Slashdot Mirror
British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn
twoheadedboy writes "Claire Perry MP, who has been the main driver of the UK government's plans for default blocking of pornography, has had her website plastered in porn by hackers. But the story only just begins there. Notable blogger Guido Fawkes, otherwise known as Paul Staines, posted on the matter, only to later be accused of sponsoring the hacking himself. During some back and forth over Twitter, it appeared Perry was 'confused,' as she said Fawkes had posted a link to the defaced page, when he had only shown a screenshot of the site. Given the backlash against the government's plans to censor porn and its technical fallacies, the event could be particularly embarrassing for Perry. She is not commenting on the matter, whilst Staines has threatened to sue unless Perry offers a retraction of her claim he had anything to do with the hack."
The tweet: 'Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes – proves so clearly what we are dealing with.' Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.
...haven't a fucking clue.
Film at 11.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
I was just commenting to a Scottish friend of mine who is a firm supporter of anti-pornography pushes that no matter how good the intentions may be of the politicians who back this kind of thing, inevitably they show their technological incompetence by believing such efforts will not either fall so short as to be worthless or overreach to the point where they have to be disabled to perform even day-to-day tasks.
Ms. Perry has just demonstrated this same technical illiteracy to an extent I couldn't have hoped yesterday to be able to argue as a point without being accused of hyperbole.
In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
It is clear that Guido Fawkes sponsored the construction of a new, illicit series of tubes to connect the hackers to Claire's tubes. Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.
Soooo..
What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!
Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much, MUCH worse.
Reminding ourselves that they don't know what they're messing with may make us feel better, but I worry it makes threats like these seem less dangerous. They still can break things we hold dear. Moreso if they have no idea what they're doing. It's like telling yourself a kid doesn't know how to use your laptop: that's the problem, they can throw it on the floor and piss on it. Furthermore, the fact that they are ignorant isn't what's troubling. If they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with CISPA or ACTA, that doesn't really make much difference.
So lets not bother laughing about how they think of the internet as a series of tubes. The internet is not a god, it may route around censorship and damage, but that doesn't mean it's all going to be okay. And how dare they fucking think they have the right to censor anyway. Ignorance doesn't excuse it. You brits ought to bring back the stocks for politicians who try to trample on your rights. Throw porn and rotten tomatoes in their actual faces. And broken glass.
Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....
A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow, which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
If they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with CISPA or ACTA
Politicians generally can't find their ass with both hands but they don't need to; you can be quite sure that their handlers know exactly what's going on.
can someone explain to me what MP is? I thought it is the Prime Minister, but David Cameron is the Prime Minister of the
United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland. The only MP that I know of is Military Police. Help? thanks
"I do not mind that Claire Perry wants to protect children, and I give the benefit of the doubt to her on this and believe that she is sincere. However, it is grossly offensive for her to refuse to listen to technological experts over the very real technical and legal reasons for not proceeding with the ISP level filter. In short, Not only will it NOT work, it CANNOT work.
Kids will still see porn. The proposed filter levels are ridiculously easy to by-pass and fail to stop porn on social networks or direct messages or SMS media.
Additional harm will occure when legitimate safe non-porn sites will be blocked wrongly. When they tried this in Ireland, the rape crisis website was blocked. When sussex council fitted filters to their own networks, they ended up blocking their own website because Sussex contains the word âoesexâ.
Only a complete IT idiot would proceed with her plans. And in her response to mixing up a screenshot with a link? This only enforces the impression that she is utterly clueless and a rank embarrasment and a complete idiot.
Do not let Claire Perry near a computer. She is a classic example of a little knowlege being a very dangerous thing.
I do not think it possible to remain polite and be able to also express how incomprehensively idiotic, brainless and ignorant Claire Perry is on this issue.
I do not want to don a âoetin-foil hatâ over this but surely she cannot be so utterly thick as to ignore all the best evidence of the industry experts on this to pursue an utterly unworkable solution? Or are they going to go to ISP level filtering of porn to allow filtering and tracking and eventual control of all web-traffic?
Are they going to be restricting the self harm sites? then the anerexic sites, the climate change denial sites, anti-immigration sites? alternative news sites? and so on?
Are they going to be using this irrational fear of consensual adult porn, as an excuse to be tracking all our surfing and building a threat profile on each of us to use against us?
That is the only plausible reason for such a draconian measure, which ignores industry expert advice."
The problem is that the blind is leading the stupid. Or, in other words, the idiots voting her in ain't any smarter. Sadly, having a clue is neither a requirement for a political office nor one to vote in elections.
No matter how much I think it should be. For BOTH. Or at the very least the former. It's a kinda lopsided battle when dimwitted politicians are pitted against corporation negotiators hand picked for their swindling abilities. I can't help but it reminds me of the trades between the European settlers and the natives.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Maybe she put the porn on there herself to get some media frenzy going.
An influential Tory backbencher who has the ear of Prime Minister Stephen Harper when it comes to child protection issues says she will push for Ottawa to follow what she called the “bold” crackdown on child pornography in the U.K. that would force Internet providers to install automatic safety filters for anyone surfing the web.
Prime Minister David Cameron announced Monday that to fight the “horrendous crime” of child abuse images, he will ask U.K. Internet providers to install a “porn block” that would prevent web users from accessing all kinds of pornography, unless they specifically request not to have the filters set up on their computers.
Read it here.
Only in terms of optics and messaging ... I expect their handlers to be as illiterate on the technology as the pols are.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Ministers are MP, but not all MP are Ministers.
Atlas stands on the earth and carries the celestial sphere on his shoulders.
I think the only repercussions proper to this situation is the sue the entire internet and then file a takedown notice to "the internet" and then put "the internet" in jail. That makes perfect sense to any british lawmaker working on this entire project.
Since TFS couldn't be bothered to include it, here 'tis: Guido's blog.
Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
at inbred land. She could be the same family as Cameron.
"Claire Perry, the MP behind the porn blocking plans announced by the Prime Minister this week, has been left red-faced after hackers defaced her website with references to porn."
References to porn (SFW at my job), not porn.
Agreed.
"Only cowards use censorship."
The British parliament is filled with Common Purpose (Tony Blair's over-arching 'training' corporation that ensures all mid-level personnel within the church, civil service, army, police, education, commerce and ALL major political parties are on the 'same page') scum like this MP. But the real story behind this "ban the porn" rubbish is very much more disturbing.
There are dozens of significant lesser, and not so lesser nations around our planet that are ruled by people who say that they follow the 'traditions' of British parliamentary democracy. The reason Blair's puppet, Cameron, declared war on Internet freedom was to give justification for the rulers of ALL these nations to massively clamp down on the emerging Internet in their nations, using British governmental action as the justification.
The Middle East, Africa and Asia (all parts of the British Empire not so long back) are particular targets for this ploy. Britain even has serving British senior policemen in nations like Dubai over-seeing the arrest and torture of pro-democracy protesters.
Freedom is like this. You are either COMPLETELY free (like the Right to Free speech in the US constitution) or you have no real freedom at all, just the 'right' to do whatever your nations cultural norms happen to be at the time. Of course, now the usual filthy shills will attempt to use the obvious and necessary exceptions to free speech in the USA to suggest there is no such thing as real freedom, so all systems, by being compromised, are essentially the same. Are any of you here so stupid as to believe this faux argument?
This mechanism of allowing harsh laws based on the idea of INDIRECT harm was created by zionists in the USA to persecute those that supported the rights of peoples described as 'sub-Human' by the State of Israel. The most famous example of this was when US Muslims, who operated a charity that was provably about providing assistance to innocent victims of Israel's war crimes, were sent to prison for decades by a US court for doing so.
The argument put forward by zionist extremists in the USA (financed directly by Israel) was that IF you give money to a children's home in Palestine, by doing so you allow the Palestinian people that might otherwise have funded that home themselves to use the cash they save to buy arms, and fight Israel's murderous thugs. This argument, as depraved and sickening as it is, was accepted by the Supreme Court of the USA during appeals against the sentences. Don't believe me? Go Google "Holy Land Foundation".
Now having used the 'Z' word (although I'd never use a capital letter for such an evil organisation) this comment will be moderated down to '-1' as usual. But the point is essential.
We used to think of DECENT modern nations as those that gave as much freedom to their population as possible. Bent over backwards to support the principle of freedom. Freedom of speech. Freedom of conscience. Freedom of sexuality. That filthy war criminal Blair is about to give, via his puppets, a posthumous 'pardon' to Alan Turing, a man who was persecuted because of his ADULT homosexual consensual sexual activities. And yet, that mass murdering psychopath, Blair, has ensured that a 21st century Alan Turing can be PERSECUTED far more successfully by the British courts if he dares express an interest in adult consensual BDSM activities and fantasies.
Blair uses the same argument as that which led to the imprisonment of those Muslims that ran the Humanitarian charity, the Holy Land Foundation. The 'slippery slope' Blair and his zionist mates have set up in France, Germany, the USA, Britain, Canada, Australia etc makes EVERYTHING bannable by the State if they so wish.
-Expression of ANY anti-war sentiment encourages those that carry out attacks against our troops, and therefore are wicked by definition and must be punished by law.
-Any form of violence in a video game, unless designed to glorify approved military organisations, clearly GROOMS people to accept such violence in real life
Politicians generally can't find their ass with both hands
That's because at one of their hands is always out asking for donations and the other one is behind their back with their fingers crossed or accepting a bribe.
What we need are politicians with at least four hands.
> Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.
No, in school we used to have lessons that covered this, it wasn't called hypertext, it was called "Reading Comprehension".
Clearly on the Internet Reading Comprehension scale her level is at "My Homepage is Yahoo".
"I opened my eyes, and everything went dark again"
Unless the UK is prepared to start doing deep packet inspection and blocking VPNs, external proxies, anonymizing networks and the like, all this is going to be is either some pathetic cookie-based on/off flag or nearly as pathetic DNS block. It will be totally useless, fuck up other chunks of the Internet, and those with the capacity to read a two or three paragraph faq will happily be viewing their porn in a minute. Yes, it will inconvenience some, it will also create a false sense of security, and Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
Do you think anyone in Australia who wants to to view things the Australian government is afraid of can't get it running in a couple of minutes? These things are a joke, unless, as I said, Western governments want to start building China and Iran -like Great Firewalls.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
The British ISPs have been telling the UK government for years now, through all the iterations of this "we must block x to save the children" nonsense that it is unworkable. The politicians by now are perfectly well aware how futile this is, but there are always a certain class of voters who will cast their ballot for Canute based upon the notion that he can stop the tides.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
THIS agenda?
No. this is the normal status for any politician trying to get anything done. They haven't a fucking clue what they are passing laws about.
Some lobbyist paid them to side one way or the other. Or talked them into it. Often with outright bullshit. They really don't know any better.
What's worse is we let these people pass any laws at all from such a position... We truely are the clueless led by the blind.
I enjoy the irony that after going on a misinformed rant about the webpage defacement, we see at the bottom of the article:
"Claire Perry said she had no comment on the matter."
Start? LOL, I think you mean finish.
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
...haven't a fucking clue.
It's true that the people pushing anti-smut don't have a fucking clue; but that's because noisy moral indignation is the job that gets handed to whatever idiot is best at feeling really hard instead of thinking, and most unironic in their delivery of 'Won't somebody please think of the children?!?!'. The point of this job is to appeal to voters with similar tendencies and even dimmer capabilities.
Look at, say, what we've recently learned about the NSA, and their colleagues internationally, and what they can do: those are the people who know what they are doing, and have gone ahead and done it: basically every service provider, network link, NOC, etc. large enough to be worth the trouble, all quietly brought to heel and pumping data back to the mothership as fast as it is cost-effective to crunch it.
Here's the problem: If the parade of clowns and con-men who they line up for the amusement of the values-voters manage to receive an electoral mandate(or a slim edge that feels like a mandate when You Are On The Side Of Good, they commonly get confused on this point), they'll eventually have to hand the project over to the competent people for implementation. Once that happens, you get a system built by the dangerously competent and aimed by the feelings of the dangerously clueless.
I had a dog named Staines. I remember calling him home whenever he'd run off, *Come Staines*...
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
This a thousand times this!
I can say sadly from experience within my own family if X is in the papers Y must be true because Z says so.
Example 1, "Oh that bitty coin thing, paypal is that bittycoin thing I refuse to use it" - Aunt who happily responded to a 419 email.
Example 2, "Well you used my computer last Christmas (this was last week) so that Virus must have been caused by you..." - 2nd Aunt who downloads and installs each an every tool bar attachment on the net, incandescently this was a attachment send by her Son who is a Maths PHD who remains blameless.
I expect their handlers to be as illiterate on the technology as the pols are.
Why? They're only there to help win elections. If people want to elect 'idiots', being more literate isn't going to make a bit of difference.
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
For those of us unaware of it, channel 4 has produced a dramatization of the meeting in which Claire Perry was first introduced to The Internet.
Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
Wait until he learns about breast feeding 8-(
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
When you don't understand how something works, you can't understand the difference between a fix that's easy and effective, and a fix that's very hard and won't be effective.
Example: Somebody who knows nothing about cars can say "Cars keep going above the speed limit. Can you make it so that cars made in future won't go over 70mph?" and be told "Sure, that's not hard, we can do that." They can then say "Cars get used as getaway vehicles in a lot of bank robberies. Can you make it so that cars made in future won't work when used by bank robberies?" and they'll get told "No, that would be impossible, and anything we tried would be either ineffective, prevent legitimate uses, or both."
Most everyone knows enough about cars to understand why you get a different answer to those two questions. But somebody who's completely ignorant doesn't see any difference.
So it goes with the internet. "Can you filter out emails that contain curse words?" gets a "Yes, easy", so the clueless think it should be no different when they ask "Can you filter out web content that has porn in it?"
I've said before and I'll say again: It should be made mandatory that no politician can pass laws on any subject until they've proved a reasonable level of understanding of it.
And if that makes life hard for them, good: It's about time they had to do something to justify their exhorbitantly high pay.
So.. it has come to this
The problem is that the blind is leading the stupid. Or, in other words, the idiots voting her in ain't any smarter. Sadly, having a clue is neither a requirement for a political office nor one to vote in elections.
Well, we got rid of that Labour minister Jackie whatshername who had about the same attitude, and then it turned in the MP expenses scandal that the British taxpayers had actually paid for her husbands porn...
So what choice do you have?
I mean, I had expected a lot, like something about pegging, or whatever. Or even goatse. But This is what they fear ?
;)). The only difference among us is that some saw it earlier (as early as 6) some were late bloomer-curious and got to see their first porn when they were 12/13. But there was only one among a very large group which never saw porn in film. Yes I know anecdotial evidence, yada yada. But so far I haven't seen any evdeicne whatsoever than any of us turned bad.
"A rainbow party is a supposed group sex event featured in an urban legend spread since the early 2000s. "
Yeah I know you wanted to only give an example. but let me say you this. When I was around to 10 (I can't remember exactly which ages) we were passing udnerhand porn magazine. You know, the one with glossy colored picture. And one of us even got a video band (deep throat). What I gatehred from my friends much later in life, is that it was wide spread (haha
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.
A rainbow party is a supposed group sex event featured in an urban legend spread since the early 2000s . A variant of other sex party urban myths, the stories claim that at these events, allegedly increasingly popular among adolescents, females wearing various shades of lipstick take turns fellating males in sequence, leaving multiple colors (a "rainbow") on their penises.[1] The idea was publicized on The Oprah Winfrey Show in 2003, and became the subject of a juvenile novel called Rainbow Party.[1] Sex researchers and adolescent health care professionals have found no evidence for the existence of rainbow parties, and as such attribute the spread of the stories to a moral panic.[1] On May 27, 2010 the television program The Doctors discussed the topic with dozens of teens, parents, and professionals.
Maybe they'll realise that a simple defacing hack can block someones website from the public. If the porn filter was already in place, Claire Perry's website would now be on the porn-list.
Ah yes, ordinary citizens are victims and a brain-dead politician will banish evil with words written on paper. Won't someone think of the children?
Can we finally have a countdown till she is booted out of Office for being a complete tube?
She is up there with Sarah Palin whe, actually no, Sarah is half sensible, I take that back, she knows more-or-less how computers work, Claire is full-moron when it comes to how the internet works. She thinks it is like some magic telly box with words and letters. Nobody should be allowed in Office unless they pass Higher Computing at a minimum. It is embarrassing how little people know in such positions of power, more so when they are writing rules and regulations on said industries!
I hope he does consider suing her to show her how shit goes down in the UK.
Don't attack anyone unless you know 100% they were responsible. You should know that better than anyone Claire.
Welcome to Britain, nao piss affff. Na, you can stay, as long as you follow the ruuuules Claire, gotta follow the rules, I told you about those rules Claire.
Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
"... online. Which is much worse somehow than seeing them in the newspapers somehow." They still have that, right? Was it the Sun that had naked women on the second page?
I expect their handlers to be as illiterate on the technology as the pols are.
You clearly don't know who the politicians are really working for...
incandescently this was a attachment send by her Son who is a Maths PHD who remains blameless.
I see that your Aunt's son is very bright. (and also nephew)
Fully blocking porn content is of course unworkable, and I think most people who have seriously investigated that know this.
This might work for keeping very young children from accidentally landing on a porn site, or at least minimizing it. I presume there will be a black list of the major sites.
That might be desirable even if it is very limited. If someone can work out how to get around the filter, they are probably able to survive seeing something.
What worries me much more than this is the public outcry that Google must stop people searching for child porn. Someone who was previously with the police group fighting child porn on the web has been appearing on TV trying to explain that most child porn is not searched by Google (he did not go into the technical detail on robots) and how sites like the ones used for music pirating are used instead (he might have mentioned vpn without explaining it).
Google has become so much a part of people's view of the web that they think the solution to finding child porn on the net must be to stop Google listing it.
There are some things that can be done that would make sense and help with very young children, but it seems that any chance of a considered debate and considering the cost benefit (not financial) has been overwhelmed by sound bites.
Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"
"... online. Which is much worse somehow than seeing them in the newspapers somehow." They still have that, right? Was it the Sun that had naked women on the second page?
Not the second page. They're on page 3, actually.
Those who can make you believe absurdities can make you commit atrocities. - Voltaire
It would appear the vandals are themselves unclear about the concept of free speech.
Politicians generally can't find their ass with both hands
That's because at one of their hands is always out asking for donations and the other one is behind their back with their fingers crossed or accepting a bribe.
What we need are politicians with at least four hands.
4 hands would just give them one to hold out for donations, one to cross fingers to make the lie "ok", one to shake hands with you while the fourth is stabbing you in the back.
"Anyone who is capable of getting themselves made President should on no account be allowed to do the job."-THG
My Shiva Nataraja has four hands.
Vishnu also has four hands - he is even said to have four faces (I even found a Vishnu bronze from Sri Lanka with eight hands???).
However my Christ figure has none operational - though you could swear he is thinking "forgive them father, for they do not know what they are doing"
And politicians are giving you every incentive to convince you that they do not know what they are doing.
I haven't yet figured out if I should forgive politicians or bring them to trial.
Page 3. But that's completely different.
And then you have rags like the Daily Mail that harp on about porn on the internet, and on one side list all their gossip columns with photos of who's wearing how little on the beach, and look my at this celebrity's 17 year old daughter - my how she's growing up, nudge nudge.
It's generally pretty hard to see something when your head is inside of it.
> Well you used my computer last Christmas (this was last week) so that Virus must have been caused by you..."
I found a solution for that.
"Well, why don't you just fuck off?"
Replying to under erroneous moderation
Or National Geographic.
First hang them, then forgive. Repeat until you find the set that does not do anything that would need to be forgiven. Or until you run out of politicians, which is more likely.
The moon is not fully subjugated. I demand a second assault wave preceded by a massive nuclear bombardment.
I think he typed "incindentally" and it got spell chucked.
I like it to some of the others which could result from those keystrokes:
infinitely
informationally
incident ally
in Cinderella
Be honest: Have you EVER landed on a porn website "accidentally"? Really? One that would have been caught by a pornblocker and that was not on a hijacked page that nobody would have known about?
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Actually you're wrong - it's the ISPs in this case (especially TalkTalk) who have been pushing the agenda of network based filtering. It's only now that they think they have a vague idea about how they can do this (using Huawei equipment that is somewhat suspect anyway) that the British government has trumpeted that it was all their own idea in the first place.
Those will be banned next. Got to take it one thing at a time.
Yes, but only while searching the shady side of the internet where everything is spelled with a Z.
I've also seen a couple of pranks where porn (usually artwork rather than photos) was posted to forums or chat in an MMORPG. But the filter would be useless against these.
The public outcry is even sillier than it seems. Google already have a policy to block child porn in search results. The dialog goes something like this:
MPs: Google needs to block child porn!
Google: We are.
MPs: But... you need to block child porn!
Google: Really, we''re doing everything we can to block it.
MPs: But.. there's still child porn on the internet! You need to block it!
Google: If we donate a huge pile of cash to the IWF so you can feel better about cutting funding to CEOP and outsourcing policing of child porn to the private sector, will you stop saying that?
MPs: Maybe.
Thank you.
Replace the "what we've learned" with "what we should've been aware of back when it was first reported." (1999, IIRC, in a NY Times article on CARNIVORE.)
Anyways, unfortunately, you are correct - and there is another level of dangerous competence at the top; not just the technocrats but the actual architects of the overall policy - usually advisers but occasionally the lower-key Senators.
This is the same party that banned equal rights sex education in Schools.
If they have the public support for censorship they claim why did they hide the announcement behind what will probably prove to be the biggest story of the Summer?
Canute is not the best analogy to use there. He was the one saying that he couldn't hold back the tide and went ahead and tried it to prove to his followers that they were wrong.
Maybe that is Camerons plan but it is not the official line if it is.
Yes, at work, following a WORK related link, the company had nothing to do with the adult industry, and the site I landed on proceeded to fill the screen with an avalanche of x rated popups, the only answer was an immediate plug pull.
Dig out Guido and hope he has more luck this time.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.