The UK is the best when it comes to protecting users online

I’ve got a half-baked post in the oven about the Australian Government’s poor decision to censor the Web. Trust on the Web, protecting people from inappropriate content, better content discovery and content classification, are all terms that underpin Segala’s business. So, I’ll post a comprehensive opinion piece about censorship when I’ve had time to review what others have had to say. This will enable me to either agree, or explain why they’re wrong

Earlier this evening I came across a post on TechCrunch about data privacy, in which garlick got a mention. I was delighted to see that Mike decided not to use the term ‘identity’ in the title.

I was on one of the Essential Web panels during the summer. Although companies such as Jaiku gave a pitch to my panel (it’s hardly surprising that it was bought given that Google’s Head of Acquisition was on a panel after me). I was disappointed not to have been given the opportunity to quiz garlik and its hijacking of the term identity during its pitch. When I say hijacking, I mean, they pitched their company as a means of resolving the issue of identity online. I have a problem with their pitch because they’re confusing people with their use of terminology. I’ll expand on this in a separate post if asked to do so specifically.

On the plus side for the UK, it is one of the most advanced countries in the world when it comes to helping protect minors from inappropriate content online.

The Internet Trust Watch Foundation (IWF) in the UK, is one of the most impressive if not the most impressive organisation within the entire membership of inhope. In short, the IWF share a list of IP addresses that belong to Web sites which provide illegal content such as child pornography. I’m pretty sure that any decent human being will find it difficult to argue that child pornography isn’t worng and illegal.

A friend of mine once debated with me that blacklisting any type of IP addresses, irrespective of what they’re used for, is wrong as it infringes ‘freedom of speech’. Ok. so he has a point. But, shouldn’t our moral obligation to protect children from harm come first?

Inhope

INHOPE is the International Association of Internet Hotlines and was founded in 1999 under the EC Safer Internet Action Plan.

When a user tries to visit a Web site which has been banned by the ISP, they’ll simply receive a 404 error message, or something similar.

Whilst I’m on the subject, I might as well point out that Ireland is probably one of the worst countries within the inhope membership. Ireland doesn’t share known IP address of illegal Web sites amongst all its members (ISPs etc.). If memory serves me right, the CEO of the UK’s IWF told me that its Irish counterpart is more interested in data protection, or some other scruffy form of do-gooder legislation that does more harm than good.

Reading back, I’ve noticed that this post covers a jolly mixture of things. As I’ve said, I’ll write a more detailed post about censorship later this week.