porn on computers in public places really that big a problem? I've yet to see any serious data suggesting that this happens very often. Most people sitting at a computer in a public space aren't likely to be surfing porn anyway.

In the US, we've actually had something similar. Of course, we're not allowed to make filters mandatory by law, so grandstanding US politicians tiptoed around the issue by just saying that they would deny funding to public internet access providers who don't block porn. But, the end result was that many libraries, for example, stopped taking federal funding to avoid the issue altogether. This really seems like the worst kind of grandstanding: it gets plenty of attention, attacks a problem that probably isn't a problem but which involves "the children!!!!" and it attacks the "problem" ineffectively. It's the trifecta of useless grandstanding.

Filed Under: david cameron, uk

David Cameron Plans 'Radical' Child Protection Internet Measures

from the 4chan-the-children dept

The last time we heard from David Cameron, he was wringing his hands over social media in the wake of protests in the UK. One may have thought this was just a blip on the wrong-radar, but he's back and he's apparently decided that the UK government needs to handle that whole parenting kids thing that parents used to do. This go 'round, Cameron plans to install filtering software on every new computer sold through major manufacturers that will issue a quick quiz upon its first boot-up.

If the plan is backed by manufacturers, it would mean that owners of every brand new computer would be asked if there are children in the household when they are first turned on. If the user answers positively, they will be prompted to adjust their internet filters accordingly.

If parents repeatedly click OK to get through the process more quickly, the computer would automatically block access by any user to sites containing pornography and self-harm. Internet service providers (ISPs) would also be required to verify the age of the person setting the controls, so that a child can't do it.

Gee, let's see, where to begin. First off, the idea of putting government sponsored filtering and snoop-ware software on every machine in the country may just face a tad bit of backlash from the public. Privacy concerns are the obvious culprit for such software, but so are concerns of parents who may just want to still be...you know...parents, rather than letting the government take this role from them by force. Say you disagree with how the UK government designates a website "harmful" or "pornographic"? Say you want your child to be able to see that site? It would appear that parent would be politley informed to screw themselves, because the government is in charge now.

"Sorry, but if you want to parent your child, you have to wear Sherlock's hat. Dem's the rules."
Image source: CC BY 2.0

Next up, if watching everyone I've ever met handle iTune's EULA process is any indication, you can expect roughly one-billion percent of internet users in the UK to fall into the "clicked like hell through the process" category. This would automatically turn the filters on to whatever David Cameron thinks is the appropriate level. I imagine frustrated adults trying like hell to search the internet for the answer to the age old question "Why the hell is everyone freaking out about Kate Middleton having boobs?" would then try to reset the filters, but would then click through them quickly again, resulting in only more frustration.
 

"Still not working? I must not be clicking through fast enough!"
Image source: CC BY 2.0

Frankly, it's also fun to imagine how this software would determine exactly what is too "quick" of a click-through, given that different people read at different speeds.

Finally, it would be interesting to hear how exactly his plan to have ISPs verify the age of the people they're likely talking to on the phone would work. We've noted previously how difficult and riddled with potential danger age verification of this nature can be, so how exactly is Cameron going to accomplish this? Unless he plans on forcing ISPs to do site visits or meet with child protection services for every account, they're still going to have to talk to their customers over the phone. Now, this may come as a shock to Cameron, but kids occasionally lie.

"Sir, are you an adult?" "No, I'm a llama. Now let me see 4chan, doo-doo head!"
Image source: CC BY 2.0

In the end, this is yet another move by government to wrestle away a free and open internet. Unlike some other measures, Cameron may actually believe his "for the children" trope, but the best protection of children comes from involved parents. Trying to treat the symptom rather than the problem not only won't work, but it opens the door for some truly bad inadvertent outcomes.

Filed Under: david cameron, filters, porn, uk

UK Prime Minister Wants To Ban Suspected Rioters From Facebook & Twitter

from the oh-come-on dept

After initially blaming the Blackberry and suggesting that Blackberry's messaging service be shut down to try to quell the UK riots, it seems that UK politicians are trying to up the level of "bad ideas in reaction to riots" with Prime Minister David Cameron suggesting that those who are suspected of rioting be banned from social networks like Twitter and Facebook.

David Cameron has told parliament that in the wake of this week's riots the government is looking at banning people from using social networking sites such as Twitter and Facebook if they are thought to be plotting criminal activity.

The prime minister said the government will review whether it is possible to stop suspected rioters spreading online messages, in his opening statement during a Commons debate on Thursday on the widespread civil disorder for which MPs were recalled from their summer recess.

I'm at a loss to see how anyone believes that cutting off communication for people who feel disenfranchised will suddenly make them less interested in rioting. There's this rush by people in charge to think that "if only we could stop them from spreading messages, that will calm them down." That seems likely to be a giant miscalculation. It's not hard to get around any such ban, and instituting such a ban is just likely to piss off the very people they're trying to calm down.

Filed Under: david cameron, free speech, london, pre-crime, riots, social networks, uk
Companies: facebook, rim, twitter