Today's Wikipedia story.

[reddragdiva]

• NotN: Haringey social workers to be able to search MPs' offices. Photo: emoticon nails; the right camera makes you love it (featuring d_floorlandmine and felishumanus).

Facebook group against this; Pledgebank ISP boycott; Wikinews story

The technical press are swarming. The story's being touted to the national press.

The IWF apparently sought the advice of police before blocking. Now, the police in the UK are notorious for trying it on with censorship cases, so that doesn't mean the image is illegal.

The album was released in 1976; child porn was illegalised in the UK in 1978. If the album was distributed in the UK since 1978 with that cover, it's probably legal.

The album cover has been reprinted in many books. Most of those books are in the Briitsh Library. Are those now obscene?

Question for all: Has this precise image ever come to court? In the UK, in the world?

The IWF had it pointed out that they were censoring encyclopedia text, which was clearly not illegal. The IWF responded that they needed to block the page to block the image effectively. This is of course utterly ludicrous bollocks, but apparently that's the advice the IWF have received.

They were also asked if they'd be censoring Amazon as well. They said they'd have to get back on that one.

It's the clbuttic error, but this time on a top-10 site for everyone.

Oh, and Blind Faith by Blind Faith, Houses of the Holy by Led Zeppelin and Nevermind by Nirvana, also depicting nude underage persons, are still readily available in any high street CD store in the UK.

It is clearly false that all images of an unclothed person under the age of consent (16 in the UK) is automatically child porn and illegal. However, that's the rule the IWF works to.

Like DRM, if anyone works out there's an IWF and how it works, then they've already lost. They're tolerated precisely as long as they target only clearly illegal material. Here, they're expanding their remit.

Disclaimer: I do press for Wikipedia/Wikimedia in the UK as a volunteer (and I've been on my email and phone all last night to about 2am and today since 9am). However, I am not a WMF employee and cannot legally claim to speak for them, only as a volunteer editor.

Update: I'm going to be on the BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow at 8:20am about this. IWF people present. Update 2: MP3. Right-click download, don't try to stream!

Comments

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

It is clearly false that all images of an unclothed person under the age of consent (16 in the UK) is automatically child porn and illegal. However, that's the rule the IWF works to.

The Wikinews story mentions;

the Internet Watch Foundation's list of websites that host or contain content that have been reported to contain inappropriate images of naked children, under the age of 18. The IWF considers those images child pornography.

which is even *more* worrying, since naked 16 & 17 year olds are over the age of consent in this country and not children in any meaningful sense (except in relation to anomalies such as the 21st century criminal offence "abuse of a position of trust", which extends incapacity to give consent to the age of 18 in cases involving responsible adults such as teachers).

[barakta]

I just had a quick look at the IWF webpages and had to click close cos the sanctimonious tone annoyed me so much.

Thankfully our ISP isn't a member of the IWF but our last 2 are and most people won't know it's happening, or that this is a bad and stupid thing tm.

[reddragdiva]

The IWF is tolerated only as long as it's all but invisible. Clumsily blocking the #4 site in the world is probably not a good way to avoid attention.

[barakta]

Do you think it'll really change anything though? I think many people would think that was an acceptable side effect as they wouldn't realise not blocking Amazon and Ebay for the same issue is stupid and unreasonable.

Maybe they thought Wikimedia didn't have sufficient legal clout or something.

I am not sure this will change anything in the long run, it's very easy for those in power to cite "child porn" "terrorism" and get away with whatever they like.

A couple of points

[redcountess]

1. Amazon UK has the reissued cover of the band.

2. The banned (in the US) cover does show at least the outer genitals but these were covered up by a star shaped crack (oh dear). In contrast, the Blind Faith album cover only showed a girl's upper half including pubescent breasts.

Music blogs and forum, in particular metal ones, are having a field day with this, the consensus is that the image is distasteful but not pornography.

[baljemmett.livejournal.com]

*growls* I was a bit narked by the tone of my ISP's e-mail during the week telling me that they weren't going to pass on the VAT reduction "to save on administrative effort" -- now they appear on the list of ISPs involved in this.

Strangely, though, I can view the article and embedded image just fine through the UK Online connection, just not the image page -- but get no article at all on my Orange mobile (I get "object not found", whereas other articles appear fine).

[barakta]

I love our ISP: http://aaisp.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Note that this is actually the law, and not just the IWF's take on it - as of the Sexual Offences Act 2003, the age for "child" porn was raised to 18, even though the age of consent is 16.

So sex with one's 17 year old partner is entirely legal, but snap a private picture, and you can be prosecuted for child porn.

[daneel-olivaw.livejournal.com]

I'm disappointed to see Eclipse on that list. Guess we'll be switching to Zen at some point in the New Year then. Amusingly, the manner in which I checked that Eclipse was indeed up to what it was, was by borrowing Southwark College's free wifi, which is otherwise so locked down that I can't read Livejournal via it.

[reddragdiva]

If you're accused of child porn in the UK, the first thing the police do is take away all the computer equipment, hard disks, mobile phones or connectable technology or general in the house. If you want to fight it, you might get it all back in 12-18 months. So most people just fold.

[reddragdiva]

Make sure they know why.

"You're censoring clearly not illegal Wikipedia text."

[barakta]

Yeah, the impounding all tech is an absolute disgrace. There is NO excuse for 12-18 months. I think a week and no longer is reasonable, long enough to copy the data, then they should return the originals to their owners.

If they don't have the resources to copy data within a week and return items to owners then they shouldn't make the arrest until they have the resources.

Anything else is a form of extortion or blackmail and I know of situations where people have folded because of threats from officials (not just child porn) which would result in all their tech being taken, small business folding, livelihood etc etc.

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Whether or not that image should be considered child porn, it should be up to the courts to decide. (And as you say, nudity does not automatically imply it is indecent.) Plus, I would rather be informed that an artice has been censored, and why - they have censorship in Saudi Arabia, but it is honest censorship. There is also of course no need to block the accompanying article.

Does anyone know if any UK stores stock this album (with the original cover)?

Recent Government guidance on the Extreme Pornography Law suggests that reports of potentially "extreme" material should also be sent to the IWF. So given that this law is broader and more vague in my opinion, I worry if this could mean from 26 January a lot more sites being blocked, even without a trial to determine their legality.

This also shows that they are willing to blacklist mainstream sites - well, at least they get points for being consistent I suppose (there`s nothing worse than selective enforcement) - but the point is that images that might "potentially" come under the extreme porn law seem to exist on mainstream non-porn sites. The usual response is to say that the police wouldn't go after mainstream sites, but this shows this shows that the IWF may happily censor any site that has a potentially illegal on it, no matter what site it is on, or for what purpose it is there for.

Getting back to the original issue, I am tempted to complain to my ISP as to why they are blocking non-illegal text, as well as the issue of forcing all accesses to Wikipedia through a single IP address.

[reddragdiva]

It also occurred to me that this was a test of just how big a site they could block and whether anyone would notice.

Leave your ISP first thing tomorrow, telling them why. "You censor clearly not illegal Wikipedia text. I don't care what your internal justification is, this isn't the service you sold me. As such, you've broken your contract with me."

[strangedave.livejournal.com]

The recent Henson controversy in Australia is probably an interesting point of comparison. Anti-Chlld abuse campaigner Hetty Johnson referred some of Hensons pictures to police as being child porn, being artistic photos of teenagers naked that had some sexual overtones. The police confiscated the pictures, everyone from the prime minister on down weighed in - and when the OFLC got around to looking at them, they rated the pictures in question PG.

[also-huey.livejournal.com]

I'm going to be on the BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow at 8:20am about this. IWF people present.

*Pint* if you manage to work in the phrase "useless shower of bastards".

[reddragdiva]

This is a nice programme for nice people! I have to appear more polite, pleasant and normal than the ravening bastard idiots.

[reddragdiva]

Now, I didn't know the punchline to that one.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

This is true, and also weird as hell. I seem to recall writing an essay about the white paper proposals before the SOA was passed, and ridiculing its inconsistencies then.

Madness.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Today ? You are moving up in the world.

I think you should emphasise that not all naked children are pornographic (quoting, for example, the BBC reporter investigated by the Police for taking a picture of her child in the bath, or any number of BBC documentaries featuring naked children in cultures that don't wear many clothing items) as well as that Wikipedia doesn't censor.
So far the assertion "Wikipedia doesn't censor" is being seen baldly quoted and that is easy to twist into "Wikipedia thinks child porn is harmless".

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

Don't underestimate the significance of Today - it's basically required listening for politicians and senior government figures.

[http://users.livejournal.com/_nicolai_/]

I can confirm that Zen is not blocking that Wikipedia image as of time time of posting this comment.

[reddragdiva]

I know, I'm on Zen ;-) Yet another reason they're worth every penny.

I'm current at nyecamden's (abusing his Eee), he's on BT and it all works. I'm surprised BT isn't in the IWF.

[reddragdiva]

Oh yeah. It's twisty soundbite time.

[reddragdiva]

The purpose of overreaching and unclear law is selective enforcement against people who aren't considered nice.

Virgin Media Blame Wikimedia

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

From their newsgroup virginmedia.support.broadband.cable (on news.virginmedia.com - I presume this can only be accessed by VM users, but I don't know for sure):

This is not something that technical support would have any information or
control over. This is not only Virgin (as stated in the article) but
multiple ISP's .

Sorry if this has caused any inconvenience but is not a fault but an active
measure to stop inappropriate content on the Internet.

And, in response to someone pointing out that the problem is putting all accesses through a single IP, he responds:

I stated that we are unable to offer support for this issue. It is due to a
decision make in conjunction with the IWF to block sites containing
potential offensive material. The reason for the block isn't actually with
virginmedia but with wikimedia. They have blocked editing rights to their
service as VirginMedia are using a transparent proxy to this site and
subdomains. This is identified as a single IP; therefore wikimedia are
unable to moderate as it would moderate every VM customer.

Ah, the wonderful combination of IWF censorship, with Virgin Media incompetent customer support. (I and other people have replied to this second message - no further response from them yet.)

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I agree, it's mad, and sets the worrying precedent that images of legal acts can be illegal to possess (I don't know if anyone's been prosecuted under this law yet - if a case has made it to court...?)

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

Snap. That's the one.

[friend-of-tofu.livejournal.com]

No, they'll wait until they have an example which is indisputably dreadful/has protagonists hard to sympathise with.

[vatine]

Most UK ISPs get the IWF "naughty shit on nntp servers" feed (because without that, you're in Deep Shit if you provide NNTP read access to servers you own), but as far as I am aware, the IWF web filtergoo is less popular.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

That's a purpose. It also serves as a stalking horse for massive extension of state power. And to create a general climate of fear, uncertainty, panic and timidity. And, of course, to keep lawyers in business.

[drdoug.livejournal.com]

This story is more entertaining (and less depressing) if you keep reading WMF and IWF as WWF, particularly if you think of the wrestlers not the treehuggers.

(good luck)

[countess-sophia.livejournal.com]

As of time of posting Demon Internet (my ISP) is not censoring the page, though it is cited as one of the offenders in the links.

Well done on getting on Today, that's precisely the forum where these arguments need to be heard, well, that and Parliament.

Soph x

[pndc.livejournal.com]

Update: I'm going to be on the BBC Radio 4 Today show tomorrow at 8:20am about this. IWF people present.

*wishes much luck*

I wonder if the BBC will support you, or be against you.

And if against you, where else are they going to find background filler for news.bbc.co.uk?

[bellinghman.livejournal.com]

I am also on Demon, and I also see no sign of the page being not there.

I'd have been a little surprised if Demon had actually blocked it.

Re: A couple of points

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Amazon UK has the reissued cover of the band.

Note that the Deluxe version available from Amazon UK seems to show the image on the back ( http://www.amazon.co.uk/Trance-Virgin-Killer-Deluxe-Collectors/dp/B000N3AWGQ - see "larger image and other views"). It's at a much lower resolution on the website, although this suggests it's possible to buy a copy of the album with the image from a UK store.

[babysimon]

I just heard you, and I think you did well. The IWF woman came across as rather uninformed...

[feanelwa.livejournal.com]

And in the event of a war, if military communications are cut off and the Today programme is not heard for four days, nuclear submarine captains are to open the envelope marked ARMAGEDDON SITUATION. For serious.

Re: A couple of points

[redcountess]

Fair enough, although that page no longer links to other images which is interesting.

[arkady.livejournal.com]

The IWF woman comes across as very ill-prepared; I think they basically gave her a preprepared script and she didn't know how to deviate from it.

Congratulations on getting on Today, BTW - very prestigious; even my mum will have heard you!

Further update for others reading the comments: David will be appearing on TV tonight as well on this issue - 7:45pm on More4 news.

[redcountess]

Eclipse was bought a few years back by Kingston Communications at which point their service went downhill and that's when we switched to Zen.

[redcountess]

<Keanu>Whoa!</Keanu>

[redandfiery.livejournal.com]

*spits tea over monitor*
*laughs helplessly for several minutes*