Open Rights Group slams web site watchdog proposal

The legal status of such a body would be highly questionable says ORG

A key proposal made by a working group set up by Ed Vaizey to come up with an alternative to the Digital Economy Act, has been slammed by digital rights campaigners, the Open Rights Group.

The proposal, to set up a body that will resemble web site watchdog the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF), was revealed following a working group meeting last week.

The working group, which had been set up to try to find an alternative to
web site blocking, comprises ISPs and rights holders.

Clauses within the Digital Economy Act that could lead to web site blocking have come under fire, with particular criticisms made around how it would work and who would be held responsible if illegal content were downloaded on free public Wi-Fi.

"There are widespread rumours that the working group that is trying to establish a ‘Plan B' has asked the BPI [The British Recorded Music Industry] to draft something that would be built upon the model of the IWF," Jim Killock, executive director of the Open Rights Group, told Computing.

The IWF collates a blacklist of web addresses that contain child abuse material, which ISPs then prevent consumers from accessing.

Under the proposals a similar blacklist of copyright infringing sites would be created, where web sites are suggested by copyright holders.

"I don't think this is a feasible option," said Killock.

"The IWF operates as an unofficial national censor, and its operation without due legal process is arguably a serious breach of everyone's rights. But because it deals with child abuse images everyone keeps quiet about it," he added.

"It is basically unaccountable. If you get something blocked and you want to object to it, who do you complain to? Is there some way you can get to a court to get this resolved? No: the final decision is made by police, rather than courts."

Killock suggested that it is just through "good will" that the IWF gets away with this model, and compared it to an unlicensed wheel clamping operation.

"This model of private censorship has the power to cause immense disruption to other people's freedoms, without any legal oversight," he said.

Peter Bradwell, the Open Rights Group's copyright campaigner, argued that if such a body was established, it would not fully represent all the issues in the debate.

"This is siding with one constituency in an unbelievably heated commercial debate about licensing," said Bradwell.

"There are lots of people trying to make money from the availability of content online, and siding with one constituency [rights holders] does a disservice to the complexity of the debate," he added.

"Giving a self-regulated blocking scheme to one constituency creates a powerful tool that serves only one side of the commercial demand. It's a pretty bad idea."