Filters are not the answer
by Jamie Bartlett
Today the Open Rights Group released a new report on default mobile internet filters. These filters are default blocks on certain sites set by Internet Service Providers, which prevent access to them.
Although the report is specifically about mobile filters, the broader argument is about internet censorship. Much of the debate about censorship comes down how we can protect children from inappropriate content - especially pornographic material - while maintaining internet freedom.
But as this new report argues, default internet filters are not a good way to tackle the problem. They tend to be unworkable, partly because the technology changes so fast. Because of linguistic and semantic problems, any default filters also result in legitimate sites being blocked.
I have a more fundamental problem with default filters and blocks. In an age of ubiquitous, accessible material, parents need to take greater responsibility for what and how their children consume online. As we argued in Truth, Lies and the Internet, there is much more on the internet to be concerned about than sexual content.
But parents think that the digital world is alien to them – a mysterious place inhabited by their digital native children. Rubbish. Parents need to become more familiar with various aspects of internet functionaility as part of their children’s general education; and impart the importance of critical thinking, and careful use.
Relinquishing this responsibility and handing it lazily over to ISPs, dulls the senses, and ultimately denudes us of our own duties. In the long-run, that will not help anyone.
Harry
@ Jamie - am in full agreement. but one thing you need to address is the "what about bad parents?" concern.
@ Trish - surely the fact that children will access computers which you can't control is exactly why you can't rely on censorship or filtering... the best way to protect kids against the dangers of the internet is to educate them on how to use it, no matter what computer they're using... the real danger is that filters give parents a false sense of security, they think "well, i guess now I don't need to worry about what they do on the net, it's all filtered anyway..."
Dida
Em, Trish, are you saying that because your child may get her hands on the iPone of a friend, we need to block all "adult content" by default for everybody...
Yes society has to take some responsibility in assisting parents in their duty to raise their children, but society's responsibility only goes so far.
We have the watershed to assist parents, but we don’t ban any adult content from the TV because your child may be allowed to watch TV at her friend's house after the watershed. Or because you may fail in your parental duties and allow your child to have a TV in her room.
Abigail Brady
I'm not usually one for a "leave it to the market" approach, but there's nothing stopping parents changing ISPs to one that do censor by default, is there? I do not see the need for legislation here.
The idea that this would stop children accessing "bad" sites outside of the home too assumes that nobody is going to turn the filter off! Unless you're suggesting a mandatory filter (which is not what this proposal is, thank god).
Pengipete
Filtered communications is one possible aid to protection - but no such aid needs to be all encompassing.
Surely such a system should be an option that individuals can chose to use - in the same way that we can chose to use a local "network nanny" if we have children in the house and don't want to be looking over their shoulder the whole time.
ISPs and other network providers ought to be able to offer products tailored to those who want/need network level filtering and other products for those who don't. Blanket censorship is a very bad - and frankly, lazy - solution to a "problem" that is as much hype as it is substance.
I'm also wary of the "it should all be down to the parents" argument - for the same reason I dislike the "if you've nothing to hide" waffle used by online tracking supporters. It may sound "logical" but it is unrealistic. The whole point of a mobile phone and other portable devices is that they are specifically designed to be used outside of the house. Exactly how is a parent supposed to know - never mind control - how that device is used at all times? Having filtered networks as an option for parents to apply when providing their kids with a phone or other roaming device is a good idea - filtering everyone just to pacify a few Daily Mail readers is not.
David Vinter
But what is to be censored? Many parents have no problems with sunbathing nude, others would not allow their children in an art gallery. For me extreme violence, is far the worst on offer , on so much TV.
In my front room, I have a large print of 'The Duchess of Alba' painted nude by Goya in 1800.
Trish
Erm, Dida, no I did not say that all adult content should be blocked for everybody, not at all. I am however, pretty fed up of hearing the lazy, unrealistic and child unfriendly argument of 'it's all down to the parents'.
As a general rule, I don't favour censorship and of course responsible parents need to educate their children re the internet. But, it does concern me that young children are able to access horrific images, be they porn or violence, either accidentally or being shown them by other kids. I do think there need to be some safeguards put in place. A general filter may not be practical for various reasons, but it's an important issue that should not be glibly and unhelpfully dismissed as solely the responsibility of parents.
trish
Disagree. I am a responsible parent, but I can't control my child's every move. She goes to school and sees other childrens iphones, visits her friend's house who has older siblings etc. I can be responsible for a lot but I can't watch her all the time. Society needs to take some responsibilty towards the fact that children live here, children are a part of society, a society that needs to respect their needs and those of their parents.