Memorandum submitted by Internet Watch
Foundation
The Internet Watch Foundation (IWF) was created
in 1996 by UK Internet service providers ISPs), primarily to combat
illegal content on the Internet. As well as some funding from
the European Union, it now has a total of 53 funding members,
embracing ISPs, mobile operators, software providers and others.
The IWF aims to:
— foster trust and confidence in the
Internet among current and future Internet users;
— assist service providers to combat
the abuse of their systems for the dissemination of criminal content;
and
— assist law enforcement in the fight
against criminal content on the Internet.
The types of content covered by IWF activities
are child abuse images hosted anywhere in the world and UK hosted
criminally racist and obscene adult material.
The IWF was invited to the Select Committee's
oral evidence session on 29 June 2004 in order to answer questions
on Internet regulation in the context of the Committee's inquiry
into BBC Charter renewal. In the event, there was not time for
the relevant questions to be addressed and therefore it was agreed
that we would provide a written response to the questions the
Committee has on Internet regulation and its impact on public
service broadcasting (PSB) generally and the BBC more particularly.
— How much regulation of their internet
should there be, taking into account both its practicality and
desirability? And who should regulate it? Should we leave the
internet alone, adapting to it rather than attempting to regulate
it? Are technologies to filter out unwanted material, and improved
media literacy, a better direction to go in for all but illegal
material? How can the latter be stopped when it originates overseas?
Formally speaking, the Internet is not, and
cannot, be regulated in the sense that radio and television are
regulated. There is no allocation of scarce spectrum and no licensing
process and both origination and hosting of material is worldwide.
Consequently, while Ofcom regulates the UK telecommunications
infrastructure that comprises the domestic component of the Internet
network, it has no responsibility for Internet content.
Having said that, it is essentially the case
in this country—as elsewhere in the world—that what
is illegal off-line is illegal on-line, although it has to be
accepted that—for a variety of reasons—enforcement
of this principle is often not an easy process.
As regards criminal content (primarily child
abuse images), the IWF operates a `notice and take down' procedure
whereby it advises any UK ISP of material which that ISP is hosting
which, in the judgement of the IWF's professional and trained
analysts, is potentially illegal. This has been an exceptionally
successful model: whereas in 1997 18% of the material IWF judged
to be illegal was found to be hosted in the UK, that proportion
is now down to less than 1%.
Fortunately most Internet users do not come
upon illegal content by accident; however, they frequently do
access material which they find offensive and even harmful, especially
as regards children and other vulnerable groups. For such material,
the IWF's `notice and take down `procedure has no relevance. Instead
there are two broad lines of action: first, labelling, rating
and filtering. Second, awareness and media literacy.
A label is a word or phrase to describe the
nature of content, whereas a rating is an appraisal of the nature
of content—usually an age-based category, eg "12"
or "15". A further distinction needs to be made between
a visual label (often an age-based rating) that appears on an
actual product, such as a movie rating before a film and a machine-readable
label that travels with the digital content, eg a label such as
that promoted by the Internet Content Rating Association (ICRA)
that describes the content of an Internet site or page "read"
by a localised filter or blocking software. A filter is software,
usually installed by the owner of the PC, to block certain material
so that it cannot be accessed by children using that computer.
IWF supports labelling and rating of Internet content and promotes
the availability and use of filtering software where this would
assist parents, teachers and carers.
Knowing about the dangers and offensiveness
of some Internet content and the concepts of labelling, rating
and filtering in responding to such content are part of awareness.
Knowing how to navigate the Internet, use a search engine, and
access the authoritativeness of content are all part of wider
media literacy. IWF supports the work of organisations like many
Internet service providers, the children's charities, and Ofcom
to promote both awareness and media literacy.
Turning now to the specific subject of the Committee's
inquiry, there are two major respects in which control of Internet
content is relevant to PSB generally and the BBC more particularly.
First, all public service broadcasters have web sites which carry
on-line material related to their broadcast programming. This
is especially true of the BBC which has a vast on-line presence,
so much so that the Government instituted the Graf inquiry into
it. Second, technological convergence means that increasingly
consumers will access broadcast material (which is regulated)
and on-line material (which is not regulated) on the same device,
whether that be a digital television, a personal computer, a games
station, or a mobile phone.
From a consumer point of view, therefore, two
things are necessary. First, a clear indication that one is either
in a regulated space or an unregulated one. Second, knowledge
of how, if one is in a unregulated space, one can ensure that
the control of the content can be made to approximate that found
in the regulated space if that is what is desired (which will
usually be where children are involved).
The BBC is in a very special position here—partly
because it has such a massive on-line presence, partly because
of the expectations generated by its broadcast material, and partly
because uniquely it is funded by licence fee. However, the BBC
clearly understands this and has a high reputation for the responsibility
it has shown in respect of its various web sites and on-line fora.
The BBC operates a self-regulatory model for
its on-line services and published the first edition of its "Online
Guidelines" in 1997. In 2002, the second edition of those
guidelines (2001) won a special award for developments in on-line
safety provided by the Internet Services Providers' Association
(ISPA) and awarded by the IWF. Like the IWF, the BBC is a member
of the Home Office Task Force on child protection on the Internet.
The BBC's control of its on-line material is
based very much on its own values and its own brand. It does not
label or rate any of its sites. It has conducted an extensive
test of the ICRAPlus system—promoted by the Internet Content
Rating Association (ICRA)—but it apparently takes the view
that the ICRA system is hard for users to operate. It believes
that it is difficult to label its sites by following ICRA instructions
and that the filter itself is unreliable.
This is obviously a judgement for the BBC to
make in relation to its on-line material. However, Ofcom—as
part of its media literacy programme—is endeavouring to
encourage a labelling system that would be common across a range
of platforms providing access to audio-visual material and this
is an initiative that the IWF would support as empowering end
users to make easier and more informed choices about what their
children watch and access.
Meanwhile the BBC search engine offers family
friendly systems to help screen out the least acceptable material.
Also the CBBC site for children offers a limited number of links
to third party sites which have been specially selected and checked
by CBBC staff.
Also the BBC has instituted a number of media
literacy initiatives such as Webwise and Chatguide intended to
help parents and children obtain the best from the Internet and
avoid the worst. Clearly the BBC could play a major role in future
media literacy programmes such as those being encouraged by Ofcom.
— What are the content regulation implications
of broadband television? Who regulates video on demand services?
Who regulates television delivered from other countries over the
internet? Where does all this leave the 9 o'clock watershed?
In May 2002, the Government published "The
Draft Communications Bill- The Policy" in which it challenged
the video-on-demand (VOD) industry to produce an effective self-regulatory
model which would enable VOD services to be exempt from control
by Ofcom. The industry met this challenge and therefore VOD services
are governed by a detailed Code of Practice promoted and enforced
by the Association for Television On Demand (ATVOD).
Television originating from other countries
and viewed on the Internet by those in the UK is regulated (if
at all) by the relevant authorities in the originating country.
This means, of course, that such television may well not conform
to the standards (including those of taste and decency) applied
to UK television programming. This is already an issue with Fox
News, an American channel which is available on British television
but which does not conform to the `balance and impartiality' rules
applicable to UK-originated news.
This leaves the 9 pm watershed as applicable
to less and less of the range of television which is becoming
available to viewers. This requires that parents appreciate which
channels are subject to the watershed and which are not and that
parents have the tools to control access by young children to
channels which do not have a watershed.
Of course, even programming which is subject
to the watershed can be viewed before 9 pm if it is recorded on
a video cassette recorder and the advent of the personal video
recorder means that more and more programming will be the subject
of such `time-shifting'.
The BBC is well aware of this dilemma and, in
anticipation of these changes, it has established a Labelling
Project which is intended to identify what further information
or signposts viewers will need in this non-linear environment
if they are to continue to make informed choices about the content
they—and especially their children—access. We understand
that the BBC's initial research has shown that viewers will find
additional text information about programme content the most useful
signpost. However, further research is necessary to identify where
this information might best be placed.
Clearly it is highly desirable that any labelling
system is accepted across the industry and operated across delivery
platforms. Ofcom may well play a key enabling role here.
— If IP television or other video content
develop on a widespread scale, will this undermine and devalue
the concept of public service broadcasting, and the raison
d'etre of the BBC?
It is important to distinguish between carriage
and content. Television delivered over the Internet is just another
delivery mechanism to add to terrestrial broadcasting, satellite
and cable. Of course, television over the Internet—like
cable and satellite—expands the range of content available
to the viewer, in this case dramatically because potentially television
channels from around the world will be accessible.
New forms of access appear to encourage new
forms of consumption of PSB.
For instance, take up of the Internet media
player Real Player—which currently enables BBC fans of "The
Archers" to listen to a streamed version of the programme
up to a week after transmission—has shown that the BBC's
audiences want access to material over the Internet because it
gives them more control over when and how they consume such material.
We understand that the BBC is currently trailing
a television version of Real Player and no doubt, when available,
this will be popular with viewers. As so often has proved to be
the case, therefore, the Internet is likely to be a complementary
medium rather than a substitute for existing media. In that case,
these developments may well increase the desire for and consumption
of public service content.
20 September 2004
| 
