The activities, alleged activities, and destiny of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) are a constant source of controversy in these parts, so our interest was naturally piqued by a Parliamentary question from the shadow security minister Baroness Neville-Jones last week.

In a written question, she asked her government counterpart Lord West "why the Internet Watch Foundation's list enables internet service providers to block child sexual abuse images if they are hosted abroad but does not enable them to block websites hosted abroad promoting violent extremism and terrorism."

Well, according to according to Conservative HQ, maybe. The question was part of ongoing policy research into the IWF, it said. "We're looking at everything," a spokeswoman added, declining to comment further.

Creeping censorship has always been feared by the IWF's critics, who point to its lack of transparency as evidence of sinister intent.

The IWF was set up by the internet industry in 1996 amid fears of regulations being imposed from Westminster. It censors child abuse material by curating a secret blacklist of URLs, fed by reports from the public, law enforcement and international agencies.

The technical implementations of the list can be easily circumvented by determined paedophiles. Several smaller ISPs have declined to filter their customers' connections, arguing that obscuring disturbing corners of the web does not affect the trade in child abuse material. Child protection charities counter that their research indicates merely stumbling across such sites can trigger a descent into perversion.

An "anti-terror" blacklist is likely to prove even more controversial. While most people would rather not even think about paedophilia, fanatical political and moral opinions are relatively common.

So, are the Tories really incubating plans to expand the IWF's remit to terrorism? Technically, it would be simple: Europol, the EU's police cooperation agency, curates a list of Islamic extremist sites under the auspices of a project called Check the Web.

Or are Conservative policy researchers just firing off aimless questions? Only time will tell. ®

Related stories

• IWF takes 'pragmatic' stance on level one images (10 September 2009)
• UK teens bullied into sending sex texts (4 August 2009)
• New Zealand set to join internet blocking club (15 July 2009)
• Written material saved from censor's big black pen - for now (10 July 2009)
• Opinion Ukraine slaps ban on all porn (7 July 2009)
• ITU calls for cooperation in keeping kids safe online (18 June 2009)
• IWF: Child abuse domains down, reports up (29 April 2009)
• IWF denies wielding Pirate Bay banhammer (21 April 2009)
• UK.gov to get power to force ISPs to block child porn (2 April 2009)
• Small ISPs reject call to filter out child abuse sites (25 February 2009)
• The IWF: Charity disparity? (20 February 2009)
• Jacqui's jihad on web extremism flops (13 February 2009)