Secret lists of websites banned in two countries have been leaked online, as the Federal Government delays a live trial of its controversial internet filtering scheme.
A list of 3863 website addresses banned in Denmark was published yesterday by a whistleblower group and is believed to contain links to illegal material including child pornography.
The department of Broadband Minister Stephen Conroy has previously compared the Government's filtering plan to "successful" programs in countries including Denmark.
Earlier this week a list of 1203 websites banned in Thailand for political reasons was published by the same group.
It included hundreds of YouTube videos as well as blogs, cartoons and an article in the Economist magazine banned for reasons of "lese majeste", or criticising the King.
Jerry Hutchinson of anti-filtering group Digital Liberty Coalition said leaks were one of the risks associated with maintaining lists of prohibited content.
"Each blacklist is obviously rather sensitive as it gives any would-be web criminal a go-to list where they know they will be able to find illicit material," Mr Hutchinson said.
"It is always possible for any information to be leaked so the Australian blacklist is just as susceptible as that of any other nation."
Under the Government's proposed internet filtering scheme, a similar list of websites maintained by the media watchdog would be blocked by internet service providers.
A second tier of filtering would also remove "inappropriate" content. Customers would have the choice to opt-out of this filter.
Senator Conroy's office confirmed the blacklist of website addresses is confidential for reasons of public interest, but declined to comment specifically on the overseas leak.
Live pilot trial delayed
Senator Conroy last night pushed back a live trial of internet filtering technology that had been scheduled to begin today.
The announcement came as news surfaced of an Internet Industry Association report commissioned by the Howard government that found a web filter would be ineffective and easy to circumvent.
"The Government is aware of technical concerns raised in the report, and that is why we are conducting a pilot to put these claims to the test," said Senator Conroy.
"The pilot trial will not begin until mid-January and an announcement regarding participants will be made at that time."
The trial had been scheduled to begin today, but ISPs that had applied to take part including Optus and iiNet said they had not yet heard from the Government on the details of the tests.
On Monday Senator Conroy also revealed the tests could extend to filtering more online traffic than previously thought, including programs commonly used to share music and video files.
"Technology that filters peer-to-peer and BitTorrent traffic does exist and it is anticipated that the effectiveness of this will be tested in the live pilot trial," Senator Conroy said.
The Opposition today slammed the scheme as "almost technically impossible".
"Prior to the election, the now Government, in opposition, made these broad-sweeping promises... to eliminate child pornography from the internet with this filter system," communications spokesman Nick Minchin said on ABC radio.
"Now they've got to make good on their promise and they're finding it much more difficult in government of course than in opposition."
News.com.au has chosen not to publish details of the website blacklists, as they may contain offensive or illegal material.
Links
Digital Liberty Coalition – http://www.dlc.asn.au
Live pilot trial FAQ – http://www.dbcde.gov.au/communications_for_consume...
Fatal flaws in filtering plan, says report – http://www.smh.com.au/news/technology/web/fatal-fl...
(Credit: News.com.au)
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
Wednesday, December 31, 2008
Tuesday, December 23, 2008
Fatal flaws in website censorship plan, says report, by Asher Moses - The Sydney Morning Herald - 23rd December 2008
Trials of mandatory internet censorship will begin within days despite a secret high-level report to the Rudd Government that found the technology simply does not work, will significantly slow internet speeds and will block access to legitimate websites.
The report, commissioned by the Howard government and prepared by the Internet Industry Association, concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography are fundamentally flawed.
If the trials are deemed a success, the Government has earmarked $44 million to impose a compulsory "clean feed" on all internet subscribers in Australia as soon as late next year.
But the report says the filters would slow the internet - as much as 87 per cent by some measures - be easily bypassed and would not come close to capturing all of the nasty content available online. They would also struggle to distinguish between wanted and unwanted content, leading to legitimate sites being blocked. Entire user-generated content sites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia, could be censored over a single suspect posting.
This raises serious freedom of speech questions, such as who will be held accountable for blocked sites and whether the Government will be pressured to expand the blacklist to cover lawful content including pornography, gambling sites and euthanasia material.
The report, based on comprehensive interviews with many parties with a stake in the internet, was written by several independent technical experts including a University of Sydney associate professor, Bjorn Landfeldt. It was handed to the Government in February but has been kept secret.
"I definitely think that what the Government is showing publicly �c is such a small part of what they need to do in order to get this right," Professor Landfeldt told the Herald.
He said he believed the Government had not released his report because its conclusions were too damaging.
"It's definitely not going to be workable to get a very significant reduction in access to this [unwanted] content that is available out there - it's fundamentally just not viable."
The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy - despite his promises before Labor was elected that people would be able to opt out of any internet filters - has said the first tier of the Government's censorship policy will be compulsory for all. This would block all "illegal" and "inappropriate" material, as determined in part by a secret blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
A second tier would filter out content deemed harmful for children, such as pornography, but this would be optional for internet users.
Senator Conroy refused to comment directly on why the report has not been released or why the trials are going ahead given its findings.
The proposed censorship is more restrictive than in any liberal democracy, the online users lobby group, Electronic Frontiers Australia, says. It says the changes would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran and China.
But Senator Conroy said: "The Government intends to take an evidence-based approach to implementing its cyber-safety policy and has invited industry to participate in that process.
"This live pilot trial will provide evidence on the real-world impacts of ISP [internet service provider] content filtering, including for providers and internet users. It will provide an invaluable opportunity for ISPs to inform the Government's approach."
Professor Landfeldt, one of Australia's leading telecommunications experts, says some of the fundamental flaws of the scheme raised in his report include:
� All filtering systems will be easily circumvented using readily available software.
� Censors maintaining the blacklist will never be able to keep up with the amount of new content published on the web every second.
� Filters using real-time analysis of sites to determine whether content is inappropriate are not effective, capture wanted content, are easy to bypass and slow network speeds exponentially as accuracy increases.
� Entire user-generated content sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia could be blocked over a single video or article.
� Filters would be costly and difficult to implement for ISPs and put many smaller ISPs out of business.
� While the communciations authority's blacklist would be withheld from internet users, all 700 ISPs would have access to it, so it could easily be leaked.
� The filters would not censor content on peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as LimeWire, chat rooms, email and instant messaging;
� ISPs and the Government could be legally liable for the scheme's failures, particularly as content providers have no right to appeal against being blocked unnecessarily.
The Government is refusing to reveal details about its trials, even the names of the ISPs which have volunteered to be involved. Some will begin their six-week trials this week. All the trials will be completed by the middle of next year.
Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, and Internode have said they will not take part in the trials. The second-largest ISP, Optus, will run a scaled-back trial of just the first tier, while iiNet, the third-biggest provider, has said it will participate simply to show the Government that its scheme will not work.
The policy has attracted opposition from online consumers, lobby groups, ISPs, network administrators, some children's welfare groups, the Opposition, the Greens, NSW Young Labor and even the conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who famously tried to censor the chef Gordon Ramsay's swearing on television.
Professor Landfeldt says the censorship plan assumes websites will remain static, but as soon as the filtering system is in place many porn and other "unwanted" sites will change their designs to get around the filters, just as spammers can bypass email filters.
He said the filtering plan was "completely politicised".
The Greens Senator Scott Ludlam urged the Government to drop its "completely unhinged" policy which was "a waste of taxpayers funds". The Liberal Party's communications spokesman, Nick Minchin, said the Opposition would try to obtain the report under freedom of information laws.
(Credit: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
The report, commissioned by the Howard government and prepared by the Internet Industry Association, concluded that schemes to block inappropriate content such as child pornography are fundamentally flawed.
If the trials are deemed a success, the Government has earmarked $44 million to impose a compulsory "clean feed" on all internet subscribers in Australia as soon as late next year.
But the report says the filters would slow the internet - as much as 87 per cent by some measures - be easily bypassed and would not come close to capturing all of the nasty content available online. They would also struggle to distinguish between wanted and unwanted content, leading to legitimate sites being blocked. Entire user-generated content sites, such as YouTube and Wikipedia, could be censored over a single suspect posting.
This raises serious freedom of speech questions, such as who will be held accountable for blocked sites and whether the Government will be pressured to expand the blacklist to cover lawful content including pornography, gambling sites and euthanasia material.
The report, based on comprehensive interviews with many parties with a stake in the internet, was written by several independent technical experts including a University of Sydney associate professor, Bjorn Landfeldt. It was handed to the Government in February but has been kept secret.
"I definitely think that what the Government is showing publicly �c is such a small part of what they need to do in order to get this right," Professor Landfeldt told the Herald.
He said he believed the Government had not released his report because its conclusions were too damaging.
"It's definitely not going to be workable to get a very significant reduction in access to this [unwanted] content that is available out there - it's fundamentally just not viable."
The Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy - despite his promises before Labor was elected that people would be able to opt out of any internet filters - has said the first tier of the Government's censorship policy will be compulsory for all. This would block all "illegal" and "inappropriate" material, as determined in part by a secret blacklist administered by the Australian Communications and Media Authority.
A second tier would filter out content deemed harmful for children, such as pornography, but this would be optional for internet users.
Senator Conroy refused to comment directly on why the report has not been released or why the trials are going ahead given its findings.
The proposed censorship is more restrictive than in any liberal democracy, the online users lobby group, Electronic Frontiers Australia, says. It says the changes would put Australia on a par with oppressive regimes such as Iran and China.
But Senator Conroy said: "The Government intends to take an evidence-based approach to implementing its cyber-safety policy and has invited industry to participate in that process.
"This live pilot trial will provide evidence on the real-world impacts of ISP [internet service provider] content filtering, including for providers and internet users. It will provide an invaluable opportunity for ISPs to inform the Government's approach."
Professor Landfeldt, one of Australia's leading telecommunications experts, says some of the fundamental flaws of the scheme raised in his report include:
� All filtering systems will be easily circumvented using readily available software.
� Censors maintaining the blacklist will never be able to keep up with the amount of new content published on the web every second.
� Filters using real-time analysis of sites to determine whether content is inappropriate are not effective, capture wanted content, are easy to bypass and slow network speeds exponentially as accuracy increases.
� Entire user-generated content sites such as YouTube and Wikipedia could be blocked over a single video or article.
� Filters would be costly and difficult to implement for ISPs and put many smaller ISPs out of business.
� While the communciations authority's blacklist would be withheld from internet users, all 700 ISPs would have access to it, so it could easily be leaked.
� The filters would not censor content on peer-to-peer file sharing networks such as LimeWire, chat rooms, email and instant messaging;
� ISPs and the Government could be legally liable for the scheme's failures, particularly as content providers have no right to appeal against being blocked unnecessarily.
The Government is refusing to reveal details about its trials, even the names of the ISPs which have volunteered to be involved. Some will begin their six-week trials this week. All the trials will be completed by the middle of next year.
Australia's largest ISP, Telstra, and Internode have said they will not take part in the trials. The second-largest ISP, Optus, will run a scaled-back trial of just the first tier, while iiNet, the third-biggest provider, has said it will participate simply to show the Government that its scheme will not work.
The policy has attracted opposition from online consumers, lobby groups, ISPs, network administrators, some children's welfare groups, the Opposition, the Greens, NSW Young Labor and even the conservative Liberal senator Cory Bernardi, who famously tried to censor the chef Gordon Ramsay's swearing on television.
Professor Landfeldt says the censorship plan assumes websites will remain static, but as soon as the filtering system is in place many porn and other "unwanted" sites will change their designs to get around the filters, just as spammers can bypass email filters.
He said the filtering plan was "completely politicised".
The Greens Senator Scott Ludlam urged the Government to drop its "completely unhinged" policy which was "a waste of taxpayers funds". The Liberal Party's communications spokesman, Nick Minchin, said the Opposition would try to obtain the report under freedom of information laws.
(Credit: The Sydney Morning Herald)
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
Thursday, December 18, 2008
Dikshit Guilty of Internet Gambling, by David Kravets - Wired - 17th December 2008
The founder and software maker of the popular online gaming site, PartyGaming, has pleaded guilty to illegal internet gambling and will pay $300 million in fines.
Anurag Dikshit, the former director of Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, has agreed to cooperate with authorities probing the web-based gambling scene. It's illegal to allow those on American soil to access online wagering sites.
Under a deal with prosecutors, Dikshit faces a maximum two years behind bars under his Tuesday guilty plea to one count of violating the Wire Act.(.pdf)
Dikshit founded party gaming in 1997. In 2006, Forbes magazine declared him the world's 207th richest person.
The 37-year-old Dikshit is a resident of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. He traveled to New York where he pleaded guilty Monday in federal court. He is one of several operators and marketers of internet gambling concerns facing federal prosecution.
Specifically, Dikshit pleaded guilty to one count of using the wires to transmit bets and wagering information in interstate commerce.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 also prohibits credit-card companies from collecting payments for bets. Under rules adopted last month by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, financial companies have until Dec. 1, 2009 to "establish and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful internet gambling."
PartyGaming has stopped taking wagers from its estimated 900,000 U.S. players of poker, blackjack, roulette and other games of chance. (Credit: Wired)
Media Man Australia Profiles
PartyGaming
PartyCasino.com
Casino News
Technology News
Anurag Dikshit, the former director of Gibraltar-based PartyGaming, has agreed to cooperate with authorities probing the web-based gambling scene. It's illegal to allow those on American soil to access online wagering sites.
Under a deal with prosecutors, Dikshit faces a maximum two years behind bars under his Tuesday guilty plea to one count of violating the Wire Act.(.pdf)
Dikshit founded party gaming in 1997. In 2006, Forbes magazine declared him the world's 207th richest person.
The 37-year-old Dikshit is a resident of the United Kingdom and Gibraltar. He traveled to New York where he pleaded guilty Monday in federal court. He is one of several operators and marketers of internet gambling concerns facing federal prosecution.
Specifically, Dikshit pleaded guilty to one count of using the wires to transmit bets and wagering information in interstate commerce.
The Unlawful Internet Gambling Enforcement Act of 2006 also prohibits credit-card companies from collecting payments for bets. Under rules adopted last month by the U.S. Treasury and Federal Reserve, financial companies have until Dec. 1, 2009 to "establish and implement policies and procedures that are reasonably designed to prevent payments to gambling businesses in connection with unlawful internet gambling."
PartyGaming has stopped taking wagers from its estimated 900,000 U.S. players of poker, blackjack, roulette and other games of chance. (Credit: Wired)
Media Man Australia Profiles
PartyGaming
PartyCasino.com
Casino News
Technology News
Thursday, December 11, 2008
Australia Internet Bans Opposed (Update)
Battle for the freedom of the Internet continues Down Under
December 10, 2008 (InfoPowa News) -- The attempt by some Australian politicians to impose censorship on the Internet has run into more trouble, with growing opposition to the Rudd government's ill-starred two-tier filtering proposal and the proposal that Internet Service Providers help to trial the concept.
Live trials of the filters, intended to block "illegal" content for all Australian Internet users and "inappropriate" adult content on an opt-in basis, were slated to begin by Christmas, despite strong opposition from the Greens, the official Opposition, the Internet industry, consumers, and online rights groups. Recently, even child protection groups spoke out against the project, while activists report that thousands have signed peitions against the government moves.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that with global and local criticism rising against the Rudd governments' Internet censorship moves, the latest blow to the project is service providers refusing to participate in planned trials aimed at censoring material declared by government officials to be unsuitable.
The Herald article recaps that the ruling Labor Party in Australia has proposed installing a two-tiered Internet filtering system. One tier would be mandatory for the entire country, and block online gambling and other material declared to be unacceptable. The second level would be optional, for online customers wishing to block additional "unwanted material."
Laboratory test results released in June by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found available filters frequently let through content that should be blocked, incorrectly block harmless content, and slow network speeds by up to 87 percent.
Telstra, the country's largest Internet provider, and its competitor, Internode, have already said they would not participate in the trial of the system, while the response of smaller providers is luke warm and at best favors only a much-reduced trial. iiNet has said it would take part only to prove to the government that its plan would not work, while Optus will only test a heavily diluted filtering model.
Debate continues over how material is classified, and on the apparent dynamic of what is "inappropriate' and what is "unwanted". Critics fear that the sites found inappropriate by the government will become an ever-expanding list; already, the number of sites on Labor's list has grown from the 1,300 suggested by the ACMA to more than 10,000, and the issue could become a political football.
Critics point to the disastrous results in the United Kingdom when censorship of a Wikipedia page was attempted, and this has motivated increased opposition to the government's plan, with the Greens calling for the abandonment of the filtering plan, saying it was " ... hopelessly flawed and a certain failure."
Colin Jacobs, vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that the unintended results would be the same as the failed UIGEA ban in the U.S. "Given that the traffickers of genuine abuse material will not let themselves be slowed down by a filter and are already covering their tracks, the net result that will be achieved here is exactly this: inconvenience, chaos, and expense with absolutely no dividend."
Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has reportedly written to critics saying that the "live" [filtering] trials would be " ... a closed network test and will not involve actual customers". Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam responded to the report, saying this was a sign the government was slowly backing away from the heavily criticized policy.
Proposed Australian laws on Internet censorship are sometimes pejoratively referred to as the Great Australian Firewall, Firewall Australia, or Great Firewall Reef (a reference to Great Barrier Reef and the Great Firewall of China).
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
December 10, 2008 (InfoPowa News) -- The attempt by some Australian politicians to impose censorship on the Internet has run into more trouble, with growing opposition to the Rudd government's ill-starred two-tier filtering proposal and the proposal that Internet Service Providers help to trial the concept.
Live trials of the filters, intended to block "illegal" content for all Australian Internet users and "inappropriate" adult content on an opt-in basis, were slated to begin by Christmas, despite strong opposition from the Greens, the official Opposition, the Internet industry, consumers, and online rights groups. Recently, even child protection groups spoke out against the project, while activists report that thousands have signed peitions against the government moves.
The Sydney Morning Herald reports that with global and local criticism rising against the Rudd governments' Internet censorship moves, the latest blow to the project is service providers refusing to participate in planned trials aimed at censoring material declared by government officials to be unsuitable.
The Herald article recaps that the ruling Labor Party in Australia has proposed installing a two-tiered Internet filtering system. One tier would be mandatory for the entire country, and block online gambling and other material declared to be unacceptable. The second level would be optional, for online customers wishing to block additional "unwanted material."
Laboratory test results released in June by the Australian Communications and Media Authority found available filters frequently let through content that should be blocked, incorrectly block harmless content, and slow network speeds by up to 87 percent.
Telstra, the country's largest Internet provider, and its competitor, Internode, have already said they would not participate in the trial of the system, while the response of smaller providers is luke warm and at best favors only a much-reduced trial. iiNet has said it would take part only to prove to the government that its plan would not work, while Optus will only test a heavily diluted filtering model.
Debate continues over how material is classified, and on the apparent dynamic of what is "inappropriate' and what is "unwanted". Critics fear that the sites found inappropriate by the government will become an ever-expanding list; already, the number of sites on Labor's list has grown from the 1,300 suggested by the ACMA to more than 10,000, and the issue could become a political football.
Critics point to the disastrous results in the United Kingdom when censorship of a Wikipedia page was attempted, and this has motivated increased opposition to the government's plan, with the Greens calling for the abandonment of the filtering plan, saying it was " ... hopelessly flawed and a certain failure."
Colin Jacobs, vice-chairman of Electronic Frontiers Australia, said that the unintended results would be the same as the failed UIGEA ban in the U.S. "Given that the traffickers of genuine abuse material will not let themselves be slowed down by a filter and are already covering their tracks, the net result that will be achieved here is exactly this: inconvenience, chaos, and expense with absolutely no dividend."
Australia's Communications Minister, Stephen Conroy, has reportedly written to critics saying that the "live" [filtering] trials would be " ... a closed network test and will not involve actual customers". Australian Greens Senator Scott Ludlam responded to the report, saying this was a sign the government was slowly backing away from the heavily criticized policy.
Proposed Australian laws on Internet censorship are sometimes pejoratively referred to as the Great Australian Firewall, Firewall Australia, or Great Firewall Reef (a reference to Great Barrier Reef and the Great Firewall of China).
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
Wikipedia victory in censorship row, by Mike Harvey - The Australian - 10th December 2008
An anti-child abuse watchdog has reversed its decision to blacklist a Wikipedia page showing a controversial 1976 album cover after protests over censorship.
Most British internet service providers had blocked users from accessing the image of a prepubescent naked girl on the cover of the Virgin Killer album by the Scorpions, a German band, after the Internet Watch Foundation ruled it was a "potentially illegal indecent image".
But the picture was accessible on many other sites and some argued that, while provocative, it was an artistic historical artefact and should not be banned.
Last night the IWF accepted that its ban had been counter-productive after the controversy had prompted millions to view the image.
It said in a statement: "The IWF Board has considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
The IWF said that any further reported instances of the image which are hosted by ISPs outside Britain would not be blacklisted. But it reserved the right to reconsider other instances of the image hosted in Britain.
Wikipedia had sharply criticised the IWF decision which had the side-effect of leaving many British internet users unable to edit Wikipedia entries and affected the website's performance.
The IWF is funded by the European Union and the British online industry to gather reports of instances of child abuse pictures on the internet and issue 'take down alerts' to ISPs. Its blacklist is used on a voluntary basis by 95 per cent of British-based residential ISPs.
In its statement the IWF said that it still considered that the image was "potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978" in Britain. The image shows a naked girl, aged about 10, with a cracked glass effect covering her genitals.
The album cover, which was replaced in many countries after an outcry when it was released in 1976, has been under discussion on Wikipedia for many months and has been deleted and reinstated. The page was reported through the IWF's online reporting mechanism on 4 December and assessed to be potentially illegal and indecent.
The IWF said: "As such, in accordance with IWF procedures, the specific webpage was added to the IWF list. This list is provided to ISPs and other companies in the online sector to help protect their customers from inadvertent exposure to potentially illegal indecent images of children. Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978."
The Wikimedia Foundation behind Wikipedia had protested that the IWF had gone too far. "The IWF didn't just block the image; it blocked access to the article itself, which discusses the image in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion," said Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner from San Francisco.
"The IWF says its goal is to protect UK citizens, but I can't see how this action helps to achieve that - and meanwhile, it deprives UK internet users of the ability to access information which should be freely available to everyone. I urge the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist," she added.
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
Most British internet service providers had blocked users from accessing the image of a prepubescent naked girl on the cover of the Virgin Killer album by the Scorpions, a German band, after the Internet Watch Foundation ruled it was a "potentially illegal indecent image".
But the picture was accessible on many other sites and some argued that, while provocative, it was an artistic historical artefact and should not be banned.
Last night the IWF accepted that its ban had been counter-productive after the controversy had prompted millions to view the image.
It said in a statement: "The IWF Board has considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.
"IWF's overriding objective is to minimise the availability of indecent images of children on the internet, however, on this occasion our efforts have had the opposite effect. We regret the unintended consequences for Wikipedia and its users. Wikipedia have been informed of the outcome of this procedure and IWF Board's subsequent decision."
The IWF said that any further reported instances of the image which are hosted by ISPs outside Britain would not be blacklisted. But it reserved the right to reconsider other instances of the image hosted in Britain.
Wikipedia had sharply criticised the IWF decision which had the side-effect of leaving many British internet users unable to edit Wikipedia entries and affected the website's performance.
The IWF is funded by the European Union and the British online industry to gather reports of instances of child abuse pictures on the internet and issue 'take down alerts' to ISPs. Its blacklist is used on a voluntary basis by 95 per cent of British-based residential ISPs.
In its statement the IWF said that it still considered that the image was "potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978" in Britain. The image shows a naked girl, aged about 10, with a cracked glass effect covering her genitals.
The album cover, which was replaced in many countries after an outcry when it was released in 1976, has been under discussion on Wikipedia for many months and has been deleted and reinstated. The page was reported through the IWF's online reporting mechanism on 4 December and assessed to be potentially illegal and indecent.
The IWF said: "As such, in accordance with IWF procedures, the specific webpage was added to the IWF list. This list is provided to ISPs and other companies in the online sector to help protect their customers from inadvertent exposure to potentially illegal indecent images of children. Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978."
The Wikimedia Foundation behind Wikipedia had protested that the IWF had gone too far. "The IWF didn't just block the image; it blocked access to the article itself, which discusses the image in a neutral, encyclopedic fashion," said Wikimedia Foundation head Sue Gardner from San Francisco.
"The IWF says its goal is to protect UK citizens, but I can't see how this action helps to achieve that - and meanwhile, it deprives UK internet users of the ability to access information which should be freely available to everyone. I urge the IWF to remove Wikipedia from its blacklist," she added.
Media Man Australia Profiles
Technology News
Thursday, December 04, 2008
Reactions to "60 Minutes" Poker Coverage (Update)
December 2, 2008 (InfoPowa News) - The Washington Post print stories and the "60 Minutes" television coverage of the UltimateBet and Absolute Poker cheating scandals published on Sunday continued to evoke wide comment and exchanges of opinion on industry message boards and in the media this week.
Among the widespread assessment of the material were official statements from the Poker Players Alliance, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, and the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.
The million-member PPA took the line that the publicity re-emphasized the need for regulation in the United States.
"The recent cheating scandals underscore the need for U.S. licensing and regulation of online poker to help protect consumers," the PPA statement asserted. "While even the most highly regulated industries are susceptible to fraud and abuse, regulation does provide assurances that when consumers are harmed they have recourse, and that the offenders will be sanctioned. The continued pursuit of poker prohibition, on the other hand, will only drive this industry underground. As the Washington Post pointed out, prohibition represents a widening disconnect between 21st-century technology and 20th-century laws.
"Regulation of Internet poker does not imply an expansion of gambling in this country. Like it or not, the phenomenon of Internet poker cannot be wished away. The American market has spoken. There is strong demand for Internet poker and no reasonable government can or should stand in the way of adults competing in games of skill on the Internet. To the contrary, the government should step up and exercise regulatory oversight on this multi-billion dollar interstate commerce, and collect the revenue — especially during this country's economic crisis.
"Federal government cannot continue to abdicate this basic responsibility to the millions of its citizens who choose to play poker on the Internet. The attempt to enforce an outright prohibition of online poker is deeply flawed and unworkable, and it invades upon the personal freedoms of law-abiding adults who wish to engage in a game of skill. And as '60 Minutes' and the Washington Post stories reported, it also exposes American consumers to the rare, unscrupulous bad apple operator who will take advantage of the lack of a U.S. regulated marketplace.
"Now more than ever the U.S. Congress needs to step up and enact real public policy as it relates to Internet gaming. We look forward to working with the new Administration and the new Congress to advance sensible regulatory solutions such as those introduced in the 110th Congress by Representatives Barney Frank (H.R. 2046) and Robert Wexler (H.R. 2610) and Senator Robert Menendez (S.3616)."
The submission from the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative followed a similar route, urging U.S. legislators to protect U.S. consumers by regulating rather than prohibiting the online gambling industry.
Under the headline "Current prohibition leaves Americans unprotected," spokesman Jeffrey Sandman said that the Washington Post and "60 Minutes" publicity highlighted the dangers Americans face when they gamble online.
"The '60 Minutes' and Washington Post stories demonstrate unambiguously that the existing government prohibition on Internet gambling is a failure and a mistake," says Sandman. "The millions of Americans who continue to gamble online are vulnerable to being defrauded by offshore operators who exploit U.S. prohibition policies, leaving U.S. consumers without legal protections when they make a bet or play poker online. It is clear that a different approach is necessary to protect consumers, as well as to recapture the billions of tax dollars currently lost to offshore gambling operators and out of the U.S. economy. Now more than ever, Congress should understand why it should step in and regulate the industry to protect the public. We are hopeful that increased attention in the media about the issue will lead to increased movement in Congress.
Sandman pointed out that the publicity had neglected to mention the specific benefits achieved through regulation, and used the opportunity to remind lawmakers of a bill proposed by the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Barney Frank.
"Legislation introduced last year by Rep. Barney Frank, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S," Sandman says. "It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against all of the types of improper activity identified in the recent news coverage.
"These safeguards include protections to combat compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. Moreover, as the coverage reveals, the structure of the Internet allows for greater protections since there is a complete audit trail of all Internet gambling activity and transactions. A companion piece of legislation would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. Revenues from regulated Internet gambling are estimated to be between $8.7 billion and $42.8 billion over 10 years, according to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers.”
The Kahnawake Gaming Commission, regulator of the UltimateBet and Absolute Poker websites involved in the major cheating scandals covered by the Washington Post and "60 Minutes" publicity, was critical of some elements ommitted from the reports by the two news organizations, and issued the following 'clarification':
"The Kahnawáke Gaming Commission ("KGC") and its agents, having viewed the CBS News item entitled, "The Cheaters", extends the following clarification and information which, although provided to the show's producers, had been left out of the storyline.
"1. The Ultimate Bet ('UB') cheating was initiated while UB was owned and operated by Excapsa (a public company whose Board of Directors included several high-profile Canadians). Pursuant to a settlement agreement finalized in November, 2008, Excapsa agreed to pay Tokwiro ENRG US$15M.
"2. All players that were adversely affected by cheating (both AP and UB) were fully reimbursed. In the case of UB, these refunds amounted to over US$20M. The reimbursement of UB players was affected within days after the Excapsa settlement. The KGC played a key role in facilitating and monitoring reimbursements.
"3. The KGC and its agents have reviewed AP/UB operations and systems and have confirmed that all necessary steps have been implemented to prevent against cheating in [the] future. Migration to the CEREUS software platform was approved and closely monitored by KGC.
"4. Contrary to claims made in the '60 Minutes' story, in addition to significant penalties levied under its Regulations (eg. fines totaling US$2M), the KGC has initiated a criminal complaint against at least one cheater (Russ Hamilton) and is cooperating with law enforcement authorities. Other such complaints may follow."
Point 4 of the Kahawake clarification will be well received by the player community, which has expressed outrage at the apparent immunity from prosecution implied by Tokwiro group statements that it had not pursued the cheaters in return for cooperation in finding and plugging the software flaws and identifying prejudiced players.
Media Man Australia Profiles
Poker News
Online Casino News
Casino News
Among the widespread assessment of the material were official statements from the Poker Players Alliance, the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative, and the Kahnawake Gaming Commission.
The million-member PPA took the line that the publicity re-emphasized the need for regulation in the United States.
"The recent cheating scandals underscore the need for U.S. licensing and regulation of online poker to help protect consumers," the PPA statement asserted. "While even the most highly regulated industries are susceptible to fraud and abuse, regulation does provide assurances that when consumers are harmed they have recourse, and that the offenders will be sanctioned. The continued pursuit of poker prohibition, on the other hand, will only drive this industry underground. As the Washington Post pointed out, prohibition represents a widening disconnect between 21st-century technology and 20th-century laws.
"Regulation of Internet poker does not imply an expansion of gambling in this country. Like it or not, the phenomenon of Internet poker cannot be wished away. The American market has spoken. There is strong demand for Internet poker and no reasonable government can or should stand in the way of adults competing in games of skill on the Internet. To the contrary, the government should step up and exercise regulatory oversight on this multi-billion dollar interstate commerce, and collect the revenue — especially during this country's economic crisis.
"Federal government cannot continue to abdicate this basic responsibility to the millions of its citizens who choose to play poker on the Internet. The attempt to enforce an outright prohibition of online poker is deeply flawed and unworkable, and it invades upon the personal freedoms of law-abiding adults who wish to engage in a game of skill. And as '60 Minutes' and the Washington Post stories reported, it also exposes American consumers to the rare, unscrupulous bad apple operator who will take advantage of the lack of a U.S. regulated marketplace.
"Now more than ever the U.S. Congress needs to step up and enact real public policy as it relates to Internet gaming. We look forward to working with the new Administration and the new Congress to advance sensible regulatory solutions such as those introduced in the 110th Congress by Representatives Barney Frank (H.R. 2046) and Robert Wexler (H.R. 2610) and Senator Robert Menendez (S.3616)."
The submission from the Safe and Secure Internet Gambling Initiative followed a similar route, urging U.S. legislators to protect U.S. consumers by regulating rather than prohibiting the online gambling industry.
Under the headline "Current prohibition leaves Americans unprotected," spokesman Jeffrey Sandman said that the Washington Post and "60 Minutes" publicity highlighted the dangers Americans face when they gamble online.
"The '60 Minutes' and Washington Post stories demonstrate unambiguously that the existing government prohibition on Internet gambling is a failure and a mistake," says Sandman. "The millions of Americans who continue to gamble online are vulnerable to being defrauded by offshore operators who exploit U.S. prohibition policies, leaving U.S. consumers without legal protections when they make a bet or play poker online. It is clear that a different approach is necessary to protect consumers, as well as to recapture the billions of tax dollars currently lost to offshore gambling operators and out of the U.S. economy. Now more than ever, Congress should understand why it should step in and regulate the industry to protect the public. We are hopeful that increased attention in the media about the issue will lead to increased movement in Congress.
Sandman pointed out that the publicity had neglected to mention the specific benefits achieved through regulation, and used the opportunity to remind lawmakers of a bill proposed by the chairman of the House Financial Services Committee, Congressman Barney Frank.
"Legislation introduced last year by Rep. Barney Frank, the Internet Gambling Regulation and Enforcement Act of 2007, would establish an enforcement framework for licensed gambling operators to accept bets and wagers from individuals in the U.S," Sandman says. "It includes a number of built-in consumer protections, including safeguards against all of the types of improper activity identified in the recent news coverage.
"These safeguards include protections to combat compulsive and underage gambling, money laundering, fraud and identity theft. Moreover, as the coverage reveals, the structure of the Internet allows for greater protections since there is a complete audit trail of all Internet gambling activity and transactions. A companion piece of legislation would ensure the collection of taxes on regulated Internet gambling activities. Revenues from regulated Internet gambling are estimated to be between $8.7 billion and $42.8 billion over 10 years, according to a tax revenue analysis prepared by PricewaterhouseCoopers.”
The Kahnawake Gaming Commission, regulator of the UltimateBet and Absolute Poker websites involved in the major cheating scandals covered by the Washington Post and "60 Minutes" publicity, was critical of some elements ommitted from the reports by the two news organizations, and issued the following 'clarification':
"The Kahnawáke Gaming Commission ("KGC") and its agents, having viewed the CBS News item entitled, "The Cheaters", extends the following clarification and information which, although provided to the show's producers, had been left out of the storyline.
"1. The Ultimate Bet ('UB') cheating was initiated while UB was owned and operated by Excapsa (a public company whose Board of Directors included several high-profile Canadians). Pursuant to a settlement agreement finalized in November, 2008, Excapsa agreed to pay Tokwiro ENRG US$15M.
"2. All players that were adversely affected by cheating (both AP and UB) were fully reimbursed. In the case of UB, these refunds amounted to over US$20M. The reimbursement of UB players was affected within days after the Excapsa settlement. The KGC played a key role in facilitating and monitoring reimbursements.
"3. The KGC and its agents have reviewed AP/UB operations and systems and have confirmed that all necessary steps have been implemented to prevent against cheating in [the] future. Migration to the CEREUS software platform was approved and closely monitored by KGC.
"4. Contrary to claims made in the '60 Minutes' story, in addition to significant penalties levied under its Regulations (eg. fines totaling US$2M), the KGC has initiated a criminal complaint against at least one cheater (Russ Hamilton) and is cooperating with law enforcement authorities. Other such complaints may follow."
Point 4 of the Kahawake clarification will be well received by the player community, which has expressed outrage at the apparent immunity from prosecution implied by Tokwiro group statements that it had not pursued the cheaters in return for cooperation in finding and plugging the software flaws and identifying prejudiced players.
Media Man Australia Profiles
Poker News
Online Casino News
Casino News
St Minver Integrates WagerWorks Games
3rd December 2008
London-based gaming software developer WagerWorks has announced a deal that will see it provide premium branded game content to St Minver, the operator of one of Europe’s largest poker networks.
Gibraltar-based St Minver also operates the world's most extensive bingo network and is a leading supplier of fully-managed ‘white label' gaming solutions to high-profile partners including Yahoo! Games, LastMinute.com, PokerHeaven.com, VirginGames.com and LittlewoodsGameOn.com. It has partnership agreements in place with major media groups in Spain, Scandinavia, Latin America, Russia and Eastern Europe and will now leverage top-performing game titles from WagerWorks on its casino and bingo sites in order to offer clients more premium branded titles.
'The provision of these premium branded titles to St Minver enables WagerWorks games to be enjoyed by even more online players,” said Oliver Lofthouse, Director and General Manager for IGT-UK Gaming and WagerWorks.
“Developing a business relationship with such a high-profile client reiterates the quality of WagerWorks branded games and their appeal to all levels of player.'
'This is an exciting opportunity for both our players and partners alike,” said Leigh Nissim, Commercial Director for St Minver.
“We have significantly enhanced our bingo and casino games over the last twelve months and expect the introduction of branded content to further improve player entertainment value while differentiating our gaming solutions for partners in the European market.'
Media Man Australia Profiles
Virgin Games
Technology News
London-based gaming software developer WagerWorks has announced a deal that will see it provide premium branded game content to St Minver, the operator of one of Europe’s largest poker networks.
Gibraltar-based St Minver also operates the world's most extensive bingo network and is a leading supplier of fully-managed ‘white label' gaming solutions to high-profile partners including Yahoo! Games, LastMinute.com, PokerHeaven.com, VirginGames.com and LittlewoodsGameOn.com. It has partnership agreements in place with major media groups in Spain, Scandinavia, Latin America, Russia and Eastern Europe and will now leverage top-performing game titles from WagerWorks on its casino and bingo sites in order to offer clients more premium branded titles.
'The provision of these premium branded titles to St Minver enables WagerWorks games to be enjoyed by even more online players,” said Oliver Lofthouse, Director and General Manager for IGT-UK Gaming and WagerWorks.
“Developing a business relationship with such a high-profile client reiterates the quality of WagerWorks branded games and their appeal to all levels of player.'
'This is an exciting opportunity for both our players and partners alike,” said Leigh Nissim, Commercial Director for St Minver.
“We have significantly enhanced our bingo and casino games over the last twelve months and expect the introduction of branded content to further improve player entertainment value while differentiating our gaming solutions for partners in the European market.'
Media Man Australia Profiles
Virgin Games
Technology News
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)