On 5 December 2008, the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), a British watchdog group , blacklisted happy on the English Wikipedia related to the Scorpions’ 1976 studio album Virgin Killer , due to the presence of ict controversial cover artwork , depicting a young girl posing nude , With a false glass shatter obscuring her genitalia. The image was deemed to be “potentially illegal content” under English law which forbids the possession or creation of indecent photographs of children. The IWF’s blacklist are used in web filtering systems Such As cleanfeed .

The URL to the image’s description page , which depicts the cover art, was also blacklisted; But thumbnails and the image. The album cover had been deemed controversial at the time of its release, [1] and was replaced in some markets with an alternate cover image featuring a photo of the band members. [1] The IWF described the image as a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18 “. [2] Wikipedia’s policies that it does not censor content “that some readers consider objectionable or offensive, even exceedingly so”, although it does remove content that is “obviously inappropriate”, violates other Wikipedia policies, Or is illegal in the United States. [3]

As well as live the consequence of censoring the paper and image for UK-based readers of the English Wikipedia through the affected ISPs (a censoring That Could be circumvented), [4] and que la album cover Was being white made available unfiltered one other staff Sites including Amazon.co.uk [2] (from which it was later removed), and available for sale in the UK, [5] the action also had some indirect effects on Wikipedia , namely temporarily preventing all editors using the ISPs in the UK from the encyclopedia, [6] and preventing anonymous edits from these ISPs while the URL remains on the blacklist. This was described by the IWF as unintended “collateral damage”. [7] Wikipedia, Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Wikipedia has an article on: Therefore, all vandalism coming from one ISP would be directed through one proxy-hence one’s IP-and all of the ISP’s customers would use that proxy would be barred from editing.

After invoking its appeals procedure and reviewing the situation, the IWF reversed their blacklisting of the page on 9 December 2008, [8] [9] and announced that they would not blacklist other copies of the hosted image outside the UK. [10]

Background

Further information: Virgin Killer § Cover art

The album art of the Scorpions’ album Virgin Killer , featuring a young girl fully nude with a “smashed glass” effect covering her genitalia, [5] was deemed controversial at the time of its release. [1] The cover was replaced by the band members. RCA Records is the best album in the United States. [11] The cover was not only the Scorpions’ cover which caused controversy however, as the covers for Taken by Force [12] and Lovedrive [1]have also caused controversy with their content.

In the United Kingdom, access to illegal content (such as child pornography ) was strictly self-regulated by individual internet service providers . This Began When BT Group Introduced Cleanfeed , a server-side filtering system qui uses data Obtained from the Internet Watch Foundation . The IWF is a Quango organization that operates a website where users can web pages containing illegal or dubious content to be added to their blacklists. [13] This image is for illustrative purposes only and is not to be construed as constituting an indecent image of a child under the age of 18 for the Protection of Children Act .

Addition to IWF blacklist

On December 5, 2008 the Internet Watch Foundation added the Wikipedia URLs for the Virgin Killer article and the description of the image to its blacklist. [17] After the blacklisting, users of major UK ISPs, Including BT , Vodafone , Virgin Media / Tesco.net , Be / O2 , EasyNet / UK Online / Sky Broadband , Orange , Demon , and TalkTalk (Opal Telecom) Were Unable To access the content. [2]

Sarah Robertson, Director of Communications for the IWF, said that the image was rated “1 on a scale of 1 to 5, where 1 is the least offensive”. She described the picture as “erotic posing with no sexual activity”. [17]While the image itself has not been flagged as “illegal”, IWF determined it to be a “potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18”. [18]

The IWF Said They Were first Enable notifications of the Wikipedia URL on 4 December 2008. This Followed the May 2008 reporting of the cover image is Wikipedia by US-based social conservative website WorldNetDaily to the Federal Bureau of Investigation . A subsequent investigation by the FBI concluded that the artwork did not violate any US laws. [19] An officer of the Concerned Women for America , a conservative Christian advocacy group, commented, “By allowing that image to remain posted, Wikipedia is helping to further facilitate perversion and paedophilia.” [18] [20] EContent magazine, Prior discussions HAS Determined by broad consensus que la Virgin Killer cover will not be removed “, and Asserted That Wikipedia contributors” favor inclusion in all purpose the extreme cases most “. [21] HOWEVER, selon Guardian because” the IWF doesn”t Richard Clayton explained that “we see this borderline stuff all the time; It’s a no-win “, before adding that the decision is made to take the image out of context, particularly” given that you can go into HMV and buy a copy on the high street “. [22] On 9 December 2008 the IWF reversed its blacklist of the Wikipedia pages on the basis of the “contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability”. [10]

Effects on Wikipedia

See also: Cleanfeed (content blocking system) and Proxy server
Users attempted to access the Virgin Killer article or image were pseudo- 404 errors or other messages.

The blacklisting of Virgin Killer also caused other inadvertent issues for Wikipedia users in the United Kingdom. Usually most Internet users have a unique IP address visible to websites. However, as a result of ISPs using the IWF blacklist implemented through Cleanfeed technology, traffic to Wikipedia via those affected ISPs was then routed through a small number of proxy servers . [23] This problem for users of the site. Since Wikipedia allows users to anonymously edit their encyclopaedia articles, these individuals are identified only through their IP addresses, which are used to selectively block users who vandalize the site or otherwise break its rules. The proxy filtering makes it impossible to uniquely distinguish users, And to prevent vandalism Wikipedia, “which accounts for 95% of British residential Internet users”. [24] This Had the immediate effect of Requiring Nearly all registered users in the UK to request the lifting of IP Autoblocks on Their accounts Before They Could edit again, and permanent de facto the effect of barring Any contribution from people without user accounts on the Site , who contribute merely under an IP address and not a user name.

The MediaWiki software That Wikipedia runs on can interpret X-Forwarded-For (XFF) headers, Allowing Wikipedia to Identify a user’s hand IP Address Rather than the proxy IP address, Allowing the Ability to proxy block users Individually by customer Their’s IP Rather than the Proxy server IP (avoiding the need to block the whole proxy due to the actions of a single user). [23] However, none of the ISPs subscribing to this system pass XFF information to Wikipedia, having the impact of reversing the normal method of identification and blocking on Wikipedia. [25] IP addresses assumed to be assigned to an individual person or organization were assigned instead to registered editors.

Due to erroneous use of Border Gateway Protocol (BGP) and other routing technology to redirect the connections to the filtering proxies, users of some networks were temporarily prevented from accessing or editing any content hosted by Wikimedia, a problem reminiscent of Pakistan’s accidental blocking of YouTube For much of the world instead of only their own citizens. [27]

Responses

On 7 December 2008, the Wikimedia Foundation , a non-profit organization which supports Wikipedia, issued a press release about the blacklisting of their sites by the IWF stating that they had “no reason to believe the article, or the image contained in the article , Has been held to be illegal in any jurisdiction anywhere in the world, “and noting that the article itself had been blocked. [28]

On 9 December 2008, Jimmy Wales , co-founder of Wikipedia, who holds the “community founder seat” on the Wikimedia Foundation Board of Trustees , told the UK’s Channel 4 News that he had briefly considered legal action. [29] [30] [31] After the block HAD-been removed, Mike Godwin , general counsel for the Wikimedia Foundation, STATED “there is still plenty to be troubled by in the operations of the Internet Watch Foundation and Its blacklist”. [32]

On 9 December 2008, the IWF rescinded the block, [33] [34] [35] [36] [37] issuing the following statement: [10]

[…] the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in The length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.

Aftermath

The incident was commented in some countries implementing or considering to implement Internet filtering or censorship plans. In Australia, Electronic Frontiers Australia vice-chairman Colin Jacobs said that “[the] incident in Britain, in which the country was unable to edit Wikipedia because the country’s Internet Watch Foundation had blacklisted a single image on the site, illustrated the pitfalls Of mandatory ISP filtering “. [38] [39]The Sydney Morning Herald has commented that “Ironically, the banner of the image has only made it visible to the public and the image spreads across sites other than Wikipedia.” An example of the Streisand effect . [24]

At the time of the incident, Amazon was also able to display the image on their website and the IWF stated that it could ” [17] however, Amazon will take the decision to remove the image from their site. [40] In an impact study preparing a bill dealing with cybercrime , the Cabinet of France listed the Virgin Killer block as an example of indiscriminate filtering. [41]

The Electronic Frontier Foundation criticized the IWF’s reasoning: [42]

We agree with their decision, they have no business censoring that article in the first place – the community of Wikipedia editors is if anything the more legitimate, reliable and Grown-up adjudicator of which images are relevant subject matter for an encyclopaedia.

The IWF continues to assert that the image is indeed child porn, and asserts that the image would be blocked if it were a British server. [43]

References

  1. ^ Jump up to:d Berelian, Essi (2003). Buckley, Peter; Buckley Jonathan (eds.), Eds. The Rough Guide to Rock . London: Rough Guides. p. 909. ISBN  1-84353-105-4 .
  2. ^ Jump up to:c Schofield, Jack (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia page censored in the UK for ‘child pornography ‘ ” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 9 December 2008 .
  3. Jump up^ “Wikipedia: What Wikipedia is not” . Wikipedia . 1 November 2014 . Retrieved 6 November 2014 .
  4. Jump up^ Investigation by Several UK based Wikipedians Revealed que la page / image Was still available using Direct Addressing URL parameters, or by using the Wikipedia secure server, as detailed in aninternal debateof the issue at theAdministrator’s Noticeboardat the time
  5. ^ Jump up to:b Johnson, Bobbie (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia falls foul of British censors” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 9 December2008 .
  6. Jump up^ Jennifer LeClaire (8 December 2008). “UK Agency Blocks Wikipedia Image, Editing of Site” . Yahoo News Retrieved 9 December 2008 . On its Web site, Wikipedia says several broad IOSs that cooperate with the IWF subsequently blocked the image, affecting an estimated 95 percent of residential Internet users in the UK … “Due to the way the block was created (via transparent proxies) , Users from the affected ISPs, “ISPs”, “Wikipedia said …” Unfortunately, ISPs are temporarily blocked from editing Wikipedia.Simply viewing the site is not affected, aside from the blocked article and image. ” [ Dead link ]
  7. Jump up^ Raphael G. Satter (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia article blocked in UK over child photo” . The Independent . UK . Retrieved 18 May 2009 . “Jay Walsh, Wikimedia Foundation, said,” It’s a great thing to do. [Sarah Robertson, Internet Watch Foundation] said she could not explain what the other side of the site was. “There should be no collateral damage,” she said.
  8. Jump up^ Arthur, Charles (9 December 2008). “Internet Watch Foundation reconsiders Wikipedia censorship” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  9. Jump up^ “UK Wikipedia Blacklisting Dropped” . IOC. 9 December 2008 . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  10. ^ Jump up to:c “IWF statement regarding Wikipedia webpage” . Internet Watch Foundation. 9 December 2008 . Retrieved 2 August 2011 .
  11. Jump up^ Yasui, Todd. “The Sign of the Scorpions; The West German Metal Meisters’ Force Tour, “Washington Post (30 August 1988).
  12. Jump up^ Syrjälä, Marko. “Interview with Uli Jon Roth” . Metal-rules.com . Retrieved 12 May 2008 .
  13. Jump up^ Bright, Martin (6 June 2004). “BT puts block on child porn sites” . The Observer . UK . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  14. Jump up^ Internet Watch Foundation – R v Bowdenhttp://www.iwf.org.uk/police/page.99.209.htm
  15. Jump up^ “Government sets deadline for universal network-level content blocking”, LINX, 29 May 2006. Retrieved 29 May 2006.
  16. Jump up^ “Govt sets target for blocking child porn sites,” The Register, 18 May 2006. Retrieved 29 May 2006.
  17. ^ Jump up to:c Arthur, Charles (8 December 2008). “Internet Watchdog Consider censoring Amazon US over Scorpions image” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 8 December 2008 .
  18. ^ Jump up to:b Raphael, JR (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia Censorship Sparks Free Speech Debate” . PC World . PC World . Retrieved 17 December 2008 .
  19. Jump up^ Fisher, Frank (9 December 2008). “A nasty sting in the censors’ tail . The Guardian . Retrieved 2 May 2017 .
  20. Jump up^ Schilling, Chelsea (7 May 2008). “FBI investigates ‘Wikipedophilia ‘ ” . WorldNetDaily . Retrieved 9 December2008 .
  21. Jump up^ Dye, Jessica (1 July 2008). “Wikipedia Weighs Information Against Indecency” . EContent . Retrieved 9 December 2008 .
  22. Jump up^ Johnson, Bobbie (9 December 2008). “Wikipedia censor mess ‘has no-win ‘ ” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 9 December2008 .
  23. ^ Jump up to:b Kirk, Jeremy (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia Article Censored in UK for the First Time” . PC World . Retrieved 8 December2008 .
  24. ^ Jump up to:b Moses, Asher (8 December 2008). “Wikipedia added to child pornography blacklist” . The Sydney Morning Herald . Retrieved 8 December 2008 .
  25. Jump up^ Kirk, Jeremy. “Wikipedia Article Censored in UK for the First Time” . PC World . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  26. Jump up^ Hogge, Becky. “IWF censors Wikipedia, chaos ensues” . Open Rights Group . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  27. Jump up^ “Pakistan move knocked out YouTube” . CNN.com (Asia) . Natalie Bookchin (bookchin.net). 25 February 2008. Archived fromthe original on 14 October 2014 . Retrieved 28 May 2014 .
  28. Jump up^ “Censorship of WP in the UK December 2008” (Press release). Wikimedia Foundation . 7 December 2008 . Retrieved 8 December 2008 .
  29. Jump up^ Cohen, Benjamin (9 December 2008). “Wikipedia ‘may challenge’ IWF ban” . London, UK: Channel 4 News . Retrieved 9 December 2008 .
  30. Jump up^ Moss, Alex (9 December 2008). “Wikipedia ‘may challenge’ IWF ban” . Manchester , UK: Sentry Parental Controls . Archived from the original on 11 December 2008 . Retrieved 9 December2008 .
  31. Jump up^ Martin, Nicole (9 December 2008). “Wikipedia founder considers legal action over ban on ‘pornographic’ album cover” . The Daily Telegraph . UK . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  32. Jump up^ “Why IWF’s Wikipedia Reversal Is Not Enough” . Retrieved 14 December 2008 .
  33. Jump up^ “IWF Backtracks On Wikipedia Controversial Image Ban” . ITProPortal.com. 10 December 2008. p. 2. Archived from the original on 14 December 2008 . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  34. Jump up^ Ferguson, Andrew (10 December 2008). “IWF appeals procedure reverses Wikipedia block” . Thinkbroadband . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  35. Jump up^ “IWF lifts Wikipedia ban” . Channel 4 News . Channel 4 News . 9 December 2008 . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  36. Jump up^ “IWF removes Wikipedia website from watch list” . Telecompaper. 10 December 2008 . Retrieved 10 December 2008.
  37. Jump up^ “Wikipedia-ban ongedaan gemaakt” (in Dutch). From Telegraaf . 10 December 2008 . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  38. Jump up^ Moses, Asher (9 December 2008). “Labor plan to censor internet in shreds” . The Sydney Morning Herald . Retrieved 9 December 2008 .
  39. Jump up^ Moses, Asher (10 December 2008). “Aussie plan to censor Web in shreds” . Stuff.co.nz . Retrieved 10 December 2008 .
  40. Jump up^ Arthur, Charles (9 December 2008). “Internet Watch Foundation reconsiders Wikipedia censorship” . The Guardian . UK . Retrieved 10 December 2008 . : “However, I am not aware of the fact that I have not been able to make a decision on this matter.”
  41. Jump up^ “Appendix to the LOPPSI bill” (PDF) . National Assembly . 27 May 2009. p. 12. The recent blocking of the Wikipedia site by the Internet Watch Foundation filter in December 2008 due to the presence of a photo of the album “virgin killer” of the rock band Scorpion was commented As an example of the limits of a filter that does not discriminate. The recent blocking of Wikipedia in England in December 2008 by a filter from the Internet Watch Foundation, because of a photo from the album “virgin killer” by the rock band Scorpions, has been given an example of the effect of an indiscriminate filter.
  42. Jump up^ Internet Censors Must Be Accountable For The Things They Break,, Peter Eckersley, 9 December 2008
  43. Jump up^ Doctorow, Cory. “How to make child-porn blocks safe for the internet”,The Guardian(16 December 2008).

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *