Slashdot Mirror
BT, Sky, and Virgin Enforce UK Porn Blocks By Hijacking Browsers
An anonymous reader writes with this story at Ars Technica, excerpting: BT, Sky, and Virgin Media are hijacking people's web connections to force customers to make a decision about family-friendly web filters. The move comes as the December deadline imposed by prime minister David Cameron looms, with ISPs struggling to get customers to say yes or no to the controversial adult content blocks. The messages, which vary by ISP, appear during browser sessions when a user tries to access any website. BT, Sky,TalkTalk and Virgin Media are required to ask all their customers if they want web filters turned on or off, with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children. But the measures being taken by ISPs have been described as "completely unnecessary" and "heavy handed" by Internet rights groups. The hijacking works by intercepting requests for unencrypted websites and rerouting a user to a different page. ISPs are using the technique to communicate with all undecided customers. Attempting to visit WIRED.co.uk, for example, could result in a user being redirected to a page asking them about web filtering. ISPs cannot intercept requests for encrypted websites in the same way.
If this is legal I can only assume it is also legal to hijack these companie's routers and servers. Right? If it is done in good faith. To protect children.
it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children.
No more streaming video like Netflix? Oh, well, guess the kids will have to get their violence the old-fashioned way - from TV.
"Transparent" is a shit show that trades on every stereotype going. A man in drag is NOT a transsexual.
Brilliant idea.
Now instead of offering the parents an option to enable a porn filter, little Billy goes to a random kids website and gets asked "Do you want to watch porn?".
Slashdot social media options: AIM, ICQ, Yahoo, Jabber and Mobile Text. Why no MySpace?
Seriously, what's in it for the ISP to push these things?
I'm guessing that the gov't is leaning on ISPs to get an explicit buy in/out of filtering per customer. So that later on, when someone in the household stumbles upon that midget porn site, no one can claim shock and offense.
The down side (as others have pointed out) is that little Timmy might be the first one onto the family Internet connection one morning. And the "Do you want to watch porn?" might not get the response intended.
Have gnu, will travel.
We tried. No suitable product became available.
Which is pretty clear proof that pretty much no-one wants their Internet pre-censored.
David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service.
And, last I read, something like 4% of people had chosen to have their Internet censored. They're probably the ones who clicked 'Yes' by mistake, thinking it meant 'Yes, I want the Internet, not Davenet'.
This doesn't sound much different than the T&C redirect page when you use public WiFi.
Any insufficiently advanced magic is indistinguishable from technology.
Only if the free market works perfectly.
The free market gives people what they want. If there was money to be made selling pre-censored Internet, the service would exist.
But, no, you and Dave say, since the service doesn't exist, companies must be forced to create it, and the vast majority who don't want Davenet must be forced to pay for the few who do.
Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?
Those people are free to install filters on their PC or router, or find an ISP that will filter the Internet for them. You're the one forcing your 'choice' on the other 96%, and making them pay for other peoples' choices.
And we know how this goes. We've seen it all before. When it turns out that almost no-one has switched from the Internet to Davenet, you and Dave will announce that 'The Internet is not safe for CHILDRUN!' and now the filter will have to be compulsory. Right?
Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme
David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service.
Right. He "pushed the market," and yet it's all 100% voluntary. More like coerced them with threats.
Censorship is evil, and so is "voluntary" default on censorship.
I don't have a filter on my bookcase.
I don't have a filter on my movie collection.
I don't have a filter on my video game collection.
Why do I need one on my Internet connection?
I work in schools. Nobody's ever really given me a satisfactory answer that doesn't include pushing parental responsibility to a third party.
I'm with Virgin. They haven't asked me yet. The only time I've ever been asked such things is when I signed up to a mobile network and they asked me if I wanted to turn off the filter on the connection. Given that I work IT, the answer was yes. I want as few third parties between me and my service providers as possible, thanks. But the number of times I'll be using 4G to go looking for anything is going to be slim.
By all means ask... but it would have been so much easier to not ask and let those who worry about it fix it for themselves.
The UK have become so politically correct. I remember when ol' Blighty was an amazing place to live and work. Now? Not so much.
- The police in the UK cannot even kick down the doors of muslim suspects because they might interrupt their prayer and offend them.
- The UK porn filter is stupid and easily routed around
- The UK is so politically correct, that over the next couple of years, UKIP will make great gains -- beyond the by-elections already made
- UK citizens are sick and tired of the nanny state, sick and tired of muslim immigrants re-writing social mores, dictating special foods in schools, halal this, halal that...
The UK better wake up and fairly quickly. Political correctness is a disease of the highest order.
CAPTCHA: subsume
..with the government saying it wants to create a "family friendly" Internet free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children
Point #1: You do not 'own' the entire Internet
Point #2: It's not up to you to 'clean up' the Internet
Point #3: It has been proven over and over and over again that 'net nanny' and other censorship does not work
Point #4: Governments will subvert any censorship technology for their own propaganda and agenda purposes, destroying the original (misguided) intent
Point #5: Regardless of whatever you're telling your citizens, you likely will end up discriminating against people who don't want your filtering
Point #6: Ultimately your efforts will fail, for reasons of Point #3, and because people will always find a way around it regardless.
..and finally, not a 'point', but just my personal opinion on the matter: I think any government that engages in censorship are a bunch of fucking assholes who don't deserve to be in power. Leave the Internet alone and let people decide for themselves what they do and do not want their families and themselves to encounter or do there. Police UK-hosted sites against outright illegal activity or content? Yes. Make moral decisions for everyone else? Hell, no.
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
Options for people who are afraid of everything in the name of children:
1) Don't be a parent. Sometimes unexpected things happen, granted.
2) Stop being an authoritarian mental midget and realize that none of this shit even matters.
Since only 4% of the voters decided to enable the filtering themselves, that's an awfully small basis for imposing this kind of stuff on the other 96%.
".. other content inappropriate for children"
Curiously they do not block web sites of places like http://www.catholic.org/, https://www.churchofengland.org/, http://www.jewfaq.org/index.shtml, http://www.islamreligion.com/ ... all purveyors of ideas that really screw kids up: make them feel guilty of normal feelings, make them do strange things, ... If they insist on a banned list it would be good to see this sort of site added.
It's pretty standard for providers to redirect to one of their pages when they need to bring something to a user's attention, or get user-input.
Bullshit. I have never had my ISP hijack my connection to either communicate with me, or to get my input. They typically just include a flyer with my monthly bill (which I promptly discard, because I have zero interest in any relationship with my ISP beyond "I give you dollars, you serve up the bits I request").
And it's not hijacking.
I request page X. They serve me page Y that demands that I take some action before they'll let me get to page X. Tell me, AC, how do you define hijacking, if that doesn't do it for you? "Saaay, nice airplane you have here! For your own good, though, we just can't let it go on to Dallas until you give us all your jewelry and electronics".
I do have to wonder, though - What will the UK nannies do if essentially the entire country opts out and says "Yeah, thanks, but we want our porn and violence, thankyouverymuch"?
better filter out all bible sites, then. there is a lot of extreme violence (much of it by our so-called loving god!) in the OT.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
So fucking what?
You don't think it's a big deal when worthless government thugs coerce companies into implementing filters they didn't want to implement in the first place? You don't think it's a big deal that we're giving them all the tools they need to start censoring content they don't like, which they're already doing but for "nasty" content only? You don't think it's a big deal that they have all the names of the account holders who opt out of this nonsensical filter (and knowing governments, this will be put to use even if it's in the hands of ISPs)? You don't think the government threatening companies to do something and then pretending it's voluntary is a big deal? I do.
I demand that all religious websites be filtered, because I find them harmful.
Yawn, whatever. This is the same "no true Scottsman" crap, because there is no universal definition, and I suspect among themselves 'conservatives' can't agree on a definition.
See, the problem is you still define it in terms of your own damned religion.
So, I'll go with "hate the religious idiot, not the religion".
Any 'Conservative' or religious person who wishes to outlaw stuff on the basis of their religion is worthy of as much contempt as the Taliban, and are little different in my opinion. They're just someone who thinks their religious beliefs should be entrenched in law, and who want reality to be defined in terms of their beliefs.
But, unmistakably, a lot of people who are 'conservatives' (whatever the heck that means) are opposed to government restricting rights, unless it's to impose their own beliefs. And then they're totally fine with it.
So, to exercise my freedom of speech ... to hell with your religion. You are free to believe what you like in private, but leave the rest of us alone.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.