Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

UK Gov. Clueless About Own Internet Blacklist

Posted by kdawson on from the get-me-someone-with-a-clue dept.

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."

10 of 203 comments (clear)

  1. Who watches the watchers? by tacarat · · Score: 5, Insightful

    They're going to be getting some interesting job applicants, aren't they?

    --
    "Common sense will be the death of us all"
    1. Re:Who watches the watchers? by badfish99 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      If you value your children, don't go to live in Cambridge.

      The whole premiss of the IWF is that looking at this stuff makes you into a child-molesting pervert. The offices of the IWF (according to their website) are in Cambridge. So Cambridge must be full of child-molesting perverts working for the IWF.

      If I'm wrong and it is not, I'm sorry for the accusation. But in that case, the whole basis of what the IWF is doing is wrong, and so the organization is pointless and should be disbanded.

    2. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Archtech · · Score: 5, Insightful

      No, no, no! You've got it all wrong. Looking at CP images makes you a pervert if you are a bad person. It's quite all right if you are a good person. The IWF - like the government, of course - are good people, so there's no problem.

      This is strictly analogous to the logic whereby terrorists who kill people are irredeemably wicked (and usually "mindless"), while governments who kill thousands of times as many people are good (although maybe a tad careless).

      --
      I am sure that there are many other solipsists out there.
    3. Re:Who watches the watchers? by yuri2001 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Hi, I'm just wondering what the hell can be a "clearance to watch child pornography" and who the hell is able to get or deliver one to another???

    4. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Klaus_1250 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Actually, no. If you look at most laws governing Child Pornography, it has jack squat to do with the abuse of children and paying for images of abuse. Virtual CP is illegal and criminal in many countries. Staged CP (adults dressed up as underage teens and purported as such) is illegal as well in most countries. Even actual consensual "CP" is illegal (ok, borderline, but google Traci Lords to see what I mean). If the abuse of children was what is was all about, authorities would do something serious about Human Trafficking, which victimizes 100's to 1000's of underage females yearly.

      Don't get me wrong, I have serious issues with Child Abuse, but the whole fight against CP is symbolic and based upon morality. It is not doing much for the actual victims. Most abused children probably never end up in online CP. They remain anonymous in some dark basement or illegal brothel. And how often do you hear someone about that?

      --
      It only takes one man to change the Wisdom of the Crowd to Tyranny of the Masses.
  2. Or in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

    How do you report a crime without self-incriminating yourself since viewing said crime is a crime?

    1. Re:Or in other words... by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I'd say kudos to the bobby for 1) applying some common sense and 2) knowing that those higher up the command chain don't have any.

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    2. Re:Or in other words... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Of course, that was simply dumb luck. Rule of thumb: NEVER go to government with bad OR good news, because if you do, you are putting yourself at risk. At the very least you are in for a hassle, and at the worst, you can probably guess. Let government come to you. Just don't deal with them until you absolutely have to.

      On the most basic level, government's only interest in you, as a citizen, is (1) taking your money, and (2) determining if you are a criminal. To be clear, government is NOT interested in minding their own business, because their business is minding YOUR business.

      Again, let government come to you, and your life will be easier.

  3. Plausible deniability by Tx · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Plausible deniability by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The way this works with the IWF is that they say "we don't censor anything: we just supply a list of web sites to ISPs; if the ISPs choose to censor what is on that list, that is up to them".

      The government says "we don't censor anything; if the ISPs choose to get a list of web sites from the IWF and then block them, that is nothing to do with us".

      And the ISPs say "it's not our fault: the IWF gives a list of web sites to block: we've got no control over that list, and if we didn't block them, the government would make a law forcing us to do so".

      So nobody has any responsibility for anything that happens.