tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post548641971433649502..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: IWF v Wikipedia and the Rest of the World (except OUT-LAW)panglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger6125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-67641757485864776042009-03-04T06:10:00.000+00:002009-03-04T06:10:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-68553066386287040062009-01-17T14:09:00.000+00:002009-01-17T14:09:00.000+00:00The IWF expressly forbid's its members from identi...The IWF expressly forbid's its members from identifying the IWF as the reason that a site is blocked.<BR/>ie the ISP's that are coerced into paying its fees cannot advise the users why a site is blocked.<BR/><BR/>The rationale behind this is that the list could be reversed enginered in some way if sites were id'd as being blocked by the IWF.<BR/><BR/>Also re beheadings and the such sites being banned, the Gov has put together a 'section 3' list and asked various ISP's, and content filtering companies to add these sites to thier lists - the commercial companies claim to have these sites already.<BR/><BR/>Whilst not under the remit of the IWF they are looking to replicate the success of the IWF......Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-23329902684749152622009-01-05T07:06:00.000+00:002009-01-05T07:06:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-60098523434518221902008-12-30T13:51:00.000+00:002008-12-30T13:51:00.000+00:00This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.Cyed Asjidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00904459148164049493noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-24915428997727615212008-12-17T11:41:00.000+00:002008-12-17T11:41:00.000+00:00A great post, Pangloss. I respectfully concur and ...A great post, Pangloss. I respectfully concur and have nothing to add, other than to say that I acknowledge there are difficulties with the international take-down process, which deserve further attention in the arena of cross-border law enforcement.Pragmatisthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00936849584688147006noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-25100365547420221012008-12-16T06:46:00.000+00:002008-12-16T06:46:00.000+00:00Two brief notes: firstly, though IWF's claimed rem...Two brief notes: firstly, though IWF's claimed remit extends to certain otehr material such as hate speech, the blocking list is only "child abuse images" (more precisely, images the IWF believe are covered by the Protection of Children Act 1978).<BR/><BR/>Secondly, taking down material in other countries requires the co-operation of the authorities in that country. IWF report the images to the relevant law enforcement body (directly or via the UK police), but foreign police are sometimes less interested in doing anything, or may want the site to stay up as a "sting". Furthermore, what's illegal isn't the same from country to country.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com