Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Great Firewall of UK Blocks Game Patch Because of Substring Matches

Posted by Soulskill on from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

Sockatume writes "Remember the fun of spurious substring matches, AKA the Scunthorpe problem? The UK's advanced 'intelligent' internet filters do. Supposedly the country's great new filtering regime has been blocking a patch for League of Legends because some of the filenames within it include the substring 'sex.' Add one to the list of embarrassing failures for the nation's new mosaic of opt-out censorship systems, which have proven themselves incapable of distinguishing between abusive sites and sites for abuse victims, or sites for pornography versus sites for sexual and gender minorities."

54 of 270 comments (clear)

  1. Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

    I do not understand. I just can not understand.

    China is a communist country, a country in which the regime is NOT elected.

    They have their "Great Firewall" in place in order to protect their totalitarian regime.

    Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

    --
    Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    1. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Same shit, different team.

    2. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by MightyMartian · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Because apparently if children see breasts, vaginas and penises, the whole fabric of British society will collapse.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
    3. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Goose+In+Orbit · · Score: 4, Informative

      Where the US leads, the UK inevitably follows...

    4. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by mlgunner · · Score: 2

      1. Elected by who exactly?
      2. Democratic just means the lowest common denominator, the tyranny of the majority, and you can convince 50.1% of the people of almost anything long enough to get elected.

    5. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Say the word "nipple" to the average yank in games chat, gets usually a warning by yanky moderators... Even tho "ingame content is unrated".

      Apparently Yanks don't have nipples.

      One thing for sure, they sure don't have balls.. Other wise they would stand up and defend their constitution, but no they so far take it laying down for the past decade yet spout on forums about "one more straw and we will huff and puff... and eat more fries"

    6. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by SuperTechnoNerd · · Score: 4, Funny

      You know your post will never make it through to the Brits, right?

    7. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by frisket · · Score: 2

      Don't even get me started about trying to email a customer about their MSEXCHANGE domain...

      --
      How do we persuade new users that spreading fonts across the page like peanut butter across hot toast is not necessarily the route to typographic excellence?

    8. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Insightful

      It is unfair to paint all the "yanks" as ball-less.

      Some of them still have their intact.

      For example: Edward Snowden. That guy did what he had to do in order to dislodge enough information from the secretive (and apparently illegal) activities within the American government, and then revealed the information to the world.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    9. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 5, Interesting

      What US has is not a "firewall" per se, but the effect would, at the end of the day, be similar.

      By tapping into everybody's phone, email and whatnot, the US government is sending out a message to all (including the hundreds of millions of the American citizens) that they better be careful of what they wrote/talk (or even think), or they will be subject to very very close scrutiny.

      Thus, what available in the USA is akin to "censorship via intimidation".

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    10. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xaedalus · · Score: 2

      In China, it's done in name of protecting the national harmony. In the UK, it's done in name of protecting the children. Either way, you've got millions of people who absolutely believe and support in this. They are the majority (and always will be).

      --
      Here's to hot beer, cold women, and Glaswegian kisses for all.
    11. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Ralph+Wiggam · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Why in the world the UK, with a supposedly "ELECTED" and "DEMOCRATIC" government, want to follow China in erecting their "Great Firewall" ??

      Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?

      The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

      I certainly don't support the filtering, but the fact that it's opt-out makes it VERY different from China's firewall.

    12. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests now that Net Neutrality is all but dead.

      This site has been blocked by your content provider. If you feel this is in error, it is you who are terribly, terribly wrong.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    13. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · · Score: 5, Insightful

      In a word, control. It doesn't matter what flavour of politics you have, there are groups that want to control you, for your own good, of course. Some seek it to gain control as a dictator, but by far the most dangerous, are the ones that actually believe that their beliefs imposed upon society are for the betterment of society. Those are the ones who are stupid enough get their ambitions and capabilities mixed up.

      The world will be destroyed with the best intentions at heart.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    14. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · · Score: 4, Insightful

      And to such a great personal cost. Muchas Gracias indeed.

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    15. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Cryacin · · Score: 3, Funny

      So the brits won't be able to access expertsexchange.com and pay to copy and paste code anymore?

      --
      Science advances one funeral at a time- Max Planck
    16. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Informative

      Well, part of the problem is that most of what you read about the "UK porn filter" is bollocks.

      Firstly, it's not a government filter. The only government involvement was the Prime Minister pressuring the ISPs to offer it.

      Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.

      China, on the other hand, has a mandatory government imposed filter.

      I'm sure you can see the difference.

    17. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by wisnoskij · · Score: 3, Informative

      They have elections in China.....
      They just do not have official political parties, like many other democracies.

      China is also mostly Capitalistic...

      --
      Troll is not a replacement for I disagree.
    18. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by interkin3tic · · Score: 2

      I'm guessing it's one of those things where someone is getting a big fat government contract that they bribed the government into giving them. It's just insult to injury that not only are they taking tax dollars, but they're harming citizens to do so. If it were just wasteful spending, that would be bad enough, but wasteful spending taking away nudity is just rude.

      This is my major beef with the Iraq war. Military industrial complex, next time just have the president and congress write you a big check and shake hands and then spend it. No need to actually start a war with real people dying. Plus then it would be all profit. Safer and more efficient, it's a win-win.

    19. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Democracy is orthogonal to communism. One is a type of government, while the other a type of economy. You can have a democratic communist country, just as you can have a totalitarian capitalist economy. The fact that we have had so many totalitarian "communist" countries is simply because waving a "communist" flag is a great way to attract the downtrodden masses to support your overthrow of the current regime.

      In no sane sense can China actually be considered communist, even ignoring the capitalistic reforms they've been experimenting with. From each according to their abilities, to each according to their needs, right? That's not particularly compatible with a group of elites that are radically wealthier than the general populace. From wikipedia

      Communism (from Latin communis – common, universal) is a classless, moneyless,[1][2] and stateless social order structured upon common ownership of the means of production

      Ergo, if you have a ruling class it's not communism.

      In fact arguably the single core tenant of communism is communal ownership of the means of production - and the only way government ownership is compatible with that ideal is if the people own the government. And so far democracy is the only model that even attempts that, for all that it usually fails badly in its efforts. Therefore, a strong democracy is a necessary precursor for communism.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    20. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

      The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

      Quite possibly (almost certainly the bit about Slashdot), but they do not necessarily provide a majority with "full support" for the policy. The UK has voluntary voting. Only 65.1% of eligible voters voted in the 2010 election. Outright you can say the 44.9% non-voters are indifferent to the policy. If only 5.1% of the voters voted against this policy, or voted for it only because of other issues, then the majority of voters do not provide "full support" for it. There is no way to know for sure. Anyway, that's the electoral process they have, and the Government of the day sets the policy regardless of promises or actual majorities.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    21. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Funny

      Your comment is now cencored in the UK due to the word 'erect'.

    22. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by msclrhd · · Score: 5, Informative

      Actually, the last election result was such that no party had enough votes to secure power. It was a hung parliament as a result (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Kingdom_general_election,_2010). The Conservatives and Liberal Democrats formed a Coalition, gaining the required combined majority to form a government.

      Conservatives: 36.1%
      Labour: 29%
      Liberal Democrats: 23%

    23. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by pavon · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.

      Not for long: http://www.wired.co.uk/news/ar...

    24. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 2

      When you only get to vote for a government once every 4 years, a lot of shit can happen in the 4 years preceding the next opportunity to get them out of power. Most (all?) democracies really aren't very democratic at all when it comes down to it.

    25. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by mrbester · · Score: 3, Informative

      The real problem is that the government has *not* done this. Instead, they have threatened the ISPs that they *will* if it isn't done voluntarily. And all thanks to one shrill unelected bitch on a committee who got some reason has a direct line to Cameron. The "support of millions" is from the hypocritical mouth breathers at the Daily Fail and the cretins who read it.

      --
      "Wait. Something's happening. It's opening up! My God, it's full of apricots!"
    26. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Taco+Cowboy · · Score: 2, Insightful

      In the UK the Internet is being censored on a massive scale, they have to ask the government for permission to look at porn, and you can be arrested for insulting Islam or saying something racist. Don't pretend that the US even remotely close to the same.

      It's all over the Western society, including what is happening right here, in /.
       
      Don't believe me ?

      Try posting a comment which is anti-Liberal and/or anti-Islamic and watch for yourself how your comment would end up be modded into the oblivion.

      --
      Muchas Gracias, Señor Edward Snowden !
    27. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 2

      Secondly it's entirely voluntary. It's not even "opt-out". You have to make an actual choice whether to enable it or not during setup.

      That depends on the ISP. New BT customers, for example, have blocking in place by default and have to opt-out if they wish to do so.

    28. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by 0123456 · · Score: 2

      Why the "supposedly"? Do you have evidence that the UK's election results were not legitimate?

      They're a minority government elected by around 20% of the British people. In the last election, the British people resoundingly said that they didn't want any of the three main parties on offer.

      Any civilized country would be embarrassed by putting in place a government that about 80% of the people didn't vote for.

      The British government is enacting this censorship policy with the full support of millions and millions of people who don't post on Slashdot.

      None of my British relatives and friends have ever demanded the government 'protect' them from pr0n. Most Britons who do are idiots like the batty old Mary Whitehouse.

    29. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by ackthpt · · Score: 2

      I wouldn't say Net Neutrality is dead, only the attempt by the FCC to enforce it without the congress's say-so. Net Neutrality by law instead of arbitrary regulation is still an open door. Of course, that will involve democracy, and thus it would have to be popular (ie.e, actually matter to most people). Right now, most people don't care, but if the problem ever because actual, not theoretical, they would.

      Most people don't understand. And even if you were to dedicate a half hour show on prime time television explaining it and why it's important to preserve liberties, people's eyes would glaze over and they still wouldn't understand. Though if some demagogue on radio or TV told them how they should feel about it, tens of thousands would queue right up behind whatever the position is.

      It's like a return to the 1920s.

      --

      A feeling of having made the same mistake before: Deja Foobar
    30. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · · Score: 3, Interesting

      By that logic every government that collects taxes is totalitarian, and you've rendered all further discussion pointless. And you don't need invasive knowledge to get a good first-approximation of communism - very few people have needs outside the norm, excepting medical care. Socialize medicine, education, transportation,etc., and divide the remainder of the Net Domestic Product equally among everyone. Hell, want to quickly impose psuedo-communism a little capitalistic motivation? Just tax everyone 90%, and then distribute the tax revenue equally. On average nothing would change, but most people would be far better off.

      Nobody said anything about taking money from anyone - in fact in an ideal communist economy there would be no money to take. Need food, go get some. Need health care, go get some. Don't want to work to support the system, expect to be in some way excised from society.

      It's that last one that gets me, and why I think socialism is more promising as it allows for more personal freedom in a self-regulating manner. I happen to think society is infected by hideously wasteful memes and choose to work far less than the norm, because I don't actually need all the extra cruft to be happy, and working to earn it detracts dramatically from the time in which I can enjoy my life without providing any consummate benefits. That becomes problematic in economic systems where everything is shared equally.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    31. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Bogtha · · Score: 5, Informative

      Wait until the Great Firewall of The United States, as carried out by business interests

      The USA doesn't need a Great Firewall. Anything it doesn't like, it takes down for everybody instead of blocking it.

      When Slashdot commenters posted things the Church of Scientology didn't appreciate, the USA didn't block Slashdot for USA visitors, they forced Slashdot to remove the content for everybody.

      When 2600 linked to DeCSS, the USA didn't block 2600 for USA visitors, they forced 2600 to remove the links.

      When people set up gambling sites that USA citizens were using, they didn't block USA citizens from using them, they seized the gambling sites' domain names so nobody could visit them.

      When Dmitry Skylarov wrote an ebook reader that circumvented copy protection so blind people could use it, the USA didn't block people from visiting his employers' website. They arrested him.

      These are far from isolated examples. The USA censors all the time without having to bother with a Great Firewall. Why bother blocking something when you can take down the source and send a message to anybody else who might be thinking of doing something similar?

      --
      Bogtha Bogtha Bogtha
    32. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by GumphMaster · · Score: 2

      No. Nothing to do with my opinion. There are three broad positions on the policy, not two; support, indifference, opposition. Only one of those positions could be said to offer "full support." The people that did not vote do not care about the policy enough to vote either for or against it, they are indifferent. It is as unreasonable to say non-voters offer "full support" for the policy as to say they fully oppose it. It follows that counting the indifferent in the "full support of millions" would be incorrect. If the claim was "some support" then you would have a point.

      --
      Patent litigation: A doctrine of Mutually Assured Destruction... in which everyone seems willing to push the button
    33. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Immerman · · Score: 4, Interesting

      Um, the Soviet union probably isn't he best example for anything related to communism - it's practically the poster child for someone cynically waving the communist flag in order to seize power.

      As for the rest, I don't see that it necessarily follows. Nothing about communism says it has to be the government doing things, it could as easily be people pursuing their own projects with the proceeds being shared around. Coming from a capitalistic model you could effectively tax all personal income at 100% and then distribute it equally. Obviously we'd need to come up with something a bit less corruptible than modern corporate charters for less-than-government-level collaboration, but I think that's probably doable. It wouldn't quite be "real" communism, but it would be a lot closer than anything yet attempted.

      Still, I suspect socialism is a better system in most regards, at least until such time as automation largely eliminates the need for human labor.

      --
      --- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
    34. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by burnttoy · · Score: 4, Funny

      A good friend of mine got into a "conversation" about the Janet Jackson nip-slip incident.

      It went roughly like this:

      Antagonist: "But what if my children saw it"
      My Friend: "But nipples are for children..."

      Touche.

      --
      Time flies like an arrow. Fruit flies like a banana.
    35. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by IAN · · Score: 2

      Actually, she [Queen E.] is the only one with the power to "enact" legislation. Parliament cannot create laws without her consent. She can therefore refuse to sign any legislation she objects to, and she has on occasion done so (typically tax laws that affect her personal wealth. Yeah.)

      Citation badly needed. The procedure you've described is called Royal Assent, and has been a formality for ages; the last time it was withheld was... wait for it... in 1708. Yes, in theory Her Maj could veto a law, but that would be the end of her political meddling, if not the monarchy itself.

    36. Re:Great Firewall of China is bad enough ... by Xest · · Score: 3, Insightful

      The British populace voted to allow minorities to dictate policy when they rejected AV.

      AV wasn't the be all and end all, it didn't create proportional representation, but it did at least force MPs to have to cater to at least half of their constituents wish to some degree.

      That's far better than the status quo our country voted to retain, whereby as little as what, 20% of the population for a constituency, i.e. the Daily Mail readers can be enough in some constituencies to dictate the voice of the entire constituency.

      Oh and really, the coalition is the most representative government in decades anyway, a compromise government with 49% of the popular vote is still a far higher proportion than the proportion of combined support of any other ruling party in decades by a margin of as much as about 15%. Contrary to popular belief, the Lib Dems have neutered Tory policy (i.e. blocking the Interception Modernisation Programme, bringing tuition fees from the £12,000 the Tories wanted to £9,000, blocking removal of the highest tax rate) etc.

      So yes, our populace has got exactly what it voted for. We still got exactly what we elected through a horribly broken system of un-representation that our populace agree to continue.

  2. Along with anyone who lives in Essex by Neil_Brown · · Score: 5, Funny

    Or Sussex, or who is researching Wessex.

  3. Is it really that sensitive? by CastrTroy · · Score: 2

    How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex

    --

    Anthropic principle: We see the universe the way it is because if it were different we would not be here to see it.
    1. Re:Is it really that sensitive? by dkf · · Score: 2

      How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of Sussex

      What about Scunthorpe and Penistone, hmmm?

      --
      "Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
    2. Re:Is it really that sensitive? by monkeyhybrid · · Score: 4, Funny

      How sensitive is this filter really? How does it affect the residents of

      I think you forgot to complete the end of your sentence.

  4. Uh oh by Antipater · · Score: 5, Funny

    Across the UK, kids are running to their parents crying "the porn filter won't let me play my video game!" This might actually increase support for the firewall...

    --
    Everything is better with chainsaws.
  5. Reminds me of... by rock_climbing_guy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    This reminds me of the story I read in a /. comment about an overzealous filter that wouldn't let people at his office visit any URL with "sex" in it. There was a problem because they were using expertsexchange.com

    --
    Wh47 d1d j00 541, 31337 15n't t3h r0xor5 ne m0r3???
  6. Wrong name? by GameMaster · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Really, "Great Firewall of UK" is clumsy and doesn't doesn't make much sense in context. Perhaps we should call it "Hadrian's Firewall"?

    --

    Rules of Conduct:
    #1 - The DM is always right.
    #2 - If the DM is wrong, see rule #1
  7. Censorship is tyranny by definition. by mlgunner · · Score: 5, Insightful

    When ever you have people making decisions for the "greater good", they end up making those decisions for their own greater good. So it doesn't matter in the long run what they are censoring, the act of Law in doing so is the objective. The fact that it is not doing what was intended doesn't matter, it just means the censorship must be "refined", and the filters need to be "fixed".
    Liberty would mean removal of the filters and government intervention from an act of free will, i.e. looking at sexual content on line for example, and an act of responsibility from people, i.e. monitoring their children's internet access. This will never do for Big Government tyrants, because this would imply that people actually have their own freedoms that are not "given" to them by the government, and their free will and responsibility is more important than the governments ability to intervene.

  8. Blocked Summary by CanHasDIY · · Score: 2

    from the that'sextremely-stupid dept.

    Sorry, but we found the word 'sex' on this webpage, so we're going to have to block it.

    Again, dreadfully sorry about all that.

    Sincerely.
    Her Majesty's Nanny-State

    --
    An enigma, wrapped in a riddle, shrouded in bacon and cheese
  9. Censorship is easy by hawguy · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's a good thing that there's no way to advertise a porn site with obvious keywords like Porn or Sex. In Britain, users should only be able to see safe sites featuring things like tasty Cream Pies and beautiful Pearl Necklaces and innocent Rimming sites to teach kids how to enjoy decorative rims. It's easy to filter out the bad stuff by looking for the obvious bad words.

  10. Hysteria from the Guardian by 91degrees · · Score: 5, Insightful

    There's really no evidence that this is the case. Just speculation. PC Pro actually did some journalism and found that the actual ISPs had received no complaints

    So the Guardian is doing the Daily Mail thing of nabbing articles from reddit, and accepting them at face value without any actual research. No wonder traditional newspapers are dying.

  11. and Fox news by goldcd · · Score: 2

    wants to lynch him.
    Maybe slightly off-topic, but the bit I could never quite understand in the States (and I accept you're a lovely bunch of people with differing views), was how the demographic allegiances are flipped related to pretty much the rest of the world.
    Usual (for the rest of us) seems to be that the more affluent you become, the more right-wing your views - "I want to keep my money, not redistribute it to the proles"
    The coasts of your country contribute the majority of tax-base to the country, and in return get the centre hoovering up the money whilst whining about 'big government'
    Still, I can see the appeal of subsidized living and playing with an assault rifle in your 10-acre back-yard.

  12. Googlebomb Cameron by sir_eccles · · Score: 3, Funny

    Associate it with something "naughty" (ala Santorum) and demand it be added to the filter for the sake of the children and voila slowly but surely Cameron will be filtered out of UK life.

  13. Simple by nobuddy · · Score: 2

    Anyone who is not male or female.

  14. Re:The most egregious example of this problem... by c0lo · · Score: 3, Informative

    I don't get it, how is Froslbutt profanity?

    FTFY... Also fixed in the past: President Abraham Lincoln was buttbuttinated by an armed buttailant after a life devoted to the reform of the US consbreastution

    --
    Questions raise, answers kill. Raise questions to stay alive.
  15. This is a clbuttic mistake by Minwee · · Score: 5, Funny

    It happens when you buttume that doing a mbutt replacement of strings consbreastutes a good plan, when it's really just a reRichardulous buttbuttination of words.

    It's somewhere between buttstounding and buttinine.

  16. Re:gender minority? by 91degrees · · Score: 2

    Gender minority? Since there's 2 genders and the minority is very slightly men (49/51-ish) that would be minority not minorities.

    They mean transgender people.

    Anyway, do they have an inline word-destroying filter like some awful 90's filter instead of a point system with an all or nothing blocker?

    No. The article is reporting informal speculation and wild guesswork by some LoL fans as verified truth. The ISPs have reported no complaints, and say their filters don't work that way, so it's probably a completely different issue, maybe even from software installed locally.