by Mike Masnick
Wed, Dec 10th 2008 4:54pm
In the wake of the UK Internet Watch Foundation's block of a particular Wikipedia page for what it claimed was illegal child pornography, and the group's subsequent reversal of that decision, the EFF is now asking will IWF be held responsible for the unintended consequences of its unregulated ability to ban websites? In this case, the action lead to a chain of events that blocked a significant number of UK Wikipedia users from being able to edit any page on the site. The EFF points out that the IWF's reversal on the ban was for all the wrong reasons: rather than it being because the image was old or widespread -- the group never should have put up the ban in the first place, recognizing that Wikipedia's open group review process is a lot more effective than IWF's arbitrary and secretive process.
If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...
- Another Unfortunate Example Of Facebook Silencing Important Videos
- Security Researchers Sued For Exposing Internet Filtering Company's Sale Of Censorship Software To Blacklisted Country
- Russian Copyright Law Allows Entire News Site To Be Shut Down Over A Single Copied Article
- Russian Censor Bans Comodo... Doesn't Realize Its Own Security Certificate Is From Comodo
- MPAA Front Group, Pretending To Represent Consumer Interests, Slams CloudFlare For Not Censoring The Internet