Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Collateral Damage as UK Censors Internet Archive

Posted by CmdrTaco on from the well-that's-not-good dept.

An anonymous reader noted the latest developments in the controversial censoring of the internet by UK ISPs. Apparently since some content of the Wayback Machine is bad, the whole thing needs to be blacklisted.

7 of 272 comments (clear)

  1. Meh by sakdoctor · · Score: 4, Informative

    Big deal. Not all ISPs use the IWF list and it's a free market.

    Also, even before RTFA I just knew Virgin Media (The new AOL) would be on there. Got all my less computer literate relatives to stop using them months ago.

    1. Re:Meh by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

      I recently changed ISP (I'm from the UK) and spent a lot of time researching which ISPs do not use the IWFs Clean Feed system.

      This page from Andrews & Arnold contains their position on the matter.

    2. Re:Meh by EvilGrin666 · · Score: 4, Informative

      I know for a fact (because my work ISP feed gets their feed of them) that JANET does not use the IWF blacklists.

      This leads to the amusing situation where schools (who are clearly in a position to most 'benefit' from the IWF list) who use JANET or a JANET subsidiary for their Internet feed are not subject to the IWFs will.

      Bureaucracy gone mad. :)

  2. Re:Free Speech by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1, Informative

    Voltaire didn't actually say that, just so you know ( http://forum.quoteland.com/1/OpenTopic?a=tpc&s=586192041&f=099191541&m=1821902341 ). But I do agree with the sentiment.

  3. It Depends on the Content by Brian+Ribbon · · Score: 4, Informative

    "Wouldn't it be better to tell the Internet Archive about the offending images? If it really is child porn then I'm sure they'll be only too happy to remove it."

    The UK criminalises "indecent" images of children; defined as images which "offend against the recognised standards of propriety". The US criminalises "pornographic" images of children; defined as images which involve lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genital area.

    An image can be "indecent" (illegal in the UK) without being "pornographic" (illegal in the US). The IWF may therefore be blocking access to the Internet Archive due to images which are not considered "child porn" in the US.

    --
    "To the future or to the past, to a time when thought is free" ~ Nineteen Eighty-Four
  4. Re:Simply appalling by Cajun+Hell · · Score: 2, Informative

    The UK is NOT a free society, it has become a totalitarain dictatorship and its government has no right or validity to do this.

    [emphasis mine] What about the fact that UK voters keep approving of this nonsense? Goofy shit is happening in UK with civil liberties, but it's been happening long enough, and under the command of democratically elected leaders, that I have to assume the people not only consent, but enthusiastically approve.

    --
    "Believe me!" -- Donald Trump
  5. What really happened... by Curmudgeonlyoldbloke · · Score: 2, Informative

    Is linked to half-way down the comments page on the El Reg article.

    http://groups.google.com/group/demon.service/msg/6d14597274f42ecd

    Assuming that's a correct description (and it seems to fit the facts) it looks like there's been a (apparently now fixed) faux-pas on behalf of archive.org here to be caching the name of Demon's proxy in their cached static pages.

    That doesn't mean that Demon's approach of "one page is on the blacklist; let's shove all accesses to the site through a proxy" is the right one either - that worked so well with Wikipedia, after all.