Talk:Cleanfeed (content blocking system)

message: Jottings from the Clayton (2005) paper for possible inclusion in the article:
History:
*Illegal to "make" indecent images of children since 1994. make includes saving and browsing. See Sommer (127) and Foundation for Information Policy Research (35)
*1996 - Internet Watch Foundation - originally mainly on usenet. UK ISPs sent a report and remove image from news servers (avoids ISP being done for possession?)
*2003 -only 2.4% is usenet. IWF accepts reports on sites worldwide - UK site ->UK police, offshore ->national criminal intell. service to interpol. IWF keeps database of URLs and date of illegal material
*Late 2003 - BT made cleanfeed to stop own customers accessing sites on IWF blocklist
*June 2004 - cleanfeed goes live. leaked to press (22)
Design:
Hybrid system. 1st stage like packet dropping but packets not discarded but routed to 2nd stage content filtering system
*traffic examined. if from a suspect site (some of which may be blocked) then redirected to 2nd stage filter
*1st stage on destination port &ip address
*2nd stage web proxy
*returns 404 if matches item in database
*1st stage modified packet routing within customer facing portion of bt network (using bgp)
*1st stage uses Ip, 2nd stage uses URLs that are encrypted - compares hashes so that banned list is not accessible
Cleanfeed only uses port 80. 
US Child Pornography Prevention Act
Ashcroft v Free Speech Coalition (2002)
-------
22 - http://observer.guardian.co.uk/uk_news/story/0,6903,1232422,00.html
35 - http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/SexualOffencesBill.pdf
127 - http://isig.lse.ac.uk/news/evi.html P. Sommer: Evidence in Internet Paedophilia Cases. In A. MacVean, P.
Spindler (Ed.): Policing Paedophiles on the Internet, New Police Bookshop,
2003, .
Secretlondon 03:33, 31 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Comments

message: In the wake of the Virgin Killer debacle it seemed that not every ISP implemented Cleanfeed (contrary to the legislation which mandated it). Of the people who complained about it being blocked they all seemed to be customers of a handful of ISPs, most of which were resellers of BT's service (e.g. Sky, Orange, Tesco), a lot of the more 'independent' ISPs didn't seem to implement Cleanfeed at all (like ADSL24 and Zen); for the sake of assisting capitalism's needs for an informed consumer base to make the 'right' purchasing descisions, should this article include a 'name and shame' list of ISPs known to implement the system? W3bbo (talk) 13:40, 10 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think linking to such a list would be appropriate, but unless we find one it might constitute OR. We really need to split this article... Metao (talk) 00:40, 11 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  List of complicit ISPs 

message: Just wondering how many posts (or how much traffic) on usenet meets the criteria of being filtered by cleanfeed and thus would be considered as usenet spam.
Also, can some mention be made here to the software known as noceum, which I think performs a similar function?  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.231.15.187 (talk) 14:02, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Any estimate as to percentage of daily usenet traffic is filtered by cleanfeed? 

message: Halton police in Canada claim to have the ability to detect computers attempting to access CP content. Using these methods they have then gone on to issue warrents to the ISPs to hand over the subscribers information.
My question is does this relate to Cleanfeed in anyway? Since this article states that Cleanfeed in Canada is not used by police for surveillance or prosecution, but to the extent of what they claim a lot of access to private networks would be required. That is assuming they're not refering to simple bait "honeypots" and capturing IPs.
http://www.thestar.com/news/article/951154--police-can-detect-computers-accessing-child-porn?bn=1
99.240.36.63 (talk) 22:03, 14 March 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question about Cleanfeed Canada 

message: There are some grammatical errors on the page that I wish to correct and I'm also going to add a section on 'Criticisms of Cleanfeed' as it is clear that there are some issues being debated involving censorship, ways to circumvent Cleanfeed, and lack of transparency regarding its blocked content. I chose to note these under criticisms, rather than controversies or its potential to affect free speech/ expression, etc. in order to preserve neutrality.
OneMadRabbit (talk) 04:05, 9 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Inclusion of a 'Criticisms of Cleanfeed' section and some minor tweaks 

message: The page is a real jumble of information and it seems to cover three separate topics, which are connected but aren't really defined as being separate entities in the article, perhaps it might be worth splitting into maybe two (or at a push; three) separate wiki entries? Suggest:
=== Cleanfeed ===
The system, it's implementation, the history, the technology, criticism of. So pretty much the page as it is now, with the IWF stuff removed and linked to on a separate page (see below), a note made that the cleanfeed system uses the IWF URL list for child sexual abuse images only - all other information and the other block(s) are the result of ISPs implementing their own blocks through legal threats, court judgments, etc.
perhaps put a subsection here about the MPA v British Telecommunications Plc case and it's impact on BT's Cleanfeed? or maybe a new section for this too?
=== IWF URL ===
aims (which ARE different from cleanfeed), the implementation (in cleanfeed), history, criticisms (these are different criticisms to cleanfeed (both since the court case and government intrusion). Cleanfeed is clearly being used for purposes which were never intended by the IWF, who's only remit and concern is child sexual abuse images. I think there are still some valid criticisms here BTW! Accountability, etc.)
I think the two were originally so dependent on each other, and effectively the same, that they deserved to share the same page here (on wikipedia), but I think the recent Newzbin case and political interference has split the systems/issues to such an extent that they no longer share the same ambitions/aims. 
Obviously if agreed each page would reference the other, and they would be interlinked and have some crossover.
Any thoughts?
Bullblade (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did this, Child abuse image content list Deku-shrub (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, you didn't. You've split out all the technological details away from the actual article on the system. Ironholds (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Right, so I've written much of Web blocking in the United Kingdom so believe me when I say I know my web blocking! I've even compiled a list of known technologies all the ISPs use - as you can see Cleanfeed is only, and I mean only used by BT. All the other ISPs use their own blocking systems which ingest the Child abuse image content list from the IWF. As a result, talking about Cleanfeed in a UK context only makes sense historically, unless you want to talk about something special with BT's system, which is no longer at all special. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible Split Cleanfeed/IWF URL/BT case? 

message: aims (which ARE different from cleanfeed), the implementation (in cleanfeed), history, criticisms (these are different criticisms to cleanfeed (both since the court case and government intrusion). Cleanfeed is clearly being used for purposes which were never intended by the IWF, who's only remit and concern is child sexual abuse images. I think there are still some valid criticisms here BTW! Accountability, etc.)
I think the two were originally so dependent on each other, and effectively the same, that they deserved to share the same page here (on wikipedia), but I think the recent Newzbin case and political interference has split the systems/issues to such an extent that they no longer share the same ambitions/aims. 
Obviously if agreed each page would reference the other, and they would be interlinked and have some crossover.
Any thoughts?
Bullblade (talk) 16:56, 12 November 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  I did this, Child abuse image content list Deku-shrub (talk) 23:26, 26 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  no, you didn't. You've split out all the technological details away from the actual article on the system. Ironholds (talk) 17:33, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:   Right, so I've written much of Web blocking in the United Kingdom so believe me when I say I know my web blocking! I've even compiled a list of known technologies all the ISPs use - as you can see Cleanfeed is only, and I mean only used by BT. All the other ISPs use their own blocking systems which ingest the Child abuse image content list from the IWF. As a result, talking about Cleanfeed in a UK context only makes sense historically, unless you want to talk about something special with BT's system, which is no longer at all special. Deku-shrub (talk) 21:04, 10 November 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  IWF URL 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Cleanfeed (content blocking system). Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091012052007/http://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/press to http://www.cybertip.ca/app/en/press
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:22, 9 August 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified