Jump to content

Internet Watch Foundation: Difference between revisions

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Browse history interactively
← Previous editNext edit →
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
→The website: update on so-called "extreme" porn
No edit summary
Line 8: Line 8:
}}
}}


The '''Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)''' is a self-regulatory (and self-appointed) non-governmental charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the [[United Kingdom]] operating an [[Internet]] 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in informal (the relationships are not legally regulated) partnerships with the police, government, public, [[Internet service providers]] (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police [[child pornography]] online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material.
The '''Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)''' is a fascists pigs that our planning to ban the [[Venus de Milo]], all movies with curse words, wikipedia, Huckleberrry Finn and michelangelo's david. and self-regulatory (and self-appointed) non-governmental charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the [[United Kingdom]] operating an [[Internet]] 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in informal (the relationships are not legally regulated) partnerships with the police, government, public, [[Internet service providers]] (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police [[child pornography]] online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material.


The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the [[Association for Payment Clearing Services]] and the [[European Union]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Funding model |publisher=Internet Watch Foundation |url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.112.htm}}</ref>
The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the [[Association for Payment Clearing Services]] and the [[European Union]].<ref>{{cite web |title=Funding model |publisher=Internet Watch Foundation |url=http://www.iwf.org.uk/corporate/page.112.htm}}</ref>

Revision as of 16:15, 28 January 2009

Internet Watch Foundation
Founded1996
TypeRegistered charity
Employees14 (2007) [1]
Websiteiwf.org.uk

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a fascists pigs that our planning to ban the Venus de Milo, all movies with curse words, wikipedia, Huckleberrry Finn and michelangelo's david. and self-regulatory (and self-appointed) non-governmental charitable body, the only recognised such organisation in the United Kingdom operating an Internet 'hotline' for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content on the Internet. It operates in informal (the relationships are not legally regulated) partnerships with the police, government, public, Internet service providers (ISPs), and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material.

The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and largely funded by voluntary contributions from UK communications service providers, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, Internet trade associations, search engines, hardware manufacturers, and software providers. It also receives funding from the Association for Payment Clearing Services and the European Union.[2]

The IWF is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an independent chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF's remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge.

As part of its function, the IWF produces a blacklist of Internet sites and content that it deems to be in contravention/potentially in contravention to UK laws".[3] Many UK based ISPs use this list to filter the content available to their subscribers.

History

Background

During 1996 the Metropolitan Police told the Internet Service Providers Association that the content carried by some of the newsgroups made available by them was illegal, that they considered the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) involved to be publishers of that material, and that they were therefore breaking the law. In the summer, the police sent all British ISPs a list of 132 newsgroups that they believed contained pornographic material.

During the summer and autumn of 1996 the UK police made it known that they were planning to raid an ISP with the aim of launching a test case regarding the publication of obscene material over the Internet.[4]

Foundation of IWF

Facilitated by the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), discussions were then held between certain ISPs, the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, and a body called the "Safety Net Foundation" (formed by the Dawe Charitable Trust). This resulted in the "R3 Safety Net Agreement", where "R3" referred to the triple approach of rating, reporting, and responsibility. In September 1996, this agreement was made between the ISPA, LINX, and the Safety Net Foundation, which was subsequently renamed the Internet Watch Foundation. The agreement set requirements for associated ISPs regarding identifiability and traceability of Internet users; ISPs had to cooperate with the IWF to identify providers of illegal content and facilitate easier traceability.[5]

Demon Internet was a driving force behind the IWF's creation, and one of its employees, Clive Feather, became the IWF's first chairman.[6]

After 3 years of operation, the IWF was reviewed for the DTI and the Home Office by consultants KPMG and Denton Hall. Their report was delivered in October 1999 and resulted in a number of changes being made to the role and structure of the organisation, and it was relaunched in early 2000, endorsed by the government and the DTI, which played a "facilitating role in its creation", according to a DTI spokesman.[6]

At the time, Patricia Hewitt, then Minister for E-Commerce, said: "The Internet Watch Foundation plays a vital role in combating criminal material on the Net." To counter accusations that the IWF was biased in favour of the ISPs, a new independent chairman was appointed, Roger Darlington, former head of research at the Communication Workers Union.[6]

The website

The IWF's website offers a web-based government-endorsed method for reporting suspect online content and remains the only such operation in the United Kingdom. It acts as a Relevant Authority in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding[7] concerning Section 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (meaning that its analysts will not be prosecuted for looking at illegal content in the course of their duties).[8] Reports can be submitted anonymously. The IWF aims to minimise the availability of potentially illegal Internet content, specifically:

However, almost the whole of the IWF site is concerned with child pornography with little mention of the rest of their remit (racial hatred and criminally obscene material).

The Government claimed that they would also be handling images of adult "extreme pornography"[10]. However, despite being illegal for UK citizens to possess as of 26 January 2009, the IWF has made no allowances for it, and states that it has plans to do so.[11]

The IWF states that it works in partnership with UK Government departments such as the Home Office and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to influence initiatives and programmes developed to combat online abuse.

They are funded by the European Union and the online industry. This includes Internet service providers, mobile operators and manufacturers, content service providers, telecommunications and filtering companies, search providers and the financial sector as well as blue-chip and other organisations who support the IWF for corporate social responsibility reasons.

Through their "Hotline" reporting system, the organisation helps ISPs to combat abuse of their services through a "notice and take-down" service by alerting them to any potentially illegal content within their remit on their systems and simultaneously invites the police to investigate the publisher.

Despite this content being almost eradicated from UK networks, sexually abusive images of children are still available around the world, so IWF member companies voluntarily block this content for UK internet users by deploying the IWF's dynamic list on their services. Many companies in the online sector have chosen to make use of this service, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, search providers and content filtering companies.

The IWF has connections with the Virtual Global Taskforce, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Cross-border aspects

Previously, the IWF passed on notifications of child pornography hosted on non-UK servers to the UK National Criminal Intelligence Service which in turn forwards it to Interpol or the relevant foreign police authority. It now works with the Serious Organised Crime Agency instead. The IWF does not, however, pass on notifications of other types of illegal content hosted outside the UK.[12]

Blacklist

The IWF compiles and maintains a blacklist, mainly of child pornography URLs, from which 90% of commercial Internet customers in the UK are filtered. A staff of four police-trained analysts are responsible for this work,[13] and the director of the service has claimed that the analysts are capable of adding an average of 65-80 new URLs to the list each week, and act on reports received from the public rather than pursuing investigative research.[14]

Between 2004 and 2006, BT Group introduced its Cleanfeed technology which was then used by 80% of internet service providers.[15] BT spokesman Jon Carter described Clean Feed's function as "to block access to illegal Web sites that are listed by the Internet Watch Foundation", and described it as essentially a server hosting a filter that checked requested URLs for Web sites on the IWF list, and returning an error message of "Web site not found" for positive matches.[16]

By the middle of 2006 the government reported that 90% of domestic broadband connections were either currently blocking or had plans to by the end of the year. The target for 100% coverage was set for the end of 2007,[17] however in the middle of 2008 it stood at 95%.[18]

Although the IWF's blacklist causes content to be censored even if the content has not been found to be illegal by a court of law, IWF Director of Communications Sarah Robertson claimed, on 8 December 2008, that the IWF is opposed to the censorship of legal content. In the case of the IWF's blacklisting of cover art hosted on Wikipedia just a few days prior, she claimed that “The IWF found the image to be illegal”, despite the body not having any legal jurisdiction to do so.[19]

Cases

Sex stories

In the summer of 2007, a textual fan fiction on the Alt.Sex.Stories Text Repository (ASSTR) online archive was brought to the attention of the IWF, who in turn handed details over to the police. On 25 September 2008 it was announced that the author, Darryn Walker, was to be prosecuted for the online publication of material that the police and the Crown Prosecution Service believed was obscene. It was the first such prosecution for written material in nearly two decades, and was expected to have a significant impact on the future regulation of the Internet in the UK.[20]

Walker appeared in court on 22 October to face charges of "publishing an obscene article contrary to Section 2(1) of the Obscene Publications Act 1959" and his case was set for trial on 16 March 2009.[21]

Wikipedia

Main article: Internet Watch Foundation and Wikipedia

On 5 December 2008, the IWF system started blacklisting a Wikipedia article and related image description page. Users of some major ISPs, including BT, Vodafone, Virgin Media/Tesco.net, Be/O2, EasyNet/UK Online/Sky Broadband, PlusNet, Demon, and TalkTalk (Opal Telecom), were unable to access the filtered content, which included the article Virgin Killer, and an image of the 1970s LP cover art which appeared on that article. Additionally, a large number of UK Internet users were unable to edit Wikipedia pages anonymously.[22] Although controversial, the album and image are still available, both through Internet shopping sites and from physical shops. The image had been reported to the IWF by a reader, and the IWF determined that it could be seen as potentially illegal. The IWF estimated the block affected 95% of British residential users.[23][24] The IWF has since rescinded the block,[25][26] issuing the following statement:[27]

[...] the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.

Waybackmachine

On jan 14 2009 Some Uk users reported that all of the 85 billion pages had been banned. This in spite of the fact that there own policy is too try to only censor the exact webpage in question and not the whole domain. http://www.theregister.co.uk/2009/01/14/iwf_details_archive_blacklisting/

Criticism

The government believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.[6] The IWF has a blacklist of URLs which is available to ISPs, but ISPs are not forced to subscribe to it.

IWF has also been criticized for not making there blocked website list public.

IWF has been criticized for blacklisting legal content and for not telling websites that they are being blocked.[28] Following IWF's blacklisting of the Wikipedia article, the organisation's operating habits came under scrutiny. JR Raphael of PC World stated that the incident has raised serious free-speech issues, and that it is alarming that one non-governmental organisation is ultimately acting as the "morality police" for about 95% of UK's Internet users.[29] Frank Fisher of The Guardian criticized the IWF for secretiveness and lack of legal authority, among other things, and noted that the blacklist could contain anything and that the visitor of a blocked address may not know his/her browsing is being censored.[30] ISPs may feel inclined or even forced to join (and contribute) to IWF's activities as they may feel not to do so will harm their reputation as responsible providers. Subscribing to the IWF may be seen as a marketing tool by the ISPs.

See also

Notes

  1. ^ "2007 Trustees' Report and Consolidated Accounts" (PDF). Charity Commission. Retrieved 2008-12-09.
  2. ^ "Funding model". Internet Watch Foundation.
  3. ^ a b "Role and Remit". Internet Watch Foundation. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
  4. ^ Barker, Martin (2001). Ill Effects: The Media/violence Debate. Routledge. pp. p. 199. ISBN 0415225124. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  5. ^ Koops, Bert-Jaap (2000). ICT Law and Internationalisation: A Survey of Government Views. Kluwer Law International. pp. pp. 160-161. ISBN 9041115056. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  6. ^ a b c d Doward, Jamie (19 March 2000). "Exposed: where child porn lurks on the Net". The Guardian. {{cite news}}: Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  7. ^ "Memorandum of Understanding concerning S64 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003" (PDF). CPS. 15 October 2004. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  8. ^ "Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42)". OPSI. 20 November 2003. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  9. ^ Green, Chris (3 October 2008). "Blogger 'wrote of murdering Girls Aloud'". The Independent. Retrieved 2008-12-06.
  10. ^ Further information on the new offence of Possession of Extreme Pornographic Images, Ministry of Justice
  11. ^ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/12/iwf_investigates_itself/
  12. ^ Koops, p. 161
  13. ^ Arthur, Charles (8 December 2008). "Wikipedia row escalates as internet watchdog considers censoring Amazon US over Scorpions image". guardian.co.uk. Retrieved 2008-12-10.
  14. ^ Deibert, Ronald (2008). Access Denied: The Practice and Policy of Global Internet Filtering. MIT Press. pp. p. 188. ISBN 0262042452. {{cite book}}: |pages= has extra text (help); Unknown parameter |coauthors= ignored (|author= suggested) (help)
  15. ^ Paul Goggins (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) Commons, 13 February 2006 col. 1130 Internet (child pornography)
  16. ^ Arnfield, Robin (20 July 2004). "BT Technology Blocks Online Pornography". NewsFactor Network.
  17. ^ Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) Written Answer, 15 May 2006 col. {{{column}}} Child Abuse (Internet)
  18. ^ Vernon Coaker (Parliamentary Under-Secretary, Home Office) Written Answer, 16 June 2008 col. {{{column}}} Pornography: Internet
  19. ^ "Virgin kills Virgin Killer (Blogger posts interview with Sarah Robertson of IWF)". Cognitive Conga. Sampablokuper.com. 9 Dec 2008. Retrieved 2009-01-04.
  20. ^ Ozimek, John (6 October 2008). "The Obscene Publications Act rides again". The Register.
  21. ^ Ozimek, John (22 October 2008). "Date set for internet 'obscene' publications trial". The Register.
  22. ^ "Wikipedia child image censored". BBC News. 2008-12-08. Retrieved 2008-12-08.
  23. ^ Satter, Raphael G. (2008-12-07). "Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo". Associated Press. Retrieved 2008-12-07. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |date= (help)
  24. ^ "Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover". The Register. 7 December 2008. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  25. ^ "Internet Watch Foundation reconsiders Wikipedia censorship". guardian.co.uk. 9 December 2008. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  26. ^ "U.K. Wikipedia Blacklisting Dropped". CIO. 9 December 2008. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  27. ^ "IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage". Internet Watch Foundation. 9 December 2008. Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  28. ^ "Scorpions tale leaves IWF exposed". The Register. Retrieved 9 December 2008.
  29. ^ "Wikipedia censorship sparks free speech debate". PC World. Retrieved 17 December 2008.
  30. ^ "A nasty sting in the censors' tail". The Guardian. Retrieved 9 December 2008.

Template:Wikinewspar3

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Internet_Watch_Foundation&oldid=266988679"