Slashdot Mirror
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."
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.
Gosh, thanks. That must be why the other ships call me Meatfucker -- GCU Grey Area (Eccentric)
Since the requirement was pushed for by politicians (the "won't someone think of the children" view), then the websites of all political parties should be blocked under the same filters until they realise that automated blacklist/whitelist filtering will never work 100% of the way it is expected.
"She's furniture with a pulse"
Ignore me. Turns out the blocking only occurs if you have the under-18 filter turned on - which I managed to get from the article :)
Avantslash - View Slashdot cleanly on your mobile phone.
Sometimes I look around at the backwards American hick town I live in and wish it were more like ultra-progressive Europe.
And sometimes I don't.
Free thinking anarchists don't deserve to read news because they're not obedient enough.
If they were you wouldn't need a block, you could just tell them not to read it.
The NewStatesman is a well known left wing magazine and it'll take any opportunity to take pot shots at the Cameron government. Now I don't agree with the porn filter at all, but the assertion that its *currently* being used to block people off from a large part of the net is frankly b0ll0cks.
However, what the filter may be used for in the future is another matter. Once power is available to politicians they will inevitably use it.
Yes, you can claim that the liberals are crying "Censorship!" and "Oppression!" without warrent right now because they can indeed turn the filter off. But the problem lies in the fact that the filter exists in the first place. Any filter that is optional now, can, with the backdoor nod of an elected official, become mandatory over night.
Let's not forget either that these filters have not be democratically put in place. There was no vote in parliament *at all*, and instead was simply done on the advisory of David Cameron. If optional filtering can be put in place without a vote, so too can mandatory filtering.
There in lies the crux of the issue for us liberals.
Up to 1998 freedom of expression was protected under common law rather than a single document. In 1998 the UK passed the Human Rights Act which covers freedom of expression. Like the US this is not absolute, and I believe in the case of libel even sticker than the US.
The UK does not have a separate "freedom of press" as it is covered by the freedom of expression. Anyone can start up a new news paper and express themselves.
Wow, I should not post when knackered.
I claim, preemptively, that such claims are bullshit. The censorship is intentional, and will get reversed, but it will be cited as a mistake. Mark my words.
Smaller sites that are just as innocent will get blocked, but won't get unblocked because not enough people will complain. This causes real damage. It costs site owners real money.
AFAIK they do have them. They even had extremist imams advocating the destruction of western society and for a while just let them continue unopposed. I don't remember how they finally managed to get them to stop (if they did), but it was quite a scandal.
The US officially has freedom of speech, until they decide not to let you fly on airplanes anymore. And if you say anything that's unacceptable to some fraction of the population, you lose your job. Unfortunately Europe is heading the same way, though.
"Any filter that is optional now, can, with the backdoor nod of an elected official, become mandatory over night."
That's complete nonsense and mere assertion. It is also demonstrably untrue. The ISPs have agreed to implement optional family filters and to enable them by default on new accounts (existing accounts are not modified). This has been done at the urging of an elected government, not "with a backdoor nod". The ISPs are not obliged to do this but the government (an elected government made up of two parties in coalition in a parliamentary democracy) has said that if they don't do so then it will aim to introduce legislation. It *cannot* be made mandatory without legislation.
The Conservative party would like the filters to be on by default by law (mandatory) while their coalition partners the Liberal Democrat party disagrees, which is why it hasn't happened and probably never will unless either Labour or Conservatives gain an absolute majority at the next election (if any party has a history of state interference in absolutely every facet of life it is the Labour party).
Even if the Conservatives had got their way and the filtering was legislated it would not change the fact that the account holder can switch it off or on at will.
Your "crux of the issue" simply doesn't exist.
Ignore me. Turns out the blocking only occurs if you have the under-18 filter turned on - which I managed to get from the article :)
True, but it is the default for all new internet connections. Many people just leave things at the default, and may not even know that you can have it disabled.
It does not silently default to on for new contracts. People taking out new contracts are required to explicitly choose whether to have it on or off.
Its a bit ambiguous. According to this article:
At present only new customers will be given an “enforced” option to keep or disable the service, which will come pre-selected (enabled) unless you specifically choose otherwise during the sign-up process.
And so it begins....
Let's also cover tables' legs with curtains, again, because they are utterly indecent... :-)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Victorian_morality
Bloody interfering Labour party and its NHS and welfare state.
The government wants everyone to be asked if they want the filter on or off. Otherwise they can't build an accurate database of known perverts.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
more worrying for me is even if they claim the filter is off, how can you be sure it really is off and is not blocking stuff they don't want you to read like foreign news stories on scandals involving your politicians?
Donald 'Duck' Dunn: We had a band powerful enough to turn goat piss into gasoline.
So the UK is slowly removing itself from the Internet by censoring itself. No loss. And "OMG it has the word torrent in it, it must be evil!".
Seven puppies were harmed during the making of this post.
Or are afraid to ask, since they assume it also lets in all the 'bad stuff'.
---- Booth was a patriot ----
The ISPs are not obliged to do this but the government (an elected government made up of two parties in coalition in a parliamentary democracy) has said that if they don't do so then it will aim to introduce legislation. It *cannot* be made mandatory without legislation.
So basically "Do it now by free will or we'll force you".
Haven't managed to get them to stop. Much as they would like to stop them, the law (rightly) prevents them.
The nature of government is that it has the power and authority to make laws. Sometimes it proscribes activities and sometimes it mandates them. If this is something that you find unsatisfactory or suprising then you are either a moron or a very fundamentalist kind of anarchist or libertarian.
We live in a democracy, and the authority of the government and the sovereignty of parliament are hardly illegitimate. Democracy doesn't mean "I personally can do whatever I damn well like", it means we choose people to perform a role which combines, amongst other things, representing their constituents and also using their own judgement and following their conscience, and sometimes just doing what has to be done even if it won't win a popularity contest amongst the guardianistas and twitterati. The point about a democratic system is that we get to collectively choose our lawmakers, and ultimately to dismiss them if we are dissatisfied. We'll be having an election in May 2015, at which point you can express your support or otherwise via the ballot box. In the meantime you can lobby your MP, your local parties and so on, and make your views known directly.
This ISP is actually called "sky"? Do they not have the movie terminator in the UK? The irony...
If it ain't broke, don't fix it.
is the sickos that actually post there a few that is..you know whom you are were all for the freedom of speech that includes a PRQ website that advocated child molestation.
the fact is thats sick, and prolly a good thing as while i can support file sharing i can't support those types a people that use it to do sick shit.
How hard is it for a government to cover up a helicopter attack on its own citizens vs covering up the thug squad making examples of a few people?
so move out and pay for your own internets