Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

Summary: A British MP wants an opt-in system to access online pornography to 'protect children'. Logistically this is difficult, and socially this could have a knock-on effect to the younger Generation Z.

SHARE:

A British MP suggests that ISP's should create an opt-in system for pornography, creating a divided web allowing those who want to be able to access pornography to give their Internet provider the heads up.

In the last few days, however, the Culture Minister Ed Vaizey has vetoed the request made by the Member of Parliament, stating that the government will not intervene in such a way to prevent young people from accessing explicit material online.

A study shows that a third of under 10's has been exposed to pornography on the web. The same report states that four out of five children aged 14 to 16 regularly access pornography. But as Violet Blue, ZDNet's Tech Broiler points out, these statistics are incredibly hard to come by.

The Generation Y and upcoming Generation Z are 'the porn generation', with more young people today accessing online pornography than any other demographic before the 1990's.

This is a significant area of research while I continue to study for my degree; the 'sexualisation' of young people through the vast progression of media sources in the last thirty years, children's rights and the study of child protection.

There are many questions to consider before simply striking a 'yes' or 'no' decision based on your own experiences, values, and morals and suchlike. Who should be the one protecting children: the state, or the parent? Who should be to blame for accessing pornography online: the child, the media sources, the ISP or the parent once again? Is sex something children should not be exposed to - and define 'child' exactly?

When taking two tiered ages of majority - 16 and 18, I suspect the vast majority of people will accept that children aged 15-17 accessing pornography is not the worst thing in the world. On the other hand, children around the ages of 10-13 and under browsing to such sites would be horrifying.

So where is the line drawn?

The problem is that we live in an 'either or' society; contemporary abolitionism is the main focus of how we criminalise and legitimise branches away from the quintessential norms of our everyday living. We can either ban all pornography, or we can leave things as they are - on an ad-hoc, accessible basis. Equally, we can legalise all drugs and scrap the tiered system of classification, or ban it all and prosecute everyone equally and fairly. You get the idea.

Pornography on the whole is not a bad thing, the Generation Y would argue on the whole. Even the extremes which cause harm to others, whether willingly or otherwise could be argued as such. It's an incredibly controversial, subjective view to hold, and everybody holds it in different lights.

If you are to block porn off completely, then how far can this trend spread? Academic freedom dictates the ability to learn without restriction, though terrorism, the study of online child sex abuse and nuclear physics and weaponry are contentious issues are still available to be read and studied.

Nevertheless, it should be down to the parent - someone who cares about their child's welfare, knows their child best, and communicates with on a personal level, to block sites on their home computer, monitor usage and to ensure that the child is remaining safe online while in their primary learning years.

Logistically to split the web into 'porn on' and 'porn off' is far from easy and would cost more than the UK can cope with in these dire economic times.

What do you think? Should the web be split into porn and no porn?

Topics: Government, Apple, Microsoft, Patents

Kick off your day with ZDNet's daily email newsletter. It's the freshest tech news and opinion, served hot. Get it.

Talkback

25 comments
Log in or register to join the discussion
  • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

    sxcvxc
    dsfihsdfkjh
  • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

    Absolutely not! My porn is my choice! I don't need to opt-in or opt-out to see it, I know its there and I can peruse it at my leisure. Plus it would be weird to tell my ISP that I'm looking at porn. I figured they assumed everyone did that on the internet anyway.
    Loverock Davidson
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @Loverock Davidson

      Everyone does not look at porn. Some of us even try to avoid it, but it's almost impossible.
      markpringle
      • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

        @markpringle
        Avoid it? Are you crazy?
        Loverock Davidson
    • RE: Absolutely not! My porn is my choice!

      @Loverock Davidson

      I had a snarky reply all formulated, and then, thought better of it.

      As much as I dislike it (p0rn), if you are a consenting adult; the choice OUGHT to be yours. For minors, that choice should be made by the parents, not the NANNY STATE!
      fatman65535
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @Loverock Davidson as it is your ISP knows what you do via your connection anway. When you browse to a website the DNS request (to find the IP address of the URL) goes to your ISP. Even if you use a seperate DNS server your ISP knows what crosses it's network. In other words your ISP knows what you do online. The only way out is to use a Tor proxy such as privoxy with Tor or such like. This is quite complex to setup though.
      bgeddy
      • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

        @bgeddy
        separate
        its
        ​
  • It's too bad

    .xxx doesn't take off in popularity. It'd be trivial for parents to block if they choose, and make it easier for adults to find what they are looking for.
    Of course, in order for it to work there'd need to be near 100% compliance, so it'll never work.
    jred
  • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

    Good idea that will probably never happen. If you watch porn, you shouldn't be ashamed to opt-In. We need to protect kids from this "virus".
    markpringle
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @markpringle I suppose putting a flag outside your house to indicate that you partake of alcohol or tobacco or fast food or are a wiccan or a vegan would also be ok? I know at one point in our world history where people were publicly labeled, and that wasn't such a great idea then either. At least, I don't think any of the survivors think highly of the number tattoo on their arm.
      trent1
      • re: I suppose putting a flag outside your house

        @trent1

        If you remember your literature, was there not a book titled "The Scarlet Letter"?? IIRC, (and that was a long time ago) it was a scarlet `A` which stood for `Adulteress`. Perhaps we can start requiring people who espouse this concept to fly a flag in front of their homes featuring a brown `A`; which could stand for `A----le`!!! After all, brown is usually the color of the substance that comes out of one!!!
        fatman65535
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @markpringle Kid, get lost and geld yourself.
      ​
  • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

    No - I live in the american south, our cable company is a monopoly. you can use cable, or sattelite, or three stations with an antenna. We had the Playboy channel for ninety days and the religious rednecks killed it. Did not matter that it cost extra, did not matter that it was encrypted (poorly). It had to go. If you let them put a label on part of the web it will cease to exist as the moral dictators fight to 'protect children' and if you disagree with them you are obviously a child they need to protect. Loss of freedom is always justified by it being neccessary for the good the majority.
    plumley@...
  • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

    Should have to opt in, so accidents are at least lessened.
    stpeters@...
  • A child of any age is vulnerable - I'm for the opt-in!

    Absolutely for it. Not for adult viewers but for children. How does a website distinguish between a child who has landed on a site by accident or otherwise.

    Children don't have the same mentality as a porn addicted and sick adults. Porn is sickness, it is vile and control of such things has been lost. Sex on the other hand is divine and should be protected from exposure to the population and stay private.

    Like driving, or alcohol consumption - a child needs to wait until they are a certain age to perform these things. Alcohol and porn should be classified equally.

    Alcohol numbs the mind and and body of a person. Where as porn numbs the mind and the intellect. A childs mind/brain is not as well developed or copes well with images of unnatural and vile exposures. When two people have sex - there is usually not a 3rd person. You find the 3rd in sick minds who themselves have been virtually corrupted from an early age.

    Porn and pedophilia go hand in hand.

    People have the right to purchase alcohol, or a right to drive their cars but they don't have the right to drink it where they like or drive however they like or to bypass the age restriction. There are rules one must obey. Porn is no different and should be ethically kept under wraps.

    Porn, alcohol, drugs, addiction are all sicknesses of the mind. Children and sick minds who are addicted to porn or drugs or alcohol are not the minds one should ask questions to whether they would like it or not. They neither have capacity to talk on behalf of the general population.

    We live in a society where rules are created for good reasons for the protection of the general populace. Only people with love and children would understand the notion of banning porn altogether from being accessed too easily. Porn is accessed way too easily and available a click away. This is not only immoral and unethical but also criminal to have it available this way. It just shows irresponsibility of our laws is gone lack.

    Just like a porn shop would not let in a minor to enter it's premises in the fear that they would be shut down if otherwise - the laws should extend to the online community of such sites.

    Those who are against the opt-in does not mean they are blocked from entering those sites. They need to sign up by SHOWING PROOF OF AGE. If you can't do that and you would like your sex to stay private then it is time to stop sending the wrong message about having your porn exposed on the net (public net).

    and so on...
    0zcan
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @0zcan

      >>A child of any age is vulnerable - I'm for the opt-in!

      Yeah, God forbid you should take the time to monitor your own child's surfing habits.

      >>Porn and pedophilia go hand in hand.

      So does your ignorance and your ignorance.

      They do NOT go hand in hand, ignoramus.
      MGP2
      • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

        @MGP2
        >>A child of any age is vulnerable - I'm for the opt-in!

        || Yeah, God forbid you should take the time to monitor your own child's surfing habits.

        You use the Name of Your Creator/GOD and children here yet you have neither belief nor knowledge of children.

        How would you know what I do and don't do. If you have knowledge of such writing you would understand that I take extreme care to shield young children. I speak from experience when it comes to protecting young minds.

        I would not care less what an adult does with porn, it is their time and their minds. BUt I give a damn how that is shown on the net without any doorways to stop young people.

        Ignorance, what would you know other than the usage of such a sentence. Your own ignorance has landed you into a situation where you now start "thinking of your own ignorance and plight".

        People like you who stand up thinking every word, action or event is your right and freedom without giving much thought to the consequences. Such a society is one of deterioration, disrespect and the end of morality.

        *** There is nothing natural about porn. ***

        All porn web cities on the net have one specific goal. They are there to entice you into spending your money and at the same time corrupt what little values you have left. Porn is VERY addictive for undeveloped minds.

        Enough!
        :)
        0zcan
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @0zcan
      "Ignorance, what would you know other than the usage of such a sentence. Your own ignorance has landed you into a situation where you now start "thinking of your own ignorance and plight"."

      Physician....heal thyself!
      MGP2
    • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

      @0zcan
      >>Porn and pedophilia go hand in hand.

      Just because an adult looks at porn does not mean that they enjoy doing things with or to children because of it. I would think most adults that watch porn have no desire to share the porn or any sexual feelings with children, otherwise a lot more children would be victims of sexual assault. While pedophilia is usually related to sexual actions, porn is not usually related to children. I'm not saying that kiddie porn doesn't exist, but it is not the normal thing for porn, and is dealt with as best as law enforcement can discover where it is.

      >>People have the right to purchase alcohol, or a right to drive their cars but they don't have the right to drink it where they like or drive however they like or to bypass the age restriction. There are rules one must obey. Porn is no different and should be ethically kept under wraps.

      Actually people have the privilege of buying alcohol or driving, not a right. According to the law it is a legal consideration not an ethical consideration. Yes, porn is the same, and responsible adults have the privilege of buying or viewing it also. Look at the many countries around the world that don't let women drink or drive, or anyone view/buy porn, because they are privileges, not rights of the law.

      >>Porn, alcohol, drugs, addiction are all sicknesses of the mind. Children and sick minds who are addicted to porn or drugs or alcohol are not the minds one should ask questions to whether they would like it or not. They neither have capacity to talk on behalf of the general population.

      What about people that suffer from depression or any other sickness of the mind? Are they not capable of deciding whether they like it or not or capable of talking about it. Porn, alcohol, and drugs are not sicknesses of the mind, they are tangible items that have different effects on different peoples bodies and minds. Addiction is not always a mental sickness whether it is for sex, drugs, alcohol, eating, or even doing something over and over exactly the same way every time, similar to OCD. Sometimes it is a physical problem and while the person wants to stop there are issues that arise that make continuing easier than stopping, like an addiction to pain meds that while stopping is beneficial allows the return of the pain which cause the addiction to begin with. Yes, I knew a drug addict and while she wanted to stop, there were other issues besides just saying I'm done taking drugs that she had to deal with everyday trying to stay clean. Unfortunately she failed one day after a long time clean and overdosed.

      >>Those who are against the opt-in does not mean they are blocked from entering those sites. They need to sign up by SHOWING PROOF OF AGE.

      How many stores allow minors to buy cigarettes, alcohol, or porn despite checking for ID. Fake IDs are relatively easy to get in the real world, and online proof of age is usually verified with a credit card. I know several people that allow their children to use the credit card to purchase items online, and while they normally check what is being bought, it isn't very hard for a child to remember the card number and use it without parental permission, bypassing the age verification. I'm sure that the opt-in process will be compromised by children also, making that just as useless as credit card verification is today. Where there is a will, there is a way as nothing is truly secure especially when dealing with computers and determined people.

      The best way for children to not be exposed to dangerous items is by parents not being afraid to talk to their children and educate them. While every child will not respond in the same way, a properly informed and educated parent can and should discuss sex/porn, drugs, alcohol, smoking, even driving a car, finances, and keeping good friends, all conversations based on the child's age. The world would be a very different place if all parents did, might even help in the corporate world later in life.
      techrepublic@...
      • RE: Online porn 'opt in' proposed to ISP's: Could a divided web work?

        @techrepublic@... Paidofilia means kid-friendship (or friendhead) and has nothing to do with sex, which would be paiderastia.
        ​