Slashdot Mirror
UK Gov. Clueless About Own Internet Blacklist
spge writes "Computer Shopper magazine has interviewed the UK Home Office about its relationship with the Internet Watch Foundation and discovered that the government doesn't actually know what the IWF does, although it still plans to force UK ISPs to subscribe to the IWF's blacklist. The main story makes for interesting reading, but the best bit is the full transcript of the interview. Short version: the IWF investigates suspected child porn websites and adds any it finds to a list that ISPs can use to block these sites; uk.gov wants ISPs to use this list; however, the IWF is not an official government organization, does not appear to have legal permission to view child pornography, and quite possibly is breaking the law by doing so."
They're going to be getting some interesting job applicants, aren't they?
"Common sense will be the death of us all"
...you don't link to the blacklist.
http://michaelsmith.id.au
the IWF is not an official government organization, does not appear to have legal permission to view child pornography, and quite possibly is breaking the law by doing so."
If the black list of "child pornography" is anything like the Danish list published on Wikileaks, then the IWF doesn't need to worry about breaking any laws (unless of course Hentai or naked teenagers is defined as the vicious child rape that the crusaders are supposed to be protecting children from).
You could just get away with:
"UK Gov. Clueless"
How do you report a crime without self-incriminating yourself since viewing said crime is a crime?
... Media Sentry found itself a new niche after all.
"UK Gov. Representative Clueless About Own Internet Blacklist"
I'm well aware that the representative is meant to represent the views of the entire UK Home Office but I think in this case it appears he is most likely a PR man armed with some talking points. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a PR man to understand the finer points of internet censorship, or to respond to questions perfectly from what appears to be a much more technically able interviewer.
I do think it's reasonable to expect the policy makers and the people pushing this policy to understand how it works.
I'll subscribe to Slashdot when I see a month without a dupe, a typo, or an article the "editors" didn't read.
I suddenly feel the urge to register a complaint with the cambridge police reporting that there's a large stash of illegal images at so-and-so offices. 'Tis that I'm not anywhere near, or I'd be very tempted indeed.
is what it's about. If they don't know what the IWF is actually doing, then when it goes wrong, they can say "wasn't us". That is standard practice for the current UK government. Fred Goodwin's pension? We didn't know about that. UK residents being totured by the CIA? Wasn't us. 400 needless deaths in a hospital? We've given local health authorities responsibility for maintaining standards. Etc etc.
Oh no... it's the future.
Quite a large population "guesses that the government does an adequate job"... and anyway, it can't be changed.
The government "guesses that the advisors do a good job", and anyway, it can't all be checked, and we're better off with than without them.
I guess that my boss is doing a good job, but anyway, I cannot do his job, and I am clueless what he actually does all day.
I guess that the news agencies are telling the truth, but anyway, I can't go out to check it all myself.
And apparently, the UK government guesses that the IWF's blacklist is a good thing... and anyway, it's already there and its use can't be checked (easily by PM's themselves).
We're all guessing, and the system is easy to hijack. And we're all convinced that it cannot be changed, and therefore we're stuck.
I guess you all knew that already, didn't you?
You and I know that the IWF is nothing to do with stopping people watching child porn, and everything to do with a compulsory framework for censorship.
Please don't let details about the events surrounding the IWF create distractions or factions. It wouldn't matter if the government representative appeared to be entirely clueless or technically brilliant - indeed, it's in the interest of every oppressor to claim ignorance. The average high ranking UK civil servant / spin doctor is a narcissistic Oxbridge graduate who lacked the numerical aptitude to enter the City, so he is generally quite bright. But the best trick the devil use his wits to play is always to convince you he's not the devil: in government frameworks, that means one of "good intentions" or the triumvirate of equivalent absolvers: "just following orders / not my department / not been made aware of this".
Remember the "won't negotiate with terrorists" line? That's your government's way of saying "they have legitimate concerns (regardless of whether their methods are moral), but their activities help bolster support for us so we must not give them the chance to express their grievances by peaceful means". It's an excellent non-negotiation technique. Similarly, don't give your government the oxygen of publicity that is to constantly drown you out with irrelevant detail, and to feign incompetence while ruthlessly executing its intentions. For example, you think government IT projects are insecure and over-budget? Sorry, you're wrong. They're precisely as secure as desired, and all that extra money is being channeled precisely as intended. The whole "government incompetence" thing is playing into your desire to feel superior, and it works excellently - "why, I'm a free-thinking geek, surely my abilities are more advanced than this dictatorial behemoth!" Nope. Ability does not imply morality, or any sort of love for freedom or your fellow man.
To use the obvious example - all those government laptops and CDs left on trains? Think of the budget increase of those tasked with fixing the security leaks! Think of the millions flowing into private contractors' pockets! As if that wasn't enough, think of how effectively such "accidents" make a bunch of precision powermongers lead you to believe they're buffoons - all while reminding you how much information they have on you, ready to squander / sell / modify at their whim. And this is all on top of very specific reasons for releasing data apparently important to "national security": to make a point to an enemy, or friend. If you think anyone demonstrating the sort of incompetence advertised in the media would have got past screening for the Services, you're entirely underestimating your fellow man.
"however, the IWF is not an official government organization, does not appear to have legal permission to view child pornography, and quite possibly is breaking the law by doing so."
And if you report that some child pornography is found at a URL, presumably you've looked at it, and you've just admitted doing so to a quasi-government organisation?
Brilliant.
might as well dispose of the rest of our dough trying to convince us that what we've peed away so far was well spent, as well as presenting to us that we would be somehow better off even further in debt? better days ahead.
our only purpose here is to care for one another. failing that (as we're prone to do), we're just passing through, distracted by the trappings of man'kind'.
there's no need to confuse 'religion', with being a spiritual being. the lights are coming up all over now.
#ifdef rant
I think the title of the article is too long it should read:
"UK Gov. Clueless"
They seem to be coming out with one crazy Stalinist idea involving a data base every week. And before anybody says anything I live here so I know. These guys have only until Thursday 3 June 2010 and then they are very lightly to be chucked out. One fact that readers outside the UK may not know is that Gordon Brown was never elected prime minister by the people, he _took over_ from Blair mid term and thinks it is his given right to turn the UK in to some type of prison camp.
#endif
UK gov. clueless
I have thought of a morally grey plan!
1. Submit your own apache default page to the IWF.
2. Procure the IWF's IP address from the apache logs.
3. Gain entry to the likely badly secured gateway.
4. Add *.gov to the blacklist.
A shiny penny to whoever pulls it off.
Who watches the watchers?
Err... no-one
Hmmmmmm..... Deep fried and look like Squirrel.
Yes, because the Tories will be SO much better.
Look, it's a simple demonstrable fact that whatever the opposition "say" they don't agree with and would never have implemented, ONCE they get in to power, they will change absolutely nothing that is already in place.
They'll just add yet another layer of shit on top of the existing layer of shit, perhaps with a slightly different colour of perfume, but in the end it just makes the shit pile even deeper.
The thing is that the inspectors checking the sites are probably just disgusted by them, and don't get much fun out of that.
I guess they could identify if one of their employers gets over exited by his job (maybe check for hair growing on the palm of their hands?)
Except CA tried to shut them down, and stopped when it became illegal. IWF is just abusing the power it invented.
(>'.')>
No surprise to find that New Labour have put an unaccountable 'charity' in charge of this function. They've got to keep their religious backers happy after all. (Coming soon to a hospital near you - pray-as-you-go treatment)
Well, technically, even investigating officers and forensic examiners are in breach of the law when examining child pornography images during investigations. The law definitely does need some work to give those people the correct protection..
But what is illustrated is the poor state of affairs in this country. The old National Hitech Crime Unit (NHTCU) has gone, folded into SOCA (Serious and Organised Crime Agency). SOCA is meant, as a far s I can discern, to act like a British FBI in many ways but tihs doesn't really seem to have happened at all. In the meantime, local forces don't have the reosurce to do proper invesigation and there's confusion abour what SOCA and other bodies like CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre) and IWF have power to enforce. It's a mess.
If our own government doesn't understand (the same people who have such a great grasp on IT they think the ID card systems is oing to be a roaring success) then what chance does anyone else have?
It's not you: I'm just this horrifically socially awkward with everybody.
We seem to be viewing this as a web site is speech issue, but I question whether that premise is valid. Is a web site merely speech? I think the interactivity means that the answer is no.
A web site is more than speech, that's the thing. A web site is a vehicle for organizing like minded people and as such its a conspiracy aid - especially if you put a forum on it, or allow you to reach out to other people who are also on the site.
I think in this case, the Hitler test is in fact non-Godwin-able. It's one thing to dress up as Hitler in Illinois and declare yourself a hater of the various races, but, its quite another to create an instrument where like minded people can congregate and organize. Do you want to allow Nazi groups to coordinate their activities? Even now, there is project underway on some sites where a bunch of Nazis are organizing to move to a small state in the USA so they can essentially cleanse it and hijack it. What if child molesters and predators did the same thing?
We need to have some practical tests as to what sites can and should be blocked, and what constitutes unlawful access and what doesn't.
If the government is to block sites, then, all of the following are mandatory.
a) Only sites that facilitate organizing of like minded players in conspiracy against the law should be blocked. child porn sites can be blocked because it is illegal commerce. nazi and commmunist sites can be blocked, because, well, nazis and communists suck. some consideration should be given to allow parody and public discussion of blocked content.
b) Any block list must be public.
c) Any site hosted within a country's borders can only be blocked with due process. There needs to be a process in place for sites that are unjustly blocked to become unblocked. Additionally, the government MUST provide a reason a site is blocked.
d) There needs to be a process to allow third party and watchdog groups to visit blocked content. This is essential to check the government.
e) Any block should redirect to a block site that lists all of the sites that are blocked and organizations that independently review this content, and their contact information.
OF course, then you have a problem, of who watches the watchers.. What if a nazi or pedophile group becomes one of the third parties, then what...
This is my sig.
It should be women, whoever it is. There's a reason why in Orwell's world the Party used women exclusively to work on all subjects regarding pornography.
It should read
UK Gov is clueless.
I'm allowed to .. I live in the UK.
--- This meme is memory intensive
Computer Shopper are misinformed in their claim that IWF have no licence to contravene the law to view child pornography. In actual fact, there is a published CPS Memorandum of Understanding between the CPS (Crown Prosecution Service) and ACPO (Association of Chief Police Officers - another conveniently non-governmental body that still manages to assume magical quasi-statutory powers).
These bodies are, of course, not subject to the Freedom of Information Act. Which no doubt at least partly explains the ever-increasing reliance on such quasi-statutory quangos...
I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
This would be a great way to run black ops, with all the benefits of plausible deniability.
Oh wait, this is about the UK? It's a cock-up. ;^)
--
Toro
it isn't going to be anonymised (unless you've made staged false CP illegal) because that would give evidence that it isn't staged, false CP.
Charities are frequently used by the UK governments, national and local, to do their work for them. Even most hospitals are NHS trusts. By and large they are 'independent' yet answerable to the government by virtue of the fact that they are the prime funders (plus a council official might be a trustee, for example).
This allows the work to be done independently, without having to be fully managed and nit-picked by civil servants, thus enabling a degree of initiative. It also means the organisation can also provide other (more purely charitable) services using additional funding, with a degree of synergy. The board can be filled with a range of sensible people (with a range of appropriate backgrounds) who basically meet once a month for to oversee strategy and important things, a bit like a corporate non-executive director but usually unpaid, though some may have vested interests which must be disclosed.
Staff are employees of the charity, so while they are often remunerated using council pay scales and so on, councils don't have to worry about awarding them all the rights they are obliged to provide council staff (generally staff spend a lot of time fretting about their job as funding is awarded every 1-3 years [with interim approvals], while council/government staff are notoriously difficult to get rid of). Elected officials are kept out of the firing line for failures (but can assist in cutting ribbons and things).
Furthermore it allows some mucking around with the figures. There's some leeway in categorising the government funding given to charitable organisations. The charity may obtain substantial funding from the lottery fund. The UK lottery is a for-profit company awarded a monopoly by the government, but must put a certain amount of the revenues for social purposes, i.e. it's a consumption tax, used for services the government might have to provide, but it never goes onto governmental books.
I don't intend this as an attack on the approach. Advantages mentioned above are substantial. Just I think the above outlines things British people should be aware of.
Relating the above to the principle of the IWF blacklist, would you rather it be performed by an organisation which is not answerable to anyone, wholly governmental controlled or something that half way between arms-length and governmental accountability?
I certainly do not think this blacklist should be mandatory. Either there is choice or it is censorship. There is no point anyway, the only positive thing the blacklist can hope to achieve is help law-abiding people not stumble onto this crap, while paedophiles will always find a way around it.
The UK government has in fact authorized the IWF to look at child pornography.
If you don't believe me, read for yourself:
http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/mousexoffences.pdf
weirdest thing I ever saw: scientology advertising on slashdot.
uk.gov wants ISPs to use this list
No, it's gov.uk
Or are you still using JANET?