6 ms·
TorrentFreak Is Blocked as a Pirate Site and Hacking Resource
- chii 8y agoBlocking sites should be illegal, unless the ISP in question has the list in the contract so that you can review it before buying the service.
- oopsman88 8y agoCourt-ordered things are legal.
- crtasm 8y agoIn this case it was not a court order, as explained in the article.
- happytoexplain 8y agoI can't see how this relates to the parent post's opinion.
- svantana 8y agoI agree, but this was about free/complimentary wifi services, so in these cases you are not really buying anything. I think most of them are also blocking porn sites, etc.
- mirimir 8y agoDamn. Bloody idiots. And well, that's why we have VPN services.
- klez 8y agoPlease, keep it civil.
- sixstringbudha 8y agoOh come on. What is this? Kindergarten?
- subjectsigma 8y agoHacker News, where you can say horrible and offensive things just fine as long as you vomit thesaurus entries onto your comment, but calling corporate management "bloody idiots" gets you tut-tutting. ?
- mirimir 8y agoTorrentFreak is not a "pirate site". I don't recall seeing any links to pirated content. And it's hardly a "hacking resource". So maybe they're not idiots, just dishonest.
- dewey 8y agoIsn’t that probably just some string matching on torrent instead of targeted blocking?
- oelmekki 8y agoThat was my first thought as well, but the blocking reason reads : "This URL has been categorized under : Criminal Skills / Hacking news". This sounds targeted : I guess a torrent domain name wildcard would have read something like "pirate downloading". EDIT : btw, if "hacking news" is a reason enough for blocking a website, I fear for the security skills of future generations of developers.
- setzer22 8y agoNot to mention this very site
- shpx 8y agoThis website which called itself and which still calls itself Hacker News is in no way about hacking, nor hackers, nor news (apologies to Voltaire). Just look at yesterday's front page stories https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2018-08-25 https://news.ycombinator.com/front?day=2018-08-25. The word hacker is meant in the somewhat esoteric "someone that likes discovering clever tricks" sense. I doubt that's the definition Verizon is using. https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html https://news.ycombinator.com/hackernews.html https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/the-evolution-of-hacker-news/ https://techcrunch.com/2013/05/18/the-evolution-of-hacker-ne...
- jobigoud 8y agoWe all know that, but the ones doing the blocking based on name might not.
- Dylan16807 8y agoHacking comma news. Which makes it sound like it's in two categories. "Criminal Skills/Hacking" and "News".
- some_account 8y agoWho is surprised? We are going in the direction of idiocrazy (great movie) as a society and people are caring less and less about anyone else. So that makes it easy to spy on people or block sites, specially since Google is still seen as a positive force in tech. :/
- andrepd 8y agoThe message is, anyone who advocates for different ideas or pushes for an alternative is blocked and censored. What free speech.
- bcaa7f3a8bbc 8y agoCreate a Tor v3 hidden service as a backup then.
- dewey 8y agoI think the 0.5% of technical users willing to browse with Tor will also be able to use a VPN.
- toyg 8y agoIt's currently working fine on my Virgin residential line and my Virgin mobile phone. I guess the hotel opted-in (or never opted-out, which I had to) the government-mandated "pornwall" that all UK ISPs are supposed to "voluntarily" implement.
- Grollicus 8y agoWhy would a government-mandated "pornwall" block torrentfreak?
- toyg 8y agoBecause it's a slippery slope: the filter is loosely defined for "adult content"; there is no law, it's all voluntary. When in doubt, what would you do as an ISP, to avoid problems? Ban. Most people opt out anyway on their residential accounts, and who's likely to look at "bad" stuff in a public place like a school or library and then complain that it doesn't work? So you ban first and ask questions later. Hotels are prime candidates for keeping the pornwall up, since they'd really like to sell you their own expensive porn channels as in the good ol' times.
- DanBC 8y agoIt wouldn't, it doesn't. This is a company buying in web-filtering from another company. There's no legislation forcing them to do this.
- toyg 8y agoThere is a threat of legislation. The government has made clear that, should the industry not voluntarily implement pornwalls (with default opted-in), they would have easily legislated (nobody wants to end up in The Sun as "the MP for porn"). This accelerated after the Tories got in, but it was already lingering before. All major ISPs now have a default pornwall.
- DanBC 8y agoYes, but this type of link is not being caught up in the pornwall. This blocking is a perfectly normal corporate block. There are many products that will do this type of blocking; they've existed for a long time (long before government pornwalls were suggested); and they all suck because they all block too much stuff. Shitty corporate blocking is a problem, but it has nothing to do with government blocks.
- taf2 8y agoI wonder if they are blocking by known ips or just dns?
- DanBC 8y agoThe company doing the blocking has a helpful notice asking you to call them if you think the block is a mistake. Has anyone called the Virgin WiFi telephone number listed on the notice to tell them that this block is a mistake? +44 (0)330 6601028
- dghughes 8y agoEven better, post the link on Twitter or LinkedIn directed at Richard Branson. He strikes me as a reasonable guy and he's always on social media so I'd say he will see it and respond. Otherwise you'll be stuck at "your call is important to us..." forever.
- gok 8y agoHmmm maybe because it is? This is like High Times taking offense that they’re treated like a drugs magazine.
- Dylan16807 8y agoThe word 'magazine' is the difference. It would be ridiculous to treat the High Times as if they were actual drugs, right?
- pR0Ps 8y agoI'm unfortunately familiar with similar systems. What has probably happened is that a crowdsourced process has (incorrectly) categorized the website as 2 things: "Criminal skills/Hacking", and "News". The hotel has subscribed to this categorization service and configured their settings to block any pages in the "Criminal skills/Hacking" section because it sounds scary. Same goes for the "Piracy and Copyright infringement". There's no conspiracy here, just the normal incompetence. Calling the number listed on the page will probably allow you to petition to reclassify the site properly, making less likely to be blocked. Of course, filtering in general sucks, but it's not like this is an ISP, it's a hotel.
- kyledrake 8y agoWhat are these categorization services called? I want to read more about them. Do they do things like block sites known to contain or support hate speech too?
- meowface 8y agoThey're called HTTP proxies or web gateways. Blue Coat (now owned by Symantec), a big proxy vendor, has a list of site categories here: https://sitereview.bluecoat.com/category-descriptions https://sitereview.bluecoat.com/category-descriptions Administrators can choose to allow, block, or warn (user must confirm they want to view the page) for each category. The proxy vendor doesn't choose what is or isn't blocked; they leave it to the customer to decide what they want to block. Hate speech is usually a category for proxy appliances/services, yes. Blue Coat categorizes it as "Violence/Hate/Racism".
- untangle 8y agoIf you'd like to know how this comes about, point your fav search tool at "web content filter" (WCF). A WCF can be implemented anywhere along the chain from web site (content) to browser. Most commonly, it is a part of a DNS service or a firewall/router. Think of a WCF as a gun pointed at unwanted web content (porn, hate, gambling, etc.). Like a gun, the WCF needs bullets and a shooter. The most commonly used "bullets" for the WCF are publicly-available blacklists of sites, categorized by content type. Most commonly, these lists are community-driven and then triaged by admins. So it's easy for a site like TorrentFreak to make it onto one or more of these lists. It takes work to then get off the list, but it's doable. Lastly, the "shooter" in this analogy is any entity -- ISP, wifi vendor, hotel, etc. -- that thinks it's a good policy to filter the web. You can see where a hotel may filter to reduce bandwidth consumption and/or reduce complaints from parents. Historically, WCFs have been deployed on corporate LANs, in schools, and in homes. But we are seeing increasing deployment in public-facing networks -- even at the national level. And this smacks of censorship. I hope that I didn't stretch my weapon analogy too far and good luck to TF in getting off the lists. (The Wikipedia entry for "breast" has the same challenge.)