Discussion in 'Article Discussion' started by Gareth Halfacree, 15 Sep 2016.
Looks to expand current systems.
The Pirate Bay (for example) is blocked at the IP level, regardless of which DNS service you are using.
There are DNS blocks as well; compare an attempt at hostname resolution via BT's DNS to OpenDNS.
But, GCHQ, what big eyes you have!
All the better to see you with, my dear.
I guess this will make keeping everyone's connection records easier.
So is that the easy solution? Don't use your ISPs DNS as it'll be compromised by GCHQ; use another DNS like openDNS or Google's DNS servers? How long before the EFF start offering a DNS service?
Nah, the *real* fix is a combination of using third-party DNS and a VPN endpoint in a privacy-friendly and censorship-free nation. Bosh: no more filtering or monitoring.
That sounds awfully like a radical thought you're having there, they'll be none of that when we get around to dumping those annoying human rights laws, in the future we plan to track everyone's thoughts and if we don't like what people are thinking about we'll accidentally *cough* label your thought as malware and block it.
Do those actually exist?
"We need those overly broad laws that allow us to do whatever the hell we want as they are the only way to protect you from terrorists and pedos"
Every politician trying to justify a surveillance law ever.
How they actually end up being used:
And how safe the data is in the hands of the government:
Yet another reason to have stayed in the EU
They're still in the EU. The current filters were put in place while they were in the EU. They can extend them regardless of their EU status. The EU is irrelevant to the situation.
That's not strictly true, IDK what the situation will be now we've voted to leave the EU but apparently Mr Cameron's opt-out porn filters would be illegal under EU legislation on data roaming charges, from what i understand the legislation states internet firms must “treat all traffic equally, without discrimination, restriction or interference” regardless of the “content accessed or distributed”
Effectively it would've forced the UK to revert to their original plan of an opt-in and not opt-out filter, at least this "new" filter is never going to change from opt-in to opt-out.
Having said that apparently Mr Cameron negotiated an opt-out from that ruling, although that can't be true as I've been told the UK never got its own way in the EU.
There you go that pretty much backs up what I'm saying.
But, but, hang on that would mean....
"..and bad addresses"
Welcome to your 'independent free' Britain
Separate names with a comma.