The way the (voluntary) clean-feed works in Britain is tha the IP addresses for blacklisted hosts are redirected to a filtering proxy, which then examines the URL inside the request to see if it's on the blacklist. If not, the proxy then forwards the request on to the real address of the server. The result in this case is that all requests to Wikipedia appear to be coming from these proxy servers (there are six of them, operated by the major ISPs). Since Wikipedia's control of page editing permissions largely relies on IP addresses (for instance, blocking vandals by IP), nobody in the UK can now edit Wikipedia anonymously.
The list in question is one provided by the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation. The IWF is an independent organisation that accepts reports of child abuse material, and otherwise seeks out content that they judge would be illegal. They assemble a blacklist which is made available to law enforcement agencies and ISPs by arrangement.
The image in question is no doubt confronting - as it was intended to be. However, the album itself is still available in many places around the web as well as in physical record stores. One has to wonder about the logic behind the ban - who is being protected? The model? Are those who would view this album cover to be protected from themselves? Is this CD to be blamed for starting heavy metal fans down the road to child abuse?
We can be grateful the IWF has done this, however, because it serves as an excellent and timely lesson on the perils of Internet filtering. It is a perfect snapshot of things to come in Australia if the cleanfeed is introduced here.
Could this really happen here? It not only could, it would, as Senator Conroy himself has indicated that Australia has signed up to the very same IWF blacklist. He has stated so explicitly in a form letter that is being sent out to those who have written in with concerns about the filter:
The existing ACMA blacklist is a list of internet web pages which are defined as ‘prohibited’ under Australian legislation. The list has been in place since 2000 and currently contains around 1300 URLs.Although the IWF no doubt performs some good work, it is in the margins where the biased judgement of those who have sworn to hunt down child abuse is made arbiter of what every Internet user can and can't see. As the Wikipedia fiasco shows, the result is more than an inconvenience - it has affected the access of tens of millions of people to one of the most important sites on the Internet. In Australia, not only would the Government have the ability to secretly add any site to our blacklist, but an unaccountable foreign-based organisation would as well. Given that the traffickers of genuine abuse material will not let themselves be slowed down by a filter and are already covering their tracks, the net result that will be achieved here is exactly this: inconvenience, chaos and expense with absolutely no dividend for the children.
ACMA has also negotiated agreement with the UK Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) facilitating access to the IWF’s list of child abuse image URLs.
7 comments:
Thanks so much for posting this, Colin. It's a fantastic go-to article which I will be referring many people to. Rather fortunate and timely in one way that this example has come up now, as you say.
It gets better. This anomaly helps us gather cool hard data on the performance impact of 2nd stage filter.
Here's how
http://broadbannedrevolution.blogspot.com/2008/12/help-measure-uk-censorwall.html
Follow #ukaucensorwall on Twitter for further updates.
As a link.
Does anyone else have an issue with Australia using a classification list sourced from a foreign non government organisation without vetting it? That would be like saying we should dump our own classification board and just implement the UKs rulings. That's crazy.
How are Australians supposed to appeal a decision about a blocked URL to the Australian authorities, when those authorities don't even have access to the reasons as to why a given URL is blocked? The process is not only conducted in secret but the Australian government has no legal ability to compel the IWF to supply it any information, let alone be accountable for it. The IWF can choose to cooperate or not, but more importantly it can supply deliberately false information without any fear of consequences. They can say whatever they want - how can anyone successful appeal against that?
Having had a quick look at the IWF's site, I cannot see any documentation of their procedure to determine what constitutes CP & indecent material. Obviously there is a subjective component to such rulings, but it would be nice to know if they have any checks or balances, how many people assess a given URL, etc.
It's pretty clear with the IWF blocking wikipedia content that they have a hair trigger. So far there hasn't been any explanation as to why, content so objectionable that it needs to be censored, is freely available to anyone and everyone (even children can buy it).
Given the above, the IWF would appear to be unaccountable, arbitrary and inconsistent in their rulings. It would my opinion that trusting them with censoring (whether you agree with it or not) Australian internet access would be an enormous mistake.
"One has to wonder about the logic behind the ban - who is being protected? The model?" Hardly - this album was released in 1976! The model is no longer a child. If we exptrapolate this idiocy far enough som of the great works of art featuring naked cherubins will no longer be accessible on the net and will have to be removed from galleries around the world
it is indeed good to know that iwf is trying to protect web surfers from illegal and offending material, but in this case there is absolutely no logic. this is the first time i saw this image and the first thing i asked is why this image itself exist? who could have approved it for the album? and why wikipedia is the only page banned among all those proudly displaying the same image?
these are questions that make me angry, instead of making me feel comfortable about web content.
It doesn't matter that the image exists, the issue is whether it is CP or not, given that is the grounds on which it is being censored.
There are plenty of examples of content that are objectionable but legal - freedom of speech isn't about your right to publish whatever you like, it's about other people's right to publish that which you find offensive.
So, whilst the image can be argued as being offensive (and having read the back-story about it, that it was essentially a publicity stunt, I think it's fair to say that is offensive), I don't think that it can be described as CP so easily.
Still, there are people that believe that any image of a naked child is inherently pornographic. Which, to me, is about as ridiculous as saying every picture of a naked adult is pornographic.
For something to be considered porn, it needs to be an explicit sexual depiction, erotica is an implicit sexual depiction - and whilst some images sit very firmly in the realm of porn, others require a judgement call, and that requires context.
If you went to any country where sharia law is in force, you would find that a woman showing any more than her face and hands would be considered a grossly offensive act, one that required punishment. You could also go to parts of Europe and see total nudity that people not only don't consider pornographic, but they don't even notice it. It is so pedestrian as to be invisible. Both of these stances are appropriate for the culture in which they occur. My point is, in our culture, the one that is going to be impacted by the IWF's blocklist, does this image qualify as CP? I don't think it does.
Post a Comment