Cameron Porn Ban Won’t Work

One person who should be thankful that the Royal Baby is keeping the press occupied today is Young Dave, not least because his jolly good ideas on blocking porn – otherwise known as making policy at the behest of the Daily Mail’s legendarily foul mouthed editor – are coming apart. This should surprise no-one who has the first idea about the technology involved.

As I pointed out a while back, child pornography is already illegal, as are some kinds of adult material. The likes of Google already block searches for it. They also report those dealing in it to the appropriate law enforcement authorities. And, as Unity at Ministry Of Truth pointed out, the number of searches for such material – the target of a previous Mail campaign – is vanishingly small.

Why so? Ah well. Those who want to view something that is illegal are hardly going to openly search for it, knowing that this is a sure fire way to bring the rozzers down on you like the proverbial tonne of bricks. Knowing the URL of just one site is enough providing the target offers a few links to other sites. From there, the seeker after illegal material has no need of search engines.

So kicking Google – or anyone else offering a web browser and/or search engine – is utterly pointless, except inasmuch as it sells a few more papers, and frightens the more ignorant among the readership. Yet the campaigns have continued, their latest incarnation being Cameron’s blatantly populist attempt to block all pornography by default. This, too, is not going to work.

That conclusion has been more or less agreed by tech writers at both the Guardian and Telegraph: at the former, Charles Arthur points out that there are easier “wins” available than going after Google, that the process of getting ISPs up to speed could take time, and in the meantime we’re left with “software filters, which are expensive, and hard to make work on newer devices such as tablets and smartphones”.

At the Tel, Mic Wright is more forthright, telling “David Cameron can't protect us from child porn because he doesn't understand the internet”. He goes on “his policies are ignorant and technically implausible. His latest attack on Google and its competitors is showboating of the most transparent kind”. He notes that Google already works to bar many searches.

Wright also touches on the Mail expose from Amanda Platell claiming to have viewed child porn, when in fact all those in the video she saw were 18 years old or over. And that gets to the nub of it: if those leading the campaign are so wilfully ignorant of the subject, no-one should be surprised when the resulting “policy” ends up being utterly unworkable and a waste of time for all concerned.

Legislate at the behest of Paul Dacre, repent at leisure. No change there, then.