9 ms·
Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter
- nubela 13y agoHah, this is weird. I created GAC, and submitted this a few hours ago, but got not much love. And now you have some :) Anyways, the server is having a serious hug of love. Things are slowed down now. Anyways, AMA!
- 3838 13y agoso does this depend on your server? i've read your site - but i'm not clear if this routes traffic through your server or not
- nubela 13y agoIndeed it does, it uses proxies. Private proxies to be exact.
- biafra 13y ago- What proxies are you using? - If you set up your own proxies: How do you handle the costs? - If you use someone elses proxy: How do you make sure they always work for your users? - Does you extension only proxy blocked traffic? How do you know what is blocked? Is there an official list?
- nubela 13y agoI'm using Squid to serve proxies, albeit a modified Squid. On your 3rd point, it has a list, as well a manual activation button. It proxies only blocked traffic.
- biafra 13y ago- So traffic must be really cheap, where you host your proxies? How much is it? - Can you tell us how much traffic you had already?
- 3838 13y agothe cost and the possibility of prosecution for supplying illegal material are two obvious downsides to this - keep in mind that uk law makes bestiality porn highly illegal for instance, whereas it's legal or easily available in other parts of the world - and also something that people are sometimes curious about
- belorn 13y agoThis UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. Its an requirement put on ISP by the government, and covers porn, music videos, magazines and newspapers. For now, the focus seems to be on the first item, but the Bailey Review want much much more. Illegal material has been blocked since 2004 and onward by most UK ISP's, mostly under the umbrella argument of stopping child pornography. The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_United_Kingdom https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni... can provide much more details, like the desire to block content ranging from Fashion sites to those describing Alcohol.
- 3838 13y agothe problem i'm describing is that some sites are legal overseas but not here - if this proxy also bypasses cleanfeed there could be problems - well i imagine what would happen is that it'd get added to the list of banned urls
- pbhjpbhj 13y ago>This UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. // It's not about blocking legal websites it's about filtering content for general users and allowing continued unfiltered access for those who wish to have it. It's like putting plastic wrap on pornography magazines in Newsagents - it doesn't stop you getting it it just stops it being seen by those who don't want to [or can't] purchase it. You may say that's semantics but if you can still access the material legally I don't think you can call it blocked. There are blocked sites too but they've been legally judged to be contributing to illegal/unlawful activity in the UK - eg ThePirateBay.
- westi 13y agoHow are you going to handle the eventual addition of your proxies IP addresses to the block list? It feels like this will quickly become a game of cat and mouse with the block list managers.
- 3838 13y agoi suppose looking at what people do in china is an idea - iirc the filtering equipment is going to be supplied by huawei who also make the chinese great firewall stuff
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- adnam 13y ago@nubela: if this service can be used to bypass BBC content restrictions, you're going to have a bad time. A lot of BBC content can only be viewed within the UK, so if you can use GAC to access this content abroad, the following will happen: - they can contact nominet to get your personal data - you will likely get a letter from their lawyer - you may get your .co.uk domain taken away - you may be asked to hand over your entire database of users - you may be sued for damages. IANAL, just FYI.
- teh_klev 13y agoWhy would this be any different from someone outside the US using a proxy to access BBC content say via GigaNews Vypr and their UK proxies? It's not like the underlying stream and any DRM is being tampered with, in which case the above might happen. As an aside, if you're in the UK there are a other independent ISP's who provide unfiltered internet access [1]. I've used Andrews and Arnold since 2009 and can't fault them. Yes you pay a bit more each month, but you know that old adage about "you get what you pay for". [1]: http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html
- naich 13y agoHave you got any precedents for this happening?
- Veus 13y agoIt looks like it only works for blocked sites. I assume that BBC content restrictions wouldn't look like a blocked site to this.
- iaskwhy 13y agoMaybe you can help me. I actually paid for the licence this year but during the summer I moved to some other country and thus I'm unable to listen to the BBC radios. Is there a (legal) way around this?
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoLicenses apply to locations. You bought a license for your previous dwelling - you can get a refund for the unused part but other than that I don't know of any legal method to access BBC's domestic offerings from outside the appropriate geographic area. Don't take this as gospel, I've read the laws that apply to TV licensing a couple of times but I'm not an authority on it.
- nubela 13y agoPG, if you are reading this, I sent you an email. I first built this with getgom.com (Singapore), its moderately successful, but the market in Singapore is too small. With this, I understand that technologies of proven concept, when applied to a large market, can work effectively well. As a programmer, this year, I launched 7 projects, this is one of them. The rest are of random successes. I would like to get in contact, cheers.
- jingwen 13y agoAll the best for your products and projects, current and future. When I first saw this topic, I thought the name was familiar.. then I remembered having saw it first in /r/singapore, where you announced GOM and 6900000. You're helping a ton of people out while taking quite a bit of risk. You're a good man.
- pbhjpbhj 13y agoThe only thing I know to be unlawful about the site is that you have no contact details - your whois says it's a "non-UK corporation", is it really? It sounds like it's just you? Anyway, commercial operations in the EU must have contact details listed to comply with the EU E-Commerce Regulations (2000), you also need to say if prices include VAT. Many, many websites fail on this but as you're sticking your neck out it seems it's something you could immediately be charged with. It's complex though - http://www.out-law.com/page-431 http://www.out-law.com/page-431 gives good details. Note the regulations are written so as to apply to commercial activities on the net, this includes personal websites, for example. You can probably avoid that one by being wholly based outside the EEA and having no controlling staff within the EEA. This isn't legal advice.
- rwmj 13y agoWhy not just opt out of the filter? Or use one of the many smaller ISPs who don't implement the filter in the first place? You don't need plugins/extensions.
- treerock 13y agoIronically, my work filters mean I can't access the site. But if it does bypass censorship then it makes a good political point. How much has this cost? How much publicity has it got Cameron? If it can be bypassed without any trouble then it is pure theatre.
- c0n5pir4cy 13y agoLots and lots of really negative publicity here in the UK. It blocks rape support sites and sexual education websites better than it blocks porn: http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/abuse-support-and-sex-education-sites-blocked-by-isps-porn-filters-9015389.html http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/abu...
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- c0n5pir4cy 13y agoYeah, I meant it blocks sexual education sites; I've corrected it now.
- nly 13y agoThe glaring public failures of this though will be either fixed or fade from the media. The system will remain imperfect but nobody will care 6 months down the line.
- RyanZAG 13y agoOpting out of a porn filter would probably see you added to some sex offender list within a few years. This is probably a better option if you're stuck on some ISP for some reason.
- lio32 13y agoHow long before the censorship is extended to sites which help you bypass censorship?
- dtf 13y agoIn general with these things there's a time lag of approximately one or two Daily Mail articles.
- hahainternet 13y agoThere's no UK wide 'censorship', so never.
- Xelom 13y agoAm I the only one around here who tries to match every article with "Go" keyword with Golang?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- rythie 13y agoDoes anyone know if the so called Cameron filter, blocks HTTPS/SSL sites?
- timthorn 13y agoThere's not one filter, each ISP can implement whatever they like.
- nickjackson 13y agoI'm finding this a bit strange. As far as I am aware you have to opt-in to the porn blocker on existing packages. The chances are its already going to be off for most people, especially those who know how to use a chrome extension. I get the impression that this was created for other, more illegitimate purposes, that has nothing to do with "Cameron's porn blocker"
- dijit 13y agonope, it's opt out by default. existing customers get a choice page, but new customers will have to phone in.
- desas 13y agoor log into their ISPs account area and do it.
- naich 13y agoNope, it's opt-out for new subscribers and existing subscribers have to choose to opt in or out. There are many reasons why someone would want to use this extension. Sexual abuse support sites are currently being blocked by the filters, so a child being abused by a family member could use the extension to find help on the internet, despite the abuser having the porn filter on. Or a chap who has been pressured into opt in in might just want to have a wank over some internet porn - it's not illegal. If nothing else, it shows how broken the whole mess is. Opt-out filtering is ineffectual, often targets the wrong sites, and was basically introduced as a sop to a vociferous minority who would rather go back to Victorian standards and sweep all this nastiness under the carpet, than have an actual discussion about pornography and sexuality.
- nickjackson 13y agoYeah, I'm aware its opt out for new customers, but its opt in for current customers. I would like to think that the reasons you gave are all mistakes with the blocker that would get ironed out over the coming weeks, especially more likely with the press attention it has got. Ulterior motives aside, if this saves even a handful of kids from growing up with porn addiction, its probably worth it, right?
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- dijit 13y agoAs much as this is a brilliant idea (opting out could possibly be recorded) I think the general consensus of the government right now needs to change, I seem to recall a hacker game from years ago (maybe 'Hacker Evolution') which described in it's prologue: "The world has been divided; governments censor and restrict access to the internet that was, hackers and technologists moved away from traditional means of communication and established the undernet..." This kind of dystopian path is what we're on. We should not hide, we should not have to. if we do, then law enforcement will go unchecked and start penalizing us for simply hiding our tracks. I can easily imagine a world in which using Tor becomes illegal, accessing the internet with a non-licensed browser, or having a method of tracing back to the point of origin (behind NAT) for ISP's. ultimate accountability, ultimate censorship- possibly even having to get some form of license to even get access to the internet. British people often forget the monopoly BT/Openreach have, it ties in closely to government (probably since they were state owned) it would be very easy for them to enforce these kinds of legislations, and of course, when they do, they'll be doing it under the banner of 'whats best for the public' They've taken filesharing. They've taken sexual material. -and forced you to identify yourself- They will take more. there are inherent problems with even identifying yourself like this; what if another extremist party got into power. "those people, those are the perverts, we'll incarcerate them", or, assuming a 21 year old guy grows up and becomes a candidate for prime minister, the current administration could accidentally leak that he bypassed porn filters. no, hiding should not be the default, patching should not be the solution. I will fight, I will not stop. and should I lose, I will simply leave this country and it's countrymen. the EU convention lists internet access as a human right. I find it ironic that we have more censorship now than some known human rights violators.
- IanCal 13y ago> the EU convention lists internet access as a human right. They're not stopping you from accessing the internet, they're essentially just giving people access to filtering software.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- gygygy 13y agoTor.
- dijit 13y agoTor. except where your exit node is another machine in the UK, or you need faster than dial-up speeds. How long until this is also illegal?
- gadders 13y agoDon't you need a GoAwaySalmond to cover Scotland? I thought they had a separate law.
- darrhiggs 13y ago>> If this extension violates any law in UK, please send me an email at hello@goawaycameron.co.uk and I will be more than willing to comply. Is this how the law works? Citizen: "…um…sorry officer, I didn't know that this is illegal" Police Officer: "…well, if you didn't know…off you go then"
- dijit 13y agoignorance does not imply malice. I don't think it'd stand up in court though.
- darkbot 13y agoWhy do you need to login? Sounds suspicious to me.
- darkbot 13y agoYou can't beat politics with technology http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-hemlis-political-apathy http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-h...
- AlexanderDhoore 13y agoI'm sure many would disagree.
- moocowduckquack 13y agoPolitical change is often forshadowed by technological revolutions. The mechanisation of agriculture, for instance, had a major influence on the decline of serfdom. Also, certain technologies have an obviously direct form of political influence, like the AK-47.
- nl 13y agoYeah, that's not actually what he says. The exact quote is You can't beat politics with new technology all the time. He goes on to argue that involvement in politics is important as well as technology.
- clarry 13y ago"Go away Cameron" is a strong political statement. If this thing gets lots of media attention and users (I hope it does!), then it's definitely sending a message. Actually using technology sounds like a great way to influence politics for people who otherwise can't do much besides vote and whine.
- westi 13y agoThis is interesting and cool, but would be much more interesting and cool if the source code for the extension was available somewhere so it can be easily reviewed. Is the code up on github or somewhere else?
- rmc 13y agoI don't like the name. It's too tied to the current leader of the Conservative Party. If internet censorship is tied to David Cameron, then a party could pretend to be anti-censorship by changing leader (happens often). Maybe "Go Away, Mary Whitehouse" might be better?
- conformal 13y agofirst, i'd like to say i quite enjoy the UK, both as a country and its people. however, politicians in the UK have a history of doing some very extreme and very stupid things. since i am not a citizen of the UK, i cannot vote to try to change the current censorship regime, but i can say that (1) i will not be visiting the UK unless absolutely necessary until these rules change and (2) i think this is a further reason for Scotland to secede from the UK. this is a great plugin and i commend the author's defiance of these draconian internet filtering rules. while i agree that, fundamentally, this is a political problem and not a technological one, a technological solution is needed to prevent smart people from being drowned in an ocean of stupidity. if you're a UK citizen, don't forget that you need to mobilize politically to truly fix this. talk to your friends, develop a consensus. cameron (and everyone who supported this censorship crap) needs to go, he is a muppet of the highest degree and a disgrace to the legacy of the UK. keep jerking off and carry on.
- madaxe_again 13y agoFor what it's worth, we bought the lease for our office from a firm who's business it was to provide filtering solutions to schools. Upon moving in, we decided to take a look at what was on the stacks of hardware that had just been left in piles here. To our complete lack of surprise, they were full of the personal details of children, their browsing histories, and even poorly configured squid caches full of things like views of hotmail accounts. Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken metal. Were we bad actors, we could have run a magnificent identity theft and child-stalking ring. Censorship in and of itself is a problem. Censorship by incompetent buffoons is an even greater problem.
- DanBC 13y ago> Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken metal. Were we bad actors, You were bad actors. A serious criminal offence had been committed and you not only didn't report it, but you destroyed the evidence.
- madaxe_again 13y agoAnd whom exactly would have been pursued? The directors of the defunct company who had variously jumped the country or disappeared? Or us, for being in possession of such data? Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.
- hahainternet 13y ago> Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk. Kafka does not run the criminal justice system. Your actions are disgraceful.
- madaxe_again 13y agoHis spirit quite certainly does. I would assume that you've never attempted to report a crime in the UK. It's a fruitless endeavour that typically results in the police threatening the reporter, or simply declaring it a civil matter in which they have no interest.
- porker 13y agoHow can I test if my connection is being censored? I've lost track if it's particular ISPs or all ISPs that have put blacklists in place which block more sites than they should.
- deleted 13y ago[deleted]
- fs111 13y agoAre those filters simple DNS filters or do they do deep packet inspection?
- nly 13y agoIt will almost certainly be a combination of layer 2 (IP filtering) and HTTP header scanning via proxies or TCP reset injection
- oliland 13y agoLet me get this straight: Instead of entrusting my ISP with my preference for porn, I'm entrusting you. I fail to see how this is any better. You're a recent compsci graduate and I'm sure you have good intentions. Can you explain how your "private proxy" servers work, so that it's infeasable for an attacker, or even yourself, to know which websites I've accessed? ProTip: Saying "we don't store logs" doesn't really give me the proof I need. This isn't how the internet is supposed to work.
- DanBC 13y agoThis thread elegantly demonstrates the problem. Most people - even in a technical audience with a deep interest in the subject - have no fucking clue what's actually happen nor how it's happening. This is how stupid laws get passed. People don't bother to write the correct letters to the correct people to get the stupid laws stopped. I find it profoundly depressing to realise that so few people know what the filters are doing.
- anExcitedBeast 13y agoThen go ahead and break it down.
- colinbartlett 13y agoAs an American, I haven't paid much attention to this until now. Can you please enlighten us?
- hahainternet 13y agoISPs are implementing optional filters that are no different to the standard 'Protect yer kiddies' software ones. They're doing this ostensibly to avoid regulation and government interference. Because of this, lots of people are decrying regulation and government interference. It's quite frustrating.
- xtreme 13y agoThere is one additional factor: the filters are opt-out and you have to request the ISP if you don't want the censored experience. I believe this changes the dynamics quite a bit.
- SilkRoadie 13y agoGenerally speaking there seems to be a lack of engagment by experts in a varity of subjects. This is no different. The problem is the ease of access to pornography for anyone, mainly children. It is hard to deny this is a problem. A solution is an opt in web filter. I don't like web filters but in this case I see little alternative. The only other option is to try to prosecute websites that do not do some form of age checking for the UK. I don't think this is viable at all.
- kirk21 13y agoYou can try zenmate.io as well if you want to do this.
- amvp 13y agoThis looks to be from the same team that produced singapore's http://getgom.com/ http://getgom.com/ - Go Away MDA, a response to non-optional censorship of several adult websites in Singapore. If so - well done guys! I guess increased global prevalence of censorship is creating a global market for tools which bypass it.
- adrianlmm 13y agoCan't you just call your ISP and opt in for porn? Ain't that easier?
- lvturner 13y agoShould probably stop calling it "Porn Filter" it's kind of playing in to it. Customer: "Hi, I can't access some websites" ISP: "Oh, we see you have the PORN FITLER enabled. You mean YOU WANT TO WATCH PORN YOU PERVERT?" Customer: "Uhm, never mind." Let's be honest, the biggest issue with this isn't that it's harder to look at tits online, so let's not trivialise it and stigmatise it as such.
- Nodex 13y agoThe block does not have to be on the backbone level, Cameron could simply plug all the money he has so far into writing a free application for Winblows, OSX, Linux etc that does all this blocking. People can then choose to install it or not on their devices. Ultimately it's not my responsibility to protect my neighbors kids from seeing pornography online - it's down to the parents of the children. By making us opt in / out of something at a backbone level we are without a doubt paving the way for something more sinister. This is not about protecting children - if it were it could be done with the method described above and or countless other net nanny type apps. Cameron's motives will be revealed soon enough, mark my words.
- gravedave 13y agoWhat's the point of this? The filter can be opted out of, and if you're in circumstances that deny you such control (say, at work), then maybe you should just obey "the house rules". I expect lots of workplace masturbators to downvote this post.