Scorpions Cover Sets Off Internet Watchdogs: Updated

Feb 13, 2008
19,430
0
0
Scorpions Cover Sets Off Internet Watchdogs: Updated

IWF [http://www.iwf.org.uk/] believe you may be looking at porn, so are banning you, one site at a time.

The Internet Watch Federation are working closely with British ISP's to make sure you are not seeing anything that could be classed as 'child porn'.

It started on Saturday.

Those in Britain, using Virgin Media, Be Unlimited/O2/Telefonica, EasyNet/UK Online, PlusNet, Demon, or Opal suddenly found themselves piped away from Wikipedia, after the IWF identified the cover of the Scorpions album, Virgin Killer to be offensive, despite being released 30 years ago, and still freely viewable on Amazon.

Now the problem; Wikipedia won't remove the image, as that's censorship, so the ban stays in place. However, because of the re-pipe, Wikipedia cannot tell who is who according to IP addresses, so has to block everyone on the IP, including some of their own editors.

But that's yesterday's news.

Today, the image was gone from Amazon.co.uk and Zavvi (formerly Virgin), but on display at Amazon.com.It has now gone from there as well after a massive hit rate.

When interviewed on Radio 4, the IWF spokeswoman was unable to explain why certain sites were banned but not others. One would assume that lawyers are very heavily involved.

Update (December 10th): After numerous complaints, the IWF have rescinded their block and apologized [http://iwf.org.uk/media/news.251.htm] to Wikipedia's users. One still has to wonder whether all the fighting was worth it though.

Permalink
 

Lustwane

New member
Oct 20, 2008
24
0
0
Censorship. Control.
Dumb down the mass's.
Pass the McDonnalds.
The end is neigh.
 

Brokkr

New member
Nov 25, 2008
656
0
0
Wow this is ridiculous. There has defenitely been a lot of censorship articles in the news recently.
 

Skrapt

New member
May 6, 2008
289
0
0
I've checked and right now I'm pissed off. The block does affect me, when I try to access the page in question it 'says' that the page is nowhere to be found, yet a proxy uncovers it rather quickly. This is complete idiocy, have you even seen the image? Could not be considered pornography by anyone's standards and considering it's the cover of an album which has been out for over 30 years this is simply ridiculous.

My question is where does this stop? When you start banning (mostly) harmless images such as this, how long until they decide what else isn't for our viewing? Others have said it and now I'm echoing it:

"The UK is sleepwalking into a police state"
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
having never seen the image I cant pass comment (though just checked out if was blocked n yeah the wiki thing don't work. Whats the big deal about said album cover? I assume ull still be able to buy it in all its apparent paedophilic glory? Doesn't really affect me as im not a fan of Scorpions, but its a worrying potential censorship trend. Going from shutting down paedophile sites & content to removing "offensive" material is a dangerous leap.

IWF.org [http://www.iwf.org.uk/media/news.250.htm]
A Wikipedia web page, was reported through the IWF?s online reporting mechanism in December 2008. As with all child sexual abuse reports received by our Hotline analysts, the image was assessed according to the UK Sentencing Guidelines Council (page 109). The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18, but hosted outside the UK. The IWF does not issue takedown notices to ISPs or hosting companies outside the UK, but we did advise one of our partner Hotlines abroad and our law enforcement partner agency of our assessment. The specific URL (individual webpage) was then added to the list provided to ISPs and other companies in the online sector to protect their customers from inadvertent exposure to a potentially illegal indecent image of a child.
Thats their official response to it. Frankly I think if the album is still buyable with that cover, cencoring it on the internet for fear of "offending" (which is why they banned it not for any sexual content) is pointless, pedantic & overbearing; paticularly as the IWF were threatening to block Amazon US over it. Though Scorpions themselves seem to recognize its a contraversial & perhaps not such a suitable cover The Guardian [http://www.guardian.co.uk/technology/2008/dec/08/amazon-internet-censorship-iwf]

I do find it ironic that banning it seems to have created alot of internet interest in the very thing theyre trying to stop our poor innocent minds from seeing :-D

THE LAW said:
PART 6: EXPLOITATION OFFENCES
6.1 Whilst all sexual offences involve, to a greater or lesser degree, the exploitation or
abuse of a victim or victims, the specific sexual exploitation offences involve a high degree
of offender culpability, with offenders intentionally exploiting vulnerable individuals. In some
cases, for example the prostitution offences, the sexual acts themselves may not be unlawful,
but the purpose of the legislation is to address the behaviour of those who are prepared to
exploit others by causing, inciting or controlling their sexual activities, whether or not for gain.
The harm caused by the offences
6.2 Section 54 of the SOA 2003 defines ?gain? as:
(a) any financial advantage, including the discharge of an obligation to pay or the
provision of goods or services (including sexual services) gratuitously or at a discount;
or
(b) the goodwill of any person which is, or appears likely, in time, to bring financial
advantage.
Far as I can tell, this is what the image fell foul of. Retroactive laws FTW \o/
 

fix-the-spade

New member
Feb 25, 2008
8,639
0
0
All I can say is Tiscali Broadband bitches!
As this doesn't affect me can someone clarify whether it's just banning that one page of Wiki or Wiki as a whole?

In the mean time...
How long before one of these automated censor systems bans somebody really big (like say, McDonalds or Sony) causing mass suicides as these somewhat self important organisations are litigated into oblivion?
Or whoever runs this particular group goes after someone particularly inappropriate, like the Queen or David Attenborough, prompting their EU funding to magically go zip.

Cousin_IT said:
having never seen the image I cant pass comment. Going from shutting down paedophile sites & content to removing "offensive" material is a dangerous leap.
The image itself is certainly not illegal, granted you would never get it published now but neither the police nor a court of law would have any problem with it being in your house.
Indeed it is a dangerous leap, especially when the people who get to define 'offensive' seem to have no limits on their influence.
 

Cousin_IT

New member
Feb 6, 2008
1,822
0
0
I just occured to me. Surely on the basis this image has been blocked every painted of the naked infant Jesus, every painting with a cherub etc should also be banned? Naked & under 18, thats bound to cause offense

 

raemiel

New member
Jun 8, 2008
144
0
0
Well I'm relieved at least that this isn't another story on Australia doing something stupid with the internet. What with people convicted over pornographic Simpson's pictures and the roll out soon of nation-wide ISP filtering which will slow our traffic by 85% (along with being stupid censorship which is impractical and unnecessary) it's good to know that we aren't the only ones experiencing reactionary knee-jerk decisions.
 

Fruhstuck

New member
Jul 29, 2008
291
0
0
Cousin_IT said:
I just occured to me. Surely on the basis this image has been blocked every painted of the naked infant Jesus, every painting with a cherub etc should also be banned? Naked & under 18, thats bound to cause offense

Daaaaarn you and your pre-theft (AKA originally conceiving) of good points!
*Shakes Fist*
 

Sp0ck_z0mbi3

New member
Aug 19, 2008
15
0
0
Resist Rebel Revolt
Keep the interweb free!!1!
Coalition N0W!!1!
This is the first step to oppression N3rds take up arms
 

Sirisaxman

New member
Jun 8, 2008
303
0
0
My question is why this so called watchdog "group" didn't launch a complaint sooner, especially since the image itself is so old...
 

qbert4ever

New member
Dec 14, 2007
798
0
0
Well, since I don't have that ip adress, I am still free to mast-I mean, "veiw", the album cover of the naked kid.

Still, this sucks for you guys.
 

Toner

New member
Dec 1, 2008
147
0
0
*sigh*

Although their intentions are good, its always their execution where the fails begin to arise.

Ah well, seems that the time is almost nigh to keep a proxy in your favorites bar, or as your Home webpage...
 

spazzattack

New member
Mar 25, 2008
94
0
0
But the album cover is a photo realistic drawing of a naked 12 year old. It actually is child pornography. How is that a stupid decision? Album in question http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer