[Fwd: IWF newsgroups policy summary paper plus John Carr's submission]

[Ken Brown]

Cross-posted without permission from another list. This one's on-topic
in a know-your-enemy sort of way. As near to a reasoned argument for net
censorship as you can get. Needless to say I disagree with it. (As does
Yaman - he is merely the messenger here). The section that begins "The
fact that the Internet is an international medium " is particularly
incoherent.

The IWF is a UK ISP's club, John Carr is a well-known campaigner against
freedom of speech, the issue is whether ISPs should be expected to
censor newsfeeds. 

Ken Brown

Yaman Akdeniz wrote:
> 
> A summary of the responses to the IWF newsgroups policy paper is
> at http://www.iwf.org.uk/about/newsgroupconsultationsummary.htm
> For some unknown or unclear reason, the IWF is now inviting "further
> comments over the next four weeks" before the IWF board publishes
> its recommendations on this issue.
> 
> In the meantime here is John Carr's submission to the IWF. Mine is at
> http://www.cyber-rights.org/reports/crcl_iwf_newsgroups.htm
> 
> Yaman
> 
> ============================================
> 
> Children's Charities Coalition for Internet Safety Working to Make
> the Internet a Safer Place for Kids
> 
> Response to IWF Consultation Document on Newsgroups
> 
> Introduction
> 
> The Internet Watch Foundation was established in 1996 following the
> publication of The Safety Net Agreement", a tri-partite statement of
> aims signed by the UK's Internet Service Providers (ISPs), the
> Metropolitan Police, and the DTI on behalf of the Government.
> 
> A major objective of the Safety Net Agreement was to set out the
> operating principles for a UK HotLine aimed at removing any illegal
> material found on the Internet.
> 
> Anyone finding what they believe to be illegal material is encouraged
> to report it to the IWF who will inspect it and, if they agree that it is
> likely to be found to be illegal by a UK court, take steps to have it
> removed from all UK-based servers. The IWF simlutaneously informs
> the Police. If the material is found to originate overseas or to reside on
> an overseas sever, the IWF arranges for it to be reported to the
> relevant overseas police force.
> 
> A particular priority has always been given to child pornography and
> this is principally found within Newsgroups.
> 
> Variation in practice
> 
> Some UK ISPs do not provide access to any Newsgroups. Some
> provide only a partial "feed" based on their own commercial
> assessment of what their customers want. Others might provide either
> a full or a partial feed but will specifically block access to all the
> Newsgroups known to contain child pornography on a regular basis.
> Other ISPs offer a full feed and in so doing are providing access to
> Newsgroups known to contain child pornography on a regular basis.
> ISPs in this category will only remove specific postings containing
> illegal material as and when these are drawn to their attention. Such
> material might therefore be available on their servers for 24 hours or
> more, depending on how long it takes for someone to find it, examine
> it, report it to the IWF, for the IWF to examine and issue a notice
> requiring it to be removed and for the ISP then to act on the notice.
> 
> Such divergent practice greatly weakens the credibility of the IWF
> and reflects badly on the Internet industry in general.
> 
> Thus we are pleased that the IWF has recently decided to undertake
> a consultation exercise on how, in future, to handle Newsgroups that
> regularly contain child pornography. Hopefully at the end of this
> process a new position will be agreed which every member of IWF
> can accept and act upon without there being any significant differences
> or contradictions.
> 
> Numerical background
> 
> We note that there are over 30,000 Newsgroups currently in
> existence and that, of these, according to the IWF's own definition
> only about 28  "regularly contain child pornography".
> 
> Seventy seven per cent (77%) of all illegal material reported to the
> IWF came from these 28 or so Newsgroups. We note also that not
> everything within these Newsgroups is illegal material: the average
> seems to be 10-15%, rising to 45% in some of the worst groups.
> Thus a decision to block these groups is also seemingly a decision,
> effectively, to block some legal communications.
> 
> We support blocking
> 
> We think it is important to attack and harry paedophiles and child
> pornographers whenever and wherever they seek to ply their trade.
> Thus our view, unreservedly, is that the IWF should support a total
> block on all Newsgroups that are known to contain child pornography
> on a regular basis and that all members of the IWF should be required
> to implement this decision.
> 
> The UK's ISPs should be doing everything they can to make it as
> hard as possible for child pornographers to find or distribute their
> illegal material. We acknowledge that, because of the nature of the
> Internet, barring Newsgroups will not stop all UK residents from
> either obtaining or distributing child pornography over the Internet. It
> is very likely, however, to reduce the numbers. We must not let the
> best be the enemy of the good.
> 
> The fact that the Internet is an international medium is no reason why,
> it seems to us, each country should not stake out its own position, set
> its own standards in these culturally and legally-defined areas, and
> then attempt wherever possible to rally others to its stand. The
> alternative, of waiting for worldwide agreement, is simply a recipe for
> inaction.
> 
> Risk of displacement
> 
> We acknowledge that if a blocking policy is implemented there is a
> risk of displacement into other Newsgroups. However this happens
> anyway. If 77% of reported illegal material comes from the 28 then,
> obviously, the remaining 23% came from the 29,978 other
> Newsgroups which exist.
> 
> The spread of Newsgroups affected by this policy will therefore need
> to be kept under review. New ones might need to be added, or
> indeed previously banned ones might qualify to be re-admitted. These
> are judgement calls that the IWF, working closely with the Police, is
> well-placed to make.
> 
> In relation to the potential denial of free speech to those who use the
> 28 identified Newsgroups for legal purposes: if the fact of closing
> down a Newsgroup was actually the same as preventing someone
> from airing their legal views, then there may be a real free speech issue
> to consider.
> 
> Reject sophistry
> 
> The so-called "free speech" argument is in this context entirely
> disingenuous. It should be rejected as mere sophistry.
> 
> Any responsible Internet user who was concerned to isolate or reduce
> the traffic in illegal child pornography would surely shun and have no
> contact with Newsgroups where illegal material is regularly to be
> found?
> 
> We would suggest that if users of Newsgroups where child
> pornography is regularly found, and which generally have explicit titles
> like "Having sex with very young children", truly want to continue
> posting legal material to those Newsgroups, and really do feel they
> cannot say their legal speech anywhere else in cyberspace, then they
> ought to take it up with the other users of that Newsgroup and get
> them to stop posting illegal material there.
> 
> Alternatively maybe they could start another group but make it clear
> that they only want legal material to be posted there? Surely it is the
> actions of the illegal users that are causing the problems, not those of
> us who are trying to reduce the traffic in illegal and highly damaging
> child pornography? ***** 3
> 
> ===============================================
> Information on how to subscribe and unsubscribe to the cyber-rights-UK
> mailing list is at <http://www.cyber-rights.org/mailing.htm>.
> ===============================================