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?
#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
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?)
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 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
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.