While I understand the need for sites hosting sick material to be blacklisted, I hope most people realise the difference between a photograph of abuse and the posed cover of a 30-year old album still freely available on the shelves of HMV.

It makes me wonder what other sites will be censored in the future, as let's face it, "potentially illegal" can cover just about anything. I'm concerned that this is just the tip of a very large iceberg.

If IWF are right and it is not legal to view that image (and any other content barred by IWF) where does it leave Plusnet legally where some of it's customers can access any content without restriction? By putting the IWF protection in place Plusnet have confirmed that they have some responsibilities in this area and they cannot use the 'mere conduit' argument, if they then do not enforce it for a certain group of customers would they then be culpable in some way if someone in that group accessed illegal material?

glad to see this line from Ian, I said last year when this was implemented that the IWF would do something like this eventually.

I've been directed to this thread as a site for discussion by plusnet support when I raised a ticket on the issue - so perhaps we users should offer some suggestions? I'll start here:

#1 - no censorship. This is my preferred option but I appreciate that PlusNet believes some form of censorship is likely to be mandated by the government in the future.

#2 - if censorship must exist:
 - based on an openly-available, debatable blacklist. The fact that IWF goes so far to prevent human access to its list is frightening; and if we can't view the pages anyway what does it matter that we know where they are?
 - no forged reset packets. If you're going to censor, be upfront about it - how about a 403 like Demon - or even a page (stating the censored status of the URL and details of who to contact if we feel it is erroneous).
 - no transparent proxying for URLs which aren't on the blacklist. Why should PlusNet cause problems for people wishing to use a legitimate resource just because something has been flagged as dodgy at the same ip (which, with shared hosting, may be an entirely different site)? Whatever censorship method is chosen should have absolutely no effects on non-blacklisted requests

Well, it's on BBC News:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm

While I appreciate the intentions of the IWF, is it really going to stop someone (determined to, I mean) from accessing the kind of content it is supposed to block?
Don't think so - they'll find a way around it.

Be only a matter of time before p0rn is added to the list, followed by other things deemed inappropriate which I won't go into on here.

I think that the idea is to stop people 'accidentally' being subjected to images that may be illegal. 

For anyone with intent, it's very easy to bypass these sorts of filters.

B.

@ Newlay
The reason we can't have an open or debatable list is technically by viewing or owning the list you are committing a crime. Also the reason the IWF give for not showing a 403 is it *could* allow a robot to build up a good picture of what the list contains. Therefore someone potentially hosting material could find out when their site had been added to the list. A complete list in the wrong hands could be very valuable.

@Alex
The IWF are clear that they don't expect this solution to stop determined people who will certainly find ways round things like this. The filter is designed to stop "accidental and incidental access".


This is of course a very complex and sensitive issue - at Plusnet we use the IWF filter list for child abuse images as we believe this is the right thing for a responsible ISP. But we want to make sure our implementation of it is as effective as possible and does not have false positives which affect customer experience and rights.

If you Google image search for the band and album title names there are pages of the questionable image in the results. To just block the wikipedia ones seems somewhat arbitrary!

Surely there are three very simple and distinct questions at play here.

1: Is it right that PN use the IWF block list?
2: It is right that Wikipedia are daft enough to use IP addresses as a form of access control?
3: Is it right that the particular page on Wikipedia appears on the IWF list.

Trying to answer more than one question at a time invariably leads to the sort of confusion apparent in some of the posts in this thread (and others on teh interwebs discussing the same).

Take each one in isolation, and challenge the element you disagree with (if any)

Otherwise, its just nonsense.

Yes, I can understand about accidental access.
I appreciate the intentions and I (as I'm sure everyone else) agrees with the principle.

Trouble is, it's always going to be a fine line, and only a matter of time before the PC brigade cross it, as what has happened here.

How far do you go?

For example if I wanted to commit a crime (not that I do!) then I could look up content on how to do it, should that be blocked as well?
(Without going into specific detail, there is plenty of stuff you could 'research' on doing).

It's illegal to look at text-based URLs of child porn (without seeing any pictures at all)? Either the law is an ass or there's some misrepresentation here. Or do you mean you're contractually bound not to give out the IWF list? (which in my opinion is a very good reason to find some alternative list, or persuade IWF that this is not acceptable).
 
So how come Demon appear to be using 403s? And if someone is 'potentially hosting [illegal] material' shouldn't they have the right to know about it?

Yes, I wonder how such a list is compiled in the first place without someone committing an illegal act

PN do not have access to the list either.

I think that on the whole people don't have problems with the IWF filters and proxies and that until now they've probably been doing a good job but this one single mistake could well be their undoing.

But when those proxies LIE to the end user about the page returning what looks like a server error message then its getting a bit questionable. Surely a much better message implying that the URL was on a black list might be better. Actually they should maintain a black list and a grey list (with Grey being images that have not yet been fully checked out)

I also wonder if the IWF have shot themselves in the foot over this.

Is the image pornographic?  Apparently not. Well I don't find pictures of pre-pubescent children pornographic but I guess there are sick people out there who do. But then people find all sorts of odd things pornographic and sexually arousing.  

Does the image portray child abuse? Apparently not - just they think it might even though the girl involved doesn't seem to have a problem with the photo.

Did they block it after a SINGLE complaint?  This is an image which has been round for 32 years. 32 years but apparently is only now deemed apparently too unpleasant by the New Puritan movement.

The IWF have stated that  it is a "potentially illegal child sexual abuse image".  Are the IWF accusing The Scorpions or their photographer of child abuse? That could be a rather expensive law suit and you know what the Germans can be like.

Apparently the IWF asked the police if it was illegal. They asked the police...... Would these be the same sort of police who are telling people that its illegal to take photos of buses and trains and city streets because this is the sort of thing terrorists do?  

They don't seem to have blocked Amazon or other sites hosting this image and I do wonder if its some sort of publicity stunt gone horribly wrong.

And the IWF site seems to have gone down under the weight of it all....

I fail to see how PN can make their 'implementation of it is as effective as possible'?
You either use it or you don't; and if you do it looks like there is little control on how it is managed?

The irony is that this will probably now make the offending image one of the top searches for the next few days!

Taking on the wikipedia brigade seems a rather courageous move!