TorrentFreak Blocked By British ISP Sky's Porn Filter

judgecorp writes "TorrentFreak, a news site covering copyright issues and file sharing news, has been blocked by the porn filter of British ISP Sky. As TorrentFreak points out, the filter is provided by Symantec, and doesn't block Symantec when the company reports malware news: 'Thanks to their very own self-categorization process they wear the "Technology and Telecommunication" label. Is their website blocked by any of their own filters? I won’t even bother answering that.'" From the TorrentFreak article: "Our crimes are the topics we cover. As readers know we write about file-sharing, copyright and closely linked issues including privacy and web censorship. We write about the positives and the negatives of those topics and we solicit comments from not only the swarthiest of pirates, but also the most hated anti-piracy people on the planet."

Comments

The question

[erikkemperman]

The question is whether this was always the plan. First put in place the infrastructure for censorship -- eek, porn! -- and then slide on down the slippery slope.

Re:The question

[gweihir]

I think they decided to not even bother to hide it and to start blocking copyright-terrorism, deviating opinion sedition and independent thought treason right from the beginning. They seem to feel very sure nobody will be able to protest effectively.

Re:The question

[gutnor]

We are supposed to drown our sorrow by consuming a little bit more.

Re:The question

[Anonymous Coward]

Since when is having respect for one's partner considered harmful?

Well, those sites likely reference the fact that you shouldn't forcibly mash your jiggly bits into your partner's jiggly bits.

We can't have kids learning that jiggly bits exist! Why can't you think of the children? Why aren't you happily sacrificing your rights as an adult so that parents won't have to be embarassed talking about natural bodily functions with their wretched little brats?

Are you some kind of monster?

Re:The question

[Anonymous Coward]

What about "Free Speech Filter"?

Re:The question

[michelcolman]

In other words, porn is an ideal lubricant for slopes.

Re:The question

[ObsessiveMathsFreak]

First put in place the infrastructure for censorship -- eek, porn! -- and then slide on down the slippery slope.

Censorship is about power. There is no "infrastructure" needed for censorship so much as simply giving someone the power to stand between the public and certain types of information.

Power has been granted and it is being used for the purpose it was always intended: silencing those who people in power do not like.

The public did not call for or approve blocking child pornography, obscene content, etc etc per se. The public -- and the public is to blame here more so than politicians -- approved granting power to censors to shut-up malcontents and misfits. This is what those supporting censorship actually wanted; duct tape around the mouths of Lefties, wingnuts, geeks, gays, and truth-seekers. Pornography hardly entered the equation except as an emotive wedge.

A large segment of the public supported this, and played along with the pornography red herring. This mentality of a large part of the population is rarely ever acknowledged, much less discussed or analysed. But a five minute conversation with a on an innocuous topic such as, say, lolcats, will reveal that there are a many people who would be happy with seeing the vast majority of web-pages shut-down by fiat.

Re:The question

[gutnor]

1. Write your MP and express your outrage. Stop using a provider using filtering. Write your new provider CEO and explain why you joined them. Write your old provider and explain why you quit them.
2. Get some friend interested and mount an official protest in front of Westminster Palace. Get all of those people to stop using the bad provider too. Ignore the DailyMail labeling you as a kiddie porn addict wanting to destroy the economy and force toddler to watch hardcore porn and terrorism training video on internet.
3. Continue, get more people on board, get traditional/real media interested. Ignore government promises to oversight the filter list, claim of transparency, ...
4. Continue get more people on board and create your own party. Win the election, change the law.


People do that all the time - like for war, animal abuse, ... If the subject is more popular than important for the government, it works. There are organisation that will help you through that, there are MP that will support you. (see Pirate Party, Touche pas ma pute in France, ...)

If you are cynical about that approach use my previous response.

Re:The question

[Joce640k]

1. Write your MP and express your outrage.

Receive a vague, mostly irrelevant canned reply.

2. Get some friend interested and mount an official protest in front of Westminster Palace.

Be sure the apply for the relevant protest permits first and to do it in the designated area (which isn't visible from any important palace windows).

3. Continue, get more people on board, get traditional/real media interested. Ignore government promises to oversight the filter list, claim of transparency, ...

Gradually find out you're in the minority of "people who give a damn".

4. Continue get more people on board and create your own party. Win the election, change the law.

Har!

Re:America, F*** YEAH

[Luckyo]

It's not Europe. It's UK. The country that likes to take the worst of the US, the worst of the EU, mix them together and implement.

Re:America, F*** YEAH

[gweihir]

You do realize, the UK is far more like the US than like Europe, right?

Re:I'd take this with a pinch of salt

[Viol8]

"though the only paper brave enough to print the truth these days is the Guardian"

For various definitions of the word "truth". I wouldn't trust the Guardian any more than any other newspaper with this sort of story - they all have an agenda.