News UK ISPs implement IWF censorship

Drexial,
You reminded me to add.

Note to UK Government: 1984 is a work of fiction, it is not an instruction manual.

I knew the IWF existed but knew nothing of their history, good Reg article here clears things up
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/09/iwf/

If that album cover has been on display in the UK for the past 30 years then I think they have over reacted in this case. If the album cover was banned 30 years ago then, as it is obviously available, it is time for a court to review the situation. I'm sure the IWF does some sterling work weeding out the truly unsavoury, but I do not think the IWF should be involved in re-evaluating prior art, allow that to start and it will never stop.

I stand by my claim the ISP's showed technical incompetence and I agree with all who say a 404 error or similar is insufficient, we should be fully notified that the page/image/whatever has been officially censured and by whom.

Well said, The Infamous Mr D.
Our government appears to love fear. Fear of terrorists, fear of paedophiles etc. Raise enough fear and you can justify anything.

 

Next thing we know, the wiki page for Bloody Sunday will be blocked

 

And Vietnam, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:TrangBang.jpg .

 

As far as i was aware, ISP's like to use the "were just a access service" excuse just like BT has. This limits liability as they dont want to be sued for things that their users download.
E.g
Customer downloads kiddie porn, It had to flow over the ISP's network. If the ISP was blocking some content then one could argue that the ISP had the ability to stop the spread of kiddie porn but in this case failed to do so (as customer recieved such material) thus aiding in the transfer of said illegal content.
However if the ISP does not filter, limit or block ANY contect then they can claim the defence that they were unaware what was being transfered and place blame soley on the customer for breaking the Fair Usage Policy.

just my 2p and how i understand how it used to work

 

A word from the colonies...

“Necessity is the plea for every infringement of human freedom. It is the argument of tyrants; it is the creed of slaves.”

- William Pitt the younger


(trust me, I speak from experience. Plenty of people in 'merica could learn the above quote as well.)

 

Dude, i'm always the first to admit stay nothing is black or white, and everything happens on a grayscale. Pulling something into the extreme to justify the other extreme is not a valid way to do discussions (though often very succesful! ).

My opinion is that while the motive that's given is a good one, these people have been given carte blanche, and they did with it what every other person in human history has done with it: they went overboard. Monitoring ALL uk traffic and routing it through their filters? what are they thinking? Doesn't that ring any problematic bells with you? What happens if they try to do the same with other criminal content? Or other content typically associated with criminals? Or search patterns that fit the psychological descriptions of a criminal?

See how effective the technique is?

Now here's a proper arguement: no single group of people should have this much control or insight in my personal behaviour without a very good reason. A good reason would constitute reasonable suspicion. I'm not suspicious because i breath. At least, i sure hope not

I'm also quite convinced that these techniques are being watched VERY closely by people with less noble causes, the DRM mafia and the government being the obvious choices.

 

^^what he said.

 

Just read an article from El Reg and the IWF are gettign a bit more power by the looks of things.
Apparently Surry Police are instructing people to contact the IWF with regards to wether images they have fall into the illegal catagory of the new porn laws which come into force this january (Jan 1st 2009).
The Register

The image i might add is suitable for work IMO.

 

Never mind legalities and what is acceptable in different countries. Certain things are kind of universal. Murder, female circumcision, slavery. Child porn also is bad everywhere, mmmokay?

I don't agree with how the censorship was enforced, but as has been said, Wikipedia could have easily pulled or censored the image. What would have been the more reasonable option?

Now let's all get perspective here. It is not as if they're censoring history, or sites expressing certain political or religious views, or climate change. It is one sexually explicit image of an underage girl which you wouldn't even have known about until it was censored by the IWF. If Wikipedia had simply censored the image as requested you wouldn't have felt curtailed in your freedom of information in any way. You wouldn't even have known. You would not have gone: "Hey! I can't see that naked little girl's naked bits! I'm being oppressed!".

You could argue that this is the thin end of the wedge: child porn today, the Washington Times tomorrow; but face it: child porn has been banned in pretty much any other media: film, print and television, and this has not led to an oppressive regime of blanket censorship in those media. Last time I checked, you could still read about Vietnam, and there is even a film making jokes about how crap a President Bush Jr. was. Perspective: keep it.

I'm saying that the antidote to Totalitarianism is not lawlessness. They're finding that out in Athens right now. Remember: it is Wikipedia's response that caused the restriction to be far bigger than it would have been.

Google had a similar dillemma with China. Many people felt that Google had sold out because it agreed to filter its search results so that the Chinese population could not access sites of politically dissident views, rather than being pulled from China's internet altogether. Google's reasoning was:

Wikipedia chose the other option: it refused to succumb to any censorship demands so its page was blocked altogether --including the ability of people to edit articles elsewhere on the site. C'est la vie. Now, what would have been the wiser action?

The issue here is as straightforward as that of Freedom of Expression: with freedom comes responsibility. Freedom of expression does not mean that you have the right to offend people, incite hatred or exploit children. Other people have rights too. So sometimes, in a civilised and mutually considerate society, you'll just have to compromise and shut the **** up. If you feel free not to, someone else may just feel free to make you. Terrorism has been thrown about (yet again) in comparison to the IWF, but how is what the rioters are doing in Athens any different?

We have laws. There are laws to deal with gung-ho police officers shooting 15-year-olds, and there are laws regarding child pornography. Such restrictions are the price we pay for living in a civilised society. Play nice, be considerate to others, be responsible. Or someone will take that responsibility from you.

Exactly.

Yeah, because that is so similar to child porn.

Of course it is objectionable. But the point is: Wiki didn't do the reasonable thing. So now IWF is being unreasonable too --and they have more power.

All the dire consequences you predict are because the wiser one in the dispute failed to blink. Wikipedia really has no legs to stand on. What, it can't be arsed to throw a few blurry bits over the naked girl's image? Is this their big, principled stand on "Freedom of Information"? I could think of worthier --and more important-- battles to fight.

 

Nice one. Exposed by camera, trapped by invisible walls. A visual metaphor for life in the UK perhaps? Outrageous, well deserving of censorship

Those opposing censorship face a problem, eventually they will be put in a position of having to defend the indefensible. I know of no way this can be avoided.

Those supporting censorship face an even bigger problem, once the fire is lit it is not so easy to extinguish and those who most often cry witch may soon find themselves in The Crucible .

Is this far fetched? Is ecat talking from the bottom of the litter tray?

Back to the original image, or the one posted be LAGMonkey. If it was reported for being disturbing, shocking, distasteful then fair enough, but none of these reasons are grounds for censorship.

If it was reported or censored because someone thought it was the sort of image that others would find arousing then whoever did the reporting or censoring had better be very careful when explaining themselves.

If it was reported or censored by someone who thought the image was arousing then... Burn them. Burn them with fire... Seriously, that someone needs help.

There is no excuse for child abuse but there is no excuse for promoting a witch hunt either. History shows that the quickest way to create a monster it to empower the masses, it also shows the destructive nature of monsters, creator beware.

<I hate quoting large posts so please forgive me for being selective, I think the above is a fair reflection of your argument.>

Fair comment but missing two important facts, detailed as I understand them:

1) As recently as 2008 the F.B.I. decided there was no problem with the image, as Wikipedia is based in the U.S. they are breaking no law.

2) The IWF did not request that the image be taken down, it is not in their policy to make such requests of foreign sites. They simply placed a blanket ban on the entire page, vanished it, without explanation.

Where the content of a site conflicts with local law I'm totally in favour of the Take Down request process. First ask nicely, then take to court, but if the decision is upheld locally it should be made obvious by a "Content Censored in Country X" message. Obfuscation has never proved to be a solution and many a slippery slope starts when things are made to simply vanish.

 

@Nexxo:

You have a point, but i'm not discussing Wikipedia or even the fight between wiki and IWF, i'm ranting against what IWF is doing.

You'll notice that the big news that got this discussion started is also not really bothered by the actual issue about the picture, but about the "bigger picture" (pun intended) of IWF monitorig ALL traffic. The wiki thing is just the way it came to light.

Was Wiki being childish or overly protective of their rights? yes
Does that make the case for IWF stronger? NO

 

Personally I think Wikipedia should take that picture down. I hadn't read the forum and browsed through to it without reading the rest of the article (serves me right). Certainly not what I want to see on a trusted site on the internet, that's for sure.

I don't agree with the blanket IWF censorship, but I think sites providing that sort of content should be shut down and I can't think of another way to do that myself. Any clever people to suggest a better way?

 

The IWF should just go and die in a fire.

Who ever said they are going to stop at blocking child porn and building instructions for bombs?

Exactly, noone did and with the censorship in place you have no way to find out what else besides child porn they are blocking, because ohh crap, they can just block anything that they dont like now.

Nexxo, the situation in greece is different, because of the history they dont have any respect there from authorities and thats why the police is failing to stop the riots without resorting to shooting the people, so they are hoping it will stop on its own like it did in paris 2? years ago.

 

IWF have backed down but tbh its not enough the fact that this proxy system has been introduced in the first place should have every one disappointed and worried at the same time. At least China is upfront about its views and Australia went to the effort of publicising its implementation.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/technology/7774102.stm

Comments could be made that they've only backed down because of public pressure not because of any of the compelling arguments but I wont. If companies/MP's were able to climb down with out loosing face perhaps things would be different in this country.

 

The Backdown:

No mention of the manor in which they go about blocking content, this to me is the big issue.

Also

Does this set a precedent ?

 

I am getting out of this nanny state as soon as I am far enough into my career to afford a good life in a better country. Internet nazis can stay off my tubes.

 

Wait, are you saying this image is illegal under the new laws?
That image has artistic merit, shows no nudity, and contains no hate-symbols, anti-religion sentiments, or anything else that might be illegal.

In fact, shown that picture on its own, I might have thought it was from Vogue.

Seriously. I'm confused.

 

child porn is bad, totally agree, however this image has already been investigated by the FBI and found not to be illegal. so putting it very simply they would have been removing an image because its possibly illegal in a different country to them.

blocking the address of the jpg and not the whole page, the iwf has no remit for text.

i'll keep my perspective once the government of this country stops using mission creep to push existing/new laws beyond the original intent, Terrorist act used against government protesters, surveillance laws used by councils to check where children are living etc.

-Additional. could Bit not have merged this thread with the existing one in serious discussions as we now have parallel arguments going on

 

most people are confused about the law, hence the request to the surry police for clarification.

ss 62-67 of the Criminal Justice Act 2008 – images must be pornographic, grossly offensive and portray activity that threatens harm to life or limb, or involves sex with a corpse or animal.

"Life-threatening" is defined according to the usual dictionary definition: "serious injury" is not defined, but "could include the insertion of sharp objects or the mutilation of breasts or genitals".
"Explicit and realistic" take their ordinary dictionary definition.

In the above case, the issue was in regards to the "life-threatening" aspect of the image (woman in plasic bag).

remember people, this will come into force in january. If you know how to recover a hard drive, or are suspected or knowing how to recover a hard drive then you can not just delete the file and say that you no longer posess it.

also important to note is that you can be charged under this law for having a picture which is part of a set (even tho you do not have the rest of the pictures that do fall foul of the law) and if its simulated as well as being a drawn picture (it dosnt have to be a photograph it can be a drawing or CGI/anime)

but back to THIS topic about the IWF...

 

I believe that the entire idea of the internet is that it is a totally free share of information of any kind, if you don’t want to see something, you simply don’t have to search for it, contrary to beliefs there are no ‘magic porn pop-ups’ if you stay on clean websites. The internet should not be Nazi-fied in such a way for the plain reason that if one thing becomes censored so does the next, and then we move onto religion, lets block this, block that, oh someone found that offensive lets block that too! No! This should not happen to the internet. Even if this does ‘happen’ it does not mean much, I could run a web server now, so could my friends, so could any single person who wants to type “Web servers for dummies” in to Google. Come on, it’s impossible, it’s wrong, and most of all it is the beginning of the internet becoming a limited library.