back to article UK kids' charity lobbies hard for 'opt-in' web smut access

The founder of British charity ChildLine is calling on the government to take a hardline approach against what some consider to be hardcore pornography online - by enforcing an opt-in system for adults to protect kids from being traumatised by the images. Esther Rantzen said in an opinion piece published in the Daily Mail - …

COMMENTS

This topic is closed for new posts.

Page:

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem with this thread.

      (only @Turtle so he can see that I have taken note of his parental status comment).

      There is little justification for such an opt-in system. In my experience, kids, when they reach a certain age, are curious about all manner of things. It's my experience that most trauma suffered by kids who are exposed (no pun intended) to online pornography suffer such trauma because they get caught - not because they see images of sexual acts.

      Ms Rantzen could perhaps make a few quid for ChildLine by dropping this moronic idea and becoming a reseller for say OpenDNS (or similar), which already provide a reasonable degree of filtering capability. Problem solved - well as much as this 'problem' can be solved anyway :)

      To be honest, as a parent with recent experience of this, and similar, issues what I can say is that, if Ms Rantzen and Co. believe porn filters are a necessary priority then she has her priorities in the wrong order. There are far more important issues you should be addressing Ms Rantzen.

      I would like to start a rant now about IT education and online awareness as presented within UK educational establishments, but I'll save that for another day.

    2. Red Bren
      Paris Hilton

      Speaking as a parent*

      OK, I'll bite.

      It's my job to keep act as gatekeeper to the internet, just the same as I do for TV or any other medium. There are plenty of tools to help me do this, but these are no substitutes for communication and trust. I encourage my child to talk to her mother or me about anything she doesn't understand or upsets her. I also believe in giving her space to make her own decisions so she can see the consequences and I would trust her to do the right thing far more than any ISP or prudish lobbying group.

      * Becoming a parent hasn't changed my opinion on this subject and it certainly doesn't make my opinion more valid than a non-parent.

      Paris, as an example of child rearing without boundaries.

    3. nsld
      FAIL

      Re: The problem with this thread.

      downvoted for your fuckwitt comment about absent parents.

      I have kids at home as well as with an ex, its my job to protect them, not the daily mail.

    4. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem with this thread.

      Disclosure: stepdaughter 17, son 16, son 14. I absolutely agree with all comments that restriction of this material is parental responsibility and that any other approach looks like the top of a slippery slope towards censorship of content or discrimination against those who opt out.

      During the decade long custody battle for which Legal Aid gave my wife a blank chequebook whilst my 'win' cost me my house and most of my career, my apparent permission for my kids to play violent video games was raised in court. Fortunately I had anticipated this, and brought the case of Worrms 3D to the court with me, and the judge laughed off the accusation. Can you imagine what would happen to any man who had been forced to admit that he had once looked at some porn?

    5. Old Handle

      Re: The problem with this thread.

      Uh, considering the idea here is to thrust filtering on everybody by default I think it's okay for people who are not parents to have an opinion. (Even a required but off-by-default filter would incur costs that we'll all end up paying.) Let the people who want it pay for I say.

    6. Annihilator
      FAIL

      Re: The problem with this thread.

      "The problem with this thread is that the commenters do not identify themselves as having or not having children (with whom they live - absent parents' opinions are not as important as the opinions of parents who actually take care of the kids.)"

      Firstly, it's irrelevant as it's impacting *everyone* so all opinions matter. Secondly, the relationship status of the parents generally has fuck all relevance to how much they "take care of the kids" as you so charmingly put it.

      To put it simply for you, this type of law or proposal is the equivalent of, say, ardent cartoon haters insisting that ISPs block any cartoons by default because they don't want to see it, and forcing anyone who likes cartoons to be forced to "opt in" to see it.

      It's for the <insert group here> to have an opt-out if they really want it, not to have everyone else to take action on their behalf.

    7. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      Re: The problem with this comment in this thread.

      Is that you didn't lead by example. Are you in the clergy?

      I used to not have kids, then I did have kids, then I didn't have kids. Marriage and divorce will do that. I currently kind-of have kids because my current significant other has two of them. Are they my responsibility: no. Do I still feel responsible: yes. Do I think the house Internet should be filtered: no. I'm a fan of everything (with the exception of Buddist monks performing self-immolation, that disturbs me) and I enjoy watching activities that are inappropriate for children (hell, some of it is inappropriate adults) but I expect that her kids, seemingly raised in an open and honest household, would be able to, after seeing ________, to be able to go to their mother and talk about it without fear of reprisal.

      And after having said all that, I have to check the post anonymously box, which defeats part of the purpose of this reply.

  1. Arion

    In theory I'm ok with this....

    .... but in practice it's not that simple.

    I think that protecting children, should be as simple as possible ( but no simpler ), but also that a free open internet be equally simple.

    I'm unequivocally opposed to anything that hinders a free ( as in speech ) open internet to anyone over 16 who wants it, and I don't think that a free open internet should be an 'extra feature' that you need to wade through any extra red tape ( not even the clicking of an extra box ) to get to.

    I don't think it should be opt-in ( where filtered by default ), or opt-out ( where open by default ) - I think people should have to explicitly choose whether they want filtered or unfiltered ( perhaps by checking a radio button, or a drop-down menu ( that doesn't default to either ).

    On the other hand, that all makes far too much sense, and isn't something that simpletons ( like Esther, or Politicians ) are capable of bringing around to pass. In practice they'd make a mess of it, so my preference is for them to keep their noses out of it, and leave it to the parents.

  2. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    People - Don't get distracted

    This is a co-ordinated effort using the "think of the children" argument to get a govt-ran filter list going on the internet. That way they [govt] get to filter out what they don't like.

    (helicopter icon here)

  3. John Smith 19 Gold badge
    Thumb Up

    "Technically clueless busybody wades in with useless 2c"

    A short summation of the facts.

    Sadly it's not about competence, it's about their ability to get an *audience*.

    Opt in (by default) is Phorn all over again.

    Thumbs up for the description, not the sentiment.

  4. Justice
    Childcatcher

    Welcome to the NEW Internet

    All filters are currently enabled/

    Each unlock carries a £19.95 administration charge.

    Select the service you would you like to unlock...

    All choices are recorded on a central database for your own protection.

    1 - Adult content.

    2 - Anything containing the word 'torrent' or '.nzb'

    3 - All non-authorised religious material.

    4 - All non-sanctioned political material.

    5 - Anything relating to 'terrorist' organisations.

    6 - Anything else we can think of.

    1. Andus McCoatover
      Joke

      Re: Welcome to the NEW Internet

      You forgot to mention -

      The £19.95 would be subject to VAT. Er, Value Added Tax...? Taxing a wank? (OK at my age it's quite taxing...)

  5. Andus McCoatover
    Joke

    Can't understand what's wrong with an "Enhanced Jodrell Bank".

    (Note to self: Stock up on more writeable DVD's and learn 'wget' more thoroughly. Oh, and buy a much bigger DVD rack.....)

  6. This Side Up
    FAIL

    Let Esther Rantzen...

    write a program to detect without human intervention whether a web page, text, image or video is pornographic. She doesn't need to code it - a detailed specification will do. First of all define what pornography is. It doesn't include innocuous nudity like the odd prince cavorting in Vegas, or a mother holding a naked baby or a wardrobe malfunction or a fine art nude painting. The offending material may not be on the home page and the route to it may not be obvious. If she can do that then she can talk to the telcos about it.

    It's easy to come up with a list of sites that do contain hardcore material but it will never be exhaustive. Sites come and go, change IP addresses and domains. Is she prepared to trawl the web and ftp servers and usenet and file sharing sites and bit torrents to maintain the list? If she relies on people to report sites it will be too late.

    No. If kids find smut it's because they were loking for it. If they encounter censorship they will find a way around it. That just adds to the challenge. Finding the forbidden fruit is more exciting that eating it.

  7. Camilla Smythe
    Facepalm

    One notes that the document at,

    http://media.education.gov.uk/assets/files/doc/p/parental%20internet%20controls%20response%20form.doc

    when viewed in OpenOffice under Ubuntu still takes 10 minutes to import because the fricking thing 'phones home' to download content...

    http://img32.imageshack.us/img32/5939/securedcsf.png

    ..... and fails because the content is not available so it has another go as you scroll through things and fails again..... Du-Oh.... and it's a word document, what happened to .pdf? Du-Oh... and the questions are biased.... Du-Oh

  8. JeevesMkII
    Trollface

    Sending explicit pictures...

    ... "via text"? So that would be 8======D then?

  9. Dropper

    The Daily Fail Replies..

    What Esther should do is write a strongly worded letter to America as they control the interwebs. If the internet was under the UK control, as is right and proper, everything you'd want it to do would happen - including not being allowed to put anything on the internet that isn't true. Then the old truism 'it must be real because I read it on the internet' would actually be a truism plus we could stop pr0n from happening to kids. Two birds, one stone and all that.

    And to those ne'erdowells that argue that kids deliberately look up boobies on the internet, I say you should be whipped then put on a ship to Australia where you belong.

    As a side note I'd like to say that we should bring back hanging.

  10. noodled24

    OPT-OUT MAKES MORE SENSE

    It's insane to think that the entire country should loose their right to privacy because some parents don't monitor their own children. The only good that could possibly come from this is when celebrities and MPs are named as being "on the porn register" - and this WILL happen.

    Then there is the question of how on earth you would go about blocking this kind of thing?

    - Keywords? nope wouldn't work without the likes of Ann Summers being caught in the crossfire.

    - A Whitelist? nope. Far too many websites to be practical

    - A Blacklist? It would grow bigger by the hour. Plus should a porn site close down and a regular business decides to buy the domain, they'd then have to go through all the trouble of getting it un-blacklisted.

    This really is a case of someone technologically illiterate coming up with proposals that don't even make sense. When questioned about it the stock reply is "there are smarter people than me to figure THAT out" - in other words "I don't know, I've not thought it through.

    The country is in a recession. There are better ways to spend this time and money.

    If parents are worried then why not have an opt-out system. They can call their ISP and say "Here is my phone number - please block adult content". Problem solved.

    Using an opt-in system just makes no sense. After going to the time and expense of implementing it 90% of the country will then "opt-in". Rendering the entire system pointless. Other than the fact that everyone who looks at porn is now on a database somewhere waiting to have their details shared/sold.

    1. John Smith 19 Gold badge
      Unhappy

      Re: OPT-OUT MAKES MORE SENSE

      "It's insane to think that the entire country should loose their right to privacy because some parents don't monitor their own children. "

      They won't

      That's the purpose of the Communications Data Act.

  11. pctechxp

    Nice lady, shame about the lack of technical savvy

    While this lady has my respect for quite a few things she has done to help people like setting up Childline or presenting consumer advice TV pieces her comments show complete ignorance of the technical practicalities of what she is asking for, its a tad different than ordering 500 phone lines from BT.

    As others have said, responsible adults should not leave their kids in front of the computer unattended, it is not a baby sitter and any technical measures will be circumvented by the unscrupulous and just lead to legitimate non adult material being blocked when the filter code malfunctions which causes aggravation for the rest of us.

    Better still keep them off the net till they are 18.

  12. Mr Young
    Meh

    I can only hope...

    my kids have never seen the Daily Mail site - totally disgusting. What sort of credibility can Esther possibly gain from associating herself with it?

  13. Khaptain Silver badge
    FAIL

    Why is Porn bad for you ?

    Has any study ever really proven that porn is bad for you?

    Sex was and probably still is the most saught after item on the web. Children might "accidently" see some naked bodies and some people copulating energetically.

    Now outside of Animal Porn, which is illegal, and some goatse and 2 cups vids what exactly is it that kids should not see ?

    Vaginas, Penis, Breasts : each of has at least one of the aformentioned, some with hair , some without. Should we be scared of our own bodies as well. Should we call the police in case of an accidental hardon.

    So many question, so few answers........ We love you Esther, you are just so damned helpfull, I don't know what the Internet would have done without you. [/sarcasm]

    1. Random Moniker
      Thumb Up

      Re: Why is Porn bad for you ?

      No. It is all in the heads of god-botherers and puritanical idiots.

      And a number of studies have shown conclusively that a bit of self-relaxation, is very good for you, physiologically and psychologically.

  14. This post has been deleted by its author

    1. Miek
      Linux

      Re: If you're going to...

      "99% of people will never use FTP or SMTP or most ports other that HTTP and HTTPS." -- Are you kidding?

  15. Old Handle

    I worry about the chilling effect

    Suppose this worked exactly as intended, with the result that all people to lazy/clueless to change a default setting are now filtered. Assuming the filter is designed so as to actually prevent a curious child from finding porn, it will necessarily have to block sites that contain even a small amount of pornographic content*. This would include, for example, Wikipedia and most blogging platforms. That's not even counting sites that don't allow porn be inventively have a small amount of at any one time because they haven't deleted it yet.

    So now all of a sudden thousands of lazy/clueless people are going "Why the heck can't I access Wikipedia/that blog I heard about?" Some will no doubt figure it out and turn off the filter, but the rest will be shut out. And what about the sites that have lost their visitors this way? Either they can accept it, or they can try to completely sanitize their content. I trust Wikipedia to stick to their guns, but commercial sites don't have the luxury to say "Oh well, to bad" when they lose customers. Each day they're on that blacklist they're losing money. So essentially every site that isn't explicitly pornographic will, regardless of their target age demographic, be under pressure to limit their content to whatever is deemed acceptable for children.

    *Yes, I know it's possible to do finer grained filtering than per domain, but I still don't foresee it working out very well. I'm sure you all remember the IWF-Wiki-Virgin Killer incident.

  16. Henry Wertz 1 Gold badge

    Pr0n already is opt-in!

    These numptys of course want a national-level censorship regime in place, which is absurd. Pr0n already is opt-in, in fact they'd prefer to have your credit card information as well. I'm all for having those few sites that don't already have a fairl plain front page, and a "Porn ahead! Only click this if you're over 18!" type warning to adopt one. THAT IS OPT IN, and most sites already have it! But of course that is not what these people REALLY want at all.

  17. The Nameless Mist
    Facepalm

    Opt-In for household level ..

    Simple solution.

    > Taking up an Internet Connection

    ISP "Do you have people under the age of 16 in your household?"

    Parent "Yes"

    ISP "no-pr0n for you then"

    Parent "oh .. urm ..well actually I'd like to watch it sometimes"

    ISP "but you have kidz, and you ticked the survey 5 years ago about wanting to prevent kidz watching pr0n".

    Parent "but I'll keep the kidz of the computer"

    ISP "laughter down phone line".

    Parent "sigh .. ok no pr0n please".

    ISP "serves you right you interfering busy body".

  18. A J Stiles

    Better Idea

    Just ban children from the Internet.

  19. Great Bu

    Much easier option

    Is just to sit with your kids for a couple of hours showing them as much internet porn as possible and telling them that it's really cool and that you want them to look at it for at least 2 hours every single day.

    They will then immediately stop looking for porn and avoid it at all costs just on the principle that if their parents think it's cool it automatically becomes uncool.

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: Much easier option

      I can only assume you fell asleep when you were ten and only woke up a decade later.

    2. Anonymous Coward
      Joke

      Re: Much easier option

      It'll work better if you can show them that video of you and the wife that you uploaded 15 years ago.

  20. Miek
    Trollface

    "But I believe it’s now time to protect young people from this new danger." -- Try supervising them.

Page:

This topic is closed for new posts.