Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover Six British ISPs are filtering access to Wikipedia after the site was added to an Internet Watch Foundation child-pornography blacklist, according to Wikipedia administrators. As of Sunday morning UK time, certain British web surfers were unable to view at least one Wikipedia article tagged with ostensible child porn. And, in …
...now the Streisand Effect (or something similar) is kicking in:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Streisand_effect
By making a point of blocking this page/image, masses of people who wouldn't have given it a second thought are rushing around trying to find the image on other sites, through the Google cache or via proxies.
I'm sure this is precisely what they had in mind!
This post has been deleted by its author
Surely Wikipedia's policy is not "We don't censor," but rather "We don't censor unless we agree with the reason for it or there's something in i for us"?
Wikipedia has an entru on "child pornography" at
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography
Now, surely, if some editor uploaded a number of real images of child porn and placed them in the article with a caption like "Some examples of child pornography," they'd be removed right quick. I got fifty bucks what says Wikipedia would censor those images in a heartbeat.
So the real issue is not that Wikipedia doesn't censor, but that in this reason they see no particularly compelling argument in favor of removing this particular image. In which, I must grudgingly concede, they are right; labeling the album cover as "porn" is ludicrous in the extreme, and blocking Wikipedia but not Amazon.com over it simply shows the inherent silliness of censorship.
@Simon Greenwood:
"...to do with the flat out fact that my ISP is choosing what I can see on the Internet. I don't recall agreeing to that in the terms and conditions that I was presented with when I signed up."
You need to go back and read them again. See that bit about complying with the law at all times? Well guess what, possession and distribution of child porn is illegal. Are you saying that you disagree with this? Let me know how you get on campaigning on that.
I'm a member of the EFF, FSF, Liberty and Amnesty International, and a founding member of the Open Rights Group as well. (I mention this not by way of boasting, but to demonstrate that I'm not one of the knee-jerk, Daily Mail-reading, "hang teh peedos!!1" brigade; and incidentally that's also why I'm posting anon on this occasion.[1]) None of these organisations advocate decriminalising child porn. They can and in some cases do have a great deal to say on a number of related matters, such as when bad laws are enacted in the name of "teh childrenoneone", but unless all you angry posters are actually prepared to advocate free access to child porn, what you're getting worked up about is a fine detail of the operating of the process. Is an image of a child in a sexual pose (which that cover clearly is, albeit not a Playboy-type pose) to be considered as illegal child porn, even though it does not represent actual sexual abuse of a minor? "No!" I hear everyone shout. OK, so what about if (purely hypothetically) Gary Glitter's computer contained that image alongside a bunch of other, more straightforwardly pornographic, images? That's the reason for filtering images like this; the notion that (a) paedophiles will use them for sexual gratification, and that (b) men (or more likely adolescents) in the early stages of sexual development may get imprinted with a sexual response to the image, such that they become in effect paedophiliac themselves. Can someone explain why such images, in that context, should /not/ be filtered? Please do write to your MP about it and come back and report what they say...
"Man the pumps" icon, because there seem to be very little actual thinking going on (on either side of the debate - I await tomorrow morning's tabloids with interest) and an awful lot of mindless knee-jerk reactions. It's a complex issue with a lot of grey areas. People posting twat-o-tron / "from the message boards"-type comments about "nu-labour crushing free speech" are just as dumb as those "think of the children, hang the peedos" cretins often to be seen forming mobs outside the prison gates when child murderers and the like are bused in and out of court.
[1] And where are they all today, anyway? If this was a story on AGW they'd be all over these comments like a rash...
Many years ago (70's I think) a reasonably sleazy magazine in the uk got busted for obscenity, the case itself and the magazine would have remained reasonably obscure, the story went mainstream (tabloids and broadsheets, broadcast media alike), not because of the bust, or even really the content (I don't remember the specifics of the story - even the name of the publication, which acheived short lived fame before disappearing whence it came) but because of the way the prosecution was brought and it because it made clear that there was no hard fast definition of obscenity that editors could refer to in order to stay out of trouble.
The editor asked how he could be sure that he wouldn't be busted in future. The senior officer told him that it doesn't work like that, the editor publishes and then he, the cop, or his politically motivated masters make the decision whether to bust him for it...... This has traditionally been the bugbear of our deliberately vaguely worded laws and thir enforcement. Neither the enforcement or the public can legally know quite where they stand. The vague wording gives law enforcement flexibility to tackle ne'er do wells tickling the edges of acceptability, but in the hands of politically minded media attention seekers ......... ?
I'd argue that we need a little more application of common sense (from enforcement, publishers and law makers), less attention seeking and hysteria from everyone, and a lot more diligence from law makers, but hey, that's an unfashionable view. An MP being paid to actually think ? That's what those pagers are for.....so the party can tell 'em what they think.
who was it had an album cover that featured a prepubescent girl holding a chrome model airplane? I can recall seeing that in a book of famous album art and thinking that was "inappropriate" and that was about 15 or so years ago, imagine the furor should they ever reissue that!
oh and what about led zeps houses of the holy??
I think what is needed is a sustained campaign by people to object to any image they see anywhere that might be even potentially pornographic. Sometimes the best way to fight stupidity is to overload the system with trivial complaints about stuff to highlight how restrictive the rules have become.
My ISP is blocking it, but with a fake 404. Linking though anonymouse proved that the page isn't missing at all, but that it's been censored.
I concur with previous comments - regardless of the desirability of having that image on display (and I personally think it's nonsense), it is *wrong* for UK ISP's to falsely claim that the page doesn't exist. This is the thin-end of some very dodgy state censorship.
I fully agree with you, this is rapidly turning into an orwellian nightmare of the worst kind.
I'm concerned that this is merely a decoy to keep the population and the media looking the other way while wacky slips another "emergency measure" through under the radar as she is prone to doing.
I personally am getting close to legging it and using my permanent residence of another country to get away permanently. Don't want to do that, but I am NOT living in Myanmar/Burma, North Korea, China or Iran. Seems the government would prefer to ignore that and pretend this is one of the above totalitarian states.
I hope Wacky makes a fuck up and is forced from office, but I get the feeling she won't or it will be covered up or at worst she will temporarily leave govt to return in a few months by the back door ala Mandelson.
This country is rapidly reminding me of McCarthy era American, seems Wacky is using all the tricks she can from Sen McCarthy's book of dirty tricks and then some.
I mean what was the point of WW2 if all we have done is replaced an megalomaniacal Austrian with a power mad British lunatic 60 years up the road. I get the feeling nothing was done about "the final solution" as certain "diplomats" were annoyed the Nazis thought of something they hadn't (given Britain and America were the major purveyors of anti-semitism before Nazism)
Sadly its still going on, reportedly Britains Ambassador to Afghanistan thinks we should select a dictator as "it would be the easiest way to control the natives and maximise our potential to exploit the resources of Afghanistan"
Sickening really, To think I was stupid enough to believe Tony Blair 11 years ago, seems the saying is true "Power corrupts, Absolute power corrupts absolutely" perhaps if the Tories had got their gameplan together sooner rather than trying to be further right than the BNP then it might have kept the loonier fringe out of the cabinet office. Sadly I think this is just the beginning of a rapid decline of UK civil liberties and the transference to a totalitarian police state.
"...I've seen pre-pubesent children naked lots of times on beaches while on holiday and don't suddenly feel the need to go and molest a child. .."
Record Shops
As has been pointed out here, the UK law on criminal images has no concept of INTENT. You saw these children, therefore you must be a paedophile. You have already ruined their innocent lives, and must be locked away before you bring Western Civilisation to its knees.....
Seriously, what is everyone doing about this? What can everyone do about this? Is there any point compaining to our MPs? The Home Office? The affected ISPs?
"Under UK law, an image of a naked child is usually considered child pornography; context is irrelevant."
No doubt a trawl of the National Gallery would turn up some cherubim, but I won't do that because I'm <s>shit scared</s> a law abiding citizen.
Oh, and the newsreaders photos? Or would there be some context here?
Smells like FUD to me.
We get our leased line and colo space from easynet and its filtered there. I saw this on Friday when i tried to edit a wikipedia page. I must read our contract, if they are redirecting this traffic through their "filter" then what about our hosting traffic....
It sets a dangerous precident.
Seems to me the argument over whether this is child abuse has kinda missed something. The subject of the photo must at least be in her late 30s if not early 40s. Surely at this point she has the right to allow use of her image or not according to her own choice. In fact at this point could she not just be asked "were you abused in the making of this image ?" surely if the answer is no then there is no problem.
I'm all for protecting kids from baby bouncers and preventing exploitation of anyone but I'm sure you'll all agree that the subject of the photo in question is in very little danger of being molested now.
...and people are sheep. We 'lefties' as 'terrists' as those in power like to tag us are few and weak. Daily Mail 'Soccer moms' who don't have a brain cell to work with are the majority here.
Don't expect some V for Vendetta type uprsing to occur anytime soon. If ever.
The government is the power. The media is the controller. The people are the weapon.
Thought crime tin foil helmets on!
Please, if anyone knows if something like this exists, please say:
We all need a way to make our browsers default to HTTPS.
A firefox extension that contacts HTTPS for everything, then if it fails plain HTTP? I don't care that self signed certs will produce warnings (for a while anyway - it won't be long before the transparent proxies are forging certs), it will stop ISPs censoring. Maybe there's an open browser that can be easily tweaked to behave like this? If you have ever seen anything like this, please say.
The worst thing about this offensive censoring is that to go to the Virgin Killers article I went to it through TOR. I regularly use TOR to avoid the potential actions of our oppressive government, but I didn't think it'd be needed for Wikipedia!
Where's the icon of Jackboot Smith when you need it?
Does nobody remember the Nan Goldin/Elton John/Baltic Art Gallery incident?
A photo of young naked girl doing the splits directly facing the camera, showing her va-jay-jay for all to see. Seized by Northumbria police for being obscene and then deemed by the CPS to be 'not obscene' and returned to the owner (Sir Elton).
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/oct/26/artnews.art
If that image was LEGAL, then how can this one not be? It's almost prudish by comparison.
Arbitrary censorship, pehaps? Lack of oversight = law unto themselves = bad decisions?
I'd just like to point out that AFAIK male rape is uncommon in UK gaols. The UK prison system, whilst no doubt riddled with flaws, does not have the same problems with violence(sexual or otherwise) or gang warfare as the US one, which is no doubt where your rape fantasies came from.
... I'd have a kind word to say about Tiscali, but thanks to their terrible network management abilities, it will be at least 6 months before they work out how to block something.
How about this for a revolutionary idea... Instead of knee-jerking (no tittering at the back), as the girl in the picture will now be approaching 40... How about asking her if she minds?
If however the Knee-jerk brigade are removing any image that might possibly cause some kind of sexual arousal in a minority, even if the subject consented at the time, and still does, then we'd better brace ourselves for an image-free internet... And as soon as they realise that the written word can be arousing, it's all gonna go very blank.
Really, I dispair!
First some idiot mis-identifies an album cover as pornographic.
Next, the IWF fails to spot the mistake.
Then my ISP decides to aggravate me by revealing that it's censoring my content, ignoring the fact that the entire internet is dedicated to letting me find the album cover on any number of other sites (and not to mention that I can also go though any number of proxies and get the original Wikipedia article anyway).
Then Wikipedia fails to handle the proxied headers properly so that it looks as if all blocked UK users come from the same IP address.
Wow. A great stonking steaming Christmas pudding load of FAIL with holly on.
Good job we've got better people running our economy, eh?
"...This also shows that they are willing to blacklist mainstream sites - well, at least they get points for being consistent I suppose (there`s nothing worse than selective enforcement)..."
Mark
I don't know why you think they are consistent. That image is on a record cover, so it is available all over the web. You can buy a copy of the record on Amazon, so there is a copy there, which is not blocked in any way.
http://g-ecx.images-amazon.com/images/G/01/ciu/d7/ee/9adc79edd7a0716ef4528110.L.jpg , since you ask....
I'm inclined to agree that it is. It's not porn, but it doesn't have to be. The significance of the glass crack is none to subtle; I don't see how someone can say there isn't a sexual element there, especially combined with the album name. It's indecent, seriously.
So that leaves three questions:
1. Is that reason enough to make something illegal?
I think not. I value freedom of information highly, and in general I think laws should only protect from things that are actually harmful. Indecent doesn't cut it.
2. Do you want your ISP to attempt to block illegal content?
I guess most people would say that's a no-brainer. But the key word is "attempt". You have no guarantee that they will successfully protect you from unwittingly committing a crime, nor that they won't accidentally block something legal.
There is also the possibility that you wish to access illegal content and take your chances with the law. If so, or if you would consider doing so under some circumstance you might prefer your ISP mind its own business and just serve what you ask for.
3. Did the ISPs in this case go about it in a really stupid way?
YES!
@AC:
> "The Gov protected you from an imaginary crime they've made to hunt people with the
> wrong age preferences. It used to be people with the wrong religion or wrong gender
> preference (homosexuals) but today, pedophiles.
>
Speaking as self-confessed player of the pink oboe, I'd like to introduce you to my good friend Mister Cluestick, over here, for equating sex between consenting adults of the same gender with sex with children. The prejudiced myth that us puddle-jumpers are more likely to be child abusers than breeders are is still alive and well thanks to idiots like you. (Of course, in reality child abusers are more likely to be hetties.)
> Will we, the human race, ever learn to tolerate those that are different?"
People convicted of child sex offences are criminals of an especially vile kind, and whilst they still merit basic human rights like not being tortured and so forth -- "an imaginary crime"? To quote the learned sages of South Park Elementary:
------------------------------
KYLE: Dude. You have sex with children.
STAN: Yeah. You know, we believe in equality for everybody, and tolerance, and all that gay stuff, but dude, fuck you.
KYLE: Seriously.
------------------------------
Children ARE sexually abused, and it IS a horrible crime. Sadly I have to add that I completely condemn the tabloid scaremongering and witchhunts, too, and certainly accept that there can be plenty of unforseen negative consequences to a paranoid fear of "peedos", too... just to be clear about that.
The more I read comments on The Register articles, the more prominent Anonymous Coward appears. Over 40 items this article alone. He who knows everything about everything, and has a variety of (sometimes self-contradicting) opinions on everything else.
I need to ask the question - is this his personal blog, or is he one of the fortunate few with nothing to do all day?
"a child in a sexual pose ... which that cover clearly is"
No, it isn't.
A couple of points you might wish to consider if you are going to continue to claim that it is, though :
1) As you clearly believe it to be an illegal image, then by your own definition, as you have viewed the picture, you should be arrested for downloading and viewing child pornography.
2) You see it as a sexual pose, where others just see a naked child. This actually demonstrates that you have a tendency to pederasty and should be arrested for clearly being a pervert and kiddie fiddler.
Since it keeps coming up, I'm going to harp on the terminology issue again.
Child pornography, indecent images of children, child abuse images. People tend to treat these terms as interchangeable, but they are not.
CHILD PORNOGRAPHY (or variations thereof: child porn, kiddy porn) is the most common term and probably closest to what people mean most of the time. Obviously this term refers to material which shows a child and is pornographic (sexually explicit for the purpose of arousing the viewer). Some people (including the IWF) object to this term on the grounds that by analogy with adult pornography it implies the child is a willing participant. (Which in reality may or may not be the case.)
INDECENT IMAGES OF CHILDREN is the legal term in the UK. "Indecent " is even more subjective than "pornography", but I think we can agree that the former includes all of the latter plus some content that is not explicit enough to be considered pornography. This is one of the strictest laws around on the subject.
CHILD ABUSE IMAGES is the term preferred child protection activists and organizations such as IWF. Logically this would mean an image of a child being abused, which understandably provokes an emotional response. Unfortunately people rarely mean that when they say it. Nobody takes this to mean images of non-sexual abuse (except in Australia). Instead they mean "child pornography" or even the broader "indecent images of children". This is inaccurate because there is nothing in the definition of those terms which indicated there must be abuse.
Mixing up these terms causes quite a bit of confusion. For instance, in this case IWF says "we block child abuse images" and then goes on to block a picture because they deem it indecent (and thus illegal) and people seeing this conclude that "IWF accuses Wikipedia of hosting child pornography". Wot?
The Virgin Killer cover may be indecent, but it is not pornographic or an image of child abuse. If a child decides of his or her on free will to masturbate in front of a webcam, the result is child pornography, and indecent, but still not an image of child abuse. If the police are caught on camera tazing a 10-year-old, that's an image of child abuse, but not indecent or pornographic.
So, GET IT RIGHT people!
Here's a helpful Venn Diagram: (IIoC {CP [CAI } ) ]
First, there are other album cover artworks that deserve at least the same amount of scrutiny as the Scorpions' _Virgin Killers_. Second, the _VK_ image is no more or less [$adjective] than what can be seen gaggled at the local mall or junior high school (in all its too- tight, too- short, and too- much- makeup clad glory). Third, _VK_ has been out for over 30 years (i.e., those who care already know all about the original album art, as they do with Guns'n'Roses' _Appetite for Destruction_), and any ill effects remotely possibly caused by the cover would have come and been long gone by now.
Protecting da youfs from paedos must not, then, be the intent of the page blocks; so what is?
Predictably, the page- block will drive folks (including -- I'll 'fess up -- yers truly) to the Wiki page to see what all the fuss is about ... and then what? To paraphrase Oscar, "The only thing worse than being talked about is not being talked about." Gold star goes to the hired royalty- / publicity- wringers who may have done more to revive sales for a band whose prime has long ago left the building, and a strong smack upside to the ISPs who fell for this ruse and to the political stooges whose panderings gave color of law to the whole page- blocking/ censorship mess. I can't wait to see what other stunts get concocted in order to drive product sales in a tanking economy.
All that article says basically is "if we have to define what we can and can't say in a legalistic way, then it is not only likely but inevitable that some of the definitions will be unfair to valuable art". This I agree with. But he then goes on the imply that means you can't therefore enforce that definition, because some people will be disadvantaged.
I disagree. That's like saying threre shouldn't be a speed limit (whatever value it might be), because it disadvantages people with the ability to drive safer at a higher speed, or there shouldn't be a minimum age of consent, because some people are well adjusted and mature enough to be able to make those decisions at a lower age.
There are already limitations in our speech - slander, verbal abuse etc.
Oh, re: lack of consistency: This appears to be a disease especially affecting people in IT. There's a notion that because we can't do _everything_, doing _something_ is therefore "unfair". I'd contend doing nothing is even worse.
Do I think there's been an almighty cock-up in this specific instance? Pretty much definitely. Do I feel that in instances like this, erring on the side of caution and sorting it out later is better than doing nothing? Definitely
All of this ranting would make more sense if the LP cover in question did contain child porn. It doesn't. It may be indecent, or tasteless, but no one has seriously suggested that this model was an abused child. The cover was controversial, she was later asked what she felt about it and is reported to be very happy and have no regrets.
Tom Paine's complaint about child sex offenders being an especially vile kind of criminal would make more sense to me if:
a) I didn't remember exactly the same thing being said about 'queers' in the 50s
b) there was any indication that this cover portrayed some kind of child sex abuse.
If we assume that the IWF are telling the truth when they say that the image is illegal according to current law (of which they seem to be the sole interpreter), then the obvious implication is that the law needs changing. In fact, we all know this - the current government (I use the term loosely) are famed for drafting amazingly wide legislation and then forcing it through with bland statements that it will be applied sensitively. Which it then never is.
Much of our 'terror' legislation is of this type. We are told that 'only nasty terrorists' will be banged up for 42 days without charge, and then we look on amazed as a librarian and student at Nottingham University are hauled off to jail for printing out part of their coursework. Nothing to do with terrorism at all.
Now we have exactly the same thing happening with sex legislation. I understand that this record didn't sell terribly well the first time round, so with any luck there won't be too many aging rock fans being hauled off to jail because of their record collection. But if there are, it will be nothing to do with child abuse, and exactly the same kind of misdirected legislation will be to blame. It's good to see the opposition MPs subject to the same over-reactive incompetence, but I seriously doubt that they'll learn the appropriate lesson if they ever get to power.
Myself, I'm wondering what will happen when we have 'carbon' legislation on the statute books. Misinterpretation of that will probably have us asphyxiated in the streets....
The image is not porn. An image of a naked child is not necessarily pornographic. The girl in the image looks content and appears not to be under any kind of stress or duress, so it is not an image of child abuse either.
The furore caused by this image is ridiculous. FFS what is all the fuss about. Does context not mean anything these days? It is an album cover, there are no other images of naked children in the article. The article is about a rock album.
Will I be labeled as a pedophile, for saying she is(was) a cute kid, because that's what I thought when I saw the image (My ISP is not blocking this). Being an old rocker I first saw this image a long time ago, memories of the era and some old tunes came to mind. The image is not sexually arousing in the slightest, at least it shouldn't be. I do see why some sensibilities would regard the image as indecent, although I see innocence. I feel images of 10-14 year old girls caked in makeup and alluringly dressed are far more indecent.
Anyone who does find this image arousing or sexually explicit should go seek some help.
As for censorship and a service provider protecting me on my behalf, I don't need nor want it, I am perfectly able to close a browser window and not click on the same link twice should I be disgusted by what I see. As for the legality of viewing this page/image and the possible repercussions, context should be taken into account. However, we are at the mercy of laws that are open to interpretation and inconsistent in their application. And when it comes to pedophilia or the mere suspicion of pedophilia, such an emotive subject often if not always results in an intolerant, merciless and uneven response.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
