In an interview with a British newspaper The Daily Telegraph, Andy Burnham, the UK Culture Secretary, said that the Internet could be given cinema-style age ratings as part of an international crackdown on offensive and harmful online activity.

Calling the Internet "quite a dangerous place," the Cabinet minister also said, "... I think we are having to revisit that stuff seriously now. It's true across the board in terms of content, harmful content, and copyright. Libel is [also] an emerging issue.... There is content that should just not be available to be viewed. That is my view. Absolutely categorical. This is not a campaign against free speech, far from it; it is simply there is a wider public interest at stake when it involves harm to other people. We have got to get better at defining where the public interest lies and being clear about it."

International cooperation is viewed as essential by the UK Culture Secretary, and the new Obama administration offers new opportunities. "The change of administration is a big moment. We have got a real opportunity to make common cause," he says. "The more we seek international solutions to this stuff - the UK and the US working together - the more that an international norm will set an industry norm."

My view is that, despite the very negative reaction by those commenting on the article, several of the proposals mentioned by the Culture Secretary will be coming soon - probably in 2009. This interview offers a glimpse into what the current thinking is regarding Internet decency. As with other aspects of the Internet, the international challenges are immense, but UK experts are obviously working closely with their US counterparts on specific next steps.

Web ratings would be a significant, and very controversial, development for the public sector and for society as a whole. All online content would need to be classified (similar to movies but in real-time at sites like YouTube). Opponents argue that any rating systems will be biased and flawed.

No doubt, the new technology and processes required by the masses would be overwhelming. There are great arguments against government intervention. Current laws around Internet piracy can't even be enforced. What new enforcement police will be put in place? What happens to rating violators? Who decides what's what? What about sites that cross into mutiple categories (like newspapers). Is this approach "big brother" from government? How can we monitor real-time blogs, health sites, or other content that falls into various shades of gray?

I agree that the obstacles are huge, and yet I (reluctantly) support aspects of Andy Burnham's position. The negative attacks are unfair and don't offer workable solutions. We can't keep doing the same things and expect different results online. We must provide mechanisms for families to surf their values and not let a minority of "bad guys" control the Internet. While it would be best if the technology tools existed now to maintain one's integrity online without government involvement, our problems are getting worse - not better. A few weeks back, I wrote about ISAlliance's newly proposed cyber security social contract, which would also help if implemented.

What we need is easy-to-use technology to help move pragmatic proposals forward. No doubt, the big Internet players like Microsoft and Google are also involved in planning efforts. Perhaps proposals should start off with voluntary standards and extensive new training by ISPs? However, I agree with opponents that technology and legislation alone will not solve our Internet decency problems. We need to win the hearts and minds of the majority online. And yet, we also need to police the bad actors online. Setting appropriate standards (like speed limits on highways) is an important step.