(IWF). 33 The implementation of this filtering practice is known as ‘‘CleanFeed.’’ 34 The
IWF, a nonprofit organization based in the U.K. that works with the U.K. government,
compiles a list of Web sites it deems illegal and transmits this information to BT and
other ISPs. 35 The list compiled by the IWF usually contains 800–1,200 unique and
live URLs. 36 In addition to filtering content for child sexual abuse, the IWF also detects
and attempts to take down Web sites hosted in the U.K. that promote racial hatred, 37
which are illegal under the Public Order Act 1986. 38
In 2006, Home Office Minister Vernon Croaker announced that from 2008 onward
he expected that all ISPs would block access to child pornography using a ‘‘CleanFeed’’
style system. 39 The announcement also suggested that if the filtering was not done by
ISPs on a voluntary basis, Parliament would consider legislative enforcement. 40 At that
time, the largest ISPs in Britain, which together provided over 90 percent of all broadband access, all used some sort of filtering system. 41
The U.K. commissioned a report on child safety on the Internet that was released in
March 2008 (the Byron Report). 42 This report recognized that it would not be possible
to remove fully all obscene material from the Internet and that any effective control
would have to be adopted voluntarily by ISPs. 43 It stated that there was a strong
case to block illegal material such as child pornography, though it also recommended
that no attempts be made to filter illegal material at the network level. 44 The U.K. government has agreed to implement all the recommendations contained in the Byron
Report. 45
In December 2008, a number of British ISPs blocked a Wikipedia page displaying an
image of an album cover from 1976 that portrayed a naked teenage girl. The ISPs made
the decision after receiving a warning from the IWF claiming the image may be illegal.
Wikipedia users complained that the ISPs blocked not only the image but the entire
article; they also noted that the ISPs did not apply the block systematically, as access
to commercial sites, such as Amazon.com, that sold the album and displayed its cover
image, was still available. 46 Furthermore, the block temporarily prevented users on the
affected ISPs from editing Wikipedia. 47 Several days after the block was imposed,
the IWF reviewed the case and decided to remove the article from their list of offensive
sites, citing the negative effects of the block and the wide availability of the image on
other sites. 48
United Kingdom law requires that information that glorifies or incites terrorism be
censored. 49 According to section 3 of the Terrorism Act (2006), once provided with a
notice that a Web site may contain terrorism-related content, an ISP may be liable for
the content if it does not take every reasonably expected step to block access to the
content. 50
Filtering technologies such as the ‘‘CleanFeed’’ system are criticized for not publicizing the list of filtered Web sites, which could lead to abuses. 51 In addition, because
360
United Kingdom
IWF, a nonprofit organization based in the U.K. that works with the U.K. government,
compiles a list of Web sites it deems illegal and transmits this information to BT and
other ISPs. 35 The list compiled by the IWF usually contains 800–1,200 unique and
live URLs. 36 In addition to filtering content for child sexual abuse, the IWF also detects
and attempts to take down Web sites hosted in the U.K. that promote racial hatred, 37
which are illegal under the Public Order Act 1986. 38
In 2006, Home Office Minister Vernon Croaker announced that from 2008 onward
he expected that all ISPs would block access to child pornography using a ‘‘CleanFeed’’
style system. 39 The announcement also suggested that if the filtering was not done by
ISPs on a voluntary basis, Parliament would consider legislative enforcement. 40 At that
time, the largest ISPs in Britain, which together provided over 90 percent of all broadband access, all used some sort of filtering system. 41
The U.K. commissioned a report on child safety on the Internet that was released in
March 2008 (the Byron Report). 42 This report recognized that it would not be possible
to remove fully all obscene material from the Internet and that any effective control
would have to be adopted voluntarily by ISPs. 43 It stated that there was a strong
case to block illegal material such as child pornography, though it also recommended
that no attempts be made to filter illegal material at the network level. 44 The U.K. government has agreed to implement all the recommendations contained in the Byron
Report. 45
In December 2008, a number of British ISPs blocked a Wikipedia page displaying an
image of an album cover from 1976 that portrayed a naked teenage girl. The ISPs made
the decision after receiving a warning from the IWF claiming the image may be illegal.
Wikipedia users complained that the ISPs blocked not only the image but the entire
article; they also noted that the ISPs did not apply the block systematically, as access
to commercial sites, such as Amazon.com, that sold the album and displayed its cover
image, was still available. 46 Furthermore, the block temporarily prevented users on the
affected ISPs from editing Wikipedia. 47 Several days after the block was imposed,
the IWF reviewed the case and decided to remove the article from their list of offensive
sites, citing the negative effects of the block and the wide availability of the image on
other sites. 48
United Kingdom law requires that information that glorifies or incites terrorism be
censored. 49 According to section 3 of the Terrorism Act (2006), once provided with a
notice that a Web site may contain terrorism-related content, an ISP may be liable for
the content if it does not take every reasonably expected step to block access to the
content. 50
Filtering technologies such as the ‘‘CleanFeed’’ system are criticized for not publicizing the list of filtered Web sites, which could lead to abuses. 51 In addition, because
360
United Kingdom