So, the big story regarding pornography for the past few weeks (in the UK anyway) has been Ed Vaizey’s (minister for culture, communications and creative industries) proposal to look into introducing legislation which would require UK ISPs (Internet Service Providers) to filter out pornographic content before it reaches people’s computers. This filter is not absolute, as ISPs would operate an ‘opt-in’ system (similar to that which already exists with mobile phone networks) whereby individual customers can ‘opt-in’ by requesting that the providers lift the filter.
Ed Vaizey
As expected, child safety is being cited as the main motivation behind the proposal, and also as expected, the media is attempting to whip up a panic about ‘our liberties being under threat’ in a sort of “first it’s violent and degrading images… next it will be our freedom and democracy” kind of way.
In this vein of objection there has been some outstanding stupidity. For a start critics of Mr Vaizey’s have jumped on the ‘they’re trying to ban WikiLeaks’ bandwagon, and have been helped along with headlines like “Anti-porn plan threatens sites like WikiLeaks” from The First Post. This was inspired by The Open Rights Group’s Jim Killock’s assertion that “if the Government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that WikiLeaks would be on it”. So, not a headline inspired by seeing any preliminary plans for the proposed blocking of porn sites, or any Government whistle-blower revealing the ‘real’ reasons for the Governments interest in helping people keep violent or degrading material out of their lives, it’s simply that Jim Killock “bets” WikiLeaks would be on a government blacklist if there was one.
But isn’t there a serious confusion here about what exactly it is that we’re talking about? Are we discussing an ISP enforced block on pornography (with the ability to opt-out of it), or a general Government blacklist? I’m not sure The Open Rights Group knows. There seems to be further evidence of their confusion with regards to what it is being proposed if we look at the online petition set up by the group, it reads: “This proposal could change the way we use the internet forever, breaking one of its founding principles, reducing its democratic basis, and blocking the development of new ideas.” New ideas! New ideas??! Are they serious? One journalist for the Telegraph went so far as to say that the proposals threaten “innovation”. “New ideas” and “innovation”… we’re talking about pornography, about depictions of women under titles like ‘Dirty cumsluts’ and ‘Sleep assault’, are these the ‘new ideas’ and ‘innovations’ that The Open Rights Group and the Telegraph have in mind? I think Killock himself puts it perfectly when he says “this is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door.” He’s determined to discuss generalised censorship, when what is being proposed is an ISP enforced block on pornography which people have the ability to opt-out of.
Some will no doubt be inclined to say that it’s generalised censorship that we’ll get whether we want it or not if the proposed blocks were to come into force due to the nature of the internet and the undoubtedly difficult task anyone would have in trying to police such a thing. Apparently unnamed experts have said that any implementation would depend upon “the Government or the internet service providers themselves having a comprehensive and up-to-date list of pornographic websites” and that such lists are “unheard of”. We have also been told that there will be errors, “masses of them”. If these are genuine concerns then these are the sorts of problems that will have to be addressed when drawing up the implementation plans for the filters. If it turns out it isn’t possible, or if due to technical difficulties there will have to be a substantial trade-off of some form then that is a distinct debate to be had when more information is known about the plans of implementation and any difficulties that might arise. These technical concerns do not need to muddy the waters when discussing whether the idea of such legislation is in principle a good idea.
There are two questions here. Firstly, there is the question of whether an opt-outable porn block would be desirable, and secondly whether it is then possible. The second is not an obvious ‘no’. The above concerns could conceivably be addressed with appropriate measures such as proper checks and balances and appeals processes for those sites blocked that don’t contain pornography. We should also remember that organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation keep up-to-date lists of sites hosting illegal images of child sexual abuse, and that ISPs already block some child porn sites, and mobile phone networks do the same for adult content in general. A spokesperson for Virgin Media said: “We already have an opt-in approach on mobiles. We’re able to block sites, so it would be possible to do the same on the internet. It is just about finding the right approach”.
If we are to have sensible debate of the first question –whether a block is desirable- people must realise that some things are just not ok, and that it is ok to say that. We should be able to debate whether or not an opt-outable porn block is something that we would like without losing our heads panicking that the Government is conspiring to snatch away our liberty.
No related posts.
I don’t see why anyone would object to it, why would a parent want their child to see such things?
Also its not like you have to have it, you can opt not to.
This does raise an interesting question about whether having the option to opt not to have the filter still makes it an issue of censorship. At least in its strongest sense.
Well, in its strongest sense, “censorship” should mean the art of doing a “census”, i.e. counting people.
I don’t think an opt out porn block is an issue of free speech or freedom of information at all. It’s purely a practical matter of stopping porn spam and protecting children.
Comment from Facebook:
Oh to live in a world where I could choose to “opt in” to see violence and degradation instead of having it forced upon me! I always thought it was odd that on some cable t.v providers packages they give you free porn channels and you have to opt out if you don’t want it…
Its not new for newspapers to exaggerate headlines but the papers linked do seem to be all really negative about the plans. I guess the more panicky they can make something the more papers they think they’ll sell.
Getting a list of all the websites hosting pornography is of course hard, but it is worth trying it. Maybe they will not be able to make a list of all sites, but surely that does not mean they should not try.
One thing that immediately occurred to me upon reading this however is – will they also be able to stop P2P sharing of pornography in a similar vein?
Nice article Matt
I’d love to have the choice of ‘opting in’ to the internet world of pornography rather than being forced to negotiate it, and I definitely see a huge advantage where childrens’ exposure to pornography at a young age is concerned.
@Duncan – I wonder if you consider ‘censorship’ entirely a negative thing? Can it never be a forced for good rather than a concern? I am a huge fan of a lot of censorship (anti- child pornography laws, the television watershed, age restrictions on films and games, prohibitions against hate speech, etc). Censoring sexist, violent and degrading pornographic material sounds brilliant to me!
@EmilyBites – When I asked about whether or not the opt-out option made it a question of censorship or not I guess I did mean it in a negative way, but not that I consider it negative necessarily, i was more trying to make the point that the perceived ‘fear of censorship’ (to try and name the common portrayal of any suggestion of censorship) should not really have any power if there is an opt-out option…
I hope that makes sense?! But maybe it’s better to take a stronger position and say that even if it is censorship it’s still a good thing?!
I’ve always been confused about the alarm against censorship considering how much the government already censors things. Then I remember that pornographers created “the free speech coalition” to brainwash people into thinking their liberties were being attacked.
So a person’s ability to watch the abuse of women is infringed upon. Where’s my liberty to not live in a world where the abuse of my gender is mass distributed? It sickens me that an issue such as anti-woman propaganda is actually up for debate as to whether it is OK to distribute.
Though I may not believe that pornography is abuse, people should have a choice of whether or not they want particular materials to their computers. Though I would probably be more comfortable with ISPs running the program where there is a business incentive to be fair and partial (for ex. where a person might have to pay to access pornographic materials, I would certainly would not pay due to the fact I pirate most of my porn). Although, porn is readily available on file-sharing sites so I guess it would be moot.
This sort of filter won’t keep the kids away. Tweens in England will browse as they please to nonblacklisted IP addresses that serve as proxies to blacklisted sites, while the blacklisted traffic is run encrypted past the ISP’s packet inspection software. The kids will use anonymizing proxy services, which be ridiculously easy for them to install, once it’s necessary. They’ll probably also trade more porn through file-sharing networks. And that will be that.
Game over.
If ISP’s choose to disallow anonymization services or known blocks of IP’s used by such services, that would impact legitimate users of such services, actually anyone who wants to protect their web browser traffic from criminals such as identity thieves. Also, peer-to-peer anonymization services like TOR, and any general file-sharing network allowing transmission of encrypted content, would still work.
Historically, blacklisting porn filters do not work. Programs like Surf Control (which I have tested) miss plenty, blocking playboy.com, but missing both-feet-in-her-wuh.com, or whatever the name is of some playboy.com mirror site.
Meanwhile,the deep packet inspection software run by the ISP’s will use regex-based algorithms to block traffic based on keywords once they realize that their blacklists fail to block mirror sites of pornotube. Any site containing text like “f*ck” or “sl*t” will be disallowed. This will block non-porn sites, but happily for me, will also block a lot of facebook conversation and bad poetry. I hate both.
ISP’s don’t have the means, yet, to interpret graphic images. They have to rely on text inside the pages. I wait for the day when AI programs succeed in interpreting pornographic images. Then it will be a simple matter for web spiders to locate sites containing child porn or any porn on a freely accessible website. Unfortunately, that will only take web traffic toward use of more peer-to-peer networks running custom software like TOR, and pornography will be just as accessible.
You can go on and on about the principle of wanting to keep porn from children, but the only real threat here is to free speech. This effort of you folks in England will not stop pornography viewing by kids or teens. Of course, you folks have cameras everywhere and cops on the buses, so maybe it’s not a problem for you whether the government decides what is or is not pornography, but that’s for you to decide. My problem with the whole proposal is that filtering will fail, utterly.
Here, it’s not a matter for later consideration, because the details ARE known. The details have been known for ages, services like Surf Control fail, the government cannot inspect encrypted traffic, everyone fails to police file-sharing networks, you will not succeed in keeping kids from any content by using filtering software, whether the software relies on blacklists or packet inspection. It’s a technology problem, and it’s commonly understood. You’d know if you worked in IT or had tested pornography filtering software.
The possibilities for implementation, and their problems, are well-known. The same types of problems surface when trying to filter against malware. At least with malware, most people DON’T want to download it.
That’s the fact as I see them. If there’s parents wanting to keep kids away from porn, they have to be in touch with the community they live in, and make a communal arrangement to limit internet access throughout the community. Obviously, internet access in the home would have to be disallowed, which will protect husbands from opting-in.
So sure, what you want is worthwhile, but it’s not feasible, and you’re stuck looking at more time-consuming and difficult solutions that require you to be more responsible for what your kids do.
historically blocking porn filters do not work? how can you know as it has never been tried. I think the internet is basically like any other place in the real world and thus it can have limitations placed upon it.
there is no reason why the government, working together with providers could not set up a “red light district” online as for instance the proposed .xxx domains. these could then easily be filtered out and access could only be granted to people actually providing proof of their age. it is not that difficult.
yes there will be loopholes, as with anything that is regulated – but just give it a go damnit!
There’s nothing I loath more than what pornography has become (always was?), and I’d be more than happy to see some of the producers lined up and shot (e.g. Max Hardcore). But unfortunately Noah is correct.
I’m by no means an expert, but I am a professional web-application programmer and general sysadmin. Noah sounds like he knows what he’s talking about – I’ve used web site proxies to get around all sorts of filters, since the proxy encrypts the stream before it passes on to you (the user). As Noah said, the proxy servers (of which there are thousans, just google “proxy website”) would have to be included in the black-list (which would indeed impact on legitamate use of the servers).
Apart from this seeming pretty complicated to me… will kids really go to these lengths to access porn?
“The kids will use anonymizing proxy services, which be ridiculously easy for them to install, once it’s necessary.”
Even if it is easy the idea of having to install something that can be found later by a parent may be enough of a deterent in the first place for many children.
Also, how do ISP’s filter child porn sites? I’m presuming they’re not completely successful but just wondering what evidence there is there?
Also, at the end of the day limiting pornography to file-sharing sites isn’t exactly pointless. I’m presuming it would remove or a least severely limit the producer’s profitability, not only through the limiting to less sites but also because file-sharing sites are largely free.
Hey, Art. yeah, they will go to “those lengths”. It might sound complicated to you, but to greasy 5th graders who try to intimidate each other with their script kiddy prowess when they fight on-line, “Oh, yeah? I’ll h@ck you, haxx0r!”, hiding their computer life from their parents is no big deal.
The slightly nicer children learn what to do from their friends, it’s about being cool in elementary school. Teenagers are just as stupid-acting, but they know how to do more.
Ever heard of online bullying? It’s built on knowing about cellphones, computers, social networks, the whole bit. The more you know, the more respect you get, and here you’re talking about the first way to sneak candy from the jar without mom finding out, it’s a gimme, predates the serious stuff in child-land.
Besides, parents are too clueless to understand anything, their kids know more about their computers then they ever will. Actually, that kids really are like that goes hand in hand with parents leaving their kids in front of the computer all night so the parents can have a quieter evening. Research shows parents refuse to ditch their TV because they’d never get a peaceful moment. A computer offers more of the same.
Parents let their kids zombify and then the parents cluelessly protest when their kids start to seem suspicious. If you ask me, it’s self-serving as hell. If you don’t have time to raise your kids, don’t have kids. What you (sorry, they) seem to want is a pacification plan that’s less morally corrupting, in other words, no porn, just TV violence and loads of commercials. Plus, “time with the family” in front of the xbox, or whatever. Gimme a break!
Look, I’d like it to be true that filters work.
Porn surfing is not blockable, whether the filter operates on a home computer or on the ISP, the same problems surface. There is plenty of testing of porn filtering software from home computers, they simply failed when they relied on updated blacklists. There’s more testing of filtering software inside the internal networks of companies, this battle between users and service providers is old. Proxying, encryption, file-sharing, these combine to defeat firewalls and IDS systems meant to block or log porn traffic.
About the .xxx top-level domain: the following references provide opinions for why a .xxx domain will not serve the antipornography movement.
SEE:
* http://www.cnet.com/4520-6033_1-6302380-1.html
* http://www.purehope.net/triple.asp
NOTE: The second link is to a religious “family” organization, I don’t support them, but their write-up makes a good point.
The porn problem is similar to the global warming problem in at least one respect. While the Earth warms, we argue about fuel efficiency standards and whether to use public transit or ride the bus (well, here in the States we do). But there’s no solution if you maintain the driving lifestyle, and all the well-meaning people making arguments still have cars in the driveway.
The way to stop porn use at home is to stop using the internet from home. And chuck the TV out the window, and get to know your kids. Read your e-mail on your blackberry, disable web access and picture texting from your kids phone, and visit a public internet terminal if you have something important to do.
Yes, some children will no doubt get round any measures that are brought it to stop them watching porn on the internet. Children get round the laws on underage drinking and smoking but at least no one is in any doubt that they shouldn’t be doing either. Even if it is impossible to stop children viewing porn on the internet this proposal, if implemented, will send out a strong message, a message which simply isn’t there at the moment. It is a step in the right direction.
The proposal will, at the very least, ensure the subject is debated, at the moment many mothers are completely unaware of what is easily available on the internet. Until circumstances forced me to find out about the subject of internet porn I was a complete innocent on the subject (I am a not particularly computer literate 55 year old). If more women become aware of what is going on under their roof they will be in a position to control any unsuitable viewing.
One other point, having read online newspaper articles covering the subject I was dismayed by the number of comments from the public who were
antagonistic to the proposal. However I have now been told that internet forums are a poor
way to judge public opinion, those with a vested interest in a subject can be easily
encouraged to swamp a forum with their opinions.
I think Rosemary makes a really good point about the proposal sending out a strong message. Kids do drink, smoke, take drugs etc. but at least that stuff isn’t implicitly endorsed by not even attempting to block it!
Again, if you block those sites, what about people uploading them onto filesharing (hosting) sites? Are you gonna block those? Are you gonna track every torrent or just do away with those all together? What about translation forums dealing with Eroge, or news sites with NSFW pictures such as Sankakucomplex? What would count as porn and what would not?
and Sirf_palot has a point too, filesharing and the likes (torrents are these days mostly encrypted). We might have to reconcile ourselves to the fact that digital information cannot be contained. Instead we should be focusing on education (both adults and chilren). As Rosemary pointed out, many people don’t know what going on in pornography these days (and why would they if they weren’t consumers or reasearchers). There’s a pretty good series of talks put together by The Witherspoon Institute called “The Social Costs of Pornography” – could possibly be used as starting points in classrooms. In fact, I believe it is so serious an issue that it should be introduced into the cirriculum.
Rosemary, I agree that the proposal can at least stoke debate (though unlikely to work), and public debate on pornography is what we really need.
I feel like some of the point here is being lost a bit. I think for so many adults (me included) one of the most difficult things I found (and am still finding) when I -mostly- stopped using porn was the fact that it is so readily available online. Like it’s just waiting there, ready when you are. For those adults (never mind the children) who have trouble with this surely anything that even reduces the overt presence of porn online is going to be helpful.
I was a bit nervous of bringing this point up, thank you Art Modos. I am sure the reason that there has been such an outcry on the internet to this proposal has nothing to do with concerns over censorship and is a motivated by selfish concerns from married porn addicts who are worried about what they are going to do when their secret and free supply of porn is denied them. I predict a large rise in the sale of porn magazines and dvds if these proposals become the law.
Well done in overcoming your addiction Art Modos, I am far from an expert on the subject but I feel that once you are able to admit to it and discuss it freely the addiction is as good as beaten.
Art, I agree and I remain hopeful, as I am in the same predicament, and it is worth trying filtering at the ISP level. Nevertheless, as I mentioned above, proxy-website offer a much-too-easy way of bypassing these filters – we’ll see…
Hi again Art, sorry just noticed this:
Noah said:
>> The kids will use anonymizing proxy services, >> which be ridiculously easy for them to
>> install, once it’s necessary.”
Art said:
> Even if it is easy the idea of having to
> install something that can be found later
> by a parent may be enough of a deterent in
> the first place for many children.
So I need to clarify – kids/users do *not* have to install *anything*. You simply go to a website proxy and give it the url you want to load, they do the work for you and pass you back the results, it is transparance and FAPP you feel like you’re simply browsing the web, here’s one such site:
http://www.ninjacloak.com/
You can type *any* url into the text box and presto you’ve bypassed any filter.
The only solution to this would be to add the proxy websites to the filters blacklist (which I have no objection to), but I doubt this will be done.
Yes, that’s correct, you can point your browser at a proxy without a download, though some paid services (e.g., anonymizer.com ) do require a software download, I suppose it’s their way of ensuring paying customers.
To everyone: sorry for my aggressive tone regarding parenting, it was unnecessary.
I have often wondered why ISPs don’t offer web filtering as a service. When I use the public network at the library it is filtered, and when I use my employer’s network it is filtered, but at home, apart from the blacklisting of illegal sites, its up to me to install filters on all my pcs.
I think when ISPs start offering this it will prove very popular.
Those web filters would have to be quite a bit more streamlined and customizable. I mean, several sites where I could get anime and such are labeled as porn.
Also, I guess the reason for the filters at the workplace is because they don’t want any loss productivity and at the public library because I guess that there are children there and its supposed to be a place of learning. At home, your “supposed” to be able to do whatever you want hence the lack of filters. I guess the default attitude is that all men would want porn or something.
An optional filter would be great to have. While not perfect, it would add an extra level of protection. As the phone companies already do this kind of thing, it surely should not be too hard for the ISPs to adopt.
If anyone is in support of this then come and ‘Like’ the Family Safe ISP Facebook Page, where the developments will be followed.
I look forward to the day when we no longer have to fight so hard to keep this stuff from our homes, and, obviously, it is not only our children who will benefit.
It is one of the few sensible things the coalition has come up with. It would lead to a big decline in porn use by teenagers (who don’t own the family internet connection) and lazy adult men (who can’t be bothered to pick up the phone and opt in). In the long term this would help make our culture a little more healthy.
Unfortunately in the short term it wouldn’t have much impact on people outside those two groups. The porn sellers would still be able to run their websites freely and their core market, the people who actually buy porn, would not hesitate to use the opt-in.
In order to really crack down on the main market we need to get the government to legislate stricter definitions of consent, so that no one has the right to host or sell images of a third party having sex.
I have to support Noah’s perspective here. The proposals will not be technically feasible. No matter how positive it feels to air debates about this, these kind of blocking measures will hurt freedom of speech without having any significant effect on the availability of porn. Legislators have a really bad track record with technology proposals like this – look at recent infamous examples like the ID card scheme and the attempts to clamp down on illegal file sharing.
As much as I agree that the porn industry is violent and immoral, it is currently legal. We wouldn’t want to start blocking websites which aren’t breaking any law. That’s a bad road to go down.
Instead of the debate focusing on content blocking, I think it should move to making an increasing amount of pornography illegal – perhaps along the lines Mhm_R suggests: legislating stricter definitions of consent. The evidence that porn is harmful to adults as well as children is mounting – which is a road to getting it restricted and later banned in law.
Ed Vaizey will be meeting with the main UK ISPs on 7 February to discuss the opt-in/out ISP level filters. These voluntary filters will never be perfect, and not stop people who want to see the stuff from doing so. However, this needs public support. You can support the drive for these using information on this Support ISP Anti-Porn Filters blog.
This is pretty interesting considering the ISP block and shows how problematic such a block might be: http://blogs.computerworld.com/17834/dhs_ice_seizes_84_000_wrong_domains_child_porn_oops_and_coica
That’s nothing to do with running an opt out system. Websites are not taken down in an opt out system. If mistakes are made, they can be easily corrected.
The concept of an ‘out-out’ is closely linked to the coalition philosophy of Libertarian Paternalism. This is something opponents of the system don’t seem to understand – the measures are explicitly designed in such a way as to protect individual freedom whilst combating the problem.
While in principle this is a good idea I worry that non-porn adult sites such as LGBT support sites will be blocked as well. We have already seen this from the adult content blocks that the mobile phone companies employ.