Controlling Access to

Indecent Images:
Mediated Internet Communications

Professor Ian Walden

Centre for Commercial Law Studies, Queen Mary, University of London
Vice-chair, Internet Watch Foundation
 Introductory remarks
iccl@ccls.edu

● Filtering communications & law enforcement

– As crime prevention (blocking)
● From virus scanning to child sexual abuse images
– As criminal investigation (monitoring)
● Monitoring content & traffic data
● Interference with rights
– Freedom of expression & censorship
● Impartation & receipt
– Privacy
● Case study: Internet Watch Foundation (IWF)
 IWF
iccl@ccls.edu

● Self-regulatory (charitable status)

– Over 80 member companies (since 1996)
● Remit
– Child sexual abuse images anywhere in the world
● Pseudo-photographs, tracings (CGI ?)
– Obscene publications in the UK
● Extreme pornography provisions
– Racist (hate speech) material in the UK
● Religious hatred and sexual orientation
● Objectives
– Remove content/availability & support law enforcement?
 Notice & Take Down
iccl@ccls.edu

● ‘Hotline’ reporting service

– Analysis & investigation of source/location
● Domestic content - notification to ISP ‘host’
– From 18% to < 1%
● Foreign content
– Mainly located in the US
– INHOPE Network
● Over 30 members
– Law enforcement agencies
● e.g. US FTC action against Pricewert LLC (June 2009)
– But not (currently) foreign hosts
 Blocking access
iccl@ccls.edu

● Filtering database – ‘the CAIC list’

– URLs for child sexual abuse images
– Taken by ISPs & search engines, e.g. BT’s ‘Cleanfeed’
● 95% of domestic internet access service providers
– Government threat of mandation
– Children’s Charities Coalition On Internet Safety, Digital Manifesto
– EU proposal for a framework decision (March 2009), art. 18
● Filtering web-based traffic, not P2P & other services
● Deterrent, not a policing tool
– Target population: inadvertent & casual users
● Investigate creator/distributors or remove content?
– Take-down times
 Other initiatives
iccl@ccls.edu

● Domain names
– Registries & registrars
● 75% of commercial child sexual abuse domains are linked to
just 10 Registries/ Registrars
● Payment providers
– Commercial ‘pay-per-view’ & organised crime
● IWF 2008 Annual Report: 3000 sites
● Pre-paid credit cards
– European Financial Coalition
● Combating the commercial distribution of child abuse
 Data integrity
iccl@ccls.edu

● Source
– Reports received
– Internal investigations
● Determination of potential criminal illegality
– Law enforcement trained (e.g. CEOP)
● Court endorsed 5-level categorisation
● Indecent v obscene material
● Accuracy
– Minimising collateral intrusion
● Wikipedia incident (December 2008)
– Text & image data
– Communication attributes
 Transparency
iccl@ccls.edu

● User notification
– Prior notice
● Data protection obligations
– e.g. The Telecommunications (Lawful Business Practice)
(Interception of Communications) Regulations 2000
● Publish scheme FAQ & list of participants
– Splash pages
● http://404 (technical error) or http://403 (prohibited page)
● List appeal mechanism
– e.g. Wikipedia incident (Scorpions album cover)
● contextual considerations
 Accountability
iccl@ccls.edu

● Independent board
– Majority non-industry representatives
● e.g. child protection, legal
– External oversight
● Periodic independent reviews
● Public function/authority?
– Judicial review, subject to FOI laws
– Public law enforcement activity?
● Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre (CEOP)
– Democratic mandate
● ‘prescribed by law’
iccl@ccls.edu

Concluding remarks