Collateral Damage as UK Censors Internet Archive

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.

Comments

That is as expected.

[luvirini]

Once you start censoring internet things it tends to snowball until it gets in the way of agtually getting information.

Re:That is as expected.

[Rogerborg]

Censorship is just splitting information into that which is deemed acceptable for grown civilised adults to view/read without losing their minds, vs. that which only the extra-grown, extra-civilised censors can view/read without losing their minds.

That's a charitable assumption. This censorship could also be political, malicious, or for that matter completely random. Note that the IWF refuse to discuss details of what specifically led them to blacklist Wayback, other than the usual non-answer of "think of the children".

If (correction, when) the nuLabour regime feel like making any particular group unPersons, they could pick up the phone to the IWF, remind them that regulation is better than legislation, and have anything they like censored, opaquely and without oversight or appeal. Anyone who questions the IWF axiomatically likes kiddie porn, remember.

Re:That is as expected.

[Thanshin]

Once you --- ------- internet ------ it tends to -------- until it gets -- --- way --- ---- -------information.

What?

Re:That is as expected.

[squoozer]

While I agree that the picture you paint is truly terrifying I think it is important that one point is reiterated: the fact that the government now routinely threaten groups of people with legislation. The problem with this, as far as I can see it, is that we now have a whole raft of pseudo laws (nuLaws maybe) which we have no redress against. Worse still, very few (if any) of these nuLaws are debated in anyway that could be considered open and there is no standardized way to have them reviewed once they are in place. If the government ever want to increase the scope of these nuLaws they just have to put pressure on the nuLaw enforcers who have a vested interest in doing exactly what the government tell them as their existence depends on it. If the people cry foul the government can simply point the finger and say it wasn't us.

If all of that wasn't bad enough I believe the sort of people that gravitate to this type of organization tend to be conservative and more pro-censorship. It's like the age old joke that you don't want anyone serving as a police officer that wants to be a police officer.

I want off this rock!

Re:That is as expected.

[FluffyWithTeeth]

This isn't the government. The IWF is a private organisation that ISPs voluntarily sign up to.

In my opinion, this is even worse, as there is NO review process, and noone ot be held accountable for mistakes.

Re:That is as expected.

[geobeck]

It looks like parents want their kids to be raised at school. Which is wrong... Children are raised at home by the parents.

That's a rather absolute statement. Kids are raised by everyone who influences them, including parents, teachers, after school care providers, and others they interact with. Your statement is only completely accurate for sheltered, shut-in, home-schooled kids who grow up completely clueless about the world.

I try to shape the influence other people have over my son by giving him the mental tools to evaluate what they tell him, but I can't lock him away from outside influences. Nor do I want to. Listening to and evaluating different opinions is the only way you develop interpersonal critical thinking skills.

Your job as a parent is not done after the DNA combination and birth of said child.

Tell that to my ex...

Re:That is as expected.

[geobeck]

I thought semantics were about pretending to protect you from viruses...

Oh wait, that's Symantec.

WOW

[AvitarX]

It's like the UK is purposely going out of it's way to prove internet censorship doesn't work.

I hope that's the goal, because otherwise they are just working to make their people dumber.

I somehow doubt the really objectionable stuff is on web pages that are open to the public.

Meh

[sakdoctor]

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.

Re:Meh

[Xest]

Not that free.

The IWF was created to appease the police who were otherwise going to prosecute ISPs and the ISPs were also due to face government legislation back in the 90s otherwise.

Accept the watch list, or face criminal action and legislation. That doesn't particularly sound like free choice to implement it or not to me. I'm not even sure what ISPs don't implement it, I doubt the list is particularly very big. Certainly the list of ISPs that do implement it on the IWF website is pretty comprehensive. Besides even if the free market did come in to play and the ISPs that didn't implement it started growing in size how much choice do you think they'd have to continue not to implement it?

Re:Meh

[EvilGrin666]

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. :)

Censorship

[Beetle B.]

If you're reading this from the UK, this pos

Free Speech

[Dayze!Confused]

The thing is you cannot have freedom of speech and censorship at the same time. The freedom of speech is one of the most precious freedoms that we have, the freedom to express ideas and opinions. I may not agree with what a lot of people say but they have the right to say it. The power ultimately is in the hands of the people, there may come a time when the military has to choose to either side with the elected official or to side with the people, but that day will not come while the people sit idly still getting trampled upon.

Simply appalling

[Eravnrekaree]

This is outrageous. No government has ANY right to censor the internet or anything else or determine what people look at. It is none of their business. I am simply disgusted, people did not fight and die for freedoms, like basic freedom of speech so that we could give it up and turn ourselves into a totalitarian dictatorship. The UK is NOT a free society, it has become a totalitarain dictatorship and its government has no right or validity to do this. Censorship is one of the most significant hallmarks of a totalitarian prison state. No free society can allow for censorship. Stand up for your rights people! Don't let them get away with enslaving you! This is what we call the totalitarian creep, just take away little peices of freedom at a time, and people dont notice what happens. People say "oh, its just a little freedom, not much", but those little peices start to add up. And in the UK they have been chipping away at the expectations of freedom and privacy for a while and getting people used to living with greater intrusions upon their freedoms and privacy all the time. Years ago, if we would have suggested that one day the government would demand to block access to content and just blatantly censor anything it pleases and monitor all of your communications, you would have been called a nutty conspiracy theorist. But it is happening right now!!! The conspiracy theorists were right and it is becoming increasingly obvious by the day that there are those in power who want to implement a total survellience and censorship society prison state, which would weaken dramatically the framework of a free soceity, leading to greater atrocities and establishment of stasi like agencies and secret police is next. Censorship of any kind is simply an atrocity and a violation of basic human rights and so is mass censorship and the presence of this are a sure sign you are not living in a free society.

Re:Simply appalling

[Xelios]

Unless they all use a blacklist. Real freedom would be you determining the level of censorship you want to use, in other words you would be in charge of your own blacklist. What you're describing is an illusion of freedom, the idea that any time an organization encroaches on your freedom you're free to choose another, until one day they all encroach on your freedom in the same way. At that point, the illusion falls apart and you realize you've been had. At that point it's too late.

I'll throw in a (semi) related quote by George Carlin, "Rights aren't rights if someone can take them away, they're privileges. That's all we've ever had in this country is a bill of temporary privileges. And if you read the news, even badly, you'd know that every year the list gets shorter, and shorter and shorter."

I was out looking for Great Tits, but cannot

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm an ornithologist and yes, there is a bird called the "great tit" in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_tits
Quite often, I'm finding sites which refer to tits to be censored.
(there are also "boobies" which are seabirds as well)

Re:Can you already see the next step?

[Anonymous Coward]

Misdirected, possibly. Or improperly linked. Possibly a pedophile. I don't want the government to determine I'm a pedo if someone thinks it would be great fun to misdirect a link that I would visit to a pedo site.

So Much for "Supply and Demand"

[Brian Ribbon]

The fact that the IWF are blocking access to indecent images in the Internet Archive proves that they are a moralistic organisation rather than one which wishes to protect children. The dubious claim made by organisations such as the IWF is that simply viewing indecent images "creates a demand". While this claim is already flawed due to the fact that most producers take illegal images for profit/trade, the claim is undoubtedly wrong in the case of images on an archive which is almost certainly not operated by people who create indecent images. Just how would a producer be aware of the "increased demand" when he doesn't even know that the images are being viewed?

Tell them

[095]

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 trouble with blacklists

[macraig]

The trouble with blacklists is that the criteria are almost always emotional and subjective and rarely rational or objective. Since human emotional responses are never going to be precisely the same across the board, their resulting contents are a recipe for annoyance and worse. Why are they even still considered effective by anyone?

It Depends on the Content

[Brian Ribbon]

"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.

Re:Well you can always rise against oppression !

[SlashBugs]

Yes, because those handguns you're allowed to buy will be oh-so-effective pitted against the tanks, armoured aircraft, long-range artilliary and and armed robots of the entire US armed forces. Good luck with that.

What an advert!

[snspdaarf]

"Wanted: Two birds for breeding. Preference given for Great Tits, but will settle for a Common Shag."

Bet that's going to cause confusion, Ma'am!"