Britain’s conservative Prime Minister David Cameron announced sweeping proposals on Monday that would force all internet users in the UK to “opt-in” if they want to view online content categorized as “pornographic” by the government.
In a public address Cameron said that the new rules are driven by a “moral” duty to save the “corroding childhood” impacts of sexual internet material, but critics say that the plan is a misguided and unworkable solution that simply opens the door to a further erosion of the guiding principles that have made an “open internet” possible.
“By the end of this year, when someone sets up a new broadband account,” explained Cameron in his address, “the settings to install family-friendly filters will be automatically selected. If you just click ‘next’ or ‘enter’, then the filters are automatically on.”
But the UK-based Open Rights Group, which advocates for online freedoms, argues the controls will mostly punish people who are harmlessly surfing the internet or looking for materials that would not otherwise be restricted, while more sophisticated internet users—whether criminally active pedophiles or just curious teenagers—would easily sidestep the protections. The group stated:
According to Danny O’Brien, international policy director for the Electronic Frontier Foundation, the implications of Cameron’s proposal exceed even these concerns. Amid the recent revelations surrounding the behavior of the US National Security Agency and growing public concern about online privacy, this is just the most recent example of government interference with the idea of an open internet.
“To have internet censorship, you also need surveillance,” O’Brien told Common Dreams by phone. “In order to block content you need to know what people are looking at.”
One of the most troubling aspects of Cameron’s proposals, he said, is that private internet companies—both search engines and ISPs (internet service providers)—are being asked by government to “turn their algorithms into instruments of law enforcement.”
SCROLL TO CONTINUE WITH CONTENT
“And that’s a really harsh step,” he continued, “because as everyone realizes, these companies have an enormous amount of background information on end-users.”
Once this precedent is set, O’Brien warned, you begin to betray the tenants of a healthy and democratic media system, which are transparency, oversight and proportionality.
“But you can’t have transparency when you maintain a secret blacklist. You can’t have oversight when there’s no clear regulatory authority guiding the program. And you can’t have proportionality when you apply it to the whole of the internet,” he said.
Lastly, say critics, the realities of the scheme do little or nothing to address whatever real concerns there are about the impact of pornography on children or the wider society.
Many observers note that Cameron’s new proposal does little more than create the illusion of addressing a problem, while in many ways scuttling the real problem that online porn may present to society.
“We – children and adults alike – need to learn about the damaging psychological, social and physical effects of online porn,” writes British citizen Tom Meltzer in a commentary for The Guardian. However, he says, a mandatory “default-on” approach to the internet “would be an error.”
“It would be buck-passing on our part, asking our internet providers to somehow stem the unending tide,” he said, “rather than face the need for some frank and very un-British conversations. But the worst of all possible worlds is one in which the prime minister announces he has solved the problem when he’s only pretending to have brushed it under the carpet.”
And the Open Rights Group agreed:
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Share Alike 3.0 License
Click Here: Fjallraven Kanken Art Spring Landscape Backpacks