PC Pro column, issue 228
-
Upload
barry-collins -
Category
Documents
-
view
213 -
download
0
Transcript of PC Pro column, issue 228
-
8/13/2019 PC Pro column, issue 228
1/1www.pcpro.co.uk 007PC PROOCTOBER2013
Prolog OPINION
Because the ISPs didnt oppose Cameronsporn fatwa, theyre about to becomeBritains unofficial internet sensors
Feckless ISPs are getting what
they deserve with Cameronsfilters, says BARRY COLLINS
BARRY COLLINSis the editor of PC Pro. Hehopes he can still look up Malcolm Tucker
quotes once the filters kick in.
Blog:www.pcpro.co.uk/links/barryc
Email:[email protected]
So, the Great Wall of Westminster
is going up: Britains ISPs havebeen effectively blackmailed into
switching on default content filters.
Cameron, 1, Common Sense, 0.
Despite the prime ministers reckless
promise that it will now take only one clickto protect your whole home and to keep your
children safe, anyone whos ever used oneof these filters which presumably doesnt
include the prime minister will know that
statement is dangerously ignorant. None ofthese filters work perfectly, and some are
downright ineffective (as our Labs test next
month will reveal). The TalkTalk filter we
tested last year, which is now being endorsed
by the Conservative Party, blocked access toMr Camerons YouTube channel, but it didnt
prevent us from searching for porn on Google,
for example. (To be fair, I wouldnt want my
kids watching Webcameron, either.)Privately, the ISPs are furious. Weve had
off-the-record briefings from two of the majorISPs pointing out holes in the plan, and theres
been a series of leaks from industry meetings
with ministers, not to mention the release ofan inflammatory letter from the Department
of Education to ISPs in which they were being
leaned on to bend to the PMs wishes. None
of these were leaked from the government
side, I can assure you. The ISPs wanted us, thetechnical press, to do their dirty work for them,
since they didnt want to publicly oppose the
default filters.
ISPs are as aware as we are that the filters
dont work. They know that six months down
the line, someone from theDaily Mailwillspend ten minutes discovering they can still
access a smorgasboard of smut via BT, Virgin
Media, Sky or TalkTalk, and that theyll be
back on the front page again, accused ofcorrupting Britains innocent youth. But they
deserve the media storm thats coming to them,
since theyve stood by silently as Cameron and
Perry have trampled all over them.
Why didnt the ISPs stand up to thegovernment? Perhaps you should ask Ian
Livingston sorry, Lord Livingston of Parkhead
the outgoing head of BT whos jumped ship
to become a minister for trade and investmentin David Camerons government. Or maybe
you should have a word with Dido Harding,
the chief executive of TalkTalk, whose husband
is John Penrose, another minister in Camerons
government. Then theres Sky, owned byRupert Murdoch, and Virgin Media, run by
former News International chief executive
Tom Mockridge. Ill just leave that there...Yet, even if the government didnt exert
any influence over its associates at the head of
Britains biggest ISPs and I dont have a shred
of evidence to suggest it did the broadband
providers had another reason to keep theirheads down. It would have taken a good deal of
courage for one of the ISPs chief executives toface the wrath of thenewspapers that have been
tirelessly campaigning for porn to be blocked.Said chief executive would, as The Thick of Its
Malcolm Tucker once memorably said, become
a human dartboard [while] Eric f******
Bristows on the oche throwing a million darts
made of human s***right at you. (Thatquotes been passed through the Cameron filter.)
And so, because the ISPs had neither the
courage nor the will to oppose Camerons
porn fatwa, theyre about to become Britains
unofficial internet censors, filtering all types ofcontent not only pornography unless you
specifically ask them not to.This move doesnt have popular support.
The governments response to the consultation
on parental controls on the internet, published
last December, said only 35% of the parents
who responded favoured default filtering ofthe internet by their ISP. Nor does it encourage
parents to take a more active interest in online
safety. Now they can simply click Acceptand have their ISP babysit their children for
them. It must be safe the prime minister
said it was.
I confidently predict that within a few
months of these filters being switched on, theISPs customer care lines will be clogged with
irate customers, either because 14-year-old
Nathan and his mates have just found a way
around the filters to watch Debbie DoesDroylsdon, or because eight-year-old Antheacant do her homework because the internet
filter has stopped her looking up something
entirely innocent on Wikipedia. I hope the
poor souls manning the lines put the calls
through to the chief executives office. Orthe prime ministers.