Follow Slashdot blog updates by subscribing to our blog RSS feed

 



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This discussion has been archived.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 @10:51AM (#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.

  • Best comment (Score:2, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @10:59AM (#44370931)

    "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 messages or SMS media.

    Additional harm will occure when legitimate safe non-porn sites will be blocked wrongly. When they tried this in Ireland, the rape crisis website was blocked. When sussex council fitted filters to their own networks, they ended up blocking their own website because Sussex contains the word âoesexâ.

    Only a complete IT idiot would proceed with her plans. And in her response to mixing up a screenshot with a link? This only enforces the impression that she is utterly clueless and a rank embarrasment and a complete idiot.

    Do not let Claire Perry near a computer. She is a classic example of a little knowlege being a very dangerous thing.

    I do not think it possible to remain polite and be able to also express how incomprehensively idiotic, brainless and ignorant Claire Perry is on this issue.

    I do not want to don a âoetin-foil hatâ over this but surely she cannot be so utterly thick as to ignore all the best evidence of the industry experts on this to pursue an utterly unworkable solution? Or are they going to go to ISP level filtering of porn to allow filtering and tracking and eventual control of all web-traffic?

    Are they going to be restricting the self harm sites? then the anerexic sites, the climate change denial sites, anti-immigration sites? alternative news sites? and so on?

    Are they going to be using this irrational fear of consensual adult porn, as an excuse to be tracking all our surfing and building a threat profile on each of us to use against us?

    That is the only plausible reason for such a draconian measure, which ignores industry expert advice."

  • Linkies (Score:4, Informative)

    by Zontar The Mindless (9002) <plasticfish.info ... m minus language> on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:17AM (#44371155)

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

  • by SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:19AM (#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 SuricouRaven (1897204) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:24AM (#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.

  • Re:what is MP? (Score:4, Informative)

    by oobayly (1056050) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @11:28AM (#44371315)

    Actually, it's Member of Parliament - Ministers tend to be those who head up a department (or Ministry) and are part of the cabinet.

    Of course, now that I've corrected somebody, I'll have made any number of mistakes.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @12:39PM (#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 AliasMarlowe (1042386) on Wednesday July 24, 2013 @03:31PM (#44373815) Journal

    Cameron gets to go to his shrill and reactionary base and go "see, now the kiddies can't see the titties!"

    "... online. Which is much worse somehow than seeing them in the newspapers somehow." They still have that, right? Was it the Sun that had naked women on the second page?

    Not the second page. They're on page 3 [page3.com], actually.

No user-servicable parts inside. Refer to qualified service personnel.

Working...