Letter: Cleaning up the Net
Your support helps us to tell the story
From reproductive rights to climate change to Big Tech, The Independent is on the ground when the story is developing. Whether it's investigating the financials of Elon Musk's pro-Trump PAC or producing our latest documentary, 'The A Word', which shines a light on the American women fighting for reproductive rights, we know how important it is to parse out the facts from the messaging.
At such a critical moment in US history, we need reporters on the ground. Your donation allows us to keep sending journalists to speak to both sides of the story.
The Independent is trusted by Americans across the entire political spectrum. And unlike many other quality news outlets, we choose not to lock Americans out of our reporting and analysis with paywalls. We believe quality journalism should be available to everyone, paid for by those who can afford it.
Your support makes all the difference.Sir: Alan Docherty (letter, 10 February) suggests that the Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) "simply asks for Internet service providers [ISPs] to remove material" without any accountability to the public. In fact there are a range of checks and balances which ensure that the IWF only acts on material which would be likely to be found illegal in a UK court.
The material in question is almost exclusively pictures of children being sexually abused or raped on screen. Unlike the vagaries of the Obscene Publications Act, there is not much room for doubt that possession and publication of such pictures is an offence under UK child protection legislation.
The UK ISPs, which have consistently upheld rights to free speech on the Net, will only remove material that they agree is potentially illegal. (Like many other organisations, including newspapers, they do have to make some judgement of material that has not been to court.)
The police, too, would quickly tell us if the reports that we pass to them refer to material that would not be actionable in the UK. Indeed, there are no doubt cases which have been successfully prosecuted which originated with information forwarded by the IWF.
Finally, it is ironic that Mr Docherty's accusation of lack of accountability appeared the day after the DTI and Home Office published the results of an extensive review of the performance of the IWF. This thorough investigation into our efficiency and effectiveness was conducted by independent management (KPMG)and legal consultants (Denton Hall). Readers can see it at www.dti.gov.uk/iwfreview - another example of the Internet encouraging open government.
DAVID KERR
Chief Executive
Internet Watch Foundation
Oakington, Cambridgeshire
Join our commenting forum
Join thought-provoking conversations, follow other Independent readers and see their replies
Comments