Given my known interest in privacy, it was a fair bet that this article on the Pinsent Masons website would catch my eye... The article is mostly the same as one which was also printed in the FT's Technology/Digital Business pages, but you might need a subscription to read the full text there.
The author, Struan Robertson, who works for Pinsent Masons and edits their excellent OutLaw newsletter, writes about the recent hoo-haa over a Wikipedia page which included an image (taken from a 1970s album cover) which, by today's laws, is said to be likely to break UK child protection laws relating to the publication of erotically-posed images of subjects under 18. Let me say right at the outset that that is a legal topic on which I am in no way competent to comment, so on those questions, I am happy to take Mr Robertson's word.
However, he does seem to me to miss the point in a couple of respects, notably concerning the boundary between technology and the law... and that's an area where I do feel more qualified to comment. He notes, in the article, that the IWF (Internet Watch Foundation) added the Wikipedia page in question to a blacklist which was then put into effect by the UK's ISPs. As a result, he says, "prevented most UK internet users from accessing the Wikipedia page and it had the unintended side-effect of stopping those users from editing any of the millions of Wikipedia pages".
He goes on to say: "the IWF's model [...] bans pages, not the images themselves. It says this approach is simpler and more effective, though I confess that I don't understand why. Still, if that policy is disproportionate it is only slightly so: it did not blacklist an entire site".
Mr Robertson may, quite understandably, not know what the technical difference is between banning (UK) access to a page and banning (UK) access to a single image within a web page - especially when those pages are hosted outside the UK - but surely you don't have to be technical to understand the difference of effect between banning read access to a single page, and disabling write access to all the pages on a site. A site, incidentally, whose whole point is that it can be edited by anyone.
With respect, then, he is perhaps over-reaching himself with the assertion that such a policy is 'only slightly disproportionate'.
Mr Robertson concludes his article by observing that "[b]alancing our freedom of expression with the protection of children is difficult and important. It is a healthy issue to debate. But like any Wikipedia article, that debate needs some balance. This week that balance was missing."
I agree. Technically, I admit, it may not be easy to ensure that (only) UK internet users are unable to view (just) that image, but remain able to view the rest of that page and to edit Wikipedia pages in general. But that doesn't make the current blanket ban proportionate, and advocating it as such does nothing to introduce balance into the argument.
![[RSS Newsfeed]](/themes/sotto/images/valid-rss.png)
![[This is a Roller site]](/themes/sotto/images/roller-logo.gif){kind=logo}