Re: [freenet-chat] IWF "Cleanfeed" ISP-level censoring legitimate sites from UK users
Ugh. I'm going to have to write to my MP about that... On Fri, Jun 23, 2006 at 04:05:31PM +0100, Bob wrote: > --- Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > Wait till they start getting court orders from the Church of > > Scientology! You can block this illegal content; you block this other > > illegal content, therefore you must block all illegal content and in > > particular you must block copyright infringing, libellous, state > > secret > > (look at the d-notices site that had to move outside the UK), and so > > on > > sites. Slippery slope: the road to hell is paved with good (and > > uninformed) intentions. > > Indeed, they don't seem too concerned about retaining their 'common > carrier' status for some reason do they? > > Although the IWF is nominally an industry group, its existence and > policy appear to be very much driven by the Home Office - i.e. "filter > yourselves or we'll legislate it." Consider the implications of this > Commons answer from last Monday (19th June 2006) : > > http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060619/debtext/60619-0540.htm#column_1052 > > "I have recently set the UK internet industry a target to ensure that > by the end of 2007, all internet service providers offering broadband > internet connectivity to the UK public prevent their customers from > accessing those websites" (...) "We expect 90 per cent. of internet > service providers to have blocked access to sites abroad by the end of > 2006. The target is that by the end of 2007 that will be 100 per cent. > We believe that working with the industry offers us the best way > forward, but we will keep that under review if it looks likely that the > targets will not be met." > > In other words, it would appear that secret, known-to-be-fallible and > largely unaccountable internet censorship is going to become > *compulsory* for all UK 'broadband' access, either psudeo-"voluntarily" > or via legislation as formal state internet censorship. In either case > the end result is much the same of course, and the potential for > slippery-slope extension very real, particularly given this > government's poor track record on civil liberties. > > > > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:13AM +0100, Bob wrote: > > > You may have heard of the UK's "Internet Watch Foundation", a jolly > > UK > > > ISP industry group that operates "Cleanfeed". This is a UK internet > > > censorship system that blocks arbitrary sites at ISP level by > > returning > > > fake errors (404 etc), much like China's great firewall. Their > > blocking > > > database is secret; it's unobtainable unless you're an ISP and pay > > to > > > subscribe to them, which requires signing a legally binding NDA. > > Major > > > UK ISPs such as BT and NTL use Cleanfeed. As a private industry > > group > > > they are essentially unaccountable. > > > > > > They claim that their database is for blocking "child abuse > > websites" > > > only : > > > http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.archive-2004.39.htm > > > > > > However, it appears they have now blocked 4chan.org's "/b/ - > > Random" > > > imageboard : > > > http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html > > > It must be admitted that /b/ is psuedononymous, anarchic and > > populated > > > mostly by stupid memes, trolling and deliberately tasteless / > > offensive > > > content. In many ways /b/ is a giant deliberately stupid in-joke > > not > > > meant to be taken seriously, aside from an occassional thread where > > > people use /b/'s anonymity to ask questions about private matters > > they > > > feel they cannot discuss elsewhere. > > > > > > In any case, /b/ is most definetely a legitimate and legal forum > > which > > > has been running for years, is moderated, and is in full compliance > > > with United States law since that's where it's hosted. > > > (4chan itself is essentially a western clone of the Japanese > > 2ch.net / > > > 2chan.net, amongst the most popular sites in Japan. 4chan is > > therefore > > > very well known by anime fans etc.) > > > > > > It seems that the IWF have blocked /b/ on the basis that it is a > > child > > > porn site. This is clearly not the case. Yes, *very occasionally* > > some > > > moron posts CP on /b/ ... which typically lasts about 30 seconds > > > before it's deleted and they're permabanned. 4chan is no different > > from > > > any other public forum which allows image posting in this regard, > > it > > > does not condone such activity and obviously if there was any > > evidence > > > that it did the US authorities would shut it down instantly. > > > > > > At present the blocking, which is being done by URL, is not very > > well > > > implemented and there are ways around it. Furthermore not all UK > > ISPs > > > use Cleanfeed ... yet. However, I hope you will agree that it is > > very > > > worrying that legitimate internet forums appear to be being > > censored in > > > the UK secretly and pretty much unaccountably *right now*. I have > > to > > > wonde
Re: [freenet-chat] IWF "Cleanfeed" ISP-level censoring legitimate sites from UK users
--- Matthew Toseland <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Wait till they start getting court orders from the Church of > Scientology! You can block this illegal content; you block this other > illegal content, therefore you must block all illegal content and in > particular you must block copyright infringing, libellous, state > secret > (look at the d-notices site that had to move outside the UK), and so > on > sites. Slippery slope: the road to hell is paved with good (and > uninformed) intentions. Indeed, they don't seem too concerned about retaining their 'common carrier' status for some reason do they? Although the IWF is nominally an industry group, its existence and policy appear to be very much driven by the Home Office - i.e. "filter yourselves or we'll legislate it." Consider the implications of this Commons answer from last Monday (19th June 2006) : http://www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060619/debtext/60619-0540.htm#column_1052 "I have recently set the UK internet industry a target to ensure that by the end of 2007, all internet service providers offering broadband internet connectivity to the UK public prevent their customers from accessing those websites" (...) "We expect 90 per cent. of internet service providers to have blocked access to sites abroad by the end of 2006. The target is that by the end of 2007 that will be 100 per cent. We believe that working with the industry offers us the best way forward, but we will keep that under review if it looks likely that the targets will not be met." In other words, it would appear that secret, known-to-be-fallible and largely unaccountable internet censorship is going to become *compulsory* for all UK 'broadband' access, either psudeo-"voluntarily" or via legislation as formal state internet censorship. In either case the end result is much the same of course, and the potential for slippery-slope extension very real, particularly given this government's poor track record on civil liberties. > On Mon, Jun 19, 2006 at 01:19:13AM +0100, Bob wrote: > > You may have heard of the UK's "Internet Watch Foundation", a jolly > UK > > ISP industry group that operates "Cleanfeed". This is a UK internet > > censorship system that blocks arbitrary sites at ISP level by > returning > > fake errors (404 etc), much like China's great firewall. Their > blocking > > database is secret; it's unobtainable unless you're an ISP and pay > to > > subscribe to them, which requires signing a legally binding NDA. > Major > > UK ISPs such as BT and NTL use Cleanfeed. As a private industry > group > > they are essentially unaccountable. > > > > They claim that their database is for blocking "child abuse > websites" > > only : > > http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.archive-2004.39.htm > > > > However, it appears they have now blocked 4chan.org's "/b/ - > Random" > > imageboard : > > http://img.4chan.org/b/imgboard.html > > It must be admitted that /b/ is psuedononymous, anarchic and > populated > > mostly by stupid memes, trolling and deliberately tasteless / > offensive > > content. In many ways /b/ is a giant deliberately stupid in-joke > not > > meant to be taken seriously, aside from an occassional thread where > > people use /b/'s anonymity to ask questions about private matters > they > > feel they cannot discuss elsewhere. > > > > In any case, /b/ is most definetely a legitimate and legal forum > which > > has been running for years, is moderated, and is in full compliance > > with United States law since that's where it's hosted. > > (4chan itself is essentially a western clone of the Japanese > 2ch.net / > > 2chan.net, amongst the most popular sites in Japan. 4chan is > therefore > > very well known by anime fans etc.) > > > > It seems that the IWF have blocked /b/ on the basis that it is a > child > > porn site. This is clearly not the case. Yes, *very occasionally* > some > > moron posts CP on /b/ ... which typically lasts about 30 seconds > > before it's deleted and they're permabanned. 4chan is no different > from > > any other public forum which allows image posting in this regard, > it > > does not condone such activity and obviously if there was any > evidence > > that it did the US authorities would shut it down instantly. > > > > At present the blocking, which is being done by URL, is not very > well > > implemented and there are ways around it. Furthermore not all UK > ISPs > > use Cleanfeed ... yet. However, I hope you will agree that it is > very > > worrying that legitimate internet forums appear to be being > censored in > > the UK secretly and pretty much unaccountably *right now*. I have > to > > wonder how long it will be before our authoritarian government > decides > > we should "standardise" on this "industry best-practice" for its > own > > ends. > > > > Further references : > > http://dis.4chan.org/read.php/newpol/1150560346/1-40 > > http://dis.4chan.org/read.php/img/1149953763/1-40 > > http://www.4chan.org/banned.php
