Internet Watch Foundation

Infobox_Website
name = Internet Watch Foundation
url = http://www.iwf.org.uk/


caption = Detail of IWF's front page at http://www.iwf.org.uk/. The site's layout is composed to emphasize the "Report Illegal Content" button at center screen.
commercial = No
type = Comprehensive information and reporting mechanism
registration = No
owner = Internet Watch Foundation
author = Internet Watch Foundation

The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self-regulated charitable body, the only such recognised organisation in the UK operating an internet ‘Hotline’ for the public and IT professionals to report their exposure to potentially illegal content online. It works in partnership with the police, Government, the public, Internet service providers and the wider online industry. Originally formed to police child pornography online, the IWF's remit was later expanded to cover racist and criminally obscene material.

The IWF is an incorporated charity, limited by guarantee, and is largely funded by voluntary contributions. It is governed by a Board of Trustees which consists of an Independent Chair, six non-industry representatives, and three industry representatives. The Board monitors and reviews IWF’s remit, strategy, policy and budget to enable the IWF to achieve its objectives. The IWF operates from offices in Oakington, near Cambridge.

History

Background

During 1996 the Metropolitan Police told the Internet Service Providers Association that the content carried by some of the newsgroups made available by them was illegal, that they considered the Internet Service Providers (ISPs) involved to be publishers of that material, and that they were therefore breaking the law. In the summer, the police sent all British ISPs a list of 132 newsgroups that they believed contained pornographic material; in reality, many did not.

During the summer and autumn of 1996 the UK police made it known that they were planning to raid an ISP with the aim of launching a test case regarding the publication of obscene material over the Internet. [cite book | last = Barker | first = Martin | authorlink = | coauthors = Julian Petley | title = Ill Effects: The Media/violence Debate | publisher = Routledge | date = 2001 | location = | pages = p. 199 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 0415225124]

Foundation of IWF

Facilitated by the Department of Trade & Industry (DTI), discussions were then held between certain ISPs, the Metropolitan Police, the Home Office, and a body called the "Safety Net Foundation" (formed by the Dawe Charitable Trust). This resulted in the "R3 Safety Net Agreement", where "R3" referred to the triple approach of rating, reporting, and responsibility. In September 1996, this agreement was made between the ISPA, LINX, and the Safety Net Foundation, which was subsequently renamed the Internet Watch Foundation. The Agreement set requirements for associated ISPs regarding identifiability and traceability of Internet users; ISPs had to cooperate with the IWF to identify providers of illegal content and facilitate easier traceability.cite book | last = Koops | first = Bert-Jaap | authorlink = | coauthors = Corien Prins, Hielke Hijmans | title = ICT Law and Internationalisation: A Survey of Government Views | publisher = Kluwer Law International | date = 2000 | location = | pages = pp. 160-161 | url = | doi = | id = | isbn = 9041115056]

Demon Internet was a driving force behind the IWF's creation, and one its employees, Clive Feather, became the IWF's first chairman.cite news | last = Doward | first = Jamie | coauthors = Andrew Smuth | title = Exposed: where child porn lurks on the Net | work = The Guardian | pages = | language = | publisher = | date = 19 March 2000 | url = http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2000/mar/19/jamiedoward.theobserver | accessdate = ]

After 3 years of operation, the IWF's was reviewed for the DTI and the Home Office by consultants KPMG and Denton Hall. Their report was delivered in October 1999 and resulted in a number of changes being made to the role and structure of the organisation, and it was relaunched in early 2000, endorsed by the government and the DTI, which played a "facilitating role in its creation", according to a DTI spokesman.

At the time, Patricia Hewitt, then "Minister for E-Commerce", said: "The Internet Watch Foundation plays a vital role in combating criminal material on the Net." To counter accusations that the IWF was biased in favour of the ISPs, a new independent chairman was appointed, Roger Darlington, former head of research at the Communication Workers Union.

The website

The IWF's website offers a web-based government-endorsed method for reporting suspect online content and remains the only such operation in the United Kingdom. It acts as a relevant authority in accordance with the Memorandum of Understanding concerning Section 46 of the Sexual Offences Act 2003 (meaning that its analysts will not be prosecuted for looking at illegal content in the course of their duties) [ [http://www.opsi.gov.uk/acts/acts2003/30042--b.htm#46 Sexual Offences Act 2003 (c. 42) ] ] . Reports can be submitted anonymously. The IWF aims to minimise the availability of potentially illegal internet content, specifically:

* Child sexual abuse images hosted anywhere in the world
* Criminally obscene content hosted anywhere in the world (under the Obscene Publications Acts)
*Racist content hosted in the UK [ [http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.103.htm Internet Watch Foundation - About the IWF ] ] [http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/blogger-wrote-of-murdering-girls-aloud-949711.html]

However, almost the whole of the IWF site is concerned with child pornography with little mention of the rest of their supposed remit (racial hatred and criminally obscene material).

The IWF states that it works in partnership with UK Government departments such as the Home Office and the Department for Business, Enterprise and Regulatory Reform to influence initiatives and programmes developed to combat online abuse. They are funded by the EU and the online industry. This includes internet service providers, mobile operators and manufacturers, content service providers, telecommunications and filtering companies, search providers and the financial sector as well as blue-chip and other organisations who support the IWF for Corporate Social Responsibility reasons.

Through their "Hotline" reporting system, the organisation helps ISPs to combat abuse of their services through a "notice and take-down" service by alerting them to any potentially illegal content within their remit on their systems and simultaneously invites the police to investigate the publisher.

Despite this content being almost eradicated from UK networks, sexually abusive images of children are still available around the world, so IWF member companies voluntarily block this content for UK internet users by deploying the IWF's dynamic list on their services. Many companies in the online sector have chosen to make use of this service, including ISPs, mobile phone operators, search providers and content filtering companies.

The IWF has connections with the Virtual Global Taskforce, the Serious Organised Crime Agency and the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre.

Cross-border aspects

The IWF passes on notifications of child pornography hosted on non-UK servers to the UK National Criminal Intelligence Service which in turn forwards it to Interpol or the relevant foreign police authority. The IWF does not, however, pass on notifications of other types of illegal content hosted outside the UK. [Koops, p. 161]

Cases

*By monitoring some of the most notorious newsgroups, the IWF was able to alert the police to Leslie Bolingbroke, a prolific distributor of paedophile material who was subsequently jailed in 2000 for four years.

*In summer 2007, a textual fan fiction on the Alt.Sex.Stories Text Repository (ASSTR) online archive was brought to the attention of the IWF, who in turn handed details over to the Police, and on 25 September 2008 it was announced that the author, Darryn Walker, was to be prosecuted for the online publication of material that Police and the Crown Prosecution Service believed was obscene. It was the first such prosecution for written material in nearly two decades, and was expected to have a significant impact on the future regulation of the internet in the UK. [cite web | last = Ozimek | first = John | authorlink = | coauthors = | title = The Obscene Publications Act rides again | work = | publisher = The Register | date = 6 October 2008 | url = http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/10/06/obscene_publication_girls_aloud/| format = | doi = | accessdate = ]

Criticism

Some have questioned how independent the IWF can ever be, given that it is funded almost wholly by ISPs, which would seem to represent a conflict of interest. The government, however, believes that a self-regulatory system is the best solution, and the Metropolitan Police also believe that working with ISPs, rather than trying to force them via legislation, is the way forward.

ee also

*NSPCC
*Virtual Global Taskforce
*Cleanfeed

Notes

External links

* [http://www.iwf.org.uk Internet Watch Foundation]
* [http://www.xuk.biz/UKLR/Landslide/ Operation Ore]
* http://www.rogerdarlington.co.uk/iwf.html
* http://dtiinfo1.dti.gov.uk/safety-net/
* http://www.streamshield.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=62&Itemid=130
* http://www.devon-cornwall.police.uk/v3/crime/online/iwf/
* http://www.warwickshire.police.uk/onlineservices/IWF
* http://www.derbyshire.police.uk/reducingcrime/4.html
* http://www.ispa.org.uk/ispa_awards/categories/iwf.htm
* http://blog.eun.org/insafe/2006/02/uk_the_internet_watch_foundati.html