Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

TorrentFreak Blocked By British ISP Sky's Porn Filter

Posted by Unknown on from the slashdot-unsafe-for-any-age dept.

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."

14 of 171 comments (clear)

  1. The question by erikkemperman · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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)
    1. Re:The question by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

      Yes. Next question?

    2. Re:The question by mSparks43 · · Score: 4, Funny

      With any luck they'll block the BBC soon.

    3. Re:The question by runeghost · · Score: 4, Funny

      Anyone calling it "Hadrian's Firewall" yet?

    4. Re:The question by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

      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."

    5. Re:The question by gutnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

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

    6. Re:The question by michelcolman · · Score: 5, Insightful

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

    7. Re:The question by ObsessiveMathsFreak · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

      --
      May the Maths Be with you!
    8. Re:The question by AmiMoJo · · Score: 4, Interesting

      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.

      --
      const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
      SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
    9. Re:The question by gutnor · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

  2. Re:Works for me by Mr_Silver · · Score: 5, Informative

    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.
  3. Re:America, F*** YEAH by Luckyo · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  4. Re:Works for me by Chrisq · · Score: 4, Informative

    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.

  5. Re:I'd take this with a pinch of salt by Jahta · · Score: 4, Informative

    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."