4 ms·

British government porn filters block EFF, Linux, Amnesty and more

78 points by paullik 13y ago

quantumpotato_ 13y ago
Can anyone in the UK verify this?
- romanovcode 13y ago
  Only new ISP clients have these filters enabled. Old clients have them disabled by default, for now. I doubt that you'll find someone who can confirm so easy.
  - quantumpotato_ 13y ago
    Thanks. Blocking EFF/Linux/Amnesty is very disturbing.
  - verandaguy 13y ago
    Would it then be possible for someone with a new Internet hookup in the UK to confirm/disconfirm this?
    - Pezmc 13y ago
      Can confirm this article as correct: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582 Am able (on Sky) to access all the sites mentioned on this article. I do however, strongly disagree with the sentiment that this filter is "Just another attempt by the Tories to prevent people finding out information." It's not, it's just a very poorly implemented filter by the ISP's that can be 'hacked' with a simple proxy. We had to deal with this kind of filtering many years ago back at school, where even the word 'mobile' was filtered.
      - deleted 13y ago
        [deleted]
- thirdsight 13y ago
  I have access to several machines on UK ISPs. Quick SSH and poke with links on each machine. 1. Easynet - all work fine. 2. Andrews & Arnold - all work fine (this is expected) 3. O2/Sky - all work fine 4. BT - all work fine All of these lines were provisioned before the porn filter was announced so... Edit: tested Amnesty, OpenBSD (which these machines are all running and would be a PITA for me) and linux.com
  - quantumpotato_ 13y ago
    Gotcha. Thanks!
  - GunlogAlm 13y ago
    What do you mean by "(this is expected)" with A&A?
    - thirdsight 13y ago
      A&A refuse customers who opt in to filtering. http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html This is the correct solution to the problem.
- DanBC 13y ago
  This is not the new uk gov porn filter. It is an optional fter, like any other net nanny filter or any enterprise style filter. It's restrictive because that's what those kinds of filters do. It is purely optional, and supposedly granular so the user could just block search engines but nothing else. This is different to the proposed uk gov porn filter.
greenyoda 13y ago
This has already been extensively discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979023 (144 points, 71 comments)
- gjm11 13y ago
  And, to summarize the single most important point made there: No, this is not the UK government's "porn filter", because (1) no such thing actually exists yet and (2) this isn't the same sort of thing as that would be if it did exist -- it's one ISP's opt-in whitelist offered to people who want a way to keep their children "safe". (I am not defending such whitelists, by the way. But even if there is some day a Great UK Adult Content Filter, this is not what it will be.)
PhasmaFelis 13y ago
This is completely false. The author of the original article (http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-blocks-kids-access.html http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-block...), Peter N. M. Hansteen, confused one ISP's opt-in parental whitelist with the UK's national opt-out blacklist. When informed of his error, he did not correct it but just added an update at the bottom ranting about opt-in parental filters, so sites like TGDaily and TechEye are still reading the first few pages and perpetuating the falsehood. This makes opponents of UK censorship look like clueless idiots and hurts the entire cause. Nice job, Peter Hansteen.
- GunlogAlm 13y ago
  This confusion has occurred often in recent weeks. Many non-Brits mistakenly believe this is the government filter when in reality it's an ISP's (most recently BT).
- mistakoala 13y ago
  You've managed to make the same point I've just made, but without the angry swearing. I salute your coolheadedness, sir.
notastartup 13y ago
How do British folks feel about this? I mean if they tried to pull shit like this in Canada, people would flip, burn down the parliament building.
- GunlogAlm 13y ago
  If you mean the filter: most of the support is from Conservative voters, especially the older voters and parents. Labour and the Conservatives support it, I think many Lib Dems oppose it. A few years ago I would have said the same thing - "If they did this here, Brits would go mad!" - I think everyone wants to believe that about their country, but when it comes to it people are surprisingly accepting. Also, it's worth noting this article is wrong: no government filter in the UK is in place yet, this was an ISP's own filter.
  - mistakoala 13y ago
    I think the spread of support is less clear. I vaguely recall some survey a few months back that posed a carefully-phrased question along the lines of "ISPs should do more to control what children see online (agree/ disagree)" and the support from Guardian readers was clearly in favour (can't rememeber the percentage). There's a split in the Conservative party about infantilising adults - you just have to read ConservativeHome to see that. I would go as far to say that a majority of activists dislike what Cameron is being seen to do with the ISPs. Contrast his current actions with his words several years ago: http://order-order.com/2007/11/24/cameron-we-are-libertarians/ http://order-order.com/2007/11/24/cameron-we-are-libertarian... I feel he's dangerous because he doesn't espouse an ideology. He doesn't offer a sense of where he wants to take the country - just wherever the newspaper headlines will take him. It might most kindly be described as a misguided sense of noblesse oblige.
- DanBC 13y ago
  About an opt in filter provided for customers who ask for it? I think those filters are generally lousy. You say that canadians would be up in arms. So, can some say "cunt" on daytime canadian tv? I ask because even in the US showing less than a second of partially uncovered nipple resulted in a fine of $500,000 for one broadcaster. I don't know much about the US system so maybe I'm wrong but that's an example of a government preventing people from broadcasting something. See the good wife episode where swear words are obscured in a knowing way by street noise outside the court. If you're talking about government blocklists most people are okay with IWF because the scope is tight and there's no feature creep so far. Most people in the uk don't want images of child sexual abuse to be easy to find. But the proposed filter isn't goong to be like that; it'll be much more like existing net nanny software, and people realise that software is rubbish and stupid.
mistakoala 13y ago
How does such cuntery based on paper-thin fact-checking and high doses of bullshit get anywhere near HN? I'm more disappointed in HN readers than the bell-end who wrote this crap. Outrage-fuelled stuff like this makes me angry because such mendacious behaviour makes a mockery of serious concerns about /actual/ censorship and the activities of the state in controlling the Internet. The author shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a keyboard.

78 points by paullik 13y ago

quantumpotato_ 13y ago

Can anyone in the UK verify this?

romanovcode 13y ago
Only new ISP clients have these filters enabled. Old clients have them disabled by default, for now. I doubt that you'll find someone who can confirm so easy.
- quantumpotato_ 13y ago
  Thanks. Blocking EFF/Linux/Amnesty is very disturbing.
- verandaguy 13y ago
  Would it then be possible for someone with a new Internet hookup in the UK to confirm/disconfirm this?
  - Pezmc 13y ago
    Can confirm this article as correct: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582 http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-25430582 Am able (on Sky) to access all the sites mentioned on this article. I do however, strongly disagree with the sentiment that this filter is "Just another attempt by the Tories to prevent people finding out information." It's not, it's just a very poorly implemented filter by the ISP's that can be 'hacked' with a simple proxy. We had to deal with this kind of filtering many years ago back at school, where even the word 'mobile' was filtered.
    - deleted 13y ago
      [deleted]
thirdsight 13y ago
I have access to several machines on UK ISPs. Quick SSH and poke with links on each machine. 1. Easynet - all work fine. 2. Andrews & Arnold - all work fine (this is expected) 3. O2/Sky - all work fine 4. BT - all work fine All of these lines were provisioned before the porn filter was announced so... Edit: tested Amnesty, OpenBSD (which these machines are all running and would be a PITA for me) and linux.com
- quantumpotato_ 13y ago
  Gotcha. Thanks!
- GunlogAlm 13y ago
  What do you mean by "(this is expected)" with A&A?
  - thirdsight 13y ago
    A&A refuse customers who opt in to filtering. http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html http://www.aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html This is the correct solution to the problem.
DanBC 13y ago
This is not the new uk gov porn filter. It is an optional fter, like any other net nanny filter or any enterprise style filter. It's restrictive because that's what those kinds of filters do. It is purely optional, and supposedly granular so the user could just block search engines but nothing else. This is different to the proposed uk gov porn filter.

greenyoda 13y ago

This has already been extensively discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979023 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=6979023 (144 points, 71 comments)

gjm11 13y ago
And, to summarize the single most important point made there: No, this is not the UK government's "porn filter", because (1) no such thing actually exists yet and (2) this isn't the same sort of thing as that would be if it did exist -- it's one ISP's opt-in whitelist offered to people who want a way to keep their children "safe". (I am not defending such whitelists, by the way. But even if there is some day a Great UK Adult Content Filter, this is not what it will be.)

PhasmaFelis 13y ago

This is completely false. The author of the original article (http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-blocks-kids-access.html http://bsdly.blogspot.co.uk/2013/12/the-uk-porn-filter-block...), Peter N. M. Hansteen, confused one ISP's opt-in parental whitelist with the UK's national opt-out blacklist. When informed of his error, he did not correct it but just added an update at the bottom ranting about opt-in parental filters, so sites like TGDaily and TechEye are still reading the first few pages and perpetuating the falsehood. This makes opponents of UK censorship look like clueless idiots and hurts the entire cause. Nice job, Peter Hansteen.

GunlogAlm 13y ago
This confusion has occurred often in recent weeks. Many non-Brits mistakenly believe this is the government filter when in reality it's an ISP's (most recently BT).
mistakoala 13y ago
You've managed to make the same point I've just made, but without the angry swearing. I salute your coolheadedness, sir.

notastartup 13y ago

How do British folks feel about this? I mean if they tried to pull shit like this in Canada, people would flip, burn down the parliament building.

GunlogAlm 13y ago
If you mean the filter: most of the support is from Conservative voters, especially the older voters and parents. Labour and the Conservatives support it, I think many Lib Dems oppose it. A few years ago I would have said the same thing - "If they did this here, Brits would go mad!" - I think everyone wants to believe that about their country, but when it comes to it people are surprisingly accepting. Also, it's worth noting this article is wrong: no government filter in the UK is in place yet, this was an ISP's own filter.
- mistakoala 13y ago
  I think the spread of support is less clear. I vaguely recall some survey a few months back that posed a carefully-phrased question along the lines of "ISPs should do more to control what children see online (agree/ disagree)" and the support from Guardian readers was clearly in favour (can't rememeber the percentage). There's a split in the Conservative party about infantilising adults - you just have to read ConservativeHome to see that. I would go as far to say that a majority of activists dislike what Cameron is being seen to do with the ISPs. Contrast his current actions with his words several years ago: http://order-order.com/2007/11/24/cameron-we-are-libertarians/ http://order-order.com/2007/11/24/cameron-we-are-libertarian... I feel he's dangerous because he doesn't espouse an ideology. He doesn't offer a sense of where he wants to take the country - just wherever the newspaper headlines will take him. It might most kindly be described as a misguided sense of noblesse oblige.
DanBC 13y ago
About an opt in filter provided for customers who ask for it? I think those filters are generally lousy. You say that canadians would be up in arms. So, can some say "cunt" on daytime canadian tv? I ask because even in the US showing less than a second of partially uncovered nipple resulted in a fine of $500,000 for one broadcaster. I don't know much about the US system so maybe I'm wrong but that's an example of a government preventing people from broadcasting something. See the good wife episode where swear words are obscured in a knowing way by street noise outside the court. If you're talking about government blocklists most people are okay with IWF because the scope is tight and there's no feature creep so far. Most people in the uk don't want images of child sexual abuse to be easy to find. But the proposed filter isn't goong to be like that; it'll be much more like existing net nanny software, and people realise that software is rubbish and stupid.

mistakoala 13y ago

How does such cuntery based on paper-thin fact-checking and high doses of bullshit get anywhere near HN? I'm more disappointed in HN readers than the bell-end who wrote this crap. Outrage-fuelled stuff like this makes me angry because such mendacious behaviour makes a mockery of serious concerns about /actual/ censorship and the activities of the state in controlling the Internet. The author shouldn't be allowed anywhere near a keyboard.