FITUG e.V.

Förderverein Informationstechnik und Gesellschaft

NEWSGROUPS - An Internet Watch Foundation discussion paper

http://www.iwf.org.uk/about/newsgroups.htm


NEWSGROUPS

An Internet Watch Foundation discussion paper

INTRODUCTION

1. This discussion paper:

explains what newsgroups are and how they operate explains the current role and policy of the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) in relation to newsgroups sets out the arguments in favour of a change of IWF policy sets out the arguments against a change in the policy invites interested organisations and individuals to submit views on this paper by 31 January 2001.

[...]

WHAT IS THE CASE FOR REMOVING SELECTED NEWSGROUPS?

26. Three arguments could be advanced in favour of the IWF advising ISPs to remove customer access to those few newsgroups known to contain the overwhelming majority of the child pornography on Usenet newsgroups.

27. First, it is already accepted that there is a legal liability on ISPs not knowingly to host child pornography. Now that it is known which newsgroups regularly, even consistently, contain content that it is illegal to possess, these groups should be dropped by ISPs.

28. For a variety of reasons, different ISPs already carry different ranges of newsgroups and therefore already many ISPs are not carrying the problematic groups. Furthermore newsgroup users have a wide range of suppliers to provide links to newsgroups. Therefore all UK ISPs should cease hosting those groups known to account for the most frequent instances of child pornography.

29. BUT: Hosting such groups is not knowingly hosting child pornography because ISPs remove illegal items when the existence of such material is drawn to their attention. The majority of the items in any given group is not illegal. Therefore there should be no need to advise all UK ISPs not to carry these groups.

30. Second, the removal of a few selected newsgroups could - almost literally overnight - reduce significantly the size of the newsgroup problem.

31. For instance, the research from August 1999 would seem to indicate that, if all ISPs ceased carrying the 'worst' three newsgroups, over three-quarters of the illegal material reported to the IWF would be removed. This would be a significant step in combating child pornography on the UK Internet.

32. BUT: On the most favourable scenario - that is, assuming no displacement of the illegal material to other newsgroups - a quarter of the problematic material would still be available in other newsgroups. At the moment, there seems no way to avoid that. This approach begs the question of how many groups should not be carried and how any particular figure would be justified.

33. Third, the absence of such newsgroups on UK servers could substantially reduce the future costs of operation of the IWF and allow more resources to be devoted to education and awareness, which is increasingly recognised as the most effective way to protect children from dangers on the Internet.

34. If such groups continue to be readily available from UK servers, under its present policies the IWF will have to intensify its reviewing of such groups in order to notify ISPs of illegal content in them on a daily basis. This would require continued growth of staff and expenditure to keep pace with the traffic, and a seven-day operation. It will then be more difficult to allocate additional resources to its education and awareness role.

35. BUT: In practice, the workload of the IWF would be unlikely to change significantly for four reasons. Firstly, because the problematic newsgroups continually change and the IWF would need to continue monitoring the relevant groups to maintain up-to-date advice to ISPs. Secondly, because about three-quarters of the reports made to the IWF prove to be legal material and these reports would still be made. Thirdly, because nearly a quarter of the illegal material would not be in the removed groups. One estimate is that, at best, the absence of the three 'worst' newsgroups from UK servers would perhaps reduce the IWF workload by around one-fifth. Fourthly, because a reduced hotline operation would probably threaten the funding of the IWF since ISPs originally established the organisation precisely to run such an operation.

WHAT IS THE CASE AGAINST SUCH REMOVAL OF NEWSGROUPS?

36. Five arguments can be put forward in opposition to the removal of the relevant newsgroups.

37. First, any such removal simply would not work. Indeed it would be counter-productive because it would simply lead to the posters of the offending material migrating to other newsgroups.

38. The experience of newsgroup activity is that material will always find a forum. If the original newsgroup is no longer available, a new one will be found or created and we will be dealing with a constantly moving target.

39. There is already evidence of organised migration of material in response to specific perceived threats of infiltration and sometimes this migration is to another, totally innocent, newsgroup where it is more likely to be accessed unwittingly by legitimate users of that newsgroup.

40. BUT: The fight against child pornography on the Internet will never be over and, if material migrates, it will have to be tracked down and removed from its new 'home'. The target may move, but it can and should be followed.

41. Second, it is wrong for ISPs to remove newsgroups that have a clear majority of perfectly legal content.

42. In any circumstances, the removal of newsgroups that contained legal material would be a denial of free speech, but to do so when it is known that the legal material is a very large proportion of the total content raises serious civil liberty issues.

43. While it is possible for people to post in other newsgroups, such postings would be "off-topic" and so against the Usenet culture. And, of course, nothing stops the child pornographers following them. So far the groups containing the material are "marginal", but they could just as easily be "mainstream" and therefore more accessible to the generality of readers.

44. BUT: There is a body of public opinion which puts a greater emphasis on combating child pornography than on protecting free expression and removal of the relevant newsgroups would be according more weight to that viewpoint.

45. Third, the removal of selected newsgroups would give a false sense of security regarding the scale of the problem and therefore ultimately act to the detriment of efforts to combat child pornography.

46. At present, child pornography in newsgroups is confined to a very small number of groups that are well known and carefully monitored. If these groups are removed, the problem may well move to other, less noticeable or predictable, locations that will be more difficult to trace and deal with.

47. Since the IWF refers all potentially illegal content to the police as well as ISPs, removing certain newsgroups could result in fewer posters being identified and investigated that in turn might lead to fewer prosecutions and convictions. This would make the task of the police harder and could mean more children being abused.

48. BUT: Any apparent sense of security would have to be combated by education and vigilance. It is not the 'visibility' of offenders or the number of prosecutions that matter but the amount of material that is accessible.

49. Fourth, the success of any measures to remove selected newsgroups from UK servers would leave the material on servers in other countries and people could simply download it from there.

50. The Internet and Usenet are global activities and the UK is merely a part, and proportionately a small part, of them. Even if the IWF had complete success in persuading all UK ISPs not to carry certain newsgroups, the same material will reside on news servers all around the world, including commercial servers in the USA.

51. UK users would be able to access these newsgroups from the UK, simply by pointing their newsreader to download from these other servers as well as, or instead of, the server of their own ISP. Indeed, if a user wished to do so, it would be a relatively easy matter technically to arrange an automatic reposting of the relevant material from the non-UK host site to a UK newsgroup - the potential for revenge attacks is obvious.

52. BUT: The concern of the IWF is the content of the UK Internet and the conduct of UK ISPs in this context. If a change of policy in relation to certain newsgroups left the material outside the UK but still accessible from it, the IWF would have done all that it reasonably could to address the problem. If the same material was available to UK readers at locations outside the UK, that would not be the responsibility of the IWF, although the IWF could campaign vigorously in all appropriate non-UK and international forums to persuade others to follow a similar line. We should stake out our position as best we can and urge others to follow.

53. Fifth, if certain newsgroups are to be removed from UK servers, there is the difficult question of deciding which groups should be selected.

54. It has been explained that a small number of newsgroups account for a large proportion of the child pornography identified by the IWF but that, in the case of such newsgroups, the illegal material is normally a small minority of the total content of the group. Therefore, if the IWF was to target certain newsgroups for potential removal, the organisation would have to operate some sort of criteria, such as a certain percentage of illegal content compared to legal content. Any such criteria would be inherently subjective and enormously controversial.

55. If the material migrates to other newsgroups, then the whole question would have to be addressed again and again. Furthermore consideration would have to be given to whether the removal of certain groups was a temporary or permanent matter or whether it would be appropriate to consider periodically the question of reinstatement.

56. BUT: It might be that a small number of newsgroups represent such a large proportion of the illegal material that these groups are in effect self-selecting. Alternatively, if the IWF does change its policy and decide to target certain groups, it could hold a separate consultative exercise on how to select such groups. One could specify a certain percentage of illegal content or a certain number of illegal articles or some combination of these two criteria.

[...]


Zurück