Internet Watch Foundation and processing of "child abuse" images

Mr Hansen

Thank you for your email dated 15 January, in which you ask for an
internal review into the lack of response to your Freedom of Information
request.

Unfortunately we have no record of having received this request; this has
been confirmed by searching our correspondence tracking database and a
conversation with the relevant policy unit. However as the request is
available on the `What do they know' website we will not ask you to
resend. I have passed the case on to the policy unit, with a receipt date
of today - 15 January, the twenty day target for a response will be the 12
February.

Yours sincerely

Gareth Wyn Hazzelby | Information Management Service | Financial and
Commercial Group | Lower Ground Floor | Seacole Building | Home Office |
2 Marsham Street | London SW1P 4DF

show quoted sections

Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

Reference : T971/9

Thank you for your e-mail enquiry of 15/01/2009 16:53:32

A reply is attached.

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen,

Please find attached correspondence in relation to your request for an
internal review.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen, thank you for your email.

Further to your previous correspondence I have provided the original response given to your request in a plain text format below as requested. Further to this, I would be grateful if you could please confirm whether you wish for me to continue to proceed with the internal review.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

David Hansen
[email address]

Reference: T971/9

Dear Mr Hansen,

Thank you for your e-mail of 15/01/2009 16:53:32 in which you ask about the Internet Watch Foundation's database.

I regret to inform you that the Home Office does not hold the information that you have requested. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self regulatory, independent charity that has no formal links with the Home Office. The IWF's press release regarding the Wikipedia webpage states that;

"A Wikipedia webpage was reported through the IWF's online reporting mechanism on 4 December 2008...The content was considered to be a potentially illegal indecent image of a child under the age of 18, hosted outside the UK. As such, in accordance with IWF procedures, the specific webpage was added to the IWF list."

"Following representations from Wikipedia, IWF invoked its Appeals Procedure and has given careful consideration to the issues involved in this case. The procedure is now complete and has confirmed that the image in question is potentially in breach of the Protection of Children Act 1978. However, the IWF Board has today (9 December 2008) considered these findings and the contextual issues involved in this specific case and, in light of the length of time the image has existed and its wide availability, the decision has been taken to remove this webpage from our list.
 
Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted abroad, will not be added to the list. Any further reported instances of this image which are hosted in the UK will be assessed in line with IWF procedures."

I am not sure to what database you refer. The IWF own a blacklist which is a live list of URL's which is updated twice daily. The following information has been taken from the IWF website;

"The IWF works with UK service providers to remove potentially illegal child sexual abuse content from the internet.  As a result of work by the IWF Internet Content Analysts the IWF produces a list of URLs containing potentially illegal child sexual abuse content hosted overseas. This list is made available to IWF members under licence so that they can develop technical solutions to prevent their users from being inadvertently exposed to this type of content.
 
The list is dynamic - updated twice a day - and typically, 50 'live' URLs with potentially illegal child sexual abuse content are added each day. As the URLs are precise websites or web pages, the risk of over-blocking or collateral damage is minimised. The list only contains URLs of websites and does not extend to other internet services, such as peer-2-peer networks, instant messaging or chat room activities."

"IWF subscribing members are entitled to secure access to the list subject to legally binding license agreements, as are Law Enforcement Agencies and associated Hotlines who are members of INHOPE."

The Home Office cannot comment on specific cases. Information will be shared with UK law enforcement to assist with the indentification of the victim and law enforcement will work with counterparts in Europe and Internationally.

If you are dissatisfied with this response you may request an independent internal review of our handling of your request by submitting your complaint within two months to the below address quoting reference 11123:

Information Rights Team
Information and Record Management Service
Home Office
4th Floor, Seacole Building
2 Marsham Street
London
SW1P 4DF
Email: [email address]

During the independent review the department's handling of your information request will be reassessed by staff who were not involved in providing you with this response. Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review, you will have a right of complaint to the Information Commissioner as established by section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act.

Yours sincerely

Stephanie Williams

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen,

Thank you for your email. I have interpreted your message below as a request for an internal review. Further to my previous correspondence, please accept this email as further acknowledgment of that request. The Home Office aims to undertake all internal reviews within a period of 40 working days from receipt of such a request. You should therefore expect to receive a full response by no later than 1 April 2009.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections

Dear Mr Hansen,

Please find attached response to your internal review. As per your
request I have also produced the response in plain text format below.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

Dear Mr Hansen,

I am writing further to my email of 9 February 2009, regarding your
request for an internal review of the same date.

I have now completed a full review of the handling of your request.
This matter has been treated on its own merits and all papers originally
considered have been re-considered as part of the internal review.

The original response, which you received in plain text format on 6
February 2009, stated that the Home Office did not hold any information
relevant to your request. Having now completed my review I am satisfied
that this was correct. The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) is a self
regulated independent charity that does not have any formal links to the
Home Office. Given that the Home Office does not have any formal links
with the IWF we also hold no information relating to any action that
may, or may not, be taking place in relation to the posting of any
images online. The response provided by the original caseworker
contained a substantial amount of information taken from the IWF's
website to further elucidate the status of the body. I am satisfied that
this information satisfies our responsibility to advise and assist under
the terms of section 16 of the Act.

In subsequent correspondence with me you also raised questions regarding
the Home Office's policy to provide responses to internal reviews within
40 working days, rather than the 20 working days specified in the
guidance produced by the Information Commissioner's Office (ICO). The 20
working day target set by the ICO is not a statutory requirement.
Nevertheless, the Home Office aims to respond to all requests for
internal reviews as quickly as possible, and certainly within 40 working
days. In some cases it may not be possible to respond within this time
frame, in such circumstances caseworkers are asked to make every attempt
to ensure that applicants are kept informed of the progress of their
review.

While I realise that this response may be a disappointment to you, I
would like to assure you that that this review has been both independent
and thorough and that the Home Office does not hold any information
relevant to your request.

Should you remain dissatisfied after this internal review you have the
right of complaint to the Information Commissioner, as established by
section 50 of the Freedom of Information Act. You can write to him at:

Wycliffe House
Water Lane
Wilmslow
Cheshire SK9 5AF

A copy of this response will also be provided in plain text format.

Yours sincerely,

John Bragaglia
Information Access Consultant

show quoted sections