Is overblocking defamatory?
Jul. 22nd, 2013 08:39 am![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
ewxIf a user of an ISP tries to visit a website controlled by an identifiable legal person, which does not contain any pornography, but the ISP instead serves them a block page informing them that the website does contain pornography, has the person controlling the website been libeled by the ISP? (All three parties located in the UK.)
(If you think Cameron's latest wheeze won't lead to overblocking then you haven't been paying attention to the existing implementations.)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 08:02 am (UTC)(But the block page will probably hedge saying something like "our filter system indicates the page is likely to contain pornography" rather than "does contain", with a link to fine print explaining that false positives are inevitable . Or maybe you will just get a connection failure.)
But child pornography is already blocked, and I would be surprised if wrongfully accusing someone of hosting child pornography wasn't libel. I assume the much smaller volume means overblocking isn't currently a problem there. (And looking at the IWF FAQ, they don't block UK sites (they get them taken down).)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 08:06 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 08:11 am (UTC)If it does, I would say there has been a libel, at least as long as the website author has a reputation in England and that reputation would be damaged by the claim that the website contains pornography.
(S)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 08:12 am (UTC)(S)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 08:41 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 10:14 am (UTC)If the page *is* pornography and the page-owner wants people to able to see their porn then they have a problem with the government; if the page *is not* pornography then the page-owner has a problem with the ISP('s software) which has incorrectly classified their page.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 10:25 am (UTC)But my wording specifically doesn't say that you can't see it because it's porn. The Government is going to have to specify how the ISPs can meet their obligations under whatever this law turns out to be (is google meant to check every gmail attachment, for example?), since it's not obvious what technology can block all and only what they want to be blocked, and that lets the ISP say they are blocking according to Government requirements. Presumably this is going to boil down to a list of words Cameron can't say on the BBC which we're not allowed to google for.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 11:06 am (UTC)As ever, I wonder if the government has even the slightest inkling of how technology works.
Also, as ever, I wonder what Julian has to say.
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 12:06 pm (UTC)On your third: "There is a single entendre, but I don't know about a triple one." Oh - different Julian :-)
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 01:01 pm (UTC)What about BT Fon? Does BT even have the technology to apply different filters to someone's own internet connection and the Fon service provided via their broadband?
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 01:25 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-22 05:46 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-23 03:49 pm (UTC)http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia is the only incident of IWF overblocking I've heard of, but it's not something I've been looking out for.
Presumably any new system will be more similar to the existing mobile internet blocks:
https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2011/how-does-mobile-internet-filtering-work
http://www.pcpro.co.uk/features/382633/mobile-web-blocking-what-it-reveals-about-porn-filtering-plans
(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-23 03:52 pm (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-24 11:39 am (UTC)(no subject)
Date: 2013-07-24 03:24 pm (UTC)