Censorship Love-In…Censors and moralists to gather at Westminster Forum for a one-sided discussion about blocking porn anything remotely adult

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from westminsterforumprojects.co.uk

This seminar will bring together key perspectives on the next steps in addressing commercialisation and sexualisation of children online, including efforts being made in the UK and Europe by policymakers, business groups and third sector initiatives concerned with enabling young people to have safe access to online communities and to participate in culturally rich content. It is timed following David Cameron’s commitment to new web filter proposals and the European Commission’s policy European Strategy for a Better Internet for Children. Delegates will assess the current position and emerging challenges to achieving secure online access for young people, including initiatives and practical options for empowering parents and protecting young people involving businesses, schools, government and law enforcement. Following the recent commitment to new web filtering measures through which every parent is prompted to protect their child online, the agenda includes sessions on the tools and skills available to empower young people to safely access and utilise online content, such as through age verification tools, website monitoring, age-appropriate privacy settings and single click buttons for reporting harmful content – as well as the possible unintended consequences brought about by these tools. We are delighted that Andy Baker, Deputy Chief Executive Officer, Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP) and Claire Perry MP, Special Advisor to the Prime Minister on preventing the sexualisation and commercialisation of childhood have agreed to deliver keynote addresses at this seminar. Further confirmed speakers include: Julian Ashworth, Director, Group Industry Policy, BT Group; Alexandra Birtles, Head of Public Affairs, TalkTalk; John Carr, Secretary, UK Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety; Will Gardner, Chief Executive Officer, Childnet International; Susie Hargreaves, Chief Executive, Internet Watch Foundation (IWF); Lisa Harker, Head of the Strategy Unit, NSPCC; Peter Johnson, Chief Executive Officer, ATVOD; Adam Kinsley, Director of Policy, BSkyB; David Miles, Director, Europe, Middle East and Africa, Family Online Safety Institute (FOSI); Simon Milner, Policy Director, UK and Ireland, Facebook; Professor Andy Phippen, Professor of Social Responsibility in Information Technology, Plymouth Business School, Plymouth University; Libby Pritchard, Head of Corporate Responsibility, Vodafone; Vicki Shotbolt, Chief Executive Officer, The Parent Zone; Raj Sivalingam, Associate Director of Telecoms and Spectrum, Intellect and Daniel Wilson, Head of International Policy, BBC. Diane Abbott MP, Shadow Minister for Public Health has kindly agreed to chair a session at this seminar.

An Internet Suitable for Mary Whitehouse…Government wants to block anything vaguely adult from public Wi-Fi

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

Anything judged to be adult content is to be banned from public wi-fi networks by the end of the year, according to David Cameron’s Mary Whitehouse. Claire Perry said the move was supposedly to prevent children from stumbling across adult material when using wireless internet networks in places such as cafes and railway stations, or seeing others who may be looking at it. But one of the country’s largest internet providers has threatened to throw a spanner in the works by warning that ministers’ plans to block porn from public wi-fi could be against the law. BT says that blocking adult material from stores which use BT public wi-fi could breach 2000 legislation which bans the interception of electronic communications. Anne Heal, the representative from BT Openreach, said: There is considerable nervousness that filtering content could be regarded as intercepting data, and which could put providers in breach of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act 2000. The Act allows certain public bodies to intercept data for national security reasons, but bans everyone else from doing so. BT’s argument is that filtering web use without the user’s express permission could be regarded as the interception of data. However the six largest providers of public wi-fi have agreed to put adult content block in place. High Street companies offering free wi-fi from one of the six companies will be ‘encouraged’ to put the block in place to restrict browsing by children using mobile phones and tablets like iPads. These shops would be able to display a kid’s internet logo so parents know their children will be safe. Perry said: I’m really pleased that the internet industry is committed to providing public wi-fi that is free of adult content. It is entirely appropriate and means that children can surf the web safely in thousands of different places. Now we need to move fast in introducing family-friendly home internet filtering to make sure that our young people are not accessing violent and pornographic images.

Public Internet to be Censored as Suitable for Kids…Cameron set to ban anything remotely adult from public internet networks

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from telegraph.co.uk

The Prime Minister is to announce a Government-backed censorship rules which will mean that all adult themed content is blocked in public spaces such as cafes and railway stations where children are likely to be present. Cameron said: We are promoting good, clean, WiFi in local cafes and elsewhere to make sure that people have confidence in public WiFi systems so that they are not going to see things they shouldn’t. Talks have been taking place for months between ISPs and government officials over the new censorship rules. It is not clear whether the internet firms will automatically impose the restrictions on access — or whether it will be the duty of shops and other public areas used by children to bar adult content. Industry sources said that the decision on whether to automatically restrict access in hotels could prove a more contentious issue.

Such Serious Issues Debated at Such Irresponsible Speed…Realisation that a whole host of tiny websites, including Big Brother Watch, would be covered by the provisions of the new press regulator

Read more UK Parliament Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk

Big Brother Watch writes: As the bell tolls for press freedom, the realisation that a whole host of tiny websites, including Big Brother Watch, would be covered by the provisions of the new press regulator is dawning on Westminster. On Monday, the Lords will vote on the legislation underpinning the Royal Charter on press-self regulation. They will determine who is to be a relevant publisher and at present risks catching broadly any site that is has more than one author, carries news or information about current affairs, or gossip about celebrities, and has some kind of editorial control. We are urgently trying to garner support for the below amendment to exclude small organisations from the provisions of what is already becoming an unwieldy and unpredictable piece of legislative horse trading. This is not an ideal situation — as with most things formulated in meetings at 2am — and it would make much more sense for this to be handled rationally and thought through properly. This amendment protects a few, but the principle has already gone. We are still looking for a peer to table this amendment — any help is appreciated — please call the office on 0207 3406030. – Insert into New Schedule 5 of the Crime and Courts Bill Exclusions from definition of “relevant publisher” 9) “A publisher who does not exceed the definition of a small or medium-sized enterprise as defined in Section 382 and 465 Companies Act 2006.” Let us be clear The manner in which this has been brought to bear, in 2am meetings with lobbyists, no civil society input, rushed drafting and ill-considered consequences should not be the way to make law. Indeed, we cannot think of a worse way to make law. See article from bigbrotherwatch.org.uk Meeting Hacked Off The explosive revelations that websites will be included in the post-Leveson press regulation arrangements this weekend led to a flurry of analysis — and a meeting between Hacked Off, bloggers and free speech groups yesterday. See article from openrightsgroup.org

Ed’s Programme Guide…The Government looks set to extend broadcast levels of TV censorship to all internet TV channels that present themselves in a TV’s EPG

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from parliamentlive.tv

On 12th February 2013, the government minister for Culture, Communications and Creative Industries, Ed Vaizey, appeared before the House of Lords Communications Select Committee to give his opinions about media convergence. One interesting point was that the government intends to extend internet censorship in the upcoming Communications white paper. The government looks set to extend the onerous TV censorship regime administered by Ofcom to all channels appearing on a TV’s Electronic Programme Guide. At the moment, internet TV channels are not subject to Ofcom’s suffocating TV censorship. Vaizey feels that ‘viewers expect’ anything that looks like a TV channel which presents itself for channel hopping in the EPG to be subject to the same strict censorship as broadcast TV. However channels presenting themselves via an app interface, seem likely to be let off the hook and censored according to the less strict censorship of the Video on Demand censor, ATVOD. So anything featuring biased news such as Fox News, or else hardcore porn will have to stay off the EPG, and stick with being available only as an app. Vaizey’s thinking is that viewers will not expect the same strict censorship for a channel that is more obviously internet based.

Turning the Internet Off at Night…David Cameron appointed Claire Perry as his personal Mary Whitehouse. Now she gives a couple of clues about what she is working on

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from blogs.spectator.co.uk

One of Perry’s big themes is empowering parents to be able to take back control of a space she feels adults have largely ceded to our children . It’s clear that she sees leaving a child to their own devices in the online world as akin to leaving a child to wander through a city alone at night, and it’s time for parents to take back control. She said: People say it’s so difficult to keep our kids off the laptop. There is a router. You control the wifi. So put it in your bedroom, for example, and switch it off when you go to bed, and then the household is internet free all night. It’s common sense, people are like, wow, somehow they just don’t think. It’s like locking the doors, it’s like making sure the blind cords aren’t hanging into your child’s cot. This, I think, if it’s a problem for you, you’ve got the power to change it. Beyond reminding parents of their own responsibilities, Perry is working on a filter to keep children safe online. The plan is for a filter that checks the age of the child browsing, rather than her original call for all users to opt-in to accessing adult content on their computer, which a government consultation rejected. All public wifi will have an automatic block on adult material. …Read the full article

One Size Fits All Doesn’t Work…But…David Cameron explains that he is against default ISP blocking but will require ISPs to provide a blocking system that can be tailored to family needs

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from dailymail.co.uk

The Daily Mail is claiming a victory in spurring David Cameron into supporting its cause in getting parents to opt for internet blocking albeit not the overly blunt default ISP blocking. (But the Daily Mail clearly aren’t quite fully committed to the anti-sexualisation cause. They have done a fine job traumatising all the ‘sensitive’ young girls who worry that they will never be as sexy as Kate Moss in bikini showing a bit of nipple) . In an article for the Daily Mail, the Prime Minister says it is utterly appalling that so many children have been exposed to the darkest corners of the internet, adding: A silent attack on innocence is under way in our country today and I am determined that we fight it with all we’ve got. He announces that Conservative MP Claire Perry is to be appointed as his adviser on reversing the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood. She will be in charge of implementing the new web blocking system, which will also require internet providers to check the age of the person setting controls. Cameron explained why he does not go along with the idea of default ISP blocking. Some might ask why, then, this Government has not taken the route of default on filters for new computers, so that each one that is bought comes with blanket filters for all unsuitable content. There’s a simple reason why we haven’t done this: all the evidence suggests such a crude system wouldn’t work very well in practice. With the system, when people switch on their new computer, a question will pop up asking if there are children in the house. If there are, then parents will be automatically prompted to tailor their internet filters With the system, when people switch on their new computer, a question will pop up asking if there are children in the house. If there are, then parents will be automatically prompted to tailor their internet filters (posed by model) Take the experience of one parent I met. She has a tablet computer which her young daughter sometimes plays games on. It’s got straightforward on/off filters, so she turned the filter on to protect her daughter. However, the filters were so wide-ranging that she then found she couldn’t access things like TV stations on demand; they were blocked too. The result? She just switched the filter off again, as it was becoming annoying. The point is we need a more sophisticated system than this — one that allows parents to tailor exactly what their children can see. Ministers are understood to have imposed a timetable on internet providers, who will be required to produce detailed plans by February on ensuring that all parents are giving the option of imposing filters. Cameron says that when people switch on a new computer, they will be asked if there are children in the house — and if they answer yes, they will be automatically prompted to tailor internet filters. They will include options to block particular kinds of content, individual sites or restrict access at specific times of the day. If parents click through the options to set up a new system quickly, filters against pornography and self-harm sites will be automatically left on. Perry said effective checks on the age of a person setting up filters — probably using credit card details and the electoral roll — would be vital to ensure children could not get round the new system.

Encroachment…Ed Vaizey blogs about why the UK refused to sign the UN telecoms treaty

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from blogs.culture.gov.uk

What’s it all about? The idea behind WCIT was to revise and update a treaty governing international telecommunications services. These are known as the International Telecommunications Regulations — the ITRs. As one of the UK delegation put it in her own blog, this was a treaty that wasn’t about the internet, but really it was. It all harks back to another century, in fact, and as far as telecommunications is concerned, that’s another age — pre-liberalisation, pre-privatisation, before the great boom in mobile telecoms and, of course, before the internet transformed the way we communicate and conduct business. It was concluded in 1988, had never been revised since that time and, to no one’s great surprise, there was much about it that was ripe for revision. The UK and most developed countries could, in fact, for the most part have lived quite happily without the ITRs. But the position of other governments, particularly those from developing countries, was that they needed these regulations to be able to conduct telecoms business on a secure legal basis and — more to the point — they needed them updated for the 21st century. We accepted that position in good faith and that’s why we sent such a large delegation – a multi-stakeholder team of 25 people drawn from government, business, the academic community and civil society. Running into trouble And, to be fair, a lot of progress was made in the two weeks of the conference. Provisions were included on roaming. The provisions of the treaty that deal with charging were modernised — allowing for the old settlements system but explicitly acknowledging the role of competition and commercial agreements. But what the UK team kept running into were proposals to include the internet, content issues, spam and so on — and that’s what ultimately made it impossible to sign the treaty. Governments know best? The point is that the internet has grown up outside a model of government control and regulation. That’s not to say that there is no regulation of activity on the internet — a pretty good rule of thumb is if it’s illegal in the real world, chances are that it is illegal in the online world. But the rules governing the way the internet is run — for example which domain names should be permitted, who should run them and so on — have been developed by a community of engineers, business, civil society and governments working together in what is known as the multi-stakeholder model of internet governance. This, though, is in sharp contrast to the approach being advocated in the ITRs where only governments had a voice in the negotiations, and where very few nations involved other stakeholders in the way we did in the UK. We value a free and open internet So when it came to the crunch, the revised ITRs, with provisions on security, on spam and with an unacceptable resolution on internet governance was not a treaty that I could let my delegation sign. The UK — together with the US, EU member states and a number of others (55 in total) — could not sign it because we value an open internet too much to see it hampered by excessive regulation. The WCIT, however, is not the end of the battle — these issues will be debated again in numerous international meetings in the coming months and years. And in those debates we will continue to fight for the approach that we know works — and that is to keep the internet free and open.

Insults Beyond Offensive…DPP updates guidelines to prevent internet users from being prosecuted for trivial insults

Read more UK News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from bbc.co.uk

New guidelines could see fewer people being charged in England and Wales for offensive messages on social networks. The Director of Public Persecutions said people should only face a trial if their comments on Twitter, Facebook or elsewhere go beyond being offensive. He claimed the guidance combats threats and internet trolls without having a chilling effect on free speech. The guidance comes after a string of cases of prosecutions for jokes, and trivial insults, including the prosecution of a man who tweeted a joke threatening to blow up an airport. Director of Public Prosecutions Keir Starmer said the Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) had now dealt with more than 50 cases relating to potentially criminal comments posted online. He said the interim guidelines, which come into force immediately, clarified which kinds of cases should be prosecuted and which would only go ahead after a rigorous assessment whether it was in the public interest to prosecute. The guidance says that if someone posts a message online that clearly amounts to a credible threat of violence, specifically targets an individual or individuals, or breaches a court order designed to protect someone, then the person behind the message should face prosecution. People who receive malicious messages and pass them on, such as by retweeting, could also fall foul of the law. However, online posts that are merely grossly offensive, indecent, obscene or false would face a much tougher test before the individual could be charged under laws designed to prevent malicious communications. Starmer said that many suspects in this last category would be unlikely to be prosecuted because it would not be in the public interest to take them to court. This could include posts made by drunk people who, on sobering up, take swift action to delete the communication. Starmer said: These interim guidelines are intended to strike the right balance between freedom of expression and the need to uphold the criminal law. The interim guidelines thus protect the individual from threats or targeted harassment while protecting the expression of unpopular or unfashionable opinion about serious or trivial matters, or banter or humour, even if distasteful to some and painful to those subjected to it. Although the interim guidance is now in force, its final form is subject to a consultation that runs until 13 March 2013.

Claire Perry and the Daily Mail Blocked…Government announces that public consultation on parental internet controls came out strongly against the idea of default website blocking by ISPs

Read more UK Government Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from guardian.co.uk See The Government’s Response to Public Consultation on Parental Internet Controls [pdf] from media.education.gov.uk

Ministers have stepped back from forcing telecommunications companies to filter websites for online pornography after parents rejected the idea in a government-sponsored consultation. A report released by the department for education and the home office instead said that internet service providers will be asked to advise and steer parents towards making an active choice by offering software that blocks out pornography and self-harming sites. The decision follows a 10-week public consultation process. David Cameron had indicated as recently as last month that he wanted firms to follow the lead of TalkTalk, which was the first big name internet service provider to introduce network-level filtering of websites for its customers. The report, released with little fanfare, said: It is… clear that in accepting that responsibility, parents want to be in control, and that it would be easier for them to use the online safety tools available to them if they could learn more about those tools. They also want information about internet safety risks and what to do about them. There was no great appetite among parents for the introduction of default filtering of the internet by their ISP: only 35% of the parents who responded favoured that approach. In fact the figures for all those that responded to the consultation showed: 14% in favour of default ISP blocking 85% opposed to default ISP blocking 1% unsure. The campaign for greater curbs against online porn had been led by the Tory MP Claire Perry, and was followed up by the Daily Mail. The industry pointed out that Perry’s plans were unworkable. The Government will now go to work with the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) to help parents with the knowledge and tools required to provide flexible and workable parental control.