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."

98 of 360 comments (clear)

  1. Bittorrent over 3G by nicolas.kassis · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Anybody actually do this? How many people really would do this at this time?

    1. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by LighterShadeOfBlack · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Yes but it's not about the practicality it's about the precedent and the principle. This is a fundamental shift in the attitude towards internet access where previously it was up to the user to decide what he should or shouldn't see and what might get him into trouble with the law for accessing. Now some manager at my ISP or even some unknown person working for/paying off a third party 'dangerous sites' list decides what my delicate little eyes are capable of handling.

      And they can fuck off right now.

      --
      Spelling mistakes, grammatical errors, and stupid comments are intentional.
    2. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Nossie · · Score: 5, Interesting

      Just to let you guys know....

      I work for Vodafone ... and we do support for their mobile broadband... under the 'voluntary code' even facebook is blocked under the content control bar that is placed on EVERY vodafone sim... even eminem cant be downloaded on mobile phones without this bar being removed.

      to get removed you need either a valid credit card or go into a vodafone store with proof of ID.

      So my question is.... does this come off when you remove the bar or what?

      And btw, if you use BT over 3G you are a fucking goon .... 1GB = £15, you'd be cheaper actually buying your stuff. On the flip side of this at least you can go into a vodafone store and have it removed *almost* anonymously with BT it would appear you have to have some form of address and a 'trackable' account.

      just my 2 cents - but its a total pita when people do not have a cc and cant access fricking FB

    3. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      And they can fuck off right now.

      Other than the quoted text, what will you do about this?

      I think that it generally has always been this way but the scope of what is not acceptable is expanding. The same companies provide the bulk of internet access as have provided the bulk of other communication for a long time and those companies are more tightly intertwined than ever before. The people who decided you shouldn't hear a toilet flush on TV will be the ones deciding which web sites you an visit, because they provide both your TV signal and your internet signal.

    4. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by AvitarX · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm willing to bet this has nothing to do with a dsire to content block, and everything to do with the relatively high costs per MB of providing 3G access.

      I have both 3G and Cable internet access. The cable bogs down a little bit, but I always get quicker DL than with a T1 line. On the 3G network shit goes way tits-up.

      When we had a power outage it damn near halted, and I assume that was just people trying to check the status of the power. I would hate to have to pay for a network be built up to support downloading huge amounts of data.

      Now if I had purchased it for my home access because I was somewhere without the availability of cable I would probably expect differently.

      --
      Wow, sent an e-mail as suggested when clicking on "use classic" banner, and got a fast response that addressed my msg
    5. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 5, Funny

      1GB = £15? That's not a bad deal.

      The entire Metallica back catalogue is available in 320kbps MP3 on many torrent sites, weighing in at roughly 900MB. That's 8 albums (St Anger doesn't count) for under the price of one album.

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    6. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Abso-fucking-lutely. If BT starts doing stuff like this for home broadband as well, I'll move to a new provider who doesn't. And so will most of the rest of their customers. Do we really need to block this stuff "For the children"? or are we blocking it because people are scared of Big Content (Which, by the way, includes a number of pornography providers.) I am thoroughly sick of watching as these unelected scumfucks whittle away at our rights through lobbying and dishonest legislation. They kick up a fuss about people stealing their work, but nobody kicks up a fuss when they steal our rights by paying politicians to add secretive riders to legislation. Even people who don't file-share should be worried by this kind of move; if you read the legislation and 'voluntary guidelines' these people are producing, you'll see that they're not just interested in protecting their work; they're interested in controlling, utterly, how you use what you buy from them. DVD zoning is small potatoes compared to what these people want. They want a tiered internet, so they can control what content you see, and how fast. They want a 'music tax' so you pay them whether you use their content or not. They want 'three strikes' rules, so they can strong-arm you into obeying their rules. They want, in short, to be absolute dictators over everything we do, watch, and indeed create on the internet, and they're winning. They're winning because ordinary people are remaining silent, leaving the business of protesting to a hard-bitten bunch of activists. There nneeds to be an awareness campaign that show big content for what it is, and how it will affect not just file sharers and young computer users, but everybody who even vaguely uses the internet, including businesses. If people realise that what Big Content wants is to break their digital legs, I think they'll make it very clear that it's not what they want, with both their wallets and their votes. We need to remind politicians who they're supposed to be working for, because no amount of lobbyist money or donations will get you elected if everyone knows you're a corrupt, nepotistic shill.

    7. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      I'm curious about this too - if it's really the case that there is censorship that can't be removed on any "adult" site for mobile broadband, then that is major news (even leaving aside whether TPB has been fairly categorised or not).

      However, my understanding is it can at least be removed - as you say, with Vodafone they charge your credit card (£1 IIRC - you're supposed to get it back, but I never did...) You do that once (I had to do it for a site that wasn't remotely "adult"), and then it's removed for good.

      TFA does say:

      BT's warning message advises customers to contact customer services if they want the block on the site to be lifted. The message also invites users to seek further information on the self-regulation scheme on the Internet Watch Foundation's website, although an IWF spokesman denies any involvement with the mobile filtering scheme.

      Which suggests this is the case, at least.

      The bit about the IWF is indeed confusing - the IWF maintain the list for the compulsory censorship that you can't opt out, which supposedly is restricted to "potential child pr0n". I've not heard of them maintaining lists of adult sites.

      So in summary, I don't think this is preventing access altogether (can someone confirm that you can access TPB if you opt out on BT broadband?) but there are still concerns. It's still the "Think Of The Children" mentality ("in case phones or laptops fall into the hands of minors", says TFA). Why not just set it to child/adult settings when you buy it, as they can check your age then.

    8. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    9. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Urza9814 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I always laugh when people use 'a valid credit card' as a form of age ID. I had a 'valid credit card' at 16. I mean sure, technically it's a debit card, but it works as a credit card, and I've used it on such sites without any problems.

    10. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Informative

      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).

    11. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      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
    12. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 4, Informative

      Or just use an ISP that doesn't use it... there are lots of them. Some have even sworn never to use it.

    13. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    14. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by wisty · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I don't care whether it's for ethical reasons, or just to save bandwidth, I welcome it.

      The more draconian things get on the net, the more people shift to anonymous IP stuff. I don't personally use them (I don't have anything worth hiding, and I'd rather read a book than pirate a DVD), but free and anonymous communication is a great boon to society.

    15. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Krneki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why are you assuming I want to do illegal things? See this is the problem, people assume I want to do illegal stuff each time I access Pirate bay.
      If there is any illegal activity you inform the Police and let them deal with the problem. We don't need more vigilantes.

      90% of Internet is made of Porn, warez and spam. Using your logic, we should ban everyone from the net.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    16. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    17. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by Krneki · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Mostly I agree with you, but you assume TPB is evil and somehow ISP have the right to block it. This is wrong, we have courts to decide that, not you, me or anybody else.

      And another thing, I don't know where you live but most people can't choose their ISP, any company having a monopoly must be controlled.

      And I perfectly understand Telcos position, still looking for a way to charge as for emails.

      --
      Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    18. Re:Bittorrent over 3G by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Problem is, the list is secret, so it's hard to tell if your ISP is blocking a page or if it's just down or gone. At least with Tor you can try again from different nodes.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  2. Let me... by Erik+Soderstrom · · Score: 5, Insightful

    What.. the... f*ck? Is the rest of the world watching China for guidance in this matter? What's happening? Seriously, this is just insane.

  3. The link to solve the problem by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Tor.

    Might take a bit 'til you find an exit node in China, but then you're free.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    1. Re:The link to solve the problem by derrida · · Score: 5, Informative
      Some other options:
      • BTJunkie
      • Demonoid
      • isoHunt
      • LokiTorrent
      • Mininova
      • myBittorrent
      • Seedpeer
      • ShareReactor
      • Suprnova.org
      • TorrentSpy
      • ...
      --
      nemesis. Home of an experimental fe code.
    2. Re:The link to solve the problem by areusche · · Score: 5, Informative

      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?

    3. Re:The link to solve the problem by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Interesting

      I didn't mean using TOR to route your P2P traffic through it, using it to access the page is what I meant.

      I'm fairly sure the great firewall of great britain is clumsily enough set to only block access to the port 0x50 traffic, so you should be fine once you have the hash.

      Aside from that, yes, China has the "Great Firewall". But they're too busy filtering anti-Chinese and anti-Communist stuff to care about petty things like our problems. Actually, the fun part is that China certainly doesn't mind if you accessed pages that your government considers "undesireable".

      I mean, think about how much your government cares about anti-Chinese pages.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    4. Re:The link to solve the problem by Nursie · · Score: 5, Informative

      You forgot one -

      google (filetype:torrent)

    5. Re:The link to solve the problem by rbb · · Score: 4, Insightful

      There is however a small problem with suggesting sites like Mininova: they don't have their own trackers.

      --
      In God We Trust, Others We Monitor
    6. Re:The link to solve the problem by tepples · · Score: 2, Insightful

      While I don't like the blocks at all, I'm a bit confused as to who was downloading torrents on their phones anyhow.

      A 3G connection can be faster than dial-up in areas that have no available cable or DSL service.

    7. Re:The link to solve the problem by mpsmith · · Score: 2, Funny

      operator, I need an exit!

    8. Re:The link to solve the problem by Asic+Eng · · Score: 2, Insightful
      I mean, think about how much your government cares about anti-Chinese pages.

      Or think about how much your government (applies to pretty much any western government) is prepared to bend over backwards for the Chinese government. The Chinese government already feels it has a right to complain and "be offended" by western governments meeting with the Dalai Lama or the right to ask western governments to support their "one China" policy. (What business do western governments have to support China's policy to colonize Taiwan, I wonder?)

      As censorship becomes more wide-spread in the west, it's only a matter of time until the Chinese will be "offended" by anti-Chinese websites and request a ban.

    9. Re:The link to solve the problem by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      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).

    10. Re:The link to solve the problem by Hemogoblin · · Score: 5, Informative
    11. Re:The link to solve the problem by MBGMorden · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The thing that scares me is that it's literally looking like the safe havens may dry up. China has always been the country to point at and say "Well at least we don't have it THAT bad." when it comes to censorship and freedom of speech issues, but so many other countries are getting darned close, and fast. The US, UK, Australia, France, and Germany are all quickly approaching censorship levels that would have been deemed flat out unacceptable as little as 10 years ago. Depending on how bad it gets, and particularly if it gets to that point after I'm retired, I am seriously looking at moving out of the US. Question is finding somewhere to go.

      What's really scary is that China is showing now signs of changing it's ways. They've established total control over their population and don't look like they're losing it anytime soon. We all grew up watching movies like Star Wars with the Rebels winning out over the Empire, or V for Vendetta where V finally proves his point and the regime falls, but real life isn't always as inspiring. It's quite possible that the vast majority (or even eventually all) of the world's governments could settle into this strict censorship approach and reach a state of political equilibrium. You'll see a few protests here and there - some of the young people won't like it, but overall there might never, ever be enough power to break that stranglehold. It's a depressing vision of the future for sure.

      --
      "People who think they know everything are very annoying to those of us who do."-Mark Twain
    12. Re:The link to solve the problem by Dan541 · · Score: 2, Insightful

      The point of using tor from western countries is to break the law, western law enforcement is not going to be able to go into china.

      --
      An SQL query goes to a bar, walks up to a table and asks, "Mind if I join you?"
    13. Re:The link to solve the problem by gilgongo · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?"
  4. Let the UK be a warning to you... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Here is how it works...
    1) They tell you blocking will ONLY be used for child porn etc (they promise!)
    2) Then blocking is added to terrorist material to "protect the public"
    3) Then blocking is added to "violent sexual material" to "protect women"
    4) ???
    5) Now it is open season in the UK to block anything

    Welcome to a free democracy. We're totally better than China's government, I promise ;)

    1. Re:Let the UK be a warning to you... by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Sure we're better! WE won't block anti-commie and anti-China pages! You can read all about the Tinam... Tian... well, where they shot all the students, ya know what I mean.

      How long you may still read about the Paris riots a few years ago, well, if you want that, get a Chinese proxy.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Let the UK be a warning to you... by mdwh2 · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Simple private possession of 3 (for some values of) has already been criminalised, as of January 2009 - but curiously the IWF seemingly don't want to block it. Possibly because no one has a clue what exactly is meant to be covered by the law (not even the police or the Government - "it's up to the court to decide!").

    3. Re:Let the UK be a warning to you... by rumith · · Score: 2, Funny

      That reminds me of an old Russian joke. A Russian and an American meet and argue about who has better freedom of speech.
      American: We have free speech: I can come to the White House and shout "Reagan is an asshole!"
      Russian: So do we: I can come to the Kremlin and shout "Reagan is an asshole!", too.

  5. Based on this story..... by 8127972 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ....It sounds like people will have to start using Tor in the "free world."

    --
    This is my opinion. To make sure you don't steal it, it's covered by the DMCA.
    1. Re:Based on this story..... by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where is this 'free world' you keep talking about? Is there still room, and does it have internet access? I'd like to move there.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Based on this story..... by dkleinsc · · Score: 2, Funny

      Antarctica. Yes, there's room. No, it doesn't have Internet access.

      --
      I am officially gone from /. Long live http://www.soylentnews.com/
  6. Not surprising by Shrike82 · · Score: 5, Insightful

    I'm guessing BT are targetting a particular market demographic, judging by their adverts and the pricing structure they have. For me, their service is overpriced and I can get faster speeds, a lower price and a higher (unlimited actually) data cap with other ISPs. BT seem to be going for the "bewildered middle aged computer user" market with their Home Hub and associated services.

    Really then I'm not surprised that they're blocking TPB, since they're probably fairly confident that this will have little effect on the customers they're targetting, whilst it raises their reputation with watchdog groups and copyright associations.

    --
    You can advertise in this sig from as little as £99.99 a month!
  7. Let me guess by cheros · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Voluntary code, no right of redress, zero transparency for your own protection, we have your best interest at heart (translated: we are scared of lawyers, and are too dumb to realise that by being selective we open the doors wide for missing the odd one and being held liable) etc etc.

    From the organisation that brought you Phorm (and didn't tell you), a new violation of their own service T&Cs.

    Lawyers, please sharpen pencils and expense account - BT has just dropped the soap in the shower..

    --
    Insert .sig here. Send no money now. Owner may sue, contents will settle. Batteries not included.
    1. Re:Let me guess by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Exactly. It's a particularly nasty move by the government:
      • The IWF is 'independent' and therefore the government is not accountable for what they block.
      • ISPs are not required to block the lists that they publish[1] and so the government can not be blamed if they are overzealous.
      • The government has applied pressure to the major ISPs, and threatened them with severe regulation if they do not implement these block lists.

      If you write to the government, they can place the blame on the ISP (although, of course, no charges will ever be brought against the ISPs), but if you complain to the ISPs they will point out that the government has forced them to do this.

      On the off-chance that my MP is participating this out of ignorance, rather than malice, I have written him a second letter detailing the danger of this policy and asking him to raise parliamentary questions. The last letter, unfortunately, he forwarded to the Home Office, who simply replied with a meaningless form letter, so I don't hold out a great deal of hope for this one.

      [1] In the loosest possible sense of the word - the sites listed by the IWF are not available to the general public.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    2. Re:Let me guess by AndrewNeo · · Score: 4, Funny

      I think they don't understand 1984 was a warning, not a guide.

    3. Re:Let me guess by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Ya know, I miss the days of the cold war. Back then, our governments had to uphold the facade that they're the good guys and have our interests in mind.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  8. Net neutrality by Krneki · · Score: 4, Insightful

    This is why we need net neutrality regulations. Today is TPB, tomorrow it will be something else.

    Soon we will see a massive deployement of firewalls blocking everything apart from port 80 and 443. If you want to use VPN, torrents, POP email, ... pay or fuck off.

    No worries hackers will find a workaround and some will be able to use the Internet the way it was meant to be.

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
    1. Re:Net neutrality by Opportunist · · Score: 4, Insightful

      No can do. 11 Million WoW players would instantly clog your call center if they can't access their fix.

      I thought I'd never say it, but I'm starting to be thankful that there are games like this. Mostly for using nonstandard ports that have to remain open, or ISPs will quickly lose a lot of customers. How many use ICQ? Skype? And so many other programs running through nonstandard ports that it just ain't funny anymore.

      Most of those programs are backed by companies that have a very keen interest in keeping their ports open. Closing them will quickly cost you customers since, well, if you can't use the internet the way you want it, why bother paying for it at all?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Net neutrality by Opportunist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      A worthy hack project, if you ask me. Get the WoW servers on the blacklists and watch them drown in support calls. It might give them a hint that it's cheaper NOT to mess with the free internet and those that want it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    3. Re:Net neutrality by Paul+Jakma · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Actually, it'd be a *good* thing if everything just used port 80 (for TCP) and whatever-popular-UDP-port (SIP, Skype?). Having application layer identifiers be part of the transport (TCP/UDP) specification just makes it too easy for the ISPs to discriminate between such applications.

      Hard-coded destination ports are an anachronism, the sooner they die and the application-identifier becomes opaque to ISPs, the better.

      (yes, we'd need some kind of connectionservice/process demultiplexer behind port 80 then; HTTP servers already can do this though. We can continue to use ephemereal ports for the sender side mapping).

      --
      I use Friend/Foe + mod-point modifiers as a karma/reputation system.
  9. Wikipedia explains cum shots here. Block them. by cellurl · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Wikipedia explains cum shots here.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cum_shot

  10. Common Carrier Protection by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 4, Interesting

    BT want to police the internet? No problem.

    Get all the CP and bomb schematics you can folks; It's BT's fault for not preventing access, now.

    --
    Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
  11. T-mobile not blocked by Ren.Tamek · · Score: 2, Informative

    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
  12. A shame by SCHecklerX · · Score: 4, Insightful

    ...they won't do the same thing for MALWARE sites! You know, the places where people end up becoming part of a botnet.

    1. Re:A shame by mcbridematt · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Lets just bombard (DoS) IWF with reports for crap - Malware, legit pr0n, infact, any website, especially popular ones.

      Actual CP can be reported to police, not lusers.

  13. Correction by Barence · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Correction by Ken+D · · Score: 3, Informative

      if that's true, it's an out and out lie.

      I mean just look http://www.iwf.org.uk/ at the big red button used to create their blacklist.
      Even their FAQ says that they distribute a blacklist

    2. Re:Correction by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Informative

      Not only that but they operate the filters - the ISPs are expected to forward the HTTP requests to the IWF for validation (some like BT may have their own systems, but the IWF definately won't allow smaller ISPs near them in case they leak the actual list, which is some kind of unofficial state secret). Note that they only cover port 80 so all you have to do to avoid the block is to move your site to port 81 :p

  14. Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by Xest · · Score: 5, Insightful

    With the Wikipedia block and Internet archive blocks in recent months I couldn't help but think the IWF was testing the water for a general power grab, trying to move far beyond their remit of producing a black list of child porn sites.

    I just found this FTA:

    http://www.iwf.org.uk/public/page.113.243.htm

    So it's true, the IWF has decided it has to be the moral crusader of society and should now start censoring all that it feels like.

    Bets on how long they try to extend this voluntary code which covers all the UK's main mobile providers to hardwired, static internet connections?

    The problem here isn't BT, it's not The Pirate Bay. It's the fucking IWF again.

    Time they're disbanded, the problems they cause now go far, far beyond any benefit they can ever provide.

    1. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by alnya · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    2. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by Jellybob · · Score: 4, Informative

      Bets on how long they try to extend this voluntary code which covers all the UK's main mobile providers to hardwired, static internet connections?

      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.

    3. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by Xest · · Score: 2, Interesting

      "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 understand landline ISPs already implement the IWF's child porn blacklist, my concern now is that they will try and implement this more general blacklist on those connections.

    4. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by TobascoKid · · Score: 5, Interesting

      But if the government starts to do it then (theoretically) there's somebody to hold publicly accountable for what ends up on the blacklist. At the moment, the IWF can block whatever they like and answer to no one.

      Even better, once the government starts doing it, they might end up being forced to start paying ISPs to do the filtering (like they're doing with the email spying). Then it becomes a target for eventual cuts in public spending and one day may quietly disappear.

      --
      At some point, somewhere, the entire internet will be found to be illegal.
    5. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by AnalPerfume · · Score: 2, Insightful

      From what I read on the IWF site, they are not trying to be anything like a moral crusader, what they are trying to do is have a worldwide voluntary code which webmasters classify their content as "adult only" which allows a more effective filtering system for parents and religious types who don't want to be exposed to it. An open standard to use in a filter is much more effective in regards to false positives etc than we currently have. While we dont have any system in place, countries / ISPs / politicians are free to make their lists manually to favour their own moral agenda. Access to legal porn by adults ain't the issue. As far as TPB being blocked, I'd imagine a midnight visit by the MPAA / RIAA whispering sweet $$$ in their ears may have more to do with the decision to block it.

    6. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by L4t3r4lu5 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Write to your MP again, stating "If you want my vote, make it to do with you."

      --
      Finally had enough. Come see us over at https://soylentnews.org/
    7. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by Tony+Hoyle · · Score: 2, Insightful

      So you're doing the government's work for them?

      There's no such agreement - just a bunch of veiled threats. Such legislation would have a hell of a job getting passed, and would probably end up a being good thing because it would force the IWF under public scrutiny rather than what it is at the moment - a completely unnaccountable and unelectedd secretive body who've decided they have the right to monitor and block internet access to the whole country.

      Luckily there are plenty of ISPs who have to balls to stand up to such stuff. The sooner people take their business elsewhere the better.

    8. Re:Ah so the IWF is after a power grab. by dcollins · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      That's not a "gentleman's agreement". That's called "being a pussy".

      --
      We know where leadership by an anti-intellectual "strongman" who scapegoats minorities and likes boisterous rallies goes
  15. All the UK mobilecos by rpjs · · Score: 3, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:All the UK mobilecos by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Interesting

      The website for the company I worked for was blocked too. The reason? A flatshare form on the site had the word "sex" (as in gender) on it. It was discovered when sales staff using laptops and Vodaphone mobile broadband couldn't demo our own site to clients without unlocking.

  16. Now you know the British have gone mad by tjstork · · Score: 3, Funny

    You could theoretically make excuses for the cameras, but, man, when the British are blocking porn, you know that island nation has hit a rough patch in its history.

    --
    This is my sig.
  17. BT? by clang_jangle · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Come on, BT? For the 92% of the planet who don't live in the U.K. BT means bittorrent.

    --
    Caveat Utilitor
    1. Re:BT? by JohnnyBGod · · Score: 2, Informative

      Hence the "BT Mobile Broadband" in the summary...

    2. Re:BT? by iainl · · Score: 2, Informative

      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?"
    3. Re:BT? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

    4. Re:BT? by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Funny

      BT have blocked BT. Isn't it clear?

  18. Misleading Summary by shinier · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:Misleading Summary by Opportunist · · Score: 2

      The paranoid tinfoil hat wearer that I am does assume if you choose to opt out, you land on a completely different list...

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  19. Self Regulation by KneelBeforeZod · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Self Regulation is usually the last resort of an interest group that is seeking to avoid the hassle and constrictions of government legislation. Its usually a stalling tactic but it sometimes works. I believe its how the MPAA was formed since its not a government organizations (If it was it'd likely fall under the wing of the FCC).

    1. Re:Self Regulation by RevWaldo · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Check out the great (and often hilarious) documentary "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" which examines (and rips apart) the MPAA's "voluntary" "please don't call it censorship" ratings system.- http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-559517494445537267 (or get the torrent, natch. I'll bet it's even available on DVD!)

      The film shows how a voluntary code can seem pretty darn no-so-voluntary. Unrated or NC-17 films have trouble getting into major movie houses, getting advertising in newspapers, obtaining backing from the studio, and so on. And it shows how the ratings are biased, often arbitrary, hard to contest, and so on.

      As someone in the film points out, government ratings or censorship might actually be preferable to a voluntary system, as (at least in a proper democracy) the government can be held accountable for its decisions at the end of the day. With a voluntary scheme its like boxing the Michelin man - you can land the punches but they won't have much effect.

      One solution offered is to watch the watchmen. The filmmakers go to great efforts to find the member names of the review board and the appeals board, which the MPAA usually keeps a closely guarded secret.

      So who's working for the IWF?

  20. Get to the meat of the story... by JimXugle · · Score: 4, Interesting

    How is this implemented?

    DNS?
    OpenDNS' IPs are 208.67.222.222 and 208.67.220.220

    DPI?
    https://thepiratebay.org/

    --
    -jX

    Don't you just love politics? It's like a comedy of errors.
  21. We know this is coming, right? by VShael · · Score: 4, Insightful

    These harsh restrictive laws are coming for all of us. It's just a matter of time.

    What we need right now, is to plan the ways of defeating this sort of rubbish, and circulating that information while the net is still relatively free.

  22. Well Colour Me Confused by Flibberdy · · Score: 3, Interesting

    O2 are my mobile service provider (owned by BT) and I just navigated to thepiratebay.org with absolutely no issues.
    I was using GPRS to do this rather than 3G though, so maybe that it... although that makes almost no sense.
    Unless we only want to stop children downloading porn at high speed?

    1. Re:Well Colour Me Confused by kerp11 · · Score: 2, Informative

      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

  23. 18+? by Kayden · · Score: 2, Interesting

    What kind of sense does it make to have to verify you're over 18 to access content with your G3 connection? Do a lot of people 17 and under have credit cards, their own laptop and a G3 card + service? Isn't one of the provisions of getting service being of legal age since you must sign a service contract? I'm so glad companies and governments are taking it upon themselves to be my conscience.

  24. Beginning of the end by AHuxley · · Score: 2, Insightful

    Today TPB, tomorrow its your server.
    Time to learn about networks, wireless, how to use other connections.
    Time to become very smart and invisible.
    Time to become Anonymous and say ...

    --
    Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
    1. Re:Beginning of the end by zwei2stein · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Time to outlaw "unregulated internet"

      "Did you know that kid across street? He is coming out of jail in few weeks. Served 3 years for providing access to freedomNet."

      --
      -- Technology for the sake of technology is as pathetic as eschewing technology because it's technology.
  25. I moved away from BT expecting this by Aceticon · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

    1. Re:I moved away from BT expecting this by u38cg · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Indeed. Next question: I wouldn't touch BT with a bargepole for internet access, but unfortunately most ADSL companies require that you have a BT phone line to get their service. How do I stop giving them all my money altogether?

      --
      [FUCK BETA]
  26. Re:Question: can legal content be downloaded from by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    There's plenty of legal stuff available on BT in general, and from TPB in particular. Linux distributions, patches for games and programs (be careful about them, though, sometimes malware disguises as such), indie movies, share- and freeware (same warning applies, careful about malware)... it's fun to browse through their selection.

    You can spend literally terabytes of traffic on BT without even touching a single illegal file.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  27. This is not the IWF list by mdwh2 · · Score: 2, Informative

    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.

  28. Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by _KiTA_ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Doesn't this mean that they're voluntarily giving up common carrier status?

    The old defense being that they were like phone companies, they had no responsibility in what their users did.

    Well, BT just announced that they are, in some small way, taking responsibility for what their users look at.

    So what happens when FOX releases yet another Summer Bomb in the theaters and decides to use Piracy on the Internet as an excuse? Well, BT banned TPB, that means since they DIDN'T ban the other sites this is partially their fault, right?

    1. Re:Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by OolimPhon · · Score: 2, Funny

      This is in the UK. A "common carrier" in the UK is an omnibus.

    2. Re:Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by tsalmark · · Score: 2, Informative

      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.

    3. Re:Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by grahamm · · Score: 3, Informative

      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.

    4. Re:Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Funny

      There was me thinking it was the dirty sluts in Newcastle.

    5. Re:Goodbye Common Carrier Status? by Dogtanian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      This is in the UK. A "common carrier" in the UK is an omnibus.

      Don't know why this was marked as a troll. He/she was making a reasonable point in a humorous manner- does the concept of a "common carrier" (regardless of the term used?) meaningfully exist in the UK?

      If not, the OP's question was meaningless.

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
  29. block IWF's netblock by iocc · · Score: 2, Interesting

    If you have a webserver, block 193.129.101.0/26 - Internet Watch Foundation (IWF). They use automated scrips to check for content that they dont like. I HATE censorship.

  30. Re:Wikipedia explains cum shots here. Block them. by cstdenis · · Score: 2, Interesting

    I would hope IWF has learned it's lesson to not block wipedia.

    Actually, I hope it didn't learn it's lesson. The only way for them to die is to keep pissing people off by blocking mainstream stuff.

    --
    1984 was not supposed to be an instruction manual.