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.
They enforce the law by breaking the law. Sounds like a good plan if you want to piss everyone off.
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.
There is no Man-In-The-Middle attack. The man at the end is cut off. Nobody tricking you into anything; just annoying you.
And if you read the article, this only works for unencrypted connections where you should have known that anything can happen.
"free from pornography, gambling, extreme violence and other content inappropriate for children"
And I want a user friendly internet, free from governments, corporations, extreme advertising and other content inappropriate for ANYONE.
Cameron, please, for sanity's sake: Stop talking. Or, better, stop breathing.
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
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?
Yes. The fact that no such legislation exists. This is a voluntary ISP scheme
Or you could use the service the ISP provides you with for free, that's easy to set up, available in the UK, and works with all network connected devices.
The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.
We tried. No suitable product became available. David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged. If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.
Why? You don't even have a choice of ISP in a lot of the US.
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.
Well, then why don't Conservative parents fuck off, do their own parenting, and not insist on foisting laws on the rest of us to keep care of their children?
Outlawing everything you find personally objectionable or that you don't want your children to see if the mark of an asshole.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
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'.
Only if the free market works perfectly. Given that 4% of customers have turned on the filters, clearly there was some demand for this. This is much higher uptake than any software solution, so evidently that was not the solution the 4% wanted, and this is.
So, 4% of the customers wanted filters. 96% did not. We now have a situation where the 96% get what they want, and the 4% get what they want. Why is this seen as a problem? Why do you want to remove the choice from those 4%?
Or maybe they wanted the filters. If not, I have little sympathy for people who are that stupid.
My brief experience with this was really rather annoying. the filters activated a couple of weeks ago. A bunch of websites (inc my porn) just gave 500 errors. I was not taken to a page to explain what was happening. I only realised that my Cameronwall had been activated when my friends confirmed that they could still access the sites I could not. I logged into my BT account, found the part where I turn them back off again and did so only to be told that it would take up to 24 hours for the change to take effect. Additionally my partner's Macbook started to give a range of weird errors when connecting to a variety of webpages. I'm not overly techy but it seemed our router was remembering the redirect and still using it for a bunch of sites (even though the block had been removed by this point) and the macbook was refusing to display the sites it was being redirected to because it had detected a suspicious re-direct.
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?
The sodding "no thanks" button would just not work so you had to accept the request, then log back into the BT portal to disable it again. Then it finally went.
What also finally went was my patience with BT, ordered my MAC code and migrating to Andrews and Arnold.
BT, you lost a customer over this. Idiots.
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 must say I've never needed a filter to avoid porn on the internet. I'm not sure why the government feels it must block access to something I don't wish to see in the first place, unless it ultimately has ulterior motives, intending to derail the free flow of information necessary for a participative democracy in the name of public morality. It's ironic that a government which recently ruled that health practitioners must refer patients for abortion in spite of their individual moral objections is now suddenly concerned about access to porn. I find it more believable that the ultimate goal is to restrict access to information embarrassing to the ruling party, using the ostensible reason of porn filtering to silence dissent.
The society for a thought-free internet welcomes you.
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.
I see a small percentage of the population complain about something, and if they come off as being on the side of a society approved message ie; "porn is bad" then they can get their way, an inordinate amount of power for a small whiny percentage of the population.
While I understand that parents don't want their young children watching anal fisting porn, it's troubling parents choose to allow others to be responsible for that control.
I see this a lot, parents complaining about the need for more controls and laws to protect their kids, shifting the responsibility from personal to societal.
Or is that just the media using a "society approved" "we care about the children" propaganda message?
Did you know the CIA says it only takes %3 of a population to effect change, what does that say about the other %97?
Erica Chenoweth wrote an interesting paper on this, she found that for peaceful change, it took a larger percentage of the population to get involved, closer to %5 or higher, but for a violent change a smaller percentage is all that was needed, recall the CIA percentage I just mentioned?
She also found that peaceful change lasted longer and had better results than violent change, gives you an insight into how and what the CIA is about, hence so many "student revolutions" in foreign countries that end poorly and destabilized regions.
Personal responsibility is a sign of a mature person, and a mature society, increasing laws, regulations and societal pressures is the opposite.
"If any question why we died, Tell them because our fathers lied."
How are you going to actually your HTTPS-only web sites when every single site you visit gives "Certificate error" until the householder has confirmed his censoring preference? This happens on open hotspots in hotels and restaurants, for example. The answer to "Why is HTTPS Everywhere preventing me from joining this hotel/school/other wireless network?" in the HTTPS Everywhere FAQ recommends visiting an HTTP-only site first in order to be redirected to the login page.
It is odd they're so concerned, as it seems parliament was very, very unsafe for children...
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
..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!
Subscribe to Slashdot and you'll see the secure URL.
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.
I don't really like any of this crap, but it's been done for a long time and it's not *too* awful
This is how these things grow into bigger and bigger problems. When it gets worse, people will be saying, "Well, it's not *that* much worse." Power creep is slow, but it exists. We've already seen this with their stupid filters.
And it's really sad that some people think this is voluntary when there are plenty of implied government threats to get ISPs to implement this.
How is this denying service, unless you have some sort of extreme mental handicap that makes you incapable of making a simple decision? It that case, I wouldn't expect you to be able to use the Internet at all, due to being unable to decide what site to go to.
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%.
The UK ISP filters are completely voluntary as well.
Nope, Cleanfeed cannot be opted out of except by blocking it with something like a VPN.
David Cameron pushed the market into providing such a service. The market obliged.
He threatened to legislate, the ISPs decided to develop a crappy, ineffective token service to shut him up rather than deal with being legally required to do the impossible.
If you really have a problem, you can always choose one of the dozens of ISPs that doesn't offer this service.
Nope, Virgin Media is the only choice available to me. My BT line can only get a very unstable 1-2Mb/sec.
const int one = 65536; (Silvermoon, Texture.cs)
SJW, n: "Someone I don't like, and by the way I'm a fuckwit" - AC
where will it all end, though? this does not, as they say, 'scale well'.
suppose everyone who offers inet service wants to do the DPI redirect shit on you? "you cant get to this website unless you take our survey. what was the last car you bought? how much do you make? etc etc."
I understand the free access portals even though I think its still a bad idea to have people 'login' to a free service. but this is your HOME service that you are now being filtered at, unless you 'respond' to this or that question of the day.
that's unacceptable.
it breaks automation (curl, wget, scripts) and sets a really bad precedent, overall.
it reminds me of the traffic stops they have on holidays in the US. they stop every 'n' random car and give the driver a hassle, hoping to fish for something to arrest him on. this is really against the constitution (I realize the article is about UK but I'm not in the UK) and yet, we have let it pass 'for the good of the people' (deep sigh).
same with this: its intrusive and a common carrier should just transport ip packets and nothing else! no filtering, no redirecting, no private local dns maps, no SYN resets, no dpi and no bullshit. just carry my packets - that's ALL we want from you.
--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Well i agree to a point maybe some people don't want the government to know they like to view porn or want the government to know what kinda fetish they have. Governments are known to break the law themselves in the name of "cough" national security . Me, i don't give a crap. yes i view porn, yes i jerk off, a few billion other men/women do the same thing so i don't feel special or different in any way.
Jack of all trades,master of none
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.
Until relatively recently, these re-directions would adversely affect a debian/ubuntu linux system update procedure. A cron job would apt-get update and pull in new index files. Since the transport was not encrypted, the index files would not be what the apt system were expecting. It would store the content of the redirected web page instead of the proper index files into a cache and then apt-get update would be forever broken until you manually figured out how to delete the corrupted files someplace in /var/*/apt
ISP's and WiFi Access points that do this redirection are the reason why HTTPS everywhere is a good idea.
ipv6 is my vpn
Oh the irony. UK government using a MITM "man in the middle" attack to stop people from watching FMF "man in the middle" scenes. :D
p.s. Do the girls still get to get off if nobody gets to watch? Will someone please think of those poor hot chicks?