|
|
|
Is internet regulation an affront to free speech, or needed to protect children?
In December 2008 Culture Secretary Andy Burnham gave an interview to the Daily Telegraph in which he announced his desire for "clearer standards online", explaining that this might include cinema-style age ratings for websites.
His comments were met with approval from some and outrage from others, who decried them as an attack on free speech, impossible to implement, or both.
A few weeks later politicians, academics and representatives from the internet industry gathered at the Westminster E-Forum in London to debate whether the internet can be effectively regulated.
Computeractive was there too, and in this issue we'll explain the various challenges and strategies that were discussed.
What’s what
Before going any further, it's important to define the content that might be regulated. Most discussion at the forum concerned material that is either illegal or harmful. Illegal material includes images of child abuse, images that are criminally obscene such as bestiality, material that constitutes an incitement to racial hatred and some 'extreme' pornography as defined under the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Harmful material includes websites that are not illegal but can be dangerous, such as those giving advice on how to commit suicide. The forum also discussed 'offensive' material, such as legal pornography, and sites that illegally reproduce or offer illegal copies of copyrighted material.
What happens now?
Currently the only regulation of internet content in the UK revolves around the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). Peter Robbins, chief executive of the organisation, explained how the service receives around 34,000 complaints about illegal material each year via its website.
The IWF works with UK Internet Service Providers (ISPs) so that any illegal material uploaded onto their servers can be quickly removed. It works with 34 similar services in other countries to remove child abuse material that is located abroad.
It also compiles a blacklist of websites hosting illegal content and makes this available to ISPs. Most UK ISPs use this blacklist to prevent their customers accessing the content. As Camille de Stempel, AOL UK's Director of Policy, told the panel: "Illegal content is illegal. None of us in the industry would knowingly host it."
It was generally agreed that the IWF has been successful in reducing the amount of illegal content hosted on servers within UK jurisdiction. The number of complaints that relate to content hosted in the UK, Mr Robbins explained, has reduced significantly.
Some efforts are also made to direct users away from content that is legal but could be harmful. Ms de Stempel explained that if anyone uses the AOL search tool to look for harmful sites they will be presented with more helpful information. Searching for 'I want to kill myself', for example, produces a prominent link to the Samaritans website.
Should Ofcom regulate?
The idea of regulating the internet is controversial but Derek Wyatt MP, who gave the main speech at the forum, said he is "beginning to think" it can be done. He even went on to suggest who might be responsible: the existing communications regulator, Ofcom.
He acknowledged the problem of securing international cooperation, particularly in America, but suggested that it could be achieved by putting the issue to the ballot in individual states. "We can at least make a start," he concluded.
Article tags
Related articles
We look at the legal liability for pornography stored on home PCs
If you're used to expressing your views freely in the pub, you need to take care when sharing those same views on Facebook or forums. We explain why
You can now listen to music online free of charge without breaking the law, and some paid-for services are also worth the cash – we explain all
Q.Why can't my browser find the website address I typed...
Q.All updates have been downloaded, so why won't Windows...
Q.How do I stop Windows 7 search?
Be a money saving expert
Return of the Mac computer
The benefits of owning a smartphone
Choose Gold, Silver or Bronze membership
Save up to 40% on the cover price of each issue
Get access to the subscriber club exclusive website
Our price won't be beaten by any shop or website
We ask why ebooks readers have no embedded fonts or easily accessible footnotes and how typographical errors not in the original book appear
|
|
|
|
|
Nikon Coolpix S570 BlackPrice: £66.99 |
Computeractive Ultimate Guide - Storage, Sharing & BackupPrice: £5.99 |
Back Issue CD-Rom 13 (2010)Price: £9.99 |
Hallmark Card Studio DeluxePrice: £15.31 |
Marine AquariumPrice: £15.41 |
regulation of the internet
with all the gaurding angel attitudes of the british government, i would have though as we can only know what we have to think is the doctrine of salanist labour properganda, surely in todays adult world we can be trusted to make up our own minds as to what we want to see or watch. or is it that 1984 has been here for the last ten years of the over zealous labour party to control our every thought!!!!!!! if printed please withhold my name thank you, and i must say computer active is by far the best of all the computing magazines.
Posted by Eric T Ellis, 12 Mar 2009
Regulating the Internet
Once again the nanny state is 'coming to our rescue' because as adults we can no longer make informed decisions about what is obscene, offensive, profane, illegal etc. Who are these people to tell us what we can or can't access. It is the beginning of what will become total governmental control over what information we can and can't access. Eventually it will become a total propaganda machine for whichever the government of the day is and In whichever country is doing the regulating. The internet is a tool for the people of the free world with an unprecedented freedom of choice of information, not a tool for governmental control or regulation as they call it. Governments do not want you to have access to something they cannot control. Yes, there is content on the www that a majority of people do not want to access or view, but wonder upon wonder they do not search for it, If it shows up in a search engine they choose not to access it. Tools are already available to stop children accessing unsolicited content in most of the search engines.Other software is also available. But it doesn't matter how effectively you try and police their use of search engines, if they want to find this content and are determined enough,they will do so. There are on the other hand those people who do choose to search and view this material and however perverted and abhorrent they are who are we to judge? It is their right to view and our right to not to. Should this not always be the case? Where will the interference from the nanny state stop? When will this then turn to banning of religious sites because they don't agree with their teachings or beliefs? Then banning racial sites because they might offend people not of that race? What they are proposing to do is the tip of the iceberg and believe me, will not stop until they have total control. The latter is what they fear the most : No control. I for one would like to keep my choices personal. It is the right of every person in the free world to make his or her own choice......isn't it?
Posted by Don, 12 Mar 2009
It's about CONTROL
Talk of regulation is just a smokescreen. what governments want is control of the internet so they can decide what you can write, post or read. The English government invented concentration camps during the Boer War and now they have turned England into one. Inmate Hampshire Camp UK
Posted by David Seagrave, 12 Mar 2009
Regulating the net
I feel that it would be almost impossible to regulate such a large and vast field as the internet. Besides, as soon as web ratings start, then you would have restricted sites, that the government felt, would be harmful, in their eyes, to people. If people want the net restricted, then start at home with your children!
Posted by bill, 13 Mar 2009
time to act
Anything that can be done to make the internet cleaner and safer would be an improvement, I would also like to see the banks improve their password choices, at the moment this appears to be only letters & numbers and there is a vast array of alternatives available to make it more difficult for the criminal.
Posted by Bill Wright, 17 Mar 2009
Ineptitude
After reading your interview with the home office spokesperson where it was stated that they have no knowledge of how the IWF works. I feel that this government is likely (despite recommendations of its impracticality) to direct the IWF or a similar body to block all the content in question. Consider the implications of this: People using programs like TOR or OpenDNS to enable access to the content will become commonplace. This is already done with content blocked by the IWF (mainly child porn and race hate sites). The resources required to catch so many "moving targets" would be immense. Currently 6 people in the IWF are capable of blocking 35000 URLs per year. Pornographic, offensive, indecent, and race hate sites would make up a significant proportion (I would wager in excess of 25%) of total web sites. That equates to approximately 30000 people required per year per billion websites. Who's going to pay their wages? This government has no idea what its talking about.
Posted by john, 20 Mar 2009
PC Brigade
regulating the net would be un-managable, one persons idea of whats right and wrong will always differ from someone elses. Protecting children is vital, however the onus on this should be with parents!! they wouldn't let a child play with a loaded weapon so why give them unsupervised access to the net. As a tech i cannot believe how many parents have no idea what their kids are doing. Education will work better than restriction.
Posted by Mark Leyton, 20 Mar 2009