3 minutes after 10. And now my brain

instead of focusing on the stuff that we

are going to be talking about this

morning, now my brain's obsessing about

the right words to use. So if we if we

sue I love that word by the way. If we

sue geek and nerd, I I know that they've

kind of been reclaimed by the tech

literate community. Um they're badges

that are sometimes worn with pride. But

if we were to sue those words, what

would we be left with in the search for

people who really know what they're

talking about? Buffin. I I buffin sounds

a little bit otherworldly, doesn't it?

It sort of casts you as somebody who's a

little bit removed from reality. A

little bit perhaps an inhabitant of an

ivory tower, but a buffin, a geek, a a

geek, a nerd, a buffet. I Anyway, I

don't know. You can make suggestions if

you want on that. You always seem to

enjoy that. You know, sometimes I worry

that you enjoy these I suppose I do as

well, these sort of semantic meanderings

more than you actually enjoy the uh the

meat and drink of the program that we

put together together every day. This

quite a felicitous use of words there as

well, wasn't it? Together. Together. You

wouldn't have thought that together.

Together would sound right in a

sentence, but they do. The program that

we put together together every day. I

like that. Together. All right, I'll

stop now. I promise. Um,

have a little listen in a minute to what

K Star had to say a moment ago. Just the

little clip that we played in the news.

You've heard you've heard it already,

but I just want to I I want to play that

to you again shortly because I have

thoughts. I have thoughts. Uh, my first

thought is we haven't spent enough time.

Yeah. If we all decide that expert is

the right word, I'm going to feel like a

bit of a doofus, aren't I? Expert.

Expert. But an expert means that you

work in the sector. You don't

necessarily need to work in the sector.

Anyway, I digress once again.

I listen to what Karma says this

morning. I I recognize I think more than

ever my recognition of this has grown

exponentially that the threat that

technology the social media that many of

these apps and um

programs pose to humanity itself it it

cannot be overestimated. We've already

done it with tobacco and I I mean if we

lived in a vaguely sensible universe,

we'd have done it comprehensively and

unanimously with with fossil fuels as

well. But of course, we don't live in a

sensible or or rational universe. We

live in a universe where discourse is

dominated by people in pursuit of

profit. So it took a very very long time

for tobacco to be universally recognized

as a force for bad. Young people don't

believe me when I tell them that there

were advertisements, I think as recently

as as certainly the ' 50s, possibly the

60s, even maybe the ' 70s, where

cigarettes would be cast in adverts, not

just as glamorous, but as positively

healthy. I don't think I ever saw a

slogan that said, "A cigarette a day

keeps the doctor away." But I would not

be amazed if something similar had not

appeared on billboards in the United

States of America, and quite possibly

here as well. So we do as a as a

species,

as as as societies,

we do move, you know, even though it

sometimes feels that that we live in um

places where nobody ever changes their

mind about anything, we do move. I I

think often of the seat belt ban for

reasons that I don't fully understand. I

think as I was of an age where it seemed

to me to be really notable and

significant that politicians would come

in and ban something that was entirely

normal driving around the place without

having a seat belt and having your kids

rattling around in the back of the car

not strapped in. Not not even dreaming

of having special chairs for little

people that that for for children that

they would be bolted into doubly. So the

chair would be bolted to the car seat

and the to the car and the and the child

would be bolted to the seat that was

bolted to the car. All of these things

if you were born in the 1970s I was born

in 1972. All of these things were

unthink I mean that just absolutely

extra drink driving relatively

commonplace. I presume it was always

illegal but I wouldn't put my life on

it. Uh seat belts in cars smoking. Uh

cigarettes wherever you wanted. we

change. You know, electric cars, I know

some poor souls are still laboring under

the illusion that this is not a

necessary and desirable transformation

of of of normality, but goodness me, all

of these things prove that when when the

moment comes or when the pips squeak or

when the issue becomes absolutely acute

and unignorable, politicians can do the

right thing.

And I think I think that

social media is going to be in that

category. I think it already is for many

people. Uh, but I think it's clear that

we're going to look back and wonder how

on earth it took so long to begin to put

the fires out, you know, to begin to put

the seat belts on, to begin to ban the

smoke, to to to begin to take away the

alcohol from the people driving cars, to

to begin to take away the petrol from

the people driving cars. I think we're

going to look back and see it in those

spaces. And I find this really

interesting because there's a social

dichotomy here

because on the one hand you've got moral

panics which always turn out to be

bogus. Video didn't kill the radio star.

Thank goodness. Um video games have not

brought our youth to their knees. Albeit

there might be some crossover between

games and the conversation we're going

to have this hour. The idea that Grand

Theft Auto or Call of Duty was going to

raise a generations of um sociopaths has

not come to pass. Rap music has not

rendered civilization

um reverse.

I you you know all of the moral panics

over the ages over the short skirts,

miniskirts and flappers. You go back far

enough into the last century, there'll

be all sorts of things that were so

votes for women. Snuff. Actually, no,

not snuff. That's bad. But all of the

things that were cited as harbingers of

is it harbingers or harbingers, Keith? I

never know actually. It's definitely one

of them. You're quite right. Um

Harbingers of of imminent societal

collapse turn out not to have brought

about societal collapse. And and not

just societal collapse, they turned out

not to be anywhere near as awful as um

we were told they were going to be. And

part of that is the business models that

we talk about every day. It's a lot

easier to sell tickets for the ghost

train than it is for the speak your way

machine. But part of it is also the slow

journey of discovery that things are not

as bad as we're being told. But I think

with social media there are I met an

amazing woman last week B and Kiddron.

You you you'll know her as a film

director whether you recognize the name

or not. And in 2012, she made a film

called In Real Life and realized while

making it the threat that this

technology posed to young people and

therefore decided to stop making films

and to dedicate the rest of her working

life to sounding the alarm and looking

for solutions. Uh so she's currently

going through a period that I presume is

52% vindication and 48% better late than

never. Lads, where the heck have you

been? She now sits Baroness Kidron. now

sits in the House of Lords where she

concerns herself with matters

technological almost almost but not um

not quite exclusively.

So now we know we really really know we

know exactly um or or we certainly have

little doubt about the scale of the

threats that are posed and cometh the

hour cometh the man.

>> This is not an impossible challenge.

These are the some of the most

innovative companies in the world and I

believe they can solve it. But if they

choose not to, then we will act and we

will change the law because when it

comes to the safety of our children,

standing by is not an option.

>> Right? I can't believe what I've just

heard. I'm I'm not a fully made up

member, fully paid up member of the I

hate Karmama club. Um, but I cannot

believe the flimsiness of what I have

just heard. I am open to persuasion. You

you are more than welcome to tell me

that this is not as meymouthed and as

pathetic as it sounds to me. And I don't

really want to do this because I, you

know, even if it's a conservative

politician, if everybody's having a pop

at them, there's a little bit of my

character that sort of makes me feel

sorry for them and wants to offer up

some sort of defense. But I cannot

believe how pathetic that sounds and and

so pathetic it is I think it probably

merits just listening to more closely

one more time. This is not an impossible

challenge. These are the some of the

most innovative companies in the world

and I believe they can solve it. But if

they choose not to, then we will act and

we will change the law. Because when it

comes to the safety of our children,

standing by is not an option.

I, unless I'm missing something

significant here, the man appears to be

operating in a in an experiential

vacuum. Guess what, Seria? In 2010, they

chose to do nothing. In 2011, they chose

to do nothing. In 2012, they chose to do

nothing. In 200 I could go on. In fact,

I might um or we could hit the junction

on time for the first time in living

memory. They they always choose to do

nothing, mate. They always choose to do

nothing. How many times have we sat here

and said they won't do anything unless

it costs them more money

not to do it than it does to do it? They

won't do anything. They won't do

anything at all unless they absolutely

have to. And it may be that you can

effect some sort of societal pressure as

we saw with diversity uh equality and

inclusion training. Society became a

place where companies felt that they had

to actually recognize that the bakedin

inequalities and the endemic inequities

of our societies. But then people like

Donald Trump end up in the White House

and companies that were making all the

right noises and saying all the right

things about equity and diversity

suddenly abandon their plans entirely.

So even then when when you leave it to

choice rather than legislation, it's

imminently and immediately reversible. A

change in the weather, a change in the

wind, a change in the White House and

all the bestlaid plans of m men can be

tossed out of the window um in a in a in

a nancond. So it has to be legis surely

it has to be law. It is going to people

like Elon Musk and saying oh please

Elon Musk who routinely lies about and

malign and incites people in this

country is being politely requested to

stop allowing people to use his platform

to create child sex abuse images. Fake

child sex abuse images. Oh yes. All

right then, Prime Minister. Of course I

will. By the way, um down with you

Mark Zuckerber. I mean, I don't know

what technologies, what platforms, I

don't know the ins and the outs of it.

But I do know this, without legislation,

nothing's going to happen. And without

legislation, even if something happens,

it happens until the weather changes or

the government changes. If you if

there's no legislation there, do you

think, for example, in the not far from

impossible prospects of Nigel Farage

becoming prime minister, do you think

he's going to say to the people that

have either um we either know have given

him millions of pounds secretly, except

not that secretly, or the people who

have given him millions of pounds

secretly that we don't actually know

about? Do you think he's going to turn

around to them and say, "I'm terribly

sorry, church. Thanks for all the money,

but I'm going to make your life a lot

harder now. I'm going to make your

profits smaller. I'm going to insist

that you spend money on protecting our

children. Of course, he isn't. So,

without legislation, this seems to me to

be an almost entirely pointless

exercise. And for some reason, maybe he

was told that it was technologically

impossible to do what was promised. But

they were briefing journalists yesterday

that a ban was set to be announced

today. A ban on social media for under

16s. Um the children zar in fact has

been calling for a ban on social media

for under 18s to extend it still

further. Uh the times newspaper reports

on its front page this morning that the

prime minister is preparing to announce

a ban on harmful social media platforms.

They might have spun what they were told

or they might have been slightly misled

or they might have misunderstood or they

might have been told that that was what

was going to happen and then it didn't

happen and then it didn't happen. 17

minutes after 10 is the time. Um,

so

there are two elements to this, aren't

there? That there is the the thing that

we can't know until it actually happens,

but we're pretty sure we do know. I.e.

none of these platforms are going to do

anything substantive or meaningful or

expensive

unless they absolutely have to. You, by

the way, your children, by the way, are

the commodity here. If you don't know

this already, then please don't shoot

the messenger. But it is it's their

attention that has had the dollar signs

attached to it. So, anything that

reduces the amount that they use this

technology is a bad thing from the point

of view of the people providing the

technology. Absolutely anything that

reduces the amount of time they spend on

there is a bad thing. So, if they're

spending all their time on there looking

at images, I'm I'm not being

lighthearted now. I don't know if this

merits a trigger warning, but I'm going

to say something difficult. Looking at

images of children selfharming and and

being told that it's some sort of

glamorous subculture. Looking at images

of eating disorders and being told that

it's a somehow desirable life goal.

Looking at pornographic images um

potentially even of each other. Anything

that reduces the amount of time that

these people, these children spend on

these platforms is as kryptonite to the

people that own the platforms is to

Superman. And I don't think K Starmmer

understands that.

I I honestly don't. Oh, please. And if

you don't, things will happen. Such

things I know not, but they shall be the

terror of the earth. He say, "Oh, I'll

give you three months to sort it out,

but if you don't, then whoa, something

bad's going to happen."

Ah,

so I can do the politics of it and I

think I can do the sociology of it and I

can do the behavioral science of it, but

I can't do the technology of it. I need

your help with this. I need your help

with this. How I mean, so because that's

the bit we can answer hopefully, or you

can. I can't. None of us can answer.

Will this work without legislation? And

although I suspect 99% of us are

shouting no into the ether, but but how

easy is it for these companies to

seriously

limit access to the bad stuff? And and

that is my question for you. First doors

this morning. Early doors this morning.

First things first this morning. And

listen, I I don't want to I've already

stereotyped you enough by suggesting

that we shouldn't call you a geek or a

nerd and you might not like being called

a buffin. So, I'm just going to call you

an expert, somebody knowledgeable. You

might be too modest to think of yourself

as an expert. You might not be the sort

of person that rings a radio station

ever, let alone on a regular basis, but

I just want to know Snapchat, Twitter,

Facebook, Instagram, all of it. How easy

would it be for the for the human beings

that own these companies to order their

staff

to order their staff to protect our

children? That's what I want to know.

How what would it look like? How

feasible would it be? How expensive

would it be? And as a second course for

putting today the question of whether or

not they are likely to do that or indeed

anything unless they are compelled to.

Okay. How easy would it be to protect

our children from the horrors of social

media platforms in particular um and

technology in general. But we'll start

with the social media platforms cuz it's

easier to get into. All right, hit the

numbers now. You will get through.

034560973

because I don't do conspiracy theories

until I do. And it looks to me like he

was minded to announce some sort of ban

and someone got to him.

>> James O'Brien on LBC.

>> 22 minutes after 10 is the time. Um

because I don't know. I I I mean I

actually don't know. I presume that

harmful social media is easily removed

from the diet that our children are

being fed on an almost daily basis. But

I am not an expert in this field and I

listen to the people who have been

charged with leading this country and

they seem today to have um bottled the

notion of delivering that sort of ban of

removing this sort of content. And it

makes me wonder two things. Is it an act

of cowardice

or is it an act of technological

inevitability? Has K star bottled this

or have they decided that it can't be

done? 034560973

because for the third time I I just want

you to listen to what he actually said

and I want you to tell me that it is not

as I fear pathetic. This is not an

impossible challenge. These are the some

of the most innovative companies in the

world and I believe they can solve it.

But if they choose not to, then we will

act and we will change the law because

when it comes to the safety of our

children, standing by is not an option.

>> So what what would it involve? What

would the companies need to do? What

would the There's a problem in this

country. I don't I don't obviously it's

not going to be true in Silicon Valley,

but there's a problem in this country

partly linked to our sort of negative

relationship with mathematics that the

idea that we we don't think it's cool to

be into maths and we don't think it's

cool to be into tech. And part of that,

I think, feeds into the idea that we we

actually don't know whether or not it is

possible or whether or not it is easy or

whether or not it is feasible for a

government to remove the bad stuff. In

Australia, I think they went the whole

hog and banned kids from the platforms

entirely. The messages there are mixed.

And of course, we rely so much on social

media or social media adjacent

commentary now that we're probably going

to struggle to get an unbiased analysis

of what has gone on in Australia. But

that's not what Kstarma is proposing. He

is he is politely asking the social

media companies to look after our

children. And he doesn't seem to know

either why they haven't already, whether

or not they are likely to, or why he

wouldn't just introduce the legislation

that's necessary to prevent them from

doing this or to prevent our children

from accessing this stuff overnight. And

and that is what I really need your help

with. And um normally on a day like

today, I can I can talk until 11:00 from

various different angles about various

different ramifications. But I I' I've

got nothing left. I I honestly don't

know. I presume that if a gambling

application, for example, can introduce

proper age verification, then so can

social media. And I don't really care

about loopholes or or swingounds. I

don't care that it won't be perfect

because if ever the argument that we

shouldn't let the perfect be the enemy

of the good applies then it applies in

places like this and then we have the

politics of it. Did it sound to you as

it did to me regretfully that K star

just bottled something quite

significant. 26 minutes after 10 is the

time. Hi James. Right Simon it's so

disappointing and half-hearted again

from Stara. And listen the problem here

now is if if you're a fully paid up

member of of of the Starmmer defense

front and that's fine. I admire your um

loyalty. You can't just reach for the

defenses here that are undetailed. You

have to explain why it's a good idea not

to just order them to do it instead of

saying, "Please, would you mind doing

this thing that you could have done 10

years ago, you could have done 5 years

ago, you could have done yesterday, you

haven't done today, you probably won't

do it tomorrow, but if you haven't done

it within 3 months, then we're going to

do something." Simon goes on, "What

happened to moving away from in

incremental change and towards bold

action?" Which I think is a really valid

point. Um, and Helen says, "The

complaints won't bother the companies

won't bother with filtering the bad

stuff. They will either block any

internet traffic from the UK because

that's easier or force people to scan ID

before logging in or creating accounts.

The problem with that is anyone can go

on Google images and find an ID of

someone over 18 and upload that to gain

access. This is this is the question

that I need answers to is is how

feasible is it how easy is it to sit

here and say um you can't do this

anymore for the companies to say what

would be the best examples you can think

of where companies have been compelled

by law to limit or reduce their own

profits to reduce their own the the

amounts of money that they make you'd

sort of think of um they've tried it

with pornography I don't even know

whether that's worked or not and that

was for over 18s that's age verification

I know it went off a cliff fairly

quickly overnight, but I imagine people

are finding their kicks and getting

their thrills down slightly different

avenues. Yeah, you think of of

cigarettes, tobacco companies

essentially being ordered to cut off

revenue streams overnight and they

immediately pop back up with vapes and

other alternatives. But the principle of

expecting hugely profitable companies to

limit or minimize their own profits

seems to me to be pie in the sky. they

will not do it until they are forced to.

Which is why I'm today leaning towards

um he's bottled it and what he's

announced, what he has sought as what

some MPs are describing as part of his

so-called legacy era is objectively

pathetic. Um Angela is in Kathan.

Angela, what would you like to say?

>> Um hello James. I'd like to say two

things. The first thing is I think

smartphones need to be banned for

children under the age of 16. So that's

that's easy to do, right? I mean, you

won't stop all children from having

them, but that would be law. So you

wouldn't be able to buy them like you

can't buy alcohol or cigarettes.

>> Absolutely. They can have a normal

phone, but it cannot have any access.

>> Yeah. But if I go out and buy a phone as

a 54 year old, I can just give it to my

daughter tonight.

>> That's true. But if somebody was to stop

her and find out that she was using she

it would

>> So who's going to get punished? Her or

me?

>> But it was still with the cigarettes.

When we had cigarettes, we weren't

allowed to smoke. But 16 year olds still

did.

>> Yes. And the shops get prosecuted for

selling them to 16. So 15 year olds, but

not not if somebody No one's ever been

prosecuted for giving their child a

cigarette, have they?

>> This is true. But I still think it would

still send a big message.

>> And it's a massive kick in the profits,

which is of course

>> Yeah, absolutely. And it would go down

because it would see because at the

moment, you know, when when teenagers

get of age, they start to believe that

parents don't really know and life has

changed and we're all old-fashioned. Do

you see what I mean? So, it's really

hard to, you know, for for parents to

turn around. Our children didn't have

any phones. So, my 16-year-old got his

first phone after his BCSE. He got a job

and he bought his own phone. But up

until that point, no phones. But um and

as for the second point, but I don't

know obviously I haven't got the

technological awareness.

>> Well, I am I'm supposed to be speaking

exclusively to buffins today, Angela. So

now we've got two non-buffins on the

radio, which is

>> Oh, you know, it's very pleasant, but

it's we're not delivering

>> on our manifesto promises. Go on, carry

on.

>> But they they must know how they must

surely know how to to put prevention.

They will do. It's just lucrative for

them not to and they will they will not

stop. You know, my daughter when she I

gave her an MP MP3 player when she was

12 and I made sure it had nothing on it.

She found a way to get on some sort of

kids chat room. Fortunately, I found out

and it was disgusting. Some pervert was

>> but we but neither but neither of us

know how hard it is to actually force

the companies to to to close that door

as it were. Um, which is why we need the

buffins. And the buffins at the moment

are thin on the ground, I have to tell

you. Is that because it's a difficult

question to answer, or is it because

you're too busy writing code to

contribute to this humble radio program?

I just want to know very, very simply,

how easy would it be for the companies

to do what K star has politely asked

them to do this morning? 034560973.

And this you don't need particular

expertise for. You probably just need to

have your eyes open and and um a a

cursory grasp of how business seems to

work in this world at the moment. How

likely are they to do it unless they

absolutely have to? And then a little

side order of politics. Um has K star

fluffed something this morning, bottled

something this morning that was yet

another entirely avoidable

problem? Here's Dominick Ellis with your

headlines.

>> James O'Brien on LBC.

>> Okay, it's 10:34 is the time. Um, I'm

going to remind you of the date, not

because I'm weird, but because I think

it's significant to what follows. So,

it's June the 8th, 2026. Let me take you

back, if I may, to the 16th of April,

2026, when Star tells social media

firms, things can't go on like this is

one of the headlines that I just found.

So, that's two months ago. Starma tells

social media firms, "Things can't go on

like this." Spoiler alert, they did. Um

10 days later, UK government moved to

delay social media ban faces push back

in lords. Social media executives 5 days

previously deny platforms are inherently

addictive to children. Of course they

do. Spoiler alert, they're lying. Um

again, 28th of April, ministers

open-minded on shape of UK social media

limits, Philipsson says. Uh there is a

distinct sense here and these are

headlines under one subject heading a

social media ban that have appeared in

the space of 10 weeks um under the same

government. Labour this is the 26th of

May set to announce crackdown on social

media for children within weeks. Well

they haven't they haven't announced a

crackdown. They've announced a polite

request to the social media companies to

start protecting our children from the

worst excesses on there. And there are

two questions. Number one, why aren't

they being tougher? And number two, how

hard would it be to be tough? I don't

know the answer to either of those

questions, but I've got a horrible

feeling the answer to the first one is

because they are for some reason

cowardly, frightened. Jess Phillips, I

think, put it brilliantly when she

resigned, saying that she'd been trying

to get Karma to to be bold for for over

a year. Um, and also claimed that she

and civil servants had got a decent plan

in place. So why is K Starmmer not

implementing it? Daniel's in Manchester.

Daniel, what would you like to say?

Hello there. Um, yeah, just on the topic

of um,

>> are you a buffin?

>> I I I wouldn't like to call myself a

buffin, but I am a I am a software

developer. I do work for I do work for a

large tech company. So,

>> fantastic. So, I don't think a true

buffin would ever call himself a buffin.

Only non-buffins would describe

themselves as buffins. Go on, Daniel.

I'll be quiet.

>> May well be true. Um, I mean, in in in

my opinion, and I have a fair amount of

experience, this is absolutely possible

for for images like this to be stopped.

However, it when you start thinking

about the details, it does get more

complicated. For example, if we if we

were talking about text messages, for

example, and I must add that I've only

seen the headline of what um what KA has

said today. Yes. So, I don't know if

it's I don't know if it's aimed at a

particular um technology or whether it's

just social media, but for example, if

it was

>> you're saying that the tech companies

like Apple and Google must activate

built-in features or implement technical

solutions to detect and block nude

images for children on new and existing

smartphones. So, that would be well, I

don't know why I'm trying to tell you.

I'm just reminding you what he said. I

don't understand the ramifications, but

you do.

>> Yeah, absolutely. Yeah. So, in in my

mind, um, one of the complicated factors

in that is that this this does have to

be done at a device level because unless

we're happy for tech companies to read

all of our text messages, which they

obviously claim that they do not, right,

>> and everything is encrypted. Um,

>> do they claim that? I mean, I WhatsApp

does, but I mean, if I send a text

message to Keith on my phone to him,

they're not No one's reading that, are

they? I mean that no one's claiming

that's encrypted.

>> No. Well, well, again, it depends on the

technology. So, if you are if you're say

on an iPhone and you're messaging iPhone

to iPhone, you're probably using

iMessage, which is which is a is a sort

of equivalent

>> that's when that's when it goes blue.

>> Yeah, absolutely. Whereas an SMS is

different. Um, but yeah, I believe that

iMessage uh should also be encrypted um

as well as WhatsApp. Um, so yeah, you

you're gonna you're gonna have to have

something on the on the device level.

>> But there's a there's a difference

between something that would trigger a

trip wire, as it were, a technological

trip wire, and somebody human reading my

secret plan to take over LBC. Do do you

see what I mean? An alerting I do. So I

wouldn't be compromised by someone

seeing all my text messages. But if I

was sending pornographic images and I

was registered as being underage, then

an alarm would go off.

>> Metaphorically speaking, that's quite

straightforward. Surely,

>> I I guess so. But it but again, it still

depends where that where that is done.

So I still because once once the

messages go out and they're encrypted,

the only way to see what's in them is to

decrypt them, right?

>> So at that at that point, you at that

point you've sort of lost that level of

security. However,

>> okay, that's really So, do you think

that could be a reason for caution from

the prime minister?

>> Um, I mean,

potentially, yeah, because I guess it

depends. We we've got to we've got to

think about that in the way that it's in

the way that it's imple Yeah, the way

that it's implemented. But I mean,

ultimately,

>> I I I do believe that it can be done and

and you know, fairly often working in

this this sort of sector for a long

time.

>> Yes. Um, when the company wants

something done, it's got to get done and

>> but they've got to want it to be done

and they're not going to do it. What do

you I mean, I'm tempting you off pie a

little now, but I mean, how likely are

they to do anything unless they have to

if it does reduce activity online and

therefore profit, therefore

>> I would I would really like to say that

that they that they that they would like

to I mean, I've worked for some I work

some worries. Um, and I would like to

think that, you know, these are not all

bad people. Um, and by the way, I should

add that I also want there to be a ban

for social media and smartphones, etc.

That's where I I sit on the matter.

>> But nonetheless, you know, these these

are not all all bad people in these

companies, and I would like to think

that they would do it. However,

>> there is always going to be a lot of

work that makes money, and that work is

always going to be the work that is at

the forefront, I think. Um unless one of

these companies wanted to take a stand

and say, "No, no, we're going to do this

and we're going to do a good job

>> and that takes away camouflage for

everybody else as well."

>> Yeah. And I think if if I think if one

company was to do that, then it it could

be a little a little cascading effect

and then we get and then we get others

doing it. Um

>> so it is it is I mean they're talking

about built-in features or technical

solutions to detect and block nude

images for children. Um that's doable,

>> I think. So yeah, absolutely because

that would be at the that would be at

the device level. So um you know there's

already so much running on a on a

smartphone. Um you know I I I think that

would be I think that would be possible.

I'd be I'd be very surprised if someone

told me it couldn't be.

>> It's a relatively small part of the

problem as well, isn't it? Because you

know the eating disorders, the self

harm,

>> um the incitements, all the other the

rac

um not necessarily touched by this. But

what they do today could be expanded

tomorrow. Daniel, thank you. Um and and

therefore we have to perhaps timidity is

is a kinder word than cowardice. We have

to tick the timidity box when it comes

to the question of why the government

appears to have is it oscillated or

vacasillated or quite possibly both.

Again, um there's going to be a ban

except there isn't. Uh Robin's in

Morvin, lovely part of the world. Robin,

what would you like to say?

>> Oh, good morning James. Nice to speak to

you. First time I've called you in, but

I have listened for quite a while.

>> Well, that's very kind of you. It's not

It's not necessary. You can ring in

having never heard a single word I've

said before, but you're very, very

welcome. What's on your mind?

>> Well, it's a problem that's been around

for a very, very long time, right from

the start of the internet. And it was

solved in inverted commerce by America

Online, AOL.

>> Yes.

>> And they produced something called a

garden. And within that they've got

total control and it worked because the

internet was quite small at that stage.

I'm talking about 1980s early 90s

network when this all started.

>> Trouble is people decided they wanted to

go outside the garden.

>> Yes.

>> And they went on to the rest of the

internet. The problem we've got is

identification.

And so while you've got dad looking over

and saying no, you can't do that. Works

fine.

>> I slightly off away from it. You'll see

what it happens. A few years before I

was an ICT teacher, a head of ICT at

Hanley Castle. Okay.

>> And um I had a meeting with um one of

the exam board reps who came around and

saying we want to put the exams online.

>> Yes.

>> I said not going to work. He said, "Oh,

yes it will. We'll have all the guards

in place to make sure that it is pupil

James online and we're not going to have

Daniel over his shoulder and saying

that." I said, "How

if you're working at home and you're on

the computer, who else is looking over

your shoulder?" Or you log on, James

logs on to his school account, moves

away from the computer, his brother sits

down and answers all the questions.

>> But but this is letting the perfect be

the enemy of the good. No,

>> it

>> it's not going to be watertight and

foolproof, but it's feasible for the

companies to, for example, recognize

certain types of images, know that

they're occurring on a device that's

registered to someone under 16 and

simply not let them make their way

through the through the sort of um

network, not not not leave one phone and

head towards the other or not arrive at

the next phone, even if it leaves the

first phone.

I don't see how that can even be

possible because I could pass through my

phone. How would they know that you but

that I mean you could say that about

anything. I could get a fake ID and go

and buy alcohol. But we still welcome

the ban on under 18s buying alcohol,

don't we?

>> Absolutely. Yes.

>> We don't say there's no point having the

ban because fake ID is both a very

sophisticated these days and b very easy

to get.

>> That is true. But the problem with the

computer system is you're saying how

many people do you want to be able to

access it? Yeah,

>> if the material is on the internet and

it is, and as an IC teacher, I know that

very well because I've seen it. I had I

had to check it out myself in order to

know what what they were doing.

>> That was my job as head of department.

So, I'm aware of that that the kids will

get around it. And also I reach somewhat

lazily for gambling websites at this

point. But of course that's not helpful

because the gambling website is is

pursuing an actual exchange of funds. So

they're going to put things in place

that allow them to continue making

money. Banning children from gambling

websites might technically uh deprive

them of an income stream from 15year-old

horse racing enthusiasts. But but but

it's very different from stuff that you

don't have to pay to see. putting

putting things in place to keep children

away from that is a very different

proposition.

>> It is. And the problem is people say,

"We'll just ban pornographic images."

How do you define a pornographic image?

>> Oh, we'll jump off that bridge when we

come to it, Robin. I think I mean, well,

for under 16s at least, you just I mean,

I you you know, I know what you're

doing. is cuz well maybe you're not but

I'm thinking of biology textbooks now

and and how that they might take or H

andd magazine for the the the the House

Journal of Naturists and how I think it

was filed on the top shelf in WH Smith

when I was a child but but was not

technically pornography. I take your

point, but I again I I I'd file that bit

of your contribution under under quibble

rather than um

serious objection, but the other bits

are serious. And I don't know. I mean,

maybe we're being unfair on Karma. The

problem is everybody got very excited

about the Australian social media ban,

but that was a ban on everything. That

was a ban on on letting children get on

these platforms and and a lot of

children are no longer on these

platforms and quite a lot of children

are still on them or are on a new

platform that has somehow circumvented

is another great word, isn't it? That

has somehow circumvented. That's the

word I've been searching for since 10:00

as well. Since I first said loophole,

I've been trying to get the word

circumvent out of the back of my brain.

And and I don't know, this is the point

Robin makes brilliantly. Just because

you can circumvent something doesn't

mean you shouldn't have it there. you

know, someone might be able to charm a

bouncer into a nightclub, but you don't

abolish bouncers as a consequence of

somebody circumventing the security. Um,

but we still don't know really um how

easy it would be to do the things that

Kharma has talked about today. And I I I

mean, love him or loathe him, he hasn't

done much. He has announced that the

government wants tech firms to prevent

children from sending and receiving

explicit images. And that, as far as I

can tell andor recall, that is pretty

much it. And he's given them 3 months to

implement the changes. What would the

changes look like? 034560973.

And why doesn't he just make it law?

It's 10:47.

>> James O'Brien on LBC.

>> 10 to 11. Um,

Kstarma wants tech firms to prevent

children from sending and receiving

explicit images. We all do. If the

technology is there, if it's easy to do

it, it could have been done 10 years

ago. Um, questions about why it wasn't

will have to be answered by people who

were in charge 10 years ago. But if

you're asking them politely to do it

today, then the fact that they didn't do

it yesterday seems to me to be rather

important. We will become the first

country in the world where it is

impossible for children to take, share,

or view naked pictures on their devices.

Which again, I think Robin was touching

on this with the definition of

pornography. Um I I don't know. I want

it to be a brilliant idea and I want it

to work, but it just doesn't feel

complete to me this morning and it feels

unduly timid as well. What do you think?

Cole's exit. Carl, what would you like

to say?

>> Uh first I'd like to say I am a buffin.

Uh I I hate to say that. Uh I got my

first degree in technology in 1987. I

got my masters in 1991

>> and I got a PhD

>> in the mid '90s uh uh in this and I've

worked in this industry all the way

through.

>> Perfect.

>> I've also worked for government uh in

multiple different places helping advise

on legislation and everything like this.

>> Fantastic.

>> So my question is

you're here with the answers, Carl.

>> Okay. My answer my answer is my answer

is it's impossible to define what social

media is.

>> Yes.

>> Uh if you look at anything that we use

so you look at Canva

Cut, Figma, Miro, Scratch, Repeat,

GitHub,

>> Google Docs, Microsoft, Fortnite,

Roblox.

>> I know that one. I know that one.

>> Uh Minecraft, Steam, Xbox, Discord,

WhatsApp, Telegram, Messenger, uh

Vintage, Depop, Etsy, Gumree. Are you

reading this?

>> Go. Yeah, I I actually wrote myself a

list.

>> Good. Because you can stop now. I get

the picture.

>> Okay. Okay. Every single one of those

can be used as a social media

application. Every single one of them

can be used to share explicit

pornography material or material you do

not want children to see.

>> So, if I'm buying something off you on

Vintage, I have a line of communication

to you that is open. I can send you a

pornographic picture. So I can put a I

can put a message on vintage that says I

have the following things and then have

a chat with you about that thing in any

way.

>> So there is nothing.

>> Okay. So let's I mean that but that

doesn't I don't think

>> so undermine the whole ambition.

>> Okay. I'm I'm a 15y old. Yes.

>> And I've heard from my friends that if I

go on to this vintage item I can have

this chat.

>> Maybe leave vintage out of it now

because they're not going to be very

happy about this and I I don't I don't

have the knowledge. I can go on to eBay

and have

>> No, don't say any companies. Just just

say I can go online an online retailer,

an etailer.

>> Any retailer that has any form of

messaging between the purchaser and the

uh supplier can be used in this way. Any

any tool like Google Docs or Microsoft

all the big tools can be used in this

way. I I use Slack every day in my in my

business. Brilliant tool. not gonna uh

uh uh think, but I can use that to talk

to my children. And my children are

older. They're 30 and 32. But also, I

could have used it when they were 15,

which means that anybody else could use

it when they were 15. We've got multiple

gaming platforms. They all use Roblox,

Fortnite, Minecraft, and everything like

that. All of that can be used as social

media. How do you frame legislation that

says all of them must block children's

access? Well, he's not I mean, in his

defense, I think he may have preempted

that objection, which many lay people

would not have understood until you had

just explained it so perfectly, because

he's going after Apple and Google, who

must activate built-in features to

detect and block nude images on any

device.

>> So, he's saying that

a a technology provider must do that.

Now,

>> it's the landlords. He's going after the

landlords rather than and you've pointed

out that there's lots and lots of

different retailers, but he's going

after the landlords, isn't he? Or

>> Okay, so let's let's let's just think

about that then.

>> Yes,

>> if I use a Google phone,

>> yes,

>> I can have many, many, many different

versions of the Google application on

that phone. I'm not restricted to any

one of them. And

>> yeah, but this is perfect. This is

perfect as the enemy of the good, is it?

You're being loopholes and

circumventing. No. What I'm saying here

is

>> the legis

>> sounded like a teacher then when you

said no. You went no. I haven't heard

that. I haven't heard that tone of voice

in a while. Carry on.

>> Sorry. I'm not a teacher. I'm I'm just

I'm the man who's done this.

>> You are now Carl. Go on. Carry on.

>> Okay. So, if you take a Google

application and the Google uh uh phone,

there are many many different versions

of that application out there and you

can change it as much as you want. So,

my 15-year-old, if I had a 15-year-old,

>> could go on to uh could go onto a

version of the Google phone, download

the Google the Google phone app, I think

it uh uh it's called Android.

>> Mhm.

>> And a version of Android that has been

modified to allow them to do it. How can

you make Google and Android responsible

for somebody who has modified other

features? I can do it on an iPhone as

well. I can

>> But you're a buffin. Yeah, but my

15-year-old when he was 15, he's 30 now,

could have done it at that time against

anything else. And we had lots of

conversations about it about about what

what what you could do. It's not the

fact that I'm a buffin that can do it.

If one person can do it, it can be put

somewhere on the internet that anybody

else can do it. It's not that I know how

to do it. I could do it. It's the fact

that I could publish it so that other

people could use it. But and then well

>> and then who's where does the

legislation go then?

>> Well, there isn't any legislation at the

moment and maybe we're working out why

is that he's going to ask these

companies to

>> to do it themselves and they'll be able

to say we have done it and then wash

them wash their hands of the

consequences that you're describing. And

here here's my quite possibly naive

response. Um it would simply be that the

the problem you describe and I have

absolutely no reason to to think that

it's not real. So the problem you

describe while real would not be

significant in the great scheme of

things.

>> It's a bit like you can't ban a

15year-old from driving a car.

>> So

>> but it's still against the law.

>> You so

>> when I say ban, you can ban them from

driving a car, but you can't stop them

from until you've got sort of

fingerprint recognition and then I think

respectfully you you'd ring me and say

that oh it's very easy to hack

fingerprint recognition and I'd say well

that's not a reason not to have the ban

in place. It's how do you frame the

legislation?

>> I I I looked at it and I looked at it

and since you started this thing, I went

away and I started to read a whole load

of stuff to go, well, how can I frame

this legislation? And then I and then I

looked at it and said, well, what would

be included in this legislation? I came

up with a such a massive list. I

thought, well, the legislation will have

to be,

>> but it's the device. It's the device,

not not the tenant. It's the landlord,

not the tenant. And and the loopholes

you've described are obviously real. But

I mean, is this just a difference of

opinion on whether or not they would

constitute a sort of undermining of the

whole project? I just don't think they

would.

>> I think they would undermine the whole

project because the moment the moment

you say

>> do it at a hardware level, can't you?

>> How

>> I don't know.

>> You can't you can't someone will be able

to

>> So hardware is just bits and bobs. Just

bits and uh knots and zeros.

>> Jess Phillips said they had remedies in

place. Jess Phillips said they had

remedies in place. So she either doesn't

>> nonsense,

>> but that's a pretty strong word.

>> I'm I'm okay. I I'm I'm quite happy to

sit with Jess Phillips and say, "Show me

the remedies that are in place and I

will tell you why that's nonsense." I'm

that confident that it's nonsense

because

>> age verification works.

>> Age ver age ver age verification does

work at a software level.

>> Yeah. But not a hardware level.

>> No. So hardware you you can't hardware

only works on software.

>> I think you're talking I think you may

be too much of a buffin. I I don't know.

I know that sounds a little bit

ungrateful given that you are a bonafide

buffin.

>> You you asked you

>> I want buffing. No, I do. I just think

your objections might be academic.

>> No, I don't I don't have a view yet. I'm

genuinely confused. I just that the

objections if I've understood the

objections that you're making, I have

two thoughts. Number one, they are

precisely the objections that Mark

Zuckerberg and Elon Musk would make,

which makes me suspicious.

>> Oh, good. Glad I got that right. And

number two, I if these loopholes exist,

then it doesn't, from where I'm sitting,

constitute reasons not to implement it

anyway, because some people who slip

through the net do not do not demolish

the efficacy of the net.

Why do we not put all our effort into

teaching and working with ch young uh w

with children into why this is a bad

idea? What's going on?

>> The same reason that we don't the same

reason we don't let them buy alcohol

legally or or or buy cigarettes legally

or drive cars legally because we can

spend a month of Sundays or 100 million

years trying to explain to them why they

shouldn't do things. But it is generally

and historically much more effective to

simply not let them.

>> I can understand that. I I

>> because it's true. But also not buying

alcohol.

>> So that's why so that's why and I like

legislation is

>> not buying alcohol is an easy piece of

legislation. If this has any alcohol

content

>> it isn't. I know a 15year-old with a

beard. He's got he's got ID that is

absolutely copper bottomed. I mean all

of these loopholes do not make the law a

bad idea.

>> I didn't say the l the loophole made the

law a bad idea. What I said was the law

is easy to frame.

>> Yeah. I I don't know. I mean, I

>> frame this law in a way that can be

actually legislated and I will go

absolutely 100%

>> and that could be why he hasn't

announced the law today because he is

aware of your reservations. But again, I

come back to one of my reservations is

the fact that you sound almost as if you

were lobbying for Mark Zuckerberg and um

and Elon Musk and and you concede that

point and I I don't know that I trust

it. I I suppose stopped clocks are right

twice a day, but I don't trust the

positions that would be adopted by the

people who are making all of the

benefits and making all of the profits

and exploiting all of our children and

claiming oh there's nothing we can do

about it. Go hands in the air. I don't

know. And that's why um the subject is

so interesting. But I suspect that you

have raised a very valid point which

quite possibly explains the current

continuing absence of legislation which

leaves us in the entirely unsatisfactory

position of joining Karma in crossing

our fingers that this company

voluntarily does the impossible thing.

>> James O'Brien on LBC.

>> It's 4 minutes after 11. It was a bit

slow to start this conversation, so I'm

going to continue it for a little bit

longer. It's it's almost certainly the

greatest social issue of our age, I

think. And and if it wasn't technology,

if it was chemical, if if we discovered,

for example, that that, you know,

something that all our children have

been eating was poisoning them or or

hypnotizing them or robbing them of

agency or doing things to their mental

health that are hideous, then we would

have no problem whatsoever with calling

for legislation. And I don't know, would

a loophole be, "Oh, yeah, but you know,

you can find the recipe on the internet

and you can still make your own." That's

not an argument against stopping shops

from selling them. I like an analogy a

lot. You know, I do, but sometimes they

fall apart before I get to the end of

them. And I thought this one might, but

so far so good. So, if they were selling

something that we thought was harmless

when when they started selling it. I

want to talk about Percy Pigs, but that

wouldn't be fair on Marks and Spencers.

So, they're selling something lovely

that we all thought was lovely and we

all gave it to our children. Um, and it

wasn't around when we were kids, so we

weren't, you know, completely clear on

what it said on the box or what the

ingredients were, but everyone else was

doing it and they all seemed very happy.

So, we all gave it to all of our

children. And then a few years later,

some people started saying, "Oh, I'm a

bit worried about that. It seems to be

turning all our children into zombies."

You know, again, I use the word lightly.

Um,

and everyone goes, "Oh, don't be

ridiculous." And anyway, if you are

turning into a zombie, then it's your

fault, or it's bad parenting. So, you

know, you can't blame the the I keep

wanting to say Percy Pigs, but that

wouldn't be fair on Marks and Spencers.

You can't blame the the the Let's think

of a name. You can't blame the toot

sweets. Nice little chitty chitty bang

bang nods there for the for the for the

fans. You can't blame the toot sweets.

Everyone likes to sweets. We've been

giving our children to Sweets since um

since they were invented. We've not had

any problems with toot sweets. And then

someone pops up and says, "I think the

tootse are turning all our children into

zombies."

And you go, "Don't be ridiculous." And

then you begin to notice that ch

something is happening to our children.

This sounds like a science fiction novel

now, right? Or film. Something's

happening to the children in Salem,

Massachusetts. Something's happening to

the children. Something's happening to

our children. There's a million of them

that haven't got jobs or in educ.

They've just dropped out of society

almost. Something's happening to our

children. their mental health problems

are going through the roof that that

something's happening to our children.

What's the biggest thing that's changed

in the course of our children's

lifetimes compared to our lifetimes? Oh,

I don't know. Is it Is it Sky Sports?

No, it's not. Is it? It's the toot

sweets.

But it's a it's a toot sweet is

something you can buy and bite. You can

see it. You can feel it. You can touch

it. It's tangible. It's it's it's it's

funible, if that's a word. It's a toot

suite. And then they say, "Well, we've

got to stop people selling toot sweets."

And no one would say, "Oh, you can no

one ever says, "Oh, there's no point

banning tobacco because you can grow

your own thanks to climate change. You

can probably grow it in Kaminster these

days." No, nobody banned No one says,

"Oh, the the ban on cannabis is

pointless because you can grow your

own." There's a million different

reasons why the ban on can cannabis may

not be the right thing to do. But the

fact that you won't be able to get

you'll still be able to get it if it's

banned. In fact, drugs are the best

argument of all against this, aren't

you? Oh, you'd still be able to go,

well, let's unban everything then

because drug dealers still exist. We

should legalize all drugs because you

can circumvent a technological ban upon

something. We should um legalize all

pornography. We should let children send

nude images to each other from the age

dot. Do you see what I mean? This

analogy, is it working for you? It's

working for me. I wish I'd thought of it

at 10:00. So, you say, "We've got to ban

the tootses." And then Kstarma comes

along and says, "We're going to ask all

the shops to stop selling toot sweets."

And if they don't, oh, then they're

going to be for the high jump. I cannot

as yet specify how high, but it will be

three months from now. And okay, talk

about a

talk about a reverse ferret.

What if it works? Well, if all the

companies go, "Oh, heaven's sake. Let's

just let's just do what we can now

before we have to. Let's just get it.

Let's get in front of it. It's good PR."

And then I've got the problem of, of

course, a change in government. If, for

example, you had a prime minister who

was secretly sponsored by foreignbased

billionaires, then obviously the

interest of foreignbased billionaires

are going to be prioritized over and

above you or your children. But let's

jump off that bridge when we come to it.

So, you you ban the people from selling

the toot suites. But because it's

technology and you need a buffin to

explain it and and some buffins will

explain it from the same side of the

argument as the people who own the

platforms and make all the money. You

kind of feel unconfident in your own

convictions.

I don't know. Can you ban the sale of

two suites? Well, what they get two

sweets on the black market. They'll

still be getting two suites. They I mean

if they really want to get two sweets,

they're going to get two sweet. Yeah. So

what what you do with legislation is

create an environment, a context of

prohibition where something is not

allowed. I don't know that you can ever

100% remove something from circulation

if human beings are capable of

generating it either technologically,

physically, or even mentally. It's like

thought crimes. But you create a context

of prohibition that is not allowed. and

and the hardware,

the phones, the tablets can be

created with that ban in place. And then

yeah, you might be able to go online and

find a loophole. You might be able to

circumvent it using um witchcraft. I

mean, sort of, you know, geekery,

buffindness, but if the context is one

of prohibition, then the whole mood

changes.

The whole mood changes. So cautiously,

10 minutes after 11, maybe this will

work. 034560973.

Mark's in Brighton. Mark, what do you

reckon?

>> Hey James, how you doing?

>> I'm all good. How are you?

>> I'm good.

>> Did you see the Trump interview with the

woman with the lady who who who stormed?

I'll play it for you.

>> Find it. I'm going to I'm going to check

it out. I'll play it for you. Kind of

got I overdosed on Trump. But let me say

this to you.

>> Go on. If I had to bet between a

politician doing something and a

15year-old kid doing something, my

money's on the kid.

It's as simple as that. Kids will always

find a way to circumvent stuff. And it's

not just going to be a few of them. It's

going to be a lot of them. What people

don't realize is that social media at

its root is a way for kids to

communicate with each other. That's why

you had all those big kids going all

over those beaches

>> uh during the last break because they

communicate with each other through

social media. Now, I will admit it is

frighteningly easy to access a porn

site. Any you got a you got a laptop in

front of you?

>> Uh no, I've got but I've got computers

in front of me and I I could type

something into the search engine now.

Maybe not on a business computer, but

because the the the the fire guards in

place, but I tell everybody knows that

you're telling the truth.

>> Yeah. I mean, and and the thing is, kids

always find a way. And you know,

somebody just talked about drug dealers.

Drug dealers exist because they always

stay one step ahead of the law.

>> Yeah, but nobody ever says we should

legalize all drugs because drug dealers

exist. Mark, this is my point.

>> Don't No, no, James, don't say that

because it's not true.

>> I just did. There are plenty of people

who say,

>> "Oh god, well, you mean libertarians and

what have you."

>> No, there are some fairly prominent

people in the states have have there

have been political candidates who've

run on that.

>> So, we need to come at it from the other

end of the telescope and remove the

appetite from our children by training

them differently and raising them

differently.

>> Well, see, the first thing is lead by

example. If your parents are doing are

are accessing certain things through

which a kid by looking at their parents

screen can access then the parent has to

start looking at their social media use

differently. And I'm not I'm not talking

about porn here. I'm just talking about

consumption

>> and addiction. You're talking about

addiction because it's all very well us

saying, "God, look at all our children

turning into zombies because they're

they're sucking on these tooot sweets

all the time. Says dad sucking on a

toot. Hey, wait a minute. James, James,

you got to answer me. What is a tooth

suite? I've never

>> It's something Well, it features in

Chitty Chitty Bang Bang. It's a suite

that's also a whistle start featuring

that famous cochney, Dick Van Djk. Um,

but it also but it but it is also my

analogy for what we would be saying

about these technologies if they were

tangible. If you could pick them up and

hand them to and and you're absolutely

right and it actually still works, this

analogy with your contribution because

you're talking about addiction and all

the adults are going, "Oh, look at these

kids. They're also addicted whilst

sucking on a toot sweet or while

accessing their own social media or

while using it to access unpleasant

images or to communicate with their

friends and their family. So, it's a

bizarre conversation about addiction

being conducted by addicts about younger

addicts.

>> Exactly. And the thing is, I mean, when

I was a kid, when I was a very young

kid, which was back when dinosaurs

roamed the earth, um, my watch word was

rules are meant for me to break.

>> Yes.

>> And I would always try and find a way to

circumvent virtually any rule I didn't

like. And believe me, there are millions

of kids all over this planet that look

at things the same way I used to when I

was a kid.

>> I I know. And I used to be of that view.

And I don't know what's happened to me

since. But just because someone

>> old, James, you got to

>> No, because I' I haven't I'm not where

you are now. I I I I I don't look at

things and think because they can be

circumvented, they are pointless.

>> Oh, no. I'm not saying anything's

pointless. I'm just saying there are

people out here who will find pointless

or not a way to get around something.

>> But that's not a reason not to do it.

It's a bit like saying there's no point

building walls because someone will

climb over it.

>> But see, here's the thing. God, my

analogies are dropping now. This is

fantastic. Carry on.

>> Eventually, things end up changing. Give

you an example.

>> In America, marijuana was a uh conceived

as a demon drug in the 1930s. They

banned it all over the country and there

were a lot of racer

madness.

>> Have you ever seen that movie?

>> I have seen that movie actually. Yes.

>> Yeah.

>> Bonkers.

>> Yeah. And part of the reason, although

they didn't say it, it was a guy named

Anslinger, but that's a long story. The

bottom line was they were afraid what

marijuana would do to black people.

>> That's that's why they banned it. And

see, the thing about that is eventually

that changed to the point that you could

walk, My daughter went to school in

Colorado.

You walk into a a a marijuana store in

Colorado, they have it laid out like a

supermarket

and Colorado hasn't, you know, died. And

matter of fact, they make a boatload of

money.

>> The law changed. The law changed, the

access didn't. And and I I I I'm

probably more concerned about social

media usage than I am about marijuana

usage. So your your your parallels work

up to a point, but the the the addiction

argument and the and the negativity the

negative impact on life I think demands

so you can't just sit and wait for

society to recognize and change. It

needs to be led by laws also just on a

philosophical les because I always enjoy

talking to you when you were a young

rebel back in the day

>> and and and like I see you as a young

James Dean being being asked what are

you what what are you rebelling against?

And you'd go, "What have you got? What

What if there hadn't been any rules?"

>> Well, then what would you have done with

yourself all day? If there hadn't been

any rules to rebel against, if there

hadn't been any walls to climb, what

would you have done all day?

>> Enjoy myself.

>> Well, I guess you and you thought you

were at the time. I've got to go. I've

got to go to the break. We'll talk soon.

And I'll play that clip before the end

of this hour. It's It's exact. I mean,

how many times have I sat here and said

to you, "It's not hard." I do understand

the perceived necessity of maintaining

access to public figures. All right.

Well, let me say that. Let me rephrase

that. I do understand the perceived

necessity of maintaining access to

deranged liars in positions of power,

whether they're leading political

parties or entire countries. Some

journalists, most journalists, almost

all journalists cannot afford to say,

"Oh, well, I don't suppose I'm ever

going to get another interview with them

again." That's that's not true. actually

organizations can't afford to say that.

Lots of journalists can because of

course it's only a tiny number of

journalists that will be invited into

the White House or a tiny number of

journalists that will be um invited to

tickle Nigel Farage's tummy if you want

to talk about the pound shop version

that we have on this side of the

Atlantic. And how many times do I say to

you there's only two things you have to

do. You insist on evidence for their

claims and you remind them of their own

words. It's not some master class in how

to debag fascists. You simply ask them

for the evidence of what they're

claiming. Could you show me one recorded

case of a haishian eating a cat, please,

Mr. President? You ask them for the

evidence of what they're Could you show

me the report you got back from your

advisers um claiming that your phone had

been hacked by Russian spies, Mr.

Farage? You ask for evidence and or you

remind them of their own words which

will hideously contradict what they're

say saying today. That's all you have to

do. And and an American journalist did

it rather splendidly this weekend and

got precisely the response you will

always get if you do it properly. And

I'll play that before the end of the

hour. It's 11:18.

>> James O'Brien on LBC.

>> 20 minutes after 11. I hate it when I

can't remember people's names. The

journalist I was talking about a moment

ago is called Kristen Welker and she

works for NBC and she provided anybody

who has sat down with Donald Trump to

conduct an interview in recent years

with a shaming masterass in how to do it

politely,

effectively, honestly. And um if you

haven't seen it or heard it, I will

share it with you shortly. But before

all of that, we continue our

conversation. This has been a weird

morning, right? Half 10. I was thinking

you called this one wrong, O'Brien.

There's but of course if I think I've

you know how my brain works all right if

things aren't going well on a phone end

I blame myself now before I had therapy

I would have blamed Keith or Martha

who's producing the program today I said

why I mean I I sit here and I think

you're doing it wrong if you find this

Are you interested in this? Are you

interested in a little insight into into

how the show works on a day like today?

So I'm thinking this is really

interesting. I trust my I I think this

is really interesting. You get to sort

of 20 10 and you're not agreeing and I'm

thinking well I'm not explaining

properly why I find it so interesting. I

am failing to explain to you why you

should be interested in this. So I'll

try again. It's a funny one that doesn't

always work of course but usually and

and here we are now. We could carry on

till Sheila gets here with with quality

contributions to a conversation about

whether or not it's feasible for um tech

companies to do what Kstarma is asking

them to do. Question number two, why is

he asking them not telling them? And

question number three, which Mark just

raised, are we actually indulging in

what the philosopher Freddy would have

called, I think, a category error? Are

we having entirely the wrong

conversation? Imagine if we were having

a phone in about cannabis and all of my

callers were ringing in to offer their

views on protecting children from

cannabis

while smoking a joint.

I think that

I think that's what we're doing, isn't

it?

Oh, I Well, I never let my children

man. That's good stuff. I never let my

children anywhere near cannabis, James.

I didn't let them buy any until they

were 16. I protected my Oh man, that's

good stuff. You've got to try some of

this, Keith. This is fantastic. And then

I'll take another call and it'll be

like, well, I think it's absolutely

outrageous that Excuse me a second. I'm

just going to do a bong.

Anyway, where was I? I just I just Oh,

yeah. Hang on. Oh, no. Short-term

memory. Shortterm Oh, yeah. C kids

should not be allowed anywhere near

cannabis. Like, you've got no idea how

dangerous it is. is absolutely and then

I take another call and it would be well

I have been sm I I I do you see we're

having a conversation about addicts and

we're all addicts how on earth do you

wrigle your we out of that I have no

idea I'm just pointing it out because

I've spotted it and I don't think I

should have to deal with it on my own

Linton's in Cardiff Linton what would

you like to say

>> oh hi James

>> hang on Linton I'm just going to do

another bong

>> carry on yourself

>> out

the the the original question. The

original question.

>> Yes, you're quite right. Steer us back

to Steer us back to the original

question.

>> I love it when you go off on these

tangents, but

>> it's not helpful sometimes.

>> Um the the feasibility,

>> yes,

>> is is heartbreakingly straightforward

and simple. It is so feasible. Um, did

you know in 1996

standard consumer equipment made it

impossible to scan bank notes?

Obvious reasons.

>> Yes.

>> You don't want some home photo.

>> Yes.

>> Yes.

>> So the idea of identifying problematic

images

that's that that's already been solved

straightforward. So solution number one,

when the device detects a suspicious

image, either being sent by another

device or being received, because it's

one thing to say, well, there are

workarounds, somebody will always find a

way to send them.

>> Yes. If a device using an account that

is registered to a a child or someone of

a young age detects that it may be

receiving

an image it deems suspicious,

a check is engaged, a biometric, a

biometric check, a biometric ID check,

the sort that you would have if you were

buying, I don't know, something using

Apple Pay or Android Pay.

>> Yeah. So, detection of suspicious

images. Tick in that box. The device

detects a suspicious image being sent to

one of the apps on the device, triggers

a biometric ID check if that app is

being used by a user who is of a a young

age. Now, of course, there are

workarounds. Of course, there are flaws.

Of course, people will

>> But that's not a reason not to do

anything. It's never a reason not to do

anything. So the the the detection I

know I am simplifying obviously this is

wildly

>> but you're talking to a simpleton so

it's just as well

>> but these problems have been solved many

times over by many more by by many

clever people

detect the suspicious image trigger the

biometric ID check the biometric ID

check would naturally need to rely on

the account having been set up by

someone who didn't put a bogus date of

birth

and

release it and see who figures out a

work around. And then as so many people

will be oh so eager to point out, well,

kids are fish. They will find a way

around it. Well, great. Buffins are fish

too. Geeks were kids. Geeks were kids.

>> My first band was called the fish

buffins.

>> They don't like to be beaten by people

who figured out workarounds to their

solution. And and what you don't have in

place here is that um I always think of