Porn, abuse, depravity - and how they plan to stop it
Porn, abuse, depravity - and how they plan to stop it
Part one: Strangling content
By John Ozimek
Posted in Law, 9th October 2008 11:12 GMT
Policing the Internet Contrary to popular belief, the government and
police forces have hitherto not exerted a great deal of direct control
over content. But, after a decade of growth in self-regulation and
filtering by the industry to avoid government intervention, that may
be about to change.
Current UK law on content is a mish-mash. The first and main stop-off
must be the Obscene Publications Act 1959 (pdf), which made it an
offence to publish material likely to "deprave and corrupt". This has
been followed over the years by various laws brought in to deal with
specific media and moral panics.
In the late 1950s, for example, a law was passed to regulate
Children's Cartoons - and then used just once in the next 50 years.
And in 1984, panic over "video nasties" led to the Video Recordings
Act (pdf), which has been used rather more frequently.
Child protection has been a favourite wedge for politicians, and this
has introduced a new principle to UK law over the last couple of
decades, making possession of specific images an offence. Recently,
this principle has been extended from child abuse into the areas of
porn and terror.
We are not immune...
The first sign that the net wasn't entirely above the law came in 2000
with settlement of the Demon/Godfrey case. Dr Laurence Godfrey had
sued Demon for hosting a libel in the form of a Usenet message, and
Demon settled out of court for £15,000 plus £250,000 expenses. This
was a wake-up call to ISPs, who suddenly grasped that - in the UK at
least - they might bear some responsibility for the content they
hosted.
The late 90s also saw the emergence of the one body most of us
associate with internet policing - the Internet Watch Foundation
(IWF).
As public concern about the availability of paedophilic material on
the net grew, one of the UK's more influential net figures, Peter Dawe
(then CEO at Pipex), realised that unless ISPs took action they would
be forced to do so by government. He was therefore a key figure in the
creation of the IWF, which was founded in 1996 by the ISPA, the trade
body for Internet Service Providers, and other leading players in the
internet.
The IWF model probably comes closest to what we might think of as an
internet policeman. It runs a hotline through which the public and IT
professionals may report any inadvertent exposure to potentially
illegal content online.
The IWF then investigates, and its staff liaise closely with the
police in order to align their standards with what the law says. The
organisation then has two possible avenues of response. If a site
deemed to be hosting illegal content is found to be operating within
the UK, the IWF issues a take-down notice, which usually results in
that site coming down within 24 hours. For content hosted outside the
UK, the IWF sends details to the relevant authorities for
investigation.
But it also maintains a list of potentially illegal URLs, updated
twice daily, and this is provided to all major UK ISPs. At any one
time, the list contains between 800 and 1,200 live child abuse URLs,
with around 50 added daily.
In theory, owners of websites blocked or taken down by the IWF have a
right of appeal. But according to the IWF this circumstance has never
arisen.
The IWF's remit is slightly peculiar. Its focus - and what constitutes
the vast majority of its work - is child abuse hosted anywhere in the
world. But it also polices UK-hosted sites whose content is deemed to
be criminally obscene or incites racial hatred (solely - no other form
of hatred is covered).
Is there any question mark over where the IWF might next extend its
empire? Talking to The Register, the IWF suggested that the clampdown
on extreme porn was a refinement of its criminal obscenity remit, and
that it was engaged in consulting with its board and the online
industry regarding its potential future role.
But this takes the organisation into greyer territory. Its work on
child abuse is clearly defined, almost beyond controversy, and has
gained the IWF a reputation as an agency for good. It is censorship,
certainly, but it's not the sort of censorship that attracts much
criticism.
Extreme porn might be a harder pill to swallow. Definitions are less
clear, and the existence of several organised campaigns on this
subject suggests it may be a much hotter political potato.
The ad hoc and self-regulatory nature of internet policing may be seen
in the miscellany of other organisations that in one way or another
are regulating content. The IWF is a self-regulatory body with
charitable status working closely with government, and government
agencies such as the police. But it is not of the government.
Then there is the Advertising Standards Authority (http://
www.asa.org.uk/asa/) (ASA), a non-statutory alliance of agencies,
media owners and advertisers which keeps an eye on advertising content
both on- and off-line. Concern about online claims that go beyond
simple advertising has led to the formation of the Digital Media Group
(http://www.digitalmediagroup.co.uk/), which will be concerned with
misleading claims and pricing.
On the content side, the Press Complaints Commission (http://
www.pcc.org.uk/) regulates press content through its code of practice,
and already covers newspaper websites in its remit. It recently added
audio-visual content, and there are suggestions that it would like to
extend its brief to web-only news sites.
Films are regulated via the British Board for Film Classification
(http://www.bbfc.org.uk/) (BBFC), which earlier this year extended its
Black Card classification system to online films. That may in time
prove critical in the light of new legislation on extreme porn: a
controversial film with black card attached will be safe to own.
Identical material without black card may attract a criminal
prosecution.
Then there is Ofcom (http://www.ofcom.org.uk/), a statutory
organisation charged with upholding the broadcasting code, and dealing
with complaints about possible breaches. Rumours abound that it might
like a more formal internet remit - government has frequently mooted
such a role. But the official line appears to be 'no thanks'.
The one organisation that does not appear to play much of a role in
formal policing of net content is, strange but true, the police. But
police will respond to specific complaints, and in the last few years,
two notorious cases have demonstrated how the police can and will put
pressure on websites for reasons of public order.
First was thinkofthechildren.co.uk (http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2008/10/01/bringing_nothing/), a spoof website that reacted to
perceived paranoia over paedophiles by outlining the etiquette of
forming a lynch mob. This was taken down, initially, after the Met had
unofficial words with the host and suggested that the site "might" be
construed as inciting violence. The site owner also claimed that the
IWF had been complicit in this action - a claim that the IWF rejects.
Embarrassingly for the police, the site went straight back up, with a
tart rejoinder that if the police thought any offence was being
committed, they should deal with it through the proper channels. It
still exists, mirrored here (http://guarana.org/totc/).
A similar incident arose in 2002 over the "Parking Clowns" website,
which was the response of some residents in Canterbury to what they
considered over-officious parking enforcement. The website included
photos of parking attendants and this, the Police advised, together
with the generally inflammatory nature of the site, could be deemed to
be harassment amd again, possibly lead to violence.
"Parking Clowns" is no more. But these incidents seem few and far
between - and despite assiduous attempts to elicit details of the
police policing content, the Reg was unable to find much.
So is internet content largely safe? Have we reached the point where
we can sit back and assume that what we have is what we get to keep?
Unfortunately, no.
Back in January (http://www.guardian.co.uk/politics/2008/jan/17/
uksecurity.terrorism), Home Secretary Jacqui Smith appeared keen to
hitch the War on Terror to the IWF bandwagon by claiming that there
were specific examples of websites that "clearly fall under the
category of gratifying terrorism", and talking about how terrorists
"groomed" potential recruits.
A significant development in this war on terror material is that the
Home Office has since declared itself to be working with partners in
an effort to "take down" terror material. The problem is, there is no
such thing - individuals may be prosecuted for assembling material
with the intention of using it to support terrorism. In theory,
however, the material remained neutral. Not any more.
Similarly, in September the Ministry of Justice announced a
forthcoming review of the Suicide Law (http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2008/09/24/suicide_bill_censorship/), observing: "UK ISPs already take
down any websites under their control when notified that they contain
illegal material and are free to restrict access to harmful or
tasteless material in accordance with their 'acceptable use'
policies."
For YouTube and Google, "standards" are the way in which the once
unbridled freedom of the internet is being corralled. Thus, in Germany
(http://www.redherring.com/blogs/24951), Google is being pushed to
block all foreign porn websites that don't conform to German mandated
age verification schemes. Expect more of the same to come.
Meanwhile, YouTube (http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/09/12/
lieberman_saves_youtube_and_world_from_terrorists/) has bowed to US
government pressure, updating community guidelines to encourage users
to steer clear of posting material that might be considered to incite
violence.
The scariest is yet to come. Forget the Scottish Parliament, calling
for an end to all violent images of women. Or Home Office Minister
Vernon Coaker pushing for all UK ISPs to run a blocking system akin to
that created for the IWF.
The child protection lobby again appears to be acting as a Trojan
Horse for far greater censorship. The Byron Review (pdf) (http://
www.dcsf.gov.uk/byronreview/pdfs/Final%20Report%20Bookmarked.pdf)
reported to general government approval earlier this year, and one of
its first fruits, to be launched this autumn, will be the UK Council
for Child Internet Safety (UKCCIS) (http://www.theregister.co.uk/
2008/10/02/web_regulation_byron/). Threaded through its role of making
the internet "safer for children" will be a remit to bring forward new
regulation, or suggest legislation where appropriate, to control
online content.
Another serious policy extension may be found within the first
releases from the UKCCIS. While Byron spoke about working to prevent
children accessing content that was "inappropriate to children", the
UKCCIS has very quickly pushed that out to talk of blocking
"inappropriate content". The first aim is about monitoring people: the
second is very much about dumbing down - or infantilising - the
internet.
Hard on the heels of Byron came the 10th report of the Select
Committee on Culture, Media and Sport (http://
www.publications.parliament.uk/pa/cm200708/cmselect/cmcumeds/353/35302.htm)looking at "Harmful Content on the Internet". It too believes that
there is just too much nasty content out there - although at time of
writing, it is in two minds as to whether the right way forward is
more law or greater industry self-regulation.
A government response to its recommendations is due to be published
when parliament returns in October. Anyone looking for a return to the
good old days of internet free-for-all would be well advised not to
hold their breath. They are gone - and aren't coming back.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/09/policing_internet_one/
*****
"At any one time, the list contains between 800 and 1,200 live child
abuse URLs, with around 50 added daily"
"live child abuse URLs"
I know you read this, John, be careful what you post without
verification.
WM
www.critest.com
date: Thu, 9 Oct 2008 11:37:22 -0700 (PDT)
author: Webmanager_CritEst
|
