The Internet Watch Foundation's (IWF) Annual Report reveals an apparent fall of nearly 10 per cent in the number of international websites hosting child sexual abuse content. The report is slightly less forthcoming about the IWF’s own little local difficulties with Wikipedia back in December, and the recipe it puts forward for …
"Some critics have argued that one effect of the focus on websites is simply to push illicit activity on to private networks and P2P. A spokeswoman for the IWF explained that such matters were beyond the IWF’s remit."
Yeah, so it's either "Out of sight, out of mind" or "Not our problem" style responses.
This organisations needs shutting down. They do more harm than good.
>>There was a three per cent decrease in reports processed by IWF Hotline, to approximately 34,000<<
I find it amazing that anyone is brave / foolish / misguided enough to report such sites. Just by having looked they have been "making images" on their computer in the eyes of the law. They have thus invited a visit from Jacqui's boys, perhaps a few years in clink labelled a 'nonce' and certain destruction of their reputation whether or not they are convicted.
Could be a good thing
If the reduction in websites featuring this material is a direct result of the IWF's involvement / intervention, then this can only be a good thing, can't it ?
Or are they just reporting a reduction, which could be due to any number of independent external factors ?
i was on 4chan saw pedo site wanted to report it feel i cant tbh.
yeah i know 4chan is dodgy but when it gets to the point where people feel they cant report something .. well fuck it something is wrong
anon before jaqui gets me
"Keywords....We provide a list of words and phrases to search providers to improve the quality of search returns and to be used in software monitoring applications to flag up potential abuses."
So your censoring the search words that might lead to sites which might contain material which might be illegal? Pray tell which words? Or are there now words we cannot speak lest they render us into criminals? Imaging it, they're censoring the LANGUAGE.
"2008 data reveals 1536 unique domains"
Very similar to the size of the Australian list, which makes me think it's of the same quality. But we'll never know will we, well unless someone releases the list to Wikileaks.
It seems the IWF still aren't blacklisting "extreme" porn from abroad.
Part of the rationale for criminalising possession of "extreme" porn was that it's generally not illegal in other countries, and therefore can't be dealt with under the Obscene Publications Act. So the idea was to criminalise possession of it, and deter people from gaining it, like with sexually abusive images of children. But the IWF aren't blacklisting it when it's abroad, and the police are only dealing with "extreme" porn when it comes to their attention.
How on earth would this do anything to stop another Graham Coutts?
Any word on what the Jane Longhurst Trust make of this?: http://www.jltrust.org.uk/
Cartoons of Child Sex Abuse
I notice the IWF reporting page now refers to www.eVictims.org for things that the IWF don't deal with.
On the e-Victims.org website (which seems to gain a hyphen all of a sudden), there's a "Q&As" section which includes this:-
"I saw a cartoon of child sex abuse - is this illegal?
"If you see any images of a child sex abuse that are computer generated, or are drawings or animation, these are legally no different from photographs. You should report it to the Internet Watch Foundation."
What's the basis for that? What's the cartoon stuff in the Coroners and Justice Bill for, then? It hasn't been passed, yet, and is supposed to deal with such material on the basis that possession isn't illegal, yet.
Perhaps they're confused?
If the images are pseudo-photographs, meaning they're not actually photographs, but look like they are photographs, then possession would be illegal. I believe that's under the Protection of Children Act 1978 as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
If the images are derived from photographs or pseudo-photographs, such as tracings or computer-processed images, then they still count as photographs or pseudo-photographs under the Protection of Children Act 1978 as amended by Sections 69 and 70 of the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 (just after the "extreme" porn Sections).
A question that's occurred to me: taken together, do those amendments mean that a drawing that looks like it could be derived from an indecent photograph or pseudo-photograph therefore count as one, even when it's not?
Imagine a photograph of a real child being raped. It's real abuse, and the photograph is a real photograph as we'd usually understand it. Such an indecent photograph is already illegal to possess. Imagine a tracing of such a photograph. Such a tracing still counts as an indecent photograph, due to the Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008.
Now imagine a similar drawing, but one that wasn't derived from any other image. Since it looks as realistic as the illegal tracing, and since the illegal tracing now counts as an indecent photograph, would this purely original drawing count as a pseudo-photograph? This would be due to the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994.
Do these two amendments combine in that kind of way? In which case, it would seem the cartoon stuff in the current Coroners and Justice Bill is redundant, and needlessly complicates the law. Or do they not combine in that way? In which case, e-Victims.org has got it wrong.
Paris, because I'm confused, too.
How can anyone take the IWF seriously?
...Knowing that their definition of a "child abuse image" includes album covers? Gee it's no wonder they found "commercial operations selling indecent images of children", I believe these are what we used to call record stores.
Alright, that's probably an exaggeration, but since it's illegal to look at the evidence, we don't really know, do we? More realistically I have to wonder if they're counting child modeling and nudist sites.
The IWF is trying to have it both ways. They're simultaneously using a legalistic yet vague definition of "indecent" to pull in as many images as possible, and using very emotive language to describe the images as vile, vile pictures of child abuse.
Re: Cartoons of Child Sex Abuse
eVictims has simply got it wrong (or are victims of wishful thinking)
These images *are* (at present) legally different from photographs because they are not a) real or b) traced or otherwise copied from real images.
The Coroners and Justice Bill is trying to change this, but if it does, there's no doubt in my mind that the Government will then immediately push to extend this to drawings, cartoons or computer generated images of "extreme pornography"...
Don't even go there...... REALLY DON'T
I have been at the recieving end of this shit
I've never downloaded/viewed/watched/seen anything that could be child porn or even wierd porn.
My door was knocked at 7.30am in March 2006
I was arrested and all equipment siezed, some of it not mine
My office in north London was searched but they refused to hand over equipment
SO...... thats what you all think, isn't it
I lost my job as IT Manager, ended up losing my home and being made bankrupt
The cops eventually tell me they made a mistake and it wasn't me so no further
action would be taken.
BITTER, some people wouldn't know bitter if a lemon bit them. I am going to get even.
Sueing the police will certainly make me happy. Just to see them crawl in court in August.
Anyway my life was ruined. FUCK the lot of them, bring on ANARCISM
Re: Re: Cartoons of Child Sex Abuse
"These images *are* (at present) legally different from photographs because they are not a) real or b) traced or otherwise copied from real images."
Pseudo-photographs aren't real, either, but are illegal to possess. Images derived from pseudo-photographs are also illegal to possess, and also count as pseudo-photographs.
Since tracings of photographs count as photographs, and since an image just has to look like a photograph to count as a pseudo-photograph, doesn't that mean a drawing that looks like a tracing would therefore count as a pseudo-photograph, too?
- iPad? More like iFAD: We reveal why Apple ran off to IBM
- +Analysis Microsoft: We're making ONE TRUE WINDOWS to rule us all
- Climate: 'An excuse for tax hikes', scientists 'don't know what they're talking about'
- Analysis Nadella: Apps must run on ALL WINDOWS – PCs, slabs and mobes
- Yorkshire cops fail to grasp principle behind BT Fon Wi-Fi network