Anthony Butcher

http://www.eupolitix.com/EN/News/200...02addf37e7.htm
Looks good doesn't it?

Until you realise that this is actually going to make the Internet more dangerous for our children.

This is the kind of legislation that is passed by people who have very little understanding or knowledge about a topic. Let's look at what they are doing:

1) setting up telephone hotlines to report illegal content in all member states.
If you can find any illegal content actually hosted within the EU, I would be very surprised. This content is hosted in Russia and similar places where there is no way of dealing with the problem. Also, if a parent has to ring a hotline, then it is already too late; their child has been exposed to something unpleasant.

2) filter technology for unwanted or harmful sites.
It is technically infeasible to build a firewall around the whole of the EU. We already have web "nanny" software that people can purchase and state funded software would probably breach the competition rules. Nanny software on individual PCs is the only acceptable solution.

3) an improved industry code of conduct for internet providers.
Again, pointless. Internet providers have almost no idea of what they are hosting, unless they receive specific complaints. More regulations will just result in higher costs for web users, and will not make the Internet safer for children.

4) awareness raising campaigns.
If parents aren't aware by now, after all of the scare stories in the papers and on the telly, then they never will be. I presume that other countries have the same stories as we do. Awareness does not provide the stimulus to actually make every parent act on it.

So what this package will do is achieve very little in terms of actually making the web safer, but it will give parents the false impression that the problems are being dealt with and that the web is now safer for their children to use.

The EU needs to realise that it cannot deal with the spammers and the porn industry, because it has no jurisdiction or power to do so. They must target the end users.

I have seen first hand the unpleasant results of leaving a child to use the Internet unsupervised. It should never happen, and I have come to the conclusion that we are being grossly negligent as a society.

My proposal is that we make it illegal to allow a child under 16 to use the Internet unsupervised. Supervision can either be an adult sitting with a child on a one-to-one basis or a certified piece of nanny software. That will send the message to parents that the Internet is NOT a safe place for their children, and they will be penalised if caught.

mkpdavies

I have to say, I have always wondered why we prevent children watching certain films, but let them have full access to the internet. With a free society you are going to get abuses of those freedoms. That doesn't mean we should stop having those freedoms. In the case of children though, we do have to give moral guidance in their formative years, so the idea of restricting access to the internet, by requiring adult supervision is a good one.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Julian Morrison

My proposal is that the government butt out of parents' business!

Seriously, what kind of big-nanny intrusive law would that be? It's like saying under-16s must be accompanied at all times in libraries, lest they "read something too old", or around town lest they "chat with someone unsavoury". Blech!

Leave parents to teach sense to kids, and kids to use their own nous in this situation as they do in comparable offline cases.

mkpdavies

Do you think all restrictions should be removed. Using the film example for instance?

I am in a bit of turmoil over this now, as I agree that government should have very little to do with how kids are brought up by their parents, where possible.

On the other hand, parents do need some help sometimes. Kids will push the boundaries of what they can get away with, so making it too easy to obtain stuff that really isn't for a kids eyes, is perhaps not good for anyone.

In the case of children, should the government impose rules and regulations to help keep them on the straight and narrow in their most formative years? What about all the kids that have no parents, or have parents that don't care enough for them?

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Anthony Butcher

The problem is that parents aren't protecting their children properly. They don't comprehend the dangers, and they are far too trusting of their children not to go exploring.

Would you send your child INTO phpbb_a district populated by prostitutes, pornographers, racists, paedophiles and adults speaking their minds? That is the wild side of the Internet, and an unsupervised child can access it instantly, or even get sucked in just by mistyping a URL, checking a Hotmail account, clicking on an advert, searching in Google or any number of other ways.

Nanny software is in common use already, but not enough people realise how essential this is for children.

And parents fail miserably in the off-line world too. They just don't have the tools or the knowledge to pick appropriate television programmes, magazines and books. A growing number of children have televisions in their rooms, and we need to help parents to make sure that their children aren't exposed to undesirable programmes.

I am actually starting a campaign to encourage the government to step in and deal with some of these issues properly, by providing age ratings on everything from Eastenders to Harry Potter books.

We already try to protect our children from inappropriate television and film, and the Internet is no different. Except with the web you have NO IDEA what you could be picking by accident.

Julian Morrison

Sez you, but I don't see that being the case. Seriously, how many primarily internet-based cases of real (not hypothetical) harm to children have made the news? None that I can recall. You're backing a typically nanny statist solution to an equally typical hysterically exaggerated non-problem. Please stop doing so.

Anthony Butcher

You are thinking of harm in terms of physical harm or abduction. There is some of that, but it is not the main issue.

I am talking about protecting the innocence of our children; protecting them from all kinds of unwanted influences, images, language, adult topics and so on.

Filmed pornography has an 18 age rating for a very good reason. Porn mags are kept on the top shelf for a reason. You seem to be advocating allowing children to freely view far worse than that, which is the current state of affairs. There is no protection for children on the Internet against pornography and other dangers, unless we make it happen.

mkpdavies

Exactly Anthony. UKIP is for smaller government, not zero government. It is all about getting the right balance, and swining all the way back INTO phpbb_Anarchy is no better than becoming a full on nanny/police state. Both extremes are not a future I would want to be part of.

__________________
http://brits4ronpaul.blogspot.com/
http://wokinglibertarians.blogspot.com/
http://lpuk.org

My ignore list

Labour, Blue Labour, Lib Dems

Julian Morrison

Frankly I don't consider porn to be harmful at all. I think that claim is purely a prudish fuss.

The only internet based harm I know of is pedophiles arranging meetings with kids in chat-rooms. But, the best solution to that is a combination of police "stings" and good parenting. Neither of which will be advanced by nationalizing the role of parent!

Anthony Butcher

Then it is pointless for us to to debate the issue, if we diagree on something so fundamental. I am not sure that you would find many parents keen to find their 8 year old looking at images of a woman having sex with a dog (just one of my recent delightful discoveries that arrived in my inbox).

Do you mind me asking if you are a parent?

(I do not have any kids by the way, but have become very aware of the issues due to my two much younger siblings)