thanks for your seasonal greetings, please accept mine in return to you both.

Your comment shows an admirable capacity for giving support to a person (Andy Burnham) who seems to be out of his depth in uncertain waters.

I am far from convinced that he was simply building a straw man, by setting out an impractical policy; having read the original interview and watched his subsequent television appearances, I am left with a distinct impression of a naïve policy statement evincing a poor capacity for joined-up thinking.

As regards my Nanny State/ Ninny State question, my blog article clearly explains my position: the Government should help parents to accept responsibility and we deserve better thinking from our elected representatives.

Political credibility is diminished every time such a poorly considered policy is advanced.

I don’t think it’s at all stupid of Andy Burnham, as a member of the UK Government with responsibility for media matters, to ignite debate on future improvements to internet content management to meet the needs of law abiding citizens.

Don’t you think though that what he is proposing is a deliberate ‘straw man’ to attract fire? Isn’t this is just the sort of thing that wise IT architects do to facilitate early dialogue with business stakeholders?

Clearly there’s no way that Andy Burnham’s talking point can itself be translated into anything workable, but without starting such ‘side-shows’ in the relatively early stages of global internet development, how will the general public start to become engaged with the many issues, both legal and technical, that really do need to be addressed to maximise the long term benefits of ever increasing internet accessibility and richness?

Most people need ‘a way into’ a subject. Andy Burnham’s recent utterances will give many people things that they can relate to…. what’s needed might be a bit like film classification…. something primarily based on self-regulation (like the press)…. something that’s easily understood by people of any age or culture….

Effective change managers need to understand not only where they are going but how to bring people with them, don’t they?

Why do you ask ‘Nanny State’ or ‘Ninny State’ when it’s to the benefit of the majority of people that the underlying challenges are more widely debated and better understood?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts on this.

Warm regards,

Tim

P.S. Both I and my wife Fiona (who formerly worked for you at BACS) wish you a very Happy Christmas and New Year.

thanks for the comment. I appreciate that opinion will be divided but I stand by my suggestion that Andy Burnham’s measures will not be effective and therefore serve merely as political posturing.

Technologists have already provided solutions (filtering and monitoring) that are widely under-utilised. Responsible publishers will also utilise such software to preserve their own integrity, as well as the sensitivity of their audience.

I therefore contend that there is already far more scope for effective solutions than will be afforded by website “rating.”

For example, most browsers have family filtering features that can be implemented immediately (or may even be the default), likewise the publishing software often has filtering functionality – this website uses various software devices to reduce the risk of illegal content being published.

To a politician, every issue is a policy opportunity. In this case I believe that the Government would be better advised to concentrate on the quicker wins available through advice and education. Far more effective than tinkering.

ColinB

I completely disagree with you. In fact I wrote to Andy Burnham this morning to congratulate him on his stand on this matter.

I am fed up with all the technology and other excuses for the failure to provide any reasonable publishing standards on the Internet. Newspapers, radio, TV, cinema, books – all other media – have to comply with legal standards in every country. These laws do not normally inhibit free speech but ensure unsavory material is not freely propagated unchecked. Software and supervision just do not work – that is why we have a problem in the first place.

No other media has such an onus of responsibility upon the reader/viewer to screen out what they don’t want to have to see before they have seen it.

Why is it that we believe the Internet provides people with a “right” to publish whatever they want no matter how untrue, offensive or unsavory it is?

The Internet is now mainstream and it ought to comply with the norms of mainstream. That we have failed to come up with a technological solution is why a legal one is needed.

In terms of how it is implemented – we as technologist need to understand the social impact of technology and start coming up with solutions. I personally suspect we will need to adopt a “publisher” type model and this would change the way the Internet works. It would improve it.

Nick