UK's Anti-Porn Filtering Being Handled By A Chinese Company
from the we-didn't-want-to-appear-censorious-so-we-outsourced-it dept
UK Prime Minister David Cameron's anti-porn activities have been well detailed here recently, including his insistence that search engines enable child pornography and that ISP-level porn filtering should be on by default. Despite lacking the comprehension of the technology he's regulating or the inherent limitations of his proposals, Cameron has boldly moved on into the porn-free future, all the while claiming these moves have nothing to do with government censorship.
(We can also start taking bets on whether "opting in" to porn [by contacting your ISP and asking to be placed on the perv list] will have an effect on UK divorce rates -- after all, the filtering begins at the pipe and isn't something you can have available on some devices but not others. Let the awkward conversations begin!)
There's no censorship here, Cameron claims, while touting the porn filtering wonders of Homesafe, a filtering system built by TalkTalk and... Huawei.
On Monday the Prime Minister said TalkTalk had shown "great leadership" in setting up its system, Homesafe, which it has offered to customers since 2011.That's right. Huawei, a Chinese firm, is performing the actual filtering for UK web traffic. No one knows filtering better than the originators of the Internet Great Firewall, and even though Huawei is not a state-run company, due to its nationality, there will always be questions as to its overall allegiance. Huawei, to its credit, has been very open about its operations and has invited critics, including the US government itself, to investigate it if it thinks Huawei's such a threat to national security.
TalkTalk told the BBC it was comfortable with its relationship with Huawei, and that the service was very popular.
Homesafe is a voluntary scheme which allows subscribers to select categories - including social media, gambling and pornography - that they want blocked.
Customers who do not want filtering still have their traffic routed through the system, but matches to Huawei's database are dismissed rather than acted upon.
The UK government has had its own issues with Huawei.
But Huawei's position was recently the subject of an Intelligence and Security Committee (ISC) report. It criticised the lack of ministerial oversight over the firm's rapid expansion in the UK.So, it's more or less above board, apparently. Should UK citizens be concerned their web traffic is being filtered by a company from a filter-heavy nation? Or should they be more concerned that control over content is being handed to a third-party private corporation rather than an independent organization that would be ultimately accountable to Parliament? Either way, it doesn't seem like this revelation will endear the new filtering system to the British public.
The committee said "the alleged links between Huawei and the Chinese State are concerning, as they generate suspicion as to whether Huawei's intentions are strictly commercial or are more political" - but added that it had not found any evidence of wrongdoing.
TalkTalk certainly recognizes the potential downside of this relationship as is evidenced by some earlier tap dancing it did around the subject.
Initially, TalkTalk told the BBC that it was US security firm Symantec that was responsible for maintaining its blacklist, and that Huawei only provided the hardware, as previously reported.Interesting. While it's unfair to declare Huawei synonymous with the Chinese government, it's not unfair to question why the politicians pushing for this filtering system weren't more concerned about who would be handling the dirty job and perhaps steered the monitoring away from a contractor that would give the system the appearance of being more censorious than it is already.
However, Symantec said that while it had been in a joint venture with Huawei to run Homesafe in its early stages, it had not been involved for over a year.
TalkTalk later confirmed it is Huawei that monitors activity, checking requests against its blacklist of over 65 million web addresses, and denying access if there is a match.
But not to worry, Cameron's keeping an eye on the whole thing:
Mr Cameron said that the actions of ISPs would be monitored to ensure filtering is done correctly.What.
The ISPs are being forced to implement this filtering. They're not in charge of "doing" the filtering. The actual filtering is being done by third parties, one of which is a Chinese company. It looks as if Cameron's more concerned ISPs might treat some customers like adults and flip the switch without making them fill out the appropriate "I HEART PORN" paperwork (which may include divorce papers), or just wants to be in a position to pounce if someone's underage eyes catch a glimpse of x-rated skin.
Giving the appearance that the UK government is hiring censors to help with its censorship apparently isn't as much of a concern.
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: censorship, china, david cameron, filter, uk
Companies: huawei, talktalk
Reader Comments
The First Word
“Think of the children!
In my country we have internet censorship ostensibly for the eradication of porn. Of course, porn seems to include anti government sites, blogs, and even some file sharing sites.Now, as I'm rather opposed to having my browsing curtailed, I obviously use VPNs and proxies to get around it. Of course, many of these give you porn pop ups. As a fairly conservative muslim woman, I'm not particularly happy to have live Jasmine popping up every time I want to check the news...but I live with it.
However, I know there are kids running around with such software on their USBs sharing it amongst themselves (every one at my school knew how to circumvent the school's firewall and when the gov censorship came into play we all knew how to get around it within a week, my younger brother tells me it's the same at his school) and the fact of the matter is, I'm sure far more children have been exposed to porn simply because of this censorship.
Why not just have parents turn on Google safe search? It's about as effective...
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
One that is beyond the reach of governments.
The child is just the cover for the real intentions.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tiananmen Square
/rhetorical
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Tiananmen Square
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Tiananmen Square
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Tiananmen Square
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Interwebz is the devil.
David Cameron - VP what?
Encrypted files - The same.
David Cameron - Encrypted files? Isn't that the TV show Dean Cain host?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The most worrying thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: The most worrying thing
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
a) he says people can still choose which publications they buy, without having porn banned at bookstalls etc
b) the porn he wants to stop is going to be forced underground further because those that are into this stuff dont search the internet in conventional ways
c)the job of finding, catching and convicting those involved in this stuff is going to be much harder, not just for UK police forces but for International forces as well. leaving it alone, out in the open gave them a chance. that will soon be gone
this is just adding to the censorship that is already taking place in the UK, brought on by the stupid claims of the US entertainment industries. they refuse to compete with all aspects of the internet, preferring to kill it off completely. i cannot believe the mentality of some people!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Cameron's vendetta against the Internet is plain for all with a brain to see.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
http://paulbernal.wordpress.com/2013/07/26/my-porn-blocking-blog-post-got-porn-blocked/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Killing the competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Killing the competition
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Do they also know what you are viewing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Think of the children!
Now, as I'm rather opposed to having my browsing curtailed, I obviously use VPNs and proxies to get around it. Of course, many of these give you porn pop ups. As a fairly conservative muslim woman, I'm not particularly happy to have live Jasmine popping up every time I want to check the news...but I live with it.
However, I know there are kids running around with such software on their USBs sharing it amongst themselves (every one at my school knew how to circumvent the school's firewall and when the gov censorship came into play we all knew how to get around it within a week, my younger brother tells me it's the same at his school) and the fact of the matter is, I'm sure far more children have been exposed to porn simply because of this censorship.
Why not just have parents turn on Google safe search? It's about as effective...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of the children!
What you said is true. Kids will get exposed to porn sooner or later. No amount of filtering will ever be enough. Why not let the parents do the parenting?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Think of the children!
Think of the parents man!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Think of the children!
Here in the US, all the databases are managed by Christian morality organizations, so that anti-gay hate sites remain accessible while academic sites on Satanism (or radical-left sites or sites critical of Christianity) are blocked.
There's a lot of the Scunthorpe effect, and it hasn't changed much over time despite our awareness.
During the reign of the Communications Decency Act, it was a swanky rebellion to add a porn block (usually a love scene from classic literature) to the bottom of your emails.
I recommend the Fifty Shades Generator. Below, since I'm too lazy to make a proper anchor.
http://www.fiftyshadesgenerator.com/
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
filtering
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
UK Loves Obummer
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: UK Loves Obummer
Blair/Bush
Thatcher/Reagan
The so called 'special relationship' between US and UK heads of government goes way back beyond the current administration and, sadly, will continue long after it is gone.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The mere fact that the Obama administration seem to be controlled by the MPAA and RIAA when it comes to copyright protectionism and has used that to force other countries to comply with Hollywood's copyright enforcement demands is starting to get ridiculous.
Britans citizen should be allowed to make their choice of wther they want to see porn or not, lord knows they don't need big nanny government to force a ban on those who don't want it.
What's next, telling people the missionary position is the only government authorised position unless it's tax time then your allowed to bend over and take it?
The mere fact that the U.K. government is even considering this is pure stupidity. I recall an effort to ban porn happened in the U.S. in the 90's by some politicians wife, and the porn industry banded together to fight it in the court and a lobbying effort.
People that don't want to look at porn wont, and those that want to keep their family at home from looking at it can filter it by blocking sites and content on their computer.
Yes I know there are ways to circumvent this, but honestly, if your looking for it, you will find it, if your not trying to, you wont. We don't need the government doing it for us.
I am amazed at the effort they are putting into this, if they put this much effort into all the financial crime hitting business and consumers with botnets malware etc etc a good chunk would be gone.
They can pressure other countries to enforce copyright laws, but cant do squat to get the guys behind finacial crimes like payment processor hacks, and what not.
What a waste of time and effort this will be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ahhhh Hahahahaha.
That is too funny.
What a bunch of maroons, what an embezzle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
That made my day.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
move the computer from the bedroom to the living room.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
"... nothing to do with government censorship. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: "... nothing to do with government censorship. "
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Does anybody have an idea on what level such a block would have to be implemented to work?
And what about as-of-yet unrated content? Is it a whitelist or a blacklist? In the first case no new content will get past the filter without hours of delay, in the second case the offending content could be reposted regularly to circuvent the filter.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Given the wide availability of even really weird hardcore content on the internet shouldn't we see a significant rise in whatever undesired effect porn is supposed to have?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Huawei's PRISM
So, everyone will be spied upon whether they opt-out or not. So there's actually no opt-out at all, it's just an illusion.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Real motive?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]