8/13/2019 PC Pro column, issue 228

1/1www.pcpro.co.uk 007PC PROOCTOBER2013

Prolog OPINION

Because the ISPs didnt oppose Cameronsporn fatwa, theyre about to becomeBritains unofficial internet sensors

Feckless ISPs are getting what

they deserve with Cameronsfilters, says BARRY COLLINS

BARRY COLLINSis the editor of PC Pro. Hehopes he can still look up Malcolm Tucker

quotes once the filters kick in.

Blog:www.pcpro.co.uk/links/barryc

Email:editor@pcpro.co.uk

So, the Great Wall of Westminster

is going up: Britains ISPs havebeen effectively blackmailed into

switching on default content filters.

Cameron, 1, Common Sense, 0.

Despite the prime ministers reckless

promise that it will now take only one clickto protect your whole home and to keep your

children safe, anyone whos ever used oneof these filters which presumably doesnt

include the prime minister will know that

statement is dangerously ignorant. None ofthese filters work perfectly, and some are

downright ineffective (as our Labs test next

month will reveal). The TalkTalk filter we

tested last year, which is now being endorsed

by the Conservative Party, blocked access toMr Camerons YouTube channel, but it didnt

prevent us from searching for porn on Google,

for example. (To be fair, I wouldnt want my

kids watching Webcameron, either.)Privately, the ISPs are furious. Weve had

off-the-record briefings from two of the majorISPs pointing out holes in the plan, and theres

been a series of leaks from industry meetings

with ministers, not to mention the release ofan inflammatory letter from the Department

of Education to ISPs in which they were being

leaned on to bend to the PMs wishes. None

of these were leaked from the government

side, I can assure you. The ISPs wanted us, thetechnical press, to do their dirty work for them,

since they didnt want to publicly oppose the

default filters.

ISPs are as aware as we are that the filters

dont work. They know that six months down

the line, someone from theDaily Mailwillspend ten minutes discovering they can still

access a smorgasboard of smut via BT, Virgin

Media, Sky or TalkTalk, and that theyll be

back on the front page again, accused ofcorrupting Britains innocent youth. But they

deserve the media storm thats coming to them,

since theyve stood by silently as Cameron and

Perry have trampled all over them.

Why didnt the ISPs stand up to thegovernment? Perhaps you should ask Ian

Livingston sorry, Lord Livingston of Parkhead

the outgoing head of BT whos jumped ship

to become a minister for trade and investmentin David Camerons government. Or maybe

you should have a word with Dido Harding,

the chief executive of TalkTalk, whose husband

is John Penrose, another minister in Camerons

government. Then theres Sky, owned byRupert Murdoch, and Virgin Media, run by

former News International chief executive

Tom Mockridge. Ill just leave that there...Yet, even if the government didnt exert

any influence over its associates at the head of

Britains biggest ISPs and I dont have a shred

of evidence to suggest it did the broadband

providers had another reason to keep theirheads down. It would have taken a good deal of

courage for one of the ISPs chief executives toface the wrath of thenewspapers that have been

tirelessly campaigning for porn to be blocked.Said chief executive would, as The Thick of Its

Malcolm Tucker once memorably said, become

a human dartboard [while] Eric f******

Bristows on the oche throwing a million darts

made of human s***right at you. (Thatquotes been passed through the Cameron filter.)

And so, because the ISPs had neither the

courage nor the will to oppose Camerons

porn fatwa, theyre about to become Britains

unofficial internet censors, filtering all types ofcontent not only pornography unless you

specifically ask them not to.This move doesnt have popular support.

The governments response to the consultation

on parental controls on the internet, published

last December, said only 35% of the parents

who responded favoured default filtering ofthe internet by their ISP. Nor does it encourage

parents to take a more active interest in online

safety. Now they can simply click Acceptand have their ISP babysit their children for

them. It must be safe the prime minister

said it was.

I confidently predict that within a few

months of these filters being switched on, theISPs customer care lines will be clogged with

irate customers, either because 14-year-old

Nathan and his mates have just found a way

around the filters to watch Debbie DoesDroylsdon, or because eight-year-old Antheacant do her homework because the internet

filter has stopped her looking up something

entirely innocent on Wikipedia. I hope the

poor souls manning the lines put the calls

through to the chief executives office. Orthe prime ministers.