cleanfeed and wikipedia

[Ian Batten]

On 9 Dec 2008, at 16:53, Roland Perry <lists@internetpolicyagency.com> =20=

wrote:

> In article <FC65AEC4-E611-4956-9F77-AC840CD6A7AD@batten.eu.org>, Ian =20=

> Batten <igb@batten.eu.org> writes
>> The problem with the IWF as it stands is that it appears that it =20
>> assumes the risk appetite of both the ISPs and their customers is =20
>> zero. `potentially' illegal, at the test of `might trigger' could =20
>> cover all sorts of things which people would be perfectly happy to =20=

>> take a chance on in exchange for being able to edit Wikipedia.
>
> Traditionally the majority of infringers the IWF (and courts) deal =20
> with are "private collectors", or the suppliers are "pay per view" =20
> closed sites. Maybe that's why there's such a rumpus at the moment, =20=

> on account of straying into the public publishing arena.

precisely. either the iwf have been playing in this space undetected, =20=

or this marks the beginning of a move into this space because public =20
web access to child porn (as opposed to p2p and im and so on) is a =20
small and nearly solved problem.

>>
>
> It's reasonable to assume that the collectors rapidly migrate to the =20=

> worse material, once they've managed to find out how to get any of it.

aside from the gateway drug argument being unproven, do we think users =20=

of wikipedia are now scouring it for more illegal porn?  an obscure =20
site like wikipedia was of course only known amongst child porn =20
enthusiasts via secret networks.

>
>>
>
> There's a threshold that's fairly well known in the "trade", which a =20=

> collector will need to exceed before coming to serious attention. =20
> Just as the police will be reluctant to start a fraud case for less =20=

> than (say) =C2=A35,000. That's one reason why I raised a question over =
th=20
> e risk of having just one photo, back at the start of this long thre=20=

> ad.


which is another sign of how odd this case is.

ian
>
>