tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post7953846998083620133..comments2024-03-18T09:13:19.346+00:00Comments on panGloss: Veni Vidi Wikileakspanglosshttp://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-50074354877680539952010-12-31T01:10:03.201+00:002010-12-31T01:10:03.201+00:00@Peter
Er thanks for all that but I don't thin...@Peter<br />Er thanks for all that but I don't think you're really disagreeing with me on any point. Yes I could have made it clearer the IWF is a self regulatory mechanism but it would have made an already long post longer (and I have written extensively on the IWF before as some readers would know). And as you point out yourself, since the vast majority of UK ISPs take the IWF list (because te alternative was the threat of regulation) its censorship is effectively non-voluntary for the majority of UK users. However the main point (as I have also mentioned before) is that although the current IWF have indeed, and to their credit, stated a preference to keep the blaclist reserved to child pornography, a non transparent non judicially vetted non publicly available blacklist is inherently susceptible to scope creep.<br />Incidentally it would be very interesting to hear the IWF's reaction to te new governmantal proposal to go to an opt out filter on non-child related pornography. One wonders how this would be implemented.panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-69980492601477366852010-12-27T18:41:09.789+00:002010-12-27T18:41:09.789+00:00Ah Lilian, not entirely right.
"Well there i...Ah Lilian, not entirely right.<br /><br />"Well there is an infrastructure in place for exactly such. It is the IWF blacklist of URLs which almost all UK ISPs are instructed to block, without need for court order or warrant....."<br /><br />IWF is an independent organisation that creates a blocklist of items that are illegal under UK law. The list is available to members of the IWF who may <strong>choose</strong> to implement the list within their networks and thereby to block access for users.<br /><br />Current evidence suggests that some 90% of consumer broadband accounts are subject to blocking by the ISP. However, 90% of the consumer market is provided by some 6-7 larger ISPs. There are a large number of smaller ISPs who, for a variety of reasons from philosophical principle to commercial economics, do not apply the list.<br /><br />The last Government indicated that it would like to see a wider take-up of content filtering with a preference to reach 100% of consumer broadband circuits but stepped back from making this a mandatory requirement.<br /><br />There are now provisions being discussed at a European level and the proposed Directive on Combating the Sexual Abuse of Children includes Article 21 which requires Member States to implement content filtering along the IWF lines. <br /><br />UK Government has so far preferred self-regulation rather than force.<br /><br />The recent announcements of discussions with a number of major ISPs to require opt-in to adult content are a separate area. The IWF blocklist is emphatically material that is illegal rather than the mere unlawful and it is clear that the independent IWF does not wish to switch from this area.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00666054023983931077noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-41548411349403226552010-12-12T17:17:28.810+00:002010-12-12T17:17:28.810+00:00Kevin, I've responded to your point in my new ...Kevin, I've responded to your point in my new post. Hope it makes my point clearer.panglosshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/00900934369744270540noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-51434322135554050332010-12-10T14:36:26.027+00:002010-12-10T14:36:26.027+00:00Am I getting your position correct:
Rule 1: When ...Am I getting your position correct:<br /><br />Rule 1: When private companies take down people's content without judicial review it can be justified.<br />Rule 2: When groups of people take down company websites without judicial review it's vigilantism.<br /><br />Fascinating.Kevinhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07408196120800673028noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-71395758295219766682010-12-02T12:37:06.262+00:002010-12-02T12:37:06.262+00:00The copyright issue is an interesting point - give...The copyright issue is an interesting point - given s105 of the US Copyright Act.<br /><br />"<i>Copyright protection under this title is not available for any work of the United States Government, but the United States Government is not precluded from receiving and holding copyrights transferred to it by assignment, bequest, or otherwise.</i>"<br /><br />So if US law makes the documents non-copyright yet they would be copyright under UK law ...Matthew Pemblehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07877145107761789183noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-86739741220218895272010-12-02T10:18:02.811+00:002010-12-02T10:18:02.811+00:00Works of US Federal Government employees are not c...Works of US Federal Government employees are not copyright in the US (17 U.S.C. ยง 101) although they may be overseas...<br /><br />Anyway, just stop and think of the children.Ian Brownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01007361839067209470noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-16688455.post-72550277053883231222010-12-02T04:20:03.303+00:002010-12-02T04:20:03.303+00:00Wikileaks documents are almost all copyright of so...<i>Wikileaks documents are almost all copyright of someone , like the US government, and are being used ie copied (bien sur) without permission.</i><br /><br />This is badly wrong. Documents produced by employees of the USG as part of their duties are explicitly public domain. (There are some exceptions, such as for the postal service.) The US has no notion similar to Crown Copyright.Lord of the Snowmonkeyshttps://www.blogger.com/profile/07677770054103239881noreply@blogger.com