NZ Customs Refuses To Answer Questions After Revelations Of Illegal Orders To Give FBI Info On Kim Dotcom For 'Brownie Points'

When Vladimir Putin Is Envious Of Your Surveillance State, You've Gone Too Far

ISP Blocks For Copyright And Porn Denying Access To All Sorts Of Important Information

from the failure dept

Fri, Dec 20th 2013 7:13am — Mike Masnick

Just as copyright maximalists are declaring victory in claiming that there's no problem at all with having ISPs censor the internet, reports are flowing in concerning all sorts of serious problems. Over in the UK, ISPs have begun implementing the mandatory porn filtering that Prime Minister David Cameron has been pushing, and the results are about what you'd expect: all sorts of non pornographic sites are being blocked, including important sex education sites and, more troubling, rape and sexual abuse information sites (while plenty of porn is getting through).

Among the sites TalkTalk blocked as "pornographic" was BishUK.com, an award-winning British sex education site, which receives more than a million visits each year.

TalkTalk also lists Edinburgh Women's Rape and Sexual Abuse Centre website as "pornographic."

The company also blocked a programme run by sex education experts, and taught to 81,000 American children, that has been in development for more than 20 years.

TalkTalk's filter is endorsed by Mr Cameron but it failed to block 7% of the 68 pornographic websites tested by Newsnight.

Meanwhile, blockades concerning copyright are wreaking similar havoc. Users of Sky Broadband recently discovered that the megapopular imgur image hosting site (which we use to host many of our images) was completely blocked in a moronic attempt to try to block access to a torrent site. Because both the torrent site and imgur used the same CDN (one of the most popular ones), Sky mistakenly blocked it all.

Sky employs an automated blocking system that polls torrent sites’ DNS records in order to quickly re-block them in the event they switch servers or IP addresses.

“Sky regularly pull IP addresses listed on our DNS servers and adds them to their block list. This block list is then used by an advanced proxy system that redirects any requests to the blacklisted IP addresses to a webserver that the ISP owns which returns a blocked page message,” YIFY explains.

Therefore, when YIFY began using CloudFlare servers in Australia, Sky pulled these IP addresses and blocked them in the mistaken belief that they were YIFY’s. Since Imgur uses the same IP addresses, Sky’s automated blocking took the site offline, to the huge disappointment of countless customers.

Of course, these obvious over-blockages are merely the tip of the iceberg of what people were talking about when they noted that site blocking would "break the internet." They never meant that the entire internet would shut down, but that certain basic functions of the internet would not work properly, including important security tools like DNSSec. But the fact that even beyond that, these attempts at blocking content at the ISP level are flubbing so badly seems like pretty clear evidence that blocking is not a solution, but rather an even bigger problem than expected.

Of course, governments have been warned repeatedly about what a bad idea such blocking plans are, but when you deal with technologically illiterate politicians and pro-censorship extremists, they seem to think that it's the perfect solution, without realizing just how much harm they're doing, not just in the collateral damage, and in guaranteeing that basic internet functions (like DNS) don't perform the way everyone expects them to, but also in general access to important health and safety information.

Hide this

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: access to information, censorship, copyright, false positives, isp blocks, porn, uk

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

silverscarcat (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:00am

Normally...
I'd expect Reddit to be all over this, but after what the mods in /r/science did, they probably have no room to stand on.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:47am
  
  Re: Normally...
  It's getting hot in here, which means it's actually getting cold. err wait I mean I'm going to cool his hot heart with an icy.. nono I'm going to warm his cold heart with a, bah fuck it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:24am
  
  ADAPT and EVOLVE
  Guess some of these businesses will have to ADAPT AND EVOLVE to the reality of the new marketplace... hmmmm... I'm sure like anything there will be market DISRUPTION in the beginning - but it'll get worked out.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:43am
  
  Re: Normally...
  You do realize that subs are all sperate right? That /r/science is just a very funny subset of the site and that it's not just one monolithic entity?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
fogbugzd (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:14am

Plugins to get around Cameron's porn censors started to show up within 24 hours. Many of them seem to be named in Cameron's honor.

I wonder how much malware will be hinding in the unblocking software that is going to become insanely popular in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Ninja (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:33am

They don't care it breaks stuff or blocks content by mistake. The framework for censorship has already been established.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- DannyB (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:21am
  
  Re:
  The framework for censorship has already been established.
  I think it is more of a framework to control information. A necessary step in a totalitarian regime and police state.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:25am
    
    Re: Re:
    wow - tinfoil hat much?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - JEDIDIAH, 20 Dec 2013 @ 11:29am
      
      Sooner or later we catch up with the crazy.
      What rock have you been living under? Ever heard of the NSA?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:18am

Gosh... really???
all sorts of non pornographic sites are being blocked, including important sex education sites and, more troubling, rape and sexual abuse information sites (while plenty of porn is getting through).
Well it's not like that was in any way a 100% certainty and open to any kind of prediction or anything...

Oh, wait... never mind.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DannyB (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:19am

They don't care
...when you deal with technologically illiterate politicians and pro-censorship extremists, they seem to think that it's the perfect solution, without realizing just how much harm they're doing
They may very well realize how much harm they're doing. It's not like they haven't, are being, and will continue to be told this. It's just that they don't care how much harm they are doing.

It's all about control. Self righteous censors and defenders of copyright see themselves as the good guys, not as the monsters they are.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 10:08am
  
  Re: They don't care
  Aye. I don't believe for a second that they don't know the harm they're doing. In fact, I believe a good many of them are still of the old anti-internet school. If filtering breaks the internet, so much the better as far as they're concerned.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:37am

'they seem to think that it's the perfect solution, without realizing just how much harm they're doing'

they realise only too well that it isn't and will never be a perfect solution, but the truth is, they dont care! they dont give a toss what other websites are blocked or what other businesses are hit and economies hurt. the important thing is, because they are the 'top of the crop and must be obeyed, cannot ever be wrong' they are getting what they want done, ie, blocking certain sites. Cameron has made such a complete screw up of the way he has influenced certain decisions made in the UK, including in the courts (all because he cant do enough to stay in Obama's good books), no one is in the least bit surprised. when, however, it comes to doing what should be done over internet content, he shrinks back like a little violet, too afraid to say anything because of what retorts he will get. like so many other powerful people, he takes notice of the ones handing out the biggest incentives, not the ones who make the most sense and can do the most good to both the country and the people! fucking idiot!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

out_of_the_blue, 20 Dec 2013 @ 7:55am

Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
gin up another fanboy frenzy with reminder their pornz are being blocked, reports are flowing in that all problems are minor -- really, characterizing a temporary no access to a web site as major is just laughable lunacy.

Settle down, Mike, it'll be figured out. Just because NEW, you 20th century relics go ape.
Mike is a professional troll: he has no visible purpose other than to gin up controversy to draw eyeballs.

03:55:12[d-026-3]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Gwiz (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:10am
  
  Re:
  Mike is a professional troll: he has no visible purpose other than to gin up controversy to draw eyeballs.
  
  And what exactly do you think it is that YOU do here?
  
  Hell, you've even admitted to "grifting" off of Mike's hard-earned viewership with this statement:
  So what exactly is the draw to Techdirt? I like it because a small forum where I stand out, which leverages my rants without the bother of my own web-site... (Source)
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:27am
  
  Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
  Exactly... let the screaming begin. Any honest reporting is buried by tinfoil hat conspiracy theories... good lawd.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it
    
    Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:49am
    
    Re: Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
    Masnick has to scream about temporary accidental outages, as he knows site-blocking is the end game for his precious piracy sites.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:13am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
      Yes, site blocking always works so well.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - observer, 20 Dec 2013 @ 12:59pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
      Hurrah for politicians, lawyers and beancounters twatting around with the workings of the internet. It's like seeing a toddler trying to drive a car. No way it possibly go wrong, is there? Meanwhile, anyone who knows what they're doing can get around a site block in no time, and anyone who doesn't can ask someone who does.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:34am
  
  Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
  Ya hear that Mike? Drawing traffic to your website is now a sign of being a troll...according to a troll. *Shakes head*
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 20 Dec 2013 @ 12:55pm
  
  Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
  New? It's censorship, something that's been going on ever since the very first time a government got too big for its boots. Even internet censorship is nothing new: ask the Chinese or the Iranians.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Dave, 21 Dec 2013 @ 10:59am
  
  Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
  Oh dear. OOTB has the blinkers on again. Can't see the far-reaching implications of ANY site being "mistakenly" blocked. How about if you had one, OOTB? (Or DO you?). How would YOU like it blocked as collateral damage? Your misguided rantings and ramblings are enough to make any sane person throw up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Sheogorath (profile), 22 Dec 2013 @ 2:58am
    
    Re: Re: Just as copyright abolishers masquerading as copyright supporters,
    No, I'm sorry, but I have to reply to this because what you said just isn't logical. No way on God's green earth would OOTB have a website blocked as collateral damage, it would be blocked on its merits! ;D
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
art guerrilla (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:06am

what a tangled web we weave...
...when we practice to deceive
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:10am

Am I the only one who thinks this is disturbing?
"This block list is then used by an advanced proxy system that redirects any requests to the blacklisted IP addresses to a webserver that the ISP owns which returns a blocked page message."

Am I the only one who thinks this is disturbing? If my computer makes a request to a webserver, it should go to that webserver, not to somewhere else. Redirecting is much much more disturbing than simply blocking.

If you own a website, please make it https-only (301 redirect from http to https plus Strict-Transport-Security on the https side). This at least turns the creepy interception of your users' requests into a less disturbing certificate mismatch.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- That One Guy (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:05pm
  
  Re: Am I the only one who thinks this is disturbing?
  It's actually much, much worse than it may at first seem.
  
  With a system like that, a hacker only needs to compromise one system per ISP, place some malware/virus/other malicious program on the page, and then watch every single person who ends up redirected to that page get their computer infected.
  
  So yet again we have a 'for your own good' measure put out by the government screwing over people and putting them in an even worse position than they were before.
  
  Aren't the current nanny/police governments just grand? /s
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:11am

Lets make this simple
You "generally" get what you DESERVE... this is the very law of Karma!

When you VOTE in a pack of buffoons to run your country, your deserve the buffoonery you receive on their behalf.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:13am

the overblocking is not a bug, it is a feature. once people get used to this "accidental" overblocking, who is going to notice the information that are willfully withheld? perfect plausible deniability for the crooks in power.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
jupiterkansas (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:14am

But if there's no porn, then nobody will want to have sex, so we won't need things like sex education and sexual abuse centers. It can all happily go away and nobody will touch each other ever again.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:31am
  
  Re:
  Yeah! Not a chance horny teenagers without access to porn or sex education information will just experiment and spread disease and babies right? Right?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - beltorak (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Re:
    nope! none at all!! abstinence is 100% effective! (eh, ok, well, 99.999999999% - thanks Mary ಠ_ಠ.)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Andrew D. Todd, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:57am

Tin-Pot Dictators.
Well, the problem is that, constitutionally speaking, England is not a democracy. It is merely a 51% dictatorship. Woody Allen's famous movie Bananas (1971) applies.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bananas_(film)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0066808/

Considered as a tin-pot third-world dictator, David Cameron is fairly typical: crazier that Hugo Chavez; not so crazy as Robert Mugabe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:13am
  
  Re: Tin-Pot Dictators.
  Considered as a tin-pot third-world dictator, David Cameron is fairly typical:
  Indeed, but he's got a lot of catching up to do to be as crazy as tin-pot dictators like Barak Obama...
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Andrew D. Todd, 20 Dec 2013 @ 6:26pm
    
    Re: Re: Tin-Pot Dictators.
    Well, of course! The difference is that in the United States, we presume the President to be crazy, and we have a system of checks and balances to control his activities. The President's crazy ideas become illegal, when he tries to carry them out. Granted, it doesn't work perfectly, but officials who promote the President's illegal designs put themselves at risk of a prison sentence, al la Watergate.
    
    The British presumption, on the other hand, is that the Prime Minister is a composite of Winston Churchill and Clement Atlee, and maybe David Lloyd George as well. When he turns out to be Tony Blair or David Cameron, disaster ensues.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 10:12am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tin-Pot Dictators.
      "...officials who promote the President's illegal designs put themselves at risk of a prison sentence, al la Watergate."
      
      If Watergate were to happen today none of them would go to prison.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - OldGeezer (profile), 21 Dec 2013 @ 11:32am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re: Tin-Pot Dictators.
        And Bob Woodward and Carl Bernstein would have to flee the country to avoid arrest for whistle blowing.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Not an Electronic Rodent (profile), 22 Dec 2013 @ 6:48am
      
      Re: Re: Re: Tin-Pot Dictators.
      we presume the President to be crazy, and we have a system of checks and balances to control his activities
      How's that working out for you guys at the moment?
      Largely it looks like those "checks and balances" are about as fictional as the supposedly "cabinet government" of the UK.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 8:58am

Blocking an entire IP address that may represent multiple hosts to prevent access to a single website is as stupid as collecting data on every single phone call because one person might be talking to a terrorist.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Me, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:01am

Work Filters
My old employer had this sort of ridiculous filter a decade ago. One time I went to look up a speech at the Abraham Lincoln Library and Museum (http://www2.illinois.gov/alplm/) and it got blocked for "Racist and Offensive Hate Speech".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:28am

hahahahhahahahahaha
hahahahhahahahahaha
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
OldGeezer (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 9:51am

Our libraries in Kansas here installed blocking software and among other things it found that you couldn't research information about breast cancer. I think they ended up dropping the software.
A place I worked at wouldn't even let you get on Facebook but believe me, those guys could still find porn.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Rikuo (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:43am
  
  Re:
  Are those libraries run/funded by state government? If so, they're bound by the First Amendment and cannot block. I remember hearing of a similar case where it was found illegal for libraries to block porn on their computers.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - OldGeezer (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 1:34pm
    
    Re: Re:
    I believe they got sued and that was the reason that they had to get rid of it.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 21 Dec 2013 @ 10:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "I believe they got sued and that was the reason that they had to get rid of it."
      
      Did they turn around and do it again (possibly under a different policy name)? That's what often happens.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Jones (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:06am

Interesting how every newspaper apart from the Daily Fail covered this story.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Lawrence (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:11am

When can the "wrongfully" blocked sites start litigation?
I wonder if the wrongfully blocked sites and services can sue the ISP's for blocking them and directly harming their revenues?

Hey! Maybe if the ISDS resolutions in TTIP and the like get through, then companies can sue Cameron's government directly for the "lost" revenues due to erroneous blocking.

This whole situation is nuts.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- beltorak (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 10:24am
  
  Re: When can the "wrongfully" blocked sites start litigation?
  that's a bit like disinfecting with napalm... and it will only work one site at a time. eventually the government may realize it's a bad idea, but lack the funds to repeal it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 20 Dec 2013 @ 11:07am

dont worry people, idiot Cameron is going to say 'SORRY' tomorrow, so everything will be fine!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Geno0wl (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 11:30am

If I was in charge of the ISP blocking...
If I was in charge of a British ISP and this was being forced on me, I personally would do exactly what this article is reporting.
I.E. I would purposefully block things that are not porn and let others go through. Maybe even block Youtube for several hours once a week or so when the system runs an "update".
Why?
To make people complain.
That is the only way to get these idiots to stop on their censorious power trips. Get people mad.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mixmaxmin, 20 Dec 2013 @ 1:01pm

Hammers!
Politicians are all hammers - one would not rise to the top in politics otherwise - so all problems are nails!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
John85851 (profile), 20 Dec 2013 @ 3:14pm

Well, duh...
People like us say, "Well, duh, we told you this would happen", but politicians say "That's collateral damage. Better to have 1 research site go down than have 20 porn sites."

Yet people who want porn will find a way, but people who need the educational sites may or may not be expert enough to know how to install work-arounds or patches. And why should a rape victim who needs a counseling service have to install anti-filtering software to find a nearby counseler?

And when will people rise up and say enough of this? I sort-of understand the mentality of "it's not happening to me, so I don't care", but what about all the people who use the sites that are now blocked? Will it take the government blocking Facebook or Twitter for people to realize these filters are a bad idea?
Seriously, how long will it be until someone on the site-blocking committee sees an article about breast cancer on Facebook and decides the government needs to block it? Or, worse: Apple isn't playing nice with the EU, so let's block all of their IP addresses and shut off people's access to iTunes.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Brenda Rooney, 30 Jun 2020 @ 11:43am

Maybe they have some kind of a uk porn block app? I've heard it's pretty reliable. What do you think about it?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]

NZ Customs Refuses To Answer Questions After Revelations Of Illegal Orders To Give FBI Info On Kim Dotcom For 'Brownie Points'

When Vladimir Putin Is Envious Of Your Surveillance State, You've Gone Too Far

Follow Techdirt

Essential Reading

The Techdirt Greenhouse

Read the latest posts:

Techdirt Deals

Report this ad | Hide Techdirt ads

Techdirt Insider Discord

The latest chatter on the Techdirt Insider Discord channel...

Loading...

Recent Stories

Friday
19:39	Important Announcement: Techdirt Is Migrating To A New Platform (0)

More

Tools & Services

Twitter
Facebook
RSS
Podcast
Research & Reports

Company

About Us
Advertising Policies
Privacy

Contact

Help & Feedback
Media Kit
Sponsor/Advertise
Submit a Story

More

Copia Institute
Insider Shop
Support Techdirt

Brought to you by Floor64

This site, like most other sites on the web, uses cookies. For more information, see our privacy policy. Got it

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.