Child Porn Blacklist Group Claims Its Approach Is Working, But There Are Lots Of Questions

from the fun-with-self-reported-statistics dept

Thu, Apr 30th 2009 9:21pm — Carlo Longino

The Internet Watch Foundation, keeper of the UK's child-porn blacklist that's used to block access to offending sites (as well as other innocuous ones), has released some new stats saying that it's seen a reduction in the number of child porn sites in the last year. However, sort of like the group's methodology, the figure has quite a few holes. The figure is apparently based on "domains known to the IWF", which is a fairly subjective, and hardly comprehensive, criteria. Also, given the way that the IWF has blocked the likes of Wikipedia and the Internet Archive, how many sites that aren't actually child-porn sites are included in that number? But perhaps more damning is the rest of the report, which highlights just how ineffective the IWF's blacklist really is at tackling the root of the problem. It's well-established that these sorts of filters don't work, despite the IWF implying it can take credit for reducing the number of child porn sites. The IWF says that less than one percent of the sites can be traced to hosts in the UK, and that a huge portion of the commercial sites it's found can be traced back to just ten domain registrars. This illustrates how non-filter solutions, such as working through these registrars to track down child-porn hosts and producers, promise a more effective solution to the real problem -- the production and sharing of the images. Trying to stop consumption via filters really just masks the issue, despite claims that by cutting off demand, the market will shrink. That might work, if the filters actually worked. The IWF does offer some suggestions for more comprehensive solutions to tackle the problem, but as long as it keeps "Public/private partnership involving service providers working through a system of self-regulation" -- basically its current model of getting ISPs to use its blacklist -- at the top of the list, it seems doomed to ineffectiveness.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: blacklist, uk
Companies: internet watch foundation

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 30 Apr 2009 @ 10:14pm

Amazing!
Isn't that amazing? It gave itself a passing grade!
/sarcasm
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Disgusted, 1 May 2009 @ 12:26am

Hidden & Blocked _DOES NOT MEAN IT DON'T EXIST_... Any decent proxy would bypass the so called Firewall. I wont go into any more detail on other ways to bypass. I'm sure alot of the readers are already aware of other methods.

Be Proactive & monitor these site & lets see how many politicians & judges get trapped.

We have Laws, i really do wonder why they are not being used.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Pseudonym, 1 May 2009 @ 1:00am

I'm curious how many child porn web sites there actually are. I'd guess that the answer is "pretty much none".

If I were doing something that's illegal and reprehensible in pretty much any jurisdiction, I wouldn't be showing off to the world. I'd be doing it with a private network, such as encrypted P2P.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gov worker, 1 May 2009 @ 8:48am
  
  Re:
  all the free child porn you want at //192.168.1.666 or www.Fly.to/thisisnotchildporn
  
  they should shutdown the producers and FIX the problem
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Rat, 1 May 2009 @ 10:41am
    
    Re: Re:
    HAHAH, I didn't click on the Fly.to link, nor will I, but that's funny as hell that his other link was a local address, guess he's hosting it all himself.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 5:22am

It isn't there if I can not see it
Isn't the whole black list approach sort of acting like an ostrich?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 1 May 2009 @ 7:28am

This article may offend some people, seeing as it's written by a paedophile who is very defensive of his own actions, but it explains perfectly how the IWF's tactics will never work. In fact pretty much explains how any filtering system will never work.

http://wikileaks.org/wiki/My_life_in_child_porn
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Isaac K (profile), 1 May 2009 @ 7:58am

On the contrary - the basic economics of the model
Cutting down on the ability to ACCESS such things merely makes them more scarce, and therefore more valuable.
As a result, the sites can charge more money for their now "scarce" services, and it will encourage more entrants into the market.
Basic economics. Track the perpetrators, not the "drug bust"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Croix, 2 May 2009 @ 7:07am

ern.....i've seen lots of pedos in the tor network, but i doubt they'll be able to shut it down. So this is meaningless
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
toyotabedzrock, 2 May 2009 @ 8:55pm

Stupidity
All this does is create barriers for police to track down the people producing it. Because it forces them to be more evasive and use encryption.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Purcell, 22 May 2009 @ 6:56pm

Need porn passwords
If you have any porn passwords, send them my way.

Brad Purcell
brad.purcell@orasi.com
Orasi Software, Atlanta, GA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brad Purcell, 23 May 2009 @ 5:24pm

Send me any kiddie porn passwords
If you have any kiddie porn passwords, send them to me soon.

Thanks in advance.

Brad Purcell
brad.purcell@orasi.com
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jeff, 29 May 2009 @ 4:59pm

Sent you my kiddie porn Brad P - enjoy
Enjoy Brad Purcell!! Watch out of the fuzz.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2009 @ 6:19pm
  
  Re: Sent you my kiddie porn Brad P - enjoy
  please send me your kiddie porn as well jeff asap, i'll be forever in your debt!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- mark D, 19 Jul 2009 @ 6:25pm
  
  Re: Sent you my kiddie porn Brad P - enjoy
  please send me your kiddie porn as well jeff asap, i'll be forever in your debt!
  
  ps u ever used poppers with cp, its AMAZING, for me atleast
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 19 Jul 2009 @ 6:38pm
  
  Re: Sent you my kiddie porn Brad P - enjoy
  please send me your kiddie porn as well jeff asap, i'll be forever in your debt!
  
  ps u ever used poppers with cp, its AMAZING, for me atleast
  
  I forgot my e-mail; m.doyle56@yahoo.co.uk
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Miami Web Design, 20 Oct 2009 @ 9:04am

No
Cruel
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nocp, 21 Mar 2013 @ 12:55am

child porn
The peer to peer community already has an ip blocklist of people who share child porn here http://www.iblocklist.com/list.php?list=dufcxgnbjsdwmwctgfuj You can use it with peerblock or other apps.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]