Internet Watch Foundation

At long last we are pleased to be able to report that we have been awarded a contract with the EU under the auspices of the Safer Internet Action Plan for Hotlines. We believe we will receive €469,037 (about £320,000). It will start in May 2004 and run for two years. As previously reported the only draw back is that we will have to wait until May 2005 before the first claim against the contract can be made, so in effect a whole year with no EU funding to speak of.

 

Since last my last report Samsung £5K, MaNAP £500 (LINX equivalent in Manchester), Telewest £15K, Google £20K and OneTel and Research Machines at £5K each have all joined and Cyberpatrol at £5K will join on 1st July. I’m actively discussing membership with Motorola and Panasonic Mobile with Pipex still in the wings.

Orange and Freeserve voluntarily increased their subscriptions by £5K each.

 

I hope you all received a hard copy of our Annual Report.

As a reminder the key headline figures are as follows:

UK hosted potentially illegal content down from 18% to 1% since 1997

Total reports up 9% to 20,000 = 400 reports every week

99% of illegal content is traced to outside the UK

Child abuse content traced to USA now amounts to 55%

Child abuse content traced to Russia up 5% to 23%

Child abuse content traced to Europe down from 19% to 6%

Racial abuse reports up 101% to 302

Reports of potentially illegal content traced to newsgroups down by 62%

Newsgroups regularly hosting child abuse images = 24

Newsgroup names that are potentially illegal = 71

Intelligence passed to Police up 14%

Websites as a whole hosting potentially illegal child abuse images = 66 a week

PPV websites average 33 a week.

 

55% of the potentially illegal child abuse content that we deal with is hosted in the US. We’ve had discussions with the FBI and representatives from the US Cybertipline, our equivalent in the States, to understand why there is such a problem. We know that the Supreme Court decided that for a prosecution to succeed it would be necessary for the authorities to prove that a child depicted in an image was a real child and not a computer generated image, in effect a prosecutor needs to produce the child. This meant that some US ISPs will not remove potentially illegal content unless they are satisfied the test is proven. It is a requirement for all US ISPs to register with the Cybertipline. After they have done so the Cybertipline can advise them that they may be hosting potentially illegal material and then they have the option to

take it down. To date just 119 of 6000 ISPs have registered. This state of affairs is being addressed through the Justice Department but progress is slow.

 

23% of the potentially illegal child abuse content is traced to Russia. We were hoping to speak with a Russian Police delegation at a recent conference about online child abuse images for Eastern Bloc countries but unfortunately they could not attend. However so the grass doesn’t grow under our feet we’ve asked the DTI to consider inviting a contingent of russian law enforcement officers, ISP owners and internet organisations like ISPA and government officials to the UK to examine the UK partnership model.

 

Sexual Offences Act 2003.

The Act becomes law on 1st May 2004.

 

S. 46 SOA - Memorandum of Understanding.

Following discussions between the Home Office, Police and CPS we now expect to have the final version of the MOU setting out the conditions under which industry professionals will be able to claim a defence under this section any day now.

 

S15 SOA – Grooming.

The decision from ACPO on how to report grooming allegations is that the public will be asked to go to their local police station appropriate to where:

1. the victim resides

2. the offender is located or

3. if neither of the above easily identified then POLIT

Indecent Images on Mobiles.

I’m also waiting for a decision as to which police agency will accept jurisdiction if and when indecent images appear on a mobile handset.

 

Media Activity.

The media have been busy on internet paedophilia matters and since the Coutts case surfaced we have been undertaking many interviews on the issue of violent pornographic websites.

 

Search Engine Dinner.

The IWF hosted a dinner at the House of Lords on 21.01.04, sponsored by Yahoo! UK & Ireland, for many search engine directors, parliamentarians, government officials, law enforcement officers and childrens charity representatives to discuss ways in which the internet can be navigated safely. Home Office Minister Paul Goggins attended. As a consequence the Minister invited relevant companies to undertake some work in partnership with each other as part of the Home Secretary’s Task Force for the Protection of Children on the Internet. An inaugural meeting was held on 31st March.

 

The inclusive logo and banner we have displayed at the top of this report is proving to be too cumbersome for sharing with our partners because it is too large. With this in mind we would like to take this opportunity to seek the Boards views on a more modern logo arrangement. We need an online version that is user friendly and scaleable for online sharing and we need an offline version for printed letters and marketing collateral. Without prejudice to the discussions the Board will have in July about our mission statement, strap line, role and remit we would appreciate a steer on the style of logo sooner rather than later. Hard copies of some suggestions will be available on the 27th.

 

Safer Internet Show.

This event has been rescheduled from 16th – 19th July to 22nd – 25th October 2004 at the NEC Birmingham. The IWF are supporting the show and the Daily Telegraph are sponsoring it. Details can be found at

 

http://www.safeinternetshow.co.uk/exhibitorpro/site/default.asp

The IWF brand features on all their main advertising outlets.

If any member company is taking the opportunity to take a stand at the event then we would be pleased to discuss how we could publicise our partnership.

 

Australian Hotline.

We hosted a visit of a representative from the Australian Hotline to our offices in Oakington.

 

Israeli Hotline.

I had a meeting with a representative from Israel who is planning to create an Israeli Hotline.

 

Criminally obscene content.

Evidence emerged in the Coutts case that the convicted murderer (Coutts) had been visiting violent pornographic websites hosted outside the UK. Since then we have been busy briefing MPs, government officials and speaking at events and to the media to explain our role in respect of UK hosted criminally obscene content and the problems of international differences in obscenity laws. The Home Secretary apparently raised the matter with the US AG and as a consequence activities are underway to establish what the scale of the problem might be.

 

Some of these pointers that we put forward are as follows.

IWF Fact: About 15% of the 3,517 adult websites reported to the IWF during 2003 would have been considered for referral to the UK police for investigation under the Obscene Publications Act had they been hosted in the UK, none were.

 

Some suggestions that we proposed for consideration.

1. Review law on protection of minors in relation to adult pornographic material

2. Review law on test of obscenity in relation to adult pornographic material  

3. Review law on issue of possession of adult pornographic material  

4. Review law on incitement to racial hatred  

5. Promote an international debate (esp USA and Netherlands)  

6. Industry to appoint spokesperson to give media explanations  

7. Industry to have closer dialogue with consumers and citizens

8. ISPs to review, strengthen and apply acceptable use policies (possibly using new ‘harm’ test)  

9. ISPA to strengthen contact and cooperation with ISP communities in other countries

10.  Search engines to consider blocking access where threshold breached

11.  Greater provision of information both on-line and off-line

12.  Establishment of a ‘one stop shop’ for issues of Internet content

13.  Running of Internet safety and literacy campaigns and programmes

 

 Definition of criminally obscene content.

There is no absolute agreement as the judgement is a matter for the Courts to decide under the Obscene Publications Act 1959 and 1964 but the practicalities are that we work closely with the Metropolitan Police Clubs and Vice unit in taking due account of CPS policy and Court decisions in arriving at our decision as to whether we should refer a case to the UK authorities to investigate.

 

Obscene Publications Act 1959 & 1964

To gain a conviction a jury needs to be satisfied on two counts:

1. does the content fail the obscenity test

2. as the article to be published for gain.  

 

The test of obscenity is defined as follows:-

an article shall be deemed to be obscene if its effect or (where the article comprises two or more distinct items) the effect of any one of its items is, if taken as a whole, such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.

And then on the issue of publishing for gain did the defendant:-

have ownership, possession or control of the obscene article with a view to publishing it.

 

Thoughts about the Obscene Publications Act:-

1. To prove that a defendant is likely to be depraved and corrupted if he seeks out the content particularly if he passes through a gateway warning that content may be explicit, troubles juries.

2. It is no offence to possess obscene articles for personal use.

 

What might be the CPS consider as criminally obscene under the OPA.

1. portrayal of incest

2. buggery with an animal

3. rape

4. drug taking

5. flagellation

6. torture with instruments

7. bondage (especially where gags are used)

8. dismemberment or graphic mutilation

9. cannibalism

10.  activities involving perversion or degradation (such as drinking urine or smearing excreta on a person’s body)

 

BBFC - Licensing authority!

The British Board of Film Classification (BBFC) issue R18 certificates for videos and DVDs that can only be supplied to adults in licensed sex shops, of which there are currently about 90 in the UK.

 

What does the BBFC R18 category mean?

The ‘R18’ category is a special and legally restricted classification primarily for explicit videos of consenting sex between adults. R18 videos cannot be supplied by mail order.

 

What content is unacceptable to the BBFC R18 rating?

1. any material which is in breach of the criminal law.

2. material (including dialogue) likely to encourage an interest in abusive sexual activity (e.g., paedophilia, incest) which may include depictions involving adults role-playing as non-adults. the portrayal of any sexual activity, whether real or simulated, which involves lack of consent.

3. the infliction of pain or physical harm, real or (in a sexual context) simulated. Some allowance may be made for mild consensual activity.

4. any sexual threats or humiliation which do not form part of a clearly consenting role-playing game.

5. the use of any form of physical restraint which prevents participants from withdrawing consent, for example, ball gags.

6. penetration by any object likely to cause actual harm or associated with violence.

7. activity which is degrading or dehumanising (examples include the portrayal of bestiality, necrophilia, defecation, urolagnia).

Are there alternative definitions to work with?

 

Independent Committee for the Supervision of Standards of Telephone Information Services (ICSTIS) have a working definition.

ICSTIS is the industry-funded regulatory body for all premium rate charged telecommunications services. They regulate premium rate telephone call charges and this applies to consumers who download pornography via their telephone lines.

 

ICSTIS use a decency definition by stating that services and promotional material must not:

1. contain material indicating violence, sadism or cruelty, or be of a repulsive or horrible nature,

2. involve the use of foul language.

3. result in any unreasonable invasion of privacy,

4. induce an unacceptable sense of fear or anxiety,

5. encourage or incite any person to engage in dangerous practices to use harmful substances,

6. induce or promote racial disharmony,

7. cause grave or widespread offence,

8. debase, degrade or demean,

9. promote or facilitate prostitution.

 

US test of obscenity.

To be considered obscene, material must meet a three-pronged test that the U.S. Supreme Court established in the 1973 case United States v. Miller. It requires:

1. That the average person -- applying contemporary, adult community standards -- would find that the work taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest (for example an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful or morbid interest in nudity, sex or excretion).

2.  That the work depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way.

3. That a reasonable person would find that the work lacks serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

 

Peter Robbins

Chief Executive