Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

RadioTimes.com Accidentally Included In UK Antipiracy Blocking

Posted by Unknown on from the silly-citizen-you're-not-a-rightsholder dept.

Techmeology writes "Legitimate TV schedule website RadioTimes.com was briefly blocked by ISPs Be Broadband and Virgin Media as a result of the site's shared IP address. This comes days after it was discovered that Sky's system is vulnerable to DNS attacks that lead to TorrentFreak being blocked accidentally."

43 comments

  1. Evilgasm! by girlintraining · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Ambition: These network admins need some. I'm still waiting for one of these sites to update their DNS to include every IP address on the internet with an 'A' record in their domain, then create a web page for their crawler that sequentially lists them all. The entire UK wakes up tomorrow with no internet.

    Great Britain could use a Great kick in the ass. The irony of trying to block porn and winding up booting themselves off the entire internet cannot be understated.

    --
    #fuckbeta #iamslashdot #dicemustdie
    1. Re:Evilgasm! by Gaygirlie · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Ambition: These network admins need some. I'm still waiting for one of these sites to update their DNS to include every IP address on the internet with an 'A' record in their domain, then create a web page for their crawler that sequentially lists them all. The entire UK wakes up tomorrow with no internet.

      That's exactly the same thought I've had rumbling around in my head for a while now, though if I were running one of these blocked sites I'd probably include all the government sites and such there, but leave all the questionable content - offering sites out of there just to mess with people even more. On that note I'm fully expecting someone to blanket a whole range of IP-addresses like this and watching Cameron burn. Too bad that I don't like popcorn.

    2. Re:Evilgasm! by Zocalo · · Score: 3, Interesting
      Yup, one of the first things that crossed my mind too. I'm surprised it hasn't happened already, to be honest, given the dubious nature of many of the sites concerned, but it's probably just a matter of time. All they would need to do is randomly insert a few IP addresses of high profile sites into a list of A records for the blocked site, and bonus points for using dynamic updates to change the trojan IPs randomly making it harder to establish what happened. It'll cause a percentage of people who are not blocked and trying to visit the site to get default websites or error pages depending on how many duff A records there are in proportion to legit ones, but that's nothing compared to the PR pain of those trying to run the filters or operators of the collateral damage. I suspect the list of targets would be pretty broad, but good look if you are responsible for running websites for one of the following when someone actually gets around to it:
      • Political bodies associated with censorship, especially the Conservatives & Lib Dems
      • Specific politicians associated with censorship, such as Claire Perry
      • Mainstream media, especially those promoting such ridiculous schemes such as the Daily Mail
      • ISPs that have rolled over implemented the scheme (How many took it to the High Court again? It was ZERO, wasn't it?)
      --
      UNIX? They're not even circumcised! Savages!
    3. Re: Evilgasm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      update their DNS to include every IP address on the internet

      Except somebody try tried listing Facebook IPs and it failed. Another dumb post.

    4. Re:Evilgasm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Just an Anonymous Coward helpfully pointing out that DNS responses are usually unsigned, and for the requests used by the filter boxes to update them, trivial to forge from anywhere on the internet.

      It could be worse. You could have a 0day in Squid.

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

      You don't need to be so bold. Just put the BBC, Sky News, and a few other conventional media sites on there. Maybe add the official Parliamentary web site. After all, there must be something some people would regard as "porn" somewhere on those sites.

      Doing a blanket block is too obvious. Make it selective. As selective as you like. As if being "selective" would solve the problem. Then maybe people will get the point that being selective *IS* the problem.

      [lawl - the captcha is "hubris"]

    6. Re:Evilgasm! by tlhIngan · · Score: 1

      That's exactly the same thought I've had rumbling around in my head for a while now, though if I were running one of these blocked sites I'd probably include all the government sites and such there, but leave all the questionable content - offering sites out of there just to mess with people even more. On that note I'm fully expecting someone to blanket a whole range of IP-addresses like this and watching Cameron burn. Too bad that I don't like popcorn.

      Not just government sites, add in Google, Facebook, Gmail, YouTube and the like. Since a lot of browsers default to Google's home page, finding it's blocked should make for interesting times.

      Can't search the web, can't use Facebook (which is still used by a number of people), can't even watch youtube videos.

      Heck, maybe even Netflix UK.

    7. Re:Evilgasm! by isorox · · Score: 1

      Maybe add the official Parliamentary web site.

      You really think people will notice?

    8. Re: Evilgasm! by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      People that can change things will notice if http://www.parliament.uk/ is blocked.

    9. Re:Evilgasm! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      No, just targetting specific targets won't get you anywhere. Hitting the media or political figures will just make them push on harder. And people, the ones that are the most important, will watch from the sidelines with amusement.

      If you really want to shoot down this plan, you need to hit it where politicians and media hurts the most. The public. Start hitting random individuals in large numbers, but most important, you need to hit some business too. The kind that don't rely on the internet for all their income, but most of it.

      That's how you make people take notice, you hit indivuals freedoms and businesses income, and everyone will start screaming out of fear it will happen to them.
      Media and politicians don't care that much if you target them, after all, all publicity is good publicity, and they have no self respect, in fact, they make money by being noticed.

    10. Re: Evilgasm! by isorox · · Score: 1

      People that can change things will notice if http://www.parliament.uk/ is blocked.

      The "solution" that the legislators will come up with will be a whitelist of sites. Parliament, bbc, facebook, twitter, etc.

      Basically enough sites to keep the masses from revolting.

  2. I wonder... by tlambert · · Score: 2

    I wonder... colud this be abused to cause the blocvking site to block the blocking site?

    You know, the way all the "net nanny" sites fail to include themselves when the "intolerance" or "censorship" checkbox is checked?

    1. Re:I wonder... by Opportunist · · Score: 1

      Abused? That would be the first and probably only sensible use of it.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
  3. It's not accidental. by bmo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There are those in broadcasting that still view the Internet as "the enemy" and that even program listings somehow deserve "copyright" - even after 31 years of TCP/IP Internet.

    --
    BMO

    (I deliberately didn't include pre-tcp/ip Arpanet/Tymnet, etc.)

    1. Re:It's not accidental. by Dogtanian · · Score: 4, Informative

      There are those in broadcasting that still view the Internet as "the enemy" and that even program listings somehow deserve "copyright" - even after 31 years of TCP/IP Internet.

      Ironically, up until the early 1990s, the Radio Times itself had a monopoly on BBC TV- and radio!- listings beyond the "same day" ones newspapers were allowed to carry. (There was also another publication called TV Times that had a similar monopoly the remaining two TV stations (ITV, and later Channel 4). This meant that you'd have to buy *two* magazines if you wanted complete programme information more than a day in advance).

      --
      "Slashdot - News and Chat Sites Deviant". (Click "homepage" link above for details).
    2. Re:It's not accidental. by davester666 · · Score: 2

      The "internet" is not the enemy. We are. The internet just happens to be a tool we use a lot, therefore it must be controlled, so that we may also be controlled.

      --
      Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
    3. Re: It's not accidental. by jonbryce · · Score: 1

      Radio Times are one of the official distributors of TV listings. They have been around since the 1920s.

  4. Be & Sky by Warbothong · · Score: 5, Informative

    This kind of nonsense is exactly why I left Be when they were bought by Sky.

    I'm now with Andrews & Arnold, who's registration process forces me to opt-out of any censorship http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html

    1. Re:Be & Sky by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      A&A's quite cool, although RevK does go on the odd off-putting right wing rant - not nearly as bad as the likes of Sky management, of course.

      Are they still releasing blocks of IPv4 addresses as-needed rather than as a chargeable extra?

    2. Re:Be & Sky by speps · · Score: 3, Interesting

      UK as well, I am with XILO, very satisfied, the customer support was excellent and the service is very good. Also, here is their answer concerning filtering : https://discuss.xilo.net/responses/whats-going-to-be-happening-with-the-opt-in-for-adult-content-thing They offer unlimited bandwidth offers and don't throttle traffic (as per their FAQ) : http://www.xilo.net/adsl_broadband/

    3. Re:Be & Sky by mwvdlee · · Score: 1

      I wonder if the forced opt-out helps to reduce cost as well.
      After all, they can do without any filtering servers or, at the very most, a single token filtering server to satisfy government requirements.

      --
      Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
  5. They won't be the last by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Expect foreign news sites to accidentally get included, especially those critical of the UK's extreme right wing and immigration "fuck off' vans.

  6. Filtering doesn't work. by drop+table+user · · Score: 2

    http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2012/nov/13/children-porn-starbucks "Filtering doesn't work. It also puts power into censorware firms which help cover up human rights abuse"

  7. I have an idea by slashmydots · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The only way they'll learn that this system is overzealous, non-working crap is their pocketbooks. Time to sue the hell out of them for downtime losses.

    1. Re:I have an idea by fahrbot-bot · · Score: 3, Interesting

      The only way they'll learn that this system is overzealous, non-working crap is their pocketbooks. Time to sue the hell out of them for downtime losses.

      Or sue the ISP for over charging customers for Internet access. Customers are paying for access to the Internet, yet their ISP is only granting access to part of the Internet. I think customers are due a refund...

      --
      It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
    2. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      Ofcom (UK regulator) quote:

      Terms used by ISPs to describe their services should also be clear. In particular, a consumer paying for ‘internet access’ should expect this to include the full range of services available over the open internet. ISPs should not use the term ‘internet access’ to refer to a service that blocks lawfully available internet services.

      Source.

    3. Re:I have an idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The second sentence implies that an ISP in the UK which offers 'internet access' with no immediate clarification on filtering and that blocks access to the pirate bay or implements the IWF child porn filter is breaking Ofcom regulations.

      The third sentence is redundant and certainly doesn't contradict the above implication.

      It's clear to me that the spirit of the law here is that 'internet access' should provide access to all legal sites but this is certainly not the letter of the law (stupid terms notwithstanding).

      oh, yeah, IANAL.

    4. Re:I have an idea by Cederic · · Score: 1

      Fortunately for the ISPs their small print notes that they'll comply with British law.

      Doesn't excuse the blocking of Radio Times of course.

  8. Back to meeting in a dark alley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    Now that the rich and powerful of the world have conspired to decide what is best for us to view/see/discuss and write. Long live the world economy and the benefit of bringing everyone into the same world order.

    1. Re:Back to meeting in a dark alley by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      They'll just chase you with security cameras. They'll know who went where, and when.

  9. Got to pay the price by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    That's the price you've got to pay for making sure that British kids will only wank off with pictures of properly dressed elderly British women such as the Queen.

    If you ask me, it's a small price to pay (because I don't like children).

    1. Re:Got to pay the price by Cederic · · Score: 1

      This incident has fuck all to do with masturbation. It's about football.

      Unless you wank to football, in which case I'm not sure how the Queen gets involved.

  10. Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    If they can't read about the programmes on the TV then how will they know which one's to pirate?

    1. Re:Makes perfect sense by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      It makes no odds. There's nothing worth watching on (British) Television anyway.

  11. Sarcastic:- Title == a little ambiguous by kannibal_klown · · Score: 1

    "RadioTimes.com Accidentally Included In UK Antipiracy Blocking"

    So... were they put in the list to block anti-piracy? Or put in the list to block piracy? /sarcasm

    The title COULD be a little on the ambiguous side, even though it's obvious what they mean in the context.

  12. Incompetence: The real enemy by pseudorand · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It should now be obvious to everyone that we're on a one way train to rampant government censorship enforced at the ISP level with governments exercising legal threats towards ISPs to get their (and by 'their' I mean big corporations, rich religious conservatives and peope who use terrorist fear mongering to keep their cushy jobs.) way, and that western powers, rather than China and the middle east, will be leading the way.

    But why is this really a problem? Do I care if they don't let me download pr0n? No. Do I care that they make me actually pay for my entertainment, possibly increasing the price? Not really. Am I scared of the next Hitler coming to power and using his control of the media to exterminate some subset of the population? Seems like a long shot at present. Will censorship prevent a few terrorist attacks by making it harder for them to communicate? Possibly.
    But all that junk is either unimportant (pr0n and piracy) or unlikely (Hitler and terrorists).

    This article demonstrates the real problem with censorship: incompetence. They'll block the wrong stuff and there's nothing I can do about it. There will be a place to report problems, but reports will be ignored, or at least take 6 months to get resolved. The entirety of the Internet will be rendered useless. We may as well all just go back to writing letters and making phone calls (assuming those don't get blocked too).

    I need to raise some money to buy a good supply of pens. Anyone want to buy a slightly used keyboard?

    1. Re:Incompetence: The real enemy by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      *You* may not see it as a problem, and you're entitled to that view. But for those of us who *are* concerned with everything you list in your second paragraph, it is important to realize that people are horrible greedy selfish abusive creatures. And the reality is that the slippery slop argument is often the most accurate prediction of affairs, as much as people keep trying to dismiss it.

    2. Re:Incompetence: The real enemy by MyHair · · Score: 1

      Anyone want to buy a slightly used keyboard?

      Ew.

  13. What about... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Add DNS entries pointing to Sky websites and/or government websites and see what happens

  14. Erm..... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    *Pirate browser* *ahem*

  15. Comment removed by account_deleted · · Score: 1

    Comment removed based on user account deletion

  16. Suits them right by Hentes · · Score: 1

    Should've switched to IPv6!