Politicians Considering Useless Browser Blocks Against 'Rogue' Sites

from the yeah,-that'll-work dept

Mon, Apr 11th 2011 2:41am — Mike Masnick

For all the talk of domain seizures and DNS blocks and filters, now some politicians in Europe are considering proposals for browser-based blocks of websites that law enforcement dubs as dedicated to infringing activities. Of course, there are two key problems with this. First, it won't work. It won't take long for anyone who cares to be able to get around such blocks. Second, of course, is that there will be significant "false positives," where legitimate speech is "blocked" for those who don't get around such measures. At some point, the industry and politicians are going to have to realize that these methods don't work, and it'll be time for the industry to finally suck it up and adapt to a changing marketplace.

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: browser blocks, copyright, politics

24 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:40am

And who, pray tell, is going to make sure EVERY FUCKING BROWSER complies to this? Do they even know how many browsers are there? What about if I make my own browser (which isn't terribly difficult)?

This plan has so many problems that it can only be classified as completely retarded.

You can't solve a problem by closing your eyes and pretending that it does not exist. If you believe that you can, then you have already lost.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 5:31am
  
  Re:
  I think that's the real goal of this type of legislation: to eliminate all but a few browsers. They're creating the usual market oligarchy by fiat.
  
  This type of legislation also has the of knocking out open-source browsers, a beneficial side effect to Microsoft.
  
  I predict a visible slowing of browser innovation should this pass. I also predict a market for browser protection mechanisms, rather like the market for "anti-malware" for Windows computers. Also like the "anti-malware" for Windows market, I predict a not too secure future.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:28am
  
  Re:
  This plan has so many problems that it can only be classified as completely retarded.
  
  isnt it sad that you can replace the word retarded with 'government sanctioned' and the meaning is exactly the same?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 3:42am

my question is how are they going to force the consumer to change from there old browser to the one that has such feature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- harbingerofdoom (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:35am
  
  Re:
  in a word? they cant. (okay that was two words)
  
  attempting to force a client side solution is about the single most idiotic idea that you could ever come up with.
  server side solutions will not work and unless you can lock down the client side so tightly that you cant reinstall the OS to begin with. there is not a single clientside based solution that comes anywhere near even 10% effective.
  
  the only people that wouldnt be able to get around that are the people that they are not after in the first place.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - harbingerofdoom (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:36am
    
    Re: Re:
    bah! that should say 'client side solutions will not work unles..."
    
    i need more coffee
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nicedoggy, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:02am

They should try buying a magic wand and waiving it around maybe that would do the trick, also would be cheaper and would give the same results.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:04am

They must have amnesia.

Have they any clue just how many browsers there already are out there? If they do, how about how many previous versions are still on the net of each of those browsers without such "browser blocks"? Even if everyone started making these newer browsers with that "added" feature, who would want it?

I would be most suspicious of any altered browser not having some sort of phone home in it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 8:16am
  
  Re:
  polititians *never* have a clue, regardless of the topic.
  
  They have no oppinion either, they just reiterate what they are paid to say by lobbyists.
  
  All of them are corrupt criminals.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:07am

Working around this "feature"
If this is the same as the malware blocking, it is very easy to work around.

First, have they ever seen these malware warning pages? You always have a button to ignore the warning and go ahead.

Second, did they know there is a checkbox in the browser settings to disable this feature?

And on one of the most popular browsers (Mozilla Firefox), it is free software/open source software, meaning that even if you force enabled the feature and disabled the button to ignore it, the user can simply download the source code, comment out the feature, and recompile.

And if the user does not have the know-how or patience to recompile, someone can recompile and distribute the resulting product. The license explicitly allows it, and changing to one which does not allow doing so not only is not acceptable (it would mean the software is no longer free software/open source software) but also would cause people to fork the source code (forks have happened for less than this; see http://www.dwheeler.com/essays/gpl-compatible.html#xfree86 for an example).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- pixelpusher220 (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 9:14am
  
  Re: Working around this "feature"
  You're assuming they can even use a computer.
  
  John McCain admitted during the last presidential campaign, he has staff members who 'read' his email to him...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:08am

Sure, just demand that open-source browsers like Chrome implement an arbitrary blocklist that nobody wants. It's not like people could just download the source code, edit out the unwanted feature, and compile/release the modified version. Oh, wait...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
abc gum, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:47am

If such a browser were to exist, and it also had the malware warning feature, would it report itself?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 4:48am

you haven't yet met the awesomely insidious power of denial mr mike
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Griff (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 5:39am

If they had any sense...
... they'd mandate that ISP's did this at the DNS server level. I'd bet 90+ % of average Joes use their ISP's DNS and have no idea what it is.

(Well, except in the UK where TalkTalk's DNS goes down so often half the population have learnt about OpenDNS)

Of course, this would allow the technically capable to get round it easily, but hey, so would what they are suggesting.

The difference is that mandating a blacklist on an ISP DNS server is actually feasible and would not attract so much attention - making the world and his wife change browsers isn't.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Michael Lockyear, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:34am

They could force Microsoft to alter the EU version of Windows so that only "authorized" browsers will work.

They have already forced Microsoft to offer Opera (and other browsers) in the EU version of Windows, so this would not be an unreasonable move for these guys. After all, feeble minded Europeans (who apparently don't know how to download their own choice of browser) need to be protected against all the dangerous websites containing uncensored and pirated (shudder) music and video!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:26am
  
  Re:
  They could force Microsoft to alter the EU version of Windows so that only "authorized" browsers will work.
  
  How, in the name of $DEITY, are they going to distinguish a "browser" from another kind of program?
  
  I have even seen non-browser programs which happened to have a built-in browser for some reason (to read help files, for instance).
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Michael Lockyear, 12 Apr 2011 @ 1:02am
    
    Just guessing here...mandatory firewall with a whitelist of acceptable browsers / other software. Such a prohibition would obviously not just apply to browsers but any software that is used to connect to the Internet (would defeat the purpose otherwise).
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Josh Farry, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:41am

Stupid yes, but it looks like they're trying to keep up with the times...
Although it is quite stupid and pointless, we've had our fair share of problems in Australia relating to blocking websites as well. Fortunately for us, we have a complete idiot in the form of Stephen Conroy, for our web censoring: http://www.minister.dbcde.gov.au/

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1gl7X6peh-w he can't even grasp ENGLISH! What the hell kind of hope does our broadband infrastructure have with people like these running the show!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 6:53am

Us? Have to deal with competition? Not if Ben Franklin and his thousand friends have anything to say about it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:44am

Good, let them waste their time with impossible to implement ideas such as this.

It's unbelievable how desperate they are. They're just grasping at anything now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Kevin (profile), 11 Apr 2011 @ 7:54am

Considering the slippery slope which we find ourselves on with "free speech" on the internet, I am beginning to wonder once this legislation or legislation like this does get passed. How long before the "infringing" activity goes from downloading the latest episode of House to acts like simply discussing the impact that laws like this have on freedom itself. With the ever tightening grip given to the content industry seems like it would only be a matter of time before people begin to attack sites like Techdirt for even suggesting that what they are doing is wrong.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 11 Apr 2011 @ 9:13am
  
  You said "tightening grip"?
  "The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers."
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous American, 11 Apr 2011 @ 12:29pm
    
    Re: You said "tightening grip"?
    Despite the defeat of the empire, I noticed this didn't help Alderaan any.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]