Slashdot Mirror


"Piracy Filter" Blocks TorrentFreak for 4 Million Sky Customers

An anonymous reader writes "Website blocking has become a hot topic in the UK in recent weeks. Opponents of both voluntary and court-ordered blockades have warned about the potential collateral damage these blocking systems may cause, and they have now been proven right. As it turns out blocked sites can easily exploit the system and add new IP-addresses to Sky's blocklist. As a result TorrentFreak has been rendered inaccessible to the ISP's four million customers."

81 of 122 comments (clear)

  1. There we have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    This is why censorship of the internet is a fucking stupid idea.

    1. Re:There we have it by paziek · · Score: 2, Insightful

      That depends on your point of view. I'm pretty sure there people/corporations/governments that do like it.

    2. Re:There we have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

      It doesn't work because TorrentFreak is a news site. Unless the war on piracy declares even speaking about filesharing fair game as collateral?

    3. Re:There we have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Government officials usually have no real opinion on this due to a lack of understanding. They just act on lobby groups that are usually sponsored by Hollywood and other corporate interest groups.

    4. Re:There we have it by SGT+CAPSLOCK · · Score: 5, Insightful

      This is to be expected of what I've come to call the "Corporate Internet".

      Governments and corporations have inherited our tubes, and I think that by now they're pretty confident that it's going to be acceptable for them to control and limit the content that ordinary people have access to.

      It's been like this for a while now; once you learn the ropes and (more importantly) learn to obey all the rules, you'll fit right in!

    5. Re:There we have it by mcgrew · · Score: 3, Interesting

      It explains why the Linux distros in my upload queue have had a lot less activity lately.

    6. Re:There we have it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Um, hello? It's called "Let's not only block the thing we're against, let's block any mention of that thing as well". Sort of like what the Russian government seems to be trying to do the LGBT community there.

      So, far from being "collateral damage", this means the (censorship) system is working just as intended.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    7. Re:There we have it by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Was it ever?

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    8. Re:There we have it by gl4ss · · Score: 1

      It doesn't work because TorrentFreak is a news site. Unless the war on piracy declares even speaking about filesharing fair game as collateral?

      it's not collateral, it's the target. speaking of torrents is the target, even if the hashes weren't spoken on the site.

      --
      world was created 5 seconds before this post as it is.
    9. Re:There we have it by davydagger · · Score: 4, Insightful

      there were people/corporations/governments that though the holocaust was a good idea. /godwin, but to prove a point that every bad anti-social oppressive idea does actually work for some people, the people in charge at the expence of everyone else.

    10. Re:There we have it by davydagger · · Score: 1

      it worked like that for terrorism, communism, autism, and being unpopular(aka a WITCH)

    11. Re:There we have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Which goes against freedom of speech as well as journalism's special rights... neither a good thing. This is going further than it was intended.

      For the record I'm on Sky and the article is hosted on their domain... and I can read it. So it looks like Sky have noticed and restored access.

    12. Re:There we have it by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Huh? It looks like it works: You can't access TorrentFreak.

      If you bothered to RTFA*, you'd realise why you're wrong: the censorship is supposed to apply to an unrelated site, called EZTV, and has nothing to do with TorrentFreak. The owner of the blocked domain started adding the IP addresses of other, unrelated sites and at least one ISP started blocking access to those unrelated sites. With a solution as poorly implemented as this, it means a blocked site owner with an axe to grind could start blocking access to legitimate sites with very little effort.

      It says the owner used TorrentFreak as a test an warned them in advance, as well as doing some experimentation with Facebook IPs. He (or she?) could have just as easily added Wikipedia or Sky's own site.

      * I guess you're on Sky and couldn't read it, right?

    13. Re:There we have it by blackest_k · · Score: 5, Informative

      you didn't read the article did you?
      It was actually a bit of clever manipulation by a torrent site who discovered sky was automatically blocking other ip addresses the torrent site was listing as alternate site addresses. So they performed a little experiment listed the torrent freak site as a mirror and sky automatically put a block on that ip address. Thus demonstrating how Sky's automatic blocking is flawed and fairly useless.

      Its a bit more complicated than that but summing up Sky thought they could automate whack a mole and instead managed to give control over blocking to the sites they want to block.

      Torrent freak were informed and agreed to be a target before hand. I think facebook was also targeted but with little to no effect due to the number of addresses assigned to facebook its believed.

    14. Re:There we have it by reve_etrange · · Score: 2

      No, Sky has done nothing. Access is restored because EZTV stopped pointing their domain at TorrentFreak's IP, and the Sky filter is updated at some interval.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    15. Re:There we have it by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

      I did read TFA.

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    16. Re:There we have it by HiThere · · Score: 2

      Well, the USArmy and Universities put together the original internet, and Cern designed the web on top of it. Corporations, except for universities and a few other non-profits, were late-comers to the party.

      OTOH, the original internet was specifically designed to avoid centralized routing. Basically, when power grabbers took over ICANN and were blessed by the US govt. the writing was on the wall. You shouldn't be surprised by anything that has happened since then...well, actually the existence of torrents is a *bit* of a surprise, and there were a few others. All having to do with temporarily maintaining a bit of open communication.

      P.S.: Don't trust encryption. The NSA is currently putting together a "big" quantum computer, and one of the kinds of calculation that is particularly good at is prime factorization. They may not be able to crack that message THIS year.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:There we have it by Fnord666 · · Score: 1

      Reading comprehension fail then.

      --
      'The tyrant will always find pretext for his tyranny.' - Aesop's Fables
    18. Re:There we have it by AmiMoJo · · Score: 1

      They also tried to block Facebook but it didn't work, probably because of the large range of IP addresses involved. It's a shame they gave up so easily, taking down a high profile site would have been exactly the kind of public shaming we need to make people see how stupid the whole idea is.

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

      Troll harder.

    20. Re:There we have it by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Nah

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    21. Re:There we have it by Maritz · · Score: 1

      Nah.

      --
      I do not want your cheap brainburning drugs. They are useless for work. And I am a working man today.
    22. Re:There we have it by Raenex · · Score: 1

      Post the unpopular truth, get modded down. It's the Slashdot way.

    23. Re:There we have it by Sabriel · · Score: 1

      Wonder what would've happened if they'd added Sky's DNS servers to the list.

  2. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    TorrentFreak isn't a site that allows you to conduct piracy. It's a news site that posts content relevant to file sharing.

    This would be like shutting down newspapers because they speak about other crimes.

  3. This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by fey000 · · Score: 2, Funny

    "To the last, I will grapple with thee... from Hell's heart, I stab at thee! For hate's sake, I spit my last breath at thee!"

    1. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by firex726 · · Score: 3, Informative

      Think you mean Moby Dick:
      http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick

      > Ahab ultimately dooms the crew of the Pequod (save for Ishmael) to death by his obsession with Moby Dick. During the final chase, Ahab hurls his last harpoon while yelling his now-famous revenge line:

      "to the last I grapple with thee; from hell's heart I stab at thee; for hate's sake I spit my last breath at thee."

    2. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by mcgrew · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Kahn was quoting Melville; Kirk was his whale. And Star Trek is more known to most slashdotters than Melville.

    3. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Sounds like a quote from Moby Dick to me.

    4. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      In fifty more years, which work do you think will be best-known?

    5. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Moby Dick. But Ahab will be a thorough-going villian, intent on destroying an endangered species. And Ishmael will be an "unindicted co-conspirator".

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    6. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by amiga3D · · Score: 1

      Truly so. I look for a revisionist remake of Moby Dick somewhere in the near future to replace the 1956 Gregory Peck version.

    7. Re:This makes me think of Wrath of Khan by discord5 · · Score: 1

      Kahn was quoting Melville; Kirk was his whale. And Star Trek is more known to most slashdotters than Melville.

      If anything, I'm surprised that a person who watched Wrath of Khan or First Contact wouldn't recognize the quotes and parallels immediately. Even if your native language is not English and you weren't forced to read these classics, this is classic literature that's pretty hard to ignore. If anything I'd say that next to Shakespeare's work, Melville's right up there as "most quoted classical author in sci-fi".

  4. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by ClaraBow · · Score: 4, Insightful

    So very true! The masses in the UK will suddenly acquire the necessary means to get around the filters. The word proxy will become a household word, just like it has become in school that filter the internet.

  5. Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by grahammm · · Score: 5, Insightful

    If the blocks are applied to any IP address pointed to by a blocked site, maybe as a demonstration a blocked site should add the IP addresses of all of the major UK political parties, BBC iPlayer, Youtube, Netflix, lovefilm etc. If mainstream media sites get (automatically) blocked then perhaps the backlash might force TPTB into either removing the requirement to block or require the ISPs to use a blocking mechanism with less potential for collateral damage.

    1. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      There are certainly enough boobs on the UK party site to qualify for blocking anyway.

    2. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      They should block sky's websites from their own customers...

    3. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by skovnymfe · · Score: 3, Insightful

      They should block Slashdot, and all the sysadmins in the UK will rebel and take down the filter in their anger.

    4. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by rb12345 · · Score: 2

      If they were aiming for truly evil exploitation of automated blocking, they wouldn't block any of those. They'd get the DVLA tax disc renewal site blocked instead and, given the automatic fines now, you'd easily upset a twelfth of Sky's userbase who'd need to switch back to manual methods. Alternatively, you'd aim to block HMRC in late January and block the rare people doing tax-returns at the last minute...

    5. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by SGT+CAPSLOCK · · Score: 1

      When you do malicious things to Sky's customers, wouldn't it make you just as or perhaps even more oppressive than the people already controlling their content?

    6. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by houghi · · Score: 1

      I have the technical knowledge to run my own DNS server.
      I do not have enough knowledge to do the following:
      Make a DNS server for a single PC. It shoudl possibly be doing the following:
      1) Work like a standard DNS server (e.g. start looking at root for SOA, then go down to find the A record for a site)
      2) Stabndard caching of 2 days for IP addresses, perhaps longer for TLDs
      3) Override DHCP settings
      4) Make it easy to install (double click should be enough)

      That way you are no longer depending on your providers DNS, nor depend on any other third party, like Google or any other third party DNS server.

      So no matter if it is done by mistake or on purpose, you are not dependent on any third party for DNS.

      Having a central DNS server used to be important as traffic was slow and expensive. Now I do not see that as an issue anymore, so the servers can be decentralized.

      Any takers?

      --
      Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.
    7. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by rb12345 · · Score: 2

      My post certainly wasn't meant to recommend that it should be attempted! It was intended to reply to the OP's comment that:

      If mainstream media sites get (automatically) blocked then perhaps the backlash might force TPTB into either removing the requirement to block or require the ISPs to use a blocking mechanism with less potential for collateral damage.

      Blocking "mainstream media sites" would upset journalists more and get far more publicity. TPTB probably care more about their own sites being available and not having to pay more staff to do the work by hand. Either way, this will probably be fixed within the week.

      Answering your actual question: perhaps, but I seriously doubt the torrent site will care much either way since they can no doubt get away with blaming Sky or the content industry for the blocks anyway. The cynical view is that they'd get far more self-promotion that way too...

    8. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by Jaruzel · · Score: 1

      Your idea kinda works....

      But:
      1. What if the block filter is also blocking the IP address?
      2. What if the block filter is scanning the HTTP 1.1 request header that will contain the line 'host: <blocked-domain>' ?

      for your concept, I believe it's quite simple to configure a linux distro to be a DHCP server for your network that also does DNS and performs it's own querying of the DNS root servers, so your concept is totally doable technically, i'm just not sure how it well it would work in reality...

      -Jar

      --
      Together, We Can Make Slashdot Better. I Do NOT Mod ACs. - Check Me Out
    9. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Unless there's a webserver on the same IP that people need to access, I'm guessing not a whole lot.

      Are they only blocking port 80 (and 443)? I would expect them to block all ports, including port 53.

      If you don't understand why blocking access to port 53 on your ISPs DNS would be a problem for most of the ISPs users, I think you need to hand in your geek card.

    10. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

      Might this be what you're looking for?

      --
      Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
    11. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      But the provider could trivially intercept and spoof DNS requests. Your plan needs three revisions:
      1. Support DNSSEC.
      2. Scratch the two-day cache, make it respect the TTL field as normal.
      3. Except that in the event of no-domain or fail to receive a response to a query, return the last valid signed record regardless of TTL.

      So what you end up with is a perfectly ordinary DNSSEC-complient DNS server, except that of a provider tries to block a domain this will keep on working regardless, at least until the host next changes IP.

      All this assumes that Sky's block is DNS based, of course. It probably isn't. Still, a lot of low-cost filters are, so this will at least make filter operators fork over the cash for something a bit more sophisticated.

    12. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by reve_etrange · · Score: 1

      Just install DD-WRT on your router and activate DNSMasq. You can configure specific hosts for your LAN as well as parameters such as cache duration. The local DNS cache will probably speed things up for you as well.

      --
      .: Semper Absurda :.
    13. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      If the blocks are applied to any IP address pointed to by a blocked site, maybe as a demonstration a blocked site should add the IP addresses of all of the major UK political parties, BBC iPlayer, Youtube, Netflix, lovefilm etc. If mainstream media sites get (automatically) blocked then perhaps the backlash might force TPTB into either removing the requirement to block or require the ISPs to use a blocking mechanism with less potential for collateral damage.

      Exactly. Though I would put the BBC, Google, Facebook and other big sites on the blocklist. Maybe even the UK government IPs.

      Put the big major sites on the list. Hell, blocking Google.co.uk ought to generate a sufficient amount of backlash. Ditto Facebook. Basically any site that everyone gets access to. Maybe even Amazon.co.uk.

    14. Re:Add DNS for "legitimate" sites by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      When you do malicious things to Sky's customers, wouldn't it make you just as or perhaps even more oppressive than the people already controlling their content?

      Depends on what happens.

      If it merely means the site is unreachable, then well, not much (sites go down all the time). If it means you get a scary looking page that says "you've access a site hosting illegal materials" then conversations get started.

      Blocking big sites that can do this can generate some buzz, and the worst part is, you can't really tell WHICH site did it.

      Imagine someone wanting to visit the BBC, getting the scary page, then maybe they entered it wrong. Try again, scary page. Google it - well, Google's got a scary page as well.

      Eventually someone will figure out which ISPs seem to be generating false scary pages and avoid them.

      A game of whack a mole - they block a site, that site blocks another site, now Sky has ot figure out ways around it, etc. Eventually someone will make a mistake and allow through a blocked site's IP.

  6. The whole article in a post by ConaxConax · · Score: 4, Informative

    I'm a Sky user in the UK, and I am here to post the text of the article:

    "Website blocking has become a hot topic in the UK in recent weeks. Opponents of both voluntary and court-ordered blockades have warned about the potential collateral damage these blocking systems may cause, and they have now been proven right. As it turns out blocked sites can easily exploit the system and add new IP-addresses to Sky’s blocklist. As a result TorrentFreak has been rendered inaccessible to the ISP’s four million customers.

    stop-blockedFollowing a High Court ruling last month, six UK ISPs are required to block subscriber access to the popular TV-torrent site EZTV.it.

    The actions EZTV faces are not the first taken against a torrent site in the UK. The Pirate Bay, KickassTorrents and several other “pirate” sites have been blocked by previous court orders and remain inaccessible by conventional means.

    However, over the past couple of days Sky subscribers noticed that the blocklist had been quietly expanded with a new site that’s certainly not covered by any court order – TorrentFreak.com.

    Our site first became inaccessible on Wednesday night, only to be unblocked 14 hours later. However, about an hour ago it was again added to the blocklist.

    The recent blocking spree is causing confusion among Sky subscribers who have no idea why TorrentFreak is longer accessible. However, we can confirm that the problem lies with Sky’s filtering software that is supposed to enforce the court-ordered torrent site blockades.

    The owner of EZTV informed TorrentFreak that he used Geo DNS to point UK visitors to TorrentFreak’s IP-address. Soon after there were reports that our website had become inaccessible to Sky users."

    1. Re:The whole article in a post by EnglishDude · · Score: 1

      You're a Sky customer? Have you ever thought about changing to a different company?

  7. The fun that can be had by TheP4st · · Score: 5, Informative

    EZTV should have their DNS servers point to SKY's IP addresses and sit back and watch as hilarity ensues.

    --
    "I have downloaded hundreds and hundreds of records, why would I care if somebody downloads ours?" Robin Pecknold
  8. Question: by fustakrakich · · Score: 2

    How many Sky customers are reading the article?

    --
    “He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
  9. Re:oooh, big scary corporations! by firex726 · · Score: 4, Informative

    FYI this site is not a tracker or place to download torrent files; it's a new sites that posts articles, and only articles relating to filesharing.

  10. Re:so... what by Opportunist · · Score: 2

    It's not a site that gives you torrents. It's a site that gives you news. And once we block information, the slippery slope just gets lubed a bit more.

    Making information and getting it illegal is and was the hallmark of any and every dictatorship in history, from fascism to communism. Part of that right to speak is the right to listen, without, it's pointless. By that logic, even the Soviet Union had a freedom of speech, as long as you were alone and nobody would listen in. It just was not allowed to say anything when someone else could hear it.

    --
    We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  11. Re:Who cares? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 1
    TorrentFreak (which, as a Virgin Media customer, I can apparently still access without jumping through hoops) appears to be more of a blog / news site these days. From the front page, it's not even obvious that they link to illegal torrents (do they?). They do list this in their about page:

    TorrentFreak was featured on mainstream news outlets such as CNN, The Wall Street Journal, New York Times the BBC, the Guardian and the LA Times.

    • 150,000+ RSS subscribers
    • Top 50 Techmeme leaderboard
    • Top 100 blogs on Technorati

    Which makes it seem like they are not a sensible thing to block. I've not visited the site for a great many years, but if you only object to the sites that you use being blocked then it's very easy for censors to creep in.

    --
    I am TheRaven on Soylent News
  12. Just block facebook by nurb432 · · Score: 1

    They are evil too, even more so.. that should get about 3.9 million of their 4mil customers pissed off.

    --
    ---- Booth was a patriot ----
    1. Re:Just block facebook by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

      Plus it'll do a lot more to protect children than the government's porn-blocking proposal.

  13. Re: Who cares? by amiga3D · · Score: 2

    I listen to NBC and get all the leftie info then tune in FOX and get the right's viewpoint. It makes the news interesting when you see it from both sides.

  14. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by davydagger · · Score: 2

    unless the word "proxy" is....filtered.

    for now you can "opt-out"

    but not if your at a coffee shop, cafe, library or public network.

    the UK is now in the leauge of China, and Iran as far as internet access goes.

  15. Re: Who cares? by Rockoon · · Score: 5, Insightful

    It makes the news interesting when you see it from both sides.

    Notice how easily they convinced you that there were only two sides...

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  16. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by classiclantern · · Score: 2

    And now you know the real reason for this bullshit. Censorship was never to protect the children. Children don't give money to politicians, corporations do. It's always been about perceived copyright violation by "Big Media." All hail our bought and paid-for ruling class. Follow the money.

    --
    Now that I said that, I fell better.
  17. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 5, Insightful

    the UK is now in the leauge of China, and Iran as far as internet access goes.

    You might want to try that again.

    I'm in China right now, and I've no trouble accessing either TorrentFreak or TPB.

    (And no, I'm not using a proxy or VPN, just a bog-standard residential connection.)

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  18. Re:Custom Hosts files get you around DNSBL's by RotateLeftByte · · Score: 1

    Yeah but....

    I've now come upon two separate Windows 7 systems where the \windows\system32\drivers\etc (the etc) bit was suddenly now a hidden directory.

    WTF??????

    Is this MS getting into bed with the Gov and hiding the very place where you can 'fix' your system to bypass the filters....?

    --
    I'd rather be riding my '63 Triumph T120.
  19. Re:Custom Hosts files get you around DNSBL's by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    This time I was able to detect an APK "MY LEET HOSTS FILE YADDA YADDA" post after reading just the very first line.

    Damn, I'm getting good.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  20. Re: Who cares? by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 2

    It makes the news interesting when you see it from both sides.

    Notice how easily they convinced you that there were only two sides...

    I'm not sure which represents the greater tragedy--that, or the fact anyone could mistake NBC for being "leftist".

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  21. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by thegarbz · · Score: 1

    An American ex-pat I work with seems to have trouble with some of the most basic of computer problems, your stereotypical person of age who didn't grow up with computers.

    Yet he has a VPN to a server back in the states so he can watch Hulu content without the stupid geobarriers. The word proxy and VPN almost already is a household word.

  22. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by DNS-and-BIND · · Score: 1

    *facepalm*

    He doesn't mean that the China censors torrents. He means that China censors at all. Try visiting facebook or twitter, or other websites where citizens can pick up dangerous opinions.

    --
    Shutting down free speech with violence isn't fighting fascism. It IS fascism!
  23. Re: Who cares? by Rockoon · · Score: 2

    Well, its certainly leftist from the American perspective where the right is "religious conservative" and the left is "whatever is popular today"

    --
    "His name was James Damore."
  24. SKY customers being blocked by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Insightful

    SKY is operated (largely) by NEWS Corp aka Murdoch and Fox news

    So CAN WE PLEASE HAVE A BLOCK ON the SUN Newspapers Website and FOX news -

    That would at least be some positive achievement out of this shambles

    I live in the UK and I see a totally inept, totally technophobic government try to work the 21st century with 19th century tools and mentality.
    We have 2 little rich boys trying to run a country that is in a shambles because they don't understand anything - basically.
    Oh and to keep the balance - the other lot aren't much better
    Too many lawyers and PR executives and not enough techies - or anyone who has actually had to work for a living - in our government.

  25. Re:Custom Hosts files get you around DNSBL's by SuricouRaven · · Score: 1

    Editing the hosts file on Windows also tends to result in antivirus software triggering. Understandable: Very few users these days have reason to edit the hosts file, but it's a very common target for malware (Redirect banking sites to pick up passwords, or redirect ad banner servers to those operated by the malware authors) so any editing of the file will be flagged as suspicious. A few times I've had Windows itsself revert the file to default automatically, but that was under Vista - I don't know if 7 does that or not.

  26. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I merely pointed out some facts. You're free to interpret them as you wish.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  27. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by HiThere · · Score: 1

    An excellent comment, even if you slightly miss the point. Different countries will filter different things...which, actually, is the main hope.

    --

    I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
  28. Re:so... what by X.25 · · Score: 1

    am i supposed to be surprised that it actually works? cause a piracy filter blocking a site focused on torrents isn't a huge supervise

    What exactly is a "site focused on torrents", exactly?

    Do you even know what you are talking about, or you are working as a guy operating filter in Sky?

  29. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by Gr8Apes · · Score: 1

    the UK is now in the leauge of China, and Iran as far as internet access goes.

    Actually, China is monitoring and filtering UK's internet access. (Huawei) Welcome to you Chinese overlords.

    --
    The cesspool just got a check and balance.
  30. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by AmiMoJo · · Score: 2

    Don't, whatever you do, opt out. Your name will be added to the UK Pervert Database and the next time some poor soul is raped and murdered in your area the police will be rounding up anyone who opted out of the "pornography" and "weapons and violence" categories.

    If you opt out of the "suicide and self-harm" filter you can expect a visit from an NHS mental healthcare professional. Seriously, I asked my MP about the filtering and told her not to use the example of saving a single life because it was flawed, so she used the example of saving a single life. Apparently someone said they were going to kill themselves on Twitter and the police backtraced their IP address so they could rescue them, but that wasn't good enough and she thought that the government should be monitoring Google searches.

    --
    const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
    SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
  31. Re:So, What You're Saying is... by Zontar+The+Mindless · · Score: 1

    I did not miss the point.

    --
    Il n'y a pas de Planet B.
  32. Re:Custom Hosts files get you around DNSBL's by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    It's not like that in Win 7.

    Just to play devils advocate:

    It also prevents you from using the HOSTS file as an adblocker (pointing adservers to loopback) on Metro apps. It's being sold as a "security feature".

  33. Re: Who cares? by amiga3D · · Score: 1

    Well there are two major political mafias. That makes two sides. Most media outlets support either one or the other. There are some fringe groups who can't pull enough votes to matter to the media.

  34. possible solutions? by polyp2000 · · Score: 2

    There are a variety of solutions to these problems.using alternative DNS is one but this does not work in the case that IP addresses are blocked. Proxies may also work but in the end these are reliant on no blocks existing on the proxies network .Even then how long before proxies are blocked ?TOR seems like a good idea but in reality its a bit slow and thus you couldn't just route all your traffic through it. What is the long term solution to this?

    Does anyone have any long term predictions or ideas about how we might work around this in a way that performs well and is more future proof?

    FYI. EZTV is also blocked with BT infinity. And my VM at Bytemark cannot access either

    my fear is that what happens when Microsoft or apple start putting pressure on the government to block things like cyanogen or the Linux kernel?

    --
    Electronic Music Made Using Linux http://soundcloud.com/polyp