Parliament will debate on Wednesday whether ISPs should be forced to declare whether they block customers from accessing known child pornography sites.
Margaret Moran, the Labour MP for Luton South, is introducing a Ten Minute Rule bill in an attempt to force more ISPs to regulate the Web access they offer customers.
Around 20 percent of ISPs are not carrying out any filtering, according to Moran, which she sees as a dereliction of duty to customers.
"I want to encourage ISPs to use the technology available to restrict access to child pornography on the Internet," said Moran during an interview with BBC Radio 5 on Wednesday morning. She added that she is prepared to name ISPs who are not taking action to block child pornography.
Moran claims to have backing from across the political spectrum. However, the government is not supporting her bill, as the Home Office is reportedly concerned that it could damage its existing relationship with ISPs.
Some in the industry strongly oppose the idea that governments should regulate access to the Internet, although there is widespread support for organisations such as the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) which identifies illegal Web content.
Last year, BT Retail became the first UK ISP to announce it was blocking access to sites identified by the IWF as containing paedophilia. This service, called Cleanfeed, is available to other ISPs. Many say they also restrict access in this way, either by using Cleanfeed or by using their own blacklist.
Talkback
I have 2 daughters, whom I love and care for very much. And, I hate it when they are exposed to activities that I would rather not have them experience. But, It is a parents duty and responsibility to restrict access to content - whether on the web, in magazines or even from their own government, when necessary.
It is a parents duty and responsibility to teach their children well. It's their duty to teach them about what is right and wrong, about how to protect themselves and to speak up when wronged. Especially, when those that think their helping, are setting a poor example for the world. One must consider the "life" of a "law" and the impact it will have on the on the future of freedom and liberty, in general.
Stopping access to content will not prevent the activities that produced that content. And, in this case, that is where the time, engery and focus needs to be.
Francis has the right attitude!!
I have seen paedophilia before. Yet it was not on a "commercial" website, it was on a "website" that clean feed cannot and will never be able to block!
Yes i was disgusted by it and yes i was on an ISP that was allegedly protected with clean feed.
The isp should NOT block anything it is up to the individual user what they want blocking, this includes viruses and spam. If the user wants the ISP should provide it (at a cost) if the users do not then the ISP should not force it upon them..
These are the sorts of laws and ideas you get when people who dont have a clue are in charge of the country.
Once the government has forced ISPs to block particular content - and how will they do it anyway, websites come and go faster than ISPs will ever be able to track - then it will be an easy matter for ISPs to be forced to block other content... perhaps web sites of opposition parties?. Or, how about protecting us from news of a major virus outbreak?
With regard, specifically to this content refered to in the article, parents are those responsible for the upbringing of their children, and their protection from the "not so nice" in this world - like buses on the roads.
Let parents ensure that their PCs/internet access points are secured, not force ISPs to "protect" everyone else.