not comply. Critics of the bill stress that cutting Internet access would require a court
order, which is not guaranteed by the law at this stage.
Social Filtering
On issues of child pornography, European nations have worked well together to block
offending content, often recruiting private companies to help them in their cause.
However, on other social issues, such as gambling, states have been less effective in
controlling content, either individually or in coordination with each other.
The landmark model of large-scale voluntary ISP filtering in Europe originated in the
United Kingdom. Britain’s largest ISP, BT, launched Project Cleanfeed in June 2004, 28
in consultation with the British Home Office. Under the auspices of this program,
BT blocks Web sites that the nonprofit Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) declares as
hosting images of child abuse. When individuals attempt to access Web sites on IWF’s
list, they receive an error message. 29 If the Web sites are hosted within the United
Kingdom, the ISP is required to take down the offending material. Cleanfeed’s success
has inspired imitators: in 2008, the ISP Brightview began offering a filtering device,
WebMinder, free to other service providers. Today, some 90 percent of broadband subscribers in the United Kingdom have filtering programs of one form or another. 30
Other countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Italy, have implemented
similar programs, though not without controversy. 31 Finland’s pilot program received
negative attention early on when the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation, which
prepares the list of Web sites to be filtered, included lapisporno.info—a Web site discussing the issue of Internet censorship—on the list. A 2005 effort by German search
engines to delist harmful content providers came under criticism when the search
engines refused to say which Web sites were being removed. 32
In December 2008, the Romanian Regulatory Authority for Communications and
Information Technology on the basis of Law No. 196/2003 ordered ISPs to block access
to 40 Web sites containing illegal material. If an ISP does not execute such a blocking
order within 48 hours, it may be fined between ROL 100,000 and ROL 500,000,000
(from USD 41,400 to USD 207 million). 33 The block list 34 contained mainly pornographic Web sites, although reportedly a well-known user-generated video-sharing site
was also included. 35 The Romanian Regulatory Authority can compel ISPs to block
access to any Web site that does not comply with the provisions of the law stating
that pornographic Web sites have to be officially authorized, password protected, and
charged for at a per-minute rate (determined by the site’s operator). 36 The authority
is not required by the legislation to give an appropriate waiting period to Web site
owners to comply with these legal requirements; instead, it can immediately order
ISPs to block access.
Despite criticism, individual countries’ efforts at stopping child pornography
have met with remarkable success. In 2006, the U.K. Child Exploitation and Online
Europe Overview
283
order, which is not guaranteed by the law at this stage.
Social Filtering
On issues of child pornography, European nations have worked well together to block
offending content, often recruiting private companies to help them in their cause.
However, on other social issues, such as gambling, states have been less effective in
controlling content, either individually or in coordination with each other.
The landmark model of large-scale voluntary ISP filtering in Europe originated in the
United Kingdom. Britain’s largest ISP, BT, launched Project Cleanfeed in June 2004, 28
in consultation with the British Home Office. Under the auspices of this program,
BT blocks Web sites that the nonprofit Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) declares as
hosting images of child abuse. When individuals attempt to access Web sites on IWF’s
list, they receive an error message. 29 If the Web sites are hosted within the United
Kingdom, the ISP is required to take down the offending material. Cleanfeed’s success
has inspired imitators: in 2008, the ISP Brightview began offering a filtering device,
WebMinder, free to other service providers. Today, some 90 percent of broadband subscribers in the United Kingdom have filtering programs of one form or another. 30
Other countries, such as Norway, Sweden, Denmark, and Italy, have implemented
similar programs, though not without controversy. 31 Finland’s pilot program received
negative attention early on when the Finnish National Bureau of Investigation, which
prepares the list of Web sites to be filtered, included lapisporno.info—a Web site discussing the issue of Internet censorship—on the list. A 2005 effort by German search
engines to delist harmful content providers came under criticism when the search
engines refused to say which Web sites were being removed. 32
In December 2008, the Romanian Regulatory Authority for Communications and
Information Technology on the basis of Law No. 196/2003 ordered ISPs to block access
to 40 Web sites containing illegal material. If an ISP does not execute such a blocking
order within 48 hours, it may be fined between ROL 100,000 and ROL 500,000,000
(from USD 41,400 to USD 207 million). 33 The block list 34 contained mainly pornographic Web sites, although reportedly a well-known user-generated video-sharing site
was also included. 35 The Romanian Regulatory Authority can compel ISPs to block
access to any Web site that does not comply with the provisions of the law stating
that pornographic Web sites have to be officially authorized, password protected, and
charged for at a per-minute rate (determined by the site’s operator). 36 The authority
is not required by the legislation to give an appropriate waiting period to Web site
owners to comply with these legal requirements; instead, it can immediately order
ISPs to block access.
Despite criticism, individual countries’ efforts at stopping child pornography
have met with remarkable success. In 2006, the U.K. Child Exploitation and Online
Europe Overview
283