Blocking the Hidden Areas of the Internet…IWF publish their Annual Report for 2011

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from iwf.org.uk See 2011 Annual Report [pdf] from iwf.org.uk

The IWF press release leads on the new concept that child abuse images available on the internet are being hidden in secret portions of seemingly legitimate web sites. The IWF explains the issue: Criminals are disguising websites to appear as if they host only legal content. However, if an internet user follows a predetermined digital path which leads them to the website, they will see images and videos of children being sexually abused. There are several reasons why this method is used. Firstly, it masks the criminal website from those who have not followed the correct digital path. Secondly, it means that a commercial child sexual abuse business may be able to acquire legitimate business services if the website appears to host legal content when accessed directly — essentially tricking companies into providing their services for what is actually a criminal enterprise. These disguised websites have not yet been encountered on UK servers but the IWF is working with its Members — the online industry – and other Hotlines around the world to effectively tackle this trend. In general the report shows a very laudable near 100% focus on the blocking and taking down of child related material, and doing so speedily. A useful statistic from the IWF is the number of illegal domains detected. This has declined from a 2006 peak of 3077 domains down to 1595 in 2011. (although this is an increase from 1351 in 2010). Thankfully this seems a pretty low figure for a worldwide statistic. Presumably most of these have subsequently been taken down too. On the subject of illegal adult material, the IWF received 2779 reports. Only 2 reports were about material hosted in the UK and therefore actionable by the IWF. One of these cases ended up in material being taken down, the other had already been removed prior to action. Most of the other reports involved material hosted abroad. The IWF do not take any action in this case (presumably because the material is probably legal where it is hosted). There is no comment about whether the recent UK obscenity acquittal of fisting and urolagnia material has had any impact on the IWF definition of illegal adult material.

Open Access…UK BlackBerry phone users are not subject to IWF website blocking nor their carrier’s policy for age verification before access to adult websites

Read more Phone News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from huffingtonpost.co.uk by John Carr

Last week my attention was drawn to a notice which had been put up on 3′s web site. It reads as follows Note: If you’re using a BlackBerry, we can’t put a filter on your phone. This is because BlackBerry apply their own settings to access the internet Why had this caveat appeared out of the blue where previously there had been nothing? Had something changed? If so, what and when? At first everyone started clamming up. I took that as a sure sign. Then finally two networks confirmed that, right now, they believe none of their BlackBerry users are covered either by the adult content blocking policy or by the IWF list blocking policy. Another network said they believed some BlackBerry models were still covered but they acknowledged not all of their BlackBerry users are any more. Why have Blackberry decided to stop running services which keeps adult sites away from children or indeed anyone who has not asked for the adult bar to be lifted? And what exactly is the position with the IWF list? When did universal coverage under either or both headings cease to be a fact? Was it ever a fact? Was OFCOM, CEOP, the Government or anyone in authority informed of any changes to what was very widely understood to be the status quo? If not why not? This is a scandal which risks putting a big dent in the credibility of the whole notion of self-regulation of the internet in the UK, if not elsewhere as well. My understanding is that all of the UK’s mobile phone networks have been tearing their hair out trying to get RIM to sit down with them and resolve this but it hasn’t happened. Meanwhile what are the networks to do? Cut off all of their customers who use BlackBerry devices? I am sure some people will say that is exactly what they should have done but I think that is rather an extreme view and it ought not to be necessary when RIM have it within their gift to avoid it. Should the mobile networks have warned parents or the public or some of their customers? Blackberry has some explaining to do. …Read the full article

Major Inconvenience Over Minor Issue…Popular cloud computer file hosting website, Fileserve is blocked by the IWF

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from torrentfreak.com

UK users of the popular Fileserve file-hosting service are currently unable to download any files as the site is being blocked by ISPs acting on a block list provided by the Internet Watch Foundation. Since early this week the blacklist, which aims to disable access to sexual child abuse content, has been preventing users from accessing their personal files and downloading those uploaded by others. Fileserve expects the issue to persist for at least a couple of days. With hundreds of millions of page views each month, Fileserve is listed among the 10 most-visited file-sharing sites on the Internet. The site allows users to store files in the cloud for personal use or subsequent sharing with the rest of the world.

Minor Sideline…The IWF describe their role as internet censors of supposedly obscene adult porn

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from iwf.org.uk

The conviction of Vincent Tabak for the murder of Jo Yeates has thrown the issue of online criminally obscene adult content, sometimes known as extreme porn, into the limelight. The vast majority of the IWF’s work concerns the removal of images of child sexual abuse from the internet, for which we have an international remit, but we also deal with criminally obscene adult material hosted in the UK. In 2007 the Home Office asked the IWF to allow our public internet reporting mechanism to be used for the reporting of UK-hosted criminally obscene adult content. Following consultation with our industry members, our Board informed the government of our agreement to fulfil this role, from 26 January 2009, as part of our original remit. We are able to act on any public reports of online obscene adult content when it is hosted in the UK and contravenes UK Law, we cannot act if the content is hosted abroad and do not action legal adult content. The online industry fully supports us issuing takedown notices for this part of our remit. However, we receive very few reports of this type of content which satisfies these criteria and enable us to issue a takedown notice: In 2010 we issued eight notices for criminally obscene adult content. In 2009 we issued two notices. In 2008 the number was 39. The reason there are so few is a reflection that the UK online industry provides one of the harshest environments for hosting criminal material. On those rare occasions when material believed to be unlawful is depicted on a website hosted in the UK, we work in partnership with the online industry and the police to provide information to assist investigations into the distributers of the content. The material is removed in hours. The IWF is not an organisation which makes moral judgements on what is hosted on the internet. We are solely concerned with the prompt removal of criminal content within our remit and we have achieved great successes in this.

Meet the Censors…The Independent talks to censors from BBFC, IWF, ASA and Ofcom

Read more BBFC News at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from independent.co.uk

They have the power to ban a film, withdraw an advert or shut down a website. But how do Britain’s censors decide what goes beyond the boundaries of good taste? Holly Williams meets the nation’s moral guardians Rebecca Mackay of the BBFC revealed” We reject the granting of certificates very rarely. Fifty years ago, we were rejecting films that now we might classify as a ’15′. Now, we’re classifying things with greater potency, because shocking and offending is just shocking and offending. Fred Langford of the Internet Watch Foundation revealed: We also took on obscene adult content, so that’s anything likely to deprave and corrupt — which is quite subjective. Because of the shifting landscape, we only act when the content is potentially illegal, and a legal precedent has been set. We don’t see ourselves as censors of the internet. If it’s criminal offline, it’s criminal online. Simply inappropriate content isn’t within our remit. There’s no place for vigilantes searching for this content, but if a member of the public stumbles across it, they can report it on our website. The number of reports vary from 150 to over a thousand, though that would be an unusually busy day. We have four analysts and a hotline manager. Louisa Bolch of the Advertising Standards Authority revealed: More interesting is the stuff around taste and decency, and harm and offence. We ask, is this something the majority are going to find offensive? Or is this something which is going to offend a much smaller number of people, but offend them so much that actually when you weigh in the balance the advertisers’ right to freedom of expression versus the amount of offence it’s caused, you say it’s too great. That’s a really grey area — we will discuss them for quite a long time. We don’t withdraw adverts lightly; it’s a serious business. The meetings can be really good fun, but there’s a lot at stake. If it’s not clear cut, at the end of the day we have a voting mechanism. Alison Marsden of Ofcom revealed: Ofcom isn’t a censor; we don’t have any powers before broadcast. We have to take into account freedom of expression — broadcasters’ and audiences’ rights to impart and receive material. [...BUT...] The counterpoint to that is that, intervening post-transmission, we have some pretty strong legal powers to impose sanctions where necessary, so there is an incentive for broadcasters to comply. …Read the full article

New Internet Censor…Susie Hargreaves starts work as Chief Executive of the Internet Watch Foundation

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from iwf.org.uk

Susie Hargreaves started as Chief Executive of the Internet Watch Foundation on 5 September 2011. Susie was selected for the position in May and replaces Peter Robbins who led the organisation for nine years. Susie has worked in the Charity sector for more than 25 years, most recently as CEO of The Society of Dyers & Colourists and previously in a range of senior positions including running a number of membership organisations.

New Watch…New CEO for the Internet Watch Foundation

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See article from iwf.org.uk

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has appointed Susie Hargreaves as its new Chief Executive. She will start in September. Susie has worked in the Charity sector for more than 25 years, most recently as CEO of The Society of Dyers & Colourists and previously in a range of senior positions including running a number of membership organisations.

Truely Worrying Vision…IWF hand over reporting of internet hate crime role to the police

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

A bit of an alarming concept to have the police running a reporting service. The police seem to continuously side with the complainant without ever considering the merits of the complaint, nor the rights of people caught up in any police overreaction. See article from iwf.org.uk

A new service for reporting all hate crimes online has been launched by the police. The website, called True Vision, is supported by all forces in England, Wales and Northern Ireland and can be accessed at http://www.report-it.org.uk. All reports of incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK previously reported to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) should now be reported directly to True Vision. The True Vision website provides information about what hate crime is, and includes a new online reporting form. The site also provides links to organisations that can offer support and advice on hate crime related issues. Eve Salomon, Chair, IWF said: We are very pleased to see our law enforcement partners develop a comprehensive reporting service incorporating all forms of hate crime. The Internet industry deserves a great deal of credit for funding an IWF service to receive reports of incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK since 2000 when no alternative system existed. However as new legislation has been introduced to include a wider range of hate crime definitions, the development of one all-embracing direct reporting service is an excellent idea. Having made a significant contribution to providing a public service for many years the IWF is now pleased to hand over responsibility for racial hatred reports to our police partners. We now turn our attention to focus more effort on other areas of our remit and in particular the removal of child sexual abuse content wherever it is hosted in the world. The police believe that the website will help increase the reporting of hate crime by building confidence in victims and offering a range of reporting options for victims who may not wish to talk directly to the police. It also provides links to a number of organisations who can offer support.

Staying on Focus…IWF release their 2010 Annual Report

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

See press release from iwf.org.uk See also IWF Annual Report 2010 from iwf.org.uk

The UK’s Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) has launched its Annual Report 2010 in which it reveals the success of a new collaborative project to have child sexual abuse images removed from the web faster across the globe. Results show a dramatic reduction in the length of time these criminal images remain active, down from around a month only a year ago, to an average lifespan of just 12 days today, irrespective of where in the world they are hosted and only a matter of hours if hosted in the UK. Thankfully the IWF is keeping its focus on its role to remove child abuse images. It does also have a remit to take down other UK hosted material: adult material if it is found to be ‘criminally obscene’ incitement to racial hatred non-photographic child porn images But the IWF has only removed about 12 such URLs from about 4300 reports. Hopefully this suggests that the IWF are only taking action only where strictly necessitated by law or remit, rather than just playing safe and taking action against everything reported. Offsite: Ed Vaziey hints at a IWF like organisation with a remit for wider internet censorship See article from theregister.co.uk by Jane Fae Ozimek Culture Minister Ed Vaizey spoke at the Internet Watch Foundation’s (IWF) 2010 Annual Report launch. He praised the IWF and UK ISPs for having put in place a model for dealing with child abuse and criminally obscene material (the IWF’s current remit) that was recognised around the world. Both he and Home Office Minister James Brokenshire indicated that they liked the self-regulatory model and very much hoped it would continue. Vaizey also indicated that there might be scope in future to extend the IWF’s methods — though not necessarily through the IWF — to cover other categories of material. …Read the full article

Job Opportunity…Chief Executive of the IWF, one of the UK’s internet censors

Read more IWF Watch at MelonFarmers.co.uk

Based on article from leadiwf.co.uk

The internet censors of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) have set up a website to advertise the post of Chief Executive: We need a creative strategic leader with a commitment to continuous improvement and the vision to inspire, innovate and develop our organisation. You will be a transformational leader with excellent communication skills who wins hearts and minds. A credible ambassador, you will have experience of effective partnership building and influencing a range of stakeholders across the private, public and not-for-profit sectors. The ability to work effectively with our dedicated Board of Trustees is essential. We are not looking for someone with expertise in legal or technical issues — instead we need a Chief Executive with the ability and willingness to learn and an interest in technology. Most importantly we need a leader with objectivity and emotional detachment when dealing with sensitive issues.