Brit ISPs censor Wikipedia over 'child porn' album cover

ISP function

I thought that ISP's were to provide access to the Internet not their version. Is this why I get a US flag on theregister.co.uk web pages and several other non US news web sites?

Oddly enough...

I'm on Demon, and can see the image fine. No filtering for me then!

Somewhat bizarrely

While the pages containing information on the album, and image in question are censored, neither the image itself, or the thumbnail are blocked. Viewing the page through google cache which refrains from caching images, renders the page complete, images and all.

If they're going to censor content, the very least they could do is censor the offending content, not just a few arbitrary links to it.

Blocking is pointless

Well I'm on Virgin Media and the page is blocked for me. It's a bit of a sad affair that if this continues we'll no longer be able to contribute to Wikipedia, although I can see this escalating. These kind of situations always turn into a mexican stand-off where the only person that gets hurt is the end-user.

The image is still available for blocked users that happen to browse to the WikiNews page linked to in the article. Goes to show that if you use an enforcement system that relies on just blocking access to a single source it will be available at a different location almost immediately.

Demon

I'm also on Demon, and can see the article and image. However I get "Anonymous editing from your Internet Provider is disabled, please log in." etc if I try and edit the page.

IP forgery

Maybe the people affected by this should complain to their ISPs that they are forging the origin of the page requests. RFC 2616 states (section 14.45) that proxies MUST insert a "Via:" header to indicate the origin of the request to the destination HTTP server. If the ISPs were doing this, then Wikipedia would detect it and there would not be the problem of all then users seeming to come from the same IP address.

Between users and their ISPs

This seems to me to boil down strictly to an issue between certain ISPs and their users. If those ISPs decided to impose censorship (something, remember, for which we are always eager to condemn the Chinese and others) then their users have a remedy - walk. As long as there are ISPs that don't censor, we have a choice.

Wikipedia is right not to take any action. It's not their concern.

Surely kiddie porn is kiddie porn

no matter who publishes it?

What about

Nirvana's Nevermind?

Is this a child abuse image?

I haven't seen the image (nor am I going to deliberately look for it). But the list compiled by the IWF is called the Child Abuse Image list. If the image is merely a naked child then in what way is that abuse?

Wikipedia is hidden commercial

It is just about posting links to your own site then claiming everyone else's is spam :)

Now they are begging for money.

echo "127.0.0.1 www.wikipedia.org" >> /etc/hosts

problem solved.

Visible on BT Connection

The original album cover is visible in the wikipedia page from my BT connection this morning. Which is odd.

Censored on Virgin Media

However, like all filtering it's trivial to get round.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Virgin_Killer&oldid=256388206

Demon not censored

I'm on Demon here too, and just out of interest, clicked your link.

The page appeared in its entirety.

The only thing I was offended by when the page loaded, was the fact that certain ISPs would go to the trouble of censoring it.

Demon not censored (yes it is)

Ah, actually it IS censored on Demon.

The Wiki page appears fine, but clicking on the album cover thumbnail presents

"Access Denied (403)

We have blocked this page because, according to the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), it contains indecent images of children or pointers to them; you could be breaking UK law if you viewed the page.

What To Do

If you were directed to this site by an email or another site, then you should consider reporting the email or site to the Internet Watch Foundation. Visit their web site (http://www.iwf.org.uk) for details about how to do this.

This blocking service is provided solely for the protection of our customers. We have not recorded that you attempted to visit this site, nor will we be taking any further action. You can find more information about the IWF list of URLs to block here: http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.148.htm.

Demon is a brand of THUS plc "

still blocked at Eclipse

Type your comment here — plain text only, no HTML

For fuck's sake!

Are they going to ban the cover of Nevermind then?

NTHell 'accellerator'

NTHell has almost always ran a reverse proxy cache to try and cut down on bandwidth but they never mentioned that this was filtered.

Also I do not see what the problem is with wiki edits - I have never bothered to try and edit anything but I would hope that edits are via https which is not RP'd therefore sees my current dynamic IP - which I can keep or renew by changing the lease data in the dhcp-client cache ;:-)

Finally cachig reverse proxies are pretty common. Wiki designers should expect and allow for them.

Jacqui

p.s. I have noticed that various statsiN freeads servers have recently gone off line fron NTHell but the image links work if you switch to a different 'N'. Another case if IWF madness?

If so what to the IWF have against trailers and lifejackets?

Yes, some common sense

I think all sides here need to keep some perspective.

Wikipedia is not hosting CP; if that image is considered CP, then so is the Pulitzer Prize-winning image of Kim Phuc Phan Thi. Secondly, the image is "available" (in a higher resolution) at the Amazon page for the album, and has been for years. Can you see the IWF adding Amazon to the blacklist? it wouldn't have hurt for the IWF to have contacted the WMF if they had concerns.

But Wikipedians who are crying foul over this also need to calm down just a tad. The IWF is not a right wing or conservative organisation; it is paid to respond to perfectly valid complaints, even if the IWF acted in a heavy-handed manner on this occasion.

Wikipedia administrators, no matter how well meaning, are not going to be the ones to solve this problem. Someone from the WMF needs to contact the IWF to thrash out a way forward.

Quick Workaroud

Go here http://anonymouse.org/anonwww.html and paste http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_Killer for thoese of who whos isp have still blocked you

Sigh...

I'm with Demon, the link in the story works fine, so if it's being filtered, they're not doing a very good job!

However, whilst I agree that there should be very strict laws to provents any form of abuse, nudity in itself isnt a crime, and this reminds me of stories like the newsreader who got arrested for taking pictures of her daughter in the bath etc. A sense of perspective is required, and effort should be put into abuse, not censoring 30 year old album covers

Blue Nosed Responce (as usual)

I may be incorrect, but I believe the picture involved is part of a series by a famous photographer who specialised in pubescent and pre-pubescent girls, and who's collections are available in book form via the British Library!!

Certainly images showing the genitals (this photo doesn't), are included in several photo collections by this photographer, and all of them are kept by our wonderful Library system.

How do I know this?? It was the defence given in a child pornography case a few years ago, why were these images illegal to have on your PC when they were available at the local Library (on request), or to anyone who walked into a major city reference library??

As far as I can tell, the defence of this stupid situation was "because", the fall back answer of any 4-10 y/o!!!

Apparently, if it is wrapped in expensive bindings, on vellum paper and comes complete with descriptions and a philosophy it is "ART"

Wikipedia *is* censored

When discussing whether or not the image should be removed, I think it is silly that Wikipedia admins immediately end the discussion with the mantra "Wikipedia isn't censored."

Wikipedia *is* censored. How can they claim it is not? They will remove content which is illegal in Florida, USA. If that isn't censorship then what is?

I am not saying that the album cover should be removed -- FWIW I don't think it should be -- but that the argument should be about what to censor and why, not whether or not things are censored at all (when they clearly already are if they are illegal in Florida).

Their reasons for censoring content illegal in Florida are clear: Getting the servers taken offline (or forcing them to move countries) would be very damaging to the project. Fair enough. But banning anon edits for half the UK is also damaging, so perhaps the discussion should be about how damaging something should be before it is censored. Or just say "we only care about Florida and don't care about the rest of the world" which would be fine. That's still censorship, though.

re: Surely some common sense?

Yeah, I agree with Jonas. Context has to be taken into account, else every parent in the country is guilty of child pornography for having that silly picture of their toddler taking a bath.

The naked body is not inherently sexual. If this album cover was fine to be displayed in record stores in the 70s, then it's fine to be displayed on Wikipedia today. Are people banning HMV next, because they have Nirvana's Nevermind album cover, with prepubescent todger on display? Of course not, because it's not a sexual image.

I would take issue with Wikipedia if there were actually child porn there. This picture is not sexual in context, and therefore not pornography. So, no wrongdoing, only another warning that there are those in the UK who still think that we're too stupid to make judgements for ourselves and would rather censor any kind of free speech than actually go after the guilty.