Proposals for new online safety law are flawed

So Baroness Howe of Idlicote wants all ISPs to block pornographic images and websites unless the subscriber actively ‘opts-in'.

Like many online child safety proposals the intentions are good, but the proposals are unworkable. As a colleague aptly put it - "there are people who think that there are things on the internet you can just turn off like taps".

On many levels the proposals are deeply flawed.

I want to point out that I understand why the Baroness has proposed protection for children. It's true that there are many things that I would not have wanted my son to see, or be a part of online, when he was a child - and when in mum-mode even now to be honest. But I believe it is the parent's responsibility to set boundaries; which includes setting up parental control software securely.

Yes children can get around this but the little dears will always find a way to do something they shouldn't. But this doesn't have to be catastrophic provided the parents don't abdicate their responsibility to a third party; such as an ISP.

Also why should a consenting adult have to essentially "ask for permission" from their ISP to access porn if they so wish? Say I wanted to indulge in looking at some slightly salacious pictures showing braw hieland laddies in kilts. What business is it of anyone else - let alone my ISPs - if I want to access jocksinfrocks?

Please note I have not tried seeing if such a site exists; I am at work, and such a search would probably be frowned on.

The wording is also unclear and by using the singular - ie opting into "a service", does this mean I have to let the ISP know each time I wanted access to a new website as the wording indicates?

Probably not but you see get an idea of how woolly the wording is.

And another thing, although the draft bill says the terms "pornographic" and "images" will be defined by the section 63 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008, the practical and legal problems of identifying and blocking offending sites and images that face ISPs is immense.

Would certain amusing pictures of men in kilts in some instances be porn?

To add insult to injury even though few ISP subscribers will be under 18 because of the legal issues of making a contract with a minor, the Bill says the ISP still has to verify that I am 18 or over; easy enough in the flesh in my case, not so easy for the ISP if a teenager gets goes online with my details and lies through their teeth.

Baroness Howe's desire to protect children from some of the nastier elements of the internet is commendable and not something I have a problem with. It in itself is a good thing.

But the way she has proposed this is done is not and while unlikely to make it into actual law, if it did the result would not be good. As my dear old mum is fond of saying: "The road to hell is paved with good intentions."