UK web users will have to opt-in for porn

Attitudes towards the adult entertainment industry have certainly relaxed somewhat in recent years, and it’s fair to say that the consumption and enjoyment of explicit sexual material no longer bears the stigma that it once did. Many view this to be a good thing, a sign of more modern and enlightened times.

But the wider availability of sexual imagery is also a cause for concern for some, particularly for parents troubled by the seemingly endless barrage of inappropriate content for their children – not just in the form of pornography, but also in what they view to be an aggressive sexualisation of life in general, from pervasive sexual themes in television shows, to suggestive clothing for young children, and excessively 'sexy' advertising campaigns.

A report produced by the charity Mothers’ Union in the United Kingdom has been shared with British Prime Minister David Cameron, making a number of recommendations that include applying age restrictions to music videos, a dramatic reduction in clothing bearing inappropriate or sexually suggestive slogans for children, and a series of measures that it claims will reduce the availability of adult content for the UK’s youth.

There are two key initiatives that will focus on the web. The first is the introduction of a new site called Parentport (to be launched at www.parentport.org.uk), which will act as a ‘one-stop shop’ for parents wishing to complain about content that they believe to be inappropriate for children on websites, television shows, movies, advertisements, magazines and products. A network of UK regulators – including the Advertising Standards Authority, The BBC Trust, Ofcom, the Press Complaints Commission, British Board of Film Classification, and others – will receive the complaints directed from Parentport, and take any action that they deem appropriate.

The second, and more controversial, initiative under this plan is the introduction of a mandatory opt-in for adult content, which is being introduced in conjunction with the UK’s four leading internet service providers (ISPs) – BT, Sky Broadband, TalkTalk and Virgin Media. The Guardian reports that under the crackdown, which Prime Minister Cameron will announce later today, subscribers to these ISPs will not be able to access pornographic materials unless they register their wish to do so with the ISP. What is not yet clear is whether this content bar will affect existing customers, or if it will solely be imposed upon new subscribers to these ISPs.

The UK Government has sought for some time to impose measures that would make it harder for young people to access porn on the internet. Earlier this year, Culture Secretary Jeremy Hunt threatened to introduce legislation to force ISPs to impose more robust parental controls, and Conservative Member of Parliament Claire Perry has campaigned extensively in favour of an opt-in model for web pornography in the UK.

ISPs have repeatedly resisted such measures as they seek to avoid becoming web ‘censors’, but the move by these four service providers to work with the Government on this campaign suggests that they’ve capitulated to some degree. The campaign has not been mandated upon the ISPs, as the Prime Minister has not yet committed to introducing any legislation to support the initiative. It remains to be seen whether other ISPs will fall in line with these measures in the months ahead.

Image via Sky News

Report a problem with article
Previous Story

Minor Xbox 360 Dashboard update releasing today

Next Story

AT&T announces five new Android phones

76 Comments

Commenting is disabled on this article.

First they came for the file-sharers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a file-sharer.

Then they came for the pron-lovers,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a pron-lover.

Then they came for the political dissidents,
and I didn't speak out because I wasn't a political dissident.

Then they came for me
and there was no one left to speak out for me.

If it is opt-in for sauce then all then people will simply circumvent the protection any way possible instead of opt-in. Time to learn how to use Tor?

Why don't the goverment just pee off and let us live. Perhaps if they spent more time fixing the economy rather than butting into our private lives we would all be better off. Whats wrong with a child wanting to find out about sex. Its not a dirty word and perhaps if children were educated better in sex then we wouldnt have such a high teen mothers rate. OK I admit there are things out there that should be left to later life and then when they adult enough they can make there own CHOICES. Then this is were lazy ass parents who want society to look after there kids come in.... BE PARENTS FFS.

Censorship is digusting.

So if I wanted ot watch some porn or go onto a site which is accidentally logged as 'porn' I have to ring up and embarrass myself requesting it.

It is like someone else said a massive invasion on privacy.

It should be opt-out, the only other way I can think of is send each bill payer a questionaire, asking if you have any people in your household under the age of 18, then a link and a random password and you go online to fill it out, if you don't fill itt out within a month then it's unfiltered.

Dan~ said,
Censorship is digusting.

So if I wanted ot watch some porn or go onto a site which is accidentally logged as 'porn' I have to ring up and embarrass myself requesting it.

It is like someone else said a massive invasion on privacy.

It should be opt-out, the only other way I can think of is send each bill payer a questionaire, asking if you have any people in your household under the age of 18, then a link and a random password and you go online to fill it out, if you don't fill itt out within a month then it's unfiltered.

Please dont be so ignorant. If you're looking at porn, then the people who care will already know.. So unless you happen to know one of the Indian workers from deli who'll be handling the calls for the opt-in button - its not like you'll go into work tomorrow and someone turn around to you and say "my sister had you call her up to request access to busyasianbabes-with-teapots-ontheir-head.com"

What I do think is an invasion on privacy is for the people who don't opt-out. Everytime you or your kid gets 'blocked' from some adult content, it'll be logged somewhere and i'm sure the ISP will have tools to check what sites you've recently been on to ensure they're not blocking bogus sites etc. So it begs the question, who has access to this information.

I mean, I'm sure a lot of people would be interested in what sites get blocked by the members of Mothers' Union,, the papers (or at least news of the world would have) had a field day with that information. Can you imagin what would happen if one of the top leaders of the charity was found to have been trying to visit 'xxx-topless-gay-men.net' every weekend etc.

If you're opt-out, then you should be without any filter, and it shouldn't be logged in anything other then general service logs with everything else. Whats worse for you?

Personally, I think the worst part to come is for the owners of honest sites that will be blocked for no other reason then a mistake or bogus report and they don't know how about it or are able to get unblocked.

Lets give a few examples:
http://www.SpeedOFart.com
http://www.DicksOnWeb.com
http://www.WinterSexPress.com
http://www.NYCAnal.com
http://www.WhorePresents.com
and the classic http://www.PenisLand.net


All totally legit sites but with rather dodgy domain names if read incorrectly. Not the domain name's fault, just our dirty minds making things up.

Edited by sagum, Oct 11 2011, 1:21pm :

Sorry for using my voice which I was born with, so don't call me ignorant as you are just trying to troll, failed nicely though

Jedimark said,
I think it's more an opt-out than an opt-in. Big difference.

FTA ", subscribers to these ISPs will not be able to access pornographic materials unless they register their wish to do so with the ISP"

So sadly it is Opt In, as the default is that everything will be blocked for you, rather than you ringing up and saying "I don't want no pr0n" and them blocking it from there.

Wonder how many sites will be flagged wrongly and then be effectively cut off from the UK internet - I can smell lawsuits brewing

Well I hope it works better than Orange's Porn Filter that informs me that the Neowin Forums are a cesspool of filth and therefore couldn't possibly allow me in. For some reason it occasionally resets so I have to ring up and declare myself a pervert just so I can read up on Rappy's latest scoops

The worst thing about this, which so far, no commentor has picked up on, is that registering to opt-in is an invasion of privacy.

"Yes, I'm a pervert and I want to watch porno." - kind of detracts from the comfort of assumed anonymity the 'net proffers. Once the ISPs (especially BT, Sky and Virgin - don't know enough about TalkTalk - who operate a 'nick music or movies and we'll call the cops' policy) have captured this information, who are they going to sell it on to? After all, there's nothing stopping the ISPs from sharing your service metadata...

Will you start getting junk mail through the door with 'Subscribe to Hustler and get your first three issues FREE!'?

Haha. Who's your daddy? The government.

It's funny how adults control other adults this way, even for 100% legal stuff.

Protecting the children? In that case, I'd be a sex predator today, having had a keen interest in porn since I was 13. BS, BS, and more BS. And a whole slew of morals and religious inspiration thrown into the mix.

This is stupid, what can we do to Circumvent it other than Opting-In? Obviously just running a different DNS Server won't do the trick?

Vegetunks said,
This is stupid, what can we do to Circumvent it other than Opting-In? Obviously just running a different DNS Server won't do the trick?

If it's like the IWF's filtering mechanism, then it'll be IP based. You can circumvent it though using a VPN, or simply by putting an entry in your /etc/hosts with an alternate IP from a sites' nslookup result.

This is already the case with many mobile phone provides. I had to "opt in" to access Google Translate from my Android phone because apparently the site can by-pass their adult site checking system (or something). I'm with O2.
Surely most users get adult material from forums, not from recognised porn sites. Most of these forums distribute adult material breaking copyright law and are therefore illegal. Are these sites blocked too?

This was already announced a long time ago on Neowin. That time, it was noted that they were THINKING about it. This time it sounds like they are going to do it.

If you read the article, it is the same thing: They are THINKING about it.

Neowin and their misleading headliners. Got to love it.

The source article linked to above - at The Guardian - is very unambiguous in how it explains the way the scheme will work. In fact, there's nothing at all in that article to suggest that they are just "thinking about it", nor in other articles from The Independent, Daily Mail and others that were checked before this article was published. The very first line of The Guardian's article reads: "Subscribers to four of the UK's biggest internet service providers will have to "opt in" if they want to view sexually explicit websites, as part of government-sponsored curbs on online pornography."

There was no intention to mislead with this headline, or with the content of this article on Neowin; it was correct at the time of writing based on the source that was clearly linked to - and which you don't appear to have read before casting your judgement - and was verified with multiple additional sources.

Now according to BBC News

Four leading web providers are to offer customers [u]the option[/u] to block adult content at the point of subscription.

BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin will offer the protection for smartphones, laptops and PCs.

So that kind of flies in this report where it says users will have to "opt in" to view porn.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-15252128

Anyway, here's an idea. How about the parents do their job of parenting and keeping an eye on what their kids do online instead of asking the state to do the parenting for them!!!

There appears to be some ambiguity over exactly what the plan is here. BBC News claims that this will be an option, whereas others such as The Independent, Daily Mail and The Guardian (which was linked to in the article) categorically state that access to pornography will be an opt-in measure.

This is going to be very problematic for everyone. One of the reasons I have taken filtering off my mobile phone is not because I browse porn on the mobile phone, but because let's say I visit a site where a dynamic advert is about william hill (google ads as an example) then you wont access the site.

What the measure translates to is that parents cannot be arsed to control their childrens access to the internet and we are taking a kill the patient to get rid of the disease approach.

The Internet is secondary source of adult content in my mind. Take a look at the TV shows for crying out loud. And I am not talking porn channels, I am talking TV shows that some idiots shows his ass, or J-Los new short dress is aired, sexual content in tv series, video clips and the list keeps going on. Are we going to take any measures for something so basic before we force 99% of internet users to call their ISPs and opt-out for porn filtering?

I personally think this is an excellent idea.
So many devices now have access to browsers so blocking it on an ISP level is the way forward. I have no problems about this - it isnt easy controlling peoples uses.

Also, since the easy availability of porn, it has created SO many people who have porn addictions which leads to breakdowns in marriage.

Cut out the adult stuff at ISP level and make it an opt out service - that way if you want to view that stuff, fair dos otherwise it doesnt really have a place on the internet.

So I'd say use this method AND have something like K9 installed too - hit it at both ends as nothing is 100% fool proof.

WildWayz said,
I personally think this is an excellent idea.
So many devices now have access to browsers so blocking it on an ISP level is the way forward. I have no problems about this - it isnt easy controlling peoples uses.

Also, since the easy availability of porn, it has created SO many people who have porn addictions which leads to breakdowns in marriage.

Cut out the adult stuff at ISP level and make it an opt out service - that way if you want to view that stuff, fair dos otherwise it doesnt really have a place on the internet.

So I'd say use this method AND have something like K9 installed too - hit it at both ends as nothing is 100% fool proof.

Fact that you are having less sex when married makes you turn to porn. This is a who was born first the chicken or egg conversation.

WildWayz said,
Also, since the easy availability of porn, it has created SO many people who have porn addictions which leads to breakdowns in marriage.

We both watch porn together, and it can be inspirational for your sex life. IMNSHO, breakdowns in marriage after one of the partners have watched porn is usually founded in other matters, and the marriage would break down sooner or later anyway.

Addiction is also a cute excuse. So let's force people to opt-in to browse video game sites too? Smoking? What about allowing alcohol? For each arranged party, you need to request a permit from the government? People could get addicted, dammit.

So I'd say use this method AND have something like K9 installed too - hit it at both ends as nothing is 100% fool proof.

You speak of porn as if you're dealing with drugs and terrorism. It's just naked people doing things they were created for.

Northgrove said,

You speak of porn as if you're dealing with drugs and terrorism. It's just naked people doing things they were created for.

Women were created to have bananas shoved up their ass?

I'm more concerned about what others sites will get wrapped up in this, also You should have the option to opt-in to it being filtered rather than having to opt-out.

I don't see how this will work. Is it just going to block anything that could be considered "racy". So if someone mentions boobs on here, i'd be blocked from neowin?

Going to be as successful as the government trying to stop us from pirating.

What worries me the most about this sort of action taken by a government is that parents will now assume that all pornographic content is blocked - and all it will take is for one child to accidentally find this material and there will be a potential for a law suit.

This should be the other way aroudn really. People who don't want to have access to certain stuff should tell that to their providers.

.Neo said,
This should be the other way aroudn really. People who don't want to have access to certain stuff should tell that to their providers.

Yeap.

.Neo said,
This should be the other way aroudn really. People who don't want to have access to certain stuff should tell that to their providers.

But then the government wouldn't be able to censor us all in one fell swoop. It's like the Phorm nonsense that the ISP's wanted to use to serve us ads on an opt out basis.

I can see people jumping ship with this. I'm glad i'm with BeThere, they won't put up with this bull****. Also, if this gets enforced on people who are already subscribed, then it could be an option for people to cancel their contract since I'm pretty sure that if a company changes a contract, they have to give you a grace period where you can jump ship unless you want to stay and the contract will continue.

I'm not a lawyer but a few years ago, Aol were changing their terms and conditions and people were able to get out of the contract because of this, but they only had a certain time frame to do it.

This seems to only cover the 4 big ISPs from what I've read about it over the past couple of months. So does this cover Smartphones? Or will it just revert to how it was when I was a kid; if you weren't clever enough to use the internet/circumvent censors at school (baring in mind not everyone had it at home) you would swap stuff via blue-tooth. Whether it was horrific videos, pornography or whatever. This to me just seems like a thinly veiled attempt at slowly but surely lock down the internet.

Many mobile providers in the UK already place content bars that require users to opt-in to lift the access restrictions. The filters used to detect supposedly 'adult' content are fairly absurd - sites such as bbc.co.uk and fairly ordinary and benign tech websites are routinely blocked, presumably because an over-sensitive keyword scanner or ad-tracker gets tripped up, and simply denies access to what common sense dictates would be a completely innocent page.

The BBC News website, for example, isn't going to be serving me a faceful of tits or a hardcore drug-fuelled orgy video.

I can't wait to get blocked from a site that is totally legit, non pornagraphic, yet has a "racy" banner.

Mark said,
I can't wait to get blocked from a site that is totally legit, non pornagraphic, yet has a "racy" banner.

Most advert banners are linked in from another domain, you simply wouldn't see the advert, or you'd see a silly message saying ISP has blocked this content for your visual saftey.

This is utterly ridiculous, How they can impose such power upon people, It is not their place to decide how people use the internet, If parents are allowing their child to access the internet it should be up to them to monitor his/her use and filter it themselves why should the typical user have to gain permission to what should be available in the first place. Porn is not a crime, It's just sex, I just love how the media portrays sex and porn, really makes me laugh.

I value the freedom to choose what i view when i want to view it. I do not think it's right that i should have to request permission from a complete stranger.

And think of the millions of kids who won't be left confused by the sordid videos on the world wide web.

Censorship and filtering, if we really have to have it, should be opt in. Not opt-out.

I still don't get why parents who are to lazy to look after their kids online can't just by some cheap filtering software TBH... or better yet, do their job as parents.

Bag said,
Censorship and filtering, if we really have to have it, should be opt in. Not opt-out.

I still don't get why parents who are to lazy to look after their kids online can't just by some cheap filtering software TBH... or better yet, do their job as parents.

This.

It's a parents job to education children and understand their child more than likely will want to look at this stuff and will find a way to do it regardless of censorship... sex is a part of life.

Whats with the random image from 1995 in the middle of the article.

Bag said,
Censorship and filtering, if we really have to have it, should be opt in. Not opt-out.

I still don't get why parents who are to lazy to look after their kids online can't just by some cheap filtering software TBH... or better yet, do their job as parents.

Parents aren't all tech savvy, and have you even used net nanny software? Half the time it doesn't filter what it should, and filters what it shouldn't.

Bag said,
Censorship and filtering, if we really have to have it, should be opt in. Not opt-out.

I still don't get why parents who are to lazy to look after their kids online can't just by some cheap filtering software TBH... or better yet, do their job as parents.

http://www.opendns.com


Hopefully it is as simple as using alternitive dns servers. But the chances are they'll be just using cache servers at the ubr, a bit like ntl/blueyonder's transparents proxys that they used to run... and everyone knows how excellent the that made browsing webpages when the proxy servers broke... and it seemed to happen ALL the time.

I for one was very glad they got rid of the transparent proxy cache servers and would hate to see them coming back.

Virginmedia already hihacks the connection for no-existiant domain lookups, and replace it with their stupid virgin help page. That is opt out, but when I first tried it was annoying as hell trying to find out how.. and I had to do it several times a week before it went away. But I assume all http content goes via their HTTP content hijacking servers already even when you're opt-out...

So, the question is, will kids really care about having to go to bittorrent or using a https (SSL) proxy page to get their porn fixes? or just find pages that haven't yet been filters?

Spirit Dave said,

Parents aren't all tech savvy, and have you even used net nanny software? Half the time it doesn't filter what it should, and filters what it shouldn't.

They don't have to be - ISPs could offer the option to turn it on when signing up or simply send a letter asking them to call if they want it. FFS they're your kids and you are responsible for them not the nanny state.


If it's anything like what the IWF (internet watch foundation) is doing, then it will operate by IP address, not DNS. The IWF already makes life hell for anyone in the uk who uses file sharing sites like megaupload, rapidshare, filesonic, fileserve, depositfiles etc because of routing everyone's traffic to these sites through the same proxy, resulting in all requests seemingly coming from the same IP address.

It's all censorship plain and simple. The exact same thing China does. It started with file-sharing, now it's porn, and soon it will be anything deemed to be dissension against the state. Welcome to the fascist state that is the UK.

Having children and also seeing people constantly knowing nothing about how to set up a computer let alone any kind of filtering I think this is a good idea.

Why don't we put pornography magazines next to the cartoon magazines and leave it to the parents to stop their children reading them?

I don't like censorship, but I don't think this is the same.

With this said the parent should have to opt into the scheme, not this way around.

My child is monitored, as well as no computer in the bedroom. But that was a different story as somebody else's house recently.

Edited by stevember, Oct 11 2011, 10:55am :

stevember said,

Why don't we put pornography magazines next to the cartoon magazines and leave it to the parents to stop their children reading them?

That is kind of a silly comparison. We can't compartmentalize the internet like we can a magazine rack. We can't put the "naughty" stuff from the internet in a dark, backroom and demand I.D. to permit admittance.

----

Opting in is asking someone else for permission. What your viewing isn't illegal. You shouldn't have to ask permission to do something that is legal.

stevember said,
Having children and also seeing people constantly knowing nothing about how to set up a computer let alone any kind of filtering I think this is a good idea.

Why don't we put pornography magazines next to the cartoon magazines and leave it to the parents to stop their children reading them?

I don't like censorship, but I don't think this is the same.

With this said the parent should have to opt into the scheme, not this way around.

My child is monitored, as well as no computer in the bedroom. But that was a different story as somebody else's house recently.


i'm afraid you will bring up a 'monster'

remember, forbidden fruit theory wasn't made up out of nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit

and look at japan or russia with almost no cultural censorship. those countries have one of lowest birth rates. of course porn isn't allowed on tv. but erotics without problem. and no limitations on the internet as well, so porn is all around.

stevember said,
Why don't we put pornography magazines next to the cartoon magazines and leave it to the parents to stop their children reading them?

Good thing children don't have necks to look up or arms to reach for things. Oh wait..

compl3x said,

Opting in is asking someone else for permission. What your viewing isn't illegal. You shouldn't have to ask permission to do something that is legal.

Absolutely not. You're wrong about it being 'asking' for permission.

In fact, you're giving THEM permission to send the data to you. It's not a choice that you may be declined for. It's not you begging for something you may not be allowed. It's you making a choice as to if you want to allow the content to arrive on your line. I don't mind opting in. As long as when I have opted in, the content is completely unfiltered.

And the comparison between a mag shelf and the net was a good one. If the magazines were next to each other, children could get hold and read them as easily as the cartoons. The web IS like one big magazine. And interactive one, but definitely the same concept. We bring up 'pages' and we 'read and look' at them. Exactly the same. Text and images. A child googling for cartoons could easily end up finding porn as if it were sat next to or indeed behind the cartoons.

Spirit Dave said,

Absolutely not. You're wrong about it being 'asking' for permission.

In fact, you're giving THEM permission to send the data to you. It's not a choice that you may be declined for. It's not you begging for something you may not be allowed. It's you making a choice as to if you want to allow the content to arrive on your line. I don't mind opting in. As long as when I have opted in, the content is completely unfiltered.

You shouldn't have to ask your ISP to send (or allow) you certain types of data anymore than you should ask your mobile phone carrier to allow you to call certain numbers. Imagine if you had to call your phone carrier and tell them you want to be able to call sex chat lines, or dating chat lines. Why should you? Opting in is an attempt to shame people into staying away from porn. People are uncomfortable about asking their ISP to allow them to access porn, so they go without, or circumvent the system. Seems entirely like conservative social engineering to me.


Spirit Dave said,

And the comparison between a mag shelf and the net was a good one. If the magazines were next to each other, children could get hold and read them as easily as the cartoons. The web IS like one big magazine. And interactive one, but definitely the same concept. We bring up 'pages' and we 'read and look' at them. Exactly the same. Text and images. A child googling for cartoons could easily end up finding porn as if it were sat next to or indeed behind the cartoons.

I thought it was a bad comparison for the following reasons: we can easily move adult content away from a magazine rack, put it in opaque covers or demand ID for anyone attempting to buy it. The internet doesn't work that way. I'm all for helping parents protect their children from content we know is inappropriate for children but this whole opt in for porn thing isn't about that. I'd bet good money it is more about conservative folks wanting to ban porn because it makes them uncomfortable.

Spirit Dave said,

Absolutely not. You're wrong about it being 'asking' for permission.

In fact, you're giving THEM permission to send the data to you. It's not a choice that you may be declined for. It's not you begging for something you may not be allowed. It's you making a choice as to if you want to allow the content to arrive on your line. I don't mind opting in. As long as when I have opted in, the content is completely unfiltered.

But some people will, because it can be tracked easily, it's like the UK government is trying to stigmatize people who browse the internet for sex, because now the "normal" thing thing will be not being able to access porn.

Also, I don't see any reason as to why isn't an "opt-out", i. e., why can't parents who wish to restrict the internet do so, and leave the rest of people's internet connection alone.

coth said,

i'm afraid you will bring up a 'monster'

remember, forbidden fruit theory wasn't made up out of nothing.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbidden_fruit

No need to be afraid.

Shes not hidden from 'big bad world', we are however active regarding her computer use. Many parents don't care.

Nudity, porn etc not really issue its when it goes beyond.

I was asked about 2 girls and cup by her after she watched Inbwetweeners, my answer 'I advice you not too, but if have to look it up do so' 3 days later she told us how she wished she hadn't lol. Now by monitoring I mean we are very open and active regarding ger computer use. I think great she can approach us about such things.

If hide and forbid would be stupid that is not what I mean by monitoring.

I still say it good idea if parent can opt in to the restriction, not the way its being done.

compl3x said,

I thought it was a bad comparison for the following reasons: we can easily move adult content away from a magazine rack, put it in opaque covers or demand ID for anyone attempting to buy it. The internet doesn't work that way. I'm all for helping parents protect their children from content we know is inappropriate for children but this whole opt in for porn thing isn't about that. I'd bet good money it is more about conservative folks wanting to ban porn because it makes them uncomfortable.

But we are getting to stage we can hide xxx from end user like putting out reach, granted some will always slip through, encrypted etc 12 yr olds are far from silly.

Yes your right regarding its Conservative/Daily Mail kind of policy, I hate Tory idealogical policies with a passion and the opt in is bad way.

Opt out much better I agree.

Glassed Silver said,
They shouldn't have the means to that in the first place.
Leave the filtering to the local user.
Accept the nanny state. They know what's best for you much more than you possibly could!

To people suggesting that this helps protect children outside of your purview: there is nothing stopping your child's friend from having a parent that opted into this, while leaving their kids unchecked.

What's to stop the government from deciding that you also need to opt into computer websites? Maybe political blogs?

I'm pretty curious when a lot of people decided that we had no right to privacy anymore. Warrantless phone searches in California, nanny-state porn opt-ins in England? The government rarely knows best. It's high-time that people started to remember that.