US/UK discuss limiting and rating websites

[Kisa]

sort of interesting... not sure how they plan on implementing but I find the comment about ISPs having to "limit" accessibility pretty interesting...

Websites could get film-style ratings
Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:03am GMT

LONDON (Reuters) - The kind of ratings used for films could be applied to websites in a bid to better police the Internet and protect children from harmful and offensive material, Culture Secretary Andy Burnham has said.

Burnham told The Daily Telegraph newspaper, published on Saturday, that the government was planning to negotiate with the administration of U.S. President-elect Barack Obama to draw up new international rules for English language websites.

"The more we seek international solutions to this stuff -- the UK and the U.S. working together -- the more that an international norm will set an industry norm," the newspaper reports the Culture Secretary as saying in an interview.

Giving websites film-style ratings would be one possibility.

"This is an area that is really now coming into full focus," Burnham told the paper.

Internet service providers could also be forced to offer services where the only sites accessible are those deemed suitable for children, the paper said.

Any moves to censor the Internet would go to the heart of a debate about freedom of speech on the World Wide Web.

"If you look back at the people who created the Internet they talked very deliberately about creating a space that governments couldn't reach," Burnham told The Telegraph. "I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now."

He said some content should not be available to be viewed.

"This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

Burnham, who has three young children, pointed to the example of a 9 p.m. television "watershed" in Britain before which certain material, like violence, cannot be broadcast, and said better controls were needed for the Internet.

The minister wants new industry-wide "take down times" so that websites like YouTube or Facebook would have to remove offensive or harmful content within a specified time once it is brought to their attention.

He also said Britain was considering changing libel laws to give people access to legal help if they are defamed online.

[Bill]

They've been blathering about doing this for years.

Thing is, there are already self-rating systems in place which we all use already. Browsers and safe surfing softwares already check for and respond to several different sets of rating system codes placed in the headers of webpages.

But politicians don't know enough about the net to know this.

Nor do most parents I guess.

[Kisa]

Originally Posted by Bill

They've been blathering about doing this for years.

Thing is, there are already self-rating systems in place which we all use already. Browsers and safe surfing softwares already check for and respond to several different sets of rating system codes placed in the headers of webpages.

But politicians don't know enough about the net to know this.

Nor do most parents I guess.

Oh I know but they'll beat this drum for as long as they can- Am I wrong in thinking that ultimately, it's google who decides these things... if not completely obvious to the general public...??

[Goldie]

Too much ado about nothing....

[Pagan]

The problem is, the two countries that wish to limit this are a large minority. Sadly the US cannot control the cyberworld, even with the UK at its side. China takes the opposite approach and restricts access to websites.

When is government going to realize that it cannot replace parents? Are they going to diaper, feed, and clothe kids next? Protecting children from television shows and websites that may be harmful is a PARENT's job, not a government. What one parent finds offensive may be perfectly okay to another. Is it MY problem that a parent is too lazy/ignorant/selfish/uncaring/fill in the blank to monitor their brat's activities?

Put the responsibility back where it belongs and stop wasting time and tax dollars on something that will not work. If anything work with the local school districts and teachers to educate parents on THEIR responsibilities once they allow access to the internet. Stop buying the excuse, "Oh, I don't know anything about computers". Then why did you buy one??? If you bought one, you should know something about it OR LEARN.

<grumbles about fool American idea to legislate EVERYTHING and have it prove NOTHING>

[Bill]

Originally Posted by Kisa

Am I wrong in thinking that ultimately, it's google who decides these things... if not completely obvious to the general public...??

Personally I think that's completely correct. Google decides most of what happens on the net.

I think almost all adult webmastrs would welcome any kind of "official" rating system that effectively kept non-adult surfers the hell off our pages. I certainly would. (Just as we would welcome a true digital signature, true secure identity, and true micropayments and true IP protection.)

Thing is, the politicians don't act as if their goal is to protect, as, for example, Bush's 2257 debacle aptly demonstarted. They want to appeal to people's prejudices by creating a system that doesn't regulate, but censors and imposes punitive costs on the adult business.

What the politicians seem to most want to do is protect the business models of the old economy, not try to solve the biggest problems of the 21st century new information economy.

[Webby]

We are talking about the ramblings of Andy Burnham here - the UK Secretary of State for Culture :-) This is an idiot who would not know culture if it hit him in the face and is even more clueless about how the Internet operates.

He is known to open his stupid mouth and emit verbals over, eg reports which he has never read, and on a couple of occasions, before they had even been published.

We are talking 'nutjob' level - after all, he is another politician lacking any serious form of employment. So, no worries - it's biz as usual folks in a lunatic world :-)

[tickler]

Originally Posted by Webby

We are talking about the ramblings of Andy Burnham here - the UK Secretary of State for Culture :-) This is an idiot who would not know culture if it hit him in the face and is even more clueless about how the Internet operates.

He is known to open his stupid mouth and emit verbals over, eg reports which he has never read, and on a couple of occasions, before they had even been published.

We are talking 'nutjob' level - after all, he is another politician lacking any serious form of employment. So, no worries - it's biz as usual folks in a lunatic world :-)

This article does a pretty good job on him, and some of the comments/links are good also.

UK government wants to regulate the Inter Tubes
In the UK, there is a kind of equivalent known as “government minister opens mouth and inserts foot”. This weekend it was the turn of Andy Burnham, the secretary of state for the Department of Culture, Media and Sports (DCMS), and as such supposed to take an interest in the Internet. Unfortunately his weekend interview with a newspaper betrayed the simple fact that he knows nothing at all about the internet.
http://uk.techcrunch.com/2008/12/28/...e-inter-tubes/

[p3rlphr33k]

well if this happens.. Im back to the idea of virtual private internets to distribute porn

[Pagan]

Most of us older hands have already registered our domains with ICRA as being adult. I also place metatags on every free site so that those few parents who do use software to screen activities can block me. It's a two way street, definitely. We as webmasters need to control the hardcore on the warning pages as well as register our domains. I do think the bulk of the burden rests on the responsible adults/caregivers etc.

Years back when I first started, I used a non-hardcore entry page (still do). Some irate father wrote me, cussing me out because he found his son on my site. When I pointed out the warning that the brat had bypassed (the one that still states that by clicking enter you state you are over 18), his offspring was the one in the wrong, not me. He had no provocative pictures to drool over, and no excuses. I never heard back from him after I pointed out I had done my part by properly labeling and registering my site - now he needed to be a parent and do his part by taking care of his snot-nosed kid.

What I don't want to see is some government panel trying to infringe in my civil rights or my freedom of speech just so they can strut and feel proud. Ever try to control the hormones of an adolescent teen? And honestly, truly, here folks. How harmful is viewing mainstream adult porn? Isn't it a natural expression? (I am not speaking of fetishes here or any of the "alternative" lifestyles - just plain ole men and women doing what comes naturally.)