IWF News:  
Sat, 4th July, 2009
 
Homepage > Government > Parliamentary questions > 2006 questions > ISPs
 

Internet Service Providers

House of Commons Written Answers 25 October 2006
 
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what steps he has taken to inform the public which internet service providers block access to sites containing child pornography.
 
Mr. Coaker: We have not made public which internet service providers (ISPs) block access to sites containing child abuse images. However, transparency and confidence are vital components of effective self-regulation. The majority of ISPs are prepared individually to say whether they are blocking or not. We are working with them to put in place arrangements to publish and maintain the full list of ISPs blocking these websites.
 
Helen Goodman: To ask the Secretary of State for the Home Department what estimate he has made of the costs to internet service providers of blocking access to child pornography sites; and what discussions he has had with colleagues at the Department of Trade and Industry on this matter.
 
Mr. Coaker: This is new technology and different internet service providers (ISPs) are developing different solutions that are effective on their specific infrastructures. We recognise there are genuine cost issues for ISPs, particularly smaller ones, not just in developing the solution, but in administering it and in subscribing to the Internet Watch Foundation list, but take the view that the costs are proportionate to the benefits.
 
My predecessor, the hon. Member for Wythenshawe and Sale, East (Paul Goggins) along with the then Department of Trade and Industry Minister the right hon. Member for Cardiff, South and Penarth (Alun Michael) held meetings with ISPs on 22 and 28 March 2006.
 
Source: Hansard 25.10.06
 
*The IWF uses the term child sexual abuse content to accurately reflect the gravity of the images we deal with. Please note that "child pornography", "child porn" and "kiddie porn" are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually exploited and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images. If you see such content online please report them to the IWF.

Page Created: Mon, October 30th, 2006
Page Modified: Thu, June 18th, 2009

Back to Top