House of Commons Culture, Media and Sport Committee Online safety Sixth Report of Session 2013–14 Volume II Additional written evidence Ordered by the House of Commons to be published [date] Published on [date] by authority of the House of Commons London: The Stationery Office Limited The Culture, Media and Sport Committee The Culture, Media and Sport Committee is appointed by the House of Commons to examine the expenditure, administration and policy of the Department for Culture, Media and Sport and its associated public bodies. Current membership Mr John Whittingdale MP (Conservative, Maldon) (Chair) Mr Ben Bradshaw MP (Labour, Exeter) Angie Bray MP (Conservative, Ealing Central and Acton) Conor Burns MP (Conservative, Bournemouth West) Tracey Crouch MP (Conservative, Chatham and Aylesford) Philip Davies MP (Conservative, Shipley) Paul Farrelly MP (Labour, Newcastle-under-Lyme) Mr John Leech MP (Liberal Democrat, Manchester, Withington) Steve Rotheram MP (Labour, Liverpool, Walton) Jim Sheridan MP (Labour, Paisley and Renfrewshire North) Mr Gerry Sutcliffe MP (Labour, Bradford South) The following members were also a member of the committee during the parliament: David Cairns MP (Labour, Inverclyde) Dr Thérèse Coffey MP (Conservative, Suffolk Coastal) Damian Collins MP (Conservative, Folkestone and Hythe) Alan Keen MP (Labour Co-operative, Feltham and Heston) Louise Mensch MP (Conservative, Corby) Mr Adrian Sanders MP (Liberal Democrat, Torbay) Mr Tom Watson MP (Labour, West Bromwich East) Powers The committee is one of the departmental select committees, the powers of which are set out in House of Commons Standing Orders, principally in SO No 152. These are available on the internet via www.parliament.uk. Publication The Reports and evidence of the Committee are published by The Stationery Office by Order of the House. All publications of the Committee (including press notices) are on the internet at www.parliament.uk/cmscom. A list of Reports of the Committee in the present Parliament is at the back of this volume. The Reports of the Committee, the formal minutes relating to that report, oral evidence taken and some of the written evidence are available in a printed volume. Additional written evidence is published on the internet only. Committee staff The current staff of the Committee are Elizabeth Flood (Clerk), Grahame Danby (Second Clerk), Kevin Candy (Inquiry Manager), Emily Gregory (Senior Committee Assistant), Keely Bishop (Committee Assistant) and Jessica Bridges-Palmer (Media Officer). Contacts All correspondence should be addressed to the Clerk of the Culture, Media and Sport Committee, House of Commons, 7 Millbank, London SW1P 3JA. The telephone number for general enquiries is 020 7219 6188; the Committee’s email address is [email protected] List of additional written evidence (published in Volume II on the Committee’s website www.parliament.uk/cmscom) Page 1 Dr Peter Dawe OBE Ev w1 2 Dr Claire Hardaker Ev w2 ; Ev w7 3 Remote Gambling Association Ev w7 4 Ann Farmer Ev w10 5 Kirsty Hopley Ev w10 6 Dr Peter Nelson Ev w11 7 British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) Ev w13 8 Arqiva Ev w18 9 James Griffiths Ev w22 10 Christopher G. H. Thomas Ev w22 11 John Edgar Cameron Lowe Ev w23 12 Norfolk Library and Information Service Ev w23 13 Phil Alexander Ev w25 14 Ben Hardwick Ev w25 15 John R Edwards Ev w26 16 Chris Evershed Ev w27 17 EE Limited Ev w28 18 BCS The Chartered Institute for IT Ev w32 19 Dudley Friend Clayson Ev w36 20 PAPYRUS Prevention of Young Suicide Ev w37 21 EU Kids Online Ev w38 22 Rolf Smith Ev w43 23 Mediawatch-UK Ev w45 24 South West Grid for Learning Ev w47 25 British Sky Broadcasting Limited (‘Sky’) Ev w51 26 Big Brother Watch Ev w53 27 BT Ev w56 28 Russell Hopwood Ev w59 29 Stuart Taylor Ev w60 30 Richard Browning Ev w61 31 Timothy Michael Johnston Ev w62 32 Lloyd Johnston Ev w62 33 John Carruth Ev w63 34 Rob Barry Ev w64 35 Barry Saltmarsh Ev w65 36 Safermedia Ev w66 37 John Reiner Ev w69 38 Family Online Safety Institute Ev w69 39 Terry James Ev w72 40 Film Distributors’ Association Ev w73 41 Information Commissioner’s Office Ev w74 42 Virgin Media Ev w77 43 The Police Federation of England and Wales Ev w84 44 End Violence Against Women Coalition Ev w85 45 Childnet International Ev w88 46 Ukie Ev w92 47 The Children’s Society Ev w96 48 Eric and Esme Bricknell Ev w97 49 Stonewall Ev w98 50 FPA and Brook Ev w100 51 Michael J Smaldon Ev w109 52 Prof Andy Phippen Ev w110 53 Ahmadiyya Muslim Community UK Ev w113 54 Sex Education Forum Ev w117 55 Net Children Go Mobile Ev w119 56 British Naturism Ev w120 57 Open Rights Group Ev w122 58 Russell Pillar Ev w126 59 CARE (Christian Action Research and Education) Ev w127 60 Malcolm Holmes Ev w130 61 Microsoft UK Ev w131 62 The Authority for Television on Demand Ev w132 63 Intellect Ev w139 64 Telefonica UK Ltd Ev w142 65 National Centre for Cyberstalking Research Ev w143 66 Ethos Capital Ltd Ev w145 cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [SO] Processed: [17-03-2014 16:07] Job: 035306 Unit: PG01 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Ev w1 Written evidence Written evidence submitted by Dr Peter Dawe OBE 1. The Flavoured Internet Foundation Internet damage limitation. Dr. P Dawe OBE, Founder Internet Watch Foundation, 2013. 2. Introduction Once again there is a public furore about Internet content. However, this time the debate is messy and ill- disciplined, as many voices are speaking about many issues: Child protection, legality of content, censorship, financial predation, bullying to name just a few. Policy makers are in an impossible position! Caught between protection and censorship with the added problems due to the global nature of the Internet. 3. This paper outlines a means of mitigating the problems based on the genesis of The Internet Watch Foundation by the person who lead the founding of IWF. 4. A Solution It is our view that the problem is not a legislative problem, but a market problem. Previously, there has been a diversity of media channels with each channel being moderated by an “editor”. The Internet needs to offer the public a choice of “flavours” of Internet, similar to how people choose their newspaper, TV channel or indeed their preferred supermarket. 5. Why is there Market Failure in Selective Internet? — Currently providing a moderated view (Fenced Garden) of the Internet isn’t economically viable. — The Internet is so large as to be difficult, nay impossible, to comprehensively categorise all content. — The choice of “flavour” is also difficult as each person has their own set of prejudices, in many dimensions. Eg Extent of naked flesh, Violence, Religion. — Service providers are, understandably, reluctant to be seen as the arbiters of taste and legality. — The threat of a defamation action when a content provider is censored on the basis of an algorithm, particularly if the censorship is due to “business morality”. — Computer applications to implement filtering have been proprietary and not comprehensive in their use of available tools. — Multiple legislative jurisdictions have to be considered. 6. Several attempts have been made to provide the public with filtered content, however typically these are from a singular view-point (eg Western liberal Christian tradition), which means the cost of creating the filter list has to be spread over a small user base. 7. Creating a Viable Marketplace — There is a need for an open architecture for classification. — The problem is too big for a individual players. — Web authors do not want to negotiate with individual classification services and editors. — New applications can be implemented using existing infra-structure. — Editors want to be able to choose their own filtering thresholds and classes. 8. Tactical Implementation Steps — Political encouragement to entrepreneurs to implement diverse Internet “flavoured” services. — Extension of the legal protection, enjoyed by newspaper editors against civil claims from content owners, to filtering services. — A legal requirement on Internet service providers to be network neutral in regard to providers of Flavoured Internet. — The implementation of a series of demonstration technologies and services. 9. Leadership not Committee The genesis of Internet Watch Foundation should be seen as a model for deployment. Internet Watch was founded, NOT BY CONSENSUS, but designed and implemented through the maverick leadership of Mr Peter Dawe. The players (Service providers, Government, Police, Politicians and the Press) are individually impotent. cobber Pack: U PL: CWE1 [E] Processed: [17-03-2014 16:07] Job: 035306 Unit: PG01 Ev w2 Culture, Media and Sport Committee: Evidence Each has conflicting objectives, all consider the other players as responsible, irresponsible, ignorant, idealistic, imposing impossible costs, ducking their responsibility etc. 10. However, with a more sophisticated set of players, it is less likely that a maverick leader will not be able to overcome the likely barriers alone. Political endorsement of this initiative, for a finite period (two years), would encourage many of the other players to also support the initiative. Thus allowing the model design to be finalised, proof of concept completed and for the model to be promoted to all players world-wide. 11. Note: Other initiatives, such as consensus building committees, can still be undertaken in parallel with this proposal. 12. Funding For an effective team to complete the design, prove concept and importantly to sell the model internationally, we estimate that a budget over the two years of £500,000 would suffice. A requirement of the design is that it is ultimately self-funding in operation. (Internet Watch cost under £50,000 to set up, and was completed in less than 12 months, a voluntary levy on the industry has funded it since.) 13.