Comments on: Privatized Censorship

By: Blown to Bits: Your Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness after the Digital Explosion

Thu, 25 Mar 2010 02:01:15 +0000

[…] intrepid Chris Soghoian, about whom I have blogged previously, has just released another potential […]

By: Emmanuel Lazaridis

Emmanuel Lazaridis — Sat, 08 Aug 2009 04:06:54 +0000

Given the increasing regulatory and investigative powers of the NCMEC (USA) under federal law, it is no longer clear whether or not the FOIA applies to NCMEC (USA) records. We are about to find out. I am right now bringing a case against the NCMEC (USA) in federal court for access to records under the FOIA and, failing that, for discovery under 28 U.S.C. ¬ß 1782(a).

If anyone wishes to contribute an argument in favor of the notion that NCMEC (USA) records should fall under the FOIA, now is the time to do so. The case is no. 1177 of 2009 in the District of Columbia.

Messages intended for me may be sent to the ncmec.eu secretariat. Please indicate in the caption of your mail that its contents should be forwarded to me. Thank you.

By: Blown to Bits » Blog Archive » When Should the State Have Your Passwords?

Fri, 02 Jan 2009 15:39:06 +0000

[…] have sacrificed his right to privacy. But the category is actually fairly squishy. Recall the way UK censors labeled a ’70s LP album cover as “child pornography,”¬†and the fact that until yesterday a woman could be arrested in Massachusetts for indecent exposure […]

By: Harry Lewis

Harry Lewis — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 21:28:13 +0000

lorrie,
You are right that it makes no sense for the same image to be considered child porn or not, depending on how long it’s been around. But the problem is that there is no way to know what “they” would call child porn (whether “they” are the UK or US group that makes up these lists). Some quite serious people in the 02138 zip code have opined that the Scorpion cover really would qualify as child porn. Another quipped that it was saved from prosecution by being so bad musically that it was never widely circulated. It’s arguably more “lascivious” in its pose than the Nirvana cover you mention, and the child is older. Transparency is needed exactly so there can be public understanding and buy-in.

By: lorrie

lorrie — Wed, 17 Dec 2008 00:49:14 +0000

im not really qualified to comment on any of this but i just wanted to point out that just because an image is older than the laws against it doesnt give it an exemption. child porn is a HUGE issue, and child sex offenders are an even bigger one. personally i wouldnt want to see any changes to the IWF in terms of making it a government agency since that would obviously curtail any progress they are already making, if any. if anything we should be seeking more funding options for organizations like this.
they have only 7 people? just, wow. finding and tagging illegal images has got to be just a little bit challenging for them dont you think? im not sure that they looked “dumb” in doing what they did, in fact putting it back kinda points to an UNbeauricratic mentality yes?
i dont think they would start calling the cover of nirvana’s nevermind child porn since its a little more well known than a 30 yr old scorpian cover. i wouldnt even be able to identify a current scorpian album (are they still around?)
i think (generally) that when it comes to children i couldnt care less about freedom of speech/press/etc. referance NAMBLA……

By: Harry Lewis

Harry Lewis — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 22:30:05 +0000

Do you have any idea what the mechanism was? Was the IWF barraged with complaining emails, or did someone inside the office just read some of the press and decide they’d made a mistake? It’s an unusual bureaucracy that would change its mind because it realized that it looked dumb!

By: Ian Nock

Ian Nock — Wed, 10 Dec 2008 10:50:27 +0000

Wikipedia did not find a way to appeal it, the press buzz generated by the filtering and its impact in so many areas made the IWF look a bit dumb and useless and therefore the IWF just backed down. The fact that the image is available so widely online and off, and has never been marked as illegal before (although it is nasty and tasteless in my view) raised questions about the IWF’s real effectiveness. I firmly believe there will be more challenges in the future because of this as the IWF’s mechanism is not very effective as it covers only whole sites rather than individual elements, as well as the fact that it covers only text and still images. The growth in user generated content and IPTV services across the internet means that similar filtering of video is not happening and is in fact very difficult, as briefly discussed on my other blog at http://blackarrowconsulting.co.uk/blog/2008/12/filtering-breaks-down/. This does not even cover how a seven person team of people at the IWF can effectively determine the filter for the entire Internet of text, images and video!