I've just made an FOI request to the Met about any advice they might have
given the IWF on this issue:
http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/advice_to_the_internet_watch_fou
2008/12/8 Andrew Gray <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> 2008/12/8 Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> > Incidentally, if someone c
2008/12/8 Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Incidentally, if someone could make a few guesses as to whom they
> would probably have consulted, I'd see FOI requests coming up here, to
> those "law enforcement agencies" which provided the relevant guidance
> on this. Only, of course, if this is
Michael Bimmler wrote:
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
"Robertson [IWF spokeswoman] said that image _ a picture from one of
the band's album covers _ was first flagged by an Internet user last
week. The Internet Watch Foundation consulted with British law
2008/12/7 Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/7 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>> Thanks, but I got in via a different route. Thing is I suspect that issue
>>> will be catching many others too. This whole thing is a disaster sfaiac
>>> for editors and readers alike.
>>
>> Indeed. There'
2008/12/8 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/8 River Tarnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> geni:
>
>>> Hmmp they stonewalled which is to be expected and did it fairly well.
>
>> but they claimed that they didn't filter Amazon because they didn't know
>> about
>> it (rather than because Amazon w
2008/12/8 River Tarnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> geni:
>> Hmmp they stonewalled which is to be expected and did it fairly well.
> but they claimed that they didn't filter Amazon because they didn't know about
> it (rather than because Amazon would sue them). since they obviously do know
> about it
2008/12/8 Michael Bimmler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
>
>> "Robertson [IWF spokeswoman] said that image _ a picture from one of
>> the band's album covers _ was first flagged by an Internet user last
>> week. The Internet Watch Found
On Sun, Dec 7, 2008 at 8:38 PM, Oldak Quill <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> "Robertson [IWF spokeswoman] said that image _ a picture from one of
> the band's album covers _ was first flagged by an Internet user last
> week. The Internet Watch Foundation consulted with British law
> enforcement before
2008/12/8 River Tarnell <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA1
>
> geni:
>> Hmmp they stonewalled which is to be expected and did it fairly well.
>
> but they claimed that they didn't filter Amazon because they didn't know about
> it (rather than because Amazon would
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA1
geni:
> Hmmp they stonewalled which is to be expected and did it fairly well.
but they claimed that they didn't filter Amazon because they didn't know about
it (rather than because Amazon would sue them). since they obviously do know
about it now, it
2008/12/8 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/8 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> 2008/12/7 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>>
>>> It seems the IWF are getting so much flak they've put a front page
>>> statement on their website:
>>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm
>>
>>
>> So who thinks
2008/12/8 David Gerard <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/7 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>> It seems the IWF are getting so much flak they've put a front page
>> statement on their website:
>> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm
>
>
> So who thinks they'd issue a press release accusing Amazon o
2008/12/7 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> It seems the IWF are getting so much flak they've put a front page
> statement on their website:
> http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm
So who thinks they'd issue a press release accusing Amazon of
distributing child porn if it were Amazon being bloc
Oldak Quill wrote:
An Associated Press article has just been posted at FoxNews website:
http://www.foxnews.com/wires/2008Dec07/0,4670,EUBritainWikipediaCensorship,00.html
Including ZDNet and The Register, this is the largest (albeit,
international) news source to mention the story. The story is
It seems the IWF are getting so much flak they've put a front page
statement on their website:
http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.249.htm
Andrew
___
Wikimedia UK mailing list
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
http://meta.wikimedia.org/wiki/Wikimedia_UK
http://mail.wikim
On Sun, 7 Dec 2008, Oldak Quill wrote:
>
> The Internet Watch Foundation consulted with British law
> enforcement before concluding that the picture could break the law,
> she said."
>
As all things related to child pornography it seems that "guilty until
proven innocent" (and even then sometime
2008/12/7 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Thanks, but I got in via a different route. Thing is I suspect that issue
>> will be catching many others too. This whole thing is a disaster sfaiac
>> for editors and readers alike.
>
> Indeed. There's not a lot we can do about it, though... hopefull
2008/12/7 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Would you like me to tell it to email you a new password?
>
> Thanks, but I got in via a different route. Thing is I suspect that issue
> will be catching many others too. This whole thing is a disaster sfaiac
> for editors and readers alike.
I bel
2008/12/7 AndrewRT <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Dec 6, 11:12 pm, "Alison Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> wrote:
>> Addendum. The IWF state they have an appeals process, though I can't find
>> further details in their FAQ. They are also associated with CEOP whom
>> invited me earlier this year to talk
Hi Alison
On Dec 6, 11:12 pm, "Alison Wheeler" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
> Addendum. The IWF state they have an appeals process, though I can't find
> further details in their FAQ. They are also associated with CEOP whom
> invited me earlier this year to talk to a conference they were organising
> Thanks, but I got in via a different route. Thing is I suspect that issue
> will be catching many others too. This whole thing is a disaster sfaiac
> for editors and readers alike.
Indeed. There's not a lot we can do about it, though... hopefully the
press will take the "Evil ISPs censor the won
On Sun, December 7, 2008 00:15, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> 2008/12/7 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> Side-effect of logging out to check further, then realising I don't know
>> my own password as I rely on the computer to remember it for me ...
>>
>> "Login error
>> Your IP address is blocked fr
2008/12/7 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Side-effect of logging out to check further, then realising I don't know
> my own password as I rely on the computer to remember it for me ...
>
> "Login error
> Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the
> password reco
Side-effect of logging out to check further, then realising I don't know
my own password as I rely on the computer to remember it for me ...
"Login error
Your IP address is blocked from editing, and so is not allowed to use the
password recovery function to prevent abuse"
gah!
Alison
__
> In my mind it
> would be far better for them to ask for the removal of the image rather
> than block an entire article.
Absolutely - asking nicely is generally a good first step in resolving
any dispute.
> Indeed the article could happily have the
> later album cover and just refer to the earli
(an error in sending meant my response wasn't actually in the message ...
duped below correctly)
On Sat, December 6, 2008 22:47, geni wrote:
> Ideally they won't pick
> it up. If they do the story will be "wikipedia hosting child porn".
> Trying to tackle that head on is suicidally stupid. Their r
2008/12/6 geni <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late
>> on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could
>> get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be premature to
On Sat, December 6, 2008 22:47, geni wrote:
> 2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late
>> on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could
>> get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be prem
2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> The bigger issue at this exact moment *is* this exact moment. It is late
> on a Saturday night and realistically the next news cycle that we could
> get in to is not until Monday. As such it may be premature to announce
> anything further at this pres
> The way that I negotiated the trademark agreement does, I believe, permit
> me (on behalf of both organisations) to speak publicly on this matter
> should I wish to do so.
Is it not the standard chapter agreement? That agreement includes the
clause: "The Chapter shall seek to ensure in all deali
On Sat, December 6, 2008 21:35, Thomas Dalton wrote:
> You could, but would it really be appropriate? You have the license to
> use the trademark, but not permission to speak on behalf of WMF. Since
> it is WMF's page being blocked it should really be WMF making a
> statement - there isn't much WMU
2008/12/6 Alison Wheeler <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> On Sat, December 6, 2008 21:12, joseph seddon wrote:
>> May i point out that atm wiki uk ltd is in no way officially affiliated
>> with WMF atm, it wouldnt be a professional move to
>> make a statement.
>
> As the current (though not much longer!) hol
On Sat, December 6, 2008 21:12, joseph seddon wrote:
> May i point out that atm wiki uk ltd is in no way officially affiliated
> with WMF atm, it wouldnt be a professional move to
> make a statement.
As the current (though not much longer!) holder of the licence to use the
trademark in the UK, Wik
2008/12/6 Thomas Dalton <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> 2008/12/6 joseph seddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>> May i point out that atm wiki uk ltd is in no way officially affiliated with
>> WMF atm, it wouldnt be a professional move to
>> make a statement.
> Indeed, at this point "WMUK" refers to WER Ltd. not W
2008/12/6 joseph seddon <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> May i point out that atm wiki uk ltd is in no way officially affiliated with
> WMF atm, it wouldnt be a professional move to
> make a statement.
Indeed, at this point "WMUK" refers to WER Ltd. not Wiki UK Ltd.. Wiki
UK Ltd. certainly should be doing a
ikimediauk-l] Fwd: Wikipedia quietly censored by Internet
WatchFoundation> > 2008/12/6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:> > I am. Ok i'm not part of
wmuk, but I do think wmuk should make a move.> >> > Why would you not send the
wn article to all your press contacts, or even be
2008/12/6 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> I am. Ok i'm not part of wmuk, but I do think wmuk should make a move.
>
> Why would you not send the wn article to all your press contacts, or even
> better issue a PR. Anyway, make a move and exist.
>
> This is the occasion to get you known :)
Because it's not
I am. Ok i'm not part of wmuk, but I do think wmuk should make a move.
Why would you not send the wn article to all your press contacts, or even
better issue a PR. Anyway, make a move and exist.
This is the occasion to get you known :)
Christophe
-Original Message-
From: "David Gerard
38 matches
Mail list logo
