Skip Navigation


Wikipedia editing broken for anonymous UK users
Monday 08 December 2008 10:54:56 by Andrew Ferguson

For many, the Internet Watch Foundation and the list of child abuse image URL's it maintains so that UK Internet Service Providers can then run blocks has become highly visible over the course of the weekend.

A URL and image from an album cover by the Scorpions has made it onto the IWF list, due to its use of a naked child on it. The album, when sold on sites like Amazon in the UK has a UK version of the cover which features the band members, but Amazon.com does host the reportedly illegal image, and it is thought has also been reported to the IWF over the weekend.

Blocking images of child abuse is something that is worthwhile and while things cannot be totally blocked on the Internet, if nothing were done then perhaps even more draconian measures could be enforced. The blocking of the whole Wikipedia article rather than just the image is what is causing a lot of noise from Internet users, and to some extent this may be down to the ways different providers implement the IWF list. It would appear some UK providers that have the IWF list are blocking the high resolution image, but still serving the Wikipedia page with the smaller resolution thumbnail. Whether the IWF will continue to block this image hosted in many other places on the Internet as they are reported is something we will have to watch unfold. Back in 2007 O2/Be were in the headlines over some Lycos blocking, and UK Online customers seem to frequently comment on Rapidshare being blocked.

There are some suggesting that this whole situation feels like censorship of Wikipedia, and this is not because Wikipedia is not visible to people, but rather the way Wikipedia tracks editing of articles by anonymous users. Where people vandalise an article, Wikipedia blocks the IP address they come from, which, with the IWF proxy filters working on the site at present, means a large amount of the UK is seen as just a few IP addresses by the site. Registered users on Wikipedia can still edit articles.

In terms of moving forward it appears things are at an impasse since Wikipedia has a policy that it does not censor content and the material is hosted outside the UK so does not fall in to any jurisdiction where the UK can issue a take-down notice, if the image was deemed illegal. The IWF talking to the BBC indicates that it had contacted the police prior to adding the page to its list. A statement from the IWF about the Wikipedia URL in question was released yesterday. The Wikimedia Foundation, the not-for profit behind Wikipedia has also released a statement in which it urges the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist, along with a Questions & Answers page for those affected.

BBC Radio 4 interviewed both the IWF and Wikipedia this morning on their program. For those who missed it, you can listen again on the BBC website. The piece was at 08:54.

Comments

Posted by herdwick over 8 years ago
http://www.the-scorpions.com/english/discography/records/virgin_killer.asp

make your own minds up. See if you're being censored, Guardian.co.uk provides link to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
I have changed my view of the IWF, they censored it on this basis. 'considered to be a potentially illegal' Sorry but potentially illegal isnt the same as actually illegal, it is like sentencing someone because they potentially did the crime. I can currently view the article on ukonline herdwick but I think IWF removed the block after the bad press.
Posted by jrawle over 8 years ago
Putting aside the serious issue of censorship for a moment, I'm concerned that the IWF block works by putting ALL Wikipedia traffic through a proxy server. What is that going to do to performance? Wikipedia isn't always the speediest site at the best of times. This method had been introduced so they don't have to block the entire site. But what if other large sites have one "potentially illegal" page? Soon all our traffic will be going through their congested proxies.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The IWF are a bunch of idiots and their so called list of blocks is not fit to even wipe my bottom on.

Ukonline seem as mentioned to have rapidshare blocked COMPLETELY at certain times of the day/week/month (whatever it is as its random) But in that case the IWF so called filters do nothing... adding ssl in front of rapidshare and links makes it totally useable and viewable again... Nice job morons!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
This latest story shows how dim witted they are... Im all in favour of hanging child abusers by their balls and beating them, HOWEVER this image and its must block it attitude is retarded... Whats gonna happen next..... No watching the 9pm news on Iplayer, just incase there is an image of a child naked in some war torn country???

Maybe the idiots should concentrate on blocking the real serious and nasty stuff the net apparantely contains instead of wrapping everything in cotton wool.
Posted by KarlAustin over 8 years ago
CB, I agree fully as I've said elsewhere it's getting stupid. I've no problem with images of actual abuse being blocked - but lets be honest here, you see worse on the news - there's a very famous photo of a young girl with her clothes burnt on to her body in a war torn region (it may even have been after the bombs were dropped on Japan). Also most of our parents probably have "worse" (for want of a better word) photos of us as children.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
More people sorely ignorant of the actual intent of the blocking the IFW does. It's to prevent *accidental* viewing of Child Pornography images.

jrawle - Wikipedia's incompetence at determining IP's (and all UK ISP's use one of several filtering systems, one of them being the one provided by the IWF) and their gross overreaction is not the IWF's fault.

Carpet - UKO's blocking of rapidshare is nothing to do with the IWF.
Posted by Rroff over 8 years ago
I'm not sure how this is "Wikipedia's incompetence at determining IP's" as all they see is a the same proxy IP(s) for all users from an ISP without any way to distinguish users except by site based login.
Posted by darkstar782 over 8 years ago
Dawn_Falcon - "Prevent accidental viewing"?

What next? Ban knives to prevent accidental stabbings? Lock up all women to ensure I don't accidentally trip over and sexually assault them in the process?

That is just patiently stupid. The IWF have proven they are a law unto themselves, a pointless waste of my broadband subscription fee (as they are funded by the ISPs) providing a "service" I do not need and have not asked for.

They impliment bans completely indescriminately against content that is not found to be illegal
Posted by oomingmak over 8 years ago
darkstar782: "What next? Ban knives to prevent accidental stabbings?"

More likely will be the ban of cartoons, seeing as they (apparently) also constitute child porn.

http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/08/simpsons_supreme_court/
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
darkstar - Okay. You load a page. There's a CP image. You've just commited a criminal office. But wait, the web filter blocked it. No offence!
There's no volition in CP offences, viewing is a crime.

Some ISP's use CP filters other than those of the IWF's, feel free to use them instead. If you're looking for a ISP without a CP filter, you're out of luck in Europe.

Rroff - Untrue. I'm not getting into the wikicult, but this is yet another example of their gross incompetence.
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
"Dawn_Falcon - I'm not getting into the wikicult, but this is yet another example of their gross incompetence."

Wiki, in common with most web-sites, identify anonymous by IP (some sites, such as TBB, also identify logged in users this way).
If a "vandal" sabotages a Wikipedia page their IP address gets blocked.
Because of the IWF action, all Wikipedia bound traffic is being directed through proxy servers.
So, one Be user vandalises a page on Wiki, all get blocked.
This is not Wiki's incompetence, but rather the IWF and our ISPs taking the easy way out.
Posted by Rroff over 8 years ago
If they are connecting to wiki via a proxy then wiki can't see the individual users' IP and the action of one user will affect them all if the IP(s) of the proxy gets banned...
Posted by andrew (Favicon staff member) over 8 years ago
A well behaved proxy will pass on some details, but anonymous ones, and it seems some of the IWF filter ones (or maybe all) may not do this.

Without seeing a Wiki server log one cannot say for sure.
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
This is fascinating, to me, because it shows the IWF to be bunch of self-righteous biddies (in the same fashion as the councils which banned 'The Life of Brian'), and also shows they're not so convinced of their actions (otherwise they'd have already placed Amazon and ebay, amongst others, on their ban list - which would almost certainly prompt a massive lawsuit) - so prudes with no globes!
Posted by hairyman over 8 years ago
None of the above links to the"illegal" are blocked here and I am on a BT based ISP without proxy or anon surfing.
Posted by hairyman over 8 years ago
None of the above links to the"illegal" are blocked here and I am on a BT based ISP without proxy or anon surfing.
Posted by hairyman over 8 years ago
Excuse the double post ( well three now?) nothing seemed to happen the first time.
Posted by grahammm over 8 years ago
Another reason to suggest that the IWF block is ineffective at best and incompetent at worse is that they did not apply their filters to all routes to the page. On the R4 interview, the IWF spokesperson stated that they just listed the URL containing the image - rubbish. They just listed a page referencing the image, listing the URLs of the thumbnail and full size image would have achieved their goal more effectively. Even then access by https was not affected.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
grahammm, the IWF don't block anything. The technical means used to block the pages by different ISP's *implimenting the list* vary somewhat. And again, the purpose of the block is not to stop determined criminals from viewing CP, it's to prevent accidental viewing of CP (hence no blocking on HTTPS).

adebov - And the IWF are not responsible either for the wikicult model, or their technical competence.
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
Dawn_Falcon - Could you please explain why you think the blocking, or the lack of anonymous editing is down to "Wikipedia's incompetence"?
How could their competence (or lack of it) prevent the block, or allow editing for most users coming from an IP address, whilst preventing editing (by the vandal) coming from the same IP address?
Also, I've not said the IWF are responsible for Wiki.
BTW - Do you work for the IWF, or something?
Posted by humm over 8 years ago
"adebov - And the IWF are not responsible either for the wikicult model, or their technical competence. "

If you can't edit Wikipedia anonymously it is because your ISP is not setting the X-Forwarded-For header.

Wikipedia do not do accommodate that header automatically, because then anyone can evade bans by misusing it. They have made an exception for IWF/these ISPs.

As for competence, I don't think either these ISPs nor the IWF have shown it.

Finally, if it is to prevent accidental viewing, an explanation page makes more sense than fake 404 or 403 pages.
Posted by Gypsydog over 8 years ago
I don't know if the IWF have backed off or what but the disbuted image is accessible no on Wikipedia.

Interesting comments on guardian.co.uk/tecnology/blog

(http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/blog/2008/dec/09/wikipedia-censorship)

Especially the comment that the FBI 'investgated' this and decided to take no action,see link below

http://www.econtentmag.com/Articles/News/News-Feature/Wikipedia-Weighs-Information-Against-Indecency-49659.htm
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Carpet - UKO's blocking of rapidshare is nothing to do with the IWF."

Errr i think you will find it is... AFAIK its optional for ISPs to use IWF filter lists, rapidshare is on and off the IWF list more often than the sun rising... When you visit rapidshare a filter proxy in place at ukonline/easynet (with all the IWF listed material) blocks rapidshare. If and when rapidshare isnt/wasnt on the IWF list WHICH IT SHOULDNT BE (it wouldnt and doesnt get blocked).
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The IWF list AT TIMES blocks the rapidshare.com domain rather than blocking just illegal links on rapidshare... Idiots forgot to add ssl.rapidshare.com though, so their SO CALLED filtering of illegal files and nasty images achieves basically bugger all! The site can still be accessed by shoving SSL in front of things.. As said they are twats, they dont even know how to filter properly... This latest example shows how dumb they are, a 2 second google images search of "The scorpions" and especially "Virgin killer" results in thousands of links to the image concerned..... Damned Morons!
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
Dawn_Falcon uko's blocking is to do with the IWF, ukonline are implementing it incorrectly but its been blocked based on the fact rapidshare are in the IWF blacklist.
Posted by chrysalis over 8 years ago
if its to prevent accidental viewing then thats just silly, people who are not interested in child porn and who come across such a site are not going to sit there watching it, if the idea isnt to stop those delibaretly looking for it then there is no point at all in the IWF.
Posted by LCake over 8 years ago
chrysalis wrote:
"if the idea isnt to stop those delibaretly looking for it then there is no point at all in the IWF."
Indeed. In fact the IWF can actually help those looking for CP - see "oracle attack" in this paper by Richard Clayton (University of Cambridge) - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/cleanfeed.pdf
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect".

Well....Durrr!
I said that more than 48 hours before the IWF realised it.
I can't believe an organisation with the responsibility for policing the internet (for UK users) can be so clueless.
I wonder who was using the brain-cell that day?
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
It also seems the morons at the IWF appear to have created a situation where Australian plans for a similar system may end up being scrapped.
Already two Australian ISPs have pulled out of the trials, in which the Australian goverment planned to let our IWF decide what is suitable for Australian web users.

One little bit of over the top censorship by the IWF, and this is what happens!
Posted by scragglymonk over 8 years ago
Suspect that if the image was ignored by the IWF, almost no-one would view it. Not with a major ISP and have seen far worse images than the scorpions one. These are from wars, mostly the Israeli war on the Palestinians, the majority of the pictures seem to be of dead people who happen to have had their clothes blown off them, but guess that is ok to show ?
Posted by darkstar782 over 8 years ago
adebov- "I can't believe an organisation with the responsibility for policing the internet (for UK users) can be so clueless."

You mean the self appointed people who have no responsibility other than that they give themselves. They have no more right to decide what is "illegal" than you or me, they are not a court.

Its just that they convinced some ISPs to give them a load of cash and obey them
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Oh look, it's unblocked. This is what happens the next work day, when it's a normal situation. The only unusual thing about it is the wikicult.

And no, adebov, the Australian system as-proposed has basically nothing in common with cleanfeed or other UK-based filters.

More, their role isn't "policing the internet", it's blocking accidental access to child porn and taking reports of certain other catagories of web pages. They're a private body, not police.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I don't work for the IWF, I simply realise they do good work due to UK law *as it stands*. Their approach is sensible and has staved off governent attempts for harsher, mandatory filtering before.

humm - Some ISP's do show an explination page. It's up to the ISP!

chrysalis - If you come across a cp image, and view it, even inadvertantly, you have commited a crime. Volition is not an issue. The IWF's role is necessary under UK law as it stands.
Posted by adebov over 8 years ago
"Posted by Dawn_Falcon ........
And no, adebov, the Australian system as-proposed has basically nothing in common with cleanfeed or other UK-based filters."

Actually, it does. They planned to use the same ban list as our IWF. Source >>>> http://www.smh.com.au/news/home/technology/labor-plan-to-censor-internet-in-shreds/2008/12/09/1228584820006.html?page=2
Posted by harryhound1 over 8 years ago
What is it about society. If this image is unsuitable, it is high time we took our sledgehammers and set about Victorian statues of similar forms - I'm sure we could find a few in Highgate cemetery, keeping Karl company.
This bloke must be feeling vindicated:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Thomas_Bowdler
even though he failed to recognise this "real evil" lurking in his society.
Cock up or conspiracy? I wonder if this move was timed to coincide with "Eastenders" exploration of the subject.
Posted by harryhound1 over 8 years ago
Two more thoughts:
"The police were consulted" So this would be the same Stazi that shoots dead innocent peodple in underground stations and steals my letters to my MP?
Silly me, I thought the Crown Prosecution Service reviewed any evidence and then a COURT. or series of courts, decides?

BTW If you have some old copies of The Sun be very afraid and burn them today. Some of those page three girls were claiming to be "children" under 18.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
adebov - It's badly misleading. The IWF blocklist is one tiny component of the proposed great firewall of Australia, and it's not at all clear that the IWF would allow the Australian government access.

The plan the Australians want is far, far more encompasing than the role of the IWF in the UK.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I don't work for the IWF, I simply realise they do good work due to UK law *as it stands*. Their approach is sensible and has staved off governent attempts for harsher, mandatory filtering before."

Are these drugs the legal or illegal type, and are they free on the NHS?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
So not content with death threats, you're now engaging in defamation. You're a class guy, carpet.

I'm not theorising. I'm talking about what the government and ISP's have both actually said.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
:D :D No I think CB wants to buy some (me too! :D )!!
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
this article concludes at this URL..
http://www.thinkbroadband.com/news/3819-iwf-appeals-procedure-reverses-wikipedia-block.html
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
"they do good work due to UK law"
"Their approach is sensible"
I think this is what CB is talking about.. IF you think 'good' and 'sensible' is going into a porn shop, and censoring only ONE photo...

I think Dawn_Falcon's translation software is malfunctioning so badly he seems to think he is getting death threats!.. :):)




Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote":D :D No I think CB wants to buy some (me too! :D )!!"

LOL i dont just want some of what Dawn Falcon is on i want the worlds supply. Anything that can turn a mind to jelly to the state it says "The IWF do good work" Is more potent than anything class A rated or what only a trained doctor can administer.

IWF in Dawn Falcons mind = Good as they want to block an image thats been about for over 30 years.... Pure Genius!!!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
comnut - Again, they took action against an image reported to them. It's how they work. Do you *want* them to proactively censor?

And no, comnut, it was a clear death threat.

Carpet, you're repeating the defamation. Unsmart. If the image breaks the law (and it's very arguable that it does), then it dosn't matter how old it is. Unless you're suggesting that any image is acceptable when it passes an arbitrary time threshhold. (hint: A different cover image was used in many countries, including the UK)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
My god i really do want the worlds supply if you are on something...
1) Its not an illegal image, Never has been.
2) A different cover many years back was NOT used. The cover the PC moron brigade are crying about was the one used years back. The whole issue occured basically cos there are too many do-gooder tools about nowadays.
3) What "death threats" are you dribbling about
4) What defamation?? Are you typically now going to claim you have never taken prescribed medication for anything? Perhaps you mean me calling the IWF idiots is defamation... HA id like to see your definition of sensible.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
5) I cant even believe you are defending them We see images in adverts of children starving in poor countrys with just as little clothing on..... If it was upto sensitive tools like you are coming across as there would be no news, no advertising to help the third world and no National geographic to read and educate yourself.... Honestly get a clue!
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
LOL ROFLMAO ROFLMAO!!! you do know it is only us three? (it's no longer on the front page, and the case has been 'closed'...)

so watch out, Dawn_Falcon, I've got my twin-bore and grapeshot, and I'm coming to get ya!!


Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Carpetburn?

The cover was BANNED in many countries. You're wrong!

And no, you clearly accused me of taking illegal drugs. Several times.

comnut - It's not smart to do that in any medium. Even in jest.
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
Dawn_Falcon: "WAS" .... 30 years ago...

nowadays most have forgotten about its existance, unless you are an aging rocker - even I had - brought back some good memories..
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Comnut - And the UK law on this is defined by, guess what? The Obscene Publications Act 1959

It needs updating. That's why I keep mentioning the "law as it stands".
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
Banned you say??? not in UK, Germany, or anywhere that wikipedia can be seen...
In fact, if you had been without PC or newspapers since last week you would see no difference...
and I bet you dont know this is not the first time...

and yeah, you see that old chevy pickup outside?? thats me waiting...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Try reading what I typed rather than simply what you ablib according to the jutraposition of your google windows?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"The cover was BANNED in many countries. You're wrong!"

Nop it was used in the UK and it is not banned or illegal here in any way.

quote"And no, you clearly accused me of taking illegal drugs. Several times."

Best re-read my dear i said for the record "...more potent than anything class A rated or what only a trained doctor can administer."

Since when did a doctor administer illegal substances?? Which ever you are taking we all want some... Now go on rant you have never sipped cough syrup.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Further more, if this image is illegal, why was it not removed from the bands actual website??... Further still, why can you if you look around perfectly legally buy the album which is over 30 years old on vinyl from a specialist???
So i ask again in defiance of your ranting... "Are these drugs the "LEGAL" or "ILLEGAL" type, and are they free on the NHS?"
If you want to assume i said you were taking an illegal substance (which i did NOT anywhere in this news item) thats upto you... Atleast we know its not Ritalin though, due to the still short attention span.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
As opposed to the no-attention span (since my posts go unread)?

The legality of the image is very much in question under UK law. To whit: "the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978"
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
^^^ Or in other words has NEVER been deemed illegal
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
"Further more, if this image is illegal, why was it not removed from the bands actual website??..."
to echo your comments..
It was RE-INSTATED to the Wikipedia website - and if you RED that entry properly, you will see the band has fully justified its use..





Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
meh, that should be 'READ that entry properly ', in reply to D_F...
Posted by comnut over 8 years ago
I guess its just 'grumpy old man' syndrome... until he get his meds from nurse...
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Carpet, and the quote I linked was from the article explaining the unbanning.

I never said it was illegal, I said it was on shaky legal grounds, which *it clearly is*.

You're wrong. Again.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I never said it was illegal, I said it was on shaky legal grounds, which *it clearly is*.

You're wrong. Again."

Yeah im so wrong an image over 30 years old used for a music album and advertising is on shaky legal ground how stupid of me..... The only thing shaky here is the clueless IWF and their reasons for blocking it and fubaring wikipedia for half the UK (at the time of course).
Besides if it isnt illegal WHICH IT ISNT why block it in the first place?? Thats making the law up as you go along rather than legislating something is illegal first and then dealing with it.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Its like the do-gooders that think carrying a knife should be illegal.... Fair and at first glance very sensible and something we would all say yes to...... Until you need to go out and buy a new set of steak knifes for your dinner and would technically be breaking the law or at the very least in the likes of your mind be on shaky legal ground carrying them home.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Or in simple terms, the image isnt illegal, never has been illegal and the IWF idiots just like you leap before they think.

I wonder has the IWF EVER caught any real scumbag child fiddler on the net?? Have they ever stopped scummy terrorists communicating??? Errr no the police do that and all the IWF do is FUBAR up half the net for innocent regular internet users as they all think we need wrapping in cotton damn wool
Posted by clive4 over 8 years ago
Its a fact that there are thousands of idle 'lavatory wall scribblers' who delight in leaving silly and dirty entries on websites and forums worldwide.
Site moderators simply cannot keep up with them so the only answer is a total bar.
Posted by Canopus over 8 years ago
I wonder if it is possible for Wikipedia to block the IWF from accessing its web site :)

On the serious side, I have a feeling this is just the tip of the iceberg and we will be seeing far more draconian yet subtle censorship before long. It starts with a grey area where people aren't quite sure and ends up pervading every part of life. History teaches this.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Come on carpet, tell it like it is. Tell us hoe much you want the government firewall which would replace the self-regulatory IFW, and which would ban that image and thousands of others besides...

And yes, you continue to be wrong on the image, unless you can provide a court ruling otherwise.

Canopus - Hence my support for the IWF. What they do is limited, and better than the alternatives
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Tell us hoe much you want the government firewall which would replace the self-regulatory IFW."
Are you really too thick to understand the image concerned is NOT ILLEGAL be it on or off the bloody internet.
I dont have to provide court rulings the very notion the image has been used in an album cover previously and other media shows its not illegal, christ your head is messed up. I spose you think the government like the IWF idiots would instantly ban any nude image be them child or adult from the likes of http://www.nationalgeographic.com/
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
No, but evidently you're too thick to understand that the legality of the image is *undetermined*. You would have to provide a court ruling on the matter, otherweise.

And no, gee, the IWF have't done that. The Government firewall you're pushing so hard for? Now, they'd block them and many more.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"No, but evidently you're too thick to understand that the legality of the image is *undetermined*. You would have to provide a court ruling on the matter, otherweise."

ROFLMFAO so i have to provide a court ruling an image is legal for it to be allowed??? LMAO i think you will find that works the other way round..... You prove its ILLEGAL, (WHICH IT ISNT) and then you take action against it.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
No, that's not how UK law on potentially illegal images works. Archaic laws, but there we go - that's the situation.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Complete cack, you have to prove something violates law first. What the IWF did was take an interpretation of what the law says about indecent material and as usual **** it up. You could argue they are like vigilantes on the internet. Randomly wandering about banning anything they don’t like the look of even if it is totally legal. Push that a little more and you can tie them to the same breed of halfwit that dispense vigilante justice in real life, idiots where they think just because they believe something is wrong with no evidence to prove its wrong they take action.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
You are in denial on the law arround images.

And no, you can't argue they're vigilantes since they are voluntarily used by ISP's as a self-reulatory organisation.

Again, you're simply supporting a far more comprehensive government-run firewall.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"And no, you can't argue they're vigilantes since they are voluntarily used by ISP's as a self-reulatory organisation."

Oh i see so if i were a voluntary thug on behalf of someone thats ok for me to go around kicking up a storm and heads i dont like....
Self regulatory, you are bang on correct about that, they dont follow rules and laws and instead do as they please..... The typical guilty until proved innocent approach all idiots like them stand for, until they are a victim thereself and whine like brats
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Oh and just to prove further that image is not illegal or close to being illegal....
Why do you think it is moderators and staff here have not removed links others have posted directly to the image and to pages that contain the image????
You can personally deem the image wrong if you wish and so can the IWF, thats fine, but it doesnt break laws no matter how much you may think like the IWF did that it does.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
...

They do follow the law. There's nothing obligating ISP's to provide you with links to child porn. So sorry.

And you cannot prove the image is legal. it's the VAT discussion all over again. The law says you're wrong, you're wrong.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"They do follow the law. There's nothing obligating ISP's to provide you with links to child porn. So sorry."

LOL its not child porn though

quote"And you cannot prove the image is legal. it's the VAT discussion all over again. The law says you're wrong, you're wrong"
You really need to read the facts and history of the image.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer
Never has been illegal only CONTROVERSIAL

If its ILLEGAL, why did your precious IWF allow it back on wiki then huh???
Posted by tiggerrmummy over 8 years ago
http://www.the-scorpions.com/english/discography/records/virgin_killer.asp
is still blocked here, I assume through BT. I have no problem with this Artistic licence or not one has to ask why a rock group (or any one for that matter) would want to use a picture of a naked child on an album cover if it was for publicity and therefore revenue in which case there are a lot of sick weirdos out there who would by it just because its controversial or child porno.
I am happy that my browser is blocking it, it means my kids wont see it either.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Yes, Carpet, it is. And you were plain wrong on the VAT discussion as well. The law isn't applied like that, and I hope you don't get anyone else arrested with you.

If you'd bothered to read the IWF's statement...

tiggerrmummy - Looks like a server 404 error to me.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Right this is pointless now, obviously no matter how many times I try to tell you an image of a child that does NOT show its genitalia is perfectly legal it’s not going to enter that dumb head. Ill leave you in your blissful stupidity and just post these links to the image…
http://www.scorps.ru/lirika/al/virginkiller.jpg
http://www.scorpions-ostrow.eu/images/dyskografia/virgin_killer.jpg (ooo a euro site also, quick you better call the cops)
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Obviously i am wasting my time trying to explain POTENTIALLY ILLEGAL does not mean it is ILLEGAL, maybe the word potentially has too many letter for you to grasp?
Read THIS... http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/12/07/brit_isps_censor_wikipedia/
QUOTE DIRECT FROM THE IWF.....
"The content was considered to be a potentially illegal"
In other words it is not illegal.
Also quote "blacklist compiled by the Internet Watch Foundation, a government-backed organization"
So they are goveernment backed.
You may now return to planet dumb!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Explain if its child porn or child abuse why they have allowed the image back on UK sites, thats all you have to do to win your arguement its spose to be "ILLEGAL" atleast in your tiny mind.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Read again.

I said it was of questionable legality.

This is not legal. This is not illegal. It would take a court ruling to tell. And if it was illegal, you'd go down for it. You may want to go to jail. I don't.

And the IWF are not "government backed". Article's wrong. They are ISP-backed.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"This is not legal. This is not illegal. It would take a court ruling to tell. And if it was illegal, you'd go down for it. You may want to go to jail. I don't."

LMAO, somebody still doesnt realise if something is NOT ILLEGAL it must be legal... Even if you persist in that it may be illegal that doesnt explain why they have allowed the content back if it is their job to stop illegal and potentially illegal material.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"And the IWF are not "government backed". Article's wrong. They are ISP-backed."

EPIC FAIL.....
http://www.iwf.org.uk/government/page.6.htm

Not that you have the ability to read between the lines.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
"We operate independently of Government"

And there is no between the lines. What you type is what you type.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
and the rest of the quote reads "but are closely supported by the Home Office, the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform (DBERR) and the Ministry of Justice as well as working with the Department for Children, Schools and Families (DCSF) and the Department for Culture, Media and Sport (DCMS) and a number of Parliamentarians, Peers and MEPs who take an interest in our work."
I see you have selective reading along with selective brain power!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
And? They are still independent of the govenment. They are not independent of ISP's.

The only selective reading going here is yours.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
"closely supported by the Home Office"

Yea i can see why YOU wouldnt think thats a government link....fool!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
The criteria I specified was "backed", not "linked". Failmore?
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"The criteria I specified was "backed", not "linked". Failmore? "

Er so "closely supported by the Home Office" isnt 'backed'?

Me thinks this may help your tiny brain.....
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/backed
quotes...
# To furnish or strengthen with a back or backing.
# To provide with financial or moral "SUPPORT";
# SUPPORT OR ENDORSE

You numpty!
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I suggest you use the Oxford English Dictionary, not go looking for a random web dictonary which backs you up.

The meaning of the words is very different.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"I suggest you use the Oxford English Dictionary, not go looking for a random web dictonary which backs you up.

The meaning of the words is very different."

ROFLMFAO, yeah right..... Maybe you are right..... Oh actually not and this download shows it...
http://www.babylon.com/affiliates/landing/index.php?empty=1&id=10588&lang=eng&version=oxford1&textlink=gkn10366&gclid=CLqEoJ-A7JcCFYoH3godTHZxDA
There you go the oxford dictionary and thesaurus free just for people like you that clearly need it badly!
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
For more entertainment of how dumb you have now shown yourself to be here is some more classical English for you.....

http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?key=5344&dict=CALD

Doesnt get more ENGLISH than that.

I think that shows enough your criteria of "backed" means in the context of "closely supported by the Home Office"

Backed, backing and backer = SUPPORT you numpty
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
As I said, the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Cambridge one, is considered definitive for the English language.

Nice attempt to land a trojan on me, as well.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"As I said, the Oxford English Dictionary, not the Cambridge one, is considered definitive for the English language."

Link to the oxford site then... Oh thats right you cant as they dont have an online dictionary... As to the Cambridge dictionary not being a definative sourse on meanings to words in the English language, all i can say to that is..... Are you really that demented and my god i feel sorry for your nurse.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"Nice attempt to land a trojan on me, as well."

Have you banged your head again??
Where the hell did i try to land a trojan on you or anyone, your anti virus must have bigger brain farts than you do if you think a link to the cambridge dictionary site and a specific word in any way carrys a trojan... My god you need serious mental help... Im not kidding now seriously you need medical help
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Was it the CALD bit in the link that you think is Trojan related?

Maybe I should point out as you obviously don’t know what "backed" means the CALD part of the link refers to 'Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary'
Myself being the advanced bit you being the learner bit in this case..... OBVIOUSLY!
Maybe you would prefer an older langauge, hows 'Vacca Foeda' grab you?
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
I don't "think", I have a nice trojan sitting in an isolation vault from that site.

Also, CALD is still not the Oxford English Dictionary. This seems to escape you.

Also, schmendrik, gey koken ahfen yam
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
^^^ LOL is everyone reading... This numpty thinks they got a trojan from the cambridge dictionary site... If any doctors are reading and could suggest alternate meds for Dawn it would obviously be appreciated.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
You realise a lot of sites are currently having issues with trojans, right? Both infections on web servers and ones served up as banner adverts.

But no, that'd require a knowledge of current issues.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
The only thing around here with a trojan is your rather simple brain.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
So as well as supporting child porn and spam, you deny there's a problem with trojan infection on many sites. Lolz.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"you deny there's a problem with trojan infection on many sites. Lolz."

No not at all i imagine after you visting the cambridge dictionary site its been left in a highly confused state.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
You take denial to an artform.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"You take denial to an artform."

You take lack of comprehension of the word "backed" to Alien life form level!

Meanwhile on planet Earth it means what... Not one but TWO dictionary links i have provided state.

I should had realised this is not your home planet though.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Yes, and the Oxford English Dictionary, rather than random web dictionaries is considered definitive for the English language.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Point to the DIFFERING oxford English dictionary meaning then..... Again you cant!

Honestly talk about dumb, even a intelligent 5 year old knows what "to back" something "backer" and "backed" means.

I assumed you had an intellect higher than that.... I was obviously wrong.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
Yes, they do, which is why it's so astonishing you cannot admit you're wrong.
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
...wait, you admited you were wrong. Neat.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
Still waiting for the evidence...

Ive pointed to links which agree with what i believe the word "backed" means. Everyone else is wondering why you cant do the same.

Come on lets see some proof for a change to demonstrate im wrong and what you think the word means is correct.
I assume you know what "proof" means and your precious oxford dictionary doesnt give the meaning as "blurt carp cos you have no clue".
Posted by Dawn_Falcon over 8 years ago
It dosn't give identical definition to the different word "support".

You've gone out and found web dictionaries which agree with your definition. Yawn - as I said, the OED is considered definitive, not your random web dictionaries.
Posted by CARPETBURN over 8 years ago
quote"You've gone out and found web dictionaries which agree with your definition"

TRIPE again, id hardly call clicking the top ranked link in google....
http://www.google.co.uk/search?hl=en&q=dictionary&btnG=Google+Search&meta=
It lists http://dictionary.reference.com/ as the top link BTW. Looking for dictionaires that agree with my personal definition.......

In the mean time we all wait with baited breath for your so called links of proof.

Infact I challenge you or anyone to use that google link and prove the word "backed" in the context of your quote means something other than "support"
You must be logged in to post comments. Click here to login.