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

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Next question?

Re:The question

[mSparks43]

With any luck they'll block the BBC soon.

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

[runeghost]

Anyone calling it "Hadrian's Firewall" yet?

Re:The question

[Chrisq]

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.

They always said it was. The thing is most people just got stuck on the "think of the children and didn't look at the rest. The list includes:

"violent material", "extremist related content", "anorexia and eating disorder websites", "suicide related websites", "alcohol" and "smoking", "web forums", "esoteric material", "Web blocking circumvention tools", and "sites where the main purpose is to provide information on subjects such as respect for a partner, abortion, gay and lesbian lifestyle, contraceptive, sexually transmitted diseases and pregnancy."

Re:The question

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone calling it "Hadrian's Firewall" yet?

Yup, for a while now.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hadrian's_Firewall

Re:The question

[gutnor]

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

Re:The question

[erikkemperman]

Glad to hear you've formulated a plan. Cheers!

Re:The question

[mwvdlee]

We need a different name for these kinds of filters.
I propose "Divergent Opinion Filter".

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

[Chrisq]

Wow, "web forums". That's just absurd.

A politician saw one once and didn't like it!

Re:The question

[peragrin]

the UK doesn't have free speech. it isn't considered a right.

Now I do believe there is a law that allows one to speak their own mind, as long it doesn't(insert long list of exceptions here).

Only a handful of countries actually have free speech and free press.

Re:The question

[AmiMoJo]

I've been working on a USB flash drive loaded with software to bypass the filtering. Pre-configured portable Firefox installation, Chrome extensions, maybe even a portable VM with Tor. Flash drives are really cheap on eBay now so I might buy a load and give them away.

I wrote to my MP, who didn't seem to understand the problem, and forwarded my concerns (as well as others about GCHQ) to the relevant department. I eventually got an extremely vague response that could be accurately summarised as "fuck off, pleb". I think I'm basically at war with my country now.

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

[mrclisdue]

Wow, "web forums". That's just absurd.

A politician saw one once and didn't like it!

Indeed. I believe it was beta.slashdot.org

cheers,

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:The question

[MrNemesis]

Stop using a provider using filtering.

Catch 22 here unfortunately. The government basically said to the big ISPs "implement a filter voluntarily or we'll force you to do it via draconian legislation", and the ISPs reluctantly agreed. Small/niche ISPs weren't going to have it forced on them as it was seen as implementing a mandatory filter would have a disproportionately high capital outlay for the smaller firms, so almost all of them don't implement (and many, such as AAISP, wear this as a badge of pride) but of course many of them provide the option of safety filters/software as an optional service.

However, the threat is basically there that if there is a groundswell of people flocking to unfiltered ISPs, they'll no longer be considered a small ISP and the government will start breathing down their necks.

The writing's been on the wall for years now (what with the histrionics generated by the Daily Heil and Mumsnet [who have since recanted I believe] amongst others) so a great many geeks have been using VPNs and alternative DNS servers for quite some time. We'll have to see how far the thumbscrews get tightened in that regard.

Fuck knows what Cameron et al see in this other than a blatant power-grab via pandering populism, but sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.

Re:The question

[dr_blurb]

Obscene and Tasteless - This category will block sites that offer advice on how to commit illegal or criminal activities, or to avoid detection.

The trick is to combine things that parents will obviously want
to block (in that category: "how to commit murder, build
bombs, " and "gruesome or even frightening content such as
shocking depictions of blood or wounds, or cruel animal
treatment.") with stuff that the MPAA/government etc. want to
block: "Sites with information about illegal manipulation of
electronic devices, hacking, fraud and illegal distribution of
software will be blocked along with ..."

... in the same category!

"Illegal manipulation of electronic devices, hacking" is nice and
broad as well, so plenty of sites to block.

Why is hacking "obscene and tasteless" anyway?

Re:Works for me

[Mr_Silver]

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 :)

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:Works for me

[Anonymous Coward]

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.

They will claim it's a mistake

[bugnuts]

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.

Re:Works for me

[Chrisq]

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.

Re:America, F*** YEAH

[Xest]

And then blame Europe for it when the public complain.

It's Europe's fault prisoners may have to be given the vote!

No it's not, it's our fault for deciding that human rights might be something worth actually giving a damn about and recognising that denying prisoners the vote and then imprisoning political opposition is a common tactic for seizing power that we may wish to avoid in our country. All Europe has done is confirm to us what we've said we agreed with previously. It's not their fault we can't get our message straight, that we legislate one way and then bitch, moan, and complain that we want it another.

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

[Jahta]

Either Mr Cameron lied or the ISPs have radically over-reached in the level of national censorship.

Have a read of this article - David Cameron's internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep - and make your own mind up. For example this quote:

"The category of 'obscene content', for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" – in other words, filesharing and music downloads, debate over which has been going on in parliament for years. It looks as if that debate has just been bypassed entirely, by way of scare stories about five-year-olds and fisting videos. Whatever your opinion on downloading music and cartoons for free, doing so is neither obscene nor pornographic."