School Filtering and extremist websites.

[sigma]

I am somewhat aghast that our School's Broadband/Netsweeper configuration classifies:

 

britainfirst.org - "Government"

britishmovement.info - "journals and blogs"

bnp.org.uk - "Government"

english-defence-league.org - was "sales" until I reported it over the w/e and is now "hate speech" because of comments there.

 

There are others I've not checked yet.

 

Given that Netsweeper is now "accredited" by Saferinternet.org, I would have expected some sort of filtering of extremist content in line with the requirements of KCSIE, (but I will specifically avoid being political in suggesting that it's only a "certain type" of extremist content they might be validating...).

 

Anyway, I'm interested in what other filters are managing, and other far-right (or left) sites we should be looking to block to fulfil our "blocking extremist content" KCSIE and Prevent obligations in lieu of effective automatic filtering. This is to block the sites but not the news reports about them.

[paulkerton]

This is a very difficult tight rope to walk. I would certain wait at the moment for any DfE/UKSIC/IWF calls/decisions before taking any immediate action on anything - though collating concerning URLs in the meantime may be a worthwhile idea.

 

Blocking some of the harder right organisations will inevitably turn into a peeing contest with people demanding to know if you're blocking organisations like BLM or similar also.

[sigma]

I agree.

 

I was prompted by noting that working from home, the school's commercial VPN blocks some of these as "extreme" but our education Netsweeper doesn't, and would have expected it to be the other way round.

 

IWF has a different mandate and focus. Not sure UKSIC know which way is up as long as they get good publicity.

 

I just want to be be certain we are complying with all standards, mandatory guidance and legal requirements that we are supposed to be, and sensibly navigate what might be any ambiguity or grey areas.

[tom_newton]

UKSIC are making a decent fist of a hard job - their certification is brand new, and I for one expect it to become much more rigorous. I am sure a few of their folks lurk here but I will have a chat and see where the guidance lands.

It's certainly difficult when an organisation is not a proscribed organisation. In this case it's *our* policy to look for evidence of discrimination/hate speech and use that in our determination.

 

This is definitely not a matter for the IWF - they get all sorts reported to them, but their remit is [rightly] CSAM and CSAM only.