Slashdot Mirror


Chinese Firm Huawei In Control of UK Net Filters

AmiMoJo writes "The BBC reports that Huawei, one of the world's largest manufacturers of telecoms equipment, is controlling popular ISP TalkTalk's web censorship system. The system, known as Homesafe, was praised by Prime Minister David Cameron. Customers who do not want filtering still have their traffic routed through the system, but matches to Huawei's database are dismissed rather than acted upon. In other words there is no opt-out. Mr Cameron has demanded similar measures be adopted by all internet service providers (ISPs) in the UK, to 'protect our children and their innocence.'"

94 of 148 comments (clear)

  1. Expert Advice by macromorgan · · Score: 5, Funny

    If anyone knows how to filter internet traffic, it's the Chinese.

    1. Re:Expert Advice by click2005 · · Score: 2

      I have a problem with this. The wall over here (Hadrian's Wall) is a pathetic and useless thing, more like a fence and while it fits with the effectiveness of this system its still rubbish so I propose we call it the Great Firewall of Cameron.

      --
      I am a free slashdotter. I will not be modded, blogged, DRM'd, patented, podcasted or RFID'd. My life is my own.
    2. Re:Expert Advice by ionix5891 · · Score: 2

      The main purpose wont be filtering, the main purpose would be giant data collection filters for the Chinese

    3. Re:Expert Advice by jarle.aase · · Score: 4, Insightful
      Yes, and that is a good thing.

      You know, what this is really about is not just protecting innocent children, - it's really about protecting our Freedom.

      Freedom from the reds and the blacks and the criminals
      Prostitutes, pansies and punks
      Football hooligans, juvenile delinquents
      Lesbians and left wing scum

      Freedom from the niggers and the Pakis and the unions
      Freedom from the gypsies and the Jews
      Freedom from left wing layabouts and liberals
      Freedom from the likes of you

      To quote an old British song

      With something as important as the British populations Freedom at stake, no wonder they go for the best Freedom-enhancing technology in the World.

    4. Re:Expert Advice by Thud457 · · Score: 4, Funny

      man, I don't know what kind of a sexual act a Tiananmen Square is, but it must be pretty damn depraved the way it's getting blocked.

      --

      the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff

    5. Re:Expert Advice by Sique · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Who makes the equipment also controls the backdoors.

      --
      .sig: Sique *sigh*
    6. Re:Expert Advice by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      These aren't routers as such. They are transparent HTTP proxies. All the router needs to do is check each packet against a list of suspect IPs, and pass the matching ones down a different interface to the box that does the real work.

    7. Re:Expert Advice by benjfowler · · Score: 4, Funny

      Like a 'cleveland steamer', but with a Soviet-era tank.

    8. Re:Expert Advice by sabri · · Score: 2

      since some people say routers are moving towards Software defined Networks.

      Yeah, insert buzzword here. Do you think the current networks are not defined by software? How do you think BGP works? Magical monkeys or a programmed algorithm?

      --
      I'm not a complete idiot... Some parts are missing.
    9. Re:Expert Advice by juxzam · · Score: 2

      The Alright* Firewall of Cameron. I mean, if we're going to be witty.

    10. Re:Expert Advice by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Yeah, would be dumb to hire an american company. They will let most of the porn pass (at least, the ones that pay them) while keeping copies of your interesting "private" photos/posts/messages for later usage.

    11. Re:Expert Advice by mpe · · Score: 1

      They are transparent HTTP proxies. All the router needs to do is check each packet against a list of suspect IPs, and pass the matching ones down a different interface to the box that does the real work.

      Thing is that HTTP dosn't need to be over TCP/80, nor does TCP/80 need to be HTTP.
      Where things are more of a concern is that "transparent proxying" of HTTPS requires a Man In The Middle attack. Regular proxying, even using a "filtering proxy" does not.

    12. Re:Expert Advice by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Can't MITM HTTPS without adding a certificate to the client's trust list. Presumably, if a site is found to be hosting child porn on HTTPS the ISP will simply blacklist the IP entirely, even if that might mean disrupting some legitimate sites that share the server.

  2. metadata by ckedge · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Oh look, another company to whom I've entered into a commercial agreement with that now has a right to my entire browsing history and "public metadata". Super.

    1. Re:metadata by ericloewe · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Even worse. A company with which you have never, ever dealt now has a right to your entire browsing history and "public metadata", courtesy of your friendly ISP.

      All non-technical issues aside (the existence of some sort of filter is a matter for another discussion), the fact that all data gets sent through "Huawei's databse" should set off a few alarms, even ignoring the fact that it's Huawei (which is too close to the chinese government/chinese armed forces for comfort).

    2. Re:metadata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Even worse, the politicians in the UK are giving decisions of UK political sovereignty to a foreign entity.

      Allowing a foreign firm to have intel on domestic interests and people is called one thing: Espionage.

      Whomever allowed Huawei [1] to run this needs to be charged.

      [1]: Huawei by themselves are not doing anything wrong. If MI5 got hired to do firewalling for another country, it isn't their fault. However, it is a sworn duty of a politician to protect domestic interests. Same reason why Buckingham Palace hasn't been deeded or rented to another country.

    3. Re:metadata by mwvdlee · · Score: 5, Insightful

      So Huawei has the power to effectively remove any content they dislike from the British peoples' internet and all the British government can do about it is file a bug report to a their helpdesk?
      What could possibly go right?

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
    4. Re:metadata by cold+fjord · · Score: 3, Funny

      Oh look, another company to whom I've entered into a commercial agreement with that now has a right to my entire browsing history and "public metadata". Super.

      Maybe not just Huawei, but "China Ltd." as well.

      Huawei has spied for Chinese government, ex-CIA boss says

      I'm pretty sure GCHQ wouldn't "outsource."

      --
      much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell
    5. Re:metadata by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They can file a bug report... If they know about the content in the first place...

    6. Re:metadata by Jane+Q.+Public · · Score: 1

      "Even worse, the politicians in the UK are giving decisions of UK political sovereignty to a foreign entity."

      This.

      What a bonehead thing to do. This is a stupid as it would be for the U.S. to contract out essential steps of its figher jet manufacturing to other countries.

      Oh... wait...

    7. Re:metadata by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      If Huawei staff are acting for MSS as people suspect will happen its either espionage or treason if you are a UK national - you can imaginge the scene in the future some where in the bowels of Thames house

      Sir Harry Pierce "so would you care to explain why you have the browsing habits of all the residents of chetenham on those hard disks we found hidden in your luggage before you tried to board a flight to hong kong".

    8. Re:metadata by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Not metadata. Data. A proxy works both ways, it examines not just what you receive, but what you send too.

    9. Re:metadata by gmuslera · · Score: 1

      Too late, they already gave it up to US. Giving it up to someone else could balance the things, a bully could defend you against another bully if both are interested in what you have, but having only one ensures that you will get abused.

    10. Re:metadata by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      If aiding a foreign country were treason, then everyone who tossed £1 into the Christimastime collection bucket for Somali orphans would have been hung by now.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
  3. This sounds super safe and secure by intermodal · · Score: 2

    I sure hope all countries adopt this system soon! I just can't seem to figure out why my bank converted all my currency to yuan...

    --
    In SOVIET RUSSIA... erm...NSA AMERICA, the Internet logs onto YOU!
  4. Is filtered internet access really internet access by RichMan · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The legal question, is filtered internet access really internet access. There is a technical definition of the internet defining packets DNS lookup and routability. I don't think a filtered internet access fully qualifies as internet access.

    This could lead to legal challenges as the service providers are not selling true internet access. They are selling something else.

  5. At least in America by __aaltlg1547 · · Score: 2

    It's our own government and citizens spying on us.

    1. Re:At least in America by TheEyes · · Score: 1

      So which is Booz Allen? Government or citizen?

      According to SCOTUS, citizen. More of a citizen than you are, actually: they have all the rights (free speech, etc) and none of the responsibilities (cannot be made to serve jury duty/drafted, etc).

    2. Re:At least in America by PPH · · Score: 2

      or discovering some skeletons in the closet that could be used for extortion or whatever,

      Discover? Our congresspersons tweet pictures of their junk all over the Interwebs on their own.

      --
      Have gnu, will travel.
  6. but, but... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    ... the internet is for pr0n!

  7. Network diagram anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

    So do the chinese get to filter before or after the americans intercept?

    AG

    1. Re:Network diagram anyone? by oh_my_080980980 · · Score: 1

      Who says it's either or.....

    2. Re:Network diagram anyone? by h4rr4r · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Oh come on, you know exactly what is happening. The chinese log that data and the NSA trades it for intelligence on folks the chinese want info on.

      This very likely has nothing to do with filtering, since you can have that turned off, the logging is what they were really after the whole time.

    3. Re:Network diagram anyone? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Exactly. The traffic itself (and not just the DNS) gets routed via China so the NSA gets to look at it on the way out AND on the way back.

      Other ISPs I could mention don't have this kind of 'filter' yet because they know full well that if customers realise all their traffic goes via China they might Phorm a poor opinion of you.

    4. Re:Network diagram anyone? by bosah · · Score: 1

      Yep, as 'oh well this probably already happens anyway' as this is, regarding the logging of traffic, does it really all have to be so Pisstakingly obvious.

  8. Re:Is filtered internet access really internet acc by djsmiley · · Score: 4, Insightful

    I don't think what you think "internet access" is really matters.

    They simply state your "access" is given as allowed by law, blah blah blah. Done.

    --
    - http://www.milkme.co.uk
  9. Obligatory by Krneki · · Score: 2

    In British UK, the ISP access you!

    --
    Love many, trust a few, do harm to none.
  10. Well, that's it then by ArcadeMan · · Score: 2

    VPNs for everyone.

    1. Re:Well, that's it then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Until they're outlawed, at least.

    2. Re:Well, that's it then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      Already started. Visa and Mastercard are blacklisting VPN service providers at the behest of government(s).

    3. Re:Well, that's it then by ArcadeMan · · Score: 1

      They can't stop Bitcoin.

    4. Re:Well, that's it then by evilRhino · · Score: 1

      I think they can and will.

  11. Bullshit by vikingpower · · Score: 4, Insightful

    'protect our children and their innocence.'"

    Nonsense. Children are not innocent. Children are nasty, often cruel, little monsters in need of constant correction. "Innocent", in its original ( Latin ) sense, means "not (ob)noxious". Children are anything except "not (ob)noxious".

    --
    Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    1. Re:Bullshit by misexistentialist · · Score: 1

      in need of constant correction

      Censorship works for that too. Imagine the most hated nasty/cruel/monstrous enemy: wouldn't you want to restrict his internet?

    2. Re:Bullshit by SuricouRaven · · Score: 5, Insightful

      I work with children. In my extensive experience, they are vile creatures indeed. Ill-mannered, inconsiderate, uneducated and ignorant. They lack the most basic common sense, and what they do have is overridden by their susceptibility to peer pressure and the forces of advertising. They have a compulsion to destroy all that they touch, leaving me to spend my working day endlessly repairing equipment which has been vandalized - past highlights include throwing a switch from a window, placing a power cable in a stapler and impaling a laptop keyboard on a pen. Through an informal concensus they work to perpetuate this youth culture by relentlessly bullying any child who shows signs of being different, until they cease these attempts and rejoin the mob. They are in no way innocent - and, while many are ignorant of more worthwhile fields, peer discussion ensures they mostly have an encyclopedic knowledge of sexual acts and insults, albeit one riddled with misconceptions and errors.

    3. Re:Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Nope, but there has been a lot of research into it.

      Young kids do not yet have the brain to emphasise, in fact they are clinically sociopaths. Most kids stay sociopaths well into puberty.
      Neither have young kids any kind of moral sense, morals are thought initially by parents, until when they are adult they set their own moral values.

      Have you ever seen what kids do to each other in schools, I think hollywood has made quite a few movies about this fact.

      Also "Lord of the Flies".

    4. Re:Bullshit by RabidReindeer · · Score: 2

      in need of constant correction

      Censorship works for that too. Imagine the most hated nasty/cruel/monstrous enemy: wouldn't you want to restrict his internet?

      Actually, no. Well, maybe. As a form of punishment by deprivation. And possibly to keep him from getting info on various ways to attack me. LIke you need the Internet for that. Where there's a Will...

      It isn't strictly true that the better-informed you are the more civilized you are, but at least if you have the information and are ignoring it, you're just being a jackass. Whereas if you're walled off from it, your ignorance is understandable.

      It's why I maintain that People of Religion who forbid their children to learn about "heretical" things are merely showing the weakness of their own faith. The little bastards generally learn anyway, frequently get it wrong, and often find it more attractive simply because it's forbidden. Whereas a straight-up honest comparison against The Truth is more likely to end with a stronger faith. Providing that "The Truth" is actually true.

    5. Re:Bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      Yeah, but none of that it the parent's fault or human nature, it's all due to video nasties and internet porn and advertising and paedophiles. You know, stuff the government can do something about rather than telling voter's it's their own fault or the nature of childhood.

      To be fair it's not just the government line, the newspapers and other media won't tell parents to be responsible either.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    6. Re:Bullshit by JonWan · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a politician to me.

    7. Re:Bullshit by rwise2112 · · Score: 1

      Listen.... Management dosen't like being referred to as children!

      --

      "For every expert, there is an equal and opposite expert"
    8. Re:Bullshit by alexhs · · Score: 1

      'protect our children and their innocence.'

      Probably misspelt "ignorance".

      Who would want knowledgeable citizens ?

      --
      I have discovered a truly marvelous proof of killer sig, which this margin is too narrow to contain.
    9. Re:Bullshit by SuricouRaven · · Score: 2

      It's not made up. I do work with children.

      IT technician at a school. The lowest position in the whole IT industry.

    10. Re:Bullshit by Calydor · · Score: 1

      Unless porn is illegal in the UK, which I'm fairly sure it isn't, looking at porn will then not make them 'guilty' of anything in a legal sense and they will retain their innocense anyway.

      --
      -=This sig has nothing to do with my comment. Move along now=-
    11. Re:Bullshit by vikingpower · · Score: 2

      You, Sir, have much of my respect, "lowest position" or not. For doing this, for holding this position. It must be like living in hell with three ice cubes dealt out to you on a daily basis. Someone has to do it, and you do it. Respect.

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    12. Re:Bullshit by Hatta · · Score: 1

      So they're just like little adults.

      --
      Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
    13. Re:Bullshit by vikingpower · · Score: 1

      Kewl sig, bro !

      --
      Religous speak to God. Insane are spoken to by God. When all shut up, one can finally hear Shostakovich in peace
    14. Re:Bullshit by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      And possibly to keep him from getting info on various ways to attack me. LIke you need the Internet for that.

      I'd argue that the internet actually makes it harder for terrorists to successfully attack us. The only ones who were successful didn't use the internet, they hooked up with terrorist organizations. The majority who failed pathetically got all their "know how" and ideas from the internet, aimed way beyond their meagre abilities and suffered from a severe lack of practical training and advice.

      If the internet were not available those people may well have sought out links with organizations that would have helped them. Instead they thought they could go it alone and failed.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    15. Re:Bullshit by mpe · · Score: 1

      I work with children. In my extensive experience, they are vile creatures indeed. Ill-mannered, inconsiderate, uneducated and ignorant. They lack the most basic common sense, and what they do have is overridden by their susceptibility to peer pressure and the forces of advertising. They have a compulsion to destroy all that they touch, leaving me to spend my working day endlessly repairing equipment which has been vandalized - past highlights include throwing a switch from a window, placing a power cable in a stapler and impaling a laptop keyboard on a pen.

      IME such abuse of hardware is not confined to children. Even in education it's possible to find teachers who are more destructive than students. (As well as those who don't appear able to understand the concept of "supervision".)

    16. Re:Bullshit by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      It's not just IT. Site Services are constantly addressing the same problems - blinds torn apart, chair legs or wheels broken, that sort of thing. Most often the doors - we have traffic control doors that lock (electromagnets) on a timer, part of an elaborate dance that ensures there is no deadly crush of students during lesson change. Students hate this though, and routinely throw themselves at the doors trying to force them open, or smash the locking device, or tear the draft-block strips from the doors so they wedge and prevent the door closing fully, or swing from the door until it comes loose from the hinges.

  12. Re:Is filtered internet access really internet acc by drinkypoo · · Score: 5, Interesting

    And this is why "common carrier" status is a useful concept.

    Give me the line, untampered? Then what I do on it is my responsibility.

    Give me the line, supposedly filtered? Then what I do on it is your responsibility, since it's your job to save me from myself.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  13. Sensationalist bullshit title. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1, Interesting

    I am no fan of Camerons prudy filter. I would rather he just fuck off to be frank.

    But this article title is sensationalist crap.

    What we have here is entirely the correct solution.

    Some people want filtering for their connection, others don't. So, the free markey actually works here because one of the ISPs decides it can offer it as an opt-in option for the customers who want it. This is how the system is supposed to work. And for this ISP, they use Huawei.

    Big woop. The system works as it is supposed to.

    Oh and Cameron can still fuck off.

    --
    SJW n. One who posts facts.
    1. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by benjfowler · · Score: 3, Interesting

      'Yeah good morning, I'd like the porn filter on my broadband turned off, please?'
      'What, are you some kind of PERVERT?'

    2. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by Chrisq · · Score: 2

      'Yeah good morning, I'd like the porn filter on my broadband turned off, please?' 'What, are you some kind of PERVERT?'

      What do you mean you want to see your Facebook profile Mr Sexson

    3. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      I am no fan of Camerons prudy filter. I would rather he just fuck off to be frank.

      But this article title is sensationalist crap.

      What we have here is entirely the correct solution.

      Some people want filtering for their connection, others don't. So, the free markey actually works here because one of the ISPs decides it can offer it as an opt-in option for the customers who want it. This is how the system is supposed to work. And for this ISP, they use Huawei.

      Big woop. The system works as it is supposed to.

      Oh and Cameron can still fuck off.

      haven't you been following the news, it's the system that is on staging to be opt-out. not opt-in.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    4. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by badfish99 · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The filtering allegedly works by checking every URL that you visit for porn (I've no idea how); if porn is found, not only are you blocked from seeing the URL, but it is also added to a blacklist.

      The point of the article is that this checking is being done for everyone, even if they don't want filtering. So the ISP is, in effect, compiling a list of the URLs visited by their customers who do not want to be filtered.

      And that list is being compiled on hardware that is alleged to be under the control of a foreign, potentially hostile, government.

    5. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by bazorg · · Score: 1

      They key is to have everyone asking the ISPs for the filter to be off, ideally at the same time. And then to put up signs on their front door warning anyone passing by: "Porn-enabled wifi network in operation".

    6. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 1

      haven't you been following the news, it's the system that is on staging to be opt-out. not opt-in.

      RTFA.

      This article is ACTUALLY about an opt-in system that already exists.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    7. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by serviscope_minor · · Score: 2

      Wrong.

      Right. Read. The. Fucking. Article.

      --
      SJW n. One who posts facts.
    8. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by Jawnn · · Score: 4, Insightful

      'Yeah good morning, I'd like the porn filter on my broadband turned off, please?' 'What, are you some kind of PERVERT?'

      And a year or three in the future...
      "May it please the court, the state would like to introduce into evidence that the suspect did, in blatant disregard of the welfare of children everywhere, demand that his Internet service provider to remove all child-abuse protection filters from his account."

    9. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Informative

      You missed the point. Cameron wants all ISPs to have this filtering, and will make it mandatory if they don't. The filtering will be outsourced to the lowest bidder, which in this case was Huawei. Chances are it will always be Huawei or some other foreign company.

      The operators of the filter have full access to everything every subscriber does online. Everything has to pass through their filter, even if you ask for it to be turned off. All of your traffic is routed through equipment owned and run by Huawei, a company known to have strong ties with the Chinese government. Huawei set the content of the filters too, which is of course secret. You don't think they are going to publish a list of URLs for you to scrutinize do you?

      Government mandated filtering outsourced to foreign low bidder companies that have access to all your traffic even if you turn the filter off. And by the way, you can't turn the filter off completely anyway.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    10. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by mjwalshe · · Score: 1

      So what happens when the MSS starts using the data to blackmail people working for government or list X firms or the tabloids bribe ISP staff to tell them if a celeb/ member of the royal family has any interesting sites that he/she attempted to visit The data from this is very sensitive so will ISP's start having to implement strict security controls and auditing run an internal security team and have staff with access to the data on people internet history positively vetted - none of these are cheap and a lot of people wont want or be-able to pass vetting.

    11. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

      The system provides no way to opt out of having all your traffic sent to Huawei for analysis.

      --
      "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS
    12. Re:Sensationalist bullshit title. by Xest · · Score: 1

      Doesn't matter what the article says if it's wrong. Listen to what Cameron said himself. He wants to role this out via legislation to every ISP in the UK.

  14. Protect our children and their innocence... by gestalt_n_pepper · · Score: 1

    ...from anyone who might criticize the government, its officials or its policies.

    FTFY

    --
    Please do not read this sig. Thank you.
  15. The same Huawei the U.S. calls a security threat.. by MrKevvy · · Score: 4, Informative

    ... as they are basically a ministry of the Chinese government.

    U.S. lawmakers seek to block China Huawei, ZTE U.S. inroads

    "Committee Chairman Mike Rogers, at a press conference to release the report, said companies that had used Huawei equipment had reported "numerous allegations" of unexpected behavior, including routers supposedly sending large data packs to China late at night."

    --
    -- Insert witty one-liner here. --
  16. Proof positive by benjfowler · · Score: 1

    .... that this Government are a bunch of complete fucking idiots.

    (In case it wasn't obvious from the PM's rhetoric about the 'I am a pervert' opt-out porn filter.)

    1. Re:Proof positive by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

      .... that this Government are a bunch of complete fucking idiots.

      Can you name one that is not?

  17. Expect Huge Advancements in UK IT by organgtool · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Because nothing motivates a young boy to learn how to defeat technological filters than the promise of a nearly limitless supply of porn on the other side of those filters.

  18. Optional by Vollernurd · · Score: 2

    TalkTalk's Homesafe service is pretty good at blocking the pr0n, firearms, alcohol, tobacco, etc. sites. You can change what sub-categories of sites to allow through (I allowed Alcohol as I have business interests in a brewery). HomeSafe is also optional - you have to opt-IN to it. So, the headline here is what, exactly? A product that claims to filter the Web for you actually does what it's supposed to do? It's my home network, I can choose what I want to allow onto it, surely? The fact that it's Chinese also smacks of racism - I mean, the NSA and my own poxy government have already read my emails and tracked my phone calls. They're not Chinese. Everything in my life that uses electricity now is made in China.

    --
    Smokey, this is not 'Nam, this is bowling. There are rules.
    1. Re:Optional by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      It's not about race, it's about jurisdiction.

      If your own government, or companies in your nation are taking information they shouldn't, then you have some chance of at least starting some sort of discussion about what to do about it.

      If all of this is conceded to foreign powers (regardless of who they are), then there is no applicable jurisdiction to reign in their behavior if they start misusing that data.

    2. Re:Optional by Xest · · Score: 3, Informative

      No the system is not opt-in, the filtering is opt-in, there's a difference.

      The system is ALWAYS monitoring what sites you visit whether you opt-in or opt-out, it just depends on whether you want to be blocked from blacklisted sites as to whether it replaces the response to those web requests.

      This means that even if I opt-out it's still monitoring every site I visit.

  19. Great way to teach children by watermark · · Score: 2

    Cameron is just trying to motivate the young to learn technology. Tell a 12 year old boy his reward is porn and he'll learn how to bypass those filters in no time flat.

    I've always thought about doing something similar with my own kid. Steadily increase the completeness of the filters until he has taught himself how to get around all of them. As of now, he's more interested in Elmo.

    Stage 1 - Proxy Settings
    Stage 2 - DNS filters
    Stage 3 - Net Nanny
    Stage 4 - Deep packet at the router level
    Stage 5 - ?

  20. Re:Is filtered internet access really internet acc by AmiMoJo · · Score: 3, Insightful

    I can't understand why ISPs are supportive of this. Maybe they think they have to be or will face massive negative publicity from hate-mongering newspapers. Inevitably they will fail to make the filters watertight and circumvention methods will become common knowledge, resulting in bad publicity anyway. The government will threaten to crack down* on them, customers will sue for failure to babysit their children for them etc.

    * unless cracking down is banned after it becomes a filter-dodging euphemism for face sitting.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  21. MI5 is not for hire by tomxor · · Score: 2

    The fault is certainly not with Huawei, however unlike MI5 it is for hire... They are a company closely affiliated with the chinese government and suspected as a tool to push it's agenda. You can't hire MI5 nor would any other country want to. Huawei is effectively a company that is controlled by an "MI5" That you could hire ignorantly... which is the case here.

    Also factually speaking, it is known that Huawei networking hardware has come preloaded with backdoors in the past. That alone should be enough to discount them as a trustworthy supplier for equipment at an ISP.

  22. Why Does, "Save the children!" by kawabago · · Score: 1

    make me want to vomit?

    1. Re:Why Does, "Save the children!" by jarle.aase · · Score: 1

      make me want to vomit?

      ... You are probably a victim of uncensored information.

      But now the nice nanny, called Government, is going to fix that for you. And then you will be safe from any disturbing matters, like reality.

  23. Re:The same Huawei the U.S. calls a security threa by zlives · · Score: 1

    as comparted to routers supposedly sending large data packs to NSA

  24. 'Think of the Children' strikes again by Gavrielkay · · Score: 3, Insightful
    I recall a judge a while back who said something like: we should not protect the children by taking away rights they should have once they become adults.

    Obviously the real problem is with prudes who hope that no one will ever be able to look at porn or enjoy sex again, but I do really wish more people would think of the other side and realize that stripping rights away that our children would otherwise grow into is just not worth it.

    1. Re:'Think of the Children' strikes again by 0123456 · · Score: 1

      Obviously the real problem is with prudes who hope that no one will ever be able to look at porn or enjoy sex again, but I do really wish more people would think of the other side and realize that stripping rights away that our children would otherwise grow into is just not worth it.

      You're assuming that's an unintended side-effect, rather than a goal.

      The world's governments want to censor the Internet. They don't want anyone talking behind their back in secret. Pr0n is just a convenient excuse to get the censor filter in place so they can expand them in the future.

      Oh, sorry, I forgot: this is Slashdot, so in about five minutes there'll be a mob along to inform us that the slippery slope is a logical fallacy, so this could never happen.

    2. Re:'Think of the Children' strikes again by Gavrielkay · · Score: 1

      I am not assuming that at all.

      I completely understand that the goal is thought control. However, the people genuinely pursuing that goal are getting inadvertent help from a cadre of slightly more innocent folks who believe they are merely "thinking of the children." It is those folks who give the cause enough numbers to actually accomplish anything, and it is those folks I wish would wake up and understand the real outcome. Many of those people would not agree to take rights away from adults if it were put to them that way, they just need to take the blinders off and see that it is what they are doing.

  25. Re:Is filtered internet access really internet acc by drinkypoo · · Score: 1

    Big ISPs are just trying to avoid becoming the target of government ire, because they're worried about their stock prices. Some small ISPs will go along on a similar basis, but they're worried not about stock but about being legislated out of existence.

    --
    "You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
  26. David Cameron is Coming to your ISP by 10101001+10101001 · · Score: 1

    'protect our children and their innocence.'

    You better not shout

    You better not cry

    You better not pout

    I'm telling you why

    David Cameron is coming to your ISP

    David Cameron: protecting your children and their innocence* since 2013. Yes, Virginia, there really is a David Cameron. And he's one creepy, mofo. He knows when you're sleeping. He knows when you're awake. He know when you've been bad or good, so be good for goodness sake.

    *May not be protecting your children. Innocence may be robbed by realization government is monitoring their activities through fascist actions through Chinese based censorship firm. "Family-Friendly Filter" may be ironic named alternative to "Communist China-Endorsed Censorship". Freedom void in UK.

    --
    Eurohacker European paranoia, gun rights, and h
  27. Re:Is filtered internet access really internet acc by raju1kabir · · Score: 1

    You can complain about the block because even if it's "turned off", a copy of all your internet traffic is still being sent to a Chinese company for analysis.

    --
    "Patriotism is your conviction that this country is superior to all other countries because you were born in it." -- GBS