Management
Technology
- Applications
- Business Intelligence
- Development
- Hardware
- Mobile & Wireless
- Networking
- Internet
- Operating Systems
- Security Products
- Servers & Datacentre
- Storage
Toolbox
Training
Books
White Papers
Webcast
Resource Centre
Welcome to Great (Firewall) Britain
December 08, 2008
Posted by: Glyn Moody
Most Internet users have heard of the Great Firewall of China – the technological measures put in place by the Chinese government to censor material from outside the country, and to monitor Internet usage within it.
And most people have probably assumed that this is just a typical manifestation of an authoritarian regime that insists on keeping a tight control on its people. Alas, it turns out that any sense of superiority we Brits might feel is entirely misplaced, because exactly the same thing is happening in the UK.
As a result of this UK censorship, it has become impossible to use Wikipedia as before (as usual, there are workarounds, but that's beside the point). A statement from the Internet Watch Foundation explains what has happened:
A Wikipedia web page, was reported through the IWF’s online reporting mechanism in December 2008. As with all child sexual abuse reports received by our Hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council (page 109).
The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18, but hosted outside the UK. The IWF does not issue takedown notices to ISPs or hosting companies outside the UK, but we did advise one of our partner Hotlines abroad and our law enforcement partner agency of our assessment.
The specific URL (individual webpage) was then added to the list provided to ISPs and other companies in the online sector to protect their customers from inadvertent exposure to a potentially illegal indecent image of a child.
Wikipedia notes the following consequences:
On 5 December 2008, the UK-based Internet Watch Foundation blacklisted the article Virgin Killer and a related image as potentially illegal in the United Kingdom. Several large Internet Service Providers (ISPs) that cooperate with the IWF subsequently blocked them from being viewed, affecting an estimated 95% of residential Internet users in the UK.[1]
Due to the way the block was created (via transparent proxies), users from the affected ISPs now share a small number of IP addresses. This means that a user committing vandalism cannot be distinguished from all the other people on the same ISP.
Unfortunately, the effect of this is that all users from the affected ISPs are temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia. Simply viewing the site is not affected, aside from the blocked article and image.
The Wikimedia Foundation offered these thoughts:
“We have no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article, has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world,” said the Wikimedia Foundation's General Counsel, Mike Godwin. “We believe it's worth noting that the image is currently visible on Amazon, where the album can be freely purchased by UK residents. It is available on thousands of websites that are accessible to the UK public.”
“The IWF didn't just block the image; it blocked access to the article itself, which discusses the image in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion,” said Sue Gardner, Executive Director of the Wikimedia Foundation.
“The IWF says its goal is to protect UK citizens, but I can't see how this action helps to achieve that – and meanwhile, it deprives UK internet users of the ability to access information which should be freely available to everyone. I urge the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist.”
Nobody is suggesting that child pornography is defensible, but this episode has exposed how trivially easy it is to block not just an image, but an entire site – even one as popular and important as Wikipedia – thanks to a centralised routeing system.
Jump to page : [ 1 ] [ 2 ]
Follow highlights from ComputerworldUK on Twitter
Sign up for our Daily Newsletter
The UK IT News widget Get it for your site!
<<newer entry | back to blogs index | older entry>>
Advert
Email this article to a friend or colleague:
PLEASE NOTE: Your name is used only to let the recipient know who sent the story, and in case of transmission error. Both your name and the recipient's name and address will not be used for any other purpose.
- This article is now being printed.
What are your views on this subject? Use the form below to post a comment on this article up to 1000 characters.
Click below to add 'Welcome to Great (Firewall) Britain' to your blog.
If you do not have a ComputerworldUK Account and would like to use this feature, please Register.
If you are a registered, logged-in user, this will post the title and first paragraph of this story to your blog to share with your readers.
Advert
Newsletters
Our Daily & Weekly Newsletters highlight breaking news, vital issues, expert analysis and solutions to help you stay ahead of developments in the industry.
WHITE PAPERS
-
Legal risks: Employee use of the internet and email
Exploring the challenges facing IT Mangers today and vital steps to ensure safe internet an email use by employees. -
Phishing for victims
This White Paper examines the phenomenon of phishing. It explains the potentially catastrophic threat it presents to all kinds of organisation. Exploding some widespread myths, it lights up the murky waters where phishing first emerged and where it continues to evolve. But it also highlights what your business can do to blunt the threat.
About the author
Glyn Moody Glyn Moody's look at all levels of the enterprise open source stack. The blog will look at the organisations that are embracing open source, old and new alike (start-ups welcome), and the communities of users and developers that have formed around them (or not, as the case may be).
Comments received
Mike said on Monday, 08 December 2008
At the end of the day possessing an image depicting a crime can't be illegal. I am not guilty of murder for looking at a beheading video, why can't I look at CP? Its not like I pay for it.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 08 December 2008
In both cases, even "just looking" is likely to increase the demand for this stuff to be produced; that means that anyone "just looking" is complicit in that extra production of something abhorrent, which I'd say can then fairly be targeted through legislation.
Alex Tingle said on Monday, 08 December 2008
Let's do something about it. Sign the pledge: "I will move to an ISP that does not censor my Internet access but only if 1,000 other people in the UK will do the same."
http://www.pledgebank.com/boycottcensors
BackSeat said on Monday, 08 December 2008
Somebody from the Internet Watch Foundation was interviewed on the "Today" programme this morning when it was pointed out that the same image was also on Amazon, but had not been blocked there. It was mooted that that was because Amazon had money and could sue if they wished whereas Wikipedia is a charitable organisation and couldn't afford to sue. The IWF spokesman denied that was the reason for not banning Amazon, stating that they had not received a complaint about Amazon (and implying that they had about Wikipedia).
Alex said on Monday, 08 December 2008
I guess it is monochromatic way in which the IWF applies it's policy. I've not looked at the photo, but I have read comments that it's tamer than, say, the photo that Elton John isn't prevented from keeping (the one that was in the Baltic in Gateshead). I find it troubling that so few people can be in control of what so many can or can't view.
zaine_ridling said on Monday, 08 December 2008
In the US, the old "child porn" boogyman is always brought out as an excuse to impose greater restrictions and penalties. Politicians regularly -- usually once a year on cue -- drag themselves in front of a camera and rail away at this (mostly) imaginary crime. Here, just looking at the teen girl next door sunbathing is enough to get you put on the lifetime sex offender registry.
It's gotten insane, as has the security nannies in the UK. This is technology's revenge. Like taxes, governments can't help but spy on everyone. You're always a suspect, at least until you die.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 08 December 2008
@Alex: thanks - does anyone else have any other practical suggestions about what can/should be done?
Bill said on Monday, 08 December 2008
Nice blog, only thing i take exception to is the statement ... "it would clearly be trivial for the government to instruct the Internet Watch Foundation to block either those particular documents or the whole of Wikileaks"
I think IWF is a charity and is funded by the EU and ISPs, so i am not certain how the UK goverment could force them to do anything like you describe above - care to enlighten us Glynn?
Mike G said on Monday, 08 December 2008
The ball is firmly in the ISPs' court, since they are the ones who actually implement the blacklist - they can decide to remove a URL from it if need be. People need to complain to their ISP, threaten to cancel their contract, etcetera. Personally, this is a golden opportunity for me to cancel my current broadband contract which has been less than satisfactory.
Glyn Moody said on Monday, 08 December 2008
@Bill: OK, I was being slightly provocative. What I had in mind was a measure, slipped into some convenient bill, that gave the government just such a power when involving, you know, terrorism, child pornography, organised crime etc. - the usual lazy litany of terrible threats to civilisation - when found on the Internet. All for our own good, of course.
Chris Davis said on Monday, 08 December 2008
I can't blame the ISPs, given the crap they'd get from the tabloids if they refused to 'obey' the blacklist.
But having seen on CH4 News the fat moron fuck IWF spokesman failing to even understand the arguments against their actions, these are not the people who should decide what I may or may not see. At all.
jason said on Tuesday, 09 December 2008
in china this is very common.
Virgin Killer said on Tuesday, 09 December 2008
Contrary to what your article suggests, the image has not been blocked. It is accesible via Wikipedia at http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg and thousands of other places on the net. Note that only the article discussing this vintage album cover sleeve was blocked by the Blind Faith Zealots from Cambridge (UK), home of puritans.
Blocking this image runs contrary to the freedom of information we expect from the Internet. People who find this image to disturbing should grow up or not look at it. I don’t think that this childish action by the IWF has any impact on Paedophiles and other perverts.