Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship

British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn 266

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the dang-teenage-cyberterrorists-or-something dept.
twoheadedboy writes "Claire Perry MP, who has been the main driver of the UK government's plans for default blocking of pornography, has had her website plastered in porn by hackers. But the story only just begins there. Notable blogger Guido Fawkes, otherwise known as Paul Staines, posted on the matter, only to later be accused of sponsoring the hacking himself. During some back and forth over Twitter, it appeared Perry was 'confused,' as she said Fawkes had posted a link to the defaced page, when he had only shown a screenshot of the site. Given the backlash against the government's plans to censor porn and its technical fallacies, the event could be particularly embarrassing for Perry. She is not commenting on the matter, whilst Staines has threatened to sue unless Perry offers a retraction of her claim he had anything to do with the hack." The tweet: 'Apologies to anyone affected by the hacking of my website sponsored by @GuidoFawkes – proves so clearly what we are dealing with.' Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

British Porn-Censoring MP Has Website Defaced With Porn

Comments Filter:
  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:38AM (#44370735)

    ...haven't a fucking clue.

    • by interkin3tic (1469267) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:47AM (#44370813)
      Reminding ourselves that they don't know what they're messing with may make us feel better, but I worry it makes threats like these seem less dangerous. They still can break things we hold dear. Moreso if they have no idea what they're doing. It's like telling yourself a kid doesn't know how to use your laptop: that's the problem, they can throw it on the floor and piss on it. Furthermore, the fact that they are ignorant isn't what's troubling. If they knew EXACTLY what they were doing with CISPA or ACTA, that doesn't really make much difference.

      So lets not bother laughing about how they think of the internet as a series of tubes. The internet is not a god, it may route around censorship and damage, but that doesn't mean it's all going to be okay. And how dare they fucking think they have the right to censor anyway. Ignorance doesn't excuse it. You brits ought to bring back the stocks for politicians who try to trample on your rights. Throw porn and rotten tomatoes in their actual faces. And broken glass.
    • by Opportunist (166417) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:03PM (#44370985)

      The problem is that the blind is leading the stupid. Or, in other words, the idiots voting her in ain't any smarter. Sadly, having a clue is neither a requirement for a political office nor one to vote in elections.

      No matter how much I think it should be. For BOTH. Or at the very least the former. It's a kinda lopsided battle when dimwitted politicians are pitted against corporation negotiators hand picked for their swindling abilities. I can't help but it reminds me of the trades between the European settlers and the natives.

      • by MightyMartian (840721) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:00PM (#44371641) Journal

        The British ISPs have been telling the UK government for years now, through all the iterations of this "we must block x to save the children" nonsense that it is unworkable. The politicians by now are perfectly well aware how futile this is, but there are always a certain class of voters who will cast their ballot for Canute based upon the notion that he can stop the tides.

        • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:39PM (#44371997)

          This a thousand times this!

          I can say sadly from experience within my own family if X is in the papers Y must be true because Z says so.

          Example 1, "Oh that bitty coin thing, paypal is that bittycoin thing I refuse to use it" - Aunt who happily responded to a 419 email.
          Example 2, "Well you used my computer last Christmas (this was last week) so that Virus must have been caused by you..." - 2nd Aunt who downloads and installs each an every tool bar attachment on the net, incandescently this was a attachment send by her Son who is a Maths PHD who remains blameless.

          • by BKX (5066)

            incandescently this was a attachment send by her Son who is a Maths PHD who remains blameless.

            I see that your Aunt's son is very bright. (and also nephew)

  • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:39AM (#44370747) Homepage

    Film at 11.

    • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:51AM (#44370861)

      Not just that, she's a law maker that hasn't grasped the technology which she personally advised the prime minister on. If that isn't a damming indication of how poorly these filters are going to work, I don't know what is.

      • by gstoddart (321705)

        Not just that, she's a law maker that hasn't grasped the technology which she personally advised the prime minister on.

        Wow, so lawmakers advocating for laws controlling technology don't grasp the basics of that technology.

        I thought I'd pretty much summed that up already.

    • by lennier1 (264730) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:02PM (#44370969)

      This could get even funnier if you think about the Brits and their insane version of libel laws.

      • by oobayly (1056050) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:19PM (#44371177)

        Yup, Guido Fawkes has already run a poll on whether he should sue Claire Perry [order-order.com]. 86% of people say yes. He's already asked her to remove the tweet, but it's still up there.

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:19PM (#44371181)

        America is generally better at insane laws, because they have a multi-level government with different parts often trying to push different agendas - you end up with states trying to subvert federal law, the feds trying to overrule state law, commitees staffed with people opposed to the laws they are supposed to be enforcing and every politician trying to find some loophole to work around court rulings they disagree with.

        But brits do have a few. The libel law is a good example.

        We also have a law that bans the posesssion or distribution of 'extreme porn' - a term which is supposed to be used only against the worst-of-the-worst. A problem came up in writing though: Any definition that could include all that would also have to include at least a few mainstream hollywood movies. The solution was simple enough: Any content that gets rated by the BBFC, regardless of rating given, is exempt from the law.

      • by oneandoneis2 (777721) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:36PM (#44371975) Homepage

        Libel laws in the UK are far saner than the moronic system in the US

        In Britain:
        Journalist says "X is a deadly space alien!"
        X can now sue journalist, and will win unless journalist can prove X's alien-ness.

        In USA:
        Journalist says "X is a deadly space alien!"
        X now needs to prove non-alien-ness before being able to sue journalist.

        It's beyond retarded.

  • by intermodal (534361) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:42AM (#44370771) Homepage Journal

    I was just commenting to a Scottish friend of mine who is a firm supporter of anti-pornography pushes that no matter how good the intentions may be of the politicians who back this kind of thing, inevitably they show their technological incompetence by believing such efforts will not either fall so short as to be worthless or overreach to the point where they have to be disabled to perform even day-to-day tasks.

    Ms. Perry has just demonstrated this same technical illiteracy to an extent I couldn't have hoped yesterday to be able to argue as a point without being accused of hyperbole.

    • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

      by Synerg1y (2169962)

      They can make it hard for the common folk to access it, I don't think anybody can realistically aim for 100% on something like this no matter how incompetent. It'd be interesting to get a glimpse of statistics into a move like this by comparing the blocking of TPB and what that's done to piracy in the UK.

      Now that that's explained... lets consider the ethics of this: it's Orwellian oppressive. I can see where they mean well, and I think that online porn has massive ramifications to society that we have only

      • by Reverand Dave (1959652) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:07PM (#44371033)

        I also think that they'd accomplish more by shipping the feminists that drive men to online porn in the first place off to an island.

        So, I tend to agree with most of what you said except for this little bit. The largest consumer of internet pr0n in the US is the state of Utah where, if I'm not mistaken, they still try to burn feminists as witches. (ok that's a bit of hyperbole, but you get the point). The real driver of a lot of this is sexual repression and the vilification of sexual acts and deeds by puritanical d-bags that just want to make sure that you're as unhappy and unsatisfied as they are.

        Other than that little bit, well said, this shit is by the book Orwellian.

        • The sexual repression, just to be clear, is far from exclusive to puritanical d-bags. There are plenty of people on the opposite end of the spectrum whose presence has created desires and expectations for people that simply aren't possible in a healthy and stable relationship. Some friends of mine have fought with these same problems, often caused by the depravity and extreme nature of the pornography they were exposed to at a young age.

          There are dangers at both extremes.

          • by Synerg1y (2169962)

            You're right, its not just the puritans, but you'll find that religion and sexual repression go hand in hand. The puritans are just the US example.

          • So are you saying that healthy and stable relationships only exist in the median? I don't believe that to be the case. Some porn may be depraved, but it's not the porn's fault that people struggle with it, it's the peoples fault, regardless of the background. Blaming the addiction and not the addict is the whole reason that measures like this are undertaken. The vice is not at fault, the abusers are the issue, lets start making people be accountable for their actions.
          • You're quite right. This isn't an issue reserved for the Right. There are no lack of people on the Left who want porn banned as well. What I've concluded is that some people are just reactionaries, and while reactionaries may affiliate themselves with particular political ideologies, at the end of the day, what they demand is usually the same. Reactionarism is almost an ideology unto its own.

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          I'm 1/2 kidding, but it really is a serious issue what the feminists have done to the image of sexuality in the last few decades. I don't think they even predicted the rift they'd create. Doesn't mean they shouldn't be held 100% responsible.

          I do full acknowledge that they are not the ONLY issue, and a bigger and deeper issue is our puritan roots that I hinted at with prostitution as many can argue that that is illegal in the states due to those roots.

          What's really crazy is when you start getting into repr

          • by Synerg1y (2169962)

            Just to clarify so I don't get nit-picked:

            Doesn't mean they shouldn't be held 100% responsible.

            Only for the feminist portion of the repressed sexuality, they ARE NOT solely responsible for it, they did throw gasoline on the fire though and are responsible for that.

          • There are serial killers with girlfriends, there are serial killers where the girlfriend was a co-conspirator.

            Further there were serial killers with lots and lots of boyfriends (Dahmer). I don't think 'normal' outlets would have helped.

          • by cusco (717999)
            Gary Ridgeway, the Green River Killer and probably the most prolific serial killer in North America since the end of the Indian Wars, was married the whole time he was killing prostitutes. (He said that he was doing the work that the police should be doing, and felt that the reason that he got away with it so long was that the police secretly agreed with him.)
          • by denmarkw00t (892627) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:13PM (#44371757) Homepage Journal

            Be careful on that feminist bit...my fiancé is a feminist and enjoys pr0n as much as the next girl.

            Some more extreme views of feminism have forgotten the simple test of "Are you a feminist: Do you have a vagina? If you answered 'yes,' you are a feminist." The point being, the extremists (they're in every group!) have turned feminism into a four-letter word for a lot of people because they believe in telling you what you, as a feminist, should be. This is exactly what early feminism fought to get away from - the idea that anyone else but you should decide what you want to do with your life. Said fiancé has been reading a lot of stuff on "new feminism" and it enrages both of us when so-called "feminists" say that she can't be a housewife and a feminist at the same time, and she genuinely wants to be a housewife. Feminism was about equality, but to most people these days it means that all women should do what men traditionally do and they should never do what women "traditionally" used to do, even if they want to.

            Also, feminism in general has only promoted sexuality - true feminism means that your body is yours and you can present it any way that you want.

      • I think the video and magazine shops are behind it, hoping to boost sales--to people who can no longer find their (free) porn online.

        • by Synerg1y (2169962)

          Love it! Wear your material tin-foil hats next time you visit one of these evil shops people!

      • by orgelspieler (865795) <w0lfie@noSpAM.mac.com> on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:56PM (#44371601) Journal

        Massive ramifications? Citation? Several major studies have been commissioned with the intention of proving this point, but all they have shown is that exposure to pornography does not have negative psychological or physiological effects. Most sociological impact is due to negative views on sexuality in general, and cannot be attributed to the pornography per se. In the few cases where it has been shown to have negative psychological effects, those were normally traced to religious or cultural taboo.

        People have sex. It's an important and fun part of life. Why shouldn't it be part of entertainment, too? Oh right, it's supposed to be some sacred union between a man and a woman in love. I guess we all have Paul to thank for all that anti-sex mumbo jumbo in the New Testament. Hello!? Solomon had hundreds of wives and half as many concubines. I can't even comprehend numbers like that, when it comes to sexual encounters.

        And don't get me started on feminists. If they really wanted to empower women, they'd do like the bonobos and wield their vaginas as a mighty weapon for peace and community integration. But whatever.

    • by oobayly (1056050)

      There is an upshot to this. MP websites should be hacked regularly and then reported to CEOP so that they get added to the filter lists.

      • Better yet:

        We've got: porn, pron, p0rn, pr0n, all filtered keywords.

        The new 'code' for porn: Claire Perry! Everybody who owns a porn sight should add this to every page, so we can train the filters.

    • by houghi (78078)

      As we are technical people here on /., we recognise the technical illiteracy. What I wonder is what OTHER things they are illiterate in.

      Remember that politics is an emotional, not a rational way of handling things. "Soft drugs less dangerous then other things? Doesnâ(TM)t matter, we keep focusing on that." "We promised X? Doesn't matter."

      The sad part is that if you would be able to find a honest politician, he will either have no power or become dishonest towards his ideals.

  • Oh Guido. (Score:5, Funny)

    by shadowknot (853491) * on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:42AM (#44370777) Journal
    It is clear that Guido Fawkes sponsored the construction of a new, illicit series of tubes to connect the hackers to Claire's tubes. Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.
    • Re: (Score:2, Funny)

      by intermodal (534361)

      The crews constructing this series of tubes have been hailed for their efficiency, completing their task slightly more than three months before their scheduled November Fifth completion.

    • by bmk67 (971394)

      Remember, it's not a big truck we're dealing with here.

      Of course it isn't, don't be absurd.

      It's a convoy of big trucks.

    • Perry, Claire MP Fawkes Guido?
    • by steelfood (895457)

      Only on Slashdot does a set up for a mass of tube jokes result instead in truck jokes.

  • by sylivin (2964093) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:45AM (#44370793)

    Soooo..

    What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!

    Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much, MUCH worse.

    • by TWiTfan (2887093) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:48AM (#44370815)

      What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

      Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

      • by NonUniqueNickname (1459477) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:57AM (#44370923)

        What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

        Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

        And she thinks having her website plastered in porn will help with the votes? That's crazy. So crazy it just might work.

        • Yes, because see? We NEED a ban on porn. Without porn, her website would not have been violated. And won't someone please think of the children?

        • What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

          Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

          And she thinks having her website plastered in porn will help with the votes? That's crazy. So crazy it just might work.

          Exactly! The "think of the children!" types are always the freakiest and weirdest behind closed doors, they just feel guilt about it... So by giving them what they secretly want, she gets votes by the score! Great thinking: Like a reverse Streisand effect... Only the screen is covered in semen, not negative publicity. Well, that too...

          • by OzPeter (195038)

            Exactly! The "think of the children!" types are always the freakiest and weirdest behind closed doors

            All you had to say was "British MP" and the freaky/weird shit is well understood to be implied.

      • What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve?

        Claire Perry is having a problem getting votes in her upcoming reelection.

        So you're saying she just said fuck it and is trying to push through this nonsense to totally suicide her campaign? I've seen worse political "give up" strategies, lol.

    • by maroberts (15852)

      It is trying to solve the problem of the Daily Mail readers not having enough targets of hate and not being able to find an outlet for their moral outrage.

      It also is trying to solve the problem of the UK economy being mostly bad news and this is being used as a "look at the wookie" argument by David Cameron.

    • by gstoddart (321705) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:00PM (#44370947) Homepage

      I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years

      And, just to play devil's advocate, at what age did you start using the internet? Were you already old enough to have some context, or still quite young?

      The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example. I believe one of the things often cited is that younger boys don't get the boundaries on what defines rape and consent.

      But if 11 year olds are growing up thinking bukkake, gang bangs and fisting are just part of 'normal'(*) sexuality and what's expected from them, they might be somewhat at risk for risky behavior or never learning how to date and hang out.

      I don't agree that the censorship is a good idea, but I can see how people growing up on the weird stuff you see on the internet can lead to a very messed up outlook and set of expectations about later in life.

      (*) You decide on your own normal, what two or more consenting adults do is their own damned business. But the argument that young kids are growing up with a very skewed version of sexuality isn't entirely without merit.

      • by jxander (2605655) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:14PM (#44371107)

        That's what parents are for.

        It's not exactly hard. Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.

        Or you could always just keep a couple classy Playboys "hidden" in locations where the kids are bound to find them. Skew their priorities towards airbrushing instead of fisting..

        • by gstoddart (321705)

          Have an solid parent/child relationship, where your kids feel comfortable asking you questions about non-sexual things, and when sex related topics come up, they might feel comfortable talking to you about those, too.

          It's great in theory, but I don't believe I've ever known a single person who has indicated they've ever gone to their parents with a sex-related question.

          I suspect if most parents suddenly were asked by their children "mommy, what's fisting?" they'd run screaming from the room -- and some of t

      • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:24PM (#44371249)

        Ah, the famous Rainbow Parties. The things that everyone knows off, but you just try finding someone who actually went to one. It's one of the modern urban legends - a story that spread wildly because it inspired outrage, like the previous fear about secret satanist cults abducting children. That the story had no basis in reality was no impediment to the spread.

      • Just throwing this out there. My household browses on incognito mode, but there is still some way "they" connect your IP to a "person" and ads all over the place are affected. I visited an adult site on my computer, and my kids computer began showing "related" ads on a lot of sites. Then I noticed that I was getting ads on my machine that were related to what my kids have viewed. However, I took the time and added adblock software, so regardless the ad, I HOPEFULLY resolve most of the problem.

        While I would
      • The argument seems to hinge on the fact that quite young kids are accessing this, and growing up with a very distorted view of sexuality -- google for "Rainbow Parties" as an example.

        "Rainbow Parties" are the invention of neurotic adults with awful sex lives, not the internet. They are the sex-obsessed housewife's version of a teenagers "cleveland steamer" -- a ludicrously absurd sexual practice which says more about the mind that considers it than it does about reality.

        I don't buy the idea that children are growing up with a skewed idea of sexuality. You show me studies revealing higher incidences of sexual dysfunctions, neuroses, or crimes in present day youth compared to past decades, I might think differently. But if your arguments center around "Rainbow parties" and 11 year olds thinking "bukkake" is normal, then I think the problem is You.

      • You are aware that, a couple of centuries ago, anything but the missionary position was regarded as sinful. A few centuries ago, the idea of cunnilingus, fellatio, heterosexual anal intercourse, mutual masturbation and the like would have been viewed as distorted and vile.

    • by loufoque (1400831)

      crazy deviant

      Those two words say a lot. Unfortunately, despite having been exposed to unusual things, you're still associating the things that are frowned upon by the establishment as something abnormal and sick.
      By doing so you are comforting moralizing politicians that having unusual interests is grounds for ostracising people or taking them to mental institutions.

    • by tlhIngan (30335)

      What exactly is the problem this legislation is trying to solve? I have seen all sorts of weird stuff on the internet in my years (plus had a few friends that *loved* to send me really wacky things) and yet, somehow, I ended up not being some sort of crazy deviant. But wait - One in a hundred thousand million will be! We must protect the children by censoring half of the internet for the entire nation's population!

      Hacking is bad. Censoring the internet for the entire population of your country? Much, much,

  • Libellous? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by maroberts (15852) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:52AM (#44370873) Homepage Journal

    Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....

    A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow [bbc.co.uk], which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

    • by H0p313ss (811249)

      Claire Perrys comments may be libellous, as the UK has a more extensive libel law than the US. Fun, games and large legal fees may be forthcoming.....

      A recent example can be found on Twitter remarks by Sally Bercow [bbc.co.uk], which cost her lots of legal fees and a substantial settlement. The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

      Quis censor censores?

    • by Minwee (522556)

      The irony of Claire Perry getting whipped in court over a freedom of speech issue would cause a massive outbreak of schadenfreude across the UK.....

      Interestingly enough, photographs of Claire Perry getting whipped in court would qualify as "Extreme Pornography" and possession of them could land you in jail right next to the guy who designed the logo for the London Olympics [guardian.co.uk].

  • Best comment (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward

    "I do not mind that Claire Perry wants to protect children, and I give the benefit of the doubt to her on this and believe that she is sincere. However, it is grossly offensive for her to refuse to listen to technological experts over the very real technical and legal reasons for not proceeding with the ISP level filter. In short, Not only will it NOT work, it CANNOT work.

    Kids will still see porn. The proposed filter levels are ridiculously easy to by-pass and fail to stop porn on social networks or direct

  • by slashmydots (2189826) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:14PM (#44371115)
    I think the only repercussions proper to this situation is the sue the entire internet and then file a takedown notice to "the internet" and then put "the internet" in jail. That makes perfect sense to any british lawmaker working on this entire project.
  • Linkies (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <<moc.liamg> <ta> <ofni.hsifcitsalp>> on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:17PM (#44371155)

    Since TFS couldn't be bothered to include it, here 'tis: Guido's [order-order.com] blog [order-order.com].

  • > Someone needs a lesson about hypertext.

    No, in school we used to have lessons that covered this, it wasn't called hypertext, it was called "Reading Comprehension".

    Clearly on the Internet Reading Comprehension scale her level is at "My Homepage is Yahoo".

  • by Minwee (522556) <dcr@neverwhen.org> on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:42PM (#44372041) Homepage
    For those of us unaware of it, channel 4 has produced a dramatization of the meeting in which Claire Perry was first introduced to The Internet [youtube.com].
  • The basic problem: (Score:4, Insightful)

    by oneandoneis2 (777721) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @01:49PM (#44372115) Homepage

    When you don't understand how something works, you can't understand the difference between a fix that's easy and effective, and a fix that's very hard and won't be effective.

    Example: Somebody who knows nothing about cars can say "Cars keep going above the speed limit. Can you make it so that cars made in future won't go over 70mph?" and be told "Sure, that's not hard, we can do that." They can then say "Cars get used as getaway vehicles in a lot of bank robberies. Can you make it so that cars made in future won't work when used by bank robberies?" and they'll get told "No, that would be impossible, and anything we tried would be either ineffective, prevent legitimate uses, or both."

    Most everyone knows enough about cars to understand why you get a different answer to those two questions. But somebody who's completely ignorant doesn't see any difference.

    So it goes with the internet. "Can you filter out emails that contain curse words?" gets a "Yes, easy", so the clueless think it should be no different when they ask "Can you filter out web content that has porn in it?"

    I've said before and I'll say again: It should be made mandatory that no politician can pass laws on any subject until they've proved a reasonable level of understanding of it.

    And if that makes life hard for them, good: It's about time they had to do something to justify their exhorbitantly high pay.

  • by viperidaenz (2515578) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @03:17PM (#44373007)

    Maybe they'll realise that a simple defacing hack can block someones website from the public. If the porn filter was already in place, Claire Perry's website would now be on the porn-list.

I don't want to achieve immortality through my work. I want to achieve immortality through not dying. -- Woody Allen

Working...