Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Stop the Internet Blacklist!
09-28-2010, 12:03 AM,
#1
Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Quote:Stop the Internet Blacklist!
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
Just the other day, President Obama urged other countries to stop censoring the Internet. But now the United States Congress is trying to censor the Internet here at home. A new bill being debated this week would have the Attorney General create an Internet blacklist of sites that US Internet providers would be required to block.

This is the kind of heavy-handed censorship you'd expect from a dictatorship, where one man can decide what web sites you're not allowed to visit. But the Senate Judiciary Committee is expected to pass the bill this week -- and Senators say they haven't heard much in the way of objections! That's why we need you to sign our urgent petition to Congress demanding they oppose the Internet blacklist.

PETITION TO THE SENATE: Censoring the Internet is something we'd expect from China or Iran, not the U.S. Senate. You need to stop this Internet blacklist in its tracks and oppose S. 3804.

Add your name and we'll deliver your message to Washington.

Read more about the bill: COICA Fact Sheet.

In the news: BoingBoing, Daring Fireball, Reddit.

"We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world," says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. "In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims."

http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
“Today’s scientists have substituted mathematics for experiments, and they wander off through equation after
equation, and eventually build a structure which has no relation to reality. ” -Nikola Tesla

"When the power of love overcomes the love of power the world will know peace." -Jimi Hendrix
Reply
09-28-2010, 12:14 AM,
#2
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Thanks for this post ES.
An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.
Mohandas Gandhi


Each of us is put here in this time and this place to personally decide the future of humankind.
Did you think you were put here for something less?
Chief Arvol Looking Horse
Reply
09-28-2010, 02:38 AM,
#3
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Forget Internet V.2, it's not needed. Coming soon...the great N.A.U. firewall!
"He that saith he abideth in him ought himself also so to walk, even as he walked." -- 1 John 2:6
"Whatever affects one directly, affects all indirectly... This is the interrelated structure of reality." -- Martin Luther King Jr.
"He that answereth a matter before he heareth it, it is folly and shame unto him." -- Proverbs 18:13
"Everyone thinks of changing the world, but no one thinks of changing himself." -- Leo Tolstoy
"To love is to be vulnerable" -- C.S Lewis

The Kingdom of God is within you! -- Luke 17:20-21

https://duckduckgo.com/
Reply
09-28-2010, 11:01 PM,
#4
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
done. thanks for the info.
[Image: conspiracy_theory.jpg]
Reply
09-29-2010, 10:57 AM,
#5
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Topic jump from Blacklists to Black Holes.

Is this a ruse or is it legit? It's based on a Nature paper, the same folks who published a multitude of 'peer reviewed' papers on global warming.

Here's the PDF of the paper:
http://www.nature.com/ncomms/journal/v1/n6/pdf/ncomms1063.pdf

Much of the solutions work was referencing this paper but it seems like the conclusions for hyperbolic mapping don't match:
http://www.eng.tau.ac.il/~tankel/pub/HypEmb05v2.pdf

However if there truly is that much stress on internet routing a DHT or a P2P model could build in some redundancies and relieve the stress by utilizing the cloud. But we can't

Quote: Red alert! Sinking into an Internet black hole?
September 28, 2010 - 9:54 A.M.
by Darlene Storm

It seems like a full-fledged red alert when I can't connect to the Internet. Some experts may have figured out the why and the how to fix these outages, but will the cure making hacking harder or easier for cyber-criminals?

Have you ever had one of those days when you reboot the router but you still can't access anything on the Internet? Those unexplained outages might be caused by Internet "black holes"-places where data can't get in or out. Some scientists estimate as many as 2 million temporary black holes come and go every day. One reason for these black holes are the routing difficulties caused by more than a billion Internet users at a time. As more people and devices connect to the Net, stressing routers and their ability to pass data packets, some scientists worry that the Net might permanently collapse into a black hole.

New research offers hope that hyperbolic mapping could stress routers less and reduces the number of black holes. Dmitri Krioukov from the University of California, San Diego, explained the router problems during an IEEE podcast. Krioukov said to imagine that you need to find a route on a road, but you have no maps or GPS. In fact, all you have is an extremely long list of all the roads in the whole world and all the intersections of those roads. A road along the route might be closed for some reason, but the long list does not have this update. It would be unimaginably difficult to use this long list of road names to find a route for where you needed to go. This is similar to the task that routers perform. It's also why the Net is having all these temporary black hole problems.

Every router has a long list with all the roads and all the intersections throughout the world. The router acts like a traffic cop at each intersection, looking at every arriving piece of information, asking it where it wants to go, then looking back at the list to direct the information via the shortest and best route. These router traffic cops need to replace the long lists of roads and intersections with something that looks like a navigational map to route data much more efficiently. This navigation could be done with hyperbolic mapping.

According to a statement issued by the San Diego Supercomputer Center, Krioukov said, "It is very complicated, inefficient, and difficult to scale to the rapidly growing size of the Internet, which is now accessed by more than a billion people each day. In fact, we are already seeing parts of the Internet become intermittently unreachable, sinking into so-called black holes, which is a clear sign of instability."

The image below is a hyperbolic atlas of the Internet, as built and described in the Nature Communications paper. It shows the locations of Internet systems on the hyperbolic plane.

Krioukov and his colleagues at CAIDA have been managing a project called Archipelago, or Ark, that constantly monitors the topology of the Internet, or the structure of its interconnections. They believe the severe stress to the Internet infrastructure and the existing Internet routing architecture may collapse in another decade or so. Krioukov said that improvements to critical infrastructure through hyperbolic mapping could be accomplished with incremental deployment; some routers use the hyperbolic atlas while others use the long lists. "There are many technical and non-technical issues to be resolved before the Internet map that we found would be the map that the Internet uses," he warns.

I asked Dmitri Krioukov how hyperbolic mapping would be applied in regards to security?

Krioukov said they haven't spent much time thinking about the security aspects of the proposed routing modifications yet, but he came up with one possibility. "With today's routing protocols, it's always a danger out there that those protocols can be attacked, e.g., an attacker can inject some malicious routing information into the system, hi-jacking or misdirecting traffic to wrong destinations. In our case, we don't have any routing protocols, as coordinates are fixed once and forever, therefore the (potential) threat above is removed." He also stressed that he is not a security expert.

So I'm asking you, the readers, do you think this scenario would be potentially more secure or more insecure? Would it make it easier to hack the fixed routes that would save us from sinking into a black hole?

Hyperbolic mapping and routing modifications may save the Internet from collapsing into a massive black hole. The improvement to our critical infrastructure may cause a new need for more security professionals. But a final warning . . . if you miss a work deadline or an online conference meeting, your boss may not believe you were temporarily sucked into a mysterious Internet black hole.
http://blogs.computerworld.com/17031/red_alert_sinking_into_an_internet_black_hole
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
09-29-2010, 09:51 PM,
#6
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
know that in order to maintain ICANN accreditation the registrar must make a good faith effort to provide service based on the agreement with ICANN, and not because some government told them they couldn't have that name anymore.

There are obviously some provisions here, but it basically boils down to international copyright law, and not with the content served. To observe this in action, simply take these steps:
1. Register a domain through a US based registrar.
2. Set up a site that hosts malware.
3. Wait for your account to get shut down.
4. Demand control of your domain name back.
5. Wait for an e-mail containing your authorization code to transfer your domain.

To comply with the registrars ICANN accreditation they cannot keep your domain or prevent you from taking it elsewhere to use. You can only have your service terminated for violating the hosting companies ToS, but you still get to keep your domain. It's pretty frustrating when we bust someone on our hosting who is phishing or distributing malware, only to have them transfer their domain and wait to get caught again by their new host (if that host cares).
Reply
10-01-2010, 10:50 AM,
#7
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Oh this is ripe...

Blacklists of Denmark and Sweden analysed (PDF)
http://ak-zensur.de/2010/09/29/analysis-blacklists.pdf

* 197 Sites
* 3 were still active when filter was applied
* Simple Email requests got the 3 legit sites down within 3 hours
* Most were 404s since they were already deleted, that could mean either:
- they weren't porn
- we don't need a filter, they we're taken care of
- censorship?
- or any combination of the above
* 2 of the active sites were known since 2008 and they were allowed to stay up

The familiar mantras:

To Protect the Children! (Let Computers protect our Children!)
For National Security! (The Patriot Act and Preemptive Strikes has Stopped Terrorism!)

Cognitive thoughts from the other side - even victims of child abuse pick apart the EU Child Porn Bill.

Quote:Open Letter to LIBE-committee Members
September 28th, 2010 · → Keine Kommentare · Ein Dossier, Internetsperren, Pressemappe

This is an Open Letter to the Members of the European Parliament.

09/28/10

LIBE Committee
European Parliament
Rue Wiertz
1047 Bruxelles

LIBE COMMITTEE HEARING
Directive 2010/64(COM 2010/94) – Malmström Directive – Angelilli Report

Dear Members of the European Parliament,

MOGiS e.V. is a German association of victims of sexual child abuse. MOGiS was founded because society usually only talks about – not with – victims of sexual abuse and sexual exploitation.

We believe that, as victims, we are experts in our own right. We think that any legislative process that tries to tackle the problem of sexual child abuse without talking to the victims is bound to fail. Therefore, in anticipation of the discussions on the draft Directive on Child Exploitation, we would like to provide you with some brief comments.

We believe that before any new legislation is created it should be clear that: a) the (perceived) problem to be tackled is properly defined and understood, b) the goal of the legislation is properly defined c) the introduced measure is necessary to reach the goal and doesn’t do more harm than good.

We do not believe this to be the case in relation to key parts of draft directive 2010/64. We will concentrate on five key themes:

1. The lack of proper research prior to the proposition of the directive.
2. The problematic definitions of "child" and "child pornography"
3. The planned mandatory introduction of a blocking infrastructure in the EU
4. The criminalization of solicitation in order to dissuade offenders
5. The help for victims

I) The lack of proper research prior to the directive being proposed.

The entire proposal gets off to a bad start, making it clear that it is based on suppositions rather than facts: “Despite a lack of accurate and reliable statistics, studies suggest that [...] and research also suggests that this phenomenon is not decreasing over time [...].”

Continuing in the same vein, the Commission considered that, despite the recognized absence of such information, external expertise was not seen as necessary: “- Collection and use of expertise: There was no need for external expertise.”

This is a little surprising, particularly if we consider the findings of the Commission-financed European Financial Coalition, which indicate that certain types of crimes regarding child exploitation on the Internet are in fact declining.

II) The problematic definitions of "child" and "child pornography"

Although the proposal refers to the European definition of youth, namely “children and young people between the ages of 13 and 20” in its introduction, the terminology and goals of the rest of the document fail to adequately reflect this differentiation.

When fighting abuse it is essential to differentiate between "child" and "adolescent" (youths). "Youth protection" needs to have a different focus from "Child protection". Defining every person under 18 might work in the context of "right of the child" but it clearly does not in the context of "sexual self-determination".

Also for various reasons the term "child pornography" is very problematic in our opinion, the most important of which being that these representations have nothing in common with the usual definition of the word "pornography" which refers to consensual acts between adults, whereas the term "child abuse images" would be more appropriate for the problems the draft directive tries to tackle.

Also in the interests of sending a signal to people watching this content, you should make clear they are not watching some sort of "pornography" – what they are looking at is the evidence of a crime. So to get the message across it should be always be called "child abuse images" or "child abuse material" or similar.

As for protecting a person under 18 who has reached the age of legal sexual consent from acting in pornographic depictions we encourage the European Parliament to adopt a solution similar to the Chapter 18 U.S. Code § 2257 “Record keeping requirements” for any material that is being produced or distributed from an EU member state. This would also free law enforcement unit from chasing down pornography with actors “appearing to be a ‘child’ ” (a person appearing to be under 18 in the draft directive).

III) The planned mandatory introduction of a blocking infrastructure

Deletion and investigation of such sites should always be prioritized ahead of blocking, and this is also true for this Directive. In any event, access restrictions in general should be seen as a subject matter that is covered by subsidiarity, under the condition that any such policy implemented by Member States be subject to a specific national law.

The restrictions described in Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights (which covers "Freedom of Expression") clearly require a legal basis for interferences such as "internet blocking".

Lawless situations which rely on corporate contract clauses in Scandinavia and in the United Kingdom are incompatible with this provision.

The creation of a legal basis for these measures is therefore the absolute minimum that should be demanded. A second important criterion would be the involvement of a judge with a proper ruling which would provide a justification for the blocking.

Nonetheless, MOGiS e.V. stresses that even though we are victims of sexual exploitation themselves we reject blocking in principle and believe that it represents a danger for democratic societies.

Especially for victims, the Internet is a very important tool. It allows us to share our hope and sorrow. For this to be possible we need anonymity and confidentiality. These characteristics of the internet are at risk with the technology that is being proposed for internet blocking.

Also we don’t want there to be any excuse for not acting – neither for the police nor any of the other stakeholders involved. Also we don’t want to give EU member states a means to hide their inaction and the failure of international cooperation on fighting sexual child exploitation.

IV) The criminalization of solicitation in order to dissuade offenders

The deterrent effect of penalties in this area of criminality is negligible (unless the penalty was the death penalty or life imprisonment).

Any perpetrator already has to overcome the danger of social revulsion and alienation if found guilty, unless he/she is acting pathologically.

At the point where a person decides to sexually abuse a child, i.e. before the actual solicitation of the child, the calculated risk of social alienation and punishment has already been taken into account.

A further problem with Article 6 of the proposal is that it seeks to punish the person’s intention (although, strangely, only if communicating via a telecommunications network). Such an intention will be very difficult to either prove or disprove.

The proposal’s intention is undoubtedly good, but it will not dissuade perpetrators (who are experiencing a particular urge to seek contact with children) but might create a climate that scares completely normal people who do not want to run the risk of being branded with the allegation of being a child abuser.

In this way, it could happen that children would be deprived of the healthy human contact that they need in order to avoid slipping into abusive relationships. Perpetrators can exploit this and will continue to present themselves as trustworthy friends.

We want adults to be available for when children need them. So we have to make sure that we don’t introduce any legislation that does more harm than good.

At the moment we don’t believe that this problem can be fixed in the very limited time frame that this proposal now has to be finished – so in our opinion solicitation should be dropped from the proposal.

V) The help for victims

Help and therapy for victims should not be subject to their willingness to go to court. Also, it should always be the decision of a victim whether he or she wants to testify at the police or in front of a court or not.

We at MOGiS e.V. think that the proposal should become more clear in that respect.

Kind Regards,
Christian Bahls
http://mogis-verein.de/2010/09/28/open-letter-to-libe-committee-members/


This bears cloning:

Quote:Stop the Internet Blacklist! (S3804)

"We all use the web now for all kinds of parts our lives, some trivial, some critical to our life as part of a social world," says Tim Berners-Lee, creator of the Web. "In the spirit going back to Magna Carta, we require a principle that: No person or organization shall be deprived of their ability to connect to others at will without due process of law, with the presumption of innocence until found guilty. Neither governments nor corporations should be allowed to use disconnection from the Internet as a way of arbitrarily furthering their own aims."
http://demandprogress.org/blacklist/
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
11-16-2010, 03:43 AM,
#8
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Here's are some highlights of the text of the bill:

The entire text is available here:
HTML http://thomas.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/z?c111:s3804:
PDF http://frwebgate.access.gpo.gov/cgi-bin/getdoc.cgi?dbname=111_cong_bills&docid=f:s3804is.txt.pdf

Bill Text 111th Congress (2009-2010)
S.3804.IS

Quote:`(i) a service provider, as that term is defined in section 512(k)(1) * of title 17, United States Code, or other operator of a domain name system server shall take reasonable steps that will prevent a domain name from resolving to that domain name's Internet protocol address;

*
Quote:(k) Definitions.—

(1) Service provider. — (A) As used in subsection (a), the term “service provider” means an entity offering the transmission, routing, or providing of connections for digital online communications, between or among points specified by a user, of material of the user's choosing, without modification to the content of the material as sent or received.

ISPs are only forced to block DNS resolution - IP to IP transfer is not blocked. BT P2P over IP based trackers is the obvious workaround.

So it's all good right? ... nope not even close ... check the definition:

Quote:`Sec. 2324. Internet sites dedicated to infringing activities

`(a) Definition- For purposes of this section, an Internet site is `dedicated to infringing activities' if such site--

`(1) is otherwise subject to civil forfeiture to the United States Government under section 2323; or

`(2) is--

`(A) primarily designed, has no demonstrable, commercially significant purpose or use other than, or is marketed by its operator, or by a person acting in concert with the operator, to offer--

`(i) goods or services in violation of title 17, United States Code, or enable or facilitate a violation of title 17, United States Code, including by offering or providing access to, without the authorization of the copyright owner or otherwise by operation of law, copies of, or public performance or display of, works protected by title 17, in complete or substantially complete form, by any means, including by means of download, transmission, or otherwise, including the provision of a link or aggregated links to other sites or Internet resources for obtaining such copies for accessing such performance or displays; or

`(ii) to sell or distribute goods, services, or materials bearing a counterfeit mark, as that term is defined in section 34(d) of the Act entitled `An Act to provide for the registration and protection of trademarks used in commerce, to carry out the provisions of certain international conventions, and for other purposes', approved July 5, 1946 (commonly referred to as the `Trademark Act of 1946' or the `Lanham Act' **; 15 U.S.C. 1116(d)); and

`(B) engaged in the activities described in subparagraph (A), and when taken together, such activities are central to the activity of the Internet site or sites accessed through a specific domain name.


That seems pretty limiting to distribution thankfully their is a fair use clause but it butts heads against this hate / slander act .. which was not really discussed and is in direct conflict with the fair use ruling.

"or use other than"

That is an interesting line I suppose you cannot promote a site or run ads or have any money change hands at any time "commercially significant purpose" is awfully broad. Does that mean donations, ads, links to other sites that might be commercial, has software or hardware components, promote or critique a product...?

Quote:(5) provide appropriate resources and procedures for case management and development to affect timely disposition of actions brought under such section 2324.

Prosecution is taxpayer funded.

Quote:Lanham (Trademark) Act (title 15, chapter 22 of the United States Code)

Section 43(a)(1)(B) is also often utilized in law when false or misleading statements are alleged to have hurt a business. To be proven in court a claimant must satisfy 3 principles: There was a false or misleading statement made, the statement was used in commercial advertising or promotion, and the statement creates a likelihood of harm to the plaintiff.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lanham_Act

Quote:TITLE 15 > CHAPTER 22 > SUBCHAPTER III > § 1128

§ 1128. National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council

(b) Duties
The Council established in subsection (a) of this section shall coordinate domestic and international intellectual property law enforcement among federal [1] and foreign entities.

(f) Funding
Notwithstanding section 1346 of title 31 or section 610 of this Act, funds made available for fiscal year 2000 and hereafter by this or any other Act shall be available for interagency funding of the National Intellectual Property Law Enforcement Coordination Council.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/15/1128.html


Quote:Section 1346

(a) Except as provided in this section—
(1) public money and appropriations are not available to pay—

(A) the pay or expenses of a commission, council, board, or similar group, or a member of that group;
(B) expenses related to the work or the results of work or action of that group; or
© for the detail or cost of personal services of an officer or employee from an executive agency in connection with that group; and
(2) an accounting or disbursing official, absent a special appropriation to pay the account or charge, may not allow or pay an account or charge related to that group.

© Subject to section 1347 of this title, this section does not apply to—
(1) commissions, councils, boards, or similar groups authorized by law;
(2) courts-martial or courts of inquiry of the armed forces; or
(3) the contingent fund related to foreign relations at the disposal of the President.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode31/usc_sec_31_00001346----000-.html


Quote:The WIPO Copyright and Performances and Phonograms Treaties Implementation Act of 1998 amended section 101 by adding the definition of “international agreement.” Pub. L. No. 105-304, 112 Stat. 2860, 2861.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap5.html

"Home Recording" is overruled by this bill.

Quote:The Audio Home Recording Act of 1992 amended section 101 by inserting “Except as otherwise provided in this title,” at the beginning of the first sentence. Pub. L. No. 102-563, 106 Stat. 4237, 4248.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-15

So many WTO, items have redefined Title 17 of the United States Code. How is this bill not a sly way to slip Anti-Counterfeiting Trade Agreement (ACTA) in and bring all of these agreements into binding force of international law. WIPO can redefine nearly the entire bill, as they already have 21 times in US Copyright Article 17 in Chapter 1 alone.

Quote:An “international agreement” is —
(1) the Universal Copyright Convention;
(2) the Geneva Phonograms Convention;
(3) the Berne Convention;
(4) the WTO Agreement;
(5) the WIPO Copyright Treaty;13
(6) the WIPO Performances and Phonograms Treaty;14 and
(7) any other copyright treaty to which the United States is a party.15
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#101

To top it all off selective enforcement.
Quote:(3) IMMUNITY- No cause of action shall lie in any Federal or State court or administrative agency against any entity receiving a court order issued under this section, or against any director, officer, employee, or agent thereof, for any action reasonably calculated to comply with this section or arising from such order.
http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#1-15
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
01-27-2011, 09:00 PM,
#9
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
Here's a bit about the UK's EU funded Internet Watch Foundation (iwf.org.uk) that has been in operation since 1996.

Quote:The hidden censors of the internet
By CJ Davies
20 May 09

... an unaccountable panel of censors vets 95 per cent of citizens’ domestic internet connections. The content coming into each home is checked against a mysterious blacklist by a group overseen by nobody, which keeps secret the list of censored URLs not just from citizens, but from internet service providers themselves.

..the process behind the blacklist. Updated twice a day, the URLs on the list are those reported to the IWF by concerned members of the public via the organisation’s hotline and website. Relevant IWF staff – police-trained internet content analysts – then draw on their legal training to determine whether the content is “potentially illegal”. “We use the term ‘potentially illegal’,” Robertson explains, “because we are not a court. It’s assessed according to UK law. I read certain articles that talk about the IWF’s ‘arbitrary scale’. It’s the law.” The law she refers to is the Protection of Children Act 1978 (as amended by, among others, the Sexual Offences Act 2003), which makes it “an offence to take, make, permit to be taken, distribute, show, possess with intent to distribute, and advertise indecent photographs or pseudo-photographs of children under the age of 18”.

the last independent audit of the IWF was in May 2008, and the organisation allegedly passed with flying colours. We have to say “allegedly”, however, because the audit itself hasn’t been published – and despite requests from Wired, the IWF intends to keep it confidential. The blacklist also remains undisclosed. “Obviously the list is never going to be given out,” says Robertson. “No one gets it [unencrypted]. We don’t allow a list of abusive images to be released to the public.

It is not a prerequisite for IWF members to implement the blacklist – it is simply there, should they want it. The IWF maintains that it strives to ensure cost is not a barrier to implementation by smaller ISPs. The IWF is also not the one carrying out the blocking – that is left to the actual ISPs. “We just provide a list of URLs,” Robertson insists. Of course, the list is blind, and an ISP blocks all of it or none of it.

The Home Office declined an invitation to take part in an interview, and rejected our Freedom of Information requests. We asked for details of the relationship between the Home Office and the IWF, and in particular about the latter’s discussions with Home Offce minister Vernon Coaker. Our request was refused under the clause in the FOI Act that allows ministers to withhold information if they consider the disclosure might inhibit “the free and frank provision of advice and the free and frank exchange of views for the purpose of deliberation”. It added: “We have decided that it is not in the public interest at this time to disclose this information.” (You can read our entire correspondence with the Home Office at tinyurl.com/d67uzn.) It did issue this statement: “Over 95 per cent of consumer broadband connections are covered by blocking of child sexual-abuse websites. The UK has taken a collective approach to addressing this issue and has had considerable success in ensuring that the sites on the IWF list are blocked. We will continue to consider what further action or measures might be needed.”

What about the world outside CAI? Although the IWF is not solely responsible for blocking pornographic images of children, the other areas it deals with – incitement to racial hatred, criminally obscene content – are not subject to the blacklist. Robertson told us that there was no racial-hatred material hosted in the UK last year, and the number of cases of criminally obscene content per annum can be “counted on one hand”.

Earlier this year legislation was passed that outlawed “extreme pornography”, thereby adding the category to the IWF’s watchlist of illegal material. And catching the eye of Parliament of late have been “anorexia promoting” websites.

The majority of [CAI] material is not ‘out there’ on the web any more. It’s available via P2P. The more pressure there is on net-based porn, the more networks move to circumvent government measures.” So blocking may not be the best solution.

In January 2009 – shortly after the dust had settled on the Wikipedia case – the IWF found itself under scrutiny once more when a blacklisted image on the Internet Archive’s Wayback Machine resulted in some UK internet users being unable to access the entire site. Later resolved and explained as a “technical error”, the incident threw more meat to those who had already decided that the IWF was becoming increasingly maverick. “As an industry,” Keith Mitchell elaborates, “we have done a lot, but the internet illegal economy, including spammers, botnets and those who host child porn, will not go away… It would be good to see some enforcement action rather than misguided censorship attempts, which damage freedoms for the majority of law-abiding internet users.”

– can a non-governmental body be trusted with unprecedented censorship muscle?
http://digg.com/news/technology/wired_uk_magazine_on_the_internet_watch_foundation_the_hidden_censors_of_your_internet_wired_uk
http://www.wired.co.uk/magazine/archive/2009/06/features/the-hidden-censors-of-the-internet?page=all

Although this appears to be a just cause to begin with, I mean who isn't for blocking internet child porn, there is issues with the process and autonomy in this model of filtering and is ineffective as the real culprits will bypass the URL list watch on alternative protocols such as P2P, roaming domians, FTP and IRC - they do monitor newsgroups.

They have expanded their scope to include not just tally and account for racial hate websites as their updated (2009) mission statement details:

Quote:IWF works in partnership with representatives from the UK internet industry, police, government departments in order to minimise the availability of the specific potentially criminal content found online in the UK and in the case of child sexual abuse material hosted outside the UK, with other hotlines abroad. Online content within remit includes:

• Images of child sexual abuse hosted anywhere in the world.
• Criminally obscene adult content hosted in the UK.
• Incitement to racial hatred content hosted in the UK.
• Non-photographic child sexual abuse images hosted in the UK.
(pg 6)

During 2009, the Hotline team processed 38,173 reports, a 12% increase compared to 2008. 23% of all
reports concerned content which was assessed as criminal child sex abuse material. There were 40 instances
of child sexual abuse content on websites hosted in the UK, all of which were taken down within one day of
notice from IWF. The IWF took action to report 8,844 instances of child sexual abuse content around the world.
A full review of IWF activities can be found in the IWF Annual and Charity Report 2009 (PDF).

To assist law enforcement in the fight against potentially criminal online content by:

• Disrupting the online distribution and accessing of content within remit.
• Working with law enforcement agencies to remove online content within remit.
• Supporting investigations to trace those responsible for such criminal activity.
• Providing details of online child sexual abuse content hosted outside the UK to international Hotlines.
• Sharing expertise, experience, and intelligence with law enforcement and other relevant organisations.

(pg 7)

STRATEGIC PROGRAMME PLANS FOR THE FUTURE
The Board of Trustees approved a three year Strategic Plan for 2008/9-2010/11. The plan identifies the key
activities in pursuance of our charitable objectives. This is the final year of the plan, and progress is reported
annually to the Board. Work will commence during 2010 to develop a new Strategic Plan for 2011/12-
2013/2014. To support the delivery of this plan, there will be a review of the risk policy, the performance
monitoring framework and the Learning & Development strategy.
Full TRUSTEES' REPORT AND FINANCIAL STATEMENTS
FOR THE YEAR ENDED 31 MARCH 2010 http://www.iwf.org.uk/assets/media/accounts/iwf_consolidated_accounts_2009-2010.pdf.pdf

They commit ~£1 Million per year to their activities so in terms of being a huge censorship threat right now. Seems that Wired tossed us another red herring at first when compared to the larger picture of the internet censorship machine since their activities are limited to child porn.

That said, with the introduction of hate crimes added to the IWF objectives and the yet to be unveiled Strategic Plan for 2011/12-2013/2014 used with this NGO entities power, their relationship with government, law enforcement, ISPs, funding from corporations (albeit small now), "other relevant organisations" and intelligence -- and not just the UK if you read carefully is cause for keeping a close watch on the watchers at the IWF.
There are no others, there is only us.
http://FastTadpole.com/
Reply
01-27-2011, 09:03 PM, (This post was last modified: 01-27-2011, 09:10 PM by rsol.)
#10
RE: Stop the Internet Blacklist!
yes i can imagine the google page.

10 results.......10 sponsored links.

I know when they talk about exclusion they are really talking about inclusion. how do you automate censoring?

how can a machine decide if its kiddy porn or not?

The next step will be having sites censored for NO reason at all. the reasons are as i say, how do you automate something without incident? PROBLEM

Many sites with big names will fall for hours. some will fall for days. many will get upset. law suits etc etc.... REACTION

What will be proposed next will be some way of allowing yourself through the filter. a licence as it were. If there are all these problems confusing sites then there needs to be a scheme in place for us to "vet" these sites before they get on the internet. perhaps a standards association???? SOLUTION


mark these words and watch it happen.
Reply


Possibly Related Threads...
Thread Author Replies Views Last Post
  Inside Look : NYPD Stop & Frisk Program SiLVa 0 573 10-16-2012, 07:01 PM
Last Post: SiLVa
  Internet piracy appeal fee challenged by Consumer Focus TriWooOx 0 582 06-26-2012, 11:50 PM
Last Post: TriWooOx
  CYBER INTELLIGENCE AND INTERNET SPYING: House Passes Draconian Internet Spying Bill h3rm35 0 603 05-02-2012, 10:47 PM
Last Post: h3rm35
  Stop The Canadian DMCA icosaface 0 743 01-22-2011, 01:53 AM
Last Post: icosaface
  US Government seizure of the internet has begun; DHS takes over 76 websites h3rm35 3 1,551 11-30-2010, 07:15 PM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Secretive International Copyright Treaty: Confirms Fears About Internet Freedom h3rm35 1 927 04-21-2010, 12:36 AM
Last Post: FastTadpole
  Chertoff: Stop Complaining fjaneson 1 1,039 05-11-2008, 05:46 AM
Last Post: jack
  Megan Meier ...might cause more internet censorship High_Treason 1 1,139 11-29-2007, 07:14 AM
Last Post: jack
  Europe Moves To Kill The Internet Echo 3 1,464 04-10-2007, 06:21 PM
Last Post: 0110110

Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)