UK MP wants to police the Internet

by Scott Bicheno on 29 December 2008, 16:23

Quick Link: HEXUS.net/qaqkd

Add to My Vault: x

What can be done?

Of course we already have armies of lawyers ready to sue for illegal, harmful or libellous content, but they're clearly not getting the job done. Neither are parents, even those who supervise their kids, or buy internet filtering software, or educate their children, or block access to the internet, etc.

Here, according to the Telegraph interview, are some of the ways the state can come to the rescue:

  • ISPs should offer parents "child safe" web services.
  • ISPs to only offer services to ‘suitable for children' websites.
  • Cinema style age-ratings for all websites.
  • Industry-wide "take down times" forcing social media sites to remove "offensive or harmful content".
  • Changing the law to make legal action for libel easier and cheaper to do.

Burnham reckons he'll only be able to police the web with the help of the US and that now is the time to strike, with Barack Obama about to take over as President. "The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause," he said.

You might be able to tell what we think of this proposed initiative, but we'd like to know what you think. Does the Internet need to be better regulated? Is there not enough protection for children? Is it even possible to police the web? Let us know in the HEXUS.community.

 



HEXUS Forums :: 48 Comments

Login with Forum Account

Don't have an account? Register today!
Another idiot to put next to Jacqui Smith then.

Every time I read these idiots commenting on things they have no understanding of it just gets me more angry.

Burnham shared his discovery that the Internet is “quite a dangerous place”.

Leaving your child for two hours completely unregulated on the internet is not something you can do

Classics. Absolute gold.

Any parent who allows their kid to surf the web, non filtered, on their own is an idiot.

“There is content that should just not be available to be viewed”

Depends on the content really. I notice that he doesn't actually detail what he thinks shouldn't be viewable.
There are already laws in place to stop the most illegal content like child porn. If he's not happy that these are working, perhaps he should dedicate his time more towards the agency's that do this.
Is it a common requirement to become an MP that you have to be so out of touch with the masses you look a pillock when you open your mouth?

Look at the list…

Boris, Smithy and now this weirdo..

Line them up folks… and pass me an enfield 303 ;)
A Declaration of the Independence of Cyberspace

by John Perry Barlow <barlow@eff.org>

Governments of the Industrial World, you weary giants of flesh and steel, I come from Cyberspace, the new home of Mind. On behalf of the future, I ask you of the past to leave us alone. You are not welcome among us. You have no sovereignty where we gather.

We have no elected government, nor are we likely to have one, so I address you with no greater authority than that with which liberty itself always speaks. I declare the global social space we are building to be naturally independent of the tyrannies you seek to impose on us. You have no moral right to rule us nor do you possess any methods of enforcement we have true reason to fear.

Governments derive their just powers from the consent of the governed. You have neither solicited nor received ours. We did not invite you. You do not know us, nor do you know our world. Cyberspace does not lie within your borders. Do not think that you can build it, as though it were a public construction project. You cannot. It is an act of nature and it grows itself through our collective actions.

You have not engaged in our great and gathering conversation, nor did you create the wealth of our marketplaces. You do not know our culture, our ethics, or the unwritten codes that already provide our society more order than could be obtained by any of your impositions.

You claim there are problems among us that you need to solve. You use this claim as an excuse to invade our precincts. Many of these problems don't exist. Where there are real conflicts, where there are wrongs, we will identify them and address them by our means. We are forming our own Social Contract . This governance will arise according to the conditions of our world, not yours. Our world is different.

Cyberspace consists of transactions, relationships, and thought itself, arrayed like a standing wave in the web of our communications. Ours is a world that is both everywhere and nowhere, but it is not where bodies live.

We are creating a world that all may enter without privilege or prejudice accorded by race, economic power, military force, or station of birth.

We are creating a world where anyone, anywhere may express his or her beliefs, no matter how singular, without fear of being coerced into silence or conformity.

Your legal concepts of property, expression, identity, movement, and context do not apply to us. They are all based on matter, and there is no matter here.

Our identities have no bodies, so, unlike you, we cannot obtain order by physical coercion. We believe that from ethics, enlightened self-interest, and the commonweal, our governance will emerge . Our identities may be distributed across many of your jurisdictions. The only law that all our constituent cultures would generally recognize is the Golden Rule. We hope we will be able to build our particular solutions on that basis. But we cannot accept the solutions you are attempting to impose.

In the United States, you have today created a law, the Telecommunications Reform Act, which repudiates your own Constitution and insults the dreams of Jefferson, Washington, Mill, Madison, DeToqueville, and Brandeis. These dreams must now be born anew in us.

You are terrified of your own children, since they are natives in a world where you will always be immigrants. Because you fear them, you entrust your bureaucracies with the parental responsibilities you are too cowardly to confront yourselves. In our world, all the sentiments and expressions of humanity, from the debasing to the angelic, are parts of a seamless whole, the global conversation of bits. We cannot separate the air that chokes from the air upon which wings beat.

In China, Germany, France, Russia, Singapore, Italy and the United States, you are trying to ward off the virus of liberty by erecting guard posts at the frontiers of Cyberspace. These may keep out the contagion for a small time, but they will not work in a world that will soon be blanketed in bit-bearing media.

Your increasingly obsolete information industries would perpetuate themselves by proposing laws, in America and elsewhere, that claim to own speech itself throughout the world. These laws would declare ideas to be another industrial product, no more noble than pig iron. In our world, whatever the human mind may create can be reproduced and distributed infinitely at no cost. The global conveyance of thought no longer requires your factories to accomplish.

These increasingly hostile and colonial measures place us in the same position as those previous lovers of freedom and self-determination who had to reject the authorities of distant, uninformed powers. We must declare our virtual selves immune to your sovereignty, even as we continue to consent to your rule over our bodies. We will spread ourselves across the Planet so that no one can arrest our thoughts.

We will create a civilization of the Mind in Cyberspace. May it be more humane and fair than the world your governments have made before.

Davos, Switzerland

February 8, 1996
Great post Iranu. Have not seen that one before :)
Useless and impossible to achieve - China and Russia wont care at all, servers can just be shifted abroad to avoid regulations