4 ms·

it would be interesting to know who is being blocked. is it really all copyright issues? i'd feel much happier if it was the really nasty stuff you know - child

by jheriko 13y ago

it would be interesting to know who is being blocked. is it really all copyright issues? i'd feel much happier if it was the really nasty stuff you know - child porn, snuff videos or whatever that were being blocked - you know things that actually damage society not just the pockets of the disgustingly rich who need to grow up and adapt their business models so that they work instead of litigating to try and keep their unjustifiable income... :/

DanBC 13y ago
The Internet Watch Foundation are the people who do the stuff about images of child sexual abuse (and criminally obscene images hosted in the UK, and non-photographic obscene images of children hosted in the UK). ISPs tend to block content suggested by the IWF quickly, because it's in their best interests to do so. The IWF has a tight focus. Their clear about only wanting to keep the blocking they do separate from other forms of blocking - preventing children seeing adult content, for example. (http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-to-prime-ministers-statement http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-t...) > We welcome the Prime Minister making the clear distinction between the fight against online child sexual abuse content and efforts to prevent legal material being viewed by those who are underage. It is critical that these debates are kept separate. So it seems that the court blocks are only about forcing ISPs to block the Pirate Bay or Kickass Torrents and the various proxies used to evade those blocks. The article supports this: > Once a judge has decided that a website deserves to be blocked under Section 97A of the Copyright Act, each ISP is sent a court order describing the actions they must take to block the website. It specifies the kind of blocking to be undertaken. The court order contains other important information, including the name of the organisation responsible for mistakes and changes to the lists of clone sites to be blocked.
- jheriko 13y ago
  interesting. thanks for the info :)
biot 13y ago
If someone clones all your employer's apps with all the in-app purchases and release everything for free and sales plummet, you're okay losing your job because you haven't grown up and adapted your business model, you disgustingly rich person with unjustifiable income, you? :)
- keithpeter 13y ago
  I understand your point of view, but this discussion is more about the transparency of the UK legal process than about the rights or wrongs of downloading. The UK can be very opaque at times and it would be nice to see what is going on easily. Edit: and to avoid collateral damage like [1] (shared hosting with 1 IP address) [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_court_orders_against_sites_illegally_serving_copyrighted_material/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_...
- flumbaps 13y ago
  Our Internet access is being censored in secret because of entrenched interests in big media companies. The desire to prevent piracy is not childish in and of itself, but this is a doomed approach with considerable collateral damage. Successful digital content delivery services have proved the viability of alternative business models that actually benefit consumers. So, a better analogy would be asking whether you'd have been upset at losing a job making horse drawn carriages when the car got invented. Probably yes, no-one likes losing their job - but you'd have to be pretty selfish to lobby for a blanket ban on automobiles.
- jheriko 13y ago
  ironically i have had to deal with this precise problem. in the real world you deal with real world problems - you don't get to negotiate because you feel entitled - in the general case at least people have zero tolerance for such behaviour and it gets you nowhere. we have a capitalist society after all... supply, demand and competition rule supreme in our economy. don't downvote this guy his point is perfectly valid.
  - jheriko 13y ago
brador 13y ago
Could you get a uk VPN and brute domain names looking for ISP holding pages?
- UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
  How would you suggest we get a list of every domain name currently registered? And how would you suggest we identify blocked domains as opposed to redirected, offline, or similar? And how do you recommend we pay for the billions of comput' hour such a task would take? So in other words: It isn't feasible.
  - brador 13y ago
    Don't be so negative. You can get the master .com domain list from Verizon as a download. Identify blocked domains by the holding page and header info. I'm guessing they do something like the guys here with a big page saying seized.
- shubb 13y ago
  Not really, not only would brute forcing take impractically long (you'd need all IP addresses as well as allocated domains), but the blocking system does individual pages within sites, which could not be found by this method.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Richard Clayton did some research (some time ago) about cleen feed. The paper linked on his page here - (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/) > I examined BT's CleanFeed system (its proper name is the BT Anti-Child-Abuse Initiative). This was designed to be a low cost, but highly accurate, system for blocking "child pornography". At first sight it is significant improvement upon existing schemes. However, CleanFeed derives its advantages from employing two separate stages, and this hybrid system is thereby made more fragile because circumvention of either stage, whether by the end user or by the content provider, will cause the blocking to fail.

by jheriko 13y ago

DanBC 13y ago

The Internet Watch Foundation are the people who do the stuff about images of child sexual abuse (and criminally obscene images hosted in the UK, and non-photographic obscene images of children hosted in the UK). ISPs tend to block content suggested by the IWF quickly, because it's in their best interests to do so. The IWF has a tight focus. Their clear about only wanting to keep the blocking they do separate from other forms of blocking - preventing children seeing adult content, for example. (http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-to-prime-ministers-statement http://www.iwf.org.uk/about-iwf/news/post/366-iwf-response-t...) > We welcome the Prime Minister making the clear distinction between the fight against online child sexual abuse content and efforts to prevent legal material being viewed by those who are underage. It is critical that these debates are kept separate. So it seems that the court blocks are only about forcing ISPs to block the Pirate Bay or Kickass Torrents and the various proxies used to evade those blocks. The article supports this: > Once a judge has decided that a website deserves to be blocked under Section 97A of the Copyright Act, each ISP is sent a court order describing the actions they must take to block the website. It specifies the kind of blocking to be undertaken. The court order contains other important information, including the name of the organisation responsible for mistakes and changes to the lists of clone sites to be blocked.

jheriko 13y ago
interesting. thanks for the info :)

biot 13y ago

If someone clones all your employer's apps with all the in-app purchases and release everything for free and sales plummet, you're okay losing your job because you haven't grown up and adapted your business model, you disgustingly rich person with unjustifiable income, you? :)

keithpeter 13y ago
I understand your point of view, but this discussion is more about the transparency of the UK legal process than about the rights or wrongs of downloading. The UK can be very opaque at times and it would be nice to see what is going on easily. Edit: and to avoid collateral damage like [1] (shared hosting with 1 IP address) [1] http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_court_orders_against_sites_illegally_serving_copyrighted_material/ http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/08/15/site_blocking_after_...
flumbaps 13y ago
Our Internet access is being censored in secret because of entrenched interests in big media companies. The desire to prevent piracy is not childish in and of itself, but this is a doomed approach with considerable collateral damage. Successful digital content delivery services have proved the viability of alternative business models that actually benefit consumers. So, a better analogy would be asking whether you'd have been upset at losing a job making horse drawn carriages when the car got invented. Probably yes, no-one likes losing their job - but you'd have to be pretty selfish to lobby for a blanket ban on automobiles.
jheriko 13y ago
ironically i have had to deal with this precise problem. in the real world you deal with real world problems - you don't get to negotiate because you feel entitled - in the general case at least people have zero tolerance for such behaviour and it gets you nowhere. we have a capitalist society after all... supply, demand and competition rule supreme in our economy. don't downvote this guy his point is perfectly valid.
- jheriko 13y ago

brador 13y ago

Could you get a uk VPN and brute domain names looking for ISP holding pages?

UnoriginalGuy 13y ago
How would you suggest we get a list of every domain name currently registered? And how would you suggest we identify blocked domains as opposed to redirected, offline, or similar? And how do you recommend we pay for the billions of comput' hour such a task would take? So in other words: It isn't feasible.
- brador 13y ago
  Don't be so negative. You can get the master .com domain list from Verizon as a download. Identify blocked domains by the holding page and header info. I'm guessing they do something like the guys here with a big page saying seized.
shubb 13y ago
Not really, not only would brute forcing take impractically long (you'd need all IP addresses as well as allocated domains), but the blocking system does individual pages within sites, which could not be found by this method.
DanBC 13y ago
Richard Clayton did some research (some time ago) about cleen feed. The paper linked on his page here - (http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/ http://www.cl.cam.ac.uk/~rnc1/) > I examined BT's CleanFeed system (its proper name is the BT Anti-Child-Abuse Initiative). This was designed to be a low cost, but highly accurate, system for blocking "child pornography". At first sight it is significant improvement upon existing schemes. However, CleanFeed derives its advantages from employing two separate stages, and this hybrid system is thereby made more fragile because circumvention of either stage, whether by the end user or by the content provider, will cause the blocking to fail.