What does David Cameron's Great Firewall look like?

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2014/jan/08/david-cameron-great-firewall

Version 0 of 1.

Getting to say "I told you so" isn't actually as nice as you might expect. Back in November 2012, I predicted that the mandatory, opt-out porn-filters under discussion in the Lords would both underblock (letting things through that you wouldn't want your kids to see) and overblock (misclassifying non-pornographic sites as pornographic and blocking them). I thought it was a good argument, but the PM apparently doesn't read the Guardian (or doesn't care about reason when there are political points to be scored). Last summer, David Cameron and the DCMS mandated that ISPs would have to switch on their customers' content filters (to block everything from "extremism" to "esoteric content") by default, and only deactivate them if the customer rang up and demanded it.

Now the filters have been switched on and we see what the Great Firewall of Cameron looks like. TalkTalk, which started running its filter in May (voluntarily, without a goose from the PM) blocks rape-crisis centres; award-winning, kid-focused sex-ed sites; and sites for helping people with their pornography addictions (a own-goal noteworthy even in the ludicrous world of censorware cockups).

Predictably, the ISPs' spokespeople have said that it's all a matter of honest mistakes that will be addressed in due time.

No algorithm

But as I wrote around this time last year, there's no way to accurately classify the internet. There aren't enough prudes to sort the good from the bad. There is no algorithm that can accomplish this. Hell, there's not even a clear definition of what "adult content" is – let alone "extremism" or "esoteric content".

In the censorware world, lists of censored websites are closely guarded trade-secrets. This means that overblocking can only be addressed in the rare circumstance that a child encounters it, complains to her parents, who then get in touch with the ISP, which then convinces its supplier to unblock the site. It's possible that the people who operate inappropriately blocked sites could come forward to ask for redress, but unless those people are in the UK and using one of the censored ISPs, they may never even discover that their sites on the blacklist. After all, their would-be visitors can't even access their "contact us" page to warn them about the state of affairs.

Overblocking and underblocking are the normal state of affairs in the censorware world. Tomorrow's web will have more sites to overblock and more sites to underblock than today's. An error rate of even 1% in a world with hundreds of millions of legitimate websites means millions of misclassifications – always.

David Cameron's attempt to create a Made-in-Britain version of Iran's "Halal Internet" is the worst of both worlds for parents like me. Kids are prevented from seeing things that they need to access – sites about sexual health, for example – and I still have to monitor my daughter all the time when she uses the net (or teach her how to cope with seeing things no kid should see) because the filter won't stop her from accessing the bad stuff.

Bubble of false security

And for parents who don't understand that filters are bunkum, the situation is much worse. It's one thing to know that there are risks to your kid from the internet. But parents who rely on the filter are living in bubble of false security. There's nothing more deadly than a false sense of security: If you know your car is having brake problems, you can compensate by driving with extra care, increasing your following distance, and so on. If you falsely believe your brakes to be in good running order, you're liable to find out the hard way that they aren't (if you survive, you can thank Bruce Schneier for that apt and useful analogy).

For me, parenting in the internet age means sitting with my child while she's online and still small enough that I can perfectly regulate her network usage – not just to ensure that she doesn't happen on to the bad stuff, but also to instill in her the responsibility, sense and good habits that will help her to steer clear of the bad stuff when she gets a little older and I can no longer monitor all her online activity. It's hard. Parenting is hard. It's scary.

False hope for frightened parents

It's not evil to want to help parents with this hard job. But it's unforgivable to pander to their fears, offer false hope, and impose a regime of unaccountable censorship upon the nation's internet in order to score votes from frightened parents.

When David Cameron told the nation's ISPs to turn on the censorware, he had the DCMS order them to "continue to refine and improve their filters to ensure they do not – even unintentionally – filter out legitimate content." This is a nonsense. If DCMS wanted to attain this goal even partway, it would mandate that the publication of the list of blocked sites, open to scrutiny and debate (just as film- and game-ratings are), and publication of the criteria by which the list was formed.

That probably still wouldn't work very well, but it would at least show willing to prevent overblocking. To do any less is to tacitly admit that the whole thing is a publicity stunt from a government that is totally depraved in its indifference to the consequences of unaccountable censorship.

Our editors' picks for the day's top news and commentary delivered to your inbox each morning.