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

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

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:

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.

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.

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

There's a rather depressing article in Ars Technica (UK ISPs playing Grinch with P2P throttling, surf data, video?)about ISP attitudes to the service they provide (or not) in the UK.  AT focusses on  three areas in which the ISPs want to maximise their profits, in some cases by restricting costs (throttling P2P services), selling our data (by deep packet inspection, such as the vile Phorm system), and by demanding payments from broadcasters such as the BBC (because they have the temerity to introduce a very popular service such as iPlayer).

I'm not a BitTorrent user, but I feel rather anxious that a legal application like BitTorrent, which can of course be used for entirely legal activities such as legal downloading of videos, games, and software can be throttled back on the basis (or rather the explanation used to deflect criticism) that some people abuse it for illegal activities.  Of course this is a bit weasly, the real situation is that the ISPs have pitched their services at a price that doesn't cover the bandwidth people use.  Their solution seems to be to throttle back P2P services under the guise of copyright protection.

The Register reports that a senior Vodafone network architect has be recruited by the Home Secretary to draw up proposals for the Interception Modernisation Program (IMP).

Tim Hayward, erstwhile senior programme manager at the UK's second largest mobile operator, was appointed IMP director in August. While at Vodafone he was responsible for 3G network architecture, according to careers information posted on the web.

Hot on the heels of the good news that the European Court of Human Rights has ruled that DNA fingerprint records of individuals that were not convicted may not be retained in police (or other) databases, comes less welcome news of the developing Surveillance State.

The Independent reports that the Government is to push through legislation to permit a variety of public bodies to share and exchange sensitive data they hold on us.

A group of contributors to the nodpi.org website braved the vile elements in Manchester to hand out leaflets outside the "Privacy by Design" meeting, to highlight issues surrounding the vile Phorm and BT's implementation BT Webwise.  Here is their report.

Back on 11th October, the Open Rights Group (together with a number of other concerned organisations) held a protest in Parliament Square to publicise the growing surveillance we are all subjected to.  A large mosaic constructed from images of CCTV installations was assembled.  The image (below) has been released under a Creative Commons licence.  A bigger version is available. 

From the ORG "The Big Picture" wiki:

The Register reports latest developments in the Australian Government's ambitions to censor all internet traffic.  Originating as some misguided initiative to "protect the children" (whatever happened to parental responsibility?), it now appears that Australian internet users are likely to face a situation where they must choose from one of two censored streams.  Opting out of the "child-friendly" stream (which blocks a wide range of supposedly harmful content), merely subjects the user to an adult filter that blocks material deemed by the government to be inappropriate for adults.

Is this patronising and paternalistic system the future of the internet?  Or has it the potential to lead to unreasonable censorship?

The Register reports that the anti ID card campaigners No2ID have succeeded in their long standing aim to obtain samples of Home Secretary Jacqui Smith's fingerprints.

Hot on the heels of announcing plans for draconian new communications monitoring Smith is taking forward the batty ID card agenda (first victims: overseas people, second victims: airport workers).  Now it seems a glass bearing her dabs has been "borrowed" and those precious prints preserved, presumably for some nefarious purpose.

Some excellent news - another astonishing attempt to encroach on our civil liberties has been defeated in the House of Lords - by a majority of 191 votes. This debate has been somewhat overshadowed by the global financial turmoil.

Home Secretary Jacqui Smith is planning to implement even more draconian snooping powers that previously reported, according to a report in the Telegraph. 

In an astonishing non sequitur, Smith is quoted as saying that communications data of the sort which helped convict Soham killer Ian Huntley and the 21/7 bombers was not at present being routinely stored, and needed to be if terrorists and serious criminals were to be prevented from striking.   So what Smith appears to be saying is that phone call evidence of the type that was used to convict people after committing a crime could be used to collar them before committing a crime.  Now here we have a distinct sense of thoughtcrime. 

Recent political developments in the UK seem to be directed towards a loss of individual privacy and liberty, bandied about as politicians seek to be viewed as having the "hardest policies on terror".  Currently newsworthy topics are the drive of the Government to have a 42 day detention period without charge for terrorism suspects (fortunately thrown out by the House of Lords) and the move to greater communications surveillance, the latest plans for which appear to be a fit of pique from the Home Secretary in response to her detention plans being thwarted.  Jacqui Smith's opinions on personal freedom and liberty seem so far removed from common decency and the democratic ideal that one wonders why she is thought fit to hold public office, let alone one of the highest ministerial positions in the country.

The human rights organisation Liberty says:

The BBC reports that measures to prevent undesirables gaining access to the UK are to be strengthened, under measures to be introduced by our not-so-libertarian Home Secretary.

At least the plan is to announce who's on the the list of over 230 individuals considered to be a threat to the UK.   The measures  are as follows:

The BBC are reporting that an initiative to curb drug use in Aberdeen will test pub-goers for drug use.  It's a relatively non-invasive test involving hand swabs.  Te odd thing about this is the way the test is being carried out.

People are tested when entering pubs and clubs: the test is apparently not compulsory, but those declining to be tested will be refused entry.  An unusual definition of "not compulsory", that!  So, let me get this right.  I could be lawfully going about my business, and wish to visit a pub for a beer.  I can be stopped for drug testing, and on declining to be tested will be refused entry.

Further evidence of abuse of the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act (RIPA) is reported by the Daily Telegraph (1/11/08).  Their investigation involved FOI requests to councils: over half of them are using RIPA powers for such trivia as monitoring abuse of refuse collection, littering and fly-tipping.

This is far from the first such occasion: earlier this year, Poole Borough Council spied on a family to check if they live in a school catchment area.  (BBC News 10/4/08), and Bury Metropolitan Council spied on their binmen to catch them over-enthusiastically collecting refuse (The Register 10/9/08) -an action that cost the council a £100,000 settlement - three days before the case was due to go to trial.

Back at the end of 2007, Privacy International published this map of world surveillance societies. The full report is here.  Each country is rated on a number of categories, and the results pooled to give an overall rating.  The dear old United Kingdom doesn't come out of the analysis too well.