Send Letter about Filtering to your ISP – Act Now!

May 4, 2011

If you agree that our Internet Service Providers (ISP’s) should provide filtering of pornography themselves as a tool to us to help us restrict access of this material by children within our own homes then let them know.  Nothing works better or faster than consumer pressure, especially if that consumer shows a willingness to move ISP should another introduce the filter first. Beneath the letter are the contact details for the various major ISPs.

Ed Vaizey, the minister for culture will be meeting with the ISPs again on the 18th May, and it would be great for these letters to arrive before that meeting. More about this can be found on Safermedia.

There are three simple things that you can do to help with this now:

  • Amend and print out the letter shown below and send it to your ISP (list if ISP addresses given beneath the letter). Email is good, but a sending a hard copy is better.
  • Send the same letter to your MP asking for their support as well.
  • Spread the word – Like the Facebook post about this, tell your friends, give copies of the letter to them etc.

The Letter:

Dear
URGENT NEED FOR AN ‘OPT IN’ ISP-LEVEL PORNOGRAPHY FILTER
As one of your customers, I would like to draw your attention to this absolutely vital issue. I am glad that you and many other ISPs will be attending a meeting with the Culture Minister, Ed Vaizey MP, in the House of Commons on 18 May regarding the introduction of ISP-level filters to block internet pornography. I believe this would be the best way for the industry to support parents and help us all ensure that children cannot access pornography. This is particularly urgent in view of the fact that technological convergence means it is now possible for internet pornography to be easily viewed on television.
I understand that research clearly indicates that viewing pornography leads to an acceptance of violent and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships, where the objectification of women and aggressive sexual behaviour are the norm.
This is why I strongly support the initiative, suggested by Claire Perry MP, to switch the default setting for internet pornography into our homes to ‘off’, so that it is an ‘opt-IN’ system. Please note:
This is not censorship, as an age verification system would allow over 18s to still be able to opt IN and have their supply of pornography restored on request. 
  • Only an opt-IN system (and not opt-OUT) will provide the safest level of protection that is so urgently needed (Opt-OUT would still put the onus on fallible users to take action to have the porn blocked).
  • This would be family-friendly and likely to attract more customers.
I urge you to support this ‘opt-in’ filter as robustly as possible at the meeting on 18 May, and also apply it to all your services and for all your customers without delay. It is so important to protect our children and young people that if this does not happen, I will change my broadband to an ISP that does implement an opt-in filter. Please let me know what you plan to do.
Yours sincerely,

Signature and Name:
My address:

The ISP Addresses

ISP anti-Pornography Fitlers: Easy to Break Them?

March 28, 2011

This is the second in a series of article looking at some of the common technical objections raised whenever people suggest the introduction of anti-pornography filters by all UK-based ISP’s which could then be switched off by the user if desired. The first article looked at the (lack of) impact on internet speeds by these proposed filters. Thanks are once again given to Leigh Porter, a Systems Architect who has worked at UK Broadband for several years who has kindly provided clarification and correction where it was needed.

ISP Level Filters can be Circumnavigated: The argument here is that any ISP level filter will be easily circumnavigated by various methods. These include (1) changing the port used by the computer, (2) using a proxy server, (3) use of SSH Tunnelling and VPN Tunnelling. While changing the port turns out to be irrelevant, the others are also weaknesses used to work around PC based filters as well. We will address these in turn.

1) Computer PortsChanging the port will not affect ISP level filters because the Deep Packet Inspection filters routinely used by ISPs analyze all web traffic regardless of the port being used.

In computer networking / web access, the Port is a bit of software that acts as a gate through which data is sent. For the internet they are used by various ‘Transport Layer’ protocols like TCIP (Transmission Control Protocol) and UDP (User Datagram Protocol) as outlined in this wkipedia article.

Ports are assigned a number, with some port numbers reserved by convention for particular services. Traditionally, Port 80 was reserved for use by the Hypertext Transfer Protocol (HTTP) used on the web. This is the meaning of ‘http’ seen at the beginning of all web page addresses or URLs.

The argument is that an ISP level filter can simply be bypassed by forcing the computer to use a different port to connect to the web, either by changing various settings on the computer or simply inserting the required port number after the website URL (e.g. sending the request to http://www.mysite.co.uk:4000 would force the use of port 4000 instead of port 80).

Port Changing no Longer Relevant: While that argument was true in the past, the universal use of DPI filters that analyze all traffic regardless of port means this argument is no longer relevant.

2) Proxy Server – The problems of proxy servers applies to the ISP-level anti-pornography filter as well as the PC based parental control. A proxy server acts as an intermediary, or middleman, for requests from, in this case, the home computer to their ISP. The argument is that it is easy to by-pass ISP-level filters by using a proxy.

Proxy servers are actually used by some PC based pornography filters. Here, the users traffic is passed first to the proxy server used by the PC filter company. This checks the request against a blacklist and then allows the data through if cleared. Incoming data is also cleared in a similar way, going through the company’s proxy. OpenDNS is a proxy server system with adjustable filtering built in. The user points traffic to the OpenDNS (proxy) servers that contain adjustable filtering systems.

Proxies are very useful for those in countries that try to restrict web access. An increasingly popular proxy is run by the non-profit Tor Project which passes the encrypted data through 3 different servers before sending it onto the final destination, providing greater anonymity. However, it is easy to see how, just as proxies play useful roles, they can also be used to by-pass filtering systems. Proxies are one way to work around firewalls, filters and parental controls. This is true of both PC base and proposed ISP-level anti-pornography filters.

Some people also use SSL proxy servers, though while encrypting data these tends to be significantly slower. Even then it would be possible to work out the IP addresses of filtered sites and then inspect the SSL encrypted traffic to those sites. Leigh Porter states the ISP would ‘act as a middleman for those sites when they are encrypted thereby decrypting the traffic’. He acknowledges that this would probably not be popular, would be more processor intensive and might slow things down a little, but it is possible to do and implement in a voluntary ISP-level filter system. This extra level of protection is not possible on PC based filters.

Combating the use of Proxies: For both PC based and ISP level filters there are two things that parents can do to reduce the risk of proxy server use. They can (a) set the administration settings to ensure that they are the only ones able to change the various settings required for a computer to use proxy settings (see this Blocking Proxy Servers tutorial) and (b) obtain a blacklist of proxy server URLs (also available from ShallaList) and ensure that access to these domains is blocked within the browsers.

Parents should note that it will also be necessary to prevent users from being able to install another browser which does not contain the list. It is possible to block domains globally for all browsers on Windows OS machines via the HOSTS file within Windows, also described here.

3) SSH Tunnelling and VPN Tunnelling: The more determined user may resort to SSH (Secure Shell) Tunnelling and VPN (Virtual Private Network) Tunnelling to circumvent filters. As explained in this Suite 101 article, this works by ‘one computer initiating an encrypted SSH connection to another. The remote computer has a proxy server installed. All web browser traffic is then configured to go through the encrypted SSH tunnel, thus bypassing all Internet filters.’

As the article suggests, the best way to prevent this is to ensure that all outbound traffic to the Internet other than HTTP (port 80) and HTTPS (port 443) on the computers through the admin settings within the Operating System. You then need to ensure that the other users are not able to change these settings. It is noted that blocking VPN and SSH may cause problems with legitimate services that use these connections. However, SSH servers are not common and most VPN services require credit card payments.

Conclusion: Changing the port will not affect ISP-level filters. Using proxy servers, SSH or VPN Tunnelling are issues that apply to both ISP-level and PC based filters. All require changes to the OS or Browser settings, which can be restricted through admin control levels.

Why ISP-level Anti-Porn Filters will not Slow Down the Web

February 24, 2011

Quite often the same arguments are used by opponents of the introduction of voluntary IP-level filters that would prevent most pornography from coming into the home. These can be divided into technological and ideological arguments. This is the first in a series of articles which will address the concerns, starting with some of the technological points often raised. They are written in consultation with Leigh Porter, a Systems Architect who has worked at UK Broadband for several years who has kindly provided clarification and correction where it was needed.

Network Level Filters will Slow Down the Internet: It is argued by some that ISP-level anti-porn filters would slow down the speed of the web. This may have been true a few years ago, but is not true today as (1) infrastructure and analysis algorithms have improved and (2) only a limited amount of data needs to be filtered.

ISPs routinely use Deep Packet Inspection of all web traffic and data transfer, passing the data through DPI filters. DPI is used, in the US, to comply with Calea requirements. It is also used globally, among other things, to help with network security, enforce service level agreements and preferentially allow normal web traffic through while restricting the bandwidth used by Peer to Peer (P2P) services such as BitTorrent.

Modern DPI filters handle up to 30Gb per second (Gbps)of traffic. A few years ago DPI filters could only cope with up to 10Gbps speeds and DPI filtering could have some impact on network speeds. However, with the introduction of faster filters and better filtering algorithms this is no longer the case. As stated by TechRepublic:

“What makes DPI all the more impressive is that the packet analysis happens in real time, with data stream throughput approaching 20-30 Gb. … With no loss of throughput, ISPs … insert these devices directly in their data streams, forcing all traffic to pass through the devices. Procera, Narus, and Ellacoya are front-runners in development of this technology, having placed equipment throughout the world”

Google already provides SeafeSearch options for Google Search, providing filtering services for all traffic that proceeds through its servers while performing search. Other search engines also provide similar services and there are no reports of such activities slowing down user experience.

In addition, not web traffic will need to be filtered. Pornographic websites must be hosted on a server. All servers have IP addresses, and the filtering would only need to be applied to traffic directed to those servers. Thus, while servers can hold hundreds of websites each, only a relatively small number of servers would need to be monitored.

Added to this is the fact that filtering will only be required for clients who have chosen to have the ISP-level filter turned on. One last point is that the PC level filter, by the very way it works, directing traffic to a proxy that checks a list and then releases the request, is likely to be slower than the ISP-level filter.

Conclusion: It can be confidently stated that ISP-Level filters will not slow down web traffic.

© Peter Watts 2011

Disturb us Lord – Prayer by Sir Francis Drake

February 9, 2011

Disturb us, Lord, when we are too well pleased with ourselves,
When our dreams have come true
Because we have dreamed too little,
When we arrived safely
Because we sailed too close to the shore.

Disturb us, Lord, when
With the abundance of things we possess
We have lost our thirst
For the waters of life;
Having fallen in love with life,
We have ceased to dream of eternity
And in our efforts to build a new earth,
We have allowed our vision
Of the new Heaven to dim.

Disturb us, Lord, to dare more boldly,
To venture on wider seas
Where storms will show your mastery;
Where losing sight of land,
We shall find the stars.
We ask You to push back
The horizons of our hopes;
And to push into the future
In strength, courage, hope, and love.

Most People in Favour of ISP Anti-Pornography Filters says Poll

February 8, 2011

A recent poll showed that 69% of respondents who expressed an opinion would choose to use a voluntary filter to block pornographic content were such a filter available from their internet service provider.

Carried out by YouGov Plc and funded by TalkTalk on behalf of Safermedia, Claire Perry MP and others, the poll clearly shows that there is a demand for such filters to be made available. The figures are weighted and are representative of all GB adults aged 18.

83% of the people said they thought that seeing pornographic content on the internet was either very, or fairly, damaging to children. 73% thought that the easy availability of extreme pornography on the internet is damaging to society. This indicates that concern about the issue spreads far beyond the concern for children alone.

Probably not surprisingly, women are more likely to use an ISP-level filter than men (77% versus 37%). However, the number of men in favour increases dramatically with age, being lowest in the 18-24 year old group.

This means that nearly 80% of all households in the UK contain at least one member who would be in favour of using ISP-level filters.

Overall, the survey showed that there is concern about the accessibility of pornography on the internet and the impact it has on society. The uptake of ISP-level filters, were they available, would also be quite high.

The benefits to households of these filters are numerous. They would protect the entire household in one go, avoiding the need to manage each individual computer. They would also provide protection for other web-enabled devices (such as TVs and games consoles) which can not currently be monitored by other filters currently available. These filters would also reduce the number of malware attacks from pornographic websites, and increase online security.

The question, then, is whether the ISP industry will respond favourably to these findings or continue to bury it’s collective head in the sand. At least one ISP, TalkTalk, seems to be taking this seriously. They would currently appear to be the most Family Friendly and Family Safe major ISP on the market today.

Follow the developments on FaceBook: Family Safe ISP

All figures, unless otherwise stated, are from YouGov Plc.  Total sample size was 2,051 adults. Fieldwork was undertaken between 2nd – 3rd February 2011.  The survey was carried out online. The figures have been weighted and are representative of all GB adults (aged 18+).

Article © Peter Watts 2011

How You Can Support the ISP-Level Anti-Porn Filter Campaign

January 27, 2011

On the 7 February 2011, Ed Vaizey MP, the Minister for Culture will be meeting the major British Internet Service Providers (ISPs) to discuss the potential of voluntary, ‘opt-in’ filters that would remove pornography from users’ content at the ISP level. There has been growing demand for this service which would provide parents with a powerful, probably most effective, means of monitoring and controlling what comes into the home. It is proposed that the ISP level filters would:

  • Be Voluntary so that people can turn it on or off at will.
  • Be Comprehensive while it is recognized that no system will ever be 100% effective.
  • Be Dynamic learning and catching more adult content to over time.
  • Be Flexible allowing account holders to turn off and on, even set ‘watershed times’ if required and potentially have specific URL and domain management.
  • Protect Better than current PC filters, which are easily worked around, both from exposure to pornography and the malware that often comes from these sites.
  • Cover New Devices such as web-enabled TVs, blu-ray players, games consoles etc which can not currently be protected in another way.

Support for this Urgently Needed NOW – If you would like to see these voluntary filters become a reality, then you can help by doing the following things:

  1. Send an Email to Ed Vaizey either copy the Ed Vaizey ISP Filter Email text below and emailing it vaizeye@parliament.uk or click on this Send Email to Ed Vaizey link which will open the email in Outlook with all the info put in there, you just need to add your name etc to the bottom)
  2. Send an Email to Your MP by simply copying the MP ISP Filter Email text below and emailing to your MP, which you can find on http://findyourmp.parliament.uk/
  3. Contact your Councilor using a variation of the MP ISP Filer Email, pointing out the benefit to protecting schools, libraries, youth centre etc.
  4. Support Family Safe ISP on FaceBook by visiting the Family Safe ISP FaceBook page, ‘Like’ it and then share with friends.
  5. Contact Your ISP and ask them to introduce ISP-level filtering. Suggest you may move to another provider that does so.
  6. Donate to Safermedia, who are spearheading a campaign for this (you can contact them on office@safermedia.org) or through the Safermedia Facebook page.
  7. Spread the Message, link to this blog, tweet this blog, tell you friends, write to your local paper, inform your church/mosque etc, spread the word.

Ed Vaizey ISP Filter Email Copy and amend as required:

Dear Mr Vaizey,

Thank you for your efforts in arranging a meeting with internet service providers to discuss how the industry can better support parents and help them ensure that their children cannot access pornography.

Research clearly indicates that viewing pornography leads to an acceptance of violent and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships, where the objectification of women and aggressive sexual behaviour are the norm.

That is why I strongly support your initiative, suggested by Claire Perry MP, to switch the default setting for internet pornography into our homes  to ‘off’, and implement an ‘opt-in’ system.  I urge you to promote it as robustly as possible at your forthcoming roundtable with the ISPs in February.

Yours sincerely,

Name:

Address:

Organisation (if appropriate):

 

MP ISP Filter Email Copy and amend as required:

Dear [INSERT MP NAME],

As you may be aware, on the 7 February 2011, Ed Vaizey, the Minister for Culture is meeting with internet service providers to discuss how the industry can better support parents and help them ensure that their children cannot access pornography.

Research clearly indicates that viewing pornography leads to an acceptance of violent and unhealthy notions of sex and relationships, where the objectification of women and aggressive sexual behaviour are the norm.

I urge you to lend your support to this initiative, suggested by Claire Perry MP, to switch the default setting for internet pornography into our homes  to ‘off’, and implement an ‘opt-in’ system.  I urge you to promote it as robustly as possible within parliament and support any legislation as may be required to provide us with this most useful tool to protect our homes and children should the ISPs be unwilling to implement such filters otherwise.

Yours sincerely,

Name:

Address:

Organisation (if appropriate):

 

Support for those Struggling – Anyone who struggles with pornography may be able to find help through the following sources:

  1. Send an email to Ed Vaizey by simply copying the Ed Vaizey ISP Filter Email text below and emailing it to vaizeye@parliament.uk

ISP Level anti-porn Filters – The Arguments

January 21, 2011

In the past few months the debate around filtering of porn and adult material on the internet has once again raised it’s head in the UK. Quite often the same, standard arguments are put forward by those that oppose the idea. These arguments are increasingly being found wanting, and there is a growing demand for a Family Safe ISP service, asking that all internent service providers give the voluntary ability for account holders to choose to have pornography filtered before it even gets into the home.

In December 2010, Claire Perry MP led a debate in parliament on the issue (which can be viewed here). This was picked up by the press, with the Sunday Times carrying a front page article in the paper and a large article in their Sunday Times Magazine. Ed Vaizey, the Minister for Culture, is expected be holding a round-table meeting with the major UK internet service providers early in 2011.

So, why are people asking for this? The internet has changed dramatically since it was first founded. Not only that, there are now a plethora of web-enabled devices floating around the home. Gone are the days when a single, expensive PC took central place in the home connected to slow dialup.

Today, scattered around the home, are various computers and laptops as well as web-enabled phones, games consoles, blu-ray players etc. In addition there is a growing body of evidence, that children are becoming exposed to porn at an increasingly younger age (often as young as 11) and that this exposure can have a detrimental effect on their health, as described  in the UK Governments’ Sexualisation of Young People report in 2010.

It has also been noted that many porn sites are run by criminal organisations and that porn sites are often linked to cyber attacks. An ISP level filter could therefore also help increase computer security and reduce malicious computer attacks.

So with this in mind, more people are asking for the ability to block porn before it even gets into the home. And here are the arguments around the issue:

Censorship

  • Against: An ISP level filter amounts to censorship of web content, a denial of freedom of expression and is the first part of the UK governments attempt to gain control of the web. Any censorship of the web of any kind should always be resisted.
  • For: The ISP level filter would be voluntary. Each customer would be able to choose to have it switched on or off at will. Therefore this is not censorship, but self regulated control. It is not restricting access to porn of freedom of expression to those who still want it. As a voluntary option, it is not controlled by the government.

On a separate note on censorship, the ISPs are required, by law, to filter out child pornography where possible. This is blanket censorship of such material, but few people are likely to object.

Impractical

  • Against: The technology does not exist and it is not possible to do.
  • For: Many mobile phone companies already have such filters on web enabled phones (see article). If it is possible for mobile phones then surely it should be possible for ISPs. In addition, other industries have managed this to some degree. Examples include Google with their SafeSearch options, filtering every single search. Various companies offer PC based filters. Surely these technologies can be adapted to use at the ISP level. TalkTalk are interested in the idea, so they obviously think it is possible.

It Can Not be Perfect

  • Against: An ISP level filter can never be designed to catch everything, and therefore should not be done. Hundreds of new porn sites appear daily, and no filter can keep up.
  • For: Perfection is not being demanded, but an ISP level filter can catch most of the sites. Also, a way of reporting new sites can be built in allowing the public to continue to add to the database.

It is the Parents Responsibility

  • Against: It is up to the parents to control and monitor what their children see on their computers. The ISPs are only the gate through which material flows, and should not take on the job of gate-keeper.
  • For: Having the ability to control at one point all the porn that comes into a home is the best tool a parent could have to execute that responsibility. There are now too many devices in the home to manage individually, and the optional ISP level filter would be a powerful tool to help do the job.

PC Filters are Already Available

  • Against: There are already tools available that do this so there is no need for ISP level filters.
  • For: PC level filters are often easily worked around. The time taken to manage each computer in the home is becoming increasingly burdensome. The filters can not keep up with new web-enabled devices. The ISP level filter would be a better and more useful tool.

ISPs also quote issues of cost. However, they could adopt a business model similar to the Cable / Satellite TV companies, who charge clients for access to adult content.

Another point worth bearing in mind, the cost of applying the filters now would have to be much less than that of fighting off court cases later where adults then try to sue the ISPs for exposure to porn as a child, which the ISP could have prevented but chose not to, that the adult claim has had an adverse impact on their health and life. This may seem far fetched, but, as with cigarettes, a class action in the future is, I suspect, more than just a mere possibility.

The last argument recently voiced is that men would be against this as the ISP level filter would block their own access to porn in the home. I doubt, however, that most men oppose it when their wives and partners say ‘Honey, I want us to activate this ISP anti-porn filter to protect our children.’

Obviously, the application of ISP level filters has application outside the home, and could also be a useful tool in public spaces, like libraries and schools, that also have to fight porn off the computers.

For more links to various articles, see the Family Safe ISP page on FaceBook.

(Article by Peter Watts)

ISP Level Filters – Give Parents the Tools

January 19, 2011

In England there is a growing demand for filters to be provided by internet service providers (ISPs) to allow customers to block porn and adult websites before they even get into the home (the Family Safe ISP). While one ISP (TalkTalk) has responded with some favour to the idea, the other major ISPs currently seemed to be opposed on the grounds that it is up to the parents to control and monitor what their children are seeing.

We agree. It is. However, given that:

  1. Monitoring and filtering each web-enabled device individually in the home is very time consuming;
  2. Computer based filters are often worked around by tech savy children;
  3. Parents just do not have the time to and resources to keep an eye on the multiple PCs, web enabled phones, game consoles etc that exist within a household;
  4. Commercial filters are not currently available or can keep up with the multiplication of web enabled devices;

It is becoming increasingly obvious that a one-stop ISP level filter would probably be the best tool for the job.

So, the ISP’s say it is the parents responsibility to take parental control.

We Agree! So when will the ISPs give us voluntary ISP level filters so we have the best tools to fulfil our responsibility?

We are asking the ISPs to help us, yet they seem to refuse to do so. Maybe it needs legislation, maybe it needs just one to be ‘brave’ and then have a marketing edge on being the Family Friendly ISP for a short time.

Or maybe the ISPs need to consider 10 years down the line. It would not be too surprising to then see someone sue the ISPs for the damage they suffered through inadvertent exposure to porn as a child which the ISPs were able to help filter out, but choose not to do so…. Maybe some shareholders might have a view on whether spending money now on ISP filter is better than possibly spending a lot more later on court cases.

Follow the debate:Family Safe ISP Facebook Page

ISP Level Porn Filters – The Best Protection

December 20, 2010

Recent articles in both the Daily Mail and Sunday Times in the UK have taken another look at the impact of pornography on children and it’s prevalence in society today. There is now clear evidence that exposure to porn changes the way we view each other, what we expect out of relationship and how we approach sex. On the whole, much of the evidence suggests that the results are mostly detrimental.

However, to date we have been put in the position of having to fight this material out of our homes. The responsibility been on monitoring computer use in the home, applying filters etc on computers and keeping an eye on what is being looked at.

But why should this burden be pushed upon us? Is it possible to ask for control over what the internet service provider (ISP) pumps into our homes in the first place? We all know that access to porn is but a few clicks away, and filters can all be worked around.

So, what can we do? Industry and parliament will only sit up and take notice if we keep demanding it. Let us not wait until a tragic, and horrific death, caused by a child who has watched porn, shocks and shames us to take action. Let us do so now. You can:

  • Contact and register with SaferMedia and join their campaign, and follow them on their blog.
  • Write to your MP.
  • Follow Family Safe ISP on Facebook and share with your friends.
  • Tweet this blog, share it on Facebook or link to it.
  • Write a letter to your paper. Recent articles have appeared in both the Daily Mail and Sunday Times newspapers.

The usual objections raised include restriction of freedom of expression, cost and technological capability. Well, lets have a look at these:

Freedom of Expression – I suggest that ISP level filters are applied as ‘on’ as standard, and that the account holder is able to request the filter to be turned off if they wish. This then does not infringe on freedom of expression at all, and should therefore not be objected to by the industry or civil groups. Indeed, they should support it as a more effective way of protecting children. The ISP level filter could even include the ability to manage specific websites / URLs, much as PC based filters currently do, and could even have a watershed time option built in.

Technological – BT and other UK based ISP are already required to filter out child pornography websites. BT does this using it’s CleanFeed filter. Therefore, it is possible to apply ISP level filters. The technology already exists. It just needs extending and adding a little flexibility to give the account holder control over the content allowed through. PC based filters like SafeEyes already give URL specific filtering options, so to suggest this can not be done is illogical.

Cost – This, then, is the last complaint. Well, it would be easy to apply an ‘on’ as standard and then charge the customer to be able to either manage the filter or have it removed. This is what what happens to sex channels on TV, why not the internet too? It would cover the cost of the filter.

The reality is that ISP level filters are possible, already applied in the UK for some things. The costs can be recouped by charging for access to the mature content. It is the safest way of protecting children and allow control of what comes into our homes (bar not having internet at all).

Protect Yourself on Facebook

July 19, 2010
The new ClickCEOP App for Facebook helps protect children and young users from grooming or inappropriate sexual behaviour. The app was created in conjunction with the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (CEOP) and launched on Monday 12th July 2010. It allows young people will be able to report instances of suspected grooming or inappropriate sexual behaviour directly from their profile to specially trained investigators.

Add the app to your Facebook profile  from http://apps.facebook.com/clickceop. You can also badge your page and share with your friends.

As well as providing regular updates about safety,  CEOP’s new Facebook page (www.facebook.com/ClickCEOP) will also contain polls, news alerts and status updates. The page will look at topics that teenagers care about, such as celebrities, music and exams and will link these subjects to questions about online safety.


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 435 other followers