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."

53 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 Sobieski · · Score: 5, Funny

      Especially from people who think about the children, alot.

      --
      Particles, stuff that matters.
    3. Re:Who watches the watchers? by dotancohen · · Score: 4, Funny

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

      I've already applied. It's what I do all day anyway. Well, that and /..

      --
      It is dangerous to be right when the government is wrong.
    4. 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.
    5. Re:Who watches the watchers? by xaxa · · Score: 5, Informative

      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.

    6. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Bloke+down+the+pub · · Score: 3, Insightful

      the people who apply for the job are just the people you don't want doing it.

      Are we talking about jobs at the IWF, or with the government?

      --
      It's true I tell you, feller at work's next door neighbour read it in the paper.
    7. Re:Who watches the watchers? by who+knows+my+name · · Score: 4, Funny

      Hey, I live in Cambridge and I'm not a child-molesting... damn. But seriously, we were going to paste pictures of Virgin Killer all over their building at the end of last year, but everyone had gone home :(

      --
      Nothing to see here.
    8. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      But the real question is - are they hiring?

    9. Re:Who watches the watchers? by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      Would the answer be any different?

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Who watches the watchers? by chthon · · Score: 3, Informative

      This story has already played out in Belgium : a so called child pornography searcher did not have an exactly clean slate regarding child abuse.

    11. 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???

    12. 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.
    13. Re:Who watches the watchers? by phoomp · · Score: 3, Insightful

      What's more, CP is often used as an excuse to target other entities (that have nothing to do with CP) that the government and their lobbies don't like but can't convince the voters not to like, such as The Pirate Bay.

    14. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Lazy+Jones · · Score: 2, Insightful

      but the whole fight against CP is symbolic and based upon morality. It is not doing much for the actual victims.

      I don't even think it is based upon morality, it's more about control and making it easier for the public to swallow legislation that restricts citizens' rights. The recipe is very simple: if you want to control people "offline", make them be afraid of bombs and use terrorism to scare them into submission. If you want to control them "online", use CP.

      --
      "I love my job, but I hate talking to people like you" (Freddie Mercury)
    15. Re:Who watches the watchers? by Shakrai · · Score: 4, Funny

      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???

      Well, if they are handed out by a Governmental agency that works in the same manner as DMV you'll need to stand in line for three hours, deal with someone who hates her job even though she is making three times what she would in the private sector and then get sent to the back of another line because you chose the wrong one even though nobody bothered to post any signs ;)

      --
      I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
      We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
    16. Re:Who watches the watchers? by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Indeed. On a similar note, when people call for things to be censored or banned (as with the recent law criminalising possession of "extreme" images of adults), a common tactic is to wheel out the story of how traumatic it is for the poor liddle IWF employees and police officers who have to look at this material, as an argument for it to be banned.

      So um, who asked them to look at it? It's one thing when we're talking about police officers investigating a traumatic crime (such as with child abuse), but here the argument is banning things that are "disgusting", using the argument that the police officers find it difficult to look at them - but if they didn't pass the law, they wouldn't have to look at them! It's nonsensical. "I as a police officer don't like looking at your train spotting collection photos, so I want a law criminalising them, which'll mean I'll have to spend hours looking at them all..."

      And as you note, it's a nonsensical double standard. If normal people view images, it turns them into killers; if police officers, politicians and IWF employees look at them, they get disgusted. Which is it?

      This was also exemplified in the House of Lords debates last March or April over the aforementioned law on adult images. Lord Hunt invited fellow peers to attend a session at a police station to see the kind of images he was talking about, so they could see how "disgusting" they were - this invitation was not available for organisations opposing the law (who have tried to get information about what kind of images the law will affect, with no success - it's like talking to a brick wall), presumably on the grounds that those people would be perverted by the images.

    17. Re:Who watches the watchers? by pbhj · · Score: 2, 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???

      Presumable if your part of a team investigating a child porn ring then you need clearance to assess if the material is indeed illegal, also to try and track the children so you can be sure they're not/no longer suffering from abuse.

    18. Re:Who watches the watchers? by AGMW · · Score: 2, Funny
      LOL: When I read the topic title all I could think about was the waste of four words!

      Can we change it to:-
      UK Gov. Clueless

      --
      Eclectic beats from Leeds, UK
      handmadehands.co.uk
    19. Re:Who watches the watchers? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      Not many. There are many countries that have state funded healthcare, but none that I know of that have the politicians providing it.

    20. Re:Who watches the watchers? by commodore64_love · · Score: 2, Interesting

      I downloaded Brooke Shields "Pretty Baby" from Pirate Bay, since no other organization would carry it. For those not familiar, this movie shows a naked girl at around age 13, just prior to the onset of puberty.

      In which countries is ownership of this movie considered illegal? The UK? France? Germany?

      Why?

      --
      "I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it." - historian Evelyn Beatrice Hall
    21. Re:Who watches the watchers? by who+knows+my+name · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    22. Re:Who watches the watchers? by evilandi · · Score: 4, Informative

      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
    23. Re:Who watches the watchers? by torkus · · Score: 2, Insightful

      And i assume an exception to the possession of CP laws as well. After all, anyone who holds the evidence chain also holds CP...

      I wish some politician would see the idiocy of all this and not just the potential to garner a few more votes.

      --
      You can get rich if you own a politician, but you have to be rich to buy one in the first place.
    24. Re:Who watches the watchers? by AliasMarlowe · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This whole thing is ridiculous. How does looking at images of naked children cause harm? Is nudity "bad"? Is God some kind of pervert because he made-us naked without feathers or fur? C'mon people! If I take my family to a nudist resort, and I post our family photo, and I going to get drug-off in the middle of night as a child porn provider? Is nudism no longer acceptable? Sounds like 1984.

      "If God wanted us to be naked, we would have been born that way" -- Oscar Wilde.
      The sick social attitudes towards nudity that you allude to are not prevalent in all parts of the world. For example, in Finland it is considered quite normal for a whole family to go skinny-dipping together or to go into the sauna together. BTW, towels are NOT worn in the sauna - that would be considered wierd.

      --
      Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
  2. The first rule about blacklists is by MichaelSmith · · Score: 5, Funny

    ...you don't link to the blacklist.

    --
    http://michaelsmith.id.au
  3. New title required.... by cb95amc · · Score: 5, Informative

    You could just get away with:

    "UK Gov. Clueless"

    1. Re:New title required.... by MichaelSmith · · Score: 2, Informative

      You could just get away with:

      "UK Gov. Clueless"

      As much as I love sticking it to the poms I don't think their government has the patent on cluelessness.

      --
      http://michaelsmith.id.au
    2. Re:New title required.... by Houndofhell · · Score: 5, Funny

      Oh i think our Government does have that patent somewhere, remember we did own most of the world at one point,
      so we must have spawned the cluelessness of other governments.

    3. Re:New title required.... by catman · · Score: 5, Funny

      Heh. I was standing at customs in New Delhi *mumble* years ago trying to bring in a piece of equipment needed for a presentation. A British gentleman was watching me struggle with the paperwork, noticing that I was neither British nor Indian, he remarked "you can blame us - we taught them."

  4. 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 LilBlackKittie · · Score: 5, Informative

      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!

    2. Re:Or in other words... by unlametheweak · · Score: 3, Interesting

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

      Use doublethink, which is a very British thing to do.

    3. Re:Or in other words... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I've posted about this before, but i'll post it again.

      A guy in my local had an indecent image of a child emailed to him from an address unknown to him. He didn't know what the email contained, and it was obscured with content which wouldn't identify it as being CP in any way (subject and body were innocuous). He called the local police station and a PC came down to check it out.

      Apparently, the PC saw the picture, turned to the guy, and said (paraphrasing) "I'm going outside for a smoke. You're going to delete that email and the picture before I come back in, or I have to arrest you for viewing an indecent image of a minor. That's just how the law is written."

      Moral of the story? If you're in the UK, don't report ANYTHING to the police. Ever.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    4. Re:Or in other words... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      "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"

      Well, at least until you start demonstrating how careless the police are being with the law, suggesting that evidence of a system downloading something is evidence of a person owning the system being the one using it at that time:

      http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/17/ore_bates_arrest/

      Personally, whilst the idea of working for the police in the past has interested me when they've complained about a shortage of people skilled to do the job, I'd now keep well away. If they arrest you and try and label you a criminal when you're actually doing the right thing and trying to ensure justice is done then that's not somewhere I'd ever want to work. Effectively they're saying, look we wont arrest you for helping us find people loosely related to these crimes as long as you side with us against these people even if innocent.

      As Slashdot likes it's car analogies, it's akin to a vehicle crash expert being arrested for pointing out the innocence of a guy who has been arrested for manslaughter because his car was stolen whilst he was at work and used to run someone over.

    5. 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.
    6. Re:Or in other words... by permaculture · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.
    7. 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.

    8. Re:Or in other words... by Bastard+of+Subhumani · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.
    9. Re:Or in other words... by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Interesting
      IANAL.

      Check out the Protection of Children Act 1978. From the Wikipedia article on the subject:

      "In the United Kingdom, it is illegal to take, make, distribute, show or possess an indecent image of a child. Accessing an indecent image is considered to be "making" the image, meaning that a defendant can be charged under the Protection of Children Act if he accessed an image without saving it."

      It is illegal to view the image. It's just how the law is written.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    10. Re:Or in other words... by Antique+Geekmeister · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Sir or madam, people spam for _everything_. Read http://www.sophos.com/pressoffice/news/articles/2006/03/offspam.html: while the article is a few years out of date, there's a commercial notification from a security company that it does occur.

      Now, the policeman's behavior was one of making sure he didn't have to do any work and deal with the complaint, not one of actually dealing with the porn. That matches FBI behavior in the US, whose actual response to spam and fraud remains, basically, 'hit the D key', despite the millions invested in the completely useless and clueless 'Internet Crime Complaint Center', which is apparently a fancy website which gets you an autoresponse and then completely ignored no matter what you report.

  5. The title should read... by Kawahee · · Score: 3, Informative

    "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.
    1. Re:The title should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      It would have been the spokesman's responsibility to say "I am not in the know about this, let me check back with the relevant departments first".

    2. Re:The title should read... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

      No, here in the UK we like to appoint people without any technological clue into jobs where they're making technical decisions.

      If the representative they send is likely to be representative of the people in charge: technologically incompetent.

    3. Re:The title should read... by krou · · Score: 3, Insightful

      If they're speaking in the name of the Home Office, then the title is spot on. Also, the transcript explicitly states that all questions were sent to the Home Office a full day before the interview "to give them plenty of time to prepare". If they can't even prepare properly, then not only is the Home Office clueless, but the PR man is useless at his job.

      Regardless, what you said is exactly what's wrong with the UK government*: too many f*cking PR men with their dial set to constant spin-cycle. (Never mind too many unelected officials making decisions and influencing policy).

      Who are these nameless idiots anyway? "A home office spokesman", doesn't (s)he have a name?

      * Likely to continue under the Tories as well.

      --
      'If Christ had tweeted the sermon on the mount, it might have lasted until nightfall.' - John Perry Barlow
    4. Re:The title should read... by perryizgr8 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think that everyone must understand why we consider child porn to be so highly illegal. because it means exploitation of a minor. so the decision of blocking nude pics of children must be based on whether a child was exploited or not. its like i tell a person that lying is wrong, without the person understanding the logic behind my statement. now this setup works well until there is a situation where speaking the truth will result in the death of an innocent person, but lying may save a life.

      --
      Wealth is the gift that keeps on giving.
    5. Re:The title should read... by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      i think that everyone must understand why we consider child porn to be so highly illegal. because it means exploitation of a minor.

      Bullshit. I hope you don't believe your own words. Child porn is illegal because of religious (neo)-conservatism. Child exploitation is generally either legal or condoned (when it does not involve sex). Believe me the same nut-jobs who don't want children having sex are the same ones who want them physically abused through corporal punishment, childhood death sentences, and making cheap running shoes in India and China, etc. There is a lot of dishonesty and hypocrisy in the think-of-the-children crowd. If I ever see a concerted effort by the think-of-the-children crusaders in banning all child acting, and not just pornography, then I would take them more seriously then their vary obvious religious lifestyle and mentality would demonstrate.

      Yeah, and the lying example is sad. Most people lie as naturally as they breathe or urinate. It's just another hobby.

    6. Re:The title should read... by unlametheweak · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I think you're a truly sick individual and want nothing to do with you.

      Flaimbait and insults. I'm disappointed but not surprised. There are a lot of people who have hate in them, hate enough to defend hurting their own children and calling people who are honest and peace-loving like myself "sick". It's not surprising, it's disgusting. But unfortunately that is the way people are. We have to live with each other. Although I'm sure you would rather have me be killed or put into a concentration camp, because that's the kind of hate I perceive coming out of you. Illogical, unrestrained, and willing to fight for the religious abuse that you were indoctrinated with.

  6. 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.

  7. The trend is to "guess they do a good job"? by captainpanic · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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?

  8. Re:Nothing to worry about by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Informative

    Since May 2008, bud.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  9. Title is too long, it should be by kramerd · · Score: 2, Insightful

    UK gov. clueless