Attended the ISPA Parliamentary Advisory Forum this week. The debate, sponsored by Claire Perry MP was on the subject of online child protection. The issue, as previously posted (just search for Claire on this site), is that Claire Perry wants ISPs to block access to pornographic websites by default, requiring people who want to go to these sites to opt in.
This must have been one of the most informed debates I have been to with an A-Z of stakeholders (100+ people) present ranging from what looked like the committee of the local parish church, academics, libertarians, ISPs, MPs, security technology vendors, press, child safety organisations etc etc.
Several things stuck in my mind:
Internet Minister Ed Vaizey and MP Claire Perry emphasised their position that ISPs need to do something to protect kids or they will legislate.
Many references to studies on the effect of pornography on children were made. Clarissa Smith from the University of Sunderland pointed out the lack of evidence based informed research. It should be noted that this point extends across other areas of legislation applied to the internet. I’m not against protecting children but before we expend huge effort going down specific avenues this should be taken into consideration.
Dido Harding, CEO of TalkTalk said that they had spent “double digit millions” on implementing their opt in parental controls system. 6 weeks post launch TalkTalk had 50,000 subscribers – out of a total of over 4 million. There is clearly an education piece to be addressed there as well as perhaps a marketing one.
Mike Galvin, BTs MD of Research & Technology and chair of a child safety working group issue stated that BT, Talk Talk, Sky and Virgin were producing a Code of Practice covering how ISPs should approach this issue. The CoP would be available by September and would recommend a network level solution with parental controls that allowed families to opt in to a filtering solution.
In other words no automatic blocking. I can’t see how any ISP could opt for automatic filtering. It would create a huge outcry. This goes some way towards what Claire Perry wants but not all the way.
Mark Donkersley of educational internet filtering provider e-safe was open in saying that no filter system could prevent anyone who really wanted to by pass it from doing so (look out for class IVc ! 😉 )and that education was the most important issue. Education of both kids and parents.
The response from the pro-blocking faction was that education doesn’t work for everyone and that there would be a large number of vulnerable children at risk – primarily those with parents who couldn’t care less I guess.
It was a hugely interesting debate. In summary the pro blocking stance is just because blocking isn’t totally effective isn’t a reason to not do it
The anti blockers say that having to opt out of blocking is an intrusion of privacy and against freedom of speech. I will add to this that the biggest concern is where does it stop? Pornography today, what next will be the whim of a government subjected to hard lobbying!
With the CoP likely to come out in favour of optional parental controls rather than automatic blocking with an opt in if you want to access porn I feel this is lining up for a big fight. MPs, as is their wont, will attempt to gauge which will be the more unpopular stance to take which is not of course the best way to run the country.
PS had a chat afterwards with Justine Roberts, founder and CEO of mumsnet. She was one of the panelists and spoke out in favour of taking action to protect children. Mumsnet had been highly supportive of mandatory porn blocking at network level with an opt-out for adults wanting access to porn. This was until a large body of mumsnet forum users came out against the stance so the site withdrew its banners supporting the action. Mumsnet still wants something done but is now not as vociferously supportive of mandatory blocking as it had initially been.
