Slashdot Mirror
BT Blocks Access To Pirate Bay
Barence writes "BT and other mobile broadband providers are blocking access to The Pirate Bay as part of a 'self-regulation' scheme with the Internet Watch Foundation. BT Mobile Broadband users who attempt to access the notorious BitTorrent tracker site are met with a 'content blocked' message. The warning page states the page has been blocked in 'compliance with a new UK voluntary code.' 'This uses a barring and filtering mechanism to restrict access to all WAP and internet sites that are considered to have "over 18" status,' the warning states. It goes on to list a series of categories that are blocked, including adult/sexually explicit content, 'criminal skills,' and hacking. It's not stated which category The Pirate Bay breaches, although the site does host links to porn movies."
nemesis. Home of an experimental fe code.
Please don't do this. TOR isn't designed to handle torrenting. If you need to browse TPB then by all means go for it, but torrenting over TOR only destroys the network as a whole.
On a side note, the thing about TOR that cracks me up is that most of the exit nodes always seem to land me in China. Shouldn't I want to avoid using IP addresses from China? What about that Great Firewall of China?
I just navigated to thepiratebay.org successfully from my T-mobile phone in the UK. Just an FYI for anyone who has recently become interested in changing their mobile phone / internet contract.
It's worth noting however that I have my porn filter off. You have to call your service provider and have adult content switched on for this service for some unknown reason.
"If you want a vision of the future, Winston, imagine a boot stamping on a human face forever." - George Orwell, 1984
Please note that the Internet Watch Foundation has subsequently told PC Pro that, although it hosts information about the filtering scheme, it has no involvement with the filtering or the creation of the blacklist. This is down to the mobile broadband providers themselves.
block "adult" content by default, but will remove the block once you've proved you're over 18, usually by supplying a valid credit card number. T-Mobile even included Facebook in the block a year or two back. Dunno if they still do.
You forgot one -
google (filetype:torrent)
Mod Parent Up
Too true. The problems with the IWF is the lack of oversight. I wrote to my MP, who replied it was nothing to do with them, as they are a seperate organization, and wrote to my ISP, who said they have nothing to do with the "blacklist" itself.
The IWF seem to occupy this quasi public / private space in which the only way to get to them is via public opinion.
Hence the "BT Mobile Broadband" in the summary...
Kinda missed an important bit of that article there, didn't you? "BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted." You still get to choose.
They already have. The ISP I work for have been dropping any packets destined for sites on the IWF's blacklist for several years now.
I should clarify that most of us aren't happy about it, but a gentleman's agreement is in place that we can either do it voluntarily, or the government can make it a legal requirement and heap more trouble to implement.
BT is the name of the company. Bittorrent is called Bittorrent.
Besides, your misread makes precisely zero sense; how can a protocol block a website?
"I Know You Are But What Am I?"
Similar censorship is being introduced in Japan, in the name of protecting children with internet enabled mobiles from "harmful" web sites. I think you can opt out of their system, which unfortunately is not the case with BT.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
Some months ago, when a bunch of stories starting coming up of large ISPs starting up voluntary schemes and trials and whatnot I actually left BT and moved to a smaller, friendlier ISP exactly with the expectation that this sort of thing would come to be.
*big pat on the back*
Shameless plug for my current ISP, ADSL 24 - cheaper (for the typical user), just as fast (maybe even faster), no traffic shaping, no blocking, no bullshit. Never got any problem with them.
By the way, last I checked, the ISPs to avoid at all costs in the UK (with regards to things like blocking and traffic shaping) where BT, Virgin and Tiscalli.
BT hasn't been called British Telecom for years. "The company changed its trading name to 'BT' on 2 April 1991" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BT_Group
which unfortunately is not the case with BT.
You should be able to opt out of this blocking system (TFA claims this is the case - if someone knows otherwise, please say so, as that would be major news). The one you can't opt out of is the IWF blocking list that's on most ISPs (covers 95% of users), however that list doesn't cover adult sites (well, except for when they mess it up as with Wikipedia).
Just to clarify - what you refer to is the IWF blocking system that applies to all (home and mobile) systems, covers 95% of users. It cannot be removed by the user, and as you note, the Government have pressured ISPs to do this, and it's all rather worrying.
But this article is about a separate system. It covers a much wide range of material, but the upside is you can remove it. It's unclear if the IWF have any connection to this.
Another difference is that this system evidently tells the user, where as the IWF system fakes a 404 on most ISPs.
You can opt out of the IWF list, you just need to install Tor.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
O2 are not owned by BT in any way shape or form - they bought out what used to be BT Cellnet but O2 is owned by Telefónica
Or just use an ISP that doesn't use it... there are lots of them. Some have even sworn never to use it.
The IWF block more than "potential child porn" - they've been caught blocking sites critical of the IWF for example. Being an unelected and unaccountable body they refuse to release the contents of the lists though, even to ISPs.
It can be faster than DSL in some locations.. OTOH the places with poor DSL are often the places with poor HSPDA as well. There's an overlap though where the DSL is 6Mbps due to distance (which is in practical terms all you're going to get out of 3G.. 7.2/15.4 is just the headline speed).
Bookmark this custom search, it's even easier.
http://www.google.com/cse?cx=003849996876419856805:erhhdbygrma&ie=UTF-8&q=&sa=Search
Here is one court case hinging on Common Carrier Status: http://www.osler.com/resources.aspx?id=8271 I seem to remember a few others in the Canadian court system, but one is enough to prove the courts are interested in Common Carrier Status.
BT, and other telecos and ISPs, have never had 'common carrier' status. AFAIK the only organisations which have are those such as the Railways who transport physical goods.
I'll move to a new provider who doesn't. And so will most of the rest of their customers
While a nice sentiment and true for the technical minority and a some others, I doubt that business users will feel the same way, nor most parents with kids, nor older adults, all of whom for a long time now have made up the bulk of Internet users. Few of them will even notice.
FYI I use I2PSnark - it's not fast (roughly half the speed of normal Bittorrent) but it's anonymous enough until my ISP starts *really* cracking my packets. The beauty of I2P is that the more people use it, the faster it gets!
"And the meaning of words; when they cease to function; when will it start worrying you?"