Following the the IWF-Wikipedia fracas for the last week or so, will there be any lasting changes to internet censorship in the UK?  I hope so.

Until the IWF saw to it that UK access to editing Wikipedia pages was prevented, I doubt that UK broadband customers were aware their internet service was subject to censorship.  The revelations surrounding the banning of the Scorpions LP sleeve Virgin Killer pushed the activities of the IWF into the public spotlight for the first time, and will perhaps precipitate a change into their operations.

So, is a belief in Santa Claus (he of the Coca-Cola-inspired red outfit) any less resonable than a belief in God (any God)?  The Unreasonable Faith blog thinks not:

BT and Phorm have recently concluded their latest trial of the vile WebWise deep packet inspection system, in which they propose to ride roughshod over privacy and copyright concerns to make money targeting adverts at ISP subscribers.  Interestingly this trial was proposed to involve 10,000 customers, and take  two weeks.  In fact, BT refuse to reveal how many participants there were, took two and a half months over the trial, and in their press release say:

RNS Number : 0686K Phorm Inc 15 December 2008

The UK Consumer advocacy group Which? has filed a complaint with the Solicitors Regulatory Authority about the activities of UK legal firm Davenport Lyons, who have been sending threatening letters to individuals accused of illegally downloading movies and games.

This is welcome news, as in many cases individuals appear to be wrongly accused, and the overall strategy appears to be to obtain a users ID from the ISP (based upon logged IP addresses) and to pitch the demand at a level below that which would justify paying for legal advice and above that which would just be ignored by the recipient.  In most cases this is around £500.  The internet is full of postings from outraged internet users, many claiming innocence.  Furthermore, it's clear from online news reports that whatever method Davenport Lyons' technical advisers are using to identify downloaders is rather suspect - not least because most domestic broadbad users have dynamic IP addresses. One example is that of an elederly couple accused by Davenport Lyons of downloading a hardcore gay porn movie.  It seems likely that in many cases, the accusation arises from unsecured wireless networks.

After the Home Secretary announced that the Intercept Modernisation Programme (IMP) was not going to be included in the Queen's Speech, but that it was to be the subject of a public consultation, the Home Office has replied to the Open Rights Group's August 2008 FOI request  for information about the proposed scheme for spying into all our communications. 

Well, unsurprisingly, they have clammed up almost entirely.  The pdf response is here; the ORG article is here; one of the documents supplied is here.  Of course, any political moves with any kind of claim to be associated with national security can probably claim to be exempt from the FOI act.  It's to be hoped that the ORG will continue chasing the information in the run upto the publict consultation exercise our increasingly authoritarian Home Secretary will actually emark on in the New Year.

The IWF, those self-appointed and unregulated guardians of our morality have backed down over listing the Wikipedia page on the Scorpions album Virgin Killer.  You can read their statement here, and how ungracious and unapolgetic they are too.

I imagine they are a bit upset that their surreptitious filtering activities got thrust suddenly into the public view (including a major item on Channel 4 news).   From the notes appended to the statment:

 Here's a demo film from 1968 showing one of the first computer mice...I love the peculiar combined keyboard/mouse pad that resembles an airline meal tray.

[video:http://uk.youtube.com/watch?v=1MPJZ6M52dI&feature=related 425x344] 

So, who watches the Internet Watch Foundation watchmen?  Wikipedia entry "Quis custodiet ipsos custodes?".

A ZDnet article says "Wind up the Internet Watch Foundation"...

Very sad news- Oliver Postgate, the man responsible for many remarkably excellent childrens' TV shows has died.  There's a concise biography at wikipedia.

My particular favorite show was Noggin the Nog, but I expect many of us of a certain age will feel nostalgic over one or more of his TV shows.  He'll be missed.

The Open Rights Group has a well written article on the IWF fracas on banning the Scorpions LP sleeve image.  However, despite a report on the ORG site saying that the IWF is reconsidering it's listing of that Wikipedia URL, the Guardian reports that the IWF are thinking of extending its attempt to stop us seeing this ancient LP sleeve image via amazon.com.  Hitherto, some commentators had reckoned the IWF wouldn't go after websites with serious legal muscle, such as Amazon.

Interesting things:

• While we know the IWF membership, it's not any kind of body accountable to us or the Government.
• This issue has highlighted the existence of the IWF, which I guess many internet users didn't know if before.
• The list of banned URLs doesn't seem readily available.
  
• URLs containing dodgy material are submitted by members of the public.
• Apparently the decision to list a URL for banning is made by four indivuduals whose job it is to sift through submitted URLs.
• The criterion is "potentially" illegal, as defined by some training these four received from the police.
  
• ISPs blocking the wikipedia page via the IWF list inapprpriately serve up a 404 notice - from Wikipedia: "The 404 or Not Found error message is an HTTP standard response code indicating that the client was able to communicate with the server but either the server could not find what was requested, or it was configured not to fulfill the request and did not reveal the reason why. 404 errors should not be confused with "server not found" or similar errors, in which a connection to the destination server could not be made at all."

The IWF seem entirely unrepentant, and the spread of the LP sleeve image has probably spread round the internet as a consequence.  Try this Google Image search.  But don't click the link if you're likely to be upset!