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."

23 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 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.
    7. 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/
    8. 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???

    9. 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.
    10. 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.
    11. 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
  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 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.

    2. 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 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/
    3. 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.
    4. 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.

  5. 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.