A Labour MP has proposed a bill to force ISPs to declare whether they have taken steps to prevent access to paedophilic Web sites.
Margaret Moran, the Labour MP for Luton South, has introduced the bill under the 'Ten Minute Rule', which allows a brief discussion on the issue, but is unlikely to lead to an immediate change in the law.
This bill is inspired by the success of BT's Internet filtering technology, according to Roger Darlington, a member of Ofcom's Consumer Panel, in a blog posting. This technology, called Cleanfeed, prevents BT Retail customers from accessing a list of Web sites identified by the Internet Watch Foundation as containing images of child pornography.
An AOL spokesman gave the bill cautious support, but said ISPs should not be forced to provide too much information to prevent criminals from using this information to avoid the filters.
"Anything that's a step towards child safety and reducing the number of child abuse images on the Internet is by-and-large a good thing," said the AOL spokesman. "Any information that we give away might help people putting this information online."
AOL also questioned if this bill was needed as most ISPs are already open about whether or not they have taken steps to prevent access to paedophilic Web sites. AOL has an in-house system that blocks some content, according to the spokesman.
The bill, called the Control of Internet access (child pornography), will be discussed on 26 October.
Talkback
if isps can block sites they can also say whos trying to access child porn we need to bring back hanging for anyone who dileberatly views child porn or publishes it ill be the hangman no matter how many people it takes to kill to keep society safe,demand your mps bring back hanging
Why on earth should ISP's have to declare. Surely if the abusers know, they will look to find ways around it!
Pornography is not desirable in any form in a civilised society. The same requires a stringent punishment and more so when the future of the young generation is at stake. In the name of “liberalisation” and “freedom of speech and expression” criminal tendencies degrading the moral fabric of the nation cannot be allowed to operate. We are custodians of “morality” for the future generation and we cannot afford to give it a debased, immoral and perverse society as the heritage. Thus, the bright future requires both negative form of discipline in the form of punishment and positive form of discipline by voluntarily following and cherishing the morality and ideals preserved by a nation from numerous centuries.
See http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/05/pornography-at-its-worst.html
and http://perry4law.blogspot.com/2005/04/challenges-of-obscenity-and.html
for details.
as much as i agree that child pornography should be blocked by all ISP's, the problem i forsee is that where does this stop?
especially seeing teh alst persons response, who is to decide what we are and are not allowed to look at on the internet?
yes if it against the law like child pornography then of course steps should be, as they are being, taken to stop the access to this site, but be weary, where will it stop? i access normal porn or what i would describe as normal porn on my computer, and who are you or anyone else for that matter to tell me or anyone else that, that is right or wrong? as i said before i am in agreement about the child porn topic, but monitoring which websites everyone visits? blocking content that some burocrat or complaint ridden member of society deems un suitable for our viewing? what next? any websate that complains about the government is blocked? any website that expresses personal oppinion is blocked?..
I fear that if the technology is implimented as it is, there can be no end to what other people decide should and should not be permitted by internet users.
people also need to remember (in reference to the child porn area) the internet is a global reference, this is not just a medium for those of us in the USA and UK, some other countries have no problem with child pronography and while i maintain that yes i beleive it should be blocked, will we end up like the chinese? their internet is so filtered now that even mention of their government is blocked..
in my opinion they should be targetting the people who are publishing it illegally, not the people who are viewing it, as i have said i do think it shouldnt be viewed but who are we, me or anyone, to inflict our views on others?
i dont particularly like a lot of types of porn but it is none of my, nor anyone elses business to inflict my views on others.
Those who publish the child pornography need to be targetted, as in dealt with legally. The emphasis has always been too far on punishing people viewing child porn, rather than the people provding the child porn.
It's like targeting drug abusers, but not the main drug dealers.
It's all back to front.
The concern here is naturally, how far will ISPs go?
What else will they block access too? Will an ISP block access for instance to companies, that they don't deal with, therefore guiding users only to their own, or affliated companies, or websites that have paid them?
It wouldn't be surprising if this is what is ISPs are doing already, would it? Providing links to affliated websites fine, but blocking unaffliated sites isn't.
Certainly, this blocking can be used to block anything that's deemed 'subversive', or against a partiular ideology, or government! It's not a real solution to the problem of child porn.
Arresting dealers in child porn is.