Automatic ban on Internet giants 'exploiting children' Labour last night threw its weight behind the Daily Mail’s campaign for an automatic block on online porn. An ‘opt-in’ system, under which access is blocked unless adults specifically say they want to see sexual content, would be a ‘sensible’ way forward, the shadow ministers for media and justice declared.
They say the measure is necessary to prevent children falling victim to a ‘modern-day form of pollution’.
The argument for an opt-in system is underlined by a large study demonstrating that most parents have no idea what their children are looking at on the internet.
Among parents of children who had admitted to researchers that they had looked at adult content, more than two thirds were certain their child had not, or said they did not know.
In addition, more than a quarter of children admitted ignoring warnings their parents gave them about harmful material on the internet. The Government is resisting the call for an ‘opt-in’ system, preferring a less stringent ‘opt-out’ system, whereby users are asked when they set up their internet access whether they wish to have a filter applied.
But this might apply only to new subscribers to internet service providers (ISPs), and would rely on parents being responsible and proactive enough to ask for access to be blocked. It could also allow children to answer the one-off question themselves if they see it on the computer first.
In their article, above, shadow media minister Helen Goodman and shadow justice minister Jenny Chapman say this plan does not go nearly far enough.
And they say that David Cameron’s closeness to internet giant Google means that the Coalition is too ‘weak’ to act, concluding: ‘The Prime Minister should not put his cronies before the children of this country’.
An all-party group of MPs, led by the Conservative Claire Perry, launched the campaign for an opt-in system last week, saying increasing numbers of teenagers were growing up addicted to porn.
The Daily Mail wants the Government to unveil a consultation on an opt-in system, and in the meantime to speed up the roll-out of ‘opt-out’ filtering systems to internet users. Miss Goodman and Mrs Chapman say action is urgently needed because ‘children are regularly seeing pornography and sometimes being groomed for sex’.
They attack Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt’s proposal, which involves asking the four major ISPs to offer new customers the chance to opt out of access to pornography. They argue it would be 2017 before the proportion of households included reached 90 per cent.
They deny claims that an opt-in system would be an attack on civil liberties.
A London School of Economics study has found that of children who told the researchers that they had seen sexual images, 40 per cent of their parents said they were certain their child had not, and 29 per cent said they did not know. Just 30 per cent knew that their child had seen porn online. And 26 per cent of children said they ignored their parents’ warnings on internet safety.
The study added that middle-class children were more likely to access porn online than those from poorer backgrounds, because they are more likely to have computers in their own rooms.
Study leader Sonia Livingstone said: ‘I think that parents can be quite embarrassed to ask about anything sexual that children encounter on the internet.
‘What they should do is find a way to have a conversation with their children so it seems like sharing, not snooping.’
She found that 22 per cent of boys aged 13 to 16 and 13 per cent of girls had seen sexual images online. And 2 per cent of 11- to 16-year-olds said they had seen violent sexual images.
A spokesman for Google said: ‘Laws alone can’t teach kids to cross the road. The same is true of learning to be safe online. We work with government and child safety organisations to promote sensible legislation, and have developed technology, including Google Safe Search and the Family Safety Centre, that parents can use to protect their children online. We all have a role to play.’
Why we must force internet giants to stop exploiting our childre
Ashleigh Hall was 17 when she was lured to her death by 32-year-old convicted rapist Peter Chapman.
Although a registered sex offender, he was able to use Facebook to persuade Ashleigh to meet him, and went on to rape and murder her.
Chapman pretended to be a teenage boy and told Ashleigh his father would pick her up in his car. His grooming took place over several weeks.
This is one of many stories that demonstrates that currently we don’t have the right safety precautions online for our children.
The police, parents, schools, internet and website providers and young people themselves all need to take their share of responsibility.
In government Labour said we would give the industry another chance to tackle the problems on a voluntary basis. But we warned that if this didn’t produce significant improvements we would step in.
More than two years on, as last week’s all-party report shows, things have got worse. Children are regularly seeing pornography and sometimes being groomed for sex.
Jeremy Hunt is trying to persuade us that his ‘Active Choice’ policy is enough. Under this, four major internet service providers (ISPs) offer new customers the opportunity to opt out of access to pornography. The problem is that this scheme will not reach many customers straight away, and won’t even hit the 90 per cent mark until 2017.
In the meantime sales of TVs with internet access are rising and expected to overtake conventional TVs next year. Then even more children will be one click from the strongest material.
This is why the All Party Group’s recommendation that the ISPs are required to move to an opt-in system for adults to see pornography is sensible.
We know this is possible: it is the technology schools use and the way O2 will operate its wifi during the Olympics. Currently, most of the ISPs require customers who want to put filters on to their computers to download the software themselves.
But most of us are not geeks – and when one of us tried, all that happened was that the computer was disabled for 24 hours!
The problem Ashleigh faced was that the anonymity of the web gave cover to a sex offender. At no point was he asked to register his IP or email address with police. He was never asked to disclose his online identity and his use of the net was completely unchecked.
It’s not just our law enforcers who need to monitor the online activities of sex offenders, Facebook refuses to act too. They have resisted calls to install a panic button for users who become suspicious of the true identities or behaviour of other users.
Social networking sites need to step up and become full partners in the battle to keep our children safe online.
Righting these wrongs is not an attack on civil liberties. Adults will still have the choice to access material they want to see. But in a civilised society we must also protect our children. What we want to see is the same balance of rights and responsibilities as we have in the real world.
Undoubtedly, doing this would cost the industry some money – and not just putting in place new filters. The search engines such as Google sell advertising on the back of the number of hits any website gets, so the more hits (and porn sites get plenty) the more they can charge for advertising spots.
Of course it is the Government’s job to encourage business, but this is not the same as ignoring the needs and wants of ordinary people. Some 80 per cent of people (and 93 per cent of women) think this is a problem.
Children accessing porn on the net is a modern-day form of pollution. In 1959 the Tories introduced the Clean Air Act to cut harmful pollution from old smoke stack industries. Are they now too weak to act and hold the ring between powerful vested interests and ordinary people?
We saw on Tuesday at the Leveson Inquiry how Jeremy Hunt was prepared to do Murdoch’s bidding and we fear the Government has got into the same weak position with Google and the ISPs.
Mr Cameron employed Steve Hilton, whose wife is a top executive at Google. But he has failed to answer the questions we have put to him about Mr Hilton’s conflict of interest and influence on policy.
The Prime Minister should not put his cronies before the children of this country.