| |
ISPs and industry: roles and responsibilities
In the debate on the internet
game "Muslim Massacre" we find the
statement from the Ramadhan Foundation that describes
the game as "unacceptable, tasteless and deeply offensive".
The group goes on to argue: "This game is glorifying the killing of
Muslims in the Middle East and we urge ISP providers to take action to
remove this site from their services as it incites violence towards
Muslims and is trying to justify the killing of innocent Muslims." |
Commentators will often include the point that there is little that ISPs can do. The responsibility for controlling what is available or not on the internet is not the service providers' who only provide access to the web.
The debate is open
In the United Kingdom, the setting up recently of the UK Council for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) has brought together actors from different stakeholder groups including both Insafe network members and representatives from the ISP industry. ISPA Council member, Camille de Stempel, Director of Policy for AOL Europe, has been appointed to the Executive Board of the UKCCIS, for example.
So, what are the responsibilities of ISPs?
ISP Virginmedia comments: "Along with new ways of communicating come concerns around things such as privacy, intellectual property and the safety of web users, especially children. These issues go beyond simply managing our direct responsibilities to our customers; they relate to the much broader question of what being a responsible Internet Service Provider (ISP) involves."
There is hope, then, that new answers will be found. The Ofcom response to the House of Lords, however, included the statement:
"Ofcom believes that the ISP contribution to security could have a greater impact than at present. For example, security could be a more important feature of the service provided, and there could be greater transparency about the security support which consumers can expect, and which ISPs should provide. Ofcom has engaged with the Internet Service Providers’ Association (ISPA), the ISP trade body, with a view to exploring what more the industry could do to address subscribers’ security needs."
The Children’s Charities’ Coalition on Internet Safety (CHIS) asks in particular: "What role should ISPs have in these matters? They are, after all, the companies that actually provide the internet connectivity."
The CHIS links responsibility for safety to the hardware and connectivity service suppliers:
"The old idea of an ISP was of a company that only or principally provided connections to the internet. There are fewer and fewer such companies. These days, particularly within the domestic market, internet connectivity often comes bundled with a piece of hardware so, for very many people, buying the hardware and obtaining access to the internet are really all part of the same process or transaction. With mobile phone and TV companies increasingly moving into the same space that ISPs used to occupy, this multi media convergence is becoming a daily, and often bewildering, reality for millions of people in all kinds of households."
The CHIS propose, in particular that:
"To the extent that a company is involved in providing internet access to the domestic market, either as a stand alone product or as part of a larger offering, the internet component should always be provided, by default, with safety software pre-installed and set to the highest appropriate level of safety."
This responsibility, however, is shared, as the coalition points out:
"The risk with turning on safety settings by default is that, in a sense and among other things, it may give parents a false sense of reassurance. It might mean many parents never trouble to find out anything at all about internet safety, so if something unexpected happens later they will flounder. Parents might start to believe that the machine or service is guaranteed to be 100% safe all of the time so they just dismiss the issue from their minds believing they never have to think or worry about it again. All of these things are bad and undesirable, but the opposites are worse."
"It is also very important that pre-installing safety software is not seen as being an alternative to reaching out to parents and educating them about risks. Preinstalling safety software is something that needs to be done in addition. Pre-installing safety software is also not an alternative to continuing to reach out to and educate children and young people themselves about the hazards of the internet and about the importance of behaving appropriately when online."
The internet safety actors, then, must continue to push in many different directions. Our role is to increase awareness and we must work with industry in what we see as a shared responsibility to protect and educate.This is why as a network we are including representatives of industry in many of our campaigns.
| Author: |
Chris Jenkins, Insafe |
| Published: |
Wednesday, 19 Nov 2008 |
| Last changed: |
Tuesday, 2 Dec 2008 |
|
|
