Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 geni : > 2009/1/8 Andrew Gray : >> 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : >> >>> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >>> specific police force, do they? :o) >> >> It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick >> search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police >> forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. >> >> It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last >> few years to see what's been written about the way they work. > > They were formed due to chief inspector Stephen French of the > Metropolitan Police explaining to the ISPs what would happen if they > didn't do something. > > In terms of the way they works see this mailing list: > > http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/thread.html#85788 > the subject being "cleanfeed and wikipedia". Lot to read but it gives > some idea of the history of the IWF and cleenfeed (which was not > initially an IWF project). > > > -- > geni > highlights: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085830.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085840.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085903.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/086192.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085917.html http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085821.html <--some info on the audit http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/086026.html <--suggests the body they consulted with was CEOP which may be FOIA proof. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085887.html <-some info on their board politics http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085975.html Some info on why the IWF are allowed to view the stuff: http://www.cps.gov.uk/Publications/docs/mousexoffences.pdf -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 geni : > 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : >> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >> specific police force, do they? :o) > > No. From what we know now know of their internal operations the > determination as to an image's status is done internally by their own > trained staff. They were audited in 2006/7? by an external group > (university academics) but the details of that are somewhat hazy. They claimed to have consulted the police, but to what extent, we don't know. ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Andrew Gray : > 2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > >> I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a >> specific police force, do they? :o) > > It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick > search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police > forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. > > It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last > few years to see what's been written about the way they work. They were formed due to chief inspector Stephen French of the Metropolitan Police explaining to the ISPs what would happen if they didn't do something. In terms of the way they works see this mailing list: http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/thread.html#85788 the subject being "cleanfeed and wikipedia". Lot to read but it gives some idea of the history of the IWF and cleenfeed (which was not initially an IWF project). -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a > specific police force, do they? :o) It's interesting - we always seem to have assumed the Met, but a quick search suggests this isn't publicly stated anywhere, and other police forces talk vaguely of cooperating with them as well. It might be rewarding to dig through newspaper archives of the last few years to see what's been written about the way they work. -- - Andrew Gray andrew.g...@dunelm.org.uk ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
Re: [Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
2009/1/8 Owen Blacker : > I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a > specific police force, do they? :o) No. From what we know now know of their internal operations the determination as to an image's status is done internally by their own trained staff. They were audited in 2006/7? by an external group (university academics) but the details of that are somewhat hazy. -- geni ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
[Wikimediauk-l] FOI request to Met over IWF / Wikipedia controversy rejected
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/advice_to_the_internet_watch_fou They just responded, rejecting my request under s17(4): In accordance with the Act, this letter represents a Refusal Notice for this particular request under Section 17(4). Section 17(4) of the Act provides: (4) A public authority is not obliged to make a statement under subsection (1)(c) or (3) if, or to the extent that, the statement would involve the disclosure of information which would itself be exempt information. The Metropolitan Police Service can neither confirm nor deny that it holds the information you requested as the duty in Section 1(1)(a) of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 does not apply, by virtue of the following exemption: S30(3) Investigations The MPS will not disclose whether it has carried out an investigation, or whether an investigation is taking place, unless that information has already been placed in the public domain, through channels such as the media or the court process. Nor will we confirm whether or not correspondence has been received by a force from a third party. Any disclosure under Freedom of Information is a release of information to the world in general and not an individual applicant. Therefore, simply confirming or not that such information were held would reveal which force has and hasn't had contact with the IWF. I don't suppose anyone has any evidence that the IWF definitely contacted a specific police force, do they? :o) -- Owen Blacker, London GB Say no to ID cards: www.no2id.net Get your mits off my bits: www.openrightsgroup.org Help us crowdsourcing video: www.theyworkforyou.com/video -- Those who would give up essential liberty to purchase a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety -- Benjamin Franklin, 1759 ___ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediau...@wikimedia.org http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l
