2009/2/20 Mark (Markie) <newsmarkie(a)googlemail.com> Strange. David did you delete it? -- Alex (User:Majorly)

On Fri, Feb 20, 2009 at 5:20 PM, David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com> wrote: Oh dear. Well, mind posting what you wrote here? I read it, but closed the tab... -- Alex (User:Majorly)

2009/2/20 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: All straightened out - they emailed me and I've put up an edited version of the comment. (They thought one line was legally dangerous, so I took it out.) - d.

2009/2/20 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: They claim to provide a list of problematical sites images and webpages. We know such a list exists. We know that a fair number of the URLs on it end in .jpg and the like and we know that there are both single pages and entire sites on the list. So yes it would appear that they do what they claim to do. http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085789.h… They probably do it's just there are rather a lot of ways out there of organising your website and they didn't immediately pick up on which one wikipedia uses. What worries me is "The last audit was performed by [LSE forensics expert] Peter Sommer, assistant chief constable Stuart Hyde of the West Midlands police, June Thorburn, professor of social work at the University of East Anglia, and Jim Warnock, head of operations at CEOP [Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre]." So at least two of their audit team came from organisations that have other dealings with the IWF (West Midlands police and CEOP) Peter Sommer appears to be a reasonable choice http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085821.h… http://www.chiark.greenend.org.uk/pipermail/ukcrypto/2008-December/085929.h… June Thorburn I don't know much about. -- geni

2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px… but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place. -- geni

David is right, if they haven't a clue about techniques to manage a modern website - techniques that are over ten years old - then they are quite simply not fit to manage any sort of filtering blacklist. I have not, and would not, actively seek out child pornography. However, I have a clue about how the modern Internet works. Any semi-intelligent publisher of child pornography is going to use things like hidden services on Tor. The IWF has zero impact on that; they might as well have a mission to target drug dealers who advertise in local newspapers. Brian. -----Original Message----- From: wikimediauk-l-bounces(a)lists.wikimedia.org [mailto:wikimediauk-l-bounces@lists.wikimedia.org] On Behalf Of geni Sent: 20 February 2009 19:47 To: wikimediauk-l(a)lists.wikimedia.org Subject: Re: [Wikimediauk-l] ZDNet: IWF on Wikipedia block 2009/2/20 Thomas Dalton <thomas.dalton(a)gmail.com>om>: Wouldn't work. That for example would block http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg/200px- Virgin_Killer.jpg but not http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/3/33/Virgin_Killer.jpg. Given that this is wikipedia there is also no particular reason to expect the image to stay in the same place. -- geni _______________________________________________ Wikimedia UK mailing list wikimediauk-l(a)wikimedia.org http://mail.wikimedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikimediauk-l WMUK: http://uk.wikimedia.org

2009/2/20 geni <geniice(a)gmail.com>om>: Many of the problems are with that list. The list contains html pages, not images (at least, not exclusively), and not even the right html pages (they never blocked the [[Image:...]] page). If the government ran it, they would be accountable, IWF aren't.

2009/2/20 David Gerard <dgerard(a)gmail.com>om>: Of course - everyone can be sued in the court of public opinion. The High Court would be preferable, though.