18/12/2013 Newsnight


Featuring the National Security Agency review; accusations against Kenyan soldiers; internet pornography filters; Bitcoin; gay footballers; Ronnie Biggs.

Similar Content

Browse content similar to 18/12/2013. Check below for episodes and series from the same categories and more!



The men appointed to decide what America's electronic eavesdroppers


should be allowed to do says it is time to put them on a timer leash.


But they don't recommend stopping the enormous surveillance programme.


The national security agency and its allies, like GCHQ, have details of


billions of phone calls and messages. Now the White House has to


decide whether they should be allowed to keep them. We will speak


to the journalist who exposed NSA snooping.


Three months on from the attack on the Nairobi shopping mall and no-one


even seems to know what became of the attackers. The brutality of the


strike was shocking but now Newsnight has heard increasing


suggestions of British-trained police unit is carrying out summary


executions. The British Government is helping the ATPO in Kenya kill


Muslims by training them and providing them with logistical


support and giving them money. This man is only the second professional


footballer in this country to come out about his sexuality, is it


harder to be gay in the beautiful game. Computer says no. We see how


the filthers meant to keep our children safe from pornography are


also denying them access to sites which could help them. To find that


a major ISP is blocking a really popular sex-education website is


really, really frustrating. I feel like they should be helping rather


than hindering us in this way. The White House wasn't going to make the


recommendations public yet. But tonight it was forced as a result of


a leak, funnily enough, to make public what the panel appointed by


President Obama thinks should be done to restore faith in America's


electronic intelligence-gathering system. Once the sheer scale of


National Security Agency snooping had been exposed by newspapers like


the Guardian, the pressure of opinion forced the President to look


at issuing new rules. Apart from anything else, a couple of days ago


federal judge ruled that the surveillance vie lated the American


institution -- violated the American constitution. We have been reading


the report, it is quite a big deal this, isn't it? T a big deal in the


little sense. More than 300-pages I have had to plough through in the


last hour-and-a-half, it is 36 recommendation, a lot of it dealing


with the Americans. This is a touchy issue, the collection of this met at


that data in the case of phone call, the number called, the number that


made the call, how long it lasted, that kind of detail. The panel


recommend that is this trove of stored phone met at that data on US


citizen, one trillion records be junked. They also recommend


tightening the rules on the certain court granting surveillance in the


US. Introducing a public interest or civil liberties advocate into the


court process to make it a more rigorous and argumentative process,


so they don't sign off on so many parents. Also there is stuff


clipping the wings of the NSA, something recommending that. Perhaps


a civilian director, make sure the director is confirmed by the Senate,


that is not the case currently to extend control on the agency.


Finally some recommendation about spying on foreigner, things like the


Angela Merkel phone calls we were hearing about, saying is that


necessary, a question the President himself had asked him to consider.


These are, as you stress, just recommendations aren't they? The


President will have to decide whether he's going to act on them?


They are recommendations. That said, it is a panel that includes a good


many Washington insiders, including Richard Clarke, counter terrorism


adviser to Republican and Democratic Presidents. We know that for example


on this collection met at that data, following that -- met at that data


following the ruling on Monday, it is already going against them in the


courts, it is highly likely they will have to move on the bulk


members metadata, but ultimately the President could rule it is against


the national interest to gather data on a bulk of topics and they will


continue to do so despite the regulation. What is meta-data? In


phone call terms, it is the number you have called, for how long and


your number, in internet terms it can be the page you looked at. What


it doesn't include, particularly in the sense of phone calls, and we


hear 60 million details were taken in Spain or whatever, it is what


actually people were saying. Glenn Greenwald is the former


Guardian columnist who helped bring the files taken by global leaker


Edward snoweden out. This report does suggest, doesn't it that the


NSA was in need of reform? It is one way to read it, with respect it is


the wrong way to read it. All this report does it suggest there is a


feeding frenzy in Washington, aided by promiscuous Snowden disclosures


by the media turning, if you will against this administration, which


up until now has been a media dearlying. And extreme opinions from


left and right. The marching orders for this commission this board has


been let as come up with a bunch of changes. It is really not a serious


dispassionate look at what is necessary for national security and


also whether or not there are any abuses. It is remarkable unlike all


the other episodes involving intelligence and reforms in this


country and others, there has been zero abuses. Nobody has done


anything wrong. Nobody has demonstrated that this level of


collection, meta-data or otherwise, this is a very unfortunate exercise.


This is a bipartisan inquiry, which has come up with conclusion about


the need for change? But what I'm trying to say I wouldn't get too


hung up on the question of who is bipartisan, Richard Glock, who used


to work for the administration is a technocrat. The pressure for change


is bipartisan, you have extreme right in the Republican Party,


particularly the TEA Party, and extreme left in the Democratic


party, and they are clamouring for it. Just because both sides are


clamouring doesn't make it right. My point is there is no seriously


well-conceived explanation of why the change is necessary. Either from


a standpoint of the operational needs of the intelligence community


in the age of global terror or the standpoint of abuses. What abuses


have been demonstrated. Weren't you surprised by the scale of it? By the


recommendations not at all. I'm so sorry I was unclear, I apologise,


weren't you surprised by the scale of surveillance that was disclosed


in these reports and leaks? No, quite frankly the biggest problem of


the disclosures is the level of sensationalism it brings. Most


people would understood that meta-data collection as we are


correspondent detailed about its collection. If you are looking for a


needle in a haystack, what sense does it make to have one half or one


third of a stack. You need to collect all of the meta-data, and


drill down on t and only do it in a limited fashion. I want to make sure


your viewers understand that, you are only looking for conversation on


which phone numbers were called or received called from a magic list of


phone numbers associated with foreign terrorist entities. That is


the only thing that is done as far as data analysis. You start with a


tremendous data set and you drill it down to maybe a list of a few


hundreds, or a couple of thousand. But any mathematician, any serious


scientist will tell you there is no other way to do that. You have to


start with the complete data set. I might get back to you in a minute or


two, I hope. Glenn Greenwald was the person who brought it to the public


attention on receiving the files. Do you think you have had a victory


here? It has been a huge victory, it is the whole week has been an


amazing victory. First a federal court, and not a liberal judge, one


appointed by George W Bush, a conservative judge said it violates


core privacy rights and said there was zero evidence that the NSA can


present saying these things were helpful in stopping terrorist plots.


And a group set up by President Obama and they said the name thing


that this pose as threat to liberty and it is not necessary to stopping


even a single terrorist plot. It is a complete vindication of everything


Mr Snowden said early on and we have been reporting for the last six


months. If it is acted upon will it meet your concerns? Well, there are


still a lot of details to be worked out f it is acted upon in full it


will be a very significant step to restoring individual privacy and


some meaningful controls on the NSA which are currently lacking,


absolutely. At that point your campaign ends, does it? No, remember


there are still a lot of other abuses that the NSA is engaged n


when it comes to spying on foreign national, not talking about


meta-data, but the content of their e-mails, telephone calls, browsing


histories, on-line chats. There are important regulatory constraints


that need to be imposed on the NSA that means they are abiding by the


rules. It is abusing its power the NSA, this is one important step to


curbing the domestic part of those abuses. This is a mechanism for


bringing the NSA under the control of the White House and other


regulatory authorities. What is wrong with that? The NSA is already


under the control of the White House because it is part of the defence


department. The way it reports to the President as Commander-in-Chief.


I'm not really sure what you are asking. It is already part of the


executive branch under the authority of the White House. For example, on


the question of the surveillance of foreign leaders, a particularly


contentious issue, the proposal here is such authorisation has to come


directly in the explicitly, in a particular case from the White


House? Right, well first of all I think most insiders and there has


been lots of people who have gone to reporters and said this, the White


House was already ware of the targeting of these leaders. Although


they deny it. Secondly the mere fact that the President approves of it


doesn't make it right, the President approves of all sorts of things like


imprisoning people at Guantanamo with no charges, and the current NSA


programme. And there is a consensus that people believe these are wrong.


More constraints is better, and they are heading in the right direction


clearly as a result of what Mr Snowden did. On the basis of these


recommendations would you be prepared to return to their rightful


owners such files as are currently in your possession? The rightful


owners of the information in these documents are the American people.


Who paid for them and whose Government should not have been


hiding these programmes from them. As a journalist I'm not going to


return anything to the Government until we are done with our


reporting, which means disclosing all of the news worthy item that is


are contained in these documents precisely because as we have seen


this week it brings about great debate, a strengthening of democracy


and serious reforms. I will continue to do that because I'm a journalist.


How long are you prepared to hang on to them for? I just gone done


telling you I will hangen to them, as are the New York sometimes, and


the Washington Post and other media organisations that have tens of


thousands of documents aside from me for as long as it takes to continue


to report on all of the news worthy items in them. Meaning things that


the people of the United States and around the world have a right to


know in terms of what is being done to their privacy and internet


freedom. Are there any items among these newsworthy items as you put


it, that you are not prepared to put it? As evidenced by the fact that we


have only published a very small portion of the documents we


received, despite having them for six months, of course there are


things that as a responsible journalist I would not publish,


including things that might help other states augment their


surveillance capabilities. I would not publish things the NSA has about


public privacy. I think it is clear my heself and the other newspapers


have been extremely judicious with the material we have been given


while reporting on them. Thank you for joining us. I hope that my guest


is still able to talk to us. Did you hear that? Yes, I'm frankly struck


by the hubris and arrogance of our guest, and NSA far from being a


rogue agency, it is one agency in the world most subject to political


controls, but fulsome judicial and congressional oversight. I would


tell your viewers that not a single agency is that much subject to


congressional and judicial oversight, but that is not enough


for the likes of your guest. Think for a second that one of the reasons


we suffered over 3,000 dead Americans in 9/11 is because we


didn't have meta-data collection programmes. We didn't know that


known terrorists from overseas were calling people, their confederates


in the United States. That is why the whole programme was institutes,


it is not a moshed a morbid desire to learn aboutth -- a morbid desire


to learn about things. What do you say about that accusation, you are a


menace? It is not an accusation, it is a fact. I think, I want to make a


very important point about this, ever since 9/11 the US and UK


Governments scream terrorism to justify everything they do, they


scream 9/11. And yet what we have had in the last few weeks is


senators on the Intelligence Committee who have said there is


zero evidence that the NSA can point to that these programmes help stop


terrorist plots. We had a court that said it just three days ago, a


George W Bush apppointee, federal judge, who said there is no evidence


the programme does that. Now we have an advisory board within the


executive round who just said the same thing that they can't prove and


there is no evidence that it helps to stop terrorism. All three


branches said what was just said is pure fear mongering, there is no


evidence for it. Screaming 9/11 no longer works to scare people and


justify Government programmes. We will cut across you. Thank you very


much indeed. Thank you. Thanks. In a moment we speak to the


professional footballer who felt he couldn't play before British crowds


as an openly gay man. You may recall our coverage a few


weeks of the Bitcoin phenomenon. It is a virtual currency that seduced


many who don't trust Government. Early last year a Bitcoin was worth


$5, and they went up. Now we are worth a lot less. The bank


responsible is the bank in China. It has no physical existence and can be


carried on a memory stick, it is the antithesis of what the Communist


Party stands for. They are banning the buying of goods with Bitcoin.


The vision behind it is remarkable. Lots of uses are some what shady. It


is symbolic of the concern China has about losing their grip on capital


controls. Currencies are all about confidence, if enough people accept


them as payment you know you can buy what you want and accept them too.


In a prison it might be cigarette, on the Internet it is encrypted


message that is you buy and send to other users to pay for your beer or


cake. Bitcoin, today confidence in Bitcoin collapsed. Today has been an


amazing day in the Bitcoin world. With interesting but concerning news


from China. The issue is the Chinese Government has stopped the payment


processor from allowing the normal Chinese population to deposit money


into the biggest exchange in the world. Chinese people will find it


difficult to buy Bitcoin in future. If it went in too easily it would


become worth nothing. Its supply is controlled. Not by a Central Bank,


users accept a protocol which restricts the supply of new Bitcoins


to 150 of them per hour. While supply is restricted demand for


Bitcoin has rocketed. Fed by the growing belief that it is credible


and legal. At the start of the year one Bitcoin would cost you $13. 28.


The price rose as traders guessed that the US would accept it as a


legitimate exchange. And that happened.


By the end of today it was worth less than half that. Imagine the


pound rose by 40% one day and next month fell by 30%. Either of those


events would be big enough to be regarded as a currency crisis to


throw any Government into panic. That has what led critics of Bitcoin


say it is too volatile to be seen as a currency, more like a get rich


quick scheme. Bitcoin is no in no ready to be called a currency, given


the volatility we have seen over the past few weeks, it has halved in


value. Merchants can't use it as a medium of exchange, because they


don't know the value of T we saw a guy buy a car in the United States


for $103,000, and paid for it with Bitcoin, the value of Bitcoin halved


and the dealership is down 50%. A month ago the much followed


financial blogger was asked the financial question. Can you explain


in an entirely understandable way what a Bitcoin. It is a electronic


currency just like money without any state interference. He believes that


the Bitcoin supply means it will be stronger in the long run than normal


currencies where central banks create billions from midair? Bitcoin


would say this the British pound, clearly the British pound supplies


infinate, the Bank of England can print any number if they want. Any


time they make a mistake they print more, that is a debasement of the


currency. So Bitcoin is capped at 21,000. These pounds are backed by


nothing. Don't do that! Today Bernat the US said it was slowing down its


production of the dollar. The dollar only moved slightly, that is how the


Fed like its currency nice and steady.


It is three months since the world was transfixed by a terrorist attack


on that symbol of western capitalism a shopping mall in Nairobi, nearly 0


people died. Much of the attack was filmed on CCTV and the world's media


awaited outside. All this time later the authorities in Kenya don't even


know for certain how many people were involved in the attack on the


west gate Mal -- Westgate Mal, or if any of the takers are still alive.


There are increasing voices raised to suggest that in the aftermath


parts of the Kenyan place are meting out summary justice to those they


suspect of being involved in Islamic terrorism.


A coastal paradise and gateway for terrorists. We're on the trail of


the Westgate attackers. We have travelled to the lawless no man's


land where their journey began. People are running away from


Somalia, even the Al-Shabab and they are now escaping. ??FORCEDWHI It is


a journey that would end in a four-day siege that would car a


nation, what happened to the attackers? Could they have escaped


during a bungled security operation. The intell begins officers told me


they slipped out of Westgate and left the country. Insiders and


radicals paint a picture of a dysfuntional, inept Security


Service, funded by the west and lashing out at those they see as a


threat. The British Government is helping the ATPO in Kenya kill


Muslims by training them and providing them with logistical


support and giving them money. Is Britain complicit in extra judicial


killings in Kenya. We set off from Lamu on Kenya's coast, we are


heading north towards the border with Somalia, it was somewhere here


towards the end of June four men slipped quietly into Kenya. Those


men would go on to carry out one of the deadliest attacks ever seen in


the region. Al-Shabab and Al-Qaeda affiliates said it planned and


executed the Westgate take in retaliation for Kenya's invasion of


Somalia two years ago. That invasion was supposed to secure the country's


borders. But the Border Force is overstreched, and the Westgate


attackers took advantage of that fact to enter Kenya through this


area. This block of concrete here marks the end of Kenya. Beyond this


a little bit of no man's land and then Somalia. And standing here, it


is easy to imagine what a challenge it must be to secure this border.


Both the kilometres of shoreline and the cakers -- acres upon acres of


bush and scrubland. No fence separates the two countries. Police


are underequipped and understaffed. And yet the local police chief says


he's received no reinforcements since Westgate. People are running


away from Somalia, even the Al-Shababs, they are now escaping


from Somalia, trying to penetrate into Kenya and to go in other


directions. How often do you catch people? Let's say five, six people


per week. How many do you think you are not watching? -- catching? For


us the border is I'm sure people penetrating without us catching


them. We now know that once inside Kenya the Westgate attackers made


their way to Nairobi, where they spent three months planning the


attack with the help of local Al-Shabab operatives, in an area


known as Eastleigh, or little Mogadishu. On the day of the attack


itself there was chaos. It took the security forces more than an


hour-and-a-half to reach the scene. By the mid-afternoon the


paramilitary police seemed to have the militants pinned down. CCTV only


ever shows four likely armed attacker, not 15, as the Kenyans had


initially claimed. But then the army came in and that's when things


started to go wrong. What happened is there was a lack of co-ordination


and each unit was coming in with its own command and you see the way the


operation was bungled. When the army in everyone else was kicked out,


this is where the operation started going badly. Three months after the


attack, outside Westgate, young men shift sift through a mountain of


rubble. They are still finding bullet cartridges in the rubble


three months later. They are looking for stuff bigger than that to sell.


But somewhere in. United States the FBI is still analysing that they


found inside Westgate, they think they have the remains of three,


possibly four individuals. They are testing them for DNA, at the moment


they don't really know if they belong to the attackers.


They may have been killed, but it is possible that they got away, escaped


during the confusion of the siege. The truth is, at the moment even the


investigators don't know. Less than two weeks after Westgate, young


Muslim men clashed with police on the streets of Mombasa, Kenya's


second city. The night before a radical preacher by the same of


Ibrahim Rogo had been gunned down in his car as he travelled on the


outskirts of the city. His supporters believe he was mud bird


the Kenyan Security Services, specifically by an outfit known as


the Anti- Terror Police Unit, or the ATPU. Officially members of the


Kenyan Antit-Terror Police Unit deny any invest -- any involvement in


these murders. One was prepared to talk off the record. He told me the


justice system in Kenya is not favourable to the work of the police


so we opted to eliminate them. We identify you, we gun you down in


front of your family and we begin with the leaders. The aterror police


United knit gets equipment and training from the UK. A report has


been compiled detailing dozens of cases of terror, torture and


rendition carried out by the ATPU. I was following this, I wept to the


morgue, and attended post mortems, ATPU, they are confirming this. That


is the reality, they can't disclose things, but the reality is they want


to impress British, Americans and the world. Because they are getting


funding from the Americans, because they are getting training from the


British, no. The international community should go back to the


drawing board. Few doubt that Kenya does have a


problem with radicalisation. Abubakar Shariff Ahmed appears on UN


and US sanctions lists. He's accused of being a leading facilitator and


recruiter of young Kenyan Muslims for violent militant activity in


Somalia. It is the same thing as telling a young man go, to the


mosque and pray. It is the same thing as telling a young man, fast


in Ramadan. It is the same thing to tell a young man your Muslim brother


has been invaded in Somalia, go and help him. That is Islam. He denies


recruiting for salt Shabab, but he says the Kenyan Security Services


are systematically targeting those they perceive as a threat. They are


precementing attacks by -- pre-empting attacks by those they


think is a potential attacker or those who have who is potentially an


instigator of attack. Are they picking up the right people? Mostly


question, but also no. Do you fear for your safety? I don't fear for my


safety, I know they are going to kill me. I'm a true Muslim, I


believe my life and death is in the hand of lamb. I will try dye -- of


Allah. I will die the day Allah decides. Some involved in counter


terrorism in Kenya say the country's legal system is hampering their


effos. If the police are involved in this it is out of frustration,


because they have specific facts. They have done collectively their


own intelligence. Probably they know this person is actually involved in


terrorism. But you take him to court, tomorrow he is out on bond


doing the same things. Estimates for youth unemployment in


Kenya are as high as 80%. In mom bassia you don't have to -- Mombasa,


you don't have to look hard for young Muslim men who believe the


state has little to offer them, and the attempts to stem radicalisation


has having the reverse effect. The Antit-Terror Police Unit they are


killing us, as Muslims. They are killing our mothers. I'm not a


Kenyan, I have no citizenship of this country. As Muslims we are


being squeezed. I have no problem if they join Al-Shabab or Al-Qaeda, it


is part of Jihad. That is Jihad, everyone should and can go and meet


his brothers there. It is about his beliefs only. In a statement the


Foreign Office said it took allegations of human rights abuse


very seriously. But that the British Government was working with the


Kenyan authorities to tackle threats to UK interests. When the Olympic


diver Tom Daley announced that he was dating a man, he wondered


whether it was easier to make such a declaration if you were an


individual sportsman than if you were part of a team. Shortly we will


find out. Because we're about to hear from the footballer, Robbie


Rogers. It was only after he left Leeds


United that the US-born Rogers announced in February his retirement


as a professional footballer, and the fact that he was gay. He became


the first man to do so in Britain since Justin Fashanu came out in


1990. Writing in his blog he said. D..


But within a couple of months he was back on the field, this time on home


territory as a soccer player for LA Galaxy, citing the fact he had a


platform to be a role model. He felt it would be cowardly not to play


again. But there was sufficient homophobia still about that the


fight was far from over. The campaign BEYOND It, has been very


successful in the United States. This week he has joined up with his


old club, Leeds United to launch the campaign here. Why are you the only


, second person to come out? It is the atmosphere in the locker room


and stadiums. It was growing up as a footballer and hearing things in


locker rooms that really scarred me and made me believe it wasn't


possible. Homophobic comments? Yeah. Was this because they were directed


at you or just general talk? General talk. General talk for example like


how someone could even be gay, that would be a discussion in a football


locker room. How did you feel when you heard that? I felt awful, of


course, but I would avoid the conversation, I would go more into


myself and repress that kind of stuff. It got to a point when I was


24, 25, I was like all right I can't live this way. You came out just


after you announced your retirement at the same time? I came tout my


family in October -- I came out to my family in October/November and


planned to stop football, I didn't know what the reaction would be.


What was the reaction? Very, very supportive. Which was the exact


opposite that I thought would happen. My family from the first


second I told them was very supportive, and that's in the end


why I went back to football. Do you worry about how the fans would have


taken it if you were still playing? In England, yeah. It is great


question. No-one has done it, so that was my fears. I had no-one to


look up to test those waters for me before I went out there. I did it


back in the US because it is not as big a spotlight on football. My


family is in LA, if I was really struggling I could always just go


home. But I mean eventually someone will do it and footballers will do


it, that will be interesting to see. By the law of averages there must be


a lot of gay men playing football? I haven't had one text or phone calls


about it. I have spoken to friends here and around the UK who have


supported me, but not one message from a footballer. What do you


deduce from that? It reminds me of the fear that I had and I'm,


sometimes you forget when you are on the other side, but you remember


that atmosphere and how it made you feel. By the law of averages there


are lots of gay footballers? Yeah I know, that shows you there is a huge


problem. What do you do to change that, you try to support them and


create an environment that is, that would support them to come out and


that they would feel comfortable in. But it is really tough. Do you in


any sense wish you had done it while you were still an active player? I'm


an active player now. But at the end you said you were quitting? No, I am


happeny the way I did it, goat to step away and take time for myself,


I didn't have people dragging me to do interviews or anything like that.


I was in total control and say what I wanted to say. You feel now you


have some sort of duty? No, yeah I do. I know when I realised I'm the


only one that's doing this. So you know after months of taking some


time for myself and receiving letters from people I realised I was


being a coward by not going back to football. And I missed it, and it


was something I have done my whole life, so I did feel the


responsibility. And what was it like when you discovered that your


anxiety about how people would react had been misplaced? Yeah, there was


two sides of it, sometimes people say do you think footballers make a


bigger deal out of it than it is, or athletes. I say nor, no, definite --


no, definitely not, they are not coming out because they hear so many


things that scare them. My mom said to me I think have you learned that


you should give people a chance as well. Give people a chance to get to


know you and to see that, yes you are a footballer, you are gay, but


there are more sides to you. I did learn that lesson from this, to be


open with people and give people a chance. Were your parents surprised?


Yes and no, they say sometimes they were, and then they said you dated


girls and you threw us off. I'm like OK. That is what I have heard from


everybody, I guess I was a good actor. Do you think it is harder to


come out if you are playing a team sport as opposed to an individual


sport? I haven't played any individual sport, I can speak from


my experience and my biggest fear was going back into a locker room


and the thought of being treated as an outcast, that was the one thing I


didn't want to do. Playing a team sport obviously you are dealing with


all those permties and people from all around the world. Is it to do


with being naked in the locker room together? No, it is sitting there


with all the guys, the banter and talking and trying to fit in all


that stuff. It is the team and you are brothers and you fight every


week to win a game together. To be outcasted from a group like that and


you are there every day is awful. I felt inside that way, but I wasn't


treated, no-one knew I was gay. No-one accused me or pointed a


finger at me. They didn't know. Do you think it was an unfounded fear?


No, because it was the things that I heard my whole life that scared me.


From a very conservative Catholic family I'm, from in calm foreignia,


I have been playing football my whole life, the things I heard in


stadiums and locker rooms made me think I could not play soccer and


come out. They are not talking about you? But they are talking about


people on the streets, and how could you even be gay man or fall in love


with a man. I'm hearing these conversations and riding the bike


and thinking this is not the atmosphere for me. In retrospect it


was not something you needed to fear? If hi come out and said


actually wait, it would have been awkward, but after a few days or a


week they would have gotten over it. I'm hoping other athletes will do


it. Thank you. As we all know one of the main functions of the internet


is to facilitate masturbation, or worse, the Prime Minister has made


it his mission to protect children from the called adult material


that's there and has encouraged the broadband companies and search


engines to install room felters. But news -- felters, but Newsnight has


found rather than stopping teenagers clicking through to pornography,


some are preventing access to sexual health and rape advice sites.


Companies say they still have serious concerns about the whole


idea. Politicians are worried about the


massive internet traffic to porn sites. There are things that are


direct danger to the children that must be stamped out. 82% of British


people are really worried about how easy it is to access porn, it is


unique that people feel so helpless about this. Porn is the most


frequent search term on Google, we cannot allow an industry that make


millions out of porn month on month to dictate the pace of change. We


have come a long way from the old familiar face of the industry. Soho


in London. After pressure from newspapers and child safety


campaigners, the Government had little choice but to act. The big


internet firms were told to block porn by default to watch any


restricted content a customer will have to change his or her broadband


settings. Basic parental controls have of course been around for


years, but in general you have to go to the trouble of installing


software on your computer itself, which then blocks certain websites.


These new network-level filteres are much more sophisticated. BT is


letting me log on and block sites not from my laptop but the Internet


connection itself. Any gadgets from games consoles to phones should be


covered by the filter in the same way. TalkTalk was the first big


company to do this, the others have caught up, with Sky and BT launching


their porn F ilters with their children. Lots of parents find it


difficult to talk to their children about sex and porn. I hope that will


change, and through the initiatives some of the conversations will take


place. We still have a responsibility to do what we can at


a technical level, not perfect, not enough, but we still have a


responsibility to try to help with technical solutions, wherever we


can. As you can see here, this is your site, this is now not running


on the TalkTalk network. But critics say internet filters are a blunt


instrument, Justin Hancock runs one of the most popular sex education


sites on the Internet for under-18s, nothing pornographic here. On the


system click on that you will see it is blocked straight away.? When you


switch to the TalkTalk network his site is suddenly unavailable. It is


coming up as a porn site. Broadband companies will say this was probably


just an oversight, if you contact them they will get the block removed


and everything will be fine again? They might fix my site in the


short-term, what about all the other sites out there for young people.


Not just sex education websites but support forums for young people


around sex and relationship, the young people who are lesbian, gay,


bisexual or trans, who are TalkTalk to say what is allowed or not. When


we looked their porn filter also blocks other sex education sites and


Labour party crisis centre. And BT banned a connection to a number of


domestic violence charities. In its advertising BT boasts its new filter


gives peace of mind anywhere in the home, Talk Talk says it protests you


on-line. All the filteres perform reasonably


well in a test. BT and Sky let through one of 68 popular adult


sites, TalkTalk let through more. Scratch beneath the surface and


plenty of ex-police the material is easily available. The Internet chat


board, Read It, hosts adult content. This is one of the tamest pictures,


none blocked. The industry may support this idea,


in private it is another matter. One major broadband company told us it


has deep reservations about the entire exercise, which it says is


just pandering to the daily Mail, others say it is a result of lobby


by Christian groups. Not one of the four large internet service


providers would talk on camera. So we came to the offices of one of


their smaller competitors, the boss here is a father of five and he's


far from convinced porn filteres are the answer. How do the systems, the


blocking system, how do he they know what to block and what to let


through? This is the challenge, you can't have a roomful of people


trying to find dodgy website, you have to start with looking for key


words. It is an arms industry. The porn industry is a legitimate


commercial industry they will fight back. They will find ways to move


their websites around to bypass the blocks to make them encrypted this.


Will allow people to get to them whether they are kids or not. The


official line from all the big broadband companies is there is no


single solution and any filtering system won't work perfectly to begin


with. There are systems in place to correct any mistakes. Even one of


the Government's own advisers on internet safety thinks all this is


making it harder, not easier for parents. I think there is a huge


risk at the moment and I think it is, it comes out of a desire to do


the right thing, but there is a very big risk that we are focussing so


heavily on filters and all of the ISPs having them and public Wi-Fi


having them, the message is getting through to parents that the filteres


will do the job, but no filter will be perfect, even if they were


perfect there is still a job for parents to do. The Government has


told Newsnight it has now asked its advisers to check that sex advice


sites are not being sensored. -- censored. Any quick fix won't be the


answer, it might be possible to control a red light district, but


can authorities hope to control something like the Internet in the


first place. That's about it for tonight. The


Bank of England announced a major plastic monetary innovation today.


One of our producers stress tested it. Good night.


# You took my by surprise I must say # When I found out yesterday


# Don't you know # I heard it through the grapevine


# Not much longer will you be mine # I heard it through


Download Subtitles