Maybe the government want to get all the ISPs onside so they can
censor other stuff they don't like through the IWF.

News article:
===========================================
UK FAILS TO BAR INTERNET ACCESS TO CHILD PORN
Jamie Doward, home affairs editor

The Observer, UK: 20 July 2008
http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/20/childprotection.censorship

Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
ago to stop access to paedophile sites.

Last night a coalition of leading children's charities, including
Barnardo's, the NSPCC and National Children's Homes, described the
situation as 'completely unacceptable'. They have written to the Home
Office minister in charge of crime reduction, Vernon Coaker, urging
him to take immediate steps to ensure all telecom companies offering
internet access block customers from being able to see images that in
some cases show children as young as a year old being sexually abused.

Around 5 per cent of consumer broadband connections can access the
images because their internet service providers (ISPs) chose not to
subscribe to a scheme introduced by the Internet Watch Foundation to
bar known paedophile websites.

The list is available to all ISPs and companies such as BT and
Vodafone have signed up to take it. Updated twice daily, it contains
between 800 and 1,200 live child-abuse websites at any one time. But
the revelation that some internet companies are refusing to sign up to
the list undermines a key government pledge to tackle paedophile
material on the internet.

In May 2006, Coaker said he hoped all internet companies would sign up
to the scheme and that, if there was not 100 per cent take-up by the
end of last year, the government would look to compel the industry to
'face up to its responsibilities'.

In their letter to Coaker, the children's charities said it was now
time for the government 'to draw a line under this issue' by getting
100 per cent compliance from the industry.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:

> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
> access to paedophile sites.

Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
close them down and prosecute the operators?

-- 
Content approved by Hampshire Police:

Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
>> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
>> access to paedophile sites.
>
> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> -- 

They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states 
where model type images are ok

Airmax wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
>>> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
>>> access to paedophile sites.
>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>
>> -- 
> 
> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states 
> where model type images are ok 
>

IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands 
such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so 
it is hard to tell.

I'm coming to the conclusion that this is less to do with kiddie porn 
and more to do with a producing a mechanism for imposing political 
censorship upon the internet.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:

> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>
>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>
>> --
> 
> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> where model type images are ok

The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I understand
to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).

-- 
Content approved by Hampshire Police:

Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

"Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>
>>
>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
>>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>>
>>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
>>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>>
>>> --
>>
>> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
>> where model type images are ok
>
> The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I understand
> to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
> abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>
> -- 
Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street etc 
are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may lead to 
conviction.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:05:06 +0100, Airmax wrote:


> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>>>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
>>>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>>>
>>>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>>>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement
>>>> can close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>
>>> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united
>>> states where model type images are ok
>>
>> The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I
>> understand to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been
>> seriously abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>>
>> --
> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street
> etc are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may
> lead to conviction.

No, they're abused in the minds of certain people, who have "dangerous
thoughts" as I heard Ms Smith say on R4 a while back.

I have 1000s of images of kids in school uniforms and on beaches. My own
kids and my grandkids.

-- 
Content approved by Hampshire Police:

Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

Airmax wrote:
> 
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
> >>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
> >>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
> >>>
> >>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> >>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
> >>>
> >>> --
> >>
> >> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> >> where model type images are ok
> >
> > The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I understand
> > to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
> > abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
> >
> > --
> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street etc
> are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may lead to
> conviction.

Maybe it would be ok if they took their school uniform off?

On Jul 20, 12:34 pm, Nick  wrote:
> Airmax wrote:
> > "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
> >>> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
> >>> access to paedophile sites.
> >> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> >> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> >> --
>
> > They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> > where model type images are ok
>
> IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands
> such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so
> it is hard to tell.
>
> I'm coming to the conclusion that this is less to do with kiddie porn
> and more to do with a producing a mechanism for imposing political
> censorship upon the internet.

Well done.

WM
www.critest.com

On Jul 20, 12:44 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>
> > "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
> >>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
> >>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>
> >> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> >> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> >> --
>
> > They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> > where model type images are ok
>
> The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I understand
> to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
> abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>
> --
> Content approved by Hampshire Police:
>
> Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
> goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

Well done.

WM
www.critest.com

On Jul 20, 11:56 am, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
> > Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
> > of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
> > access to paedophile sites.
>
> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> --
> Content approved by Hampshire Police:
>
> Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
> goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

Because, they are not really websites, per se.

WM
www.critest.com

On Jul 20, 1:05 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>
> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>
> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
> >>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
> >>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>
> >>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> >>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> >>> --
>
> >> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> >> where model type images are ok
>
> > The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I understand
> > to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
> > abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>
> > --
>
> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street etc
> are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may lead to
> conviction.

It could, yes ... because their possession/proliferation could
*potentially* result in psychological damage to the sources.

So the law goes.

WM

"Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message 
news:09dd7827-7087-44c4-b475-5af74587e087@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 20, 1:05 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>>
>> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>>
>> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>
>> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>> >>news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>
>> >>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>> >>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
>> >>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>
>> >>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>> >>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement 
>> >>> can
>> >>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>
>> >>> --
>>
>> >> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united 
>> >> states
>> >> where model type images are ok
>>
>> > The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I 
>> > understand
>> > to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
>> > abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>>
>> > --
>>
>> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street 
>> etc
>> are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may lead 
>> to
>> conviction.
>
> It could, yes ... because their possession/proliferation could
> *potentially* result in psychological damage to the sources.
>
> So the law goes.
>
> WM

But if you pay £5 you can photograph a child in a bikini. Women are being 
invited to brave the weather and turn up at a Teesside beach to be 
photographed in a bikini in an attempt to break a world record any women 
over the age of 16 can take part.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7515547.stm

On Jul 20, 2:24 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
> "Webmanager_CritEst"  wrote in message
>
> news:09dd7827-7087-44c4-b475-5af74587e087@l42g2000hsc.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Jul 20, 1:05 pm, "Airmax"  wrote:
> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>
> >>news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>
> >> > On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 퍝, Airmax wrote:
>
> >> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >> >>news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 퍝, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >> >>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
> >> >>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
> >> >>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>
> >> >>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >> >>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement
> >> >>> can
> >> >>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> >> >>> --
>
> >> >> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united
> >> >> states
> >> >> where model type images are ok
>
> >> > The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I
> >> > understand
> >> > to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been seriously
> >> > abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>
> >> > --
>
> >> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street
> >> etc
> >> are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may lead
> >> to
> >> conviction.
>
> > It could, yes ... because their possession/proliferation could
> > *potentially* result in psychological damage to the sources.
>
> > So the law goes.
>
> > WM
>
> But if you pay £5 you can photograph a child in a bikini. Women are being
> invited to brave the weather and turn up at a Teesside beach to be
> photographed in a bikini in an attempt to break a world record any women
> over the age of 16 can take part.
>
> http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/tees/7515547.stm

Well, it needs to be indecent, first, of course. Decent images do not
*potentially* result in psychological damage to the sources -
apparently.

So the law goes.

WM

Phil Stovell  wrote:
 

>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:05:06 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>
>
>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>>>> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>>>>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
>>>>>> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>>>>
>>>>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>>>>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement
>>>>> can close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>
>>>> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united
>>>> states where model type images are ok
>>>
>>> The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I
>>> understand to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been
>>> seriously abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>>>
>>> --
>> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street
>> etc are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may
>> lead to conviction.
>
>No, they're abused in the minds of certain people, who have "dangerous
>thoughts" as I heard Ms Smith say on R4 a while back.
>
>I have 1000s of images of kids in school uniforms and on beaches. My own
>kids and my grandkids.

Pervert!

Cub Reporter wrote:
> Maybe the government want to get all the ISPs onside so they can
> censor other stuff they don't like through the IWF.
> 
> News article:
> ===========================================
> UK FAILS TO BAR INTERNET ACCESS TO CHILD PORN
> Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
> 
> The Observer, UK: 20 July 2008
> http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2008/jul/20/childprotection.censorship
> 
> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years
> ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
> 
> Last night a coalition of leading children's charities, including
> Barnardo's, the NSPCC and National Children's Homes, described the
> situation as 'completely unacceptable'. They have written to the Home
> Office minister in charge of crime reduction, Vernon Coaker, urging
> him to take immediate steps to ensure all telecom companies offering
> internet access block customers from being able to see images that in
> some cases show children as young as a year old being sexually abused.
> 
> Around 5 per cent of consumer broadband connections can access the
> images because their internet service providers (ISPs) chose not to
> subscribe to a scheme introduced by the Internet Watch Foundation to
> bar known paedophile websites.
> 
> The list is available to all ISPs and companies such as BT and
> Vodafone have signed up to take it. Updated twice daily, it contains
> between 800 and 1,200 live child-abuse websites at any one time. But
> the revelation that some internet companies are refusing to sign up to
> the list undermines a key government pledge to tackle paedophile
> material on the internet.
> 
> In May 2006, Coaker said he hoped all internet companies would sign up
> to the scheme and that, if there was not 100 per cent take-up by the
> end of last year, the government would look to compel the industry to
> 'face up to its responsibilities'.
> 
> In their letter to Coaker, the children's charities said it was now
> time for the government 'to draw a line under this issue' by getting
> 100 per cent compliance from the industry.

If they have a list, why aren't they out there arresting the people who own the 
websites?

I know.  That requires the police to get off their fat lazy rears!

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:34:18 +0100, Nick 
wrote:

>Airmax wrote:
>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message 
>> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>
>>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
>>>> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
>>>> access to paedophile sites.
>>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
>>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>>
>>> -- 
>> 
>> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states 
>> where model type images are ok 
>>
>
>IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands 
>such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so 
>it is hard to tell.

Flickr appears to be on their primary list (IP addresses), so
presumably they object to one or more images there.

-- 
Dissenter

If the truth were known the police and the government can't find the
resources or the will to chase up this sort of thing anymore so
Cleanfeed is the big idea.

Too many of their porn trawls have resulted in large amounts of
arrests of those that, whilst they may have questionable taste in
their women (or men) of the very young variety, are actually very
unlikely to act upon their inclinations.

Let’s face it, if they’re downloading kiddie porn, and I wouldn’t
defend that, it suggests they might not be getting any and surely it’s
the one’s that are we need to be worried about. My guess is, that if
someone is abusing kids for real they hardly have need of pornography.

Ultimately, there are those that are prepared to go beyond the pale,
those that would if they thought they could get away with it and just
maybe those that don't because despite their inclinations they
genuinely believe it to be wrong.

The police know this, many child abuse experts even warned them before
Ore, but nowadays they aren't allowed to admit it in the face of media
and public hysteria.

It’s all about prioritising resources and whilst I’m fully in favour
of the odd porn trawl, as an example, the truth is the money would
probably be better spent in other areas of child protection,
particularly within families seeing as how that’s where most of it
goes on.

On Jul 20, 7:32 pm, Dissenter  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:34:18 +0100, Nick 
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >Airmax wrote:
> >> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
> >>news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
> >>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>
> >>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host images
> >>>> of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two years ago to stop
> >>>> access to paedophile sites.
> >>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
> >>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement can
> >>> close them down and prosecute the operators?
>
> >>> --
>
> >> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united states
> >> where model type images are ok
>
> >IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands
> >such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so
> >it is hard to tell.
>
> Flickr appears to be on their primary list (IP addresses), so
> presumably they object to one or more images there.
>
> --
> Dissenter

How do you know this D?

WM

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter 
wrote:

>Maybe the government want to get all the ISPs onside so they can
>censor other stuff they don't like through the IWF.
>
>News article:
>===========================================
>UK FAILS TO BAR INTERNET ACCESS TO CHILD PORN
>Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
>

>. Updated twice daily, it contains
>between 800 and 1,200 live child-abuse websites at any one time. 

Utter crap.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
 wrote:

>On Jul 20, 7:32 pm, Dissenter  wrote:
>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:34:18 +0100, Nick 
>> wrote:

>> >IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands
>> >such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so
>> >it is hard to tell.
>>
>> Flickr appears to be on their primary list (IP addresses), so
>> presumably they object to one or more images there.

>How do you know this D?

I think that most of the ISPs who operate 'Cleanfeed' type filtering
first check the IP address of the website, and, if it is on the
'primary' list, pass the URL to a proxy server to check the actual
URL.

PlusNet users had problems with Flickr because of this (and possibly
other causes) a couple of months ago according to this discussion:
http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,64363.0.html

Apparently if a website contains any sort of 'dodgy' content anywhere
and it's down for some reason PlusNet users who try to access *any*
page get a message referencing a cache server with the dreaded letters
'iwf' in its name, rather giving the game away.

-- 
Dissenter

On Jul 20, 10:28 pm, Dissenter  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:43:37 -0700 (PDT), Webmanager_CritEst
>
>  wrote:
> >On Jul 20, 7:32 pm, Dissenter  wrote:
> >> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:34:18 +0100, Nick 
> >> wrote:
> >> >IWF also appear to ban images from countries such as the Netherlands
> >> >such as imagefap. But the IWF aren't open about the sites they do ban so
> >> >it is hard to tell.
>
> >> Flickr appears to be on their primary list (IP addresses), so
> >> presumably they object to one or more images there.
> >How do you know this D?
>
> I think that most of the ISPs who operate 'Cleanfeed' type filtering
> first check the IP address of the website, and, if it is on the
> 'primary' list, pass the URL to a proxy server to check the actual
> URL.
>
> PlusNet users had problems with Flickr because of this (and possibly
> other causes) a couple of months ago according to this discussion:http://community.plus.net/forum/index.php/topic,64363.0.html
>
> Apparently if a website contains any sort of 'dodgy' content anywhere
> and it's down for some reason PlusNet users who try to access *any*
> page get a message referencing a cache server with the dreaded letters
> 'iwf' in its name, rather giving the game away.
>
> --
> Dissenter

Interesting - TY.

WM

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 15:06:22 +0100, Edster wrote:

> Phil Stovell  wrote:
>  
>  
>>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 13:05:06 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.07.20.11.44.24.31978@stovell.org.uk...
>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 12:18:18 +0100, Airmax wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Phil Stovell"  wrote in message
>>>>> news:pan.2008.07.20.10.56.41.370043@stovell.org.uk...
>>>>>> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Almost a million UK households could access websites known to host
>>>>>>> images of child sex abuse despite a government pledge made two
>>>>>>> years ago to stop access to paedophile sites.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why aren't the IWF etc passing the details of these sites to the
>>>>>> authorities in the countries that host them so local law enforcement
>>>>>> can close them down and prosecute the operators?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>
>>>>> They might not be illegal in the host country such as the united
>>>>> states where model type images are ok
>>>>
>>>> The article says they are "images of child sex abuse", which I
>>>> understand to be illegal in all countries, unless that phrase has been
>>>> seriously abused itself (which wouldn't surprise me at all).
>>>>
>>>> --
>>> Images of children on a public beach or in school uniform in the street
>>> etc are in this country "child abuse images" and having such images may
>>> lead to conviction.
>>
>>No, they're abused in the minds of certain people, who have "dangerous
>>thoughts" as I heard Ms Smith say on R4 a while back.
>>
>>I have 1000s of images of kids in school uniforms and on beaches. My own
>>kids and my grandkids.
> 
> Pervert!

Back when I was taking photos of my own children photographers were normal
people.

-- 
Content approved by Hampshire Police:

Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:40:50 +0100, daveX <> wrote:

>On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter 
>wrote:
>
>>Maybe the government want to get all the ISPs onside so they can
>>censor other stuff they don't like through the IWF.
>>
>>News article:
>>===========================================
>>UK FAILS TO BAR INTERNET ACCESS TO CHILD PORN
>>Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
>>
>
>>. Updated twice daily, it contains
>>between 800 and 1,200 live child-abuse websites at any one time. 
>
>Utter crap.
>

Use of the word "live" there is deliberately ambiguous demagogy.Why
would they do that unless they are intending using the peado scare to
increase government control over the internet? When all the ISPs are
forced into using the list how long before every plod will be able to
take down any website they take a dislike to? After that it will be
local government workers having thoes powers, the same people that use
the anti-terror surveillance powers to watch for fly tippers etc.

On Jul 23, 2:41 pm, Keith2.0  wrote:
> On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 21:40:50 +0100, daveX <> wrote:
> >On Sun, 20 Jul 2008 11:20:45 +0100, Cub Reporter 
> >wrote:
>
> >>Maybe the government want to get all the ISPs onside so they can
> >>censor other stuff they don't like through the IWF.
>
> >>News article:
> >>===========================================
> >>UK FAILS TO BAR INTERNET ACCESS TO CHILD PORN
> >>Jamie Doward, home affairs editor
>
> >>. Updated twice daily, it contains
> >>between 800 and 1,200 live child-abuse websites at any one time.
>
> >Utter crap.
>
> Use of the word "live" there is deliberately ambiguous demagogy.Why
> would they do that unless they are intending using the peado scare to
> increase government control over the internet? When all the ISPs are
> forced into using the list how long before every plod will be able to
> take down any website they take a dislike to? After that it will be
> local government workers having thoes powers, the same people that use
> the anti-terror surveillance powers to watch for fly tippers etc.

When they say that, they do not mean 'live abuse' (unless you think
looking at an image can be abusive).

They mean active sites ... few of which are 'websites', per se.

The IWF, CEOP, NSPCC, NCH, John Carr, Jim Gamble, Croaker et al do
this all the time.They have been doing it for years. It is how they
work.

WM

On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:06:22 -0700, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:

> When they say that, they do not mean 'live abuse' (unless you think
> looking at an image can be abusive).

It could be read to mean child abuse on webcam, in the same way "making"
reads like taking the photos.

-- 
Content approved by Hampshire Police:

Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

On Jul 23, 7:29 pm, Phil Stovell  wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Jul 2008 07:06:22 -0700, Webmanager_CritEst wrote:
> > When they say that, they do not mean 'live abuse' (unless you think
> > looking at an image can be abusive).
>
> It could be read to mean child abuse on webcam, in the same way "making"
> reads like taking the photos.
>
> --
> Content approved by Hampshire Police:
>
> Heirloom quality cable with a noise floor so low
> goose bumps, tears and magical moments from the past come alive.

It could, but it's not.

WM