This amendment is quite logical, if the provisions are going to work. It is obvious that, if people can switch off filters, the whole thing is bypassed. I want to speak on the next amendment, about age checking, but this is a logical amendment to have if you want to get this Bill to work. As I said at Second Reading, filters are not quite good enough, because you can block only at the point when you access the page. Filters are quite crude—that is the problem; they tend to block entire websites, or they overblock and then people lift them. So there are a lot of problems around the amendment but it is hugely well intentioned, and I do not have a problem with people using filters. It is a good starter lock and will block a lot of simple things, but we need to go slightly further to block those who are technically savvy from getting round them—or those who persuade their parents that, because they could not get to a particular page on a website, they should override the filter for that website and unblock the whole thing. The convenience of the parent will probably win. How you get this to work is always the problem but that is not to say that we should not try.
Online Safety Bill [HL]
Proceeding contribution from
Earl of Erroll
(Crossbench)
in the House of Lords on Friday, 11 December 2015.
It occurred during Committee of the Whole House (HL)
and
Debate on bills on Online Safety Bill [HL].
About this proceeding contribution
Reference
767 c1794 Session
2015-16Chamber / Committee
House of Lords chamberSubjects
Librarians' tools
Timestamp
2015-12-16 11:47:55 +0000
URI
http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000036
In Indexing
http://indexing.parliament.uk/Content/Edit/1?uri=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000036
In Solr
https://search.parliament.uk/claw/solr/?id=http://hansard.intranet.data.parliament.uk/Lords/2015-12-11/15121154000036