47. Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA), Developments in Internet Filtering
Technologies and Other Measures for Promoting Online Safety, 2008, http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/
_assets/main/lib310554/developments_in_internet_filters_1streport.pdf.
48. Save the Children, ‘‘Position Paper on Child Pornography and Internet-Related Sexual Exploitation of Children,’’ 2003, https://www.inhope.org/system/files/stc-pp-cp.pdf.
49. Technical testing by the author as part of a research project on Internet filtering indicates that
ISPs in Canada are blocking access to Web sites hosted in the United States. At this time definitive
conclusions cannot be reached about why these sites are being filtered instead of being removed at
the source. In another case a Dutch blogger found that the Dutch National Police were adding domestically hosted child pornography sites to their block list rather than taking legal action against
the owners. See Karin Spaink, ‘‘Child Pornography: Fight It or Hide It?’’ February 19, 2008,
Spaink.net, http://www.spaink.net/2008/02/19/child-pornography-fight-it-or-hide-it/.
50. INHOPE, ‘‘2007 Global Internet Trend Report: Trends Associated with Illegal Content on the
Internet Based on the Experiences of the INHOPE International Network of Internet Hotlines,’’
2007, https://www.inhope.org/en/system/files/inhope_global_internet_trend_report_v1.0.pdf.
51. It is unclear what actions are taken within the countries found to be hosting such content.
Are international sites forwarded to the relevant domestic hotlines through the INHOPE network?
Are the INHOPE members receiving the content not taking action? In addition, it remains unclear
how reports of action taken (or not taken) are passed back through INHOPE to the organization
that initially reported the content.
52. Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton, ‘‘The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down,’’
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2008, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/
takedown.pdf; Internet Watch Foundation, ‘‘Annual and Charity Report 2006,’’ April 2007,
http://www.iwf.org.uk/documents/20070412_iwf_annual_report_2006_(web).pdf.
53. Ibid.
54. Internet Watch Foundation, ‘‘Annual and Charity Report 2006,’’ April 2007, http://www
.iwf.org.uk/documents/20070412_iwf_annual_report_2006_(web).pdf.
55. Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton, ‘‘The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down,’’
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2008, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/
takedown.pdf.
56. Ibid.
70
Nart Villeneuve
Technologies and Other Measures for Promoting Online Safety, 2008, http://www.acma.gov.au/webwr/
_assets/main/lib310554/developments_in_internet_filters_1streport.pdf.
48. Save the Children, ‘‘Position Paper on Child Pornography and Internet-Related Sexual Exploitation of Children,’’ 2003, https://www.inhope.org/system/files/stc-pp-cp.pdf.
49. Technical testing by the author as part of a research project on Internet filtering indicates that
ISPs in Canada are blocking access to Web sites hosted in the United States. At this time definitive
conclusions cannot be reached about why these sites are being filtered instead of being removed at
the source. In another case a Dutch blogger found that the Dutch National Police were adding domestically hosted child pornography sites to their block list rather than taking legal action against
the owners. See Karin Spaink, ‘‘Child Pornography: Fight It or Hide It?’’ February 19, 2008,
Spaink.net, http://www.spaink.net/2008/02/19/child-pornography-fight-it-or-hide-it/.
50. INHOPE, ‘‘2007 Global Internet Trend Report: Trends Associated with Illegal Content on the
Internet Based on the Experiences of the INHOPE International Network of Internet Hotlines,’’
2007, https://www.inhope.org/en/system/files/inhope_global_internet_trend_report_v1.0.pdf.
51. It is unclear what actions are taken within the countries found to be hosting such content.
Are international sites forwarded to the relevant domestic hotlines through the INHOPE network?
Are the INHOPE members receiving the content not taking action? In addition, it remains unclear
how reports of action taken (or not taken) are passed back through INHOPE to the organization
that initially reported the content.
52. Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton, ‘‘The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down,’’
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2008, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/
takedown.pdf; Internet Watch Foundation, ‘‘Annual and Charity Report 2006,’’ April 2007,
http://www.iwf.org.uk/documents/20070412_iwf_annual_report_2006_(web).pdf.
53. Ibid.
54. Internet Watch Foundation, ‘‘Annual and Charity Report 2006,’’ April 2007, http://www
.iwf.org.uk/documents/20070412_iwf_annual_report_2006_(web).pdf.
55. Tyler Moore and Richard Clayton, ‘‘The Impact of Incentives on Notice and Take-down,’’
Computer Laboratory, University of Cambridge, 2008, http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/
takedown.pdf.
56. Ibid.
70
Nart Villeneuve