Cross-posted without permission from another list. This one's on-topic in a know-your-enemy sort of way. As near to a reasoned argument for net censorship as you can get. Needless to say I disagree with it. (As does Yaman - he is merely the messenger here). The section that begins "The fact that the Internet is an international medium " is particularly incoherent. The IWF is a UK ISP's club, John Carr is a well-known campaigner against freedom of speech, the issue is whether ISPs should be expected to censor newsfeeds. Ken Brown Yaman Akdeniz wrote: > > A summary of the responses to the IWF newsgroups policy paper is > at http://www.iwf.org.uk/about/newsgroupconsultationsummary.htm > For some unknown or unclear reason, the IWF is now inviting "further > comments over the next four weeks" before the IWF board publishes > its recommendations on this issue. > > In the meantime here is John Carr's submission to the IWF. Mine is at > http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/crcl_iwf_newsgroups.htm > > Yaman > > ============================================ > > Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety Working to Make > the Internet a Safer Place for Kids > > Response to IWF Consultation Document on Newsgroups > > Introduction > > The Internet Watch Foundation was established in 1996 following the > publication of The Safety Net Agreement", a tri-partite statement of > aims signed by the UK's Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the > Metropolitan Police, and the DTI on behalf of the Government. > > A major objective of the Safety Net Agreement was to set out the > operating principles for a UK HotLine aimed at removing any illegal > material found on the Internet. > > Anyone finding what they believe to be illegal material is encouraged > to report it to the IWF who will inspect it and, if they agree that it is > likely to be found to be illegal by a UK court, take steps to have it > removed from all UK-based servers. The IWF simlutaneously informs > the Police. If the material is found to originate overseas or to reside on > an overseas sever, the IWF arranges for it to be reported to the > relevant overseas police force. > > A particular priority has always been given to child pornography and > this is principally found within Newsgroups. > > Variation in practice > > Some UK ISPs do not provide access to any Newsgroups. Some > provide only a partial "feed" based on their own commercial > assessment of what their customers want. Others might provide either > a full or a partial feed but will specifically block access to all the > Newsgroups known to contain child pornography on a regular basis. > Other ISPs offer a full feed and in so doing are providing access to > Newsgroups known to contain child pornography on a regular basis. > ISPs in this category will only remove specific postings containing > illegal material as and when these are drawn to their attention. Such > material might therefore be available on their servers for 24 hours or > more, depending on how long it takes for someone to find it, examine > it, report it to the IWF, for the IWF to examine and issue a notice > requiring it to be removed and for the ISP then to act on the notice. > > Such divergent practice greatly weakens the credibility of the IWF > and reflects badly on the Internet industry in general. > > Thus we are pleased that the IWF has recently decided to undertake > a consultation exercise on how, in future, to handle Newsgroups that > regularly contain child pornography. Hopefully at the end of this > process a new position will be agreed which every member of IWF > can accept and act upon without there being any significant differences > or contradictions. > > Numerical background > > We note that there are over 30,000 Newsgroups currently in > existence and that, of these, according to the IWF's own definition > only about 28 "regularly contain child pornography". > > Seventy seven per cent (77%) of all illegal material reported to the > IWF came from these 28 or so Newsgroups. We note also that not > everything within these Newsgroups is illegal material: the average > seems to be 10-15%, rising to 45% in some of the worst groups. > Thus a decision to block these groups is also seemingly a decision, > effectively, to block some legal communications. > > We support blocking > > We think it is important to attack and harry paedophiles and child > pornographers whenever and wherever they seek to ply their trade. > Thus our view, unreservedly, is that the IWF should support a total > block on all Newsgroups that are known to contain child pornography > on a regular basis and that all members of the IWF should be required > to implement this decision. > > The UK's ISPs should be doing everything they can to make it as > hard as possible for child pornographers to find or distribute their > illegal material. We acknowledge that, because of the nature of the > Internet, barring Newsgroups will not stop all UK residents from > either obtaining or distributing child pornography over the Internet. It > is very likely, however, to reduce the numbers. We must not let the > best be the enemy of the good. > > The fact that the Internet is an international medium is no reason why, > it seems to us, each country should not stake out its own position, set > its own standards in these culturally and legally-defined areas, and > then attempt wherever possible to rally others to its stand. The > alternative, of waiting for worldwide agreement, is simply a recipe for > inaction. > > Risk of displacement > > We acknowledge that if a blocking policy is implemented there is a > risk of displacement into other Newsgroups. However this happens > anyway. If 77% of reported illegal material comes from the 28 then, > obviously, the remaining 23% came from the 29,978 other > Newsgroups which exist. > > The spread of Newsgroups affected by this policy will therefore need > to be kept under review. New ones might need to be added, or > indeed previously banned ones might qualify to be re-admitted. These > are judgement calls that the IWF, working closely with the Police, is > well-placed to make. > > In relation to the potential denial of free speech to those who use the > 28 identified Newsgroups for legal purposes: if the fact of closing > down a Newsgroup was actually the same as preventing someone > from airing their legal views, then there may be a real free speech issue > to consider. > > Reject sophistry > > The so-called "free speech" argument is in this context entirely > disingenuous. It should be rejected as mere sophistry. > > Any responsible Internet user who was concerned to isolate or reduce > the traffic in illegal child pornography would surely shun and have no > contact with Newsgroups where illegal material is regularly to be > found? > > We would suggest that if users of Newsgroups where child > pornography is regularly found, and which generally have explicit titles > like "Having sex with very young children", truly want to continue > posting legal material to those Newsgroups, and really do feel they > cannot say their legal speech anywhere else in cyberspace, then they > ought to take it up with the other users of that Newsgroup and get > them to stop posting illegal material there. > > Alternatively maybe they could start another group but make it clear > that they only want legal material to be posted there? Surely it is the > actions of the illegal users that are causing the problems, not those of > us who are trying to reduce the traffic in illegal and highly damaging > child pornography? ***** 3 > > =============================================== > Information on how to subscribe and unsubscribe to the cyber-rights-UK > mailing list is at <http://www.cyber-rights.org/mailing.htm>. > ===============================================
