UK’s net filtering is a disaster in the making

As most English citizens have become aware now, PM David Cameron has entered into an agreement with the four largest Internet providers (BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin) to block Internet access to adult content sites. This news made the rounds last week, as this is one of the most drastic and wide reaching measures put in place in the UK. These four providers include 90% of Internet access in the UK, reaching almost everyone in the country.

At first, there were questions about how these filters would be applied. The companies have tried to be reassuring, saying that only new customers would see their connections filtered by default, and they could opt out of it. Current customers would be offered a choice to be included in the system. None of the providers have so far specified how the options would be worded, or who exactly would see this applied to. The problem of course is that this is just the first step in a much bigger problem in the making.

First, the very fact that people will need to basically say “Yes I want to see porn” to not get their Internet connections filtered is preposterous. Adult content includes far more than porn, and the biggest issue is that no one knows what will be included in this broad category. Filtering companies have existed for a long time, and none of them are perfect. There’s countless examples of websites that get blocked routinely by filters for no good reason, because they used key words that get them filtered when taken out of context. Then there’s the question of education material. Is a nude picture intended for breast cancer awareness enough to get a site banned? Artists have debated between what is Art and what is porn for years, is a technician in a BT office going to reach the right conclusion?

Also, the effectiveness is dubious at best. Anyone working in the industry will tell you that most illegal material online is not distributed via the web. It’s sent by peer-to-peer, encrypted connections, that can’t be blocked. So again, it’s a solution looking for a problem. What filtering does do however is bring technical problems into an otherwise working system. To filter connections, the Internet providers have to monitor those connections first, see everything you do online, and then decide which connection should be dropped. While they likely already spy on Internet use for law enforcement reasons, this would bring much broader monitoring.

In the end, there are many ways to provide safety for children, or for anyone who wants to filter their own Internet connection. There’s software and devices that can be bought and downloaded, and provides individuals with these filter options. But to mandate it country-wide is a disaster in the making, and a step in the wrong direction for Internet freedoms.