CyberLaw Blog

Archive for the ‘IWF’ Category

BBC News: Online child abuse images warning

Published: 2009/02/23 06:29:22 GMT

Children’s charities have expressed “serious concerns” many UK households still have access to images showing child sex abuse via their computers.

The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007. But firms providing 5% of broadband connections have still failed to act. One of them, Zen Internet, said in a statement: “We have not yet implemented the IWF’s recommended system because we have concerns over its effectiveness.”

It is understood other ISPs have cited the cost of blocking the illegal material as a reason not to participate in the scheme.

“ This is a battle over the merits of self-regulation versus legislation ”
Rory Cellan-Jones, BBC’s Technology correspondent

But the NSPCC’s Zoe Hilton said: “Allowing this loophole helps feed the appalling trade in images featuring real children being seriously sexually assaulted.” The blocked websites come from a list supplied by the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), but some smaller providers refuse to use the list.

Easy access

The Children’s Charities Coalition on Internet Safety (CCCIS) says self-regulation is not working and it is calling for firmer action by the government.

Ms Hilton said: “Over 700,000 households in the UK can still get uninterrupted and easy access to illegal child abuse image sites.

“ The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5% ”, Home Office minister Alan Campbell

“We now need decisive action from the government to ensure the ISPs that are still refusing to block this foul material are forced to fall into line.

“Self-regulation on this issue is obviously failing – and in a seriously damaging way for children.”

Home Office Minister Alan Campbell said: “In 2006 the government stated that they wished to see 100% of consumer broadband connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse, by the end of 2007.

“Currently in the UK, 95% of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking. The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.”

UK – Online child abuse image warning: “(BBC)
Children’s charities have expressed ’serious concerns’ many UK households still have access to images showing child sex abuse via their computers. The government had asked all internet service providers (ISPs) to block illegal websites by the end of 2007. But firms providing 5% of broadband connections have still failed to act. See also Can we block child abuse sites? (BBC).”

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

UK – IWF chief: why Wikipedia block went wrong: “(ZDNet.co.uk)
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), an organisation set up by internet service providers to monitor child sexual abuse websites, caused a furore in December when it attempted to block a page on online collaborative encyclopaedia Wikipedia. Through a combination of technical factors, people wishing to edit Wikipedia were blocked from doing so, causing an outcry. The image the IWF tried to block was the LP cover for Virgin Killer, a 1976 album by German rock band Scorpions. Peter Robbins, chief executive of the IWF, talked to ZDNet UK about the fallout from the decision to block the page, and whether self-regulation of internet content is effective.”

(Via QuickLinks Update.)

The IWF: Charity disparity?: “

Pinning down who’s really being protected

The Internet Watch Foundation is under fire again, this time on the grounds that it shouldn’t be classed as a charity. The challenge comes from a Yorkshire-based software developer, who spoke with The Register on condition that we respect his confidentiality.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

The Register: Demon ends porn-less Internet Archive block

Be, Virgin – collateral damage

By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Posted in Telecoms, 16th January 2009 19:34 GMT

British ISP Demon Internet is no longer blocking access to the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, after working in tandem with the IA to correct a ‘technical issue’ with its child-pornography filter.

Earlier this week, multiple Demon customers complained they were unable to access the Wayback Machine, an 85-billion-page web history dating back to 1996. Attempts to retrieve archived webpages were met with error pages whose urls pointed to Demon’s child porn filter, based on a blacklist compiled by the not-for-profit Internet Watch Foundation.

The IWF soon confirmed that its blacklist contains at least one image hosted by the Wayback Machine. But although IWF filters are typically designed to block individual pages, Demon’s filter seemed to be blocking the entire archive.

In a statement tossed our way, Thus Cable & Wireless – the owners of Demon Internet – now say they have resolved the problem. ‘We will continue to work closely with the IWF and others to ensure the safety and security of all web users and address any technical issues, should they arise, in order to deliver the best service to our customers,’ the statement reads. ‘In this instance, the technical issue, an obscure software bug brought to light by the interaction of our filtering technology and the Internet Archive’s servers, has been identified and resolved.’

The company did not elaborate, but a senior engineer with the company has provided an explanation on a newsgroup where users have discussed the blocking. According to this post, Demon customers were unable to access large parts of the Wayback Machine because of the way Demon’s IWF filter interacted with the web cache used by the IA to speed access.

Because at least one Internet Archive page is blacklisted by the IWF, Demon uses a proxy server each time a user requests info from the IA’s servers. If a user requested a page that had not been cached by the IA, Demon’s proxy had a way of mucking with the caching process. When creating a url for the cached page, IA servers were inserting the proxy’s name: iwfwebfilter.thus.net.

This created cache urls that did not point to webpages. And so, more often than not, Demon customers received error pages when attempting to access the Wayback Machine. And because the bogus urls remained in the IA cache, it meant that error pages appeared when surfers on other ISPs attempted to access the same content.

Which explains why some Be Unlimited and Virgin Media customers were having problems with the Wayback Machine.

‘A page with the iwfwebfilter.thus.net URLs could be cached and then served up to non-Demon customers, which explains…other reports of people who’d not been anywhere near the Demon caches seeing ‘iwfwebfilter.thus.net’ where they’d been expecting ‘web.archive.org,” reads the post from that Demon engineer.

Be and Virgin have both told The Reg that their IWF filters have not causing problems with Wayback access. The Internet Archive has not responded to requests for comment.

Last month, IWF-based filters created a similar problem with Wikipedia, a free encyclopedia/online cult. But this issue was resolved when the IWF decided to remove a controversial Wikipedia url from its blacklist. ®

The Register: IWF confirms Wayback Machine porn blacklisting

Be and Virgin mimic Demon censorship

By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Posted in Telecoms, 14th January 2009 21:13 GMT

Update Following complaints that its child-porn blacklist has led multiple British ISPs to censor innocuous content on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine, the Internet Watch Foundation has confirmed the blacklist contains images housed by the 85-billion-page web history database.

But this fails to explain why Demon Internet and other ISPs are preventing some users from accessing the entire archive.

‘The IWF can confirm it has taken action in relation to content on www.archive.org involving indecent images of children which contravenes UK law (Protection of Children Act 1978). The URL(s) in question were added to our URL list according to IWF procedures,’ an IWF spokeswoman told The Reg.

‘Details of every URL on the IWF list are shared with international law enforcement agencies, partner INHOPE Hotlines and some IWF member companies to enable the investigation of those involved in the production and distribution of indecent images of children as well as to help protect the public from inadvertent exposure to this content.’

According to IWF guidelines, blacklisted URLs ‘are precise web pages’ chosen so that ‘the risk of over blocking or collateral damage is minimised.’ But multiple Demon Internet customers say they’re unable to view any sites stored by the Wayback Machine. And in response to our original story on this blacklist snafu, customers of additional ISPs – including Be Unlimited and Virgin – say they’re experiencing much the same thing.

That said, other customers say they’re not experiencing problems. And still others say that access is blocked only intermittently.

The telco that owns Demon Internet, Thus, has not responded to requests for comment. Nor have Be Unlimited and Virgin Media.

Last month, the IWF blacklist sparked another snafu involving the cult of Wikipedia. After a complaint, the IWF blacklisted an image housed by the Wikipedia entry dedicated to Virgin Killer, a mid-1970s record album from German heavy metal band The Scorpions.

In a roundabout way, this led to Wikipedia banning large swathes of the UK from editing the ‘free encyclopedia anyone can edit.’ But just days later, the IWF agreed to lift the Wikiban, though it continued to say the Virgin Killer image is ‘potentially in breach’ of the UK Protection of Children Act.

When we asked the IWF what archive.org images are blacklisted, why ISPs are blocking access to the entire Wayback Machine (in some cases), and whether the organization could put us in touch with blacklist handlers at the ISPs in question, a spokeswoman declined to help. ‘The content involved indecent images of children,’ she said. ‘The aspects of list implementation are distinct from IWF’s role in providing the URLs.’ ®

Update
Thus has worked with the Internet Archive to resolve this problem. You can read all about it here.

The Register: Brit porn filter censors 13 years of net history

Demon blacklist muzzles Wayback Machine

By Cade Metz in San Francisco
Posted in Telecoms, 14th January 2009 06:24 GMT

Updated A further update to this story an be found here

Four weeks after birthing a nationwide Wikipedia edit ban, Britain’s child porn blacklist has led at least one ISP to muzzle the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine – an 85 billion page web history dating back to 1996.

According to multiple customers of Demon Internet – now owned by Brit telecom Thus – the London-based ISP is blocking access to all sites stored in the archive. When they query the Wayback Machine, hoping to retrieve archived pages, customers are met with generic ‘not found’ error pages. But judging from their urls, these pages are generated by a web filter based on the blacklist compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, a government-backed organization charged with policing online pornography.

One Demon customer tells us he was unable to visit archived versions of websites run by the BBC, Parliament, the United Nations, the Internet Watch Foundation, Demon Internet, and Thus. In other words, this customer points out, Thus is blocking its own web history. ‘It is nuts,’ he says.

His experience is confirmed by other Demon customers posting to a Demon newsgroup here.

We have contacted both Thus and the Internet Watch Foundation, but they did not receive our messages until after UK business hours. When they respond, we will update this story.

It is unclear why Demon’s IWF filter would block the entire archive. Presumably, the archive is housing images flagged by the IWF, and in an effort to censor these images, Demon has censored everything. But it appears the problem does not extend to all ISPs. One Demon customer says he has no problem accessing the Wayback Machine from his Vodafone mobile internet service.

Another user calls the archive blockage ‘yet more ‘unintended collateral damage’ from the IWF. Didn’t they actually learn anything from their Wikipedia disaster just before Christmas?’

In early December, under IWF instructions, at least six UK ISPs censored the Wikipedia entry dedicated to Virgin Killer, a mid-1970s record album from German heavy metal band The Scorpions. The album’s original cover depicts a naked prepubescent girl.

The IWF had received a complaint about the Virgin Killer image, and after deciding the image may violate the UK Protection of Children Act, the British net censor added Wikipedia to a blacklist designed to shield ISPs customers ‘from inadvertent exposure to a potentially illegal indecent image of a child’.

To block the image, those six ISPs began routing all Wikipedia traffic through a small number of transparent proxy servers, and in a roundabout way this resulted in Wikipedia banning edits from large swathes of the UK.

Because ISPs were squeezing all Wikitraffic through proxies, most editors appeared to be coming from the same IP range. If Wikipedia admins banned one editor for ‘vandalizing’ the site, they banned untold thousands more.

But days later, after complaints from across the web, the IWF removed Wikpedia from its blacklist. ‘The IWF board has today considered [its previous] findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case, and – in the light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability – the decision has been taken to remove this web page from our list,’ the net censor said. ®
Update

The IWF has responded to say ‘We’re investigating the issue more fully at the moment and will discuss it with Thus to get a better understanding of what has happened.’

The not-for-profit wants to make it clear that ‘we only add URLs to our list and blocking is implemented by our member companies to ensure only access to specific URLs is blocked. ‘

Customers of ISPs Be Unlimited and Virgin have also noticed some Internet Archive blocking.
Update 2

The IWF has now said that it has indeed blacklisted images housed by the Internet Archive. But its guidelines say that blacklisted URLs ‘are precise web pages’ chosen so that ‘the risk of over blocking or collateral damage is minimised.’ And the organization will not speak for ISPs that seems to be blocking the entire archive (in some cases).

Germany pushes IWF-style child abuse blocklist: “

What could possibly go wrong?

The German government has proposed regulations that will oblige local ISPs to apply a government-mandated block list.…

“

(Via The Register – Public Sector.)

Cyber rights groups denounce IWF’s Wikipedia ban – 17 Dec 2008 – Computeractive

Written by Andrea-Marie Vassou, Computeract!ve, 17 Dec 2008.

Online rights groups have described the Internet Watch Foundation’s decision to block a page on the Wikipedia online encyclopaedia as a “knee-jerk reaction” .

The IWF, a charity that works to minimise the availability of illegal content online, added one Wikipedia page to its watch list after it was reported to contain a picture of a naked young girl.

The watch list is used by all the major UK internet service providers, so most UK internet users were barred from viewing the page in question. However, the block accidentally left many UK users unable to edit any page on the online encyclopaedia.

Dr Yaman Akdeniz, director of the Cyber-Rights and Cyber-Liberties group, said the IWF went a step too far in imposing the block.

“It was a knee jerk reaction and it was wrong to block access to a site that gives people so much information,” he said.

He pointed out that the image, the cover of an album called Virgin Killer by German heavy metal band Scorpions, had been available on the internet for years.

Following representations from Wikipedia, the IWF reconsidered its decision. Although maintaining that the image “is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978”, it said that “in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this web page from our list.”

It added that it “regrets the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users” of the ban.

Ruth Hoy, partner at DLA Piper solicitors, said that new methods are likely to be needed to deal with illegal content on sites such as Wikipedia.

“As with many areas of internet regulation, the law has to tread a delicate balance: on the one hand safeguarding freedom of expression while on the other facilitating the removal of defamatory, illicit or other illegal content,” she said.

“As the internet diversifies and user-generated content abounds, it is clear that self-regulation may not be sufficient in the long term… some form of unified set of laws and global standards seems inevitable.”

The Observer: Wikipedia censorship highlights a lingering sting in the tail

John Naughton, The Observer, Sunday 14 December 2008

‘Scorpions’, says Wikipedia, ‘are eight-legged venomous arachnids. They have a long body with an extended tail with a sting.’ Staff of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), the self-appointed monitor of ‘child sexual abuse content hosted worldwide’ and of ‘criminally obscene and incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK’, may well find themselves in rueful agreement about the sting. Except that what they’ve discovered is that Wikipedia also has one.

Pause for a review of recent events. Among the subjects of interest to contributors to Wikipedia, the online, user-generated encyclopaedia, is the German heavy metal band Scorpions. A learned Wikipedia page (http://bit.ly/MgzH) covers their early history, rise to popularity, commercial success and ‘later days’ .

The page mentions the band’s 1976 album, Virgin Killer, the cover of which consisted of a striking photograph of a nude, pre-pubescent girl covered by broken glass. Someone reported this image to the IWF, which then implemented its well-oiled procedures for reviewing potentially illegal content.

The IWF concluded the image did indeed constitute illegal content and put the page on the blacklist it maintains for implementation by UK internet service providers. The ISPs, in turn, speedily blocked the page.

At which point all hell broke loose and the IWF, accustomed to dealing mainly with publicity-shy purveyors of filth, found itself under siege from Wikipedians and online libertarians. UK users (who account for 25 per cent of editing activity on Wikipedia) found themselves unable to edit. The story escalated in the media and even reached the dizzying heights of the Today programme. It was pointed out the offending album had been on sale for over two decades; had appeared over the years in print and on websites; and that it was ludicrous to penalise Wikipedia simply on the basis of a complaint.

In the end, sanity prevailed. The IWF rescinded its blacklisting and the page is back. But the IWF’s statement insisted that the image in question ‘is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978′. It has changed its mind after considering ‘the contextual issues’.

The Wikimedia Foundation statement was similarly conciliatory. ‘We are grateful to the IWF for making this swift decision, and to thousands of internet users from around the world for their outpouring of support’, said Sue Gardner, the foundation’s executive director. ‘Millions of Britons now have access to all of Wikipedia, and volunteers can resume their important editing work.’

Any outbreak of sweetness and light is welcome in these gloomy times, but the episode highlights an issue most of us would prefer not to have to think about: who actually controls the net? And who – if anyone – should control it?

In the early days of the network, a kind of libertarian euphoria led people to suppose that it was beyond control. The internet, we were told in a celebrated aphorism, ‘interprets censorship as damage and routes around it’. Experience over the past decade has made us wiser (and perhaps sadder) on that score. It turns out that the internet is rather easy to control if you’re a sovereign state (cf. Australia, China, Burma, Zimbabwe) or have access to high-priced lawyers (cf. the music industry, innumerable large corporations, the ‘church’ of Scientology, etc.) The ease with which the IWF was able to turn off Wikipedia access in the UK was just the latest illustration of the controllability of the network.

Although the IWF may be subject to criticism over the lack of transparency of its decision-making, there’s no doubt that it’s a serious, well-intentioned, non-statutory body that is doing important work. And it’s a not-for-profit enterprise – so it’s not in it for the money.

But there is an aggressively for-profit outfit out there which exercises far more control over the internet than the IWF could ever dream of. It’s called Google. It owns YouTube, fast becoming the world’s main TV channel. In a recent New York Times article on ‘Google’s Gatekeepers’ (http://bit.ly/lg8h), Professor Jeffrey Rosen described how Google’s staff try to balance freedom of speech and thought on YouTube versus the demands of corporations, states and ideologies to restrict that freedom. What’s striking is the revelation that the Google folks don’t like what they have to do – but that at the moment there’s nobody else who can do it. How long, one wonders, will that uneasy state of affairs continue? Power, like nature, always abhors a vacuum.”

(Via .)