Internet Watch Foundation

 

Newsgroups are a way of publishing and exchanging views and content on the Internet. From its formation in 1996 until 2002 the IWF hotline were having to contend with escalating numbers of complaints about potentially illegal indecent images of children posted in newsgroups. Research also confirmed that paedophiles were using newsgroups as their primary source for accessing extreme paedophilic images.

 

Prior to the newsgroup policies potentially illegal content in newsgroups was dealt with by individual takedown notices.  Based on experience it was known that in the region of just 90 – 100 or so newsgroups from around 70,000 fluctuating numbers of available newsgroups regularly contained potentially illegal child abuse images or their names appeared to advertise that the newsgroup contained such content. As a consequence a series of policies flowed that has transformed the newsgroup landscape in the UK.

 

The adoption of the newsgroup policies has had at least six positive benefits

 

 

The IWF recommends all ISPs serving UK customers not to host newsgroups which the IWF identifies as regularly containing child abuse content.

 

Comment: The systems and processes underpinning the policy are working well.

 

Recommendation: This has been an outstanding success so no substantial change is recommended other than to say that most of the ‘regularity’ newsgroups have remained listed for the duration of the policy despite regular monitoring. Rather than suggest these groups should no longer be monitored as they have been consistently listed for the duration it is suggested that the monitoring practice is activated once every twelve months rather than quarterly as is the case now.

 

Note: There are 21 newsgroups on the ‘regularity’ list.

 

The IWF recommends all ISPs serving UK customers not to host newsgroups which the IWF identifies as a potentially illegal advertisement under Section 1(1)(d) of the Protection of Children Act 1978.

 

Comment: The technical procedure to identify new newsgroups before human assessment is required has been refined and this policy is working well.

 

Recommendation: This has been an outstanding success so no change.

 

Note: There are 74 newsgroups on the ‘names’ list with a further 27 being added as a consequence of refinement.

 

The IWF recommends all ISPs serving UK customers not to carry newsgroups ‘advocating’ paedophile content or activity.

 

Comment: Although we recommend ISPs not to carry these particular newsgroups it is entirely a matter for their discretion. We believe that most if not all ISPs have universally accepted our advice and do not carry such groups. Newsgroups listed under this policy have names which are of serious concern but are not illegal adverts.  The content and context of these newsgroups is the issue and where they contain either illegal paedophilic content, links to such content or content of a paedophilic nature, then the newsgroup was judged to be advocating paedophile content or activity.   

 

Recommendation: The definition of ‘advocacy’ is rather complicated and not easily explained or understood by those who enquire what the differences is between the ‘regularity’, ‘names’ and ‘advisory’ policies so we recommend that this category is dispensed with and merged with the ‘advisory’ list.

 

There are 7 newsgroup names on the advocacy list.

 

ISPs serving UK customers asked the IWF to publish a list of newsgroups (that fell outside of the ‘regularity’ ‘names’ or ‘advocacy’ lists) but were of sufficient concern because they had marginal but not illegal names or they contained occasional content or links to child abuse content outside the criteria for advocacy.

Comment: This is purely a discretionary policy for ISPs to consider in the light of their acceptable use policies. We believe that most if not all ISPs have universally accepted our assessment and do not carry such groups.

 

Recommendation: The definition of ‘concern’ is rather complicated and not easily explained or understood by those who enquire what the differences are between the ‘regularity’, ‘names’ or ‘advocacy’ policies so we recommend that this category absorbs the ‘advocacy’ list and the ‘advisory’ list and is defined as:

 

Amended policy ‘Advisory’ list:

The IWF advises all ISPs serving UK customers not to carry newsgroups that are associated with advocating or linking to content of a paedophilic nature.

 

There are 20 newsgroup names on the advisory list.

 

Before groups are listed under the regularity policy they are subjected to a rigorous monitoring procedure.

 

Board determined that groups categorised as ‘suspect’ or under ‘close monitoring’ should be published monthly to ISPs.

 

Comment: We believe that some if not all ISPs have decided not to carry such groups in anticipation that they will eventually migrate to the various formal lists. This stance is not wholly sustainable in the light of challenge because on occasions ‘innocent’ newsgroups are subjected to spamming attacks with indecent images of children being posted. However due to the thoroughness of our monitoring processes many such groups are not separately listed and revert to ‘innocent’ status. As a result of our recent ‘newsgroup blip’ investigation it came to our attention that so called ‘innocent groups’ were being deleted from newsfeeds by ISPs because they were on the ‘suspect’ or ‘close monitoring’ lists but it is unclear whether ISPs who did so monitored the ‘suspect’ or ‘close monitoring’ lists and made a conscious decision to re-admit the ‘innocent’ newsgroup to its normal newsfeed. The Executive decided to remove the ‘suspect’ or ‘close monitoring’ lists until the ‘newsgroup blip’ investigation had been completed to prevent pre-emptive decisions being made that might cause embarrassment to ISPs and the IWF if the purpose of publishing the groups wasn’t well understood.

 

Recommendation:

That publication of the ‘suspect’ and ‘close monitoring’ lists are reinstated but the IWF takes steps to emphasis the status of these lists to avoid any confusion.

 

There are 8 newsgroups undergoing close monitoring

There are 49 newsgroups in the suspect category at present.

 

Potentially illegal content found in any newsgroup not listed is issued with a notice and takedown in accordance with established practice.

 

Comment: Tried and tested and hugely successful.

 

Recommendation: No change

 

13.07.05