1. This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn More.

News Cameron to announce block-by-default web filters

Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 22 Jul 2013.

  1. theshadow2001

    theshadow2001 [DELETE] means [DELETE]

    Joined:
    3 May 2012
    Posts:
    5,186
    Likes Received:
    150
    I was essentially making the same point as Gareth. That the ISP could easily force consent through T&C and also be considered the recipient and not a third party and so the criteria has been met to allow interception. Gareth has also pointed out numerous examples of ISPs doing this already. How can an ISP throttle peer to peer comms if it is not intercepting and examing your commincations? They do this yet they don't seem to be falling foul of EU law. The filter is unlikely to be any different.
     
  2. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Because they don't intercept and examing your communications, they simply throttle based on amount of GB sent or received in a set time, or they block certain known P2P ports.

    The European Court of Justice already ruled its illegal.
    http://www.out-law.com/en/articles/2011/november/courts-cannot-force-isps-into-broad-filtering-and-monitoring-for-copyright-infringing-traffic-ecj-rules/
    I'm not pretending i know anything better, i don't :) It just seems a lot of this filtering/monitoring law thingy is very much untested, what is and isn't allowed, and it seems parts of it are still being written. I just hope Governments and the legal system can strike a good balance between personal freedoms and the law.
    (some chance) :eyebrow:
     
  3. Gareth Halfacree

    Gareth Halfacree WIIGII! Staff Administrator Super Moderator Moderator

    Joined:
    4 Dec 2007
    Posts:
    13,554
    Likes Received:
    2,590
    Ooh! Respect! Eermm... You smell! (Sorry, I panicked. I'm not used to respect.)

    On a more serious note: while ISPs do port blocking, they also do full-on communications monitoring. How can an email system know whether an email is spam or not without analysing the contents? How can a traffic shaper know whether packets on a randomly-chosen port are P2P without analysing the contents? Taking things to their logical extreme, this is how Google makes money from Gmail: every single incoming (and outgoing) message is read, analysed, and used to display 'relevant advertising.' All of 'em. It's in the Ts&Cs. Now, obviously, it's machines doing the reading, not people, but still.

    As for URL-based filtering, as it says way-back-threadwards that already takes place in the UK: there's a filter system in place called Cleanfeed, which was brought in to prevent access to known child pornography but which has already been used to block websites such as Newzbin for copyright infringement; as the Pikiwedia page shows, Cleanfeed works by comparing the requested URL to a blacklist, just like the proposed wider-ranging opt-out anti-porn system would work. RIPA doesn't come into it, 'cos the communication is you-to-ISP and then ISP-to-remote-server - so the ISP is the 'recipient' under RIPA, and can consent to the monitoring.

    Simply, and sadly, not true: ISPs routinely use deep packet inspection systems to analyse for P2P traffic, otherwise you could just move to a different port. In fact, that's exactly what BitTorrent does: the majority of clients use UPnP to open a randomly-chosen port every time the client is loaded, to prevent exactly that kind of port-based blocking system. Re-read the ruling you quoted: the ECJ has ruled that courts cannot force an ISP to install and use a mandatory filter system for copyright infringement; the ruling says nothing about the legalities of the ISP installing a system voluntarily for its own purposes.
     
    Last edited: 4 Sep 2013
  4. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    How did you know i didn't take a shower this morning :worried: :lol:

    I didn't know they used Cleanfeed to block Newzbin, it just goes to show how this filter will also be subject to remit creep.

    On the subject of deep packet inspection systems, the only time we have come close to testing the legal standing of RIPA was when people tried to take BT to court over Phorm DPI targeted advertising, sadly the CPS refused to give consent for criminal prosecution :grr:
    So afaik how RIPA applies to DPI has yet to be tested.

    And yea i know the ECJ "ruled that courts cannot force an ISP to install and use a mandatory filter system for copyright infringement"
    (i was hoping i would get away with that :naughty:) Although it does show that ISP's may have a chance if Cameron tried to bring in a mandatory filter system. Like i said though a lot of these laws are very new, and have yet to be tested in the courts. Until they are its difficult to know how the written laws will be interpreted by the courts.
     
    Last edited: 4 Sep 2013
  5. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Sorry for necroing an old thread, but it seems this ill thought out filter has been blocked by the other half of the coalition.
    http://www.ispreview.co.uk/index.php/2013/09/uk-isp-introduction-child-internet-censorship-rules-face-possible-delay.html
    But it would seem even with politicians saying it need redrafting, ISP's are still going ahead with it.
    http://www.theregister.co.uk/2013/09/16/liberal_democrats_oppose_smut_blocking_plan/
     
  6. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    The Government has responded to the e-petition and to say their response is pathetic is an understatement.

    The basics of their reply is to say its not our responsibility and its all down to your ISP, if over-blocking happens people can seek redress from the ISP. So if a business losses money due to being blocked they can seek damages from the ISP's and in turn this compensation will be passed on to customers resulting in higher bills.

    This proposed ISP Filter and their response is so full of holes im surprised the ISP have agreed to implementing it especial as the ISP will be entirely responsible for any mistakes or financial loss, and with nefarious people able to monitor or sell what sites you and every other person in the UK visits.
     
  7. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    BT is the first to fall in line with Cameron's nudge censorship of the internet.
    http://www.btplc.com/news/Articles/ShowArticle.cfm?ArticleID=01D79706-2F81-4111-91AE-148E0C89C02B
     
  8. ripmax

    ripmax Active Member

    Joined:
    8 Apr 2010
    Posts:
    370
    Likes Received:
    29
  9. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Perry: ISP filter overblocking reports are "fanciful"
    http://www.pcpro.co.uk/news/security/386785/perry-isp-filter-overblocking-reports-are-fanciful
    ____

    Web filtering policies put our digital infrastructure in unaccountable hands.
    http://dtc.webscience.ecs.soton.ac.uk/2014/01/web-filtering-policies-put-our-digital-infrastructure-in-unaccountable-hands/?utm_source=rss&utm_medium=rss&utm_campaign=web-filtering-policies-put-our-digital-infrastructure-in-unaccountable-hands
    _____

    Slippery Slope Part II – They make it law anyway.
    https://survivetheclaireperryinter.net/2014/01/27/slippery-slope-part-ii-they-make-it-law-anyway/
     
  10. Tangster

    Tangster Butt-kicking for goodness!

    Joined:
    23 May 2009
    Posts:
    3,085
    Likes Received:
    151
    Viva la Great Wall of Great Britain. Stupid politicians should all be sterilized so they can't breed.
     
  11. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    So first we get a multitude of private company's dictating what sites are not acceptable for UK citizens to view and now we have a whitelist being drawn up of what is acceptable.

    UK government tackles wrongly-blocked websites.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-25962555
    We are getting an Internet divided into what privately run company's deem inappropriate, and an Internet deemed appropriate by a "working group" comprised of people with unknown political or religious agendas.

    And all payed for by the great British public via an increase in monthly broadband bills.
     
  12. MrJay

    MrJay You are always where you want to be

    Joined:
    20 Sep 2008
    Posts:
    1,290
    Likes Received:
    36
    I don't expect people to think I know better, likewise I don't expect my government to think they know better.

    It's another case of applying a sticky plaster to a bloody festering wound, the problem is not that the content exists, the problem is education on the safe use of the internet, which should be open and free for everyone. Even the people who sit at home all day and play with themselves...
     
  13. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,101
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    God forbid that parents take responsibility for their own children. That's just not how things roll these days.
     
    G0UDG likes this.
  14. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Claire Perry voted against the smoking in cars ban.
    https://twitter.com/claire4devizes/status/432966213929406464
    She said "I voted No to the Ban. I totally support the principle but think it will be unenforceable. Education needed."
    How can someone who is the key architect of these block-by-default web filters think a ban on smoking in cars is unenforceable, yet at the same time think these filters are.
    Smoking in Car Laws “Unenforceable” – Filtering the Internet? Easy.

    Turkey sees people rioting on the streets because their government wants to introduce what we already have in the UK. http://mwcnews.net/news/europe/36328-turkey-freer.html
    Meanwhile Ministers in the UK want to block extremist videos.
    http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26124541
    Not even a year has passed and we are already seeing some categories of the opt-in, opt-out filter being changed to a no choice, enforced censorship filter. And before anyone says "good extremist materiel should be blocked" bear in mind that simple protest groups like tax justice organisation UK Uncut have been labelled extremist by some.
     
  15. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    Virgin Media masks porn filter rollout with 152Mbps broadband launch.
    http://www.theinquirer.net/inquirer/news/2331516/virgin-media-masks-porn-filter-rollout-with-152mbps-broadband-launch
    If you are on VM and want these increased speeds you have to phone to request the speed bump and when you do they will actively push their new porn filter on you, payed for with the 6.7 percent increase in everyone's bills last month.
     
  16. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    That is disgraceful! I can't believe they dare increase their price by 6.7% to pay for the porn filter! And they don't use any of that price increase to pay any of of the costs associated with delivering the fastest broadband in the UK.

    And they dare PUSH the porn filter like bloody drug dealers peddling crack at the school gates! It must be really hard to say "no filters, thank you" when a customer is faced with such a huge amount or peer pressure and media coverage!

    Utterly disgraceful behaviour by VM!!
     
  17. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,101
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    I'm good with this. The 6.7% price rise is nothing unusual given the usual inflation, rise in energy costs and updated, faster infrastructure. And at least Virgin will offer customers the option, rather than flicking on the filter by default like BT does. As long as customers have a choice it's all good.

    Still concerned about whether sites will be logged, however.
     
  18. Corky42

    Corky42 Where's walle?

    Joined:
    30 Oct 2012
    Posts:
    9,648
    Likes Received:
    386
    So are you saying you believe this ineffectual porn filter costs nothing to introduce and maintain ?
    If only it was a simple matter of saying "no filters, thank you", or that people who didn't want it didn't have to pay for it, sadly neither of those things are true.

    Even if you say you don't want the filter you are still going to have a mandatory filter imposed on you, as MP's are already pushing through laws that will block sites that they deem to be extremist, now made so much easier to do what with everyone in the UK on a filtered internet feed.
    6.7 percent is way above the annual inflation rate of 2.5 percent for 2013, and while i understand annual price rises are to be expected it's fairly obvious a large portion of this rise is because the customer is being forced into paying for a filtered internet.
    Why should all customers be forced to pay for an ineffectual filter just because some parents (one in eight) are unaware or don't know how to setup filtering software on their children's devices.
     
  19. Nexxo

    Nexxo * Prefab Sprout – The King of Rock 'n' Roll

    Joined:
    23 Oct 2001
    Posts:
    34,101
    Likes Received:
    1,609
    How is that obvious?
     
  20. forum_user

    forum_user forum_title

    Joined:
    4 Jan 2012
    Posts:
    511
    Likes Received:
    3
    To clarify - I am a new BT customer - and I get the option every time I connect a new device to my home network to accept or reject filtering. The filter is not on by default for me - the question is asked by default.

    No. And the filter is only as ineffectual as your totally biased point of view says it is. In my uncaring view the filter has had expected issues but is filtering more porn than it is not filtering otherwise it would be a complete flop and politicians would have made a hasty back peddle. My view is not based on facts, much like yours. And my only interest in this thread remains to be your regular peddling of scaremongering. It is entertaining me.

    See my first paragraph for my experience of BT filtering - which is based on pure fact.

    I thought you said that when people phone VM to request the increased speeds, they are asked if they want the filter on or off? I reckon that would be a yes or no answer, no?

    Extremist sites being blocked by our government? And? If you had evidence that the Labour Party website was next on the hit list you might have support, but extremists ... needing access to extremist websites? I couldn't give a toss.

    Do you know how much the filter is costing VM to implement? And do you know what their new broadband offering is costing?

    Why should I have to pay more in insurance premiums because house builders are throwing caution to the wind and building on flood plains with ineffectual water run-offs? Why should I pay higher taxes, for longer, when Labour takes out a humongous mortgage based on expecting the good times to keep on rolling, to pay for all the stuff that the coalition is having to painstakingly put back to some sort of sensible order, and for the private sector to shoulder the burden again without collapsing under the strain?

    Life is ****, hey?

    Not. :clap:
     

Share This Page