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.

Comments

Further proof that the people pushing this agenda

[Anonymous Coward]

...haven't a fucking clue.

Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[gstoddart]

Film at 11.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[Anonymous Coward]

Not just that, she's a law maker that hasn't grasped the technology which she personally advised the prime minister on. If that isn't a damming indication of how poorly these filters are going to work, I don't know what is.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[lennier1]

This could get even funnier if you think about the Brits and their insane version of libel laws.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[oobayly]

Yup, Guido Fawkes has already run a poll on whether he should sue Claire Perry. 86% of people say yes. He's already asked her to remove the tweet, but it's still up there.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[SuricouRaven]

America is generally better at insane laws, because they have a multi-level government with different parts often trying to push different agendas - you end up with states trying to subvert federal law, the feds trying to overrule state law, commitees staffed with people opposed to the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and every politician trying to find some loophole to work around court rulings they disagree with.

But brits do have a few. The libel law is a good example.

We also have a law that bans the posesssion or distribution of 'extreme porn' - a term which is supposed to be used only against the worst-of-the-worst. A problem came up in writing though: Any definition that could include all that would also have to include at least a few mainstream hollywood movies. The solution was simple enough: Any content that gets rated by the BBFC, regardless of rating given, is exempt from the law.

Re:Lawmaker doesn't grasp technology ....

[oneandoneis2]

No it doesn't, because it removes "Innocent until proven guilty" - the US system means you can accuse me of any crime, and the burden of proof is on *me* to prove I'm innocent, instead of on *you* to justify your claim.

Technical illiteracy among politicians

[intermodal]

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.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians

[Reverand Dave]

I also think that they'd accomplish more by shipping the feminists that drive men to online porn in the first place off to an island.

So, I tend to agree with most of what you said except for this little bit. The largest consumer of internet pr0n in the US is the state of Utah where, if I'm not mistaken, they still try to burn feminists as witches. (ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point). The real driver of a lot of this is sexual repression and the vilification of sexual acts and deeds by puritanical d-bags that just want to make sure that you're as unhappy and unsatisfied as they are.

Other than that little bit, well said, this shit is by the book Orwellian.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians

[Zontar The Mindless]

I think the video and magazine shops are behind it, hoping to boost sales--to people who can no longer find their (free) porn online.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians

[orgelspieler]

Massive ramifications? Citation? Several major studies have been commissioned with the intention of proving this point, but all they have shown is that exposure to pornography does not have negative psychological or physiological effects. Most sociological impact is due to negative views on sexuality in general, and cannot be attributed to the pornography per se. In the few cases where it has been shown to have negative psychological effects, those were normally traced to religious or cultural taboo.

People have sex. It's an important and fun part of life. Why shouldn't it be part of entertainment, too? Oh right, it's supposed to be some sacred union between a man and a woman in love. I guess we all have Paul to thank for all that anti-sex mumbo jumbo in the New Testament. Hello!? Solomon had hundreds of wives and half as many concubines. I can't even comprehend numbers like that, when it comes to sexual encounters.

And don't get me started on feminists. If they really wanted to empower women, they'd do like the bonobos and wield their vaginas as a mighty weapon for peace and community integration. But whatever.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians

[denmarkw00t]

Be careful on that feminist bit...my fiancé is a feminist and enjoys pr0n as much as the next girl.

Some more extreme views of feminism have forgotten the simple test of "Are you a feminist: Do you have a vagina? If you answered 'yes,' you are a feminist." The point being, the extremists (they're in every group!) have turned feminism into a four-letter word for a lot of people because they believe in telling you what you, as a feminist, should be. This is exactly what early feminism fought to get away from - the idea that anyone else but you should decide what you want to do with your life. Said fiancé has been reading a lot of stuff on "new feminism" and it enrages both of us when so-called "feminists" say that she can't be a housewife and a feminist at the same time, and she genuinely wants to be a housewife. Feminism was about equality, but to most people these days it means that all women should do what men traditionally do and they should never do what women "traditionally" used to do, even if they want to.

Also, feminism in general has only promoted sexuality - true feminism means that your body is yours and you can present it any way that you want.

Re:Technical illiteracy among politicians

[orgelspieler]

I'll admit, I am working off memory here. I dare not Google search "pornography addiction" form my work computer. Ha! But there have been quite a few studies showing the opposite. Some of which were commissioned by the US and other governments during the 70s.

I'm not saying there isn't such a thing as a porn addiction. I'm saying that exposure to pornography is not negative in and of itself. If you are predisposed to addictive behavior like alcoholism or compulsive gambling, exposures to booze and slot machines have a much different effect than on non-addictive personalities. I can watch porn or not, I can drink a beer or not, I can play craps or not.

So maybe I just don't see what the big deal is with all these "for their own good" types of laws. I'm not a big Ron Paul fan (I know, heresy), but his take on "Please Mr. lawmaker, please make heroine illegal so I won't shoot up all the time!" is spot on. Look we're all big girls and boys now. We can kill time however we see fit.

If you were worried about everything that "destroys relationships" you'd be anti-video game, anti-TV, anti-Facebook, anti-Ironman, anti-football, anti-hunting, anti-fashion, anti-smoking, anti-debt, anti-not asking directions when you get lost, anti-fat, and just about anti everything. Oh yeah, and anti-divorce.

I fail to see how "nothing good can come of it for us as a species." They used to say the same thing about rock-and-roll and women's suffrage. There are some beautifully done, yet hardcore, pornographic films. There are marriages that have been saved because "oh... *that's* how you do that!!" There are friendships that arise amongst film stars, rapport among fans, financial benefits from the industry, and social benefits to being able to openly talk about formerly taboo topics. If this amounts as "nothing good" then I guess we have a different definition of good.

Oh Guido.

[shadowknot]

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.

What problem is this solving?

[sylivin]

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.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[TWiTfan]

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[NonUniqueNickname]

What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

And she thinks having her website plastered in porn will help with the votes? That's crazy. So crazy it just might work.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[gstoddart]

I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years

And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?

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. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.

But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.

I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.

(*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[jxander]

That's what parents are for.

It's not exactly hard. Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.

Or you could always just keep a couple classy Playboys "hidden" in locations where the kids are bound to find them. Skew their priorities towards airbrushing instead of fisting..

Re:What problem is this solving?

[SuricouRaven]

Ah, the famous Rainbow Parties. The things that everyone knows off, but you just try finding someone who actually went to one. It's one of the modern urban legends - a story that spread wildly because it inspired outrage, like the previous fear about secret satanist cults abducting children. That the story had no basis in reality was no impediment to the spread.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

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.

"Rainbow Parties" are the invention of neurotic adults with awful sex lives, not the internet. They are the sex-obsessed housewife's version of a teenagers "cleveland steamer" -- a ludicrously absurd sexual practice which says more about the mind that considers it than it does about reality.

I don't buy the idea that children are growing up with a skewed idea of sexuality. You show me studies revealing higher incidences of sexual dysfunctions, neuroses, or crimes in present day youth compared to past decades, I might think differently. But if your arguments center around "Rainbow parties" and 11 year olds thinking "bukkake" is normal, then I think the problem is You.

Re:What problem is this solving?

[jc42]

google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.

Urban legend, and almost entirely a moral panic spread by various media sources. At least, that is what I found by googling that!

Yeah, that's what they want you to believe. In reality, all of your friends (male and female) are regularly attending such parties, and having a great time. But they (and the rest of us here on /.) don't want people like you to have that kind of fun, so we've put all those comments in the Usual Places online to convince you that they're myths.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[interkin3tic]

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.

Libellous?

[maroberts]

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.....

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[Type44Q]

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.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[MightyMartian]

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.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[GameboyRMH]

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-(

Re:Further proof that the people pushing this agen

[AliasMarlowe]

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.