Removing online child porn calls for state intervention, not voluntary action
Dear Alan Campbell,
As a Home Office minister, I’m sure Jacqui Smith takes all the high profile cases and leaves you with the issues that she isn’t particularly interested in. I appreciate that regulating the internet is a horribly messy situation and doesn’t offer much in the way of glitz and glamour, but don’t think for a second that this makes it any less important. The government asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007 but it still hasn’t happened yet. The question is: what are you going to do about it?
It’s interesting how the same percentage figure can be spun both ways. You said yesterday that “currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking [of illegal websites, including images of child abuse]. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.” The Home Office also confirmed it was Government policy to ensure all UK ISPs should deploy a blocking mechanism for child abuse images based on the list of known illegal websites maintained by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). While you may see this as a success, the Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety, which includes the NSPCC, Barnardo’s and The Children’s Society, expressed “regret and serious concern” at the “seriously damaging” situation for children. Zoe Hilton, policy adviser for the NSPCC and speaking on behalf of the Coalition, said: “Over 700,000 households in the UK can still get uninterrupted and easy access to illegal child abuse image sites. Allowing this loophole helps to feed the appalling trade in images which feature real children being seriously sexually assaulted. We now need decisive action from the Government to ensure the Internet Service Providers that are still refusing to block this foul material are forced to fall into line. Self-regulation on this issue is obviously failing – and in a seriously damaging way for children. …we still have no idea when the Government will finally conclude that the industry will not get us to the 100% which has been the basis of policy since May 2006.” Ouch. One of the thus far unwilling ISPs, Zen Internet, said in a statement: “We have not yet implemented the IWF’s recommended system because we have concerns over its effectiveness.” It is understood other ISPs have cited the cost of blocking the illegal material as a reason not to participate in the scheme.
What to do, what to do. Firstly, let us remind ourselves that the Internet Watch Foundation is a fake charity. It was set up in the old Department of Trade and Industry in 1997 and its main source of funding is the EU which has given grants totalling over £460,000 in the last two years. The NSPCC also receives around £7 million a year from local authorities and the DCSF, although it appears to have retained a large degree of independence. I hate state intervention and most of the time it can be avoided. In 2006 ISPs were essentially set a voluntary code to help remove illegal websites and the majority of them complied, which was the right thing to do, but a select few decided to dig their heels in. It is not surprising that the smaller ISPs are the ones not complying, seeing as I’m sure monitoring illegal websites isn’t cheap. However, that is no excuse whatsoever for allowing images of children being sexually assaulted to remain on the internet. If ISPs refuse to block these images, I completely support the government forcing them to do so. ISPs having ‘concerns’ over the effectiveness of the IWF’s recommendations is just a smokescreen to buy themselves more time. I may not support Big State solutions in general but when it comes to keeping child porn offline, it is absolutely right for the government of the day to step in.
I know that the IWF blotted its copybook recently with the now infamous Wikipedia / Scorpions album cover incident and I also appreciate that they tread a fine line when it comes to deciding what should be illegal or not (which it no doubt will cross again in future). That said, I would hope that the government, bloggers and internet users across the UK would agree that there are some things society is considerably better off without on the internet – and child porn is surely a case in point. The IWF is clearly a controversial body due to its funding and its vague remit, but don’t let that distract you from doing your job. Legislation to force every ISP to remove these illegal websites is the only way forward as far as I can see – voluntary action is not good enough.
Yours sincerely,
A.Tory
Witanagemot Blogs
“However, that is no excuse whatsoever for allowing images of children being sexually assaulted to remain on the internet. If ISPs refuse to block these images, I completely support the government forcing them to do so.”
And when their remit is widened to include other things the government would rather we didn’t see? What then?
The government has no role in regulating the internet, just as Canute understood he had no ability to stop the tides.
First off, a technical point.
Unless the illegal material is hosted on a server in the UK or under the control of a hosting firm in the UK, it’s not going to be removed.
The ISPs are gaining the (shaky) capacity to block access to that content. Clever deviants will get around these blocks using a variety of technical means – even the Great FireWall of China has workarounds and they have 60,000+ policemen patrolling the internet. So committed perverts will still be able to gain access to the material.
Secondly, this is the thin end of the wedge. Nobody can disagree with blocking access to kiddy porn without looking a bit odd. Next is the Islamic Extremist sites (although we allow access to them to track back their UK users for further investigation). After this, will they do other sites deemed to promote ‘hate speech’ be it against a religion, a race or, perhaps, a government? Will the Green Facists use this capacity to block climate change
realistsdeniers? Or places selling naughty ‘dirty’ tech like 100W lightbulbs?Because the pressure will be on.
Alistair, it’s not that I love the idea of the government being responsible for this, but I simply don’t see any viable alternative.
Shaun and Julia, I too am extremely concerned about the ever-increasing reach of the state into our lives and the IWF is indeed a perfect vehicle to start attacking freedom of speech and freedom of expression. What I’m asking for is some common sense when looking at internet regulation rather than just declaring that the government is taking over our lives when their actions are in fact perfectly justifiable.
That’s the problem, LFAT. Common sense is a misnomer – its just not that common.
After 12 years of ZaNuLab introducing laws, ostensibly for reasonable things like catching terrorists, that go on to be used for petty council things like catching dog poo or checking school catchment areas, how can anyone have any confidence that things such as ‘net censorship measures won’t be used maximally? I don’t.
Its not even a Labour thing, its a human nature thing – give people an inch and they are naturally inclined to take a mile. I’d argue, therefore, that its the duty of ‘conservatives’ to argue long and hard over whether its worth handing over that inch…
Believe me when I say that I would prefer the government to stay well away from this, but if ISPs are asked nicely about whether child abuse images should be on the internet and they aren’t bothered, who else can step in? Is letting images of children being sexually assaulted appear online worth fighting for on a matter of principle about not liking state intervention?
I agree that the IWF should have an incredibly tight remit, agreed cross party and perhaps even discussed with voters, but I still think it can (if used properly) perform an important function.
Pleased to see you are finding that the Libertarian case can be taken to absurd lengths . Yes of course child pornography should be banned in any shape or form.
Theer will always be grey areas about where the state should intervene but expecting things to be perfect is childish. In this case there is no grey .
I agree that the IWF should have an incredibly tight remit, agreed cross party and perhaps even discussed with voters
If you ask voters whether bad things should be banned, they tend to say yes. So any censor or would-be censor is on easy ground when appealing to “the people” – or to “common sense”. And as Julia and Shaun have said, it’s the thin end of the wedge. Even the category of child porn is rather more complex than you seem to think. Films of seven years olds being raped are clearly evil – but what of a 17 year old flashing her tits? That, too, is legally “child porn”: and several teenagers in the US have been prosecuted for “distributing child porn” by sending photos to each other on their mobile phones.
The only way to deal with the true evil of child pornography is to track down the producers and rescue the children.
Well obviously I wouldn’t leave the process entirely up to voters, who could easily be summoned by the Daily Mail to rain down fire and brimstone on all kinds of websites.
The IWF should be there to get rid off illegal websites, but of course thanks to Labour we now have a ridiculous number of offences which would undermine the entire process. We need a sensible, open discussion about what should be illegal while respecting privacy, freedom of speech and freedom of expression. I know that’s a big ask and the likelihood of it happening in the current political climate is pretty much zero. However, once this discussion had taken place the IWF could be left alone to remove the truly illegal and/or dangerous content off the internet.
Nothing like a bit of wishful thinking, eh?
newmania: “In this case there is no grey .”
But as Heresiarch has pointed out, there is considerable ‘grey’ in the current definition of ‘child porn’ itself.
And also, as I’ve said, it’s not REMOVING anything. Most kiddy porn isn’t hosted in the UK. The blocks, such as they will be, can be circumvented by technical means – this is a fact – so only the most technically inept paedophiles will have their jollies curtailed.
If you allow government to control the internet through enforcible legislation, it will do so. LFAT, Guido, Mr Dale and the rest of us who disagree with the mainstream government policy will find ourselves voiceless during the next electoral campaign. We will be drawn into the ‘balance’ which TV is forced to adhere to. Labour is scared of the bloggers, which is why the ‘daft spinner’ (whose name should not be mentioned) has be foisted upon us all.
Child pornography is unforgivable, but we are already doing all we can without allowing government too much power for its own ends.
I understood the law to be clear – and by any definition child pornography is illegal in this country.
The point about Canute is also clear – the government is not able to regulate the internet, and nor should it try.
Shaun et al. are correct. It’s not removing child porn it’s just blocking it – putting a veil over content that will remain. It will have marginal if any impact on the production of such material. And it is very easy to get around the blocks with encryption and anonymising services (that are also used by people in China, Iran, N Korea etc. to access informative content). And you can guarantee it will be abused by the police, the government and big business.
You know there should really be no need for governments or ISP’s to have anything to do with content. As has been stated already, we all know it won’t stop there. The responsibility essentially lies with the parents. There are solutions they can use such as nanny software. Another useful one which I have used is a free service called OpenDNS http://www.opendns.com/solutions/overview/
This has up to 50 filtering categories that you can implement for your children’s safe surfing.
It might also help if we actually punish paedophiles! Ban them from having the internet, keep an on eye on them, they so often just disappear into the crowd.
I read somewhere (I just looked and can’t find it), that the government failed to properly check 900 applicants who want to work with children.
We have no control over sites that are resident in other parts of the world and it’s up to each country to do it’s best to catch these people and destroy the servers.
You’re looking at the easy solution again, make the ordinary guy suffer more surveillance instead of tackling the real problem.
What ‘CP’ Sites?
NLO
Sue, I think parents are probably more of a problem than teenagers when it comes to accessing child porn…
Perhaps we ought to teach the teenagers how to use the nanny software
You said “Sue, I think parents are probably more of a problem than teenagers when it comes to accessing child porn…”
where do you get this stuff from?
Alistair, I think it is a perfectly reasonable assumption that, given the nature of child pornography, children are unlikely to be as interested in it as adults.
If you would like to argue otherwise, please feel free to do so.
assumption is not the same as fact – would have expected you to know that!
On the other hand, its a good argument for not putting child offenders into adult prisons as in the case of youthful fans of kiddy porn…ah well…won’t go there!
“Sue, I think parents are probably more of a problem than teenagers when it comes to accessing child porn…”
Yes, the children too busy are making most of it now.
NLO
Good point LFAT, but I’m not sure that the state is actually capable of making this happen without effectively shutting off most of the internet…