The Internet Can Be a Dangerous Place...Let's Censor It!!!!

[Against Miik!]

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/scienceandtechnology/technology/technologynews/3965051/Internet-sites-could-be-given-cinema-style-age-ratings-Culture-Secretary-says.html

In an interview with The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham says he believes that new standards of decency need to be applied to the web. He is planning to negotiate with Barack Obama’s incoming American administration to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

The Cabinet minister describes the internet as “quite a dangerous place” and says he wants internet-service providers (ISPs) to offer parents “child-safe” web services.

Giving film-style ratings to individual websites is one of the options being considered, he confirms. When asked directly whether age ratings could be introduced, Mr Burnham replies: “Yes, that would be an option. This is an area that is really now coming into full focus.”

ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children.

Mr Burnham also uses the interview to indicate that he will allocate money raised from the BBC’s commercial activities to fund other public-service broadcasting such as Channel Four. He effectively rules out sharing the BBC licence fee between broadcasters as others have recommended.

His plans to rein in the internet, and censor some websites, are likely to trigger a major row with online advocates who ferociously guard the freedom of the world wide web.

However, Mr Burnham said: “If you look back at the people who created the internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that Governments couldn’t reach. I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It’s true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it.”

Mr Burnham reveals that he is currently considering a range of new safeguards. Initially, as with copyright violations, these could be policed by internet providers. However, new laws may be threatened if the initial approach is not successful.

“I think there is definitely a case for clearer standards online,” he said. “More ability for parents to understand if their child is on a site, what standards it is operating to. What are the protections that are in place?”

He points to the success of the 9pm television watershed at protecting children. The minister also backs a new age classification system on video games to stop children buying certain products.

Mr Burnham, himself a parent of three young children, says his goal is for internet providers to offer “child-safe” web services.

“It worries me - like anybody with children,” he says. “Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do. This isn’t about turning the clock back. The internet has been empowering and democratising in many ways but we haven’t yet got the stakes in the ground to help people navigate their way safely around…what can be a very, very complex and quite dangerous world.”

Mr Burnham also wants new industry-wide “take down times”. This means that if websites such as YouTube or Facebook are alerted to offensive or harmful content they will have to remove it within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

He also says that the Government is considering changing libel laws to give people access to cheap low-cost legal recourse if they are defamed online. The legal proposals are being drawn up by the Ministry of Justice.

Mr Burnham admits that his plans may be interpreted by some as “heavy-handed” but says the new standards drive is “utterly crucial”. Mr Burnham also believes that the inauguration of Barack Obama, the President-Elect, presents an opportunity to implement the major changes necessary for the web.

“The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause,” he says. “The more we seek international solutions to this stuff – the UK and the US working together – the more that an international norm will set an industry norm.”

The Culture Secretary is spending the Christmas holidays at his constituency in Lancashire but is planning to take major decisions on the future of public-service broadcasting in the New Year. Channel Four is facing a £150m shortfall in its finances and is calling for extra Government help. ITV is also growing increasingly alarmed about the financial implications of meeting the public-service commitments of its licenses.

Mr Burnham says that he is prepared to offer further public assistance to broadcasters other than the BBC. However, he indicates that he does not favour “top-slicing” the licence fee. Instead, he may share the profits of the BBC Worldwide, which sells the rights to programmes such as Strictly Come Dancing to foreign broadcasters.

“I feel it is important to sustain quality content beyond the BBC,” he said. “The real priorities I have got in my mind are regional news, quality children’s content and original British children’s content, current affairs documentaries – that’s important. The thing now is to be absolutely clear on what the public wants to see beyond the BBC.

“Top-slicing the licence fee is an option that is going to have to remain on the table. I have to say it is not the option that I instinctively reach for first. I think there are other avenues to be explored.”

wtf?

[BassRevelation0]

Cool.

[Shell]

I don't see a problem with that.

[Charlie Daniels]

During the 90's and early 00's the internet really was a lawless playground. I mean, anything went. Just the last 5 years or so it's starting to slowly be policed. I don't thinks we had a bad go. We had plenty of time to get up to lots of illegalisms. I guess it's time now we face the fact it's time we straightened up and flew right. :-(

[Meatplow]

The safety of children online is a storm in a teacup. This is an excellent documentary -

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/kidsonline/

As for adults being able to access illegal material, let them face the consequences once they are found with it in their possession. How severe those consequences are and whether the content calls for consequences in the first place are another discussion.

Censoring the freedom of the internet will only lead to trouble. Slow infrastructure, debate regarding what content is legit or not, accidental censoring of legit sites, and worst of all the opportunity for the power to be abused and served to the best private interests of those in the government. Hello China.

[wartomods]

internet should be free , there must be a selection, but a natural selection

[Give me Beer]

I still haven't figured out the entire 'rating' deal. Is there any evidence that children are harmed if they see things 'above' their 'age category'? Seems like such BS.

[mightygod]

"ISPs, such as BT, Tiscali, AOL or Sky could also be forced to offer internet services where the only websites accessible are those deemed suitable for children."

Sucks for you USA.

[RunAmokRampant]

Parents should always regulate what their kids see on the internet if they're so huffy about it, not some external filtering system.

[Aaron]

I have no problem with it, to be honest, but it should be site by site, not a blanket ruling on categories.

[beso negro]

the government has no authority to rate information hopefully not all liberals are this stupid

[Aaron]

Why not? If it goes to referendum and is supported then they do.

[Iskandar]

the government has no authority to rate information hopefully not all liberals are this stupidA real liberal wouldn't want the internet to be regulated.

[Danger Bird]

the government has no authority to rate information hopefully not all liberals are this stupid

Although real conservatives would obviously oppose this, the American "right" is often the champion of these censorship issues.

I could be wrong but wouldn't this be the first time censorship of this nature was actually legislated in the US? Because with movie ratings for example, the reason films are submitted to the MPAA is because theaters usually won't carry unrated films, because the theaters are under pressure from "family" interest groups. And then the same is true of parental stickers on music albums. So since most of the people who produce websites don't really care about mainstream success in the traditional sense, only now does the government have to step in.

[Aaron]

In Australia [remember the source of the document is Australian] the Liberal Party are the conservatives.

[Iskandar]

This is in Britain, not the US.

Damn nanny state.

[Aaron]

Wierd. When I clicked on it the URL changed to au.telegraph.co.uk...

[Iskandar]

I guess because you're in Australia. The Australian government is thinking of doing something similar though.

[Aaron]

Yeah. Accidental irony ITT. The censorship has already started!!!

[beso negro]

js apparently this bloke hasn't heard of content filtering. and what pron websites don't ask if you are at least 18 or 21.

[:amaze:]

i don't see the problem with this. all they're being forced to do is OFFER these censoring services. people aren't being forced to use them.

and to runamokrampant - the only ways parents can really control what their kids see on the internet is to use a system like this, or to be there whenever their kids are on the internet, watching them the whole time, and that's not feasible in the least.

[Danger Bird]

The problem is that all websites will be forced to receive a rating whether they want one or not.

js apparently this bloke hasn't heard of content filtering. and what pron websites don't ask if you are at least 18 or 21.

The best ones!

[McP3000]

The problem is that all websites will be forced to receive a rating whether they want one or not.
that sounds like it will be extremely hard to regulate

The best ones!
indeed

[Aaron]

I just don't understand why people need access to pron 24/7 so badly.

[Iskandar]

I don't see how we can protect children from the Internet. They'll find that stuff is they want to.

[Danger Bird]

that sounds like it will be extremely hard to regulate

Yeah it's basically not practical at all, in the end they would have to resort to automatically filtering out websites with certain key words, which will leave a lot of inappropriate sites unblocked and a lot of perfectly nice sites blocked.

[Aaron]

The same way you protect them from anything bad for them; education and appropriate regulation of the producers.

[:amaze:]

The problem is that all websites will be forced to receive a rating whether they want one or not.


i don't really see how that's a huge problem. is that going to affect me in the slightest?

[Iskandar]

The same way you protect them from anything bad for them; education and appropriate regulation of the producers.Yes, but I don't see what good censoring the Internet will do. It's everywhere; they'll find pron and violent stuff if they really want to.

My real problem with this though is the precedent it would set. I believe that governments shouldn't be involved in regulating the information people see. That's something authoritarian states do.

[Aaron]

What's wrong with attempting to limit access to what the majority feel as inappropriate for common consumption [ie access by all mature people]. All I propose is, put it to referendum and see the result.

[Iskandar]

'Cause I don't like the idea of censoring stuff. Protecting freedom of information is more important than conventional morality.

[beso negro]

and to runamokrampant - the only ways parents can really control what their kids see on the internet is to use a system like this, or to be there whenever their kids are on the internet, watching them the whole time, and that's not feasible in the least.

or they could invest in a content filter. there are tons of them.

My real problem with this though is the precedent it would set. I believe in net neutrality, i.e. that governments shouldn't be involved in regulating the information people see. That's something authoritarian states do.

that's not net neutrality. net neutrality advocates want the government to place regulations on the internet so ISPs can't discriminate traffic.

Yeah it's basically not practical at all, in the end they would have to resort to automatically filtering out websites with certain key words, which will leave a lot of inappropriate sites unblocked and a lot of perfectly nice sites blocked.

exactly we would become china

[:amaze:]

to iskandar:

it's not being censored to all people.

it's adding an option that censors certain material. i think you'd have to sign up for this "censored" internet ... i doubt it would come standard.


or they could invest in a content filter. there are tons of them.

from what i can tell, this is similar to that, except that it is offered by the internet service provider.

[Aaron]

'Cause I don't like the idea of censoring stuff. Protecting freedom of information is more important than conventional morality.
Well there's a difference between censoring and changing the availability of access to information. It's still there...

[Iskandar]

Well there's a difference between censoring and changing the availability of access to information. It's still there...In practice there's no difference. Not to the user anyway.

What I'm getting at is that this shouldn't be the government's job. Browsers come with content filters for people who want them.

[:amaze:]

In practice there's no difference. Not to the user anyway.

What I'm getting at is that this shouldn't be the government's job. Browsers come with content filters for people who want them.

...and this would be censorship for people who want it.

[Aaron]

I'm happy for it to be of that nature Alex, I just think as a default that it should be filtered.

[Iskandar]

What I have a problem with is the government doing that.

[beso negro]

whatever it's irrelevant because creating this would be infeasible. there are too many sites to rate them all so the unrated sites would likely get blocked as well.

and in addition, websites are dynamic in nature. so there will have to be police updating these ratings 24/7. Movies are static, their ratings will never change.

...and this would be censorship for people who want it.

If people want it, they can buy it for themselves. Don't waste the tax payer's money.

[Aaron]

Well it's already wasted, why not waste it on something else for a change? lol.

[Iskandar]

This is a worse thing than most to waste money on.

[Aaron]

Well I think the military is worse...

[Iskandar]

Yeah but censoring media is pretty high on my list.

[Aaron]

Not with me. I think people try and justify too much antisocial behaviour as being "free-speech".

[Iskandar]

I think if people want to be antisocial that's their business.

[Aaron]

Yeah it is, but if it effects other people then it becomes the government's business.

[Iskandar]

Looking at porn doesn't do that. Letting your child look at it, maybe, if they do so with your knowledge.

[Aaron]

Yeah but this debate isn't really about pron directly, it's about all stuff on the net.

[Iskandar]

Well, what's the worst that's out there? Violence? Hate speech?

[Mr. Ron]

the internet should not be subject to any government.

[:amaze:]

Well, what's the worst that's out there? Violence? Hate speech?

tub girl.

[Mr. Ron]

omg my kid saw tits how terrible now they'll have to undergo psychological treatment

[McP3000]

tub girl.
there's worse things than tub girl

unfortunately :[

[Iskandar]

Two girls one tub.

[McP3000]

so much poop so little time

[Iskandar]

Oh my. I didn't know you were into that sort of thing.

[yogerto]

british people are pussies

[Knifeboy]

I love it when politicians who have no idea about how technology works, tries to regulate it

[Detective Dan]

Well, what's the worst that's out there? Violence? Hate speech?

instructions on how to build explosive devises and weapons

[Light Fantastic]

lets ban people from taking chemistry degrees then

[Detective Dan]

yeah good idea

all of those angsty, broken down, beat up, no way out, kids with chemistry degrees causing trouble out there

[Light Fantastic]

all of those internet users creating trouble out there

what

international students for chemistry and material science degrees actually require security clearance here

[Detective Dan]

um what?

'Cause I don't like the idea of censoring stuff. Protecting freedom of information is more important than conventional morality.

but also this

[Light Fantastic]

well i thought you were being sarcastic and implying that a chemistry degree couldnt be used for nefarious purposes much like the internet but in fact its probably worse

[yogerto]

i have a phd in organic chemistry

[Detective Dan]

first off, dumb argument

second, my point was that you probably have more to fear from some drop out high school kid who googled how to make a pipe bomb than some college graduate who majored in chemistry

besides, i'd say the vast majority of chemists and scientists who have developed deadly toxins and explosives where probably contracted by their government. We might as well ban the government too then.

[yogerto]

i agree lets ban the government they suck

[Iskandar]

I just took an internet quiz and it called me a neo-liberal. We should definitely censor that thing.

[yogerto]

we should censor everything that offends me i dont care about anyone else tho

[Light Fantastic]

first off, dumb argumenti agree your argument is dumb since you cant see the relation between two things that are good but can be used for bad

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Great now we have a way to restrict access to Al-Jazeera. I'd support that.

[Iskandar]

Anyone willing to bet $50 that he's never actually seen al-Jazeera?

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Anyone willing to bet $50 that he's never actually seen al-Jazeera?

You mean they don't actually have a website?

[Iskandar]

Oh, is that where you get your news?

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Oh, is that where you get your news?

Well I saw an article by Al-Jazeera with the heading, "Innocent women and children killed by Israelis" and I was like WTF, that is so biased. It should be banned in America, no doubt about it.

[Light Fantastic]

what if it was a white christian woman

see you only read the headline

[Murdererer]

theres netnanny for little kids who arn't allowed to pop boners yet

[YellowRoseofTexas]

what if it was a white christian woman

see you only read the headline

No I read the article. They were complaining about how the slime are being killed by those "dirty Jews".

[Seantmpc13]

If parents are worried about what their kids are seeing on the internet, they should either monitor their kids themselves or get one of those internet blockers, like net nanny. Monitoring children is up to the parents, not the government.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

If parents are worried about what their kids are seeing on the internet, they should either monitor their kids themselves or get one of those internet blockers, like net nanny. Monitoring children is up to the parents, not the government.

This is very sad. What about the future gynecologists of this nation who want to get a first hand look at the female anatomy? This will devastate the medical industry!

[Seantmpc13]

This is very sad. What about the future gynecologists of this nation who want to get a first hand look at the female anatomy? This will devastate the medical industry!

Oh... didn't even think of that.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Oh... didn't even think of that.

Yes. This is very bad. It is kind of hard to be a gynecologist when you've never seen one before. Unfortunately many educational websites will be blocked for their supposed "obscenity". A kid can't even watch a XXX video without breaking the law. It is absurd.

[Seantmpc13]

I guess they would have to go to their local library if they desperately wanted to be a gynecologist when they grow up.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

I guess they would have to go to their local library if they desperately wanted to be a gynecologist when they grow up.

I have a question if i became a gynecologist could I only work on women who are under 21? Anything over that would just be disgusting.

[Seantmpc13]

Probably not. Even if you only worked with young girls, I'm sure you'd still see some weird stuff.

[YellowRoseofTexas]

Probably not. Even if you only worked with young girls, I'm sure you'd still see some weird stuff.

Well and then I would implement a rule where you have to be shaved, you know so I can see what I'm looking at.

[Detective Dan]

i agree your argument is dumb since you cant see the relation between two things that are good but can be used for bad

yeah i guess i'm just too simple minded to understand how a website dedicated to instructing people how to make pipe bombs is good but can be used for bad

[Light Fantastic]

you're too simple to get the right link you mean

chemistry education and internet as a whole are the equivalents

its not that hard really i mean come on