7 ms·
Chaos Computer Club Website Blocked by UK ISPs
- cirosantilli 12y agoWhat was the exact reason for banning them?
- eskimobloood 12y agoMaybe this CCC: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_Climax_Corporation
- Zenst 12y agoWOW Having read the history of that company I'm somewhat flabbergasted at the prospect that a company that made child porn would be protected intellectually over the Chaos Computer Club, which we can safely say has nothing in common with this Color Climax Corporation. More so for the UK at least, given such practices in such times were not legal then. Though I suspect this would be some EU ruling and the moral and ethics of this are moot in the black and white production line of the legal world in some fields sadly. Processed guilty by default and you have to prove innocents by exception, which seems to be how anything copyrighted on the internet is handled.
- bipin-nag 12y agoThey are a hacker organization, so to speak. They have a notorious reputation, they are known for publicly demo of security flaws and protest for several causes. They even acquired and published the fingerprints of a German minister in 2008! Some of their actions can be construed as extremist. Why they act like anti-spiderman- all the power and no responsibility of the consequences. Their way of protest of shaming the organization and exposing vulnerabilities is what got them banned. P.S. I feel any post against them is down-voted(terminated) with extreme prejudice. This should not be because they are hackers and this is hackernews. And I understand hacker could also mean a benign person with thirst for knowledge. This has more to do with a person's moral compass.
- keithpeter 12y agoBoth https://www.ccc.de/ https://www.ccc.de/ and http://www.ccc.de/ http://www.ccc.de/ and all pages below those reachable fine on EE consumer adsl over copper here in sunny Birmingham UK. I happen to be using Epiphany web browser on an alpha install of gNewSense 4. The Open Media gallery in Birmingham (just under part of New Street Station) has a joint exhibition by a local artist and the CCC. http://www.bom.org.uk/2014/09/26/hello-world/ http://www.bom.org.uk/2014/09/26/hello-world/
- deleted 12y ago[deleted]
- dz0ny 12y agoI Am getting NET::ERR_CERT_AUTHORITY_INVALID also here https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=ccc.de https://www.ssllabs.com/ssltest/analyze.html?d=ccc.de
- 0x006A 12y agoThey use a cert from http://www.cacert.org/ http://www.cacert.org/ unless you install that in your browser you get a warning.
- okaybutthen 12y agoPEM SHA1: 13:5C:EC:36:F4:9C:B8:E9:3B:1A:B2:70:CD:80:88:46:76:CE:8F:33
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoCCC don't like Certificate Authorities, I believe they deliberately self-sign. You're not being MITM'd.
- teamhappy 12y agoCACert is a CA (the clue is in the name). The certificate is not self-signed.
- okaybutthen 12y agoThe certificate is not trusted because no issuer chain was provided. [?]
- justincormack 12y agoWell, you might be as well of course.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoTrue, if you don't already know their certificate.
- petecooper 12y agoI am absolutely against this blanket form of ISP-level censorship, but I have to wonder if the intended clientele of CCC (i.e., technically-minded, curious, etc) would be very the near the top of the list of people who could bypass this block with trivial effort. Sort of self-defeating, really.
- marquis 12y agoIf you were a young, inspired enthusiast and you never found out that CCC existed, don't you think that's sad? It's unfair to deprive such knowledge, from someone who hasn't had the chance to find it yet.
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y agoWorth noting that said filters are optional, you can turn them off. Though the process to turn them off might resemble this[0]. [0] http://www.departmentofdirty.co.uk/ http://www.departmentofdirty.co.uk/
- mszyndel 12y agoIn most parts of the world optional means something you can opt-in to. Not something you have to painfully opt-out and be permanently put on the list of "those people".
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago"Painfully opt-out"? You untick a box on the signup form. You're not put on the sex offenders register.
- harry8 12y agoWhich register are you put on? Or are you willing to state that you are completely sure that you are put on no register at all and this information that you "unticked a box" will not be used against you?
- TazeTSchnitzel 12y ago> Which register are you put on? None, to my knowledge. Your ISP obviously has a 'no filters' flag somewhere, but they're not exactly telling the Government. > Or are you willing to state that you are completely sure that you are put on no register at all and this information that you "unticked a box" will not be used against you? We have pretty strict privacy laws, using it against you would probably be illegal.
- harry8 12y agoHow's that illegal thing worked out for curbing GHCQ?
- lectrick 12y agoGoogle Chrome strongly advises you not to continue. If you click the "Advanced" link, you can, though. Who decided that a centralized entity could be the authority for these things, anyway, instead of a Web of Trust? And also, should the books "1984" and "Fahrenheit 451" be required reading in British schools?
- api 12y ago"Who decided that a centralized entity could be the authority for these things, anyway, instead of a Web of Trust?" Usability. Try explaining to a non-technical person how to bootstrap their trust system. Things either "just work" or they are broken, at least for 99% of users. I'd even count myself as part of that group. I'm a highly technical user, but I'm usually too busy to futz around with stuff. I get something akin to road rage when stuff doesn't work and get out of the way. I played a lot with stuff when I was younger but I don't have time for that crap anymore.
- vegardx 12y agoThe problem is that we're mixing encryption and authentication in one bag. Somehow we've managed to teach every non tech-savvy users to be more scared of a self-signed certificate than browsing the very same page unencrypted.
- hdevalence 12y agoSecure communications require encryption AND authentication. Full stop. You can't unmix them.
- lectrick 12y ago> Try explaining to a non-technical person how to bootstrap their trust system. It can be automated. There are many examples now of headless networks- Bitcoin, Bittorrent, etc. A browser could connect to such a network, and when connecting to a server, could verify how many signatures from other parties have signed the certificate from that server. Then, this information could be cached, as long as the public key stayed the same. The process would have to be renewed for any new domain connected to via HTTPS, though. From an administration standpoint, the domain holder would just have to request that a certain number of existing entities sign their cert. Maybe they could pay them a nominal fee to cover the admin task. Admittedly, it took me years to come around to understanding this stuff (which is, essentially, public-private key encryption and digital signatures, and where "trust" comes from, and reading about PGP/GPG) to enough of a degree that the existing system started to not make much sense to me. I believe Namecoin (http://namecoin.info/ http://namecoin.info/) tried to solve this problem using Bitcoin blockchain tech, but they appear to be WAY before their time. Using their tech, I believe that both domain name management as well as certificate generation and signing could be automated.
- teamhappy 12y agoJust for the record: You can still access the website via it's IP address. http://213.73.89.123/ http://213.73.89.123/
- Joe8Bit 12y agoSeems to work fine for me in the three ways I tried, via Virgin Fibre (from London), EE 4G and O2 4G.
- DanBC 12y agoWorks fine on GiffGaff 3G (which uses O2 network) but I have already turned off content filtering.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoNo, not blocked at all, working just fine here from several different UK ISPs. What is the source of this claim of blocking?
- DanBC 12y agoSome ISPs include optional filters. Some of those filters have some granularity - pornography; violent content; hacking / cracking / piracy; etc. If your ISP has those filters you've probably already turned them off.
- jamesbrownuhh 12y agoOK, but if you apply filters to your internet then any blocking is something that you've done yourself, not "UK ISPs". It's a bit like putting a bag over your head and then claiming that "UK Authorities" have blocked out the sun.
- Osaka 12y agoIt appears to be only Three and Vodafone[1]at the moment. [1] https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?url=http://www.ccc.de https://www.blocked.org.uk/results?url=http://www.ccc.de
- robin_reala 12y agoJust checked on my Three connection and I got through without any problems.
- Zenst 12y ago"Accessing the server directly via http://213.73.89.123/ http://213.73.89.123/ currently appears to work quite well, thereby rendering the censorship efforts useless." So would appear to be at a DNS level of blocking perhaps, tested the internet access I have at hand currently (using ISP's DNS offered to punters and not direct IP access): Three (Mobile telco) works upon a data dongle. Also O2 (Another mobile network) works just fine with this site. The last also covers a large user base internet access wise and tends to be up there with regards of blocking sites at governmental whims. So beyond Vodaphone do we know which other UK ISP's also block this site?
- egyptisblocked 12y agoInterestingly www.ccc.de is completely blocked in Egypt.