15 ms·

David Cameron's Internet porn filter is the start of censorship creep

321 points by iamben 13y ago

GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
> The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" WTF
- cjrp 13y ago
  "Respect for a partner" is another WTF topic: http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/3_Screen%20Shot%202013-12-20%20at%2019_09_57.png http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/3_Scr...
  - GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
    Wow, that whole section is staggeringly stupid. Is that seriously going to be blocked? Seriously?
    - andygates 13y ago
      They have since changed the wording on that section to be less obviously evil. The "homosexual lifestyle" part is discrimination against a Protected Characteristic just as badly as if it said "black culture". I have an ongoing complaint with BT as to whether the actual filters have changed. Nobody has yet said "no, it's secret"...
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    The other WTF BT did is implying being gay/lesbian is a 'lifestyle choice'.
- FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
  This already happens on Giff-Gaff (a mobile network) and is opt-out only. It's not uncommon to find out a security-related blog on the front page of HN is blocked by the filter, and sites for projects like Metasploit are also blocked. It's silly.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    All mobile networks have this censorship, but it was easy to opt out of, and the censorship is very sloppily implemented (for me, changing DNS servers or using any trivial proxy bypassed it before I opted out).
jackweirdy 13y ago
Obviously, living in a house of 5 male students, I won't opt into this. I will be sending my MP a weekly write up of what we've been watching though. I hope you join me! (In writing, that is)
- Fuxy 13y ago
  Great idea. I may be joining you in that. Although the links will probably have a lot of pornography in that since i can bypass it pretty easily without opting out. But since they really want to know I'm going to give them a list.
retube 13y ago
Oh give me a f*cking break. Attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography on the internet is no different than attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography via other media - magazines, video, television etc. We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is. It may be badly implemented, it may be impractical, it may have issues, but lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit. The Guardian is just churning out more bollox tailored to the world view of it's largely young, largely left-wing, largely public sector readership who believe David Cameron and the Tory party is some sort of devil incarnate.
- jsilence 13y ago
  I wish I could downvote.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Engaging in the discussion is a better way to get the karma that allows you to downvote. Why do you think parent comment is wrong?
- da_n 13y ago
  > lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit Before the Snowden leaks anyone who said something about government mass surveillance was some tin-foil hat wearing crack pot. This is no longer true, this is no longer a conspiracy theory it is mainstream. If you still sincerely believe that the government is doing this 'for the children' then you are incredibly naive.
- weland 13y ago
  > We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is. Except that these rules explicitly targeted only that: the actual distribution of pornography. This one, on the other hand, is aimed at something a lot broader (protecting children) and can block access not only to unauthorized distribution of pornography, but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others. It's a God-given tool to a conservative government. A lot of the things we take for granted now are actually far newer than we could imagine. Much of the outrage over the anti-abortion law in Spain was grounded in information that the younger generation can readily access over the Internet, but was far harder to obtain thirty or fourty years ago. Not just pro- and con- opinions from wannabe bloggers, but solid medical and physiological data, life experiences of women who had to go through it and philosophical debates. The younger generation is a lot less meek than their parents and grandparents were, and a lot more politically unwieldy, precisely because of the ease with which they can obtain the knowledge they need in order to make a decision. Not an objective one, mind you; the Internet isn't an oracle of impartial information. But a decision people are comfortable with. It's hard not to bring up the 1984 mantra on this one. Edit: it's also worth pointing out something else, which I learned back when they didn't filter porn where I live -- they filtered every single thing the government didn't like (and the list was long) -- and they didn't do it on the Internet (because there was no internet back then). The Internet is big. It's so mind-bogglingly big that I am astounded at it, every single day, and every time I think I probably know enough of it to be considered a well-traveled Internaut, something comes up and slaps me back to my senses. Most underage porn viewers will simply stroll to the well-known websites. Xvideos, Redtube, whatever. There are websites where everyone knows they're under heavy scrutiny from the law. Pedophilia, animal abuse and all that have very short lifespans there. There's a lot of porn, but it's well regulated, and generally scam-free. By definition, a website filter will always be behind on the websites it filters. Because (doh!) a website first has to be live and to have visitors before it is filtered. Block the high-profile websites, and what happens? Everyone -- including the underage viewers who don't have the psychological maturity required to deal with a lot of the things people film these days -- flocks to the "underground". Those, on the other hand, aren't regulated. There's every sort of crap to be found, from malware to child pornography, especially when augmented by the anonymity of tools like Tor (not that the tools are bad; they're not, but that's not true of their every use). The idea that they won't get to those websites is just laughable. Never underestimate the intrepid spirit of a horny teenager.
sbt 13y ago
If I was British, I would do anything I could to urge politicians and the public to dismantle this firewall. Our biggest problem, not just in Britain but in all countries, is that the public does not understand how serious this is at all.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Even many people on HN don't realize how serious it is.
- Cakez0r 13y ago
  The British are sitting ducks. The only recourse we have is writing to our MPs, which is as good as useless.
- salient 13y ago
  This should be called what it really is. The Great Firewall of UK.
melling 13y ago
Someone is just using the "slippery slope" argument, which may be true but this article wasn't that convincing to me. The internet for most people is only 10-15 years old but somehow life is not possible without it? "The internet is a lifeline for young LGBT people looking for information and support – and parents are now able to stop them finding that support at the click of a mouse." How does the filter work in Britain? Can you go to a cafe with your mobile device and use different settings?
- justincormack 13y ago
  A lot of public internet like cafes is filtered, and this is likely to increase with these new filters.
  - melling 13y ago
    Can someone explain how the filter actually works. Google has a filter, for example. Is it a bunch of checkboxes or do you actually talk with someone on the phone?
3stripe 13y ago
Where can you check if BT or O2 is blocking sites? The O2 status checker is down: http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx
bmj1 13y ago
"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) As a UK citizen, I've been very disappointed by this debacle. I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (protecting the children, etc) but he does not understand the significant number of unintended consequences that we are likely to see (and are already seeing). I would suggest doing the following to make this workable long term: - Centralise the list of sites categorised as obscene/pornographic/etc (why should it be different for different ISPs?) - Make the list of these sites publicly accessible and searchable - Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?) - Implement a process for removal requests where a site is mis-classified and ensure that this appeal process is separate from the initial panel - Implement KPIs on the effectiveness of the filter that take into account false positives + false negatives - Remove any automatic categorisation based on keywords, this is too crude - Make publicly accessible the guidelines for classification Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor
- jackweirdy 13y ago
  A lot of this is being done by the Open Rights Group tech volunteers. If anyone wants to help, there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss strategy, & the mailing list is here https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers
  - bmj1 13y ago
    Thanks Jack, I've signed up and look forward to continuing the discussion over there.
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  Don't forget Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. No matter what the intentions are, if the end result is still widespread censorship it hardly matters.
  - 13y ago
Havoc 13y ago
To what extent are private commercial interest driving this vs politics?
Fuxy 13y ago
Anybody else think the hacker community will suffer a bit since it will be just that much difficult to learn hacking since the information is in some mysterious way related to pornography? I keep getting blocked by T-Mobile's porn filter even while accessing certain posts on HN. I'm referring to people just starting out that have no clue how to bypass the filter just yet. Not someone who already knows some stuff and it's quite easy for them to bypass it. Say using SOCKS5 and SSH tunneling to a box not covered by this bs filter.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Why haven't you opted out of content lock?
  - andygates 13y ago
    You have to realise it's something you can opt out of. If it's like the O2 one, it doesn't say "to cancel this, call customer services". Since most people accept defaults...
  - Fuxy 13y ago
    It's my company phone and it requires a credit card (which i don't have). I only use debit cards which they don't accept. It's a personal choice but i shouldn't have to be forced to own a credit card to unlock my fking porn filter. Did I mention anything i see on HN most certainly doesn't qualify as porn? Does qualify as hacking though if technical blogs on device vulnerabilities or back doors are considered hacking. I would qualify it as security research but that just another loose term the ISPs can play with to ban important information on potentially insecure devices.
matthewmacleod 13y ago
Censorship is bad. That said… This is not censorship. It's an opt-in web content filter, operated by the largest ISPs, with no statutory backing. It's intended to encourage ISPs to provide optional parental controls for every subscriber, and no more. Frankly, I think this is actually a pretty good outcome, if not deliberately so. It completely kills the arguments for actual Web censorship by eliminating the "think of the children" argument, which is probably the one which the media bang on about most, without imposing any legal requirements or mandatory filtering. So there are plenty of options for users who don't want to be subject to the filter. Switch to another DNS provider, or don't opt in to the filtering, or even better – switch to one of the ISPs that don't offer this feature and never will. Ironically, I think that these filters are going to encourage the preservation of Internet freedom in the UK in the long run.
- nodata 13y ago
  It's opt out, not opt in. How does it stop being censorship just because there is no centralised list?
  - matthewmacleod 13y ago
    Can you back this up? I've seen no evidence that it's opt-out; new users are presented with the choice before gaining Internet access, and existing users are presented with the choice at some point.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    Cameron's filter is opt our for new customers, but opt in for existing customers. It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship.
    - nodata 13y ago
      You added a word: "government censorship". This is the same argument that companies like to use when they shift blame onto a third-party contractor. Back to my question though. Third party or not, how is this not censorship? (Your example of modesty sleeves is a bad one: the filter doesn't apply only to "adult magazines" (porn sites, here) but to lots of other non-"adult" content too.)
x0054 13y ago
Perhaps a solution to this is a very public campaign to opt out of these filters. This would achieve 2 goals: 1. Good plausible deniability excuse. If asked why one has opted out, or would like to opt out of the filter, one could always answer: "Because I saw comparing X and it has convinced me that this is the right thing to do to secure my rights to free speech..." 2. The more people opt out the more likely this project is going to be either a) abandoned or b) made mandatory rather then optional. If the latter happens, I am sure the people are going to take to the streets. Technical solution to this would be to create a simple website that tests your Internet connection, tells you if it's possible filtered, and based on your ip, tells you who to contact to remove the filter.
- girvo 13y ago
  Are you really sure they'd take to the streets? I, sadly, wouldn't be.
petercooper 13y ago
The start? Cleanfeed has been running for 10 years already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...
- jstanley 13y ago
  Plus, last year we started to see filtering of file-sharing websites: the Pirate Bay is now blocked on every major UK ISP.
  - blueskin_ 13y ago
    ...as well as about 4 proxies out of thousands. Censorship never works because it's so easy to turn it onto a game of whack-a-mole with next to no money and effort even aside from all the other flaws.
    - vidarh 13y ago
      And it's also taught anyone who use TPB in the UK that the first thing to do if you can't get to a site is to search for proxies. Every extra hurdle makes people better at avoiding the next one...
      - aaren 13y ago
        I'd like to think that the uk web filter and the wider government surveillance narrative of the past few months is actually a ploy by our leaders to slowly educate the public in circumventing censorship and to stimulate the development of a free internet - like the Socratic method, but for culture. Then it gets cloudy outside and I stop thinking that.
  - DanBC 13y ago
    At least those blocks go through a court process and a judge has to approve them being blocked.
DanBC 13y ago
At present the UK has a variety of different filtering systems. There's the IWF list, there are the mobile filters, There are the voluntary ISP filters and if they're not good enough there's the proposed mandatory filter. Edit {there are also the court ordered blocks of file sharing websites} This is a serious problem because some of the filtering is too broad and catches stuff that shouldn't be filtered. There is often no way to get things taken off the list. Sometimes things that should be filtered are not, and again there's no way for users to report that. The IWF list claims to have a tight focus on images of child sexual abuse and other pornography that is illegal in the UK. But that means the list of sites and news groups and etc are not easily available. I'd hate to be a researcher testing those filters because it'd be easy for police to spin the collection of information into something sinister. Some kind of standards process might be handy. That would list things the filters must do, should do, must not do, and should not do. It would cover how to report mistakes in filtering, the evidence needed for proof of age, etc. that would improve the filters but keep the government out of providing the filters. Ideally politicians would know enough about technology to understand what people are telling them about filters - i find it hard to believe that politicians are that stupid. EDIT: interesting to hear the US reaction to these optional filters. They're in place but I'm happily playing poker with money on my phone.
neverminder 13y ago
Judging from natural progression that usually follows such decisions made by any government following is highly likely to happen: The blacklist will expand, not shrink, becoming tight with political agenda. Pressure to stay opted in will increase. Process to opt out will become more complicated in order to keep people from opting out. Final blow - blacklist will br enforced by default and opting out removed.
JunkDNA 13y ago
Reminds me of this recent editorial (which is hopefully not paywalled) in the Wall Street Journal about "the Good Intentions Paving Co": http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579276942556236158 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230402070...
- twic 13y ago
  Paywalled, but a freedom-hating pirate has fortunately given us what i believe to be a copy of it: http://casinocap.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/the-road-to-hell-is-paved/ http://casinocap.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/the-road-to-hell-i...
salient 13y ago
I'm very disappointed with UK people. They should've known better. They should've seen this coming from miles away. But they've been reprogrammed to think that surveillance, and to a degree even censorship is "okay" if it's done for "good". They should've known that censorship even for "good" always, and I mean always, leads to censorship for evil, too. It leads to politicians censoring anything they don't like. And the worst part about censorship, is that you may not even find out what has been censored, and what you weren't allowed to know. David Cameron is nothing short of a dictator. It's just that he doesn't have all the dictatorial powers he would like yet. But he seems to be working hard to get them, and this porn filter, the charging of friends of journalists with terrorism, and other such things are only the beginning. Throw Cameron David and his party out of office, and go to the streets and demand the banning of the porn filters at the next elections. Otherwise, expect much worse to come over the next years.
netcan 13y ago
I'm really disappointed with this whole situation. The government. The parliament. The people & the media. I resent all the apologizing and explaining and the "don't attribute to malice…" excuses. I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal. This article is right on the right track. This is an attempt to control the discussion, the definition of normal and public morality. It's is not a response to an actual problem. It's old fashioned conservatism and paternalism. The bottom line here is choice. Parents everywhere have easy solutions for voluntary porn filters. You can have them set up by your the people you buy your internet from or the people that sell you your computer. It's cheap or free and it's available. I do not buy the "it's too complicated" argument. This is parents responsibility and it just ins't that hard to meet that responsibility.
- DanBC 13y ago
  I think the filters are bad. But buying and installing filters is hard for many people. They don't know anything about networking or the internet. These people need help setting up wifi. This is just movong the filter from existing software providers to the ISP. It's not at all ISPs so you can shop around[1] if you want to avoid it. It's optional so you can tirn it off if it's on bu default for you, and not all of them are. [1] shopping around isn't possible for broadband because of the weird way it's provided in the UK.
  - sillysaurus2 13y ago
    I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.
    - netcan 13y ago
      Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.
ommunist 13y ago
In fact, it is not the start. Its a finish. Once the system is in place all you need is to add URLs to block. And it is already in place and seems to work fine. Except it is still avoidable via proxies.
hoggle 13y ago
I always thought of the UK as highly educated and less gullible. This is the entry point for a world as described by fellow UK citizen George Orwell. It's a shame that people's honest hopes & beliefs in conservative "leaders" seem to be what could turn this into 1984. Death by a thousand cuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy
spiralpolitik 13y ago
Let me refresh your memory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 I'll give you a clue which party implemented this legislation. It's always been about censorship of lifestyles the Tory party and the Daily Mail don't approve of in an attempt to return Britain to some golden age that never happened. It's censorship and social control, plain and simple.
staticelf 13y ago
I just have one thing to say about the censorship, fuck everyone that is pro this stuff.
chunkyslink 13y ago
If you live in the Uk and you want to do something about this you can join the Open Rights Group https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleepwalking https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleep...
blendergasket 13y ago
This will lead to a blossoming of linguistic creativity. People are going to grow a new sexual slang that evolves arms race pace in order to get around this. If this happens a person will need to be able to trace the evolution of the slang/code words for whatever they're looking into in order to trace a topic back throughout its history. All this happens now in a lot of ways and in a lot of different subjects, but I think it's going to become much more important.
leopardkarate 13y ago
This is just bad. First of all even though the filter is optional - most large scale ISP's are rolling them out as an opt-out option. I bet a lot of people will not even find out there is such a filter. Secondly, with such ambiguous categories like "obscene" and "extremist" content that have proven to block sites that contain information on LGTB issues and helplines for abuse people get trapped in filter bubbles. People are treated like mindless zombies and it's a self fulfilling prophecy because without alternative opinions or a wide and diverse specter of information people do indeed become mindless zombies. Finally, this is the most lazy and stupid solution to the problem - does the state not want it's people to be able/learn to deal with various information that's out there (because remember - if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there) and to think critically? Or is this a vile and through-through attempt at gagging the internet? Bonus food for thought: remember how Tories recently deleted their internet archives... ?
NAFV_P 13y ago
There could be an unintended side effect of this mess. People will get so fucked off with Cameron and Co., it could lead to a dramatic increase in (black) hacking activity in Britain. I've already bought a black hat in preparation (similar to the one that is sported by Odd Job from Golfinger).
goggles99 13y ago
Look, I am against censorship of the internet - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers. The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles? There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different. I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it) BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding. I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?
mcgwiz 13y ago
The basic notion of empowering corporate and political entities to judge for a people what information is and is not "acceptable" is scary to me, and I would imagine, to most Americans. (I expand on this here: http://blocvox.com/americans/93Mz6FfGIku-CcH8JHndIg http://blocvox.com/americans/93Mz6FfGIku-CcH8JHndIg ) To my knowledge, the word "acceptable" is never used in any pertinent legal code, but it is used by MPs and other officials, and therefore represents the cultural understanding of the law. So one must then ask, what is culturally made of people who are interested in material that is not "acceptable"? I wonder if my repulsion to this is a cultural thing, Americans having more governmental skepticism and having a tradition of individualism, versus Britons having more faith in (to put it nicely) the potential of government to foster order and maintain cultural heritage.
ericcumbee 13y ago
what is the thought on Clean Port 80?

321 points by iamben 13y ago

> The category of "obscene content", for instance, which is blocked even on the lowest setting of BT's opt-in filtering system, covers "sites with information about illegal manipulation of electronic devices [and] distribution of software" WTF

cjrp 13y ago
"Respect for a partner" is another WTF topic: http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/3_Screen%20Shot%202013-12-20%20at%2019_09_57.png http://www.newstatesman.com/sites/default/files/images/3_Scr...
- GotAnyMegadeth 13y ago
  Wow, that whole section is staggeringly stupid. Is that seriously going to be blocked? Seriously?
  - andygates 13y ago
    They have since changed the wording on that section to be less obviously evil. The "homosexual lifestyle" part is discrimination against a Protected Characteristic just as badly as if it said "black culture". I have an ongoing complaint with BT as to whether the actual filters have changed. Nobody has yet said "no, it's secret"...
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  The other WTF BT did is implying being gay/lesbian is a 'lifestyle choice'.
FuzzyDunlop 13y ago
This already happens on Giff-Gaff (a mobile network) and is opt-out only. It's not uncommon to find out a security-related blog on the front page of HN is blocked by the filter, and sites for projects like Metasploit are also blocked. It's silly.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  All mobile networks have this censorship, but it was easy to opt out of, and the censorship is very sloppily implemented (for me, changing DNS servers or using any trivial proxy bypassed it before I opted out).

jackweirdy 13y ago

Obviously, living in a house of 5 male students, I won't opt into this. I will be sending my MP a weekly write up of what we've been watching though. I hope you join me! (In writing, that is)

Fuxy 13y ago
Great idea. I may be joining you in that. Although the links will probably have a lot of pornography in that since i can bypass it pretty easily without opting out. But since they really want to know I'm going to give them a list.

retube 13y ago

Oh give me a f*cking break. Attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography on the internet is no different than attempting to regulate the distribution of pornography via other media - magazines, video, television etc. We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is. It may be badly implemented, it may be impractical, it may have issues, but lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit. The Guardian is just churning out more bollox tailored to the world view of it's largely young, largely left-wing, largely public sector readership who believe David Cameron and the Tory party is some sort of devil incarnate.

jsilence 13y ago
I wish I could downvote.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Engaging in the discussion is a better way to get the karma that allows you to downvote. Why do you think parent comment is wrong?
da_n 13y ago
> lets stop all this 1984 conspiracy bullshit Before the Snowden leaks anyone who said something about government mass surveillance was some tin-foil hat wearing crack pot. This is no longer true, this is no longer a conspiracy theory it is mainstream. If you still sincerely believe that the government is doing this 'for the children' then you are incredibly naive.
weland 13y ago
> We've had rules and regs and laws for decades on pornography, these were/are no more an attempt at "censorship" than this attempt is. Except that these rules explicitly targeted only that: the actual distribution of pornography. This one, on the other hand, is aimed at something a lot broader (protecting children) and can block access not only to unauthorized distribution of pornography, but also block access to information about topics like abortion, sex education, LGBT and many others. It's a God-given tool to a conservative government. A lot of the things we take for granted now are actually far newer than we could imagine. Much of the outrage over the anti-abortion law in Spain was grounded in information that the younger generation can readily access over the Internet, but was far harder to obtain thirty or fourty years ago. Not just pro- and con- opinions from wannabe bloggers, but solid medical and physiological data, life experiences of women who had to go through it and philosophical debates. The younger generation is a lot less meek than their parents and grandparents were, and a lot more politically unwieldy, precisely because of the ease with which they can obtain the knowledge they need in order to make a decision. Not an objective one, mind you; the Internet isn't an oracle of impartial information. But a decision people are comfortable with. It's hard not to bring up the 1984 mantra on this one. Edit: it's also worth pointing out something else, which I learned back when they didn't filter porn where I live -- they filtered every single thing the government didn't like (and the list was long) -- and they didn't do it on the Internet (because there was no internet back then). The Internet is big. It's so mind-bogglingly big that I am astounded at it, every single day, and every time I think I probably know enough of it to be considered a well-traveled Internaut, something comes up and slaps me back to my senses. Most underage porn viewers will simply stroll to the well-known websites. Xvideos, Redtube, whatever. There are websites where everyone knows they're under heavy scrutiny from the law. Pedophilia, animal abuse and all that have very short lifespans there. There's a lot of porn, but it's well regulated, and generally scam-free. By definition, a website filter will always be behind on the websites it filters. Because (doh!) a website first has to be live and to have visitors before it is filtered. Block the high-profile websites, and what happens? Everyone -- including the underage viewers who don't have the psychological maturity required to deal with a lot of the things people film these days -- flocks to the "underground". Those, on the other hand, aren't regulated. There's every sort of crap to be found, from malware to child pornography, especially when augmented by the anonymity of tools like Tor (not that the tools are bad; they're not, but that's not true of their every use). The idea that they won't get to those websites is just laughable. Never underestimate the intrepid spirit of a horny teenager.

sbt 13y ago

If I was British, I would do anything I could to urge politicians and the public to dismantle this firewall. Our biggest problem, not just in Britain but in all countries, is that the public does not understand how serious this is at all.

InclinedPlane 13y ago
Even many people on HN don't realize how serious it is.
Cakez0r 13y ago
The British are sitting ducks. The only recourse we have is writing to our MPs, which is as good as useless.
salient 13y ago
This should be called what it really is. The Great Firewall of UK.

melling 13y ago

Someone is just using the "slippery slope" argument, which may be true but this article wasn't that convincing to me. The internet for most people is only 10-15 years old but somehow life is not possible without it? "The internet is a lifeline for young LGBT people looking for information and support – and parents are now able to stop them finding that support at the click of a mouse." How does the filter work in Britain? Can you go to a cafe with your mobile device and use different settings?

justincormack 13y ago
A lot of public internet like cafes is filtered, and this is likely to increase with these new filters.
- melling 13y ago
  Can someone explain how the filter actually works. Google has a filter, for example. Is it a bunch of checkboxes or do you actually talk with someone on the phone?

3stripe 13y ago

Where can you check if BT or O2 is blocking sites? The O2 status checker is down: http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx http://urlchecker.o2.co.uk/urlcheck.aspx

bmj1 13y ago

"Never attribute to malice that which is adequately explained by stupidity." (1) As a UK citizen, I've been very disappointed by this debacle. I suspect that Cameron's heart was actually in the right place (protecting the children, etc) but he does not understand the significant number of unintended consequences that we are likely to see (and are already seeing). I would suggest doing the following to make this workable long term: - Centralise the list of sites categorised as obscene/pornographic/etc (why should it be different for different ISPs?) - Make the list of these sites publicly accessible and searchable - Ensure the list is maintained by a non-political and balanced panel (is this possible?) - Implement a process for removal requests where a site is mis-classified and ensure that this appeal process is separate from the initial panel - Implement KPIs on the effectiveness of the filter that take into account false positives + false negatives - Remove any automatic categorisation based on keywords, this is too crude - Make publicly accessible the guidelines for classification Unfortunately, I don't expect the above to actually happen :( 1. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hanlon's_razor

jackweirdy 13y ago
A lot of this is being done by the Open Rights Group tech volunteers. If anyone wants to help, there will be a meeting in the next few weeks to discuss strategy, & the mailing list is here https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers https://lists.openrightsgroup.org/listinfo/tech-volunteers
- bmj1 13y ago
  Thanks Jack, I've signed up and look forward to continuing the discussion over there.
InclinedPlane 13y ago
Don't forget Grey's law: Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is indistinguishable from malice. No matter what the intentions are, if the end result is still widespread censorship it hardly matters.
- 13y ago

Havoc 13y ago

To what extent are private commercial interest driving this vs politics?

Fuxy 13y ago

Anybody else think the hacker community will suffer a bit since it will be just that much difficult to learn hacking since the information is in some mysterious way related to pornography? I keep getting blocked by T-Mobile's porn filter even while accessing certain posts on HN. I'm referring to people just starting out that have no clue how to bypass the filter just yet. Not someone who already knows some stuff and it's quite easy for them to bypass it. Say using SOCKS5 and SSH tunneling to a box not covered by this bs filter.

DanBC 13y ago
Why haven't you opted out of content lock?
- andygates 13y ago
  You have to realise it's something you can opt out of. If it's like the O2 one, it doesn't say "to cancel this, call customer services". Since most people accept defaults...
- Fuxy 13y ago
  It's my company phone and it requires a credit card (which i don't have). I only use debit cards which they don't accept. It's a personal choice but i shouldn't have to be forced to own a credit card to unlock my fking porn filter. Did I mention anything i see on HN most certainly doesn't qualify as porn? Does qualify as hacking though if technical blogs on device vulnerabilities or back doors are considered hacking. I would qualify it as security research but that just another loose term the ISPs can play with to ban important information on potentially insecure devices.

matthewmacleod 13y ago

Censorship is bad. That said… This is not censorship. It's an opt-in web content filter, operated by the largest ISPs, with no statutory backing. It's intended to encourage ISPs to provide optional parental controls for every subscriber, and no more. Frankly, I think this is actually a pretty good outcome, if not deliberately so. It completely kills the arguments for actual Web censorship by eliminating the "think of the children" argument, which is probably the one which the media bang on about most, without imposing any legal requirements or mandatory filtering. So there are plenty of options for users who don't want to be subject to the filter. Switch to another DNS provider, or don't opt in to the filtering, or even better – switch to one of the ISPs that don't offer this feature and never will. Ironically, I think that these filters are going to encourage the preservation of Internet freedom in the UK in the long run.

nodata 13y ago
It's opt out, not opt in. How does it stop being censorship just because there is no centralised list?
- matthewmacleod 13y ago
  Can you back this up? I've seen no evidence that it's opt-out; new users are presented with the choice before gaining Internet access, and existing users are presented with the choice at some point.
- DanBC 13y ago
  Cameron's filter is opt our for new customers, but opt in for existing customers. It's not government censorship if the government isn't providing a list of banned sites. And the filter is optional - selling adult magazines in modesty sleeves isn't censorship.
  - nodata 13y ago
    You added a word: "government censorship". This is the same argument that companies like to use when they shift blame onto a third-party contractor. Back to my question though. Third party or not, how is this not censorship? (Your example of modesty sleeves is a bad one: the filter doesn't apply only to "adult magazines" (porn sites, here) but to lots of other non-"adult" content too.)

x0054 13y ago

Perhaps a solution to this is a very public campaign to opt out of these filters. This would achieve 2 goals: 1. Good plausible deniability excuse. If asked why one has opted out, or would like to opt out of the filter, one could always answer: "Because I saw comparing X and it has convinced me that this is the right thing to do to secure my rights to free speech..." 2. The more people opt out the more likely this project is going to be either a) abandoned or b) made mandatory rather then optional. If the latter happens, I am sure the people are going to take to the streets. Technical solution to this would be to create a simple website that tests your Internet connection, tells you if it's possible filtered, and based on your ip, tells you who to contact to remove the filter.

girvo 13y ago
Are you really sure they'd take to the streets? I, sadly, wouldn't be.

petercooper 13y ago

The start? Cleanfeed has been running for 10 years already: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_system) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cleanfeed_(content_blocking_sys...

jstanley 13y ago
Plus, last year we started to see filtering of file-sharing websites: the Pirate Bay is now blocked on every major UK ISP.
- blueskin_ 13y ago
  ...as well as about 4 proxies out of thousands. Censorship never works because it's so easy to turn it onto a game of whack-a-mole with next to no money and effort even aside from all the other flaws.
  - vidarh 13y ago
    And it's also taught anyone who use TPB in the UK that the first thing to do if you can't get to a site is to search for proxies. Every extra hurdle makes people better at avoiding the next one...
    - aaren 13y ago
      I'd like to think that the uk web filter and the wider government surveillance narrative of the past few months is actually a ploy by our leaders to slowly educate the public in circumventing censorship and to stimulate the development of a free internet - like the Socratic method, but for culture. Then it gets cloudy outside and I stop thinking that.
- DanBC 13y ago
  At least those blocks go through a court process and a judge has to approve them being blocked.

DanBC 13y ago

At present the UK has a variety of different filtering systems. There's the IWF list, there are the mobile filters, There are the voluntary ISP filters and if they're not good enough there's the proposed mandatory filter. Edit {there are also the court ordered blocks of file sharing websites} This is a serious problem because some of the filtering is too broad and catches stuff that shouldn't be filtered. There is often no way to get things taken off the list. Sometimes things that should be filtered are not, and again there's no way for users to report that. The IWF list claims to have a tight focus on images of child sexual abuse and other pornography that is illegal in the UK. But that means the list of sites and news groups and etc are not easily available. I'd hate to be a researcher testing those filters because it'd be easy for police to spin the collection of information into something sinister. Some kind of standards process might be handy. That would list things the filters must do, should do, must not do, and should not do. It would cover how to report mistakes in filtering, the evidence needed for proof of age, etc. that would improve the filters but keep the government out of providing the filters. Ideally politicians would know enough about technology to understand what people are telling them about filters - i find it hard to believe that politicians are that stupid. EDIT: interesting to hear the US reaction to these optional filters. They're in place but I'm happily playing poker with money on my phone.

neverminder 13y ago

Judging from natural progression that usually follows such decisions made by any government following is highly likely to happen: The blacklist will expand, not shrink, becoming tight with political agenda. Pressure to stay opted in will increase. Process to opt out will become more complicated in order to keep people from opting out. Final blow - blacklist will br enforced by default and opting out removed.

JunkDNA 13y ago

Reminds me of this recent editorial (which is hopefully not paywalled) in the Wall Street Journal about "the Good Intentions Paving Co": http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB10001424052702304020704579276942556236158 http://online.wsj.com/news/articles/SB1000142405270230402070...

twic 13y ago
Paywalled, but a freedom-hating pirate has fortunately given us what i believe to be a copy of it: http://casinocap.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/the-road-to-hell-is-paved/ http://casinocap.wordpress.com/2013/12/31/the-road-to-hell-i...

salient 13y ago

I'm very disappointed with UK people. They should've known better. They should've seen this coming from miles away. But they've been reprogrammed to think that surveillance, and to a degree even censorship is "okay" if it's done for "good". They should've known that censorship even for "good" always, and I mean always, leads to censorship for evil, too. It leads to politicians censoring anything they don't like. And the worst part about censorship, is that you may not even find out what has been censored, and what you weren't allowed to know. David Cameron is nothing short of a dictator. It's just that he doesn't have all the dictatorial powers he would like yet. But he seems to be working hard to get them, and this porn filter, the charging of friends of journalists with terrorism, and other such things are only the beginning. Throw Cameron David and his party out of office, and go to the streets and demand the banning of the porn filters at the next elections. Otherwise, expect much worse to come over the next years.

netcan 13y ago

I'm really disappointed with this whole situation. The government. The parliament. The people & the media. I resent all the apologizing and explaining and the "don't attribute to malice…" excuses. I also think that it's very possible that unrelated "side effects" like surveillance and control of the internet "media" have always been an intended unstated goal. This article is right on the right track. This is an attempt to control the discussion, the definition of normal and public morality. It's is not a response to an actual problem. It's old fashioned conservatism and paternalism. The bottom line here is choice. Parents everywhere have easy solutions for voluntary porn filters. You can have them set up by your the people you buy your internet from or the people that sell you your computer. It's cheap or free and it's available. I do not buy the "it's too complicated" argument. This is parents responsibility and it just ins't that hard to meet that responsibility.

DanBC 13y ago
I think the filters are bad. But buying and installing filters is hard for many people. They don't know anything about networking or the internet. These people need help setting up wifi. This is just movong the filter from existing software providers to the ISP. It's not at all ISPs so you can shop around[1] if you want to avoid it. It's optional so you can tirn it off if it's on bu default for you, and not all of them are. [1] shopping around isn't possible for broadband because of the weird way it's provided in the UK.
- sillysaurus2 13y ago
  I think the point was that this filter is optional, but the next one may not be. This one gets people used to the idea of having a filter, and gauges public reaction / outcry.
  - netcan 13y ago
    Optional?! You mean that it's optional for users because the can "call this number to opt in for porn and dissident information" or optional because the handful (4) of ISPs who control most people's access to the internet have the option of "making progress on this issue" or else they will have progress made for them. Do these 4 companies need the government for contracts? How about broadcast licenses? The thin veneer of optionality is (IMO, of course) the most offensive part of this. I realize I'm sounding shrill and dramatic but… optional here is just a steam vent. The proudly perverted, politically active or other fringe people will be able to access anything easily enough. They're hard to control anyway. The happy 90% will make do with approved content.

ommunist 13y ago

In fact, it is not the start. Its a finish. Once the system is in place all you need is to add URLs to block. And it is already in place and seems to work fine. Except it is still avoidable via proxies.

hoggle 13y ago

I always thought of the UK as highly educated and less gullible. This is the entry point for a world as described by fellow UK citizen George Orwell. It's a shame that people's honest hopes & beliefs in conservative "leaders" seem to be what could turn this into 1984. Death by a thousand cuts. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Creeping_normalcy

spiralpolitik 13y ago

Let me refresh your memory. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Section_28 I'll give you a clue which party implemented this legislation. It's always been about censorship of lifestyles the Tory party and the Daily Mail don't approve of in an attempt to return Britain to some golden age that never happened. It's censorship and social control, plain and simple.

staticelf 13y ago

I just have one thing to say about the censorship, fuck everyone that is pro this stuff.

chunkyslink 13y ago

If you live in the Uk and you want to do something about this you can join the Open Rights Group https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleepwalking https://www.openrightsgroup.org/campaigns/cameron-stop-sleep...

blendergasket 13y ago

This will lead to a blossoming of linguistic creativity. People are going to grow a new sexual slang that evolves arms race pace in order to get around this. If this happens a person will need to be able to trace the evolution of the slang/code words for whatever they're looking into in order to trace a topic back throughout its history. All this happens now in a lot of ways and in a lot of different subjects, but I think it's going to become much more important.

leopardkarate 13y ago

This is just bad. First of all even though the filter is optional - most large scale ISP's are rolling them out as an opt-out option. I bet a lot of people will not even find out there is such a filter. Secondly, with such ambiguous categories like "obscene" and "extremist" content that have proven to block sites that contain information on LGTB issues and helplines for abuse people get trapped in filter bubbles. People are treated like mindless zombies and it's a self fulfilling prophecy because without alternative opinions or a wide and diverse specter of information people do indeed become mindless zombies. Finally, this is the most lazy and stupid solution to the problem - does the state not want it's people to be able/learn to deal with various information that's out there (because remember - if you can't see it doesn't mean it's not there) and to think critically? Or is this a vile and through-through attempt at gagging the internet? Bonus food for thought: remember how Tories recently deleted their internet archives... ?

NAFV_P 13y ago

There could be an unintended side effect of this mess. People will get so fucked off with Cameron and Co., it could lead to a dramatic increase in (black) hacking activity in Britain. I've already bought a black hat in preparation (similar to the one that is sported by Odd Job from Golfinger).

goggles99 13y ago

Look, I am against censorship of the internet - but a line has to be drawn somewhere. The internet is ubiquitous. Four year old kids can surf the web proficiently these days and easily get to hardcore porn by accident. That is by design of pornography marketers. The porn industry blew it. They shamelessly market to kids. anything to get them interested/hooked. Do you think that they would get away with putting porno mags on the lower shelves of toy isles? There are laws to keep tobacco companies from marketing to kids. There are a slew of laws which prevent marketing all sorts of things to kids. How is the gist of this any different. I agree that this should have been done in a different way. Each ISP potentially having a different blacklist is ridiculous. The organization and execution could have been a lot better. An exemption list should be standard across ISP's rather than only offered by a few and not shared (exemption list where say an actual sex ed site with an approved/compliant password protection and validation system for people to use to sign up for it is Not Blocked by default if it's owner registers it) BTW, those of you who say that parents could install filters locally to block this content are out of touch. These filters need constant updating or the fuzzy logic is very poor. Today, most kids today are more computer savvy than their parents. They easily get around these filters, anyway what about smart phones and tablets? What about friends houses? Unfiltered internet devices are ubiquitous. Putting a filter on your home PC would be like putting a band-aid on a severed limb to stop the bleeding. I wish there were a better way besides censorship. Anyone have any ideas?

mcgwiz 13y ago

The basic notion of empowering corporate and political entities to judge for a people what information is and is not "acceptable" is scary to me, and I would imagine, to most Americans. (I expand on this here: http://blocvox.com/americans/93Mz6FfGIku-CcH8JHndIg http://blocvox.com/americans/93Mz6FfGIku-CcH8JHndIg ) To my knowledge, the word "acceptable" is never used in any pertinent legal code, but it is used by MPs and other officials, and therefore represents the cultural understanding of the law. So one must then ask, what is culturally made of people who are interested in material that is not "acceptable"? I wonder if my repulsion to this is a cultural thing, Americans having more governmental skepticism and having a tradition of individualism, versus Britons having more faith in (to put it nicely) the potential of government to foster order and maintain cultural heritage.

ericcumbee 13y ago

what is the thought on Clean Port 80?