Government web filter plans too "blunt"

Government proposals that could include automatically filtering all adult web content could lead to “function creep” and may be too blunt to satisfy parents that do want controls on their content.

The government today opened a consultation on three possible levels of ISP intervention, with one suggestion being that ISPs should filter adult content by default. Subscribers would have to tell their ISP if they wanted to receive porn and other, unspecified, potentially harmful material.

As it stands, the main ISPs have agreed to offer all new customers "active choice" of using parental controls, but anti-porn campaigners want this extended. The government also raised the option of a halfway-house solution where parents would be able to choose selectively what content would be blocked.

Censorship

Rights campaigners argue such filters lack transparency, saying any content that officials wished to steer people away from could also be included in the filters.

“There’s a real potential for things to be fed into the block lists that isn’t adult stuff,” said Jim Killock, chief executive of the Open Rights Group. “Basically, the government, without having anything that says ‘this is actually illegal’ can through administrative decisions start pushing people away from certain type of information. There would be nothing to stop officials pushing things into the material, and that could make it illegal not to block something.”

Indeed, in its consultation the government lists a variety of site content that could be added to the blacklist, and although the subject matters are certainly potentially unsuitable for children, rights groups question whether the government should be making such decisions.

“The government… is aware that exposure to pornography is not the only risk that children face when using the internet,” the consultation said.
“They might access websites promoting suicide, anorexia, self-harm and violence, or be the targets of online sexual grooming or bullying.”

According to Killock, the vagueness and sensationalist language of the document suggested the motivation was political in a move to appease papers such as the Daily Mail, which has been campaigning for stricter regulations.

“The whole thing is about headlines and the government having ways to look like it’s doing something about child safety, but that could end up being something else,” he said. “It looks like policy on the hoof.”

Lack of precision

While some critics bemoaned the potential for censorship via the back door, others raised the question of whether the concept of network-level blocking gave parents enough control, arguing that each family – and indeed child - is different.

“Research we’ve done looking at parental controls on smartphones says that parents want richer controls with smart devices,” said Ciaran Bradley, a vice president with mobile parental control and security provider AdaptiveMobile.

“The parents want flexible controls that they can adapt as their children mature so you can have different levels of control for a 15 year old or an eight year old," he said. “Our research tells us parents are interested in taking more control and they want tools to do that.”

Page Three images, they would probably rather were not filtered out for their teenagers, because they would expect teenagers to be doing some sort of exploration

Bradley's comments echo those of leading online child safety expert Sonia Livingstone, of the London School of Economics, who has been heavily involved in research on the issue.

“It all depends on the child. It’s problematic with filtering because content is just content to a web filter and what parents would like filtered out varies so much,” said Livingstone, when we spoke to her when the idea of blocks was raised last month.

“Some parents might want to block hardcore pornography for children up to, say, 15 or 16 - perhaps you say hardcore porn below the age of consent is inappropriate viewing,” she said.

“Page Three images, they would probably rather were not filtered out for their teenagers, because they would expect teenagers to be doing some sort of exploration.”

The consultation is open for ten weeks and can be found here.