Slashdot Mirror
Swedish ISP Bahnhof Fights Sci-Hub Blocking Order (torrentfreak.com)
thomst writes: "After being ordered to block a number of piracy-related domains following a complaint from academic publisher Elsevier, Swedish ISP Bahnhof retaliated by semi-blocking Elsevier's own website and barring the court from visiting Bahnhof.se," reports TorrentFreak. "Those actions have now prompted Sweden's telecoms watchdog to initiate an inquiry to determine whether the ISP breached net neutrality rules."
Bahnhof is under investigation for diverting its users who attempt to click on links to Elsevier -- the complainant in the case -- to a page that explains the giant journal publisher forced the ISP to block access to a number of Sci-Hub domains, via a court order it doesn't have the resources to fight. That page includes a link to Elsevier that Bahnhof doesn't intercept. So, is it reasonable for Bahnhof to divert its users to a "fuck you" page, rather than allowing them to freely access Elsevier?
Bahnhof is under investigation for diverting its users who attempt to click on links to Elsevier -- the complainant in the case -- to a page that explains the giant journal publisher forced the ISP to block access to a number of Sci-Hub domains, via a court order it doesn't have the resources to fight. That page includes a link to Elsevier that Bahnhof doesn't intercept. So, is it reasonable for Bahnhof to divert its users to a "fuck you" page, rather than allowing them to freely access Elsevier?
it sounds like a bunch of children running the day care
Genius. Wish more isps would follow their lead.
So, is it reasonable for Bahnhof to divert its users to a "fuck you" page, rather than allowing them to freely access Elsevier?
If censorship is being requested by company X because of Y reasons, call them out for it and make people aware of their slimy behavior.
Blocking pages for copyright reasons is stupid, and it's nice for some ISP to actually put it into perspective.
Is this re-direction a violation of Network Neutrality or not as most people think of it, I wonder...
I personally support what they are doing in spirit but it does seem like it's probably bad form technology-wise.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
I thought I misread.... that this is an ISP... Sounds to me this is a playground full of dumb phucks that think they can do anything and always get away.
> That page includes a link to Elsevier that Bahnhof doesn't intercept.
So it is not blocked but required clicking through?
Then what is the big deal?
You cant have net neutrality while censoring sites.. its one of the other
Google has been doing censorship "fuck you" pages for *forever*
How is this different? Oh, I see, Google has money.
--
BMO
So, is it reasonable for Bahnhof to divert its users to a "fuck you" page, rather than allowing them to freely access Elsevier?
Is it reasonable? Are you serious? I thought it was all "net neutrality uber alles" around here.
I've never tried to visit Bahnhof, but Elsevier has blocked me on many occasions from reports I really wanted to see. The paywall is high there and the riches as well. Around the world many point to Elsevier as the worst example of greed in the sciences.
...omphaloskepsis often...
A lot of the papers behind Elsevier's paywall are free papers funded by taxpayers money.
Playing devils advocate here
Er, yes, of course it is. Because that's not how the web (which is part of the net) works.
Technically redirects are absolutely part of how the web works, letting you know there is a problem trying to reach some resource, possibly directing you to a login page for instance.
In this case, the problem is the destination is full of dicks (and not the viewin' kind).
The ISP is just supposed to send the URI that was requested to the correct server, and then relay the response back to the requester
What about proxies? CDN's? All kinds of caching? It's really not that simple.
It's not like they are disabling any way to reach the resource, you just have to use the link they provide when you try the original link after being re-directed. Perfectly valid HTTP.
It's pretty ironic that just because it suits the politics of the pro net neutrality people, that suddenly this would become magically OK.
I'm really on the fence on this one, being pro Network Neutrality but against regulation without cause.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
How is an interstitial page with a link to the target the same as not "allowing to freely access Elsevier"?
The court order already took away net neutrality. You can't have it both ways.
The blocking order also violates net neutrality. So the ISP might be being reasonable I suppose?
Common sense but ...
You seem to be mistaken. Ken Barbie isn't nazi, you're confusing him with Klaus Barbie who was.
"So, is it reasonable for Bahnhof to divert its users to a "fuck you" page, rather than allowing them to freely access Elsevier?"
If it's good for the goose, then it's good for the gander. Where they screwed up was blocking access from the court. Interfering with the justice system is never taken well.
"You're right," Fisheye says. "I should have set it on 'whip' or 'chop.'"
So they did not care that this was in Sweden, only whether it would be a breech of NN laws or not.
Or are you incapable of thinking "hypothetically, if this were done by a USA ISP, would this break NN or not? And what would be the consequences?".
Because if you DON'T want hypotheticals, you either have to just state what happened, a meaningless exercise, the fucking summary does that, or you have to complain to the OP that their question is bad. Either case you're pissing on the wrong person, twat.
The court ordered the ISP to divert user queries if those queries were to Sci Hub. THAT killed NN.
THIS is one way to point out that if you're going to demand ISPs block sites or redirect,then that includes EVERY site can be blocked or redirected. And if you hate that idea, you need to get the court to reverse ITS decision, not whinge and bitch because the ISP is harming your precious "job creator" class with abuse of "net neutrality" rather than "pirates". You LIKE pirates being harmed. Even if it is "killing NN" to do so.
But the court demanded that the ISP ignore your query and instead told them what answer the ISP was allowed to give.
Either the ISP should be allowed to ignore the court, so your beef is with the court, not the ISP, or they are allowed to ignore user queries and insert different results, in which case your beef does not exist at all.
This is exactly why we need net neutrality. ISP with an agenda decides to mess with its customers' internet access, interfere with their ability to view certain web sites, and force political statements to appear on their computers. Anyone who tells you we don't need net neutrality, point to this as exhibit number one.
"I'm too busy to research this and form an educated opinion, but I do have time to tell everyone my uninformed opinion."
If the ISP redirected its users to the document they requested but on Sci Hub rather than Elsevier, they probably wouldn't be violating Net Neutrality. They'd be serving their customers the resource they wanted, except they'd be redirecting the request to a less-problematic source. This is equivalent to a fair use of a proxy/CDN/cache.
Exactly the kind of thing I was trying to feel out there!!
The problem is they've taken it upon themselves to decide what their customers want, and that's a violation of Net Neutrality principles.
Aha, but to go back to devils advocate again... they are just presenting a choice. You can go to the real thing you wanted or try this other source. So it's not quite like they are deciding anything, just adding another option at the cost of a layer of indirection.
Honestly my main concern is actually, are they breaking any of the real site with the way they are providing an alternate route to reach it.
I fully support Net Neutrality principles and don't approve of pay-to-view science, but this is the wrong way to get in the fight.
I agree with that statement, I just cannot justify why and that annoys me.
If they are forced to stand trial for violating the law, this gives them standing to challenge the law
Interesting point, so retroactively this may be reasonable action depending on what they do with the stance.
Thanks for a very thoughtful response.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley