Internet Watch Foundation

Author: Tony Fagelman Date: 9^th June 2004

At their meeting on the 18th July 2002 and following legal advice, IWF Board decided that an encrypted version of the child abuse URL section of the IWF database could be made available to subscribing companies to the IWF as part of a membership benefit.

Termed the Child Abuse Images URL service or CAI URL service, this is a dynamic system, up-dated daily as new URL’s are added. For inclusion on the list, the web-site must contain images of child abuse image URLs deemed potentially illegal according to UK law. If the potentially illegal images are on the home page then the entire site is included, if they are only found in specific locations within that site, then only those URL’s containing such content are recorded and added.

The IWF has five highly trained analysts, working full-time viewing and classifying images. The analysts undergo a comprehensive in-house training programme as well as attending a training day with police experts.

The IWF uses the classifying system as stipulated by the Sentencing Advisory Panel. This lists 5 levels of abuse from Level 1, erotically posed children etc. through to Level 5. At least two analysts must confirm that an image is Level 1 before it is added to the database. All reports will include the name of both the analysts involved in such a classification.

The IWF also has a complaints procedure to allow site owners to make representations if they feel they have been wrongly added to the database. If, on receipt of a complaint, a web-site that has been added to the list has subsequently been found not to contain potentially illegal images, then the URL will be removed from the database. If, however, in the expert opinion of the analysts at the IWF, the content is still potentially illegal under UK law, then the URL will remain on the list. The complainant can then make further representations in which case the matter will be referred to POLIT who will further review the web-site concerned and make their judgement. The police judgement is final.

 

There are now three issues that are open to the IWF concerning the commercialisation of the CAI database

1. The potential use of the database information by commercial organisation who could resell it to others

 

2. The use of the information by non-member organisations

 

3. Overseas organisations who wish to offer the list to their clients/users

 

It is the role of the IWF to foster trust and confidence in the internet. It does this by a number of means;

1. by providing a hotline for the public to report content they believe may be illegal;

2. by providing a notice and take-down service to the UK internet companies

3. by assisting subscribing members in filtering potentially illegal content from their client services through the use of the CAI URL service.

 

If the IWF as an organisation believe that it is our role to assist in the provision of a safer internet for all then should we be providing a list of URLs that are considered potentially illegal under UK legislation to any organisation that is seeking to filter those sites for their UK consumers?

 

Do we believe that our list is applicable outside of the UK? If we do and were asked to provide such a list to similar organisations such as INHOPE, then what position should we adopt. Should we offer our list to INHOPE members anyway so they can share the list with their national ISP’s?

 

Should we as an organisation provide the list, free of charge, to any reputable non member organisation that requests it and is willing to sign a legally binding contract on how it uses the information or should we charge such organisations for the list?

Should we license the list to large organisations with large IT infrastructures who wish to avoid internal abuse of their systems by unscrupulous employees? A fee of £5000 per annum, would be considered small change to such companies and would be a large part of their Corporate and Social Responsibility. Additionally, it would be seen as a good thing by the system administrators and IT managers as it would be protecting their teams from potential exposure to such abuse.

 

The flip side of this is whether we should therefore be providing the list free of charge to these companies as part of our role to make the internet a safer place for all users?

 

If we should not be seeking to commercialise our CAI service to companies, should we seek to sell our list instead to the many filtering companies, who would incorporate the information into their existing filtering software and then sell it on as part of their packages. There could be an annual charge for the information, or it could be a charge that a customer of theirs "adds" to their package and we charge per user. This way, the filtering companies sell our protection and we don’t need a sales force.

 

It should be noted that we currently have four filtering companies as members of the IWF, Iomart, Clearswift, NAI and Cyberpatrol.

Should we be selling / making the list available to oversees organisations outside of INHOPE. We have been asked by a number of filtering companies from Australia and the USA if they can purchase/license the list for their use in their filtering software.

 

Finally, Should we make the list available to multi-national internet companies for use in all their territories?

 

We are uniquely placed in that we are the only UK body authorised to view child abuse images and as such we have a monopoly on developing the database.

Is it morally defensible that we should capitalise on this arrangement?

We are solely funded by voluntary subscriptions by all the main industry players.

Another form of income by virtue of licensing or selling the database has the potential to keep subscription rates at their current levels or indeed lead to a reduction in the future.

Would the government as a main stakeholder in IWF affairs support the commercialisation proposition?

Would our subscribers support the commercialisation proposition or should they be the sole beneficiaries of this valuable asset as a consequence of their loyalty and support for the IWF.