Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
United Kingdom Censorship The Media

TorrentFreak Blocked By British ISP Sky's Porn Filter 171

Posted by Unknown Lamer
from the slashdot-unsafe-for-any-age dept.
judgecorp writes "TorrentFreak, a news site covering copyright issues and file sharing news, has been blocked by the porn filter of British ISP Sky. As TorrentFreak points out, the filter is provided by Symantec, and doesn't block Symantec when the company reports malware news: 'Thanks to their very own self-categorization process they wear the "Technology and Telecommunication" label. Is their website blocked by any of their own filters? I won’t even bother answering that.'" From the TorrentFreak article: "Our crimes are the topics we cover. As readers know we write about file-sharing, copyright and closely linked issues including privacy and web censorship. We write about the positives and the negatives of those topics and we solicit comments from not only the swarthiest of pirates, but also the most hated anti-piracy people on the planet."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

TorrentFreak Blocked By British ISP Sky's Porn Filter

Comments Filter:
  • Re:The question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by mwvdlee (775178) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @05:34AM (#45885783) Homepage

    We need a different name for these kinds of filters.
    I propose "Divergent Opinion Filter".

  • Re:Works for me (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @05:39AM (#45885801)

    Yes, you can claim that the liberals are crying "Censorship!" and "Oppression!" without warrent right now because they can indeed turn the filter off. But the problem lies in the fact that the filter exists in the first place. Any filter that is optional now, can, with the backdoor nod of an elected official, become mandatory over night.

    Let's not forget either that these filters have not be democratically put in place. There was no vote in parliament *at all*, and instead was simply done on the advisory of David Cameron. If optional filtering can be put in place without a vote, so too can mandatory filtering.

    There in lies the crux of the issue for us liberals.

  • by bugnuts (94678) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @06:02AM (#45885869) Journal

    I claim, preemptively, that such claims are bullshit. The censorship is intentional, and will get reversed, but it will be cited as a mistake. Mark my words.

    Smaller sites that are just as innocent will get blocked, but won't get unblocked because not enough people will complain. This causes real damage. It costs site owners real money.

  • by Xest (935314) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @07:36AM (#45886203)

    And then blame Europe for it when the public complain.

    It's Europe's fault prisoners may have to be given the vote!

    No it's not, it's our fault for deciding that human rights might be something worth actually giving a damn about and recognising that denying prisoners the vote and then imprisoning political opposition is a common tactic for seizing power that we may wish to avoid in our country. All Europe has done is confirm to us what we've said we agreed with previously. It's not their fault we can't get our message straight, that we legislate one way and then bitch, moan, and complain that we want it another.

  • Re:The question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by peragrin (659227) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @07:54AM (#45886267)

    the UK doesn't have free speech. it isn't considered a right.

    Now I do believe there is a law that allows one to speak their own mind, as long it doesn't(insert long list of exceptions here).

    Only a handful of countries actually have free speech and free press.

  • Re:The question (Score:5, Interesting)

    by AmiMoJo (196126) * <(ten.3dlrow) (ta) (ojom)> on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @08:11AM (#45886313) Homepage

    I've been working on a USB flash drive loaded with software to bypass the filtering. Pre-configured portable Firefox installation, Chrome extensions, maybe even a portable VM with Tor. Flash drives are really cheap on eBay now so I might buy a load and give them away.

    I wrote to my MP, who didn't seem to understand the problem, and forwarded my concerns (as well as others about GCHQ) to the relevant department. I eventually got an extremely vague response that could be accurately summarised as "fuck off, pleb". I think I'm basically at war with my country now.

  • Re:The question (Score:4, Interesting)

    by MrNemesis (587188) on Tuesday January 07, 2014 @11:43AM (#45887879) Homepage Journal

    Stop using a provider using filtering.

    Catch 22 here unfortunately. The government basically said to the big ISPs "implement a filter voluntarily or we'll force you to do it via draconian legislation", and the ISPs reluctantly agreed. Small/niche ISPs weren't going to have it forced on them as it was seen as implementing a mandatory filter would have a disproportionately high capital outlay for the smaller firms, so almost all of them don't implement (and many, such as AAISP [aa.net.uk], wear this as a badge of pride) but of course many of them provide the option of safety filters/software as an optional service.

    However, the threat is basically there that if there is a groundswell of people flocking to unfiltered ISPs, they'll no longer be considered a small ISP and the government will start breathing down their necks.

    The writing's been on the wall for years now (what with the histrionics generated by the Daily Heil and Mumsnet [who have since recanted I believe] amongst others) so a great many geeks have been using VPNs and alternative DNS servers for quite some time. We'll have to see how far the thumbscrews get tightened in that regard.

    Fuck knows what Cameron et al see in this other than a blatant power-grab via pandering populism, but sufficiently advanced malice is indistinguishable from stupidity.

In any formula, constants (especially those obtained from handbooks) are to be treated as variables.

Working...