4 ms·

Oddly enough, vodafone filtering is less restrictive in other ways. For instance, they never blocked The Pirate Bay, but I just switched ISP from vodafone and m

Oddly enough, vodafone filtering is less restrictive in other ways. For instance, they never blocked The Pirate Bay, but I just switched ISP from vodafone and my new ISP (Sky) blocks the site via some TLS tricks. It's odd because while adult content blocks are purely a per-ISP choice (they offer it as a service/choice to customers), I had thought that TPB was blocked because of court orders. So how come one ISP blocks it, and other doesn't?

doublerabbit 4y ago
If you wish to throw conspiracy in to the mix, data logging for govermentental safe-keeping. Sounded like scifi in the 00's.
manarth 4y ago
> "I had thought that TPB was blocked because of court orders. > So how come one ISP blocks it, and other doesn't?" The court order[1] had 6 defined defendants: - BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED - BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC - EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED - TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC - TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED - VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED The court order only affected the listed ISPs (at that time, 94% share of the consumer ISP market). Other ISPs were under no obligation to do the same. [1] http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html&query=pirate&method=Boolean http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...
- posterboy 4y ago
  No obligation? The DA could sue immediately in the public interest, or if not it could be the original plaintiff, and then the remaining ISPs would have the opportunity to defend their cause themselves.
  - nybble41 4y ago
    > The DA could sue immediately in the public interest… It's not in the public interest to block TPB. The DA would be suing for the sake of private interests, against the public, and at the public's expense.
  - ArchOversight 4y ago
    There's no DA in the UK.
  - IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
    Not criminal law. No DA. (You do get “plaintiff” right, so I’m mildly confused)

doublerabbit 4y ago

If you wish to throw conspiracy in to the mix, data logging for govermentental safe-keeping. Sounded like scifi in the 00's.

manarth 4y ago

> "I had thought that TPB was blocked because of court orders. > So how come one ISP blocks it, and other doesn't?" The court order[1] had 6 defined defendants: - BRITISH SKY BROADCASTING LIMITED - BRITISH TELECOMMUNICATIONS PLC - EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE LIMITED - TALKTALK TELECOM GROUP PLC - TELEFÓNICA UK LIMITED - VIRGIN MEDIA LIMITED The court order only affected the listed ISPs (at that time, 94% share of the consumer ISP market). Other ISPs were under no obligation to do the same. [1] http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/Ch/2012/268.html&query=pirate&method=Boolean http://www.bailii.org/cgi-bin/markup.cgi?doc=/ew/cases/EWHC/...

posterboy 4y ago
No obligation? The DA could sue immediately in the public interest, or if not it could be the original plaintiff, and then the remaining ISPs would have the opportunity to defend their cause themselves.
- nybble41 4y ago
  > The DA could sue immediately in the public interest… It's not in the public interest to block TPB. The DA would be suing for the sake of private interests, against the public, and at the public's expense.
- ArchOversight 4y ago
  There's no DA in the UK.
- IfOnlyYouKnew 4y ago
  Not criminal law. No DA. (You do get “plaintiff” right, so I’m mildly confused)