Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Gov. Wants IWF List To Cover 100% of UK Broadband

kdawson posted more than 5 years ago | from the tackling-blocking dept.

Censorship 281

wild_quinine writes "The UK government stated in 2006 that they wished to see 100% of UK consumer broadband ISPs' connections covered by blocking, which includes images of child abuse. 95% of ISPs have complied, but children's charities are calling for firmer action by the government as the last 5% cite costs and concerns over the effectiveness of the system. According to Home Office Minister Alan Campbell, 'The government is currently looking at ways to progress the final 5%.' With a lack of transparency in the IWF list, firm government involvement, and blocking that only 'includes' (but may not be limited to) images of child abuse, it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

What about you? (-1, Offtopic)

Adolf Hitroll (562418) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966681)

USians usually bark after whjoever doesn't seem so free but they forget their debt just doubled, tripled... and their economy is their own jail.
Good riddance, Uncle Sam, now choke on a saudi's dick.

Absurd! (5, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966695)

I am all for enforcement of laws, when they are reasonable. But things like this stink of nanny state. Child abuse is horrible, we can all agree, but pretending like it doesn't exist is sad, and ineffective.

Re:Absurd! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966847)

As troublesome as this recent trend for censorship of internet connections in the first world (Australia also) is, I can't help but think it might be good that it's happening now.

Because of the nature of most governments, it seems inevitable that this will happen eventually, and the sooner it happens the sooner we will see serious development effort put into software for bypassing over-zealous filters.

Let's get coding!

Re:Absurd! (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966861)

meanwhile, they did it in Italy, and nobody said a thing.

Duh! (3, Funny)

Mathinker (909784) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966921)

> meanwhile, they did it in Italy, and nobody said a thing.

Duh! They've already started blocking outgoing content which protests it!

Re:Absurd! (2, Funny)

specific_pacific (904746) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967621)

I have not heard anything from/about Italy for ages. It's like it never existed.

Re:Absurd! (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967775)

Silvio has banned the internet, so no one can post videos to YouTube of all the asinine things he comes away with.

Damn, he owns just about everything else in Italy, I'd be surprised if he doesn't have an interest in the internet already.

Re:Absurd! (2, Insightful)

Lokinator (181216) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967005)

Absurd is kind. But rather than heaping scathing abuse...

Proxies, anyone? And for those as enjoy freedom, might I suggest the SouthWest corner of the U.S. (always excluding California, of course).

Re:Absurd! (4, Insightful)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967099)

Depends on how you define freedom. Freedom from taxation perhaps, but freedom of body (abortion, contraception), or of mind (evolution) are certainly not so doing well, and I say this as a Coloradoan.

Re:Absurd! (1)

James_Duncan8181 (588316) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967145)

Actually, it can be seen that the list is viewed at least one ISP directly but can in any case be avoided primarily by use of OpenDNS. Details here. [jaduncan.com]

Re:Absurd! (3, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967421)

It's a shame nobody has put the IWF list on Wikileaks by now...

Re:Absurd! (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967639)

It's a shame nobody has put the IWF list on Wikileaks by now...

It would be a good test of how resilient Wikileaks is - having a CP directory in plain sight would get every Western law enforcement organisation trying to take it down. (For good PR if nothing else.)

I admit it would be useful to see which sites are being blocked that aren't showing cases of child abuse, but losing Wikileaks doesn't seem worth it.

Re:Absurd! (2, Informative)

Nursie (632944) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967643)

If Daemon only hijack dns requests then they're doing it differently to everyone else. The 'normal' way to use IWF is to route the actual http requests via a logging/blocking proxy.

The most widespread form of child abuse (4, Insightful)

AliasMarlowe (1042386) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967017)

Are they really serious about cutting out access to sites promoting or depicting child abuse? If so, I look forward to them blocking all sites which aid or abet or encourage the religious indoctrination of children. They're all malevolent, and far more prevalent than any other form of abuse.

Re:The most widespread form of child abuse (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967389)

The whole "child abuse" thing is a lie. They pretend all those sites contain child porn, but they don't prosecute the owners or hosts of sites that are on the list, even if they are hosted in EU countries. They say it's about child abuse, but not overtly sexual forms of abuse are not even covered (see parent), while sexual abuse seems to include any image that can be construed as representing a minor in a eroticizable way, regardless of if they depict real people or are related to actual abuse. Censoring people's sexual expression by banning selfpics and restricting teenagers' communication about sexual things are also forms of abuse IMO. This isn't about children--the vast majority of blocked sites don't contain any images of children. And it's not about protection, it's about control.

Re:The most widespread form of child abuse (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967579)

people need to raise HOLY HELL to stop this

the STATE getting its claws onto censoring information and more importantly, *controlling information access* is a nightmare waiting to happen.

first it is some bogus threat to the children, 5 years later, then it is to "stop the insurgents", then a few years later, it is to "quell dissent", and then to "keep the peace" and so on and so on

slippery slope indeed

Re:The most widespread form of child abuse (4, Insightful)

Handpaper (566373) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967441)

I honestly can't see that the ISPs/IWF are actually serious about blocking anything.
The block is implemented via DNS - avoiding it is trivial. It's a sop to the Government, rather than an effective censor.
In fact, as things stand, we may have the best of it. The Government have their 'block', ISPs are 'doing something' and we have our Internet. All of it.

What about Google? (2, Interesting)

mangu (126918) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967523)

The Government have their 'block', ISPs are 'doing something' and we have our Internet. All of it.

If you depend on Google [google.com] for your searches, you don't have access to the whole internet [chillingeffects.org]

Re:The most widespread form of child abuse (1)

ConfusedVorlon (657247) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967533)

please share - how can we avoid this block?

from reading at wikipedia (so must be true!) the block happens at the routing level, so simply using a different DNS server like open dns doesn't help.

Re:Absurd! (1)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967055)

This doesn't stink of nanny state, just mean old totalitarianism.

Re:Absurd! (5, Interesting)

DangerFace (1315417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967407)

I agree wholeheartedly. I know a guy in Manchester who ran a website - just one of those collections of offensive jokes, pictures of mutilated corpses, all that crap. Needless to say, they didn't take it very seriously and neither did anyone else - I mean, these guys trolled on their own forum. Well, one day dawn broke to the sound of their door, which was also broken thanks to the police battering ram. No, they weren't hosting pictures of child abuse - they had some hentai on their site and had neglected to state clearly that the individuals portrayed as being chopped in half while being tentacle raped were 18. Eventually the case was dropped when the police realised they had no case, and to this day those guys use stolen police evidence bags as baggies for weed - possibly the most ironic thing I have ever encountered first hand. Last I heard it was a year after the police had dropped the case and they still didn't have the domain, or even their PCs, back.

Whose firewall will be more effective? (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966741)

China's? or the UK's? Tell me, how in the world is your internet going to route around your ISP when they hit the kill switch [slashdot.org] ?

*I'm only bitching because my response to the link was modded down

Proxy (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966785)

Just another reason to use a proxy. The list is becoming quite long.

Re:Proxy (2, Insightful)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966845)

That won't help much if they ever start cutting you off for mere suspicion of wrong doing. Proxies are great for "fooling" the guy at the other end. Don't know how well it will protect you from the guy in the middle, or close to your end of the connection.

Re:Proxy (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966941)

Proxies are great for "fooling" the guy at the other end.

Proxies are also useful for man-in-the-middle attacks and government sponsored honeypots.

Re:Proxy (1)

iminplaya (723125) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967039)

Maybe I should say that anybody on your side of the proxy can see what you're doing?

Re:Proxy (3, Insightful)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967107)

Maybe I should say that anybody on your side of the proxy can see what you're doing?

OK -:)
My point is really that with the Internet trust is implicit (and necessary), but it is also as dubious as putting your money in a bank account.

You must trust your ISP, your proxy, your Web browser, your operating system, etc and so on. There are too many avenues for failure. Though the complexity of systems does help to provide security through obscurity, assuming that a consumer has an advantage over an adversary.

It's all pretty much an illusion though. Any dedicated and persistent attack will have an increasing probability of success over time.

Re:Whose firewall will be more effective? (2, Funny)

RuBLed (995686) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966817)

I for one won't miss Chinese or UK pron.

Re:Whose firewall will be more effective? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967513)

You don't need to re-route around them; you need to tunnel through them.

Tackling the root causes (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26966789)

Sadly this is another knee jerk reaction to a serious problem in society. Just by making access to the images difficult, child abuse will not go away. The British government should look at the roots of anti-social behaviour in society and put in place programmes of education to ensure that the next generation are not abusers.

This kind of popluist resonse fomented by the gutter press has never been effective and never will.

Re:Tackling the root causes (4, Insightful)

onedotzero (926558) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966915)

I honestly see this as less of a reaction, and more of an excuse to control the Internet in the country.

Next chance I get, I'm off.

Re:Tackling the root causes (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967155)

I'd be interested to see where you think you are going to go when you 'get off'. These things are in various stages of implementation all over the world. The same excuses are given everywhere too, national security,to stop terrorists, protect the children and prevent copyright infringement. Let us know when you find this libertarian paradise you intend to live in.

Re:Tackling the root causes (1)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967203)

I'd be interested to see where you think you are going to go when you 'get off'. These things are in various stages of implementation all over the world. The same excuses are given everywhere too, national security,to stop terrorists, protect the children and prevent copyright infringement. Let us know when you find this libertarian paradise you intend to live in.

Take the blue pill. A spoon full of sugar helps the medicine go down.

Re:Tackling the root causes (1)

umghhh (965931) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967113)

So yes - this method in combating child pornography is probably not very good but hey we can use it also to block access to certain information to the sheeple (or to majority of them) and in a process you may also get some means to black mail the disobedient (who would like to be associated with civil right activists that are also child pornography users?).
This give them more control over their herd so not all is lost and affords of ISPs are not all wasted - rejoice!

Re:Tackling the root causes (3, Interesting)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967403)

The thing is, making the images difficult to access might actually be counterproductive - I mean, making them in the first place is already illegal.
But think of the person who acquires that sort of thing? The person who does, for whatever reason, find 'underage' to be sexually attractive. This person is ... well, is faced with having to repress their desire, because society deems it wrong, and it's illegal too.
(I could perhaps draw the parallels with homosexuality, although granted that this is more one sided)
Anyway, is it better for this person to be viewing porn, or is it better for them to spend their lives sexually frustrated to the point where they might just 'snap'?
Mostly though, I think censorship of ... anything ... is undesirable and oppressive. So fits in quite nicely with the current emergent dynamics of the UK government. 25% of the CCTV cameras of the world. Yeah baby.

Heads + sand (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967525)

Sadly this is another knee jerk reaction to a serious problem in society. Just by making access to the images difficult, child abuse will not go away.

In fact, it's likely to make the problem worse, since we're now blocking decent people from seeing what's really going on, and figuring out why.

Not entirely... (1)

julesh (229690) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966857)

The situation is bad, but it isn't quite as bad as this:

it looks like the writing is on the wall for unfiltered, uncensored Internet connections in the UK

They're only talking about broadband solutions marketed to consumers. Most ISPs offer "home office" broadband for just a few pounds per month more that isn't marketed to consumers, and hence would probably not fall under any legislation they may impose.

Re:Not entirely... (2, Interesting)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966967)

More to the point, the legislation just states that ISPs must have a filtering system in place. My ISP does exactly that, and builds their own filters based on user reports. So far, no problems accessing Wikipedia (or indeed anything else).

Re:Not entirely... (1)

Ginger Unicorn (952287) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967535)

which isp is that?

Re:Not entirely... (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967537)

I'd be surprised if that was the case. Technically, "office" broadband and "home" broadband is usually identical, to the ISP. It all happens lower down the chain, at BT.

Hold your horses (3, Insightful)

Xest (935314) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966889)

I agree the call for 100% is idiotic but I don't see it being a government forced initiative only that they'd like to see it.

The only people demanding 100% right now are the childrens charities, but I already knew they were the pinnacle of the "think of the children" croud hence why I'd never donate to them. In cases like this they ultimately do more harm than good because they simply just cover up the fact a problem still exists.

It's currently only the childrnes charities that are the problem here, the government, despite me hating them dearly for their repeated idiocy have not yet demanded 100% coverage, only said they'd like to see that. I'd like to see the existence of god disproved once and for all but that doesn't mean it's going to happen does it?

Re:Hold your horses (4, Insightful)

SwedishPenguin (1035756) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966961)

Just the fact that the government wants 100% is enough. They may not force ISP's yet, but when they find out that those 5% won't do it (I assume out of principle, there are a few of those ISP's left) they will probably turn to forcing them to comply.

We have our own filter here in Sweden, also supposedly for "child porn" (it's been proven to block other things too, and the filter is just as non-transparent). It doesn't have quite the same coverage (yet) but judging by our current government's previous actions, I wouldn't be surprised by them forcing ISP's to comply within a few years.

Re:Hold your horses (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967053)

What does censoring those sites do anyways? Does it prevent the crimes (depicted in the site) from happening? Does it discourage pedophiles and such from doing those crimes? Or does it simply make a lot of "Think of the children!" people happy?

The goal shouldn't be to censor, but to stop the crimes at the source. Speaking of child pornography. I don't know what other reasons there is to censor the Net other than for said reason.

Piracy and the like, well, will always be gotten around of, I bet.

Re:Hold your horses (1)

WiiVault (1039946) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967109)

Sadly this is often an effect of democracy- tyranny of the majority. Don't get me wrong, I don't like dictators, but this problem is still important.

Re:Hold your horses (1)

bentcd (690786) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967259)

Just the fact that the government wants 100% is enough. They may not force ISP's yet, but when they find out that those 5% won't do it (I assume out of principle, there are a few of those ISP's left) they will probably turn to forcing them to comply.

The upside to having it mandated by law is that it can then by challenged on constitutional(*) and human rights grounds. How well this would fare in the UK I do not know but the fact that the govt hasn't already enacted a law along these lines gives hope - they may be in doubt as to whether they could actually get away with it. Much easier to just bully private organizations into doing their dirty work for them.

* - Yes, there is such a thing for the UK. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_Kingdom [wikipedia.org] may or may not be an accurate description.

Re:Hold your horses (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967669)

Every country has a constitution - whether written or unwritten, as a constitution is defined as the rules by which the government functions.

It's just that in some countries, the constitution can be summed up as "I make the rules".

Re:Hold your horses (3, Insightful)

N1AK (864906) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967009)

I agree the call for 100% is idiotic but I don't see it being a government forced initiative only that they'd like to see it.

This is the same government that is bringing in voluntary ID cards. The definition of voluntary appears to be you are free not to get a card, but then you can't work at Manchester airport... how long until you won't be able to get CRB check without having an ID card? There definition of voluntary is swiftly shifting from free choice, to ability to choose to starve on the streets (as long as you don't get arrested) if you don't get one.

Internet filtering will go the same way. The government must love the work the IWF is doing here, as it gets to claim credit for any improvements and say it is taking in action, but when the IWF cocks up the government can wash it hands and point out it is an independent body. I find it incredible that people find the idea of this organisation covertly removing content acceptable.

Re:Hold your horses (3, Insightful)

jimicus (737525) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967105)

I find it incredible that people find the idea of this organisation covertly removing content acceptable.

Firstly, until the recent Wikipedia issue blew up, the IWF was practically unheard of in the UK.

Secondly, while we'd all love to believe that something like "oh, by the way - there's a 95% chance that everything you do online is being monitored and censored" would have people taking to the streets with pitchforks and torches, the fact of the matter is it doesn't. I hate to say it, but a large percentage of the population fully subscribe to the idea that if you've done nothing wrong you have nothing to fear.

Thirdly, this is one of those hot potatoes that it's very difficult to argue against - anyone who does is likely to find themselves tarred as someone who's "sympathetic to paedophiles". This doesn't just apply to politicians - our mass media is just as capable of demonising people as anyone else's and I don't know many people who would have the stomach for being plastered all over the front page of the papers with headlines like "Sick pervert wants to allow photos of child abuse!!11oneone"

Re:Hold your horses (1)

DangerFace (1315417) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967349)

OK, so most people are really, really ignorant, not to mention lazy. And OK, so politicians are spineless psychopaths that have passed through a strict filtering process to weed out anyone with any principles whatsoever. And OK, so the tabloid press are a load of reactionary vultures.

It's still the case that when you are talking to one of these incredibly ignorant lazy morons, who probably shouldn't be given a vote if we want any chance of utopia, that they are surprised and at least seem to care when they find out about the starving millions, or the fact that Norton antivirus has backdoors specifically for the FBI/CIA/NSA etc. Admittedly, they forget and move on with their lives, and then are surprised and seem to care the next time they find out, but people at least consider changing their minds when faced with the fact that there is leaked police footage of cops making monkey noises and dancing and shouting nigger at a completely innocent black guy, or when they realise that they could just get shot when they get on a train. I digress.

Pretending that 'the people', or even most people, have opinions that are worth anything at all while also assuming they are completely under informed is fallacy. A large proportion of the population supported the Daily Mail back in the thirties when they ran headlines about how we shouldn't let the the filthy Jews in, and when the owner was sending telegrams to Hitler saying 'Good luck! Hopefully soon the British will be calling you Adolf the Great!'

-----

If I interpret the law correctly, that was not a violation of Godwin's law as it was a direct historical reference rather than a comparison. However, I am not a lawyer.

Re:Hold your horses (4, Interesting)

h4rm0ny (722443) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967029)


I'm a regular and long-term supporter of Barnardos who do a lot of great work. I'm sorry to see them on the list of signees for this charity and I shall write to them about it in due course. NSPCC I am not at all surprised to see on the list as they are an organization primarily focused on fear and shock tactics. They do little more than terrify adults from the very idea of having contact with children for fear of being suspected a child abuser.

Re:Hold your horses (3, Interesting)

Ed Avis (5917) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967141)

Same here. I would never give money to the NSPCC but I'm happy to support Barnados. I hope we can get them to change their mind on the subject - or at least, recognize that political lobbying is not one of the functions of a children's charity.

I was pleased to see that my ISP, Zen Internet, is one of those refusing to bow to the IWF. I will continue to recommend them to friends and family as a sensible, human-run provider.

Re:Hold your horses (1)

RegularFry (137639) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967211)

I'd not heard of Zen before. Given that I'm shopping for a new ISP, guess who's now at the top of the list? I very much doubt I'm alone, either.

Re:Hold your horses (2, Informative)

nmg196 (184961) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967289)

Zen are about the highest rated ISP on thinkbroadband.com [thinkbroadband.com] but they're not particularly cheap. You get what you pay for though, and the service and support are the best I've ever seen from an ISP. Beware though, of fairly low download allowances unless you spend a lot of money. I was with them for a few years and only switched away to get better value through a local unbundled ISP.

Re:Hold your horses (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967715)

You get what you pay for though, and the service and support are the best I've ever seen from an ISP. Beware though, of fairly low download allowances unless you spend a lot of money.

You don't really get what you pay for with Zen anymore. They became bad value for money in my opinion when they introduced stupid, onerous monthly download caps. They lost me as a customer for that.

Child abuse ...all inclusive (3, Insightful)

gallwapa (909389) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966945)

I wish they wouldn't refer to it as child abuse. While sexually/mentally abusing children is child abuse, child abuse often times focuses on the physical abuse (at leaset in my area of the country in the US). That said, this law is probably targeted at filtering pornographic images of children who were abused. There (is?) should be a better term to describe what they're trying to filter.

That said, I don't think the governments of individual countries should censor the internet. By all means, censor public access, but as far as I am concerned, my connection to "the internet" is (or should be) a "private tunnel" that means no interference (from anyone, including the ISP!)

Re:Child abuse ...all inclusive (2, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967173)

But they have to refer to it as chld abuse, in order to justify blocking it. If they said "this is harmless but we want to block it anyway", then who would take any notice of them?

Of course it must be harmless: otherwise Cambridge (which is where the IWF offices are situated, according to their web site) would be a hotbed of child abuse, due to the number of people working for the IWF who look at this stuff for a living.

Re:Child abuse ...all inclusive (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967545)

I wish they wouldn't refer to it as child abuse.

How about "Would-be-pirate abuse"? ;)

Voluntary like a military draft (2, Insightful)

unlametheweak (1102159) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966969)

This "voluntary" and "recommended system" doesn't seem to be very voluntary all of a sudden. Why doesn't this surprise me?

Which ISPs held out? (1)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967749)

What I want to know is... which ISPs are holding out? There should be a whitelist for the ISPs that take a stand on this stuff.

Dear god when is someone going to school them!? (1)

distantbody (852269) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966981)

...The ability to explore the garbage dumpster bazaar that is teh interpipes is a birth right!

Sadly... (4, Insightful)

SwampChicken (1383905) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966989)

Australia isn't too far behind...

Why block? (3, Interesting)

PatDev (1344467) | more than 5 years ago | (#26966999)

Maybe I'm missing something here. I've always wondered why there was a rush to block images of child abuse like this. As long as these sites are up, there is still a possibility for authorities to identify the guilty parties through the websites.

If every ISP blocks 100%, then not even cops can get an unfiltered connection. That means that they have stopped trying to catch the child pornographers, they just want to pretend they don't exist.

These are real children being abused. Their abusers are handing the police evidence. Why the rush to ignore it? Why not just monitor them? Keep track of who visits www.kiddieporn.com or whatever.

Re:Why block? (4, Insightful)

fastest fascist (1086001) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967151)

Stop looking for logic here. This is how it works: Children are abused, child porn is available on-line. People, understandably, are angry about this. Someone, somewhere suggests that no-one should be able to see such material, the government takes action to block access to it. Any argument against blocking is seen as an argument for neglecting children. Any call for rational discussion is seen as a sign of emotional coldness.

If someone suggested the cops should be given the right to monitor internet-connections in real-time and immediately arrest and castrate everyone seen attempting to access child porn, I think they would get significant support for their idea.

Re:Why block? (3, Insightful)

badfish99 (826052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967193)

We know the sort of stuff they are blocking, from the recent Wikipedia case, and it's plainly got nothing to do with child abuse. My guess would be that the people behind this are just prudes on a power trip.

Re:Why block? (3, Insightful)

CarpetShark (865376) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967571)

If every ISP blocks 100%, then not even cops can get an unfiltered connection.

They don't want every day cops to have an unfiltered connection. They want a special organisation, very likely an unelected one, to sit in judgement. It's a lovely idea really.

Re:Why block? (1)

Teun (17872) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967599)

If every ISP blocks 100%, then not even cops can get an unfiltered connection.

If you'd read TFA you would see it's all about consumer broadband and UK households, in my world that excludes the enterprise grade accounts from this mandate to filtering.

Re:Why block? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967841)

because 'normal people' get turned on by this shit then rape kids

Personally i don't agree, but there is an ounce of truth in that concept. Personally i think the reduction in abuse by weirdos watching porn instead of molesting kids, easily out weights the increase in abuse by normal people that stumble upon this stuff.

Who is the 5%? (4, Interesting)

ActionJesus (803475) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967027)

Can let me know who the 5% that arent signed up are so I can transfer over to them? If i wanted censored internet, Id move to China.

Re:Who is the 5%? (1)

BeShaMo (996745) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967121)

Enta net (and their partners) is one (I know because when that whole Wikipedia thing happened, I had no problems accessing the site in question.

Re:Who is the 5%? (1)

TractorBarry (788340) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967489)

I'd second that regarding Entanet and the Wikipedia debacle.

And if you're going the Entanet route you could also try UKFSN [ukfsn.org] who are not only an Entanet reseller but also contribute to the development of open source and have and anti Phorm policy.

As you may guess I'm a very satisfied customer. I've had over 2 years with them now, have not had a single problem and have had good, competent, technical support on the two occasions I've asked technical questions.

Re:Who is the 5%? (1)

jez9999 (618189) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967731)

Nor did I and I am with Be, who were supposedly blocking based on the IWF list.

Re:Who is the 5%? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967123)

The idea of a blocklist - regardless of purported target - that I can't see what it is, has absolutely zero transparency or accountability, that I have no control over the list or whether or not to use it, that has made heavy-handed mistakes, and that wants to transparently proxy any IP address that hosts a listed site, makes me feel a little sick inside - and I won't put up with it.

I'm with Andrews & Arnold. They are not signed up to BT Cleanfeed, and will not (as far as I know) willingly sign up their users to either it or long-term logfile retention.

Re:Who is the 5%? (2, Informative)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967329)

http://www.zen.co.uk/ [zen.co.uk] is one.

Re:Who is the 5%? (2, Informative)

Ciarang (967337) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967439)

Try http://www.ukfsn.org/ [ukfsn.org] - they use Entanet as their upstream provider (no filtering, as another commenter pointed out). Additionally, you are supporting free software by using them, and unlike pretty much every other they are customer friendly - e.g. if you want a MAC code, you can get one instantly from their web site, without them making you go through multiple phone calls where they try and persuade you not to leave.

Check out their statement of policy:

Statement of policy regarding censorship, Phorm/Webwise and other content interception

Our policy is that the electronic communications of our customers are private. We do not intercept, censor, scan or otherwise interfer with our customers' internet service.

UKFSN does not and will not have any dealings with Phorm, the company behind the Webwise system being deployed by some other ISPs to intercept customer internet traffic. We are firmly of the opinion that the Phorm Webwise system is illegal under UK and EU laws. We also believe it to be fundamentally unethical to intercept customer traffic in this manner. It will never happen here.

There is some suggestion that the UK government would like to mandate some form of interception and possibly censorship. We would encourage all interested persons to make it clear to MPs and the government generally that this is not acceptable.

Re:Who is the 5%? (1)

u38cg (607297) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967547)

My ISP, Net Central, don't subscribe to the IWF list. They do have the legally mandated filter on there, but as far as I can tell nothing much is blocked. They're not the cheapest, but they have superb support with no queues or premium rate numbers (and when you say you've checked your router responds to ping, they believe you). Happily recommend them.

Is this how nations fall? (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967051)

Child pornography? That's a shit reason censor.
It also happens to be the one reason people aren't able to argue with.

Where did all these child abusers come from?
1. They were already there, the internet changed nothing.
2. They were created by the internet. They spawned from caves just like a MMORPG.
3. The internet magically turns people into child abusers just like that ActiveX control you didn't want.
4. The whole thing was blown out of proportion by the media creating a moral panic.

I've lived in several countries that have extensive censorship of all media, and that is the most scary thing on earth. It breeds a level of ignorance and double-think that just blows your mind. Censorship has the power to destroy your nation, however powerful it is today.

Watch this space. As America and the UK among others become enemies of the internet, strangled by copyright laws run amok, and kids banned from playing with their chemistry sets, other countries will usurp us all.

Re:Is this how nations fall? (2, Interesting)

Creepy Crawler (680178) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967595)

---Child pornography? That's a shit reason censor.
---It also happens to be the one reason people aren't able to argue with.

Oh, it's VERY arguable. You just need to move the definition of "Child". Children, prior to the 1900's applied to the age group of 10 and under. Over that and you were an adult. And this word adolescent.. made up word in the 50's. I'll provide a framework that might work in your country.

___

"The 'Age of Majority' is defined to be the minimum age of a person who has been tried, but may not have been found guilty, as an adult for any crime in any jurisdiction in any state or federal territories for a rolling time frame of the last 15 years.

The age of majority shall instead convene every right and obligation offered to every adult as we presently know the ages of 16, 18, and 21 afford rights. Every instance of 16, 18, or 21 are now defined to be the 'Age Of Majority' ."

So what are we calling this? (1)

Canazza (1428553) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967067)

Hadrians Firewall?

Re:So what are we calling this? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967323)

The Great Firewall Of London, surely.

Prosecute! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967071)

Instead of just placing the offending site in a block list, why not go after the site, shut it down and prosecute the owners.

A slippery slope (2, Insightful)

ommerson (1485487) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967129)

When they came for the communists,
I remained silent;
I was not a communist.

When they locked up the social democrats,
I remained silent;
I was not a social democrat.

When they came for the trade unionists,
I did not speak out;
I was not a trade unionist.

When they came for the Jews,
I remained silent;
I was not a Jew.
When they came for me,
there was no one left to speak out.

The crucial difference here is that nobody will admit to viewing kiddy pr0n, but the government has already set its sights on extreme and violent porn [although to be fair to the IWF, they apparently want nothing to do filtering this].

Re:A slippery slope (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967559)

Of course, the last sentence in the poem was a lie. And the five weren't exactly five. But it all sounds nice and emotional, which is its power. Emotion trumps rationality.

Lets be clear (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967167)

Child abuse is a terrible thing
Saddling them with 2 trillion pounds of debt thanks to the adults greed is not.
pension prospects ? thing of the past.
job for life ? thing of the past.

Am I being naÃve? (4, Insightful)

severn2j (209810) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967185)

IANA trained psychologist but, it seems to me that the whole idea of making the viewing/downloading of CP illegal, will only have the opposite effect of whats intended (assuming whats intended is a reduction of child sex abuse), because pedophiles dont decide what they are attracted to anymore than anyone else.. Considering the stigma attached to even the suggestion of being a pedophile, I think its quite reasonable to assume that given the choice, a pedophile wouldnt be one if they could help it. Given that, I would much rather they got their kicks jerking off to CP, than taking it out on a child because they have no other avenue.

Sex is a very powerful motivator for anyone (just look at the advertising industry for proof of that) and to assume that someone will just control their urges for the rest of their lives without any way to 'release' (for want of a better word) them seems very dangerous and ignorant of human (and animal) behaviour. I dont know what the solution is to child sex abuse, except maybe compulsory therapy for abusers as well as the abused (although, by then the damage is already done), but Im pretty sure this isnt it.

Re:Am I being naÃve? (3, Interesting)

shinier (949631) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967479)

I would much rather they got their kicks jerking off to CP, than taking it out on a child... This just delegates your child abuse to the person producing the videos. You'd have to be pretty utilitarian to suggest that forcing a small number of children to be abused on camera is better than a larger number being abused in private.

Re:Am I being naÃve? (0, Troll)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967681)

To correct you fallacy about pedophiles. There is no cure or therapy that works for them. Even the popular "castrate the buggers" does nothing except force them to violate children using objects. When they started using depro to "chemically castrate" sex offenders, they would go find a doctor and get testosterone shots to offset the depro. Pedophiles and homosexuals are not the same thing, but they have they same characteristics in that the orientation can not be "cured" or changed. The biggest difference is that homosexual don't harm anyone, while pedophiles do. The only cure for pedophilia is a bullet in the back of the head. that cures them immediately and they never suffer a relapse.

Anonymous routing (1)

White Flame (1074973) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967225)

Does this mean that Tor hidden nodes and I2P will finally gain some traction?

Not So (3, Informative)

shin0r (208259) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967227)

Some ISPs will never comply. Super Awesome for the win!

http://superawesomebroadband.com/ [superaweso...adband.com]

I'll get me coat

It's more nuanced (3, Interesting)

igb (28052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967239)

I was at the meeting at Portcullis House at which this was announced yesterday (the media coverage was the usual pre-event trailing). John Carr was there but didn't speak, but the minister made a decent speech. The basic position seems to be that industry agreed to use the Cleanfeed system on residential links in exchange for there not being legislation, but some of the industry is saying no on the grounds of cost and effectiveness (not, notably, on any cyber-libertarian position, although that may be their underlying motive). Those parts of the industry which have followed the Cleanfeed line voluntarily are annoyed about cost and complexity that they are shouldering which their competitors aren't.

My position is that, given that we're not going to be able to avoid the basic problem, legislation is actually not necessarily a bad thing. It would plave the IWF on a legislative footing, which would alter the governance and the contestability in potentially a good way. But people I have immense respect who know a lot more about this stuff disagree, and think the upside (judicial oversight) would not be worth the downside (ministers making positions).

Sadly, it seems that a huge part of the e-crime agenda is being devoted to child porn, which is only one past of the issue and one where the end users aren't the victims. Fraud and other issues are being subsumed.

Re:It's more nuanced (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967581)

that industry agreed to use the Cleanfeed system on residential links in exchange for there not being legislation

Yep. The home office made it quite clear that unless there was compliance with their demands, there would be legislation. They've been doing quite a bit of this bully-boy stuff over the past couple of years.

There are a lot of people in the ISP industry who are massively pissed off that the IWF has effectively been hijacked from its original charter of being an industry body to deal with notification and take-down of kiddie porn sites, to being a government lackey body whose main purpose is legitimising censorship.

The way that the board of directors recently overturned their internal appeals process on the Virgin Killer decision was telling in two ways, first that their appeals procedure doesn't mean shit, and second that they don't really believe that blocking access to category 1 pornography actually works as an effective way of dealing with the problem of child porn.

http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.archive-2008.251.htm

How does it handle peer to peer? (1)

Colin Smith (2679) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967647)

How does the cleanfeed system handle peer to peer? Because usenet, email, gnutella are all peer to peer. All it would take is for someone to implement a peer to peer static caching system for web sites and build it into an add-on or module for firefox.
 

Re:How does it handle peer to peer? (1)

igb (28052) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967673)

It doesn't. It's purely aimed at static web content. Just because you can't attack the whole problem isn't of itself a reason to not attack parts of the problem. Cleanfeed removes the ``I just stumbled on it while browsing'' argument.

Support the move? (1)

Wowsers (1151731) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967413)

I would support the measure for blocking "child porn" (although I wouldn't ever call it porn), we all know that governments would NOT stop at just one thing, they will find something else objectionable, as the UK government already has [bbc.co.uk] . And so it will go on and on, until eventually, they will get to ban something that the rest of the idiots that use the internet ARE bothered about. Then it will be too late, and all the population will have is the state broadcaster pushing out government propaganda and lies (what the BBC does for the current government). Besides which, the IWF are a private body getting taxpayers money, accountable to nobody. Who trusts them, I don't.

Re:Support the move? (2, Insightful)

Sobrique (543255) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967471)

What's the point though? The act of making the "child porn" in the first place is already illegal. Hunting down porn sites to block is basically an exercise in futility, and kinda assumes that it's impossible for people to use 'covert channels' for such things.

Can someone explain why this is so terrible (0, Troll)

TurinX (1323321) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967461)

I don't quite follow why everyone is against putting in legislation. I'm not saying I am, i just don't quite follow what the issue is....
So they try and block all child porn - job well done, no?
Yes it doesn't stop the underlying porn existing, but if no one can get at it, then that will filter through to less people making it, no?
I'm just confused as to what all the uproar is about? (as in an honest question - not trying to take a stupid position...)

Re:Can someone explain why this is so terrible (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967563)

it's more "Any kind of filtering is bad"
thin end of the wedge type of thing. First it's Child porn, once that's gone we'll move on to the next most horrific thing, until eventually all we have left are things we don't consider bad at the moment.

Kind of like how all the Rich will complain bitterly about minor things (See Christian Bales outburst), while the general populous are more worried about their income, their family and their general wellbeing and tend to complain about things that matter a bit more (like welfare)

When we run out of things to worry about, we'll invent new ones from minor issues.

It is very important (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#26967467)

To those that are in power that you can be made to believe what you are being told.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda

By blocking any sites which provide competing views, the propaganda becomes the accepted truth.
 

"Child Abuse Images"? (4, Interesting)

Brian Ribbon (986353) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967573)

As soon as you use those words, you have lost your argument in the eyes of the general public. Studies [newgon.com] have shown that most illegal images of children do not involve sexual abuse. Data from Garda (linked above) shows that the most serious image possessed in 44% of "child pornography" cases in Ireland (whose child pornography laws mirror those of the UK) decpited no sexual activity whatsoever.

Pictures of naked children, which presumably comprise the majority of blocked images, should not be called "child abuse images". That term is just newspeak designed to justify the vast powers of censorship and funding which are handed to the IWF.

Congrats (1)

daveime (1253762) | more than 5 years ago | (#26967763)

I take my hat off to the UK Gov. for completely missing the point by several thousand miles.

Yes, images of child abuse (and a hell of a lot of other images on the net) are nasty.

But hiding them from public view is pointless ... did they learn nothing from 1930's prohibition in terms of the effectiveness of "banning something". All they will succeed in doing is pushing the problem underground, while at the same time telling the general populace "look at what a good job we are doing".

In the mean time, a new culture of underground sharing of these kinds of images will emerge, "nasty pics" will become the new drug of the masses, and the only ones to profit will be the sick bastards who create and distribute the stuff in the first place. Because everyone knows that the demand for illicit material always comes with a higher price tag. What a wonderful way to encourage entrepreneurship.

In terms of how the ISPs will actually implement this, I wonder what tech they are using ? Grepping the filenames for keywords ? Yes, very effective, because everyone knows that these have filenames like "sick_kiddy_porn1.jpg" <sarcasm>

Is this limited to JPG, GIF and PNG ? Then the pushers will simply wrap them in ZIP or RAR archives, password protected, and no one will be any the wiser right ?

Or I wonder if this is the new "job creation" scheme that Gordon Brown was talking about ? Employing 1000's of do-gooders to manually flag offensive images and add them into a database somewhere of blacklisted items ?

I'm not condoning this kind of crap, but trying to "hide" it from the public is NOT the way to do it. Have we come to such a point where investigative and law enforcement agencys are so hopeless, that we will no longer investigate crime, simply try to hide as much of it from the public view, so the stats look better ?

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?