Internet filtering

My ISP along with 6 others have decided they want to be my mum and are now filtering wikipedia as someone has decided an image on there is unsuitable for me, and everyone else.

More info….
Here and here

Worse than the fact they have done this is that they aren’t even telling people (it returns a 404 Not found error) and blocks the article that contains the image in question, yet not the image itself:

This is the page that is blocked for me:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer

But you can get to it via…
http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer

or just view the image at
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg

This appears to be a response to the government who have been recently asking the ISPs to do such things.
http://www.iwf.org.uk/government/page.156.381.htm

The ISPs have previously just said they are carriers of information and so won’t do such things, plus would be too expensive and cause too many problems (like this case has caused people to be unable to edit wikipedia) therefore can’t really introduce it.
But now they have… shot themselves in the foot really.
Implementing censorship on the ISP will just make it more viable and desireable for someone to create a international wireless network where users can connect directly.
When that happens we will no longer need ISPs, and it will also be harder for intellegent agencies to be able to track real crime  - It’s harder for them now if they all appear to come from the same IP address.

Sounds like a very typical law of this government to go OTT on something that will actually make the matter worse, and where they have not considered the cost, possibility or implications of implementation

There are some that may say “would you prefer to have child porn?” or some other such ridiculous statement that tries to defend the ISPs … sounds a lot like “You’re with us or against us”. The ends aren’t worth the means especially as it will do absolutely nothing in protecting children given  paedos will use private networks anyway.

This page from 2006 shows the gov’t wishing for ISPs to block sites on the IWF list (which may be “augmented by the home office”)
On the bethere.co.uk forum this post (private forum) is from user 13thHour regarding the IWF:

The IWF are the internet equivalent of the old West’s snake oil sellers. Offering the ISP’s this wonderful censorship system so that the Government don’t lean on them.

The reality is however, that rather than an independent way of limiting so called harmful content, they are instead composed of money grabbing hypocrites.

The IWF do not care what they censor, as long as they get paid. Paid and Paid again.

I find it interesting, that so many of these organisations now exist, you know the ones, we offer this, we offer that, we sit on government panels, but what do we do? We can show you a nice leaflet or sell you a book!

However I do find it interesting that my sites keep getting banned by the IWF.

Because we do terrible things like speak out about the IWF, The British Governments progressive censorship campaigns, DRMs etc.

I guess you are not supposed to question what they do

For those of you who prefer a more open internet, its time you invested in a secure tunnel connection. An out of country SSH bypasses UK ISP’s silly little useless filters.

I wonder if people in Scunthorpe will still get their email if they implement the filter even further?

ISPs instead of being bullied to using a list from a charity which survives on government intervention, should be BANNED from monitoring/blocking traffic - but this government want to control and monitor everyone’s actions at all costs,  just like other communist countries and so soon we may have a Great firewall of Britain

We’re sleepwalking into 1984, of course.

More info 10:37 8/12/8

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7770456.stm

Seems the IWF are just banning things that could possibly be illegal, and they did consult the police.  But now half the country can’t edit wikipedia just on the whim of someone from the police and a few directors in a quango want to ‘protect children’ – Next they say that voting Conservative will harm kids and block all their sites?
No-one should be able to block and hide pages on a whim, but the internet will find a way around.

Soon  it will be all porn that’s blocked… then what?

17:38 –  There’s now talk of blocking amazon on what the BBC have been saying today is their busiest day of the year.
Chances are the whole site won’t be blocked but will cause most users to appear to be from the same IP address (contrary to many people’s static IP packages with their ISP) which will no doubt cause amazon to block them.
An interesting point in that article

the IWF, which is paid for by the EU and through a levy on the internet industry,

Sounds like another one of those organisations that get money from the EU in order to perpetuate the EU cause.

Amazon UK and Germany have changed the image here and here

Amazon US haven’t – Here

Apparently  IWF call it a Class 1(out of 5) image – why bother having different classes if they are all blocked anyway? and what ISP are they on to see if the page is “safe” to be unblocked – in fact, as they are non-governmental they are just normal people working there.. how are they allowed to see the images that are sent to them?  If we send them images we accidentally come across, and one of them goes on to molest kids, are we guilty of spreading illegal images?

UPDATE 9/12/08 19:00: (BBC Story)

IWF Backtrack – http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm

Well, they realise they have done a bad, but is it to late to try and put the cat back in the box – the damage is done, they can’t be trusted (and obviously can be bought out given this happened only after wiki threatened to sue)

Some ugly points in the page

“the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978″ …. and? so what if it was (even though it was taken prior to 1978 and not in the UK)

“assist investigations into the distributers of potentially illegal online content” – isn’t everything potentially illegal?

“We are an independent self-regulatory body, funded by the EU…. “

“Reduce the occasions when innocent internet users might be exposed to traumatic and unlawful images. “ – Reduce the amount of times I accidentally do something unlawful…. what, mum?

“Diminish the re-victimisation of children by restricting opportunities to view their sexual abuse.” By whose logic does that make sense?!

I expect this will be the end of the story until next month when they start blocking images that depict “…necrophilia, bestiality and violence that is life threatening or likely to result in serious injury to the anus, breasts or genitals.”