Who would be an Internet Service Provider? A pattern seems to be developing that every time there is a problem, the media and government blames technology and tech companies.
Riots? Shut off social media or block Blackberry messenger. No growth in the economy? Expect digital to pick up the slack. Music Industry moaning about CD sales? Turn ISPs in to copyright cops.
Like 21st century posties, all the likes of BT and TalkTalk really should be doing is just delivering the packets. But now the pressure is on for them to be the nation's moral guardians too.
The Daily Mail continues to wage a headline war on what it terms 'Internet Sleaze'. A recent edition of the paper thundered "Corrupted by the Internet" across the top of pages 5 and 6, making the extraordinary claim that thanks to the web "men believe abuse is normal".
I don't want a society where people think that abuse is normal either, but the question is how do we achieve that? The proposals of the Mail commentators are chilling: "Other countries police the internet. With determination, so can Britain."
Stephen Glover seems to indicate which countries the paper has in mind when he refers to "... China, whose authorities filter out masses of political information which they do not want their citizens to read."
Short of a great firewall of Britain, it is difficult to see in practical terms what pundits like Glover actually want to happen. It seems that the likes of the Mail think "Internet companies are failing to do enough to protect society". The latest row over the role of ISPs was provoked by Downing Street's launch of the ParentPort website and policy on "tackling the commercialisation and sexualisation of childhood". As part of a raft of measures the PM announced:
"The commitment from the top four internet service providers (BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin) that all customers will receive an active choice at the point of purchase over whether they want to block adult content on their home internet or laptops."
Let's leave aside that this statement doesn't even make sense as ISPs can't control everything on your laptop. This may well have be left buried in another set of well meaning, but rather ineffectual policies, had it not been for the Daily Mail running a front page headline of "New Curbs On Internet Sleaze".
The Mail claimed that "Subscribers to BT, Sky, Talk Talk and Virgin who do not opt in will have no access to internet porn". The Guardian followed suit with an editorial saying that Internet service providers will "require new customers to make a positive online choice in favour of access to unsuitable content".
There was the small detail that this was not actually the case. The morning of the announcement was one of confusion as different news outlets reported variously an adult content "opt in" or "opt out". Obviously the difference is crucial- for the bashful Brits forcing people to ask "Can I have the porn please?" would be excruciating for many. And undermine the fundamental open nature of the web.
In fact what had actually happened was the agreeing of a code of practice- which is no way an "opt in" model. The big four released a statement saying it would "include measures to ensure that customers are provided with an active choice as to whether to activate parental controls". That was in public. Off the record, bosses revealed to net campaigner James Firth that they were "livid". No doubt because their position had been so misrepresented. Also, the story generated a huge amount of online comment, both attacking the government and the ISPs.
The ISPs attempted to smooth over the furore, emphasising that it would only affect new subscribers ruling out most of the country. Which, of course, calls in to question its effectiveness as a measure anyway. The Next Web put it: "It really is business as usual".
Except that it isn't business as usual, and it would be naive to assume that the matter stops here. Many pointed out that it was a bit startling that the second paragraph of David Cameron's statement mentioned the chief exec of Christian charity the Mothers' Union. While any group should be entitled to put their views, that is quite different to being a key player in determining policy.
Increasingly controversial figures like Nadine Dorries, or reactionary papers like the Daily Mail are coming to define the digital rights agenda- and are pressing for restricting our freedoms, whether we are parents or not. Even the normally liberal Guardian claimed we are suffering from" the bombarding of people's homes and children by pornography and spam to an unprecedented degree", without any basis.
What is worrying is that the coalition can be bounced in to positions on digital rights driven by a frankly misinformed agenda.
A typical example of how this issue has been skewed is that one Mail article "revealed" a statistic that "40% of youngsters aged 11 to 14 have used their mobile phones to send pictures of themselves, or have received naked or topless images of friends". In fact the survey in question said " 40% of respondents say that they know friends who have been involved in sexting". So this is not a statistic of any kind about how many young people actually do it.
Of course this is a hugely fraught area, and little wonder that commentators on the story have chosen to focus on the technical aspects. But we can not shut ourselves off from concerns about the welfare of young people. What we need is action to tackle the real problems, rather than made up tabloid scares. The blunt truth is that child protection is carried out by people, not systems or technology. And those people are raising the alarm, budgets are under huge strain threatening to leave vulnerable youngsters out in the cold. The same day that the PM was making his announcement the Institute for Fiscal Studies reported that by 2013 there will be 3.1 million children in poverty in the UK, a rise of 600,000.
Whenever any type of site blocking- by whatever means, and for whatever reason, is raised the biggest objection has to be that it does not work. Short of operating a "kill switch", there are get rounds for any kind of restrictions on the Internet. Equally no system is fool proof, as any one operating current parental control options will know. To hope that either an opt-in or an opt-out for adult content will be the solution in what Children's Minister Sarah Teather describes as the "struggle to protect.. children from sexual images" is complacent.
It is worth pointing out that the definition of adult content is also wider than, say, page 3 of the Sun. Christopher Williams in the Telegraph reported "As well as pornography, parents will be able to block access to gambling and other adult websites." What exactly is "other adult" anyway? Taxes? Philosophy? Sites with inconvenient political views about web-blocking?
Parents are indeed under a great deal of pressure. In the Big Society they are expected to do the school run, and run the school. It is tempting to hope for a solution where a button can be clicked and awkward situations- or worse- can be averted. Sadly that is not the reality.
Parenting can not be outsourced to Sky. Above all, we need to be empowering young people to protect themselves online and to make their own responsible choices of how they use technology. It is no good thinking they become informed adults if they have not had the chance to be informed young people. As informed adults, we must be responsible for our actions, and not protected from ourselves.
Once again the main stream media and government's response to a serious issue has been to add to the list of measures to control the open web. Not only does this undermine the coalition's declared support for civil liberties, but it takes the key element of personal responsibility from us. We can not expect Virgin or Sky to be our moral guardians. We, and our children, will have to take that task on ourselves.