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."
You could just get away with:
"UK Gov. Clueless"
I believe that ACPO (the Association of Chief Police Officers) have written a memorandum of understanding (MoU) in which they state that IT technicians investigating the matter will not be prosecuted... even though technically they are still breaking the law. Not a good set of circumstances at 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.
The whole premiss of the IWF is that looking at this stuff makes you into a child-molesting pervert.
No, only people without clearance can be made into a a child-molesting pervert by viewing those thing.
If you read the interview, you'll see that the IWF does not have clearance to view child pornography.
Since May 2008, bud.
Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
I was quite shocked recently to find out that ACPO is a private company.
http://www.acpo.police.uk/about.html: "The Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) is not a staff association ... The Association has the status of a private company limited by guarantee."
Environmentalism is the new Victorianism. Everyone ties on a green corset and pretends we're virtuous.
This story has already played out in Belgium : a so called child pornography searcher did not have an exactly clean slate regarding child abuse.
A private company limited by guarantee is quite different form an ordinary private company. It's not a business, if that's what got your knickers in a knot.
Only three things are certain; death, taxes, and apocryphal quotations - Ben Franklin.
It was more the irony of the situation. It was just after the wikipedia/IWF Virgin Killer furore; and we thought that it was absurd that since owning the image in paper form (on the album) was legal, that they should block it online. Hence cover their building in a legal 'child-porn' image...
Nothing to see here.
The answer lies in the snappily titled "Memorandum of Understanding (PDF) Between Crown Prosecution Service (CPS) and the Association of Chief Police Officers (ACPO) concerning Section 46 Sexual Offences Act 2003".
In short, anyone who is listed in advance by their employer, as an employee who performs IT security duties which may lead them to come into contact with child abuse images as part of their job, will not be prosecuted providing their contact with the images is kept to the minimum required to perform their duties.
For example, responding to a user who has received an unsolicited child abuse image and:
* Helping them delete it, or disconnecting their PC for subsequent investigation by the police is good, whereas
* Making a copy to use in their own investigation is bad (investigation of child abuse must be left to the police).
Obviously if you're in the UK, and you're in IT security, and you're likely to need to perform these kinds of duties, it is very important that you ensure your employer already has you listed as being so.
The consequence is that, since most employers don't want to have PCs sitting around switched off waiting for the police to investigate them, the vast majority of child abuse image evidence is deleted on sight (literally).
Andrew Oakley - www.aoakley.com