UK ISPs filtering Wikipedia

[andrewducker]

Check the site here, which points out that all requests to Wikipedia from certain UK ISPs (like Virgin and Be) are being filtered through proxy servers - so that they can selectively filter it.

For instance, the link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer doesn't work (fake 404), but http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer does...

Comments

[autopope.livejournal.com]

I think it's fairly obvious why the IWF would be censoring that page, and while I disapprove of censorship, I can see why they might consider it to be of questionable legality. (I'd advise UK readers to not go there; it's the wikipedia entry discussing -- with a photograph -- an album the cover of which was withdrawn due to it possibly consituting child pornography.)

[andrewducker]

It's the fact that all of the requests to Wikipedia are being rerouted through the same proxy that worries me...

[andrewducker]

Also, to put it mildly, I'm fucking shocked that the IWF is so incompetent that they don't check for multiple ways of accessing a Wikipedia page...

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

Hmmmm, OK Child Porn, censor my access by all means(I wouldn't really want to see that album cover) BUT why fake 404 me? I'd be far more accepting of a Denied Access sort of screen giving me a reason? I'm not on Be or Virgin and I'm bombing out on that page. I wouldn't want Kirsty to hit it accidentally(although why she's be searching for it I don't know)but I do object to forced censorship! If they can limit access to this by 404-ing me, who knows what else I don't get to - lets be honest most folk getting a 404 just move on muttering about the website being crap/down.

Actually more I think about this angrier it gets me - I reserve the right to freely surf the internet and if I wanna risk being hunted down and dragged tarred and feathered through the streets of Edinburgh for looking at child porn then surely that should be my right of choice and not the IWF?

[bracknellexile.livejournal.com]

Have to agree. The IWF site says they're self-regulating, so is there no-one overseeing their choices of what should be censored and what shouldn't be? Who gave them the remit to be (possibly accountable to no-one) Internet Police, interpreting what's illegal and what's not without a legal ruling by a body of law?

(and I'm genuinely curious as to how the IWF works here, not just ranting for once :)

[poisonduk.livejournal.com]

Totally on you with this. Self policing isn't right. Next we'll be denied access to other disreputable practices - Oh can't let the british public look at BDSM, it may corrupt them, or fluffy kittens - they may be tempted to bestiality as that kitten looks adorable! I'm not much of a ranter with internet accesses but this one has riled me up a little - Breast feeding - ban all images of that - it shows womens nipples!!! I feel I should write to my MP immediately to complain!!

[matgb]

Agreed—they could (and should) have blocked the image itself, but blocking all access to the page, especially witha fake 404, is wrong.

I'm not getting the fake 404 though, I'm just getting a blank page.

Why did the govt let Virgin absorb all the cable suppliers in the UK? Oh, wait, because they don't actually believe in liberal economics with competition.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

I get the same blank page.

[miss-s-b.livejournal.com]

IAWTC.

[figg.livejournal.com]

Actually, most web page requests are proxied (back when it was ntl, they used a transparent cache).

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

I agree. Whether or not that image should be considered child porn, the problem is that rather than being decided by a court, images are blocked because they might be child porn.

And it's not like Wikipedia is hosted in some lawless country - it's hosted in the US, which has similar laws on child porn, and if it was really a problem it would be easy to cooperate with the UK to remove the images.

Amazon also has these images, which are not blocked.

I also agree about the fake 404s - this appears to be done differently by different ISPs. Mine (Virgin Media) gives me the fake 404s, but Demon redirects to http://iwfwebfilter.thus.net/error/blocked.html (from http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/British_ISPs_restrict_access_to_Wikipedia_amid_child_pornography_allegations ).

[emarkienna.livejournal.com]

Next we'll be denied access to other disreputable practices - Oh can't let the british public look at BDSM

Don't speak too soon - that comes in January (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/11/26/pr0n_ban_date/) [Not all BDSM, but the definitions may cover some images such as breath-play or knife-play. And who knows how broadly the IWF will interpret it when deciding to block images that may "potentially" be illegal.]

[robhu.livejournal.com]

The article states that PlusNet are apparently blocking the page, but they're not AFAICT.

Personally I like the idea of internet filtering. There are a lot of things on the internet I'd rather not see, both things that in moments of weakness I look for, and things I get deceived in to accessing (e.g. goatse.cx).

However I don't think I think that internet access should be filtered by default, I would prefer it to be unfiltered, but allow those of us who want such filtering to turn it on (at the ISP level).

I can understand why ISPs would accept the IWF filtering system though. Not doing so seems to unnecessarily open them up to hassle from the government / pressure groups, and at least so far the IWF filter seems to have minimal effect on normal users (this is the first time I've even heard of them blocking something anyone I know might want to access, and even then it's very unlikely they would happen across this blocked page).

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

They don't seem to have any problem with this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Blind_Faith_(album)

Maybe they just don't like Germans.

[ninebelow.livejournal.com]

they could (and should) have blocked the image itself

Really? As emarkienna says, if it actually was child porn they should do more than just block it and if it isn't child porn then they shouldn't do anything.

[andrewducker]

I don't actually agree that the cable firms were in competition. They never overlapped, so no individual had a choice about which one to go with. Same as with the different train companies...

[andrewducker]

But in this case they weren't doing it transparently (see the discussion in the first link) - whereas they do seem to be doing it transparently for most sites (otherwise lj toys wouldn't work).

[0olong.livejournal.com]

That's pretty messed up. Jeepers. I'm trying to figure out if there is any kind of accountability built into the Internet Watch Foundation?

Here's ZDnet on this issue: http://community.zdnet.co.uk/blog/0,1000000567,10009938o-2000331777b,00.htm?new_comment

(what annoys me more than having difficulty viewing dodgy album art is that my traffic is apparently being redirected through one of two proxies shared UK-wide, and hence inevitably banned for abuse! Although I still seem to be able to use my existing WP account, I cannot create one or edit Wikinews - I just wanted to go in and add Blueyonder to the list of censoring ISPs!)

[marrog.livejournal.com]

Well, although the girl in that picture is obviously underage she's not prepubescent. Maybe they're making some rather arbitrary judgments on what constitutes dangerous even though the legality is technically the same?

[figg.livejournal.com]

Madness

in answer to my own question...

[0olong.livejournal.com]

From http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.437.htm

Who oversees the operations of the IWF? Who ‘regulates’ the IWF?
All IWF policies are subject to approval by the IWF Board. The systems and processes for managing the URLs that are added to our list are comprehensively inspected and audited by independent external examiners on behalf of the Home Office.

...which sounds to me like very little accountability indeed.

[hirez.livejournal.com]

IIRC (It was a long time ago and IWF were only really concerned with the Usenet then) it was a choice of self-police[1] or watch the Met pile in and likely ban the entirety of alt.binaries.*




[1] I was sent a regular email with a set of message-ids to remove from the news spool. It was never more than ten.

[khbrown.livejournal.com]

I'm now wondering if the original cover of Exodus's Bonded by Blood (two cartoon infants, one angelic and the other demonic, conjoined together) or of Van Halen's Balance (similar, but more photo-shopped) could be adjudged as virtual child pornography.

[princealbert.livejournal.com]

It's hit El Reg, probably BBC news by Monday.

[marrog.livejournal.com]

And those little Renaissance cherubs...

[dalglir.livejournal.com]

Aiee. NSFW.

[rhythmaning.livejournal.com]

I heard about this on the radio this morning - it is due to the image being deemed "illegal" by the Internet Watch Foundation.

Tasteless, yes. But it has been around since 1976, has been investigated by the FBI, no less (who reckoned it was fine), and is available to view on Amazon, which hasn't been taken down.