Slashdot Mirror
British Ban Spikes Pirate Bay Traffic
New submitter sleiper writes "Today sees UK ISPs begin to block access for their subscribers to the Pirate Bay URL. Sky, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and O2 have already blocked access and the UK's biggest provider, BT, are currently reviewing their legal position. This access ban however has seen The Pirate Bay's traffic spike to 12 million more page views than their previous daily record. It seems obvious that a message is being sent, that this type of censorship is not the way forward. The Pirate Bay keeps on sailing.""
I suspect most of the traffic is folks testing whether their ISP is imposing the censorship and if it is doing that testing whether proxies and/or VPN and/or OpenDNS/GoogleDNS or other methods circumvents that censorship.
Sigs. We don't need no steenking sigs.
...probably said this would happen.
A spike is a sudden decrease, while a surge is a sudden increase. Think of volleyball: a spike sends the ball downwards.
It took me three minutes to find a workaround to Virgin's block.
this law is un-enforceable and is just done to keep loud expensive lawyers quite and well paid.
Cool. Gonna go fly the air to the grocery store, which is shopping all over the place.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The proper way to handle this is to prosecute individuals who use The Pirate Bay to download copyrighted material. Having ISPs block access to any part of the Internet is not the answer. They can find copyrighted software elsewhere or, I can just see this happening: somebody creates a website to forward requests to ThePirateBay and return the results.
I wouldn't be surprised if this is already out there??
someone using torrents is already kind of "technologically advanced", it should be no problem for them to go to the pirate bay without the url.
If I were in the UK I would be accessing it via whatever proxy I could, constantly, over and over and over.
I am on sky and can still hit TPB
Are users in the U.K. able to access TPB mirrors?
Let me show you my thing; it's the most advanced on the planet.
I couldn't possibly find another site to replace it.
The US government is still trying to understand why wikileaks is still up.
The Wise adapts himself to the world. The Fool adapts the world to himself. Therefore, all progress depends on the Fool.
Is it just me or does the man in the Censorship icon have red mascara on?
Then I better not hearing any whiny bullshit from the UK about "internet freedom" in China seeing as most banned sites in China are just American porn which is illegal in China the same way Pirate Bay is illegal (and now blocked) in the UK.
The Pirate Bay keeps on sailing.
I get what you're going at and all, but this metaphor doesn't work. A bay can't sail. If you said something like "The pirate ship sails on!" we would still get the reference to the logo.
I can't wait till the next step, blocking access to websites that provide instructions on how to access the pirate bay. Then they have an excuse to censor anything they like.
I really don't support censorship, but I'm afraid it has to get much worse, before it wakes people up to what is going on.
Streisand-effect at full force!
Sky, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and O2 have already blocked access
I use sky and can still access TPB.
Facebook is over this way --> Facebook.
<xml><I><am><so><damn>Web 2.0</damn></so></am></I></xml>
The US is very proud of being a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for their leaders actions. I can understand your frustration, especially as the UK is in a similar position (realistically, whoever you vote in it's going to be one of the same group of ne'er-do-wells), but the American people have to take the rap for the actions of those they vote in.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
Yeah, instead of talking shit they should do what you yanks do when you don't like what a government is doing - bomb the hell out of the place.
Thanks for helping change the world's perception of us...
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
I'm more concerned with what they will start blocking now they have a precedent, wouldn't surprise me in ten years if you have only government licensed sites and a seriously crazy darknet going on, I think they'll come to regret trying to censor when they realise they have lost all control . I'm on virgin and had a check, yes t's blocked but it took me ten seconds to be able to access it anyway.
Really? What if my representatives are behaving exactly like I want them to behave? That gets me 3 out of 535 votes in the House and Senate. Why am I responsible for the other 532 representatives that I can't influence one way or the other with my single vote?
(2) For those who did vote for a president who makes/made terrible decisions, they couldn't have possibly known all the actions the future president was going to take just from his campaign.
It should be widely known by now that the two main parties are pure garbage. There is no excuse for continuing to vote for them.
Go FUCK yourself, you anti-american scum! I'm so sick of people who don't like what our government is doing, taking it out on the American people. You're just a retarded, uneducated loser!
Maybe if we did something about our retarded, uneducated government, we wouldn't get flamed for it?
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
The US is very proud of being a democracy, the people are ultimately responsible for their leaders actions
No we're not. It's the leaders who are responsible for their own actions. And they are willing participants in a conspiracy to keep on screwing us over by concealing their own actions and making us believe their way is the only way. This is not a democracy. I'm not sure what it is, but it isn't a democracy.
Seriously, the constant abuse of the West in general and the US in particular is ruining this site.
If the US government is so horrible, why are people still trying to move there?
Obviously, there are worse places, but the Chinese shills on this site don't want people to believe that.
spill check don't always work.
Why am I responsible for the other 532 representatives that I can't influence one way or the other with my single vote?
Because you live in a Democracy.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
Well, that was *really difficult* to circumvent. (clicks picture of onion).
I was just waiting to use my Firefox Torbutton addon; I can confirm it works nicely.
Torbutton off:
"Sorry, the web page you have requested is not available through Virgin Media.
Virgin Media has received an order from the Courts requiring us to prevent access to this site in order to help protect against copyright infringement."
Torbutton on:
[Image: The worst part of censorship etc.]
"Search Torrents | Browse Torrents | Recent Torrents | TV shows | Music | Top 100
Preferences Languages
All Audio Video Applications Games Other "
(Text copy/paste, images not copied)
I made a point of starting several torrents just to stick two fingers up (=US 1 middle finger at current exchange rate).
Next: Are they going to try blocking TOR?
It should be widely known by now that the two main parties are pure garbage. There is no excuse for continuing to vote for them.
Sure there is. We're all convinced they are the only two parties capable of winning elections. And they're probably right, because we each think that everyone else thinks that too.
People want to come here because we have a high standard of living and (for the most part) we don't persecute people based on religion, sex, ethnicity,etc. A high standard of living should NOT give the government the power to do whatever else they want though.
But as a US citizen, I am not responsible for the actions of other US citizens.
The leaders I vote for never win. As far as I can tell, that is because the majority of the US voting public are clueless.
THEIR stupidity, not mine, put those leaders in power. THEY are responsible for the consequences, not me.
Chill out why don't you? Get it out of your system - go an invade a country or something...
In the US, you get to choose from two parties who are basically the same on all but a handful of issues. In the UK you have three parties, but otherwise the situation remains.
Can someone point to a quality warez release of Rosetta Stone? Most that I have found at TPB and other places seem a bit shady (could contain malware or are said not to work).
They're only capable of doing so because of that kind of circular non-logic. That logic pervades down to the candidate level too, meaning that relatively poor quality candidates (see: Mitt Romney) secure nomination because they're perceived as the only candidate likely to win.
I don't necessarily agree that the two main parties are incapable of producing worthy presidential candidates and presidents, though. And let's face it, some tea-bagger (oops, tea-partyer) like Michelle Bachmann would have been a freaking disaster from start to finish.
If your representatives were behaving exactly as you wanted them to, they'd be making your case before the House and/or Senate. If they were really good, they'd find a way to leverage the wit and knowledge of their constituents to make the argument more powerful.
Representing you is. their. job. It is what the job exists to do. Voting on any particular measure is only a small fraction of representing you, and therefore is only a small part of their responsibility.
Don't give Americans a bad rap when the person they voted-in makes poor decisions after the election:
Give them a bad rap when they fail to VOTE THEM OUT!
America is a representative republic...not a democracy.
If enough us "waste" our vote, there will be a third-party candidate.
Why am I responsible for the other 532 representatives that I can't influence one way or the other with my single vote?
Because you live in a Democracy.
Exactly. Your actual influence over the government is not significantly greater in a Democracy than in a Dictatorship, but if you happen to live in in a Democracy people will happily blame you for the actions of "your" government anyway, while those in a Dictatorship are merely victims.
A person can only rationally be held responsible for their own choices and actions, not those of others. That applies just as much in a Democracy as anywhere else. However, if you support Democracy then you are legitimizing whatever the majority decides, which makes you responsible for the outcome regardless of your personal vote (or lack thereof). If you don't support what the majority chooses to do, the only moral position is to reject the legitimizing influence of Democracy itself.
"The state is that great fiction by which everyone tries to live at the expense of everyone else." - Bastiat
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3? Maybe it's better, but I can think of lots of worse things as well. That's the predicament in voting for a 3rd party. It's a known quantity of shit versus an unknown quantity of an unknown substance. And the way many people see it (though not necessarily me) is that if a new "alternative" candidate was better than the one he's trying to replace, then he should have no problem clinching the nomination of a mainstream party in lieu of the incumbent/status-quo candidate.
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters. Shocking heresy, I know, but it's hard to get elected without votes, and voters don't magically become better decision makers just because they select someone of a different party. A combination of a qualification process + random sampling of a subset of eligible voters could allow for better choices, though disenfranchisement would need to be closely guarded against by making the qualification process as accessible (from an economic perspective) as possible. I realize it sounds elitist, but cognitive impairment and level of education are demonstrably linked to susceptibility to fraud and scams. We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how? On the contrary, we entrust their children and/or advocates to make decisions on their behalf. And that's not to pick on the elderly -- there are plenty of centenarians who are sharp as a tack -- just an example of a common issue that affects people across socioeconomic boundaries. Being "stupid" in the traditional sense (or intellectually lazy, or lacking in impulse control) is just as much of a liability. To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections, but I don't think that's an insurmountable problem, and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
Wonder what 3rd world country you're from. If the US didn't intervene in foreign affairs as we do, the whole world would have probably been nuked by now by some roque country being allowed to refine plutonium and make nuclear missiles. There's a reason for everything....except people like yourself who haven't a clue what's going on. I CANNOT explain why you people exist.
Most of the world will be thanking the US in the future when their ass is saved.
Would you rather get tazed, or subjected to the mysterious treatment behind door number 3?
Or indefinitely retained. Or molested at airports. Or spied on. None of the 3rd parties could be much worse, honestly. They aren't horrible dictators with some master plan to take over America (impossible, anyway).
Anyway, the problem likely isn't the parties, it's the voters.
My comment implied that. All of the candidates for the main parties are pretty much garbage.
We don't trust someone with dementia to drive, for example, or to practice medicine, so why do we trust their opinion on who should run the country, or how?
That's a pretty slippery slope. Especially considering how difficult it is to actually determine someone's intelligence. Voting is also a right, and even someone deemed "uneducated" can be correct. Taking away that right would require a constitutional amendment.
To counter the potential for abuse would require extensive protections
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
and it's important to remember that our existing system is not at all immune to abuse.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
https://tpb.pirateparty.org.uk/ - this link lets you get onto to pirate bay without even having to bother to use a proxy yourself! GG government
It's a right, but it doesn't have to be. That's the problem -- once people have power, they don't want to give it up; the common man included. Maybe it's time to say "Hey, giving us all the right to vote isn't working out so well." I'm not saying it's the only answer, but we already take away people's right to vote (felons), and that's far more arbitrary and capricious. I think, at the very least, it's worth studying, and it should be relatively easy to trial in a setting with no real-world implications. Even if it's found to be inferior, I believe a government based on reason and science would be more successful than one where decisions are made based on nothing and everything all at once, which is what we have. It's telling that we don't trust democracy for *anything* of real importance, except securing against tyranny, and I think there may be more effective protections, especially considering its failure in that regard.
https://www.eff.org/https-everywhere
The US is very proud of being a democracy, the corporations are ultimately responsible for their leaders actions.
You're welcome! Don't worry; I know it's tough, but we'll all learn to spell "corporations" correctly sooner or later, and that old spelling will be an archaic memory referenced only as "The P-Word."
Exactly. Your actual influence over the government is not significantly greater in a Democracy than in a Dictatorship, but if you happen to live in in a Democracy people will happily blame you for the actions of "your" government anyway, while those in a Dictatorship are merely victims.
When I see this type of fashionable shallow cynicism, I remember a quote from Winston Churchill:
Democracy is the worst system of government...
except for all the other systems of government.
Seriously. Look back at the Roman Empire. Consider that during certain periods, most emperors did not die natural deaths...they were killed in some way, either by the sword or by poison. Consider that the well being of the public was almost entirely dependent on the psychological health of a single individual. Read a little about Caligula. Or Nero. Or Commodus. Consider that the Praetorian Guard would often execute "good emperors" if the emperor threatened their own power. They even sold the emperorship for an amount of gold once.
I'm not saying the system is perfect. Far from it. Too many voters make their decisions based on what they see on TV, and the TV spots are far too expensive, ensuring that politicians are enslaved to those who hold the purse strings. However a system where all politicians would be given equal access to the public airwaves would mostly fix this.
This and no other is the root from which a tyrant springs; when first he appears as a protector - Plato (423 to 327 BC)
to make something interesting to the masses is to ban it LOL Much better than thousands of words of advertising.
We keep voting them in, so obviously we the people are ultimately responsible. People have stopped caring and have taken their responsibility for granted, but that doesn't stop us from being responsible. As long as the people don't take voting and participation in government seriously, we'll continue having poor leaders who don't need to feel responsible to the electorate.
It's a right, but it doesn't have to be.
I'd prefer that it stayed a right. Everyone has their own opinions on what is 'best' for the country, and their goals might simply be different than other people's. Changing the country by voting is one of the least violent ways to do so. Take even that illusion away and people might resort to violence. I wouldn't blame them; they live in this country, pay taxes, and are greatly affected by the government's decisions. It doesn't sit well with me to arbitrary decide to take away certain people's right to vote.
but we already take away people's right to vote (felons)
Yeah, I think that's pure idiocy. Rather than taking it to the next step, I think we need to remove this restriction.
Electoral College.
Your vote means nothing.
hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
omg, no, really.
Sky, Talk Talk, Virgin Media and O2 have already blocked access and the UK's biggest provider, BT, are currently reviewing their legal position.
At the moment Sky, Talk Talk and O2 can access the Pirate Bay fine, although I have no doubt this won't last for long.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
We is smart cause we can blow all of youze up if wee want too!
We gots plans wif atum bums, an uh big armee!
An R skools is the bestest in duh wurld..
(sarcasm)
I killed da wabbit -Elmer Fudd
Well, I'm going to talk to you about Canada for a second.
We have several viable parties up here, but for the most part, the two governing parties were either the Liberals (red) or the Conservatives (blue). Other parties, like the Bloq Quebecois (teal) and the NDP(orange), have held a various number of seats over the years but nothing really secure, nothing that would vastly influence how the country is headed. Most of us who wanted to vote for the orange party voted for the red party because we wanted to make sure, most of all, that the blue party didn't get elected.
In the last election, the Liberal party was destroyed, along with the BQ. The orange is now the Official Opposition, and there's a very good chance they will be running the country after the next election. We've got some problems with the blue party running the place, but there's an ongoing investigation into election fraud.
So, vote for what you want. You might just get it.
---
ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.
Fixes in bold:
The US is very proud of getting away with claiming to be a democracy and even fooling the most naive among their citizenry into believing this claim.
Those are clever words for an american.
You should just nuke him, like a spineless uneducated pussy would.
“It comes from a very ancient democracy, you see...”
“You mean, it comes from a world of lizards?”
“No,” said Ford, who by this time was a little more rational and coherent than he had been, having finally had the coffee forced down him, “nothing so simple. Nothing anything like so straightforward. On its world, the people are people. The leaders are lizards. The people hate the lizards and the lizards rule the people.”
“Odd,” said Arthur, “I thought you said it was a democracy.”
“I did,” said Ford. “It is.”
“So,” said Arthur, hoping he wasn't sounding ridiculously obtuse, “why don’t people get rid of the lizards?”
“It honestly doesn’t occur to them,” said Ford. “They’ve all got the vote, so they all pretty much assume that the government they’ve voted in more or less approximates to the government they want.”
“You mean they actually vote for the lizards?”
“Oh yes,” said Ford with a shrug, “of course.”
“But,” said Arthur, going for the big one again, “why?”
“Because if they didn’t vote for a lizard,” said Ford, “the wrong lizard might get in. Got any gin?”
Bloc Quebecois were also official opposition party in the 90ies.
It used to be simple:
Centre Right: Vote Tory
Hard Right: vote Reformist
Centre Left: Vote liberal
Hard Left: Vote NDP
Seperatist: Vote Bloc
Which is why we've mostly been governed by tories or liberals, the two parties were moderates, and the majority of people are moderates.
But now, we have a reformist prime minister because moderate conservatives have no one to vote for, and there is enough talk about joining the NDP and Libs together to unite the left, which, as a moderate centre-left guy, I am very much against. Let the hard left goto the liberals now, and keep us moderates happy with the NDP.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
you're part of a team.
team wins together, and fails together. that's just how it is.
I'm god, but it's a bit of a drag really...
In. Your. Face.
Cleverly disguised as a responsible adult.
Just two words:
Recall Elections
Yeah, yeah, and if enough of us stop buying from $evil_corporation they will have to behave better, and if we all stopped buying fuel they'd have to lower prices, and if we all...
Face it, it does not happen. It has no chance of happening. There is simply no way we could possibly organize people to cooperate that well.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
The whole "stop buying fuel" thing is just stupid. They know you don't have any real choice. It is like saying you are going to boycott food. As for everything else, the majority's belief in your statement is what keeps it from happening. Also, it doesn't take any organization. People just have to be willing to potentially waste their vote in order to vote for the thing they really want.
The definition of democracy is that your leaders are ultimately accountable to the population at large. If you are unhappy with their performance in any way (including their deceptions), then you (the broader 'all of you') are the ONLY people accountable for replacing them.
So, by simple extension of the definition, you (as a homogenous democratic mass - known as 'Americans') are responsible for your leaders' actions.
Now, you (as an individual) might not have voted for that particular leader. You may be lobbying your local representative to replace your leaders. As such, that grants you some level of exemption (but, only if you are doing those things).
So, by further extension, your only exemption from being lambasted is to lambast your own government - and therefore, by extension, the American people.
So, what's it to be then?
In the UK on BE Broadband, and still able to access it :) No idiotic blocking here and BE have said on their forum that if they're legally forced to block, then they will be distributing information (as they have done already) on how to circumvent it.
I love my ISP :) Even members of their staff quoted on the forum, "Information should be free."
Oil tanker analogy: the US oil tanker has just two settings everybody votes on, "left a bit" and "right a bit". The votes are tallied every 8 hours, and the sea is full of icebergs. The crew have mostly settled on one side and spend more time in holy wars than they do on iceberg-lookout-duty.
The British oil tanker has a bonus "straight on-ish" setting. They can also make tea properly. Other than that, it's pretty much identical.
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
If enough of you voted for the same person, you'd have a third-party president. FTFY :)
Please consider this account deleted, I just can't be bothered with the spam anymore.
I don't see how. Once we let them start making exceptions on who can and can't vote, we're already going down the slope. Considering how stupid the government itself can be (they're humans, after all), I wouldn't trust them with such a power.
I'd much rather have it remain as it is than revoke people's right to vote.
This is a paradox. The way it is = felons cant vote. I think there is disenfranchisement for other things too.
I thought the US was a republic.
To influence the others, you simply need money. Corporations can't vode, but ehy can sue as hell lobby!
A person can only rationally be held responsible for their own choices and actions, not those of others.
I failed to follow you here.
If I have a son not yet at Majority and the little S.O.B. steals my car, gets drunk and kill someone, I'm screwed - no matter how many precautions I had take to prevent the mischief.
I can not be held guilty of the fact, but I can't deny my responsability on it.
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
US don't have any left-wing party.
but I didn't speak up because I was no pirate.
The only wasted vote is a vote for the Democrats or a vote for the Republicans.
The interesting thing is that the Roman Republic was adamantly opposed against all forms of monarchy or dynastic rule in the beggining. They used something similar to the Spartan way of government (the system with two elected "kings", where one stays home while the other fights abroad) until Augustus became emperor.
Not if you take it to mean, "I'd much rather have it remain as it is [where just felons and minors under 18 can't vote] than start taking away other people's right to vote, too." In other words, I was simply saying that I didn't want the situation to get even worse than it is now (although it getting better would be perfectly fine).
I never thought that one day I would be modded down for saying that... =D
Shoot the idea, not the messenger!
Lisias@Earth.SolarSystem.OrionArm.MilkyWay.Local.Virgo.Universe.org
I wish I had seen your reply when you posted it...
I'm from the UK. In historic terms I am literally your daddy therefore you should stop being an insolent child.
For reference, the UK invades the same countries as you so that you don't invade the UK. Our relationship is slightly uneasy - it is akin to the relationship between Master and Blaster in Mad Max 3: Beyond Thunderdome. You are very strong but rather deranged and you need some guidance from the little fellow who is weak but has a far greater thought process.
When you say "Most of the world will be thanking the US in the future when their ass is saved" - do you mean apart from the ones that deposit flying objects into your buildings? Okay, sonny, we need to sit down and have a talk about tolerance. Do you know what tolerance means? Let me explain...