|Internet Watch Foundation|
ISPs and IWF
The Independent Parliamentary Inquiry into Online Child Protection from April 2012 provides useful background into the increasing importance of the IWF and their relationship with ISPs. It stated that six companies - BT, Virgin Media, TalkTalk, Sky, Everything Everywhere and O2 - controlled over 90% of the market. Initially their role was “transmission only” where they provided unlimited web content and the consumer was responsible for blocking or restricting access to inappropriate content.
When police warned UK ISPs that some indecent content contravened the Protection of Children Act 1978 (England and Wales), they had to do something. They needed to combat the hosting of such content in the UK, whilst ensuring they wouldn't be held criminally liable for providing access to the content.
In association with other bodies, British ISPs acted collectively by forming the IWF to restrict and monitor consumer access to child abuse imagery. This restriction and monitoring is seen in the telecoms industry as necessary and IWF is highly regarded. In February 2014 JT joined the IWF, taking the figure to 116 in total.
IWF and Social Media
It’s not just ISPs which are members of IWF, but increasingly social media companies such as Twitter, Badoo, Facebook, are joining. In an effort to counter negative publicity, earlier in the year the question and answer social network Ask.fm not only launched an online safety centre, but they also joined IWF.
At the time of the parliamentary enquiry in April 2012, the Telegraph reported that Naomi Gummer, public policy analyst at Google, said it was a "myth" that laws can prevent children from viewing explicit material. She went on, 'the pace of technological development would render legislation a "blunt instrument"'.
This attitude, as well as the comparatively small donations given to IWF by Google (£20,000), Facebook (£10,000) and Bing (£20,000) at that time created a lot of ill feeling between the press and the large media groups. Search engines protested that they were continuously working on algorithms and filtering technology to make the internet a safer place. Despite these claims, various newspapers and section of the population felt that not enough was being done to prevent obscene images and videos being put online.
June 2013 saw a massive volte face from various internet companies. Two major announcements raised the profile of the IWF immeasurably. The first was a massive injection of cash with Google donating £1m over four years, and BT, Sky, TalkTalk and Virgin Media committing an additional £1m collectively over the next four years. The second development was the more proactive approach that the charity would be taking from April 2014. Rather than waiting for people to ring the hotline, they would be actively looking for child abuse images.
During the November 2013 summit, the Prime Minister met with search engines, ISPs, the National Crime Agency, IWF and the NSPCC to discuss how to rid the internet of child abuse by working together. The aims are laudable but how realistic it all is, only time will tell. Already MPs have said significant technical issues would need to be overcome.
These announcements regarding large private cash donations and the increasingly active role of the IWF coincide with a change in the way relevant government agencies are being administered.
Budgets are being cut all the time, indeed, the highly regarded Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre’s budget has been frozen since 2010. Yet since its establishment in 2006, it has saved hundreds of children from abuse. In October 2010, the head of CEOP resigned over fears that the centre would lose its independence after being absorbed into the NCA. This move was confirmed at the Summit mentioned above. The release announced, "By bringing CEOP into the NCA this year, we are maximising our investigative capabilities and the specialist support, for example cyber expertise, which is available to all our operations."
I acknowledge the excellent intentions of the IWF and they are making all the right noises regarding transparency, accountability and corporate governance. However, I have to question whether it is right for the government to cut resources to official investigatory channels, whilst relying on the industry to fund the policing of the internet. Surely such a role should be carried out by a statutory body created by parliament, representing all interested parties and be independently funded. It's an ideological minefield.
The IWF provides a valuable service, and their future role in ensuring the internet is safe is assured. In my view, they are going to become even higher profile. As technology becomes more sophisticated they need all the help they can get from internet companies (investment and knowhow) to remain one step ahead of the people who upload illegal content. However balance between public bodies and private companies, protection and transparency, press hysteria and public awareness must be maintained at all times.