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.
"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."
Military Police, yup that's what it is as you can see from their policing efforts
Parliment too, you never see the typo til you hit submit.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=mp
An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:
Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano
Take a guess.
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.
Member of Parliament
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.
Also: Mister Potatohead (also Mrs. ? Ms.? ... )
geeze if you're gonna be properly snarky, just send him here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
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.
An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:
Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano
Take a guess.
"Major Peckerhead" would be my first guess as it is someone in government.
---Saying gnome 3 is better than windows 8 not so much a compliment as it is damning with light praise.
Member of Parliament (look no spilling mishtakes). About the UK equivalent of a Member of Congress in the US.
Donte Alistair Anderson Roberts - hi son!
Karma: Chameleon
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.
An 8 second Google search (I'm on a slow connection) gives the following possibilities:
Member of Parliament
Military Police
Mounted Police
Mezzo Piano
Take a guess.
What does a piano have to do with porn? Never mind, not sure I want to know.
Actually, it's Member of Parliament - Ministers tend to be those who head up a department (or Ministry) and are part of the cabinet.
Of course, now that I've corrected somebody, I'll have made any number of mistakes.
Holy shit, you're right.. after learning Italian my English has gone downhill.. I guess what Homer said was true.
He tried to kill me with a forklift!
probably did, did any one see what kind of porn she likes?
Here you go
I got here through a series of tubes
I find Mr. Potatohead deeply offensive. He/she is obviously advocating the crossdressing agenda!
Won't someone think of the children?!?!??!?!
If I were God, wouldn't I protect my churches from acts of me?
Agreed.
"Only cowards use censorship."
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.
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
geeze if you're gonna be properly snarky, just send him here : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MP
Ah, you beat me to it! Actually, I was going to suggest Monty Python, or the Meat Puppets. But I suppose that, since the topic is porn, Missionary Position might be the most appropriate.
Those who do study history are doomed to stand helplessly by while everyone else repeats it.
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'm gonna guess femdom going by her policies.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
Member of Parliament.
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
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.
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.
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.
Actually, it's Member of Parliament - Ministers tend to be those who head up a department (or Ministry) and are part of the cabinet.
Of course, now that I've corrected somebody, I'll have made any number of mistakes.
That's correct.
Under the Westminster system Members of Parliament or MP's are elected representatives of an electorate. MP's sit in the Lower House (AKA House of Representatives or just House). I think Congressmen/women are the US equivalent.
Ministers are in charge of a portfolio and sit in the Upper House (AKA Senate). The portfolio normally relates to one or more parts of government, I.E. Finance, Defence, Tourism or Culture and the Arts. Ministers are also MP's in most cases. In the US (and countries with similar systems) Ministers are roughly analogous to Secretaries.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
Ministers are in charge of a portfolio and sit in the Upper House (AKA Senate).
I would disagree with that - MPs reside in the House of Commons* (Lower house, which is analogous to Congress), whilst the House of Lords (is analogous to the Senate, though they are not publicly elected, rather chosen by governments). Ireland has a very similar setup, the Dáil (Lower House) and the Seanad (Upper House, which again is not selected by the public, but selected by TDs, universities, etc).
* Some peers from the House of Lords are given a ministerial role, thus being unelected - an example being [ex BT boss] Ian Livingston (Tory), and [Lord Vader] Peter Mandelson (Labour).
I would disagree with that - MPs reside in the House of Commons* (Lower house, which is analogous to Congress), whilst the House of Lords (is analogous to the Senate, though they are not publicly elected, rather chosen by governments)..
Ahh, I meant that the Upper House is often referred to as the senate in Westminster based countries (I.E. Australia, NZ), not that its directly analogous to the US Senate.
Calling someone a "hater" only means you can not rationally rebut their argument.
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.
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?
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.