IWF changes its mind

[Ian Batten]

> Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals =20
> Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved =20=

> in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that =20
> the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of =20=

> Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December =20
> 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved =20
> in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image =20=

> has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken =20
> to remove this webpage from our list.


So their appeals process _didn't_ trigger the removal of the page from =20=

the blocklist.  The appeal process was used and resulted in =20
confirmation that the picture is potentially illegal.  In passing, I =20
somewhat doubt it _was_ run quite as written (below), because I find =20
it hard to believe you can get an opinion from the police in something =20=

as potentially messy as this in 24 hours.  But the process is so =20
ambiguous (in the second paragraph you only refer to CEOP or =20
equivalent if the Hotline Manager was party to the original decision, =20=

and then in subsection (a) --- the only subsection --- of the third =20
paragraph you refer it to CEOP or equivalent anyway) that it's not =20
clear if the police were involved.

But given the judgement of the appeals process confirmed the view of =20
potential illegality, that should be an end of it: the block should be =20=

confirmed.  But in fact, the IWF Board has overridden its own =20
processes and given its imprimatur to something judged illegal, both =20
initially and on appeal.   It would be interesting to know the =20
governance structure for that.   What's the basis for the IWF issuing =20=

``illegal, but not blocked'' as a status?

ian

> =95
> The matter will be referred to a relevant member of the senior =20
> management team and the Hotline Manager, who is personally =20
> responsible for invoking and complying with the reassessment process.
> =95  The relevant member of the senior management team will record the =
=20
> complaint and delegate the reassessment to the Hotline Manager =20
> providing the Hotline Manager wasn=92t party to the original decision. =
=20
> If that were the case then the relevant member of the senior =20
> management team will arrange the reassessment process by the Child =20
> Exploitation and Online Protection Team (CEOP) or the Paedophile =20
> Unit of the Metropolitan Police.
> =95 The Hotline Manager will revisit the website and reassess the =20
> content at that time and take into account any evidence retained =20
> from the original assessment and decision making process against the =20=

> relevant legislation.
> a.  IWF will also refer the appeal to the Child Exploitation and =20
> Online Protection Team (CEOP) or the Paedophile Unit of the =20
> Metropolitan Police, for an independent assessment.
> =95 If, after due consideration by all involved, the material is still =
=20
> considered to be in breach of the relevant legislation the =20
> complainant will be informed accordingly.
> =95 If the content is no longer considered to breach the relevant =20
> legislation the URL will be removed from the Service list and all =20
> subscribing organisations will be notified of its withdrawal.
> =95 If the complainant appeals against the reassessment decision the =20=

> assessment on whether the content is potentially illegal according =20
> to the relevant UK legislation made by senior managers in CEOP or =20
> the Metropolitan Police will be final.