[Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,100097,39616171,00.htm I added a very pointed comment indeed. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 David Gerard > http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,100097,39616171,00.htm > > I added a very pointed comment indeed. > > > - d. > Nice. -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
comment seems to have been deleted? doesnt show at the bottom and this _was_ the link: http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/0,101161,39616171-39001105c-20100584o,00.htm regards mark 2009/2/20 Al Tally > 2009/2/20 David Gerard > >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,100097,39616171,00.htm >> >> I added a very pointed comment indeed. >> >> >> - d. >> > > Nice. > > -- > Alex > (User:Majorly) > > ___ > Wikimedia UK mailing list > wikimediau...@wikimedia.org > http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l > WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org > > ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Mark (Markie) > comment seems to have been deleted? doesnt show at the bottom and this > _was_ the link: > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/0,101161,39616171-39001105c-20100584o,00.htm > > regards > > mark > Strange. David did you delete it? -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Al Tally : > 2009/2/20 Mark (Markie) >> comment seems to have been deleted? doesnt show at the bottom and this >> _was_ the link: >> http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/0,101161,39616171-39001105c-20100584o,00.htm > Strange. David did you delete it? No, I certainly didn't. Looks like ZDNet did. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/20 Al Tally : > > 2009/2/20 Mark (Markie) > > >> comment seems to have been deleted? doesnt show at the bottom and this > >> _was_ the link: > >> > http://www.zdnet.co.uk/talkback/0,101161,39616171-39001105c-20100584o,00.htm > > > Strange. David did you delete it? > > > No, I certainly didn't. Looks like ZDNet did. > > > - d. > Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed the tab... -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Al Tally : > Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed the > tab... I didn't save it myself! I've left another comment asking WTF happened to the first one and asking if they want to phone me for verification. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 David Gerard : > 2009/2/20 Al Tally : >> Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed the >> tab... > I didn't save it myself! I've left another comment asking WTF happened > to the first one and asking if they want to phone me for verification. All straightened out - they emailed me and I've put up an edited version of the comment. (They thought one line was legally dangerous, so I took it out.) - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:43 PM, David Gerard wrote: > 2009/2/20 David Gerard : > > 2009/2/20 Al Tally : > > >> Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed > the > >> tab... > > > I didn't save it myself! I've left another comment asking WTF happened > > to the first one and asking if they want to phone me for verification. > > > All straightened out - they emailed me and I've put up an edited > version of the comment. (They thought one line was legally dangerous, > so I took it out.) > > > - d. > Hmm, yes it was a little strong-worded. -- Alex (User:Majorly) ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 David Gerard : > 2009/2/20 David Gerard : >> 2009/2/20 Al Tally : > >>> Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed the >>> tab... > >> I didn't save it myself! I've left another comment asking WTF happened >> to the first one and asking if they want to phone me for verification. > > > All straightened out - they emailed me and I've put up an edited > version of the comment. (They thought one line was legally dangerous, > so I took it out.) > > > - d. >This brings up one point: there is no evidence whatsoever that they actually >do the job they >claim to. They claim to provide a list of problematical sites images and webpages. We know such a list exists. We know that a fair number of the URLs on it end in .jpg and the like and we know that there are both single pages and entire sites on the list. So yes it would appear that they do what they claim to do. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085789.html >And there is this piece of evidence that they don't actually know how to. >Hamfisted *and* >incompetent. They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which one wikipedia uses. What worries me is "The last audit was performed by [LSE forensics expert] Peter Sommer, assistant chief constable Stuart Hyde of the West Midlands police, June Thorburn, professor of social work at the University of East Anglia, and Jim Warnock, head of operations at CEOP [Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre]." So at least two of their audit team came from organisations that have other dealings with the IWF (West Midlands police and CEOP) Peter Sommer appears to be a reasonable choice http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085821.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085929.html June Thorburn I don't know much about. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 geni : > They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of > organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which > one wikipedia uses. You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? That seems pretty incompetent to me... ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/2/20 geni : >> They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of >> organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which >> one wikipedia uses. > > You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? > That seems pretty incompetent to me... Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px-Virgin_Killer.jpg but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 geni : > 2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton : >> 2009/2/20 geni : >>> They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of >>> organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which >>> one wikipedia uses. >> >> You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? >> That seems pretty incompetent to me... > > Wouldn't work. That for example would block > http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px-Virgin_Killer.jpg > but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. > > Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to > expect the image to stay in the same place. True, but they didn't even do that, as I understand it. They should at least be blocking the image that is actually used on the page. I can't see any reason for them to be blocking non-image files at all, why block the html file when the only infringement is the image? ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
David is right, if they haven't a clue about techniques to manage a modern website - techniques that are over ten years old - then they are quite simply not fit to manage any sort of filtering blacklist. I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers. Brian. -Original Message- From: wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-boun...@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 20 February 2009 19:47 To: wikimediauk-l@lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block 2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton : > 2009/2/20 geni : >> They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of >> organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which >> one wikipedia uses. > > You mean they didn't right click on the image and click "properties"? > That seems pretty incompetent to me... Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px- Virgin_Killer.jpg but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Brian McNeil : > David is right, if they haven't a clue about techniques to manage a modern > website - techniques that are over ten years old - then they are quite > simply not fit to manage any sort of filtering blacklist. > > I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I > have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent > publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services > on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission > to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers. > > > Brian. > Blaming the wrong people there. The IWF effectively has two missions. 1)Contact UK based ISPs and get them to take down illegal content. This was their initial mission and by most accounts they are fairly good at it. 2)Provide a list of material that can be fed into cleenfeed derived systems and provide some level of blocking against certain types of illegal content on non UK based sites. This they do. However cleenfeed was not their idea (blame BT for that) and if they hadn't started providing a list again there was the threat that the government would. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 geni : > Blaming the wrong people there. > > The IWF effectively has two missions. > > 1)Contact UK based ISPs and get them to take down illegal content. > This was their initial mission and by most accounts they are fairly > good at it. > > 2)Provide a list of material that can be fed into cleenfeed derived > systems and provide some level of blocking against certain types of > illegal content on non UK based sites. This they do. However > cleenfeed was not their idea (blame BT for that) and if they hadn't > started providing a list again there was the threat that the > government would. Many of the problems are with that list. The list contains html pages, not images (at least, not exclusively), and not even the right html pages (they never blocked the [[Image:...]] page). If the government ran it, they would be accountable, IWF aren't. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 geni : > 2009/2/20 Brian McNeil : >> I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I >> have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent >> publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services >> on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission >> to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers. > The IWF effectively has two missions. The IWF has one mission: keep the Government off the ISPs' backs. It was formed by the Government as an alternative to hamfisted State regulation. (As it happens, it's also hamfisted. But anyway.) - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton : > Many of the problems are with that list. The list contains html pages, > not images (at least, not exclusively), and not even the right html > pages (they never blocked the [[Image:...]] page). If the government > ran it, they would be accountable, IWF aren't. The Today programme and Channel 4 News worked pretty well for bringing them to account ;-p Not as reliable as formal avenues, of course. - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 David Gerard : > 2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton : > >> Many of the problems are with that list. The list contains html pages, >> not images (at least, not exclusively), and not even the right html >> pages (they never blocked the [[Image:...]] page). If the government >> ran it, they would be accountable, IWF aren't. > > > The Today programme and Channel 4 News worked pretty well for bringing > them to account ;-p Not as reliable as formal avenues, of course. Of course - everyone can be sued in the court of public opinion. The High Court would be preferable, though. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
[Wikimediauk-l] Fwd: ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block
2009/2/20 David Gerard : > 2009/2/20 David Gerard : >> http://news.zdnet.co.uk/internet/0,100097,39616171,00.htm > http://yro.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=09/02/20/1439246 Oh, and is anyone in Cambridge looking for work? http://jobs.cambridge-news.co.uk/jobs/show_job.asp?index=2&sa_id=329197651 - d. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org
