This attempt at content blocking would create the ideal motivation for kids to learn more about the technology in their homes. The next generation of IT professionals are on their way.

The fact that filtering has never worked is entirely moot.

Paris for obvious reasons.

What will actually happen if a young kid stumbles on a few XXX photos on the net?

Are they going to turn into Slippermen? Are they going to instantly forget the times table?

I remember in my school days some very popular photos circulating among the school kids were quite saucy and there weren't any internets around back then...

"it is parents who are going to have to take responsibility for how their children consume digital media"

... boy, what a slow news day that must have been.

A film style rating on Games would be fine IMO game\console developers could be doing more.

E.g Xbox has the concept of a "child user" and yest still lets that user play 18 rated games. Games like that should not boot for a "child user account" only an "adult user" account.

Repeat after me, parents:

"The Internet is not the television"

"The Internet is not the television"

There is no central management of the internet.

There is no single set of rules regarding what can be said or depicted.

There is no regulator controlling the content.

You should no more leave an unaccompanied minor in front of an internet connected computer than you should leave an unaccompanied minor in the street.

Yes, I know you want your children to be "on the internet" and "safe" at the same time. It cannot and will not happen. The internet is not like that. And it won't be. Ever. No matter how much you want it to. No matter how much you stamp your feet and write letters and complain to people.

Let me introduce you to a concept you may find helpful to employ as a parent.

"NO".

People that suggest that parents should have control, over what their kids are doing on the net, obviously don't understand what it's like having a 14-16 year old, computer literate, "young adult" in the house.

It's a full-time job keeping an eye on my 16 yo son, yes I lead/encouraged him in the early days, so writing code for his websites, and eye on bandwidth, packets etc etc is just second nature.

I would like to think he is just coming out of the grunting stage, as he sometimes talks to us.

The only what to get him to come down from his room for dinner, or off the computer to go to bed is to unplug his connection. Even this generates a heated response.

Their life surrounds msn chat sessions, the only good thing is that the msn logs are the only source of finding out what the kids are up to these days.

The Australian experience of this is telling:

whilst the media beat up a story of 'protecting the children' and parents nod in conformity, when it actually comes down to the parents taking the time to do something about it, they really can't be arsed.

So that means either a) their not that worried about it (because if they were, they would take the time to learn how to install the software) or b) they inherently know that their children will stray into the 'bad' parts of the Internet because that's what children do, and that it probably won't have an impact on their lives because thats what kids have always done, whether it be through the Net or saucy magazines or looking up dirty words in the dictionary.

"A film style rating on Games would be fine IMO game\console developers could be doing more."

Well, the developers, more accurately publishers, are doing plenty. There's a perfectly fine industry self-regulated system for coming up with age ratings for games. It's called PEGI. The problem with the report talked about here is that the government wants some legally enforced entity such as the BBFC to handle it.

The thing is the BBFC don't know their arse from their elbow concerning games. They need to tool up with the people who do, the resources to look at the ever increasing volume of games being produced etc. It's no good just shoving it on their plate. I do think it's right that there ought to be a system where if PEGI fails for whatever reason, the BBFC (or someone) can step in and make sure a title gets tidied up and described adequately. That'll keep the game publishers on the straight and narrow (just like Manhunt did before the cowardly u-turn).

Concerning net censorship stuff. I fail to get the big deal. If you as a parent are worried about your kids seeing 'stuff' then put systems in place or supervise their Internet time. If, however, you think that maybe the Internet is a pretty good way to experience everything good and bad that the world has to offer in the safety of your own home, and prefer to be a guiding light to explain anything they might find.... well then, nothing to do here.

The only argument seems to be from people who don't want their kids to see 'stuff' but then wont take responsibility via the countless ways they could take responsibility, and would rather point the finger at the Internet? Well then, the only real shame there is that they managed to breed in the first place.

If he has a PC in his room, it is because you allow it.

If that PC has internet access, it is because you allow it.

You - in effect - declare "I have considered the risks of unaccompanied internet access and have decided in my view that they are small enough to allow it".

You will live with the consequences of those decisions.

I do not need to understand "what it's like having a 14-16 year old, computer literate, `young adult` in the house". It's hard, and for the trials and tribulations it brings, I hope he goes on to make you very proud. However, the state cannot make the internet safer. The technology companies cannot make the internet safer. The only people who can reliably and effectively control a child's online life is that child's parents. That is the nature of the network. You may not like that, but it is true.

My parents knew what I was up to, what I could get up to, and if they didn't know they took time to find out. They invested the time in ensuring that Dad's naughty videos were under lock and key. They inconvenienced themselves to make sure that the shed had a locked cabinet containing the petrol and saws. No matter how much I kicked and screamed (and I was a 6'1" 15 year old in the school rugby team, I could kick pretty well), I wasn't allowed to go to the nearest major city unaccompanied until I was 16. When I did at the age of 15, I didn't see the outside for a month. Perhaps my parents were better at saying "no". But they did. And it worked.

And as for "the msn logs are the only source of finding out what the kids are up to these days", ever heard of Wireshark?

Your kid, your house, your machine. It's naff all to do with the government (or anyone else) if you cannot be bothered to regulate this aspect of your childs behaviour.

If you cannot be bothered to do what it takes to properly educate and control your child, I don't see why it should be anyone elses problem.

There are plenty of other threats to children that we need to be spending money on that aren't under an individuals control and thus are a matter for society at large.

If you can't safely use a PC or raise a child you shouldn't bother acquiring either. Life's getting more complex, if you can't keep up, then stop polluting the gene pool.

I remember what it was like being a kid, I used the internet, I chatted to people I looked at porn I played games (very much like I do to this day). Now not all of my friend's were so lucky they had no internet at all, this did not stop them for a second for seeing porn, swearing, being exposed to the nasties of this world. So while this stuff is on the internet even if it was possible to block it all your children will still be exposed to such stuff.

Most kids can get around almost any projection/blocking system out there, most of the time without their parents knowledge. Hell only the other day my 12 year old cousin was asking if I would let him have SSH access to one of my co-lo box's so he could SSH tunnel all his traffic to get around some hardware filters after booting from a live CD.

Parents need to take responsibility for keeping an eye on what the kids online, they need to talk to their kids and educate them about some of the dangers, dont pretend things like porn arnt out there because they are young and interested in that kind of thing so they will look for it if left to their own devices. Never be afraid to say no and take away their access. When they know the clear rules and know you will be checking up on them yourself instead of putting blind faith in some software or centrally managed system their online habits will be a lot better.

Nothing is worse than installing some badly written program thinking its protecting everything then let the kids loose without a second thought stupidly thinking that you don't need to monitor anything.

"Perhaps my parents were better at saying "no". But they did. And it worked."

But I also guess that was back in the day when the kids had respect for their elders ans authority and if not they got a swift right hander

it's called "unplugging" followed by "locking the damned thing in a closet".

Or failing that there's the still-pretty-safe technique of putting the whole system in the living room. As a young man about ten years ago with the convergence of "cheap' webcams" and "exhibitionist" young women, it was very apparent who's daughters had a system all to themselves in the bedroom and ones who had the system in a common area, both in the frequency and 'quality" of their instant messaging and video conversations..you can easily guess which ones gave up their addresses and phone numbers (and other "charms") a whole lot more than the others. And of those from the larger "private machine" group, any who were local were also usually up for some "live performances".

Cause and effect unproven though. But a non-private system sure keeps a naughty schoolgirl in check and limits her access to trouble a hell of a lot more than giving her unlimited late night access in a privacy-guaranteed situation for a long period of time. A non-private machine also keeps perverted drooling boys from spending too much "quality time" with those unfettered colleens as well. A side effect, less unprotected "dating" and less chavs later on.

Whether they like it or not, and regardless of whether they are capable of it, parents are responsible for their kids up to 16. Not Ofcom, not the the schools, not the government. The parents. Period.

For those who are interested in what their kids are doing behind their backs, just learn how to use VNC, see: http://www.tightvnc.com/ At least you can then base any disciplinary actions on facts.

Ofcom. Brewery.