City Of London Police Arrest Creator Of Anti-Censorship Proxy Service Based On Hollywood's Say So

from the out-of-control dept

Thu, Aug 7th 2014 7:59am — Mike Masnick

We've been covering the extreme and misinformed attempts by the City of London Police to become Hollywood's personal police force online (despite only having jurisdiction for the one square mile known as the City of London). As we've noted, the City of London Police don't seem to understand internet technology at all, nor do they have any jurisdiction to pull down websites. Yet, despite the total lack of a court order, many clueless registrars see letterhead from a police department and assume everything must be legit, even though this completely violates ICANN policy for domain registrars. Much of this is done in "partnership" with legacy players from the industry, who the police seem to listen to without any skepticism at all. It would be like the NYPD giving control of banking fraud investigations to Goldman Sachs.

As we were just pointing out, while the City of London Police seem to think it's "obvious" what is and what is not a "pirate site", oftentimes it's not at all easy to figure that out. That was made clear last week when the organization helping the City of London Police reposted an entire BBC article about their cooperation (soon after our post went up, that company's post disappeared quietly with no notice). And now, TorrentFreak is reporting the City of London Police have "seized" an open proxy service called Immunicity, that was set up as an anti-censorship tool. Not only that, but they've also arrested the operator. The site itself is engaged in no copyright infringement at all. But its entire website has been replaced thanks to a bogus claim by the City of London Police.

The police even seem to brag that they're in the bag for the legacy entertainment companies:

According to Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe, the arrest is a prime example of a successful partnership between the copyright industry and local law enforcement.

“This week’s operation highlights how PIPCU, working in partnership with the creative and advertising industries is targeting every aspect of how copyrighting material is illegally being made available to internet users,” Fyfe says.

So, yes, it's the police "partnering" with a legacy industry that has a long and demonstrated history of bogus attacks on new technologies that challenge its business model. And rather than actually view such claims with skepticism, the police lap it up and take down websites without anything even approaching a court order.

And to show just how confused they are, the main "industry" representative helping the police here basically admits to the belief that any proxy service must be illegal, because the industry doesn't like it:

Commenting on the arrest, FACT Director Kieron Sharp argues that these proxy sites and services are just as illegal as the blocked sites themselves.

“Internet users have sought ways to continue to access the sites by getting round the blocking put in place by the ISPs. One of the ways to do this is to use proxy servers. This operation is a major step in tackling those providing such services,” Sharp notes.

Of course, based on that reasoning, the very same VPNs that many of us use to protect our internet surfing from surveillance would be equally considered "illegal." Basically anything that challenges the business model of these legacy companies must be illegal and the City of London Police seem to think they can arrest those associated with them. Talk about going way overboard and creating massive chilling effects...

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: andy fyfe, city of london police, copyright, kieron sharp, proxy
Companies: fact

82 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Gwiz (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:05am

According to Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe....

A distant relative of Barney Fife?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous, 7 Aug 2014 @ 6:59pm
  
  Re: Barney Fife
  At least Barney wasn't as gullible or naive.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- KevinEHayden (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 7:27pm
  
  Re:
  Probably not so much a distant relative as the love child of Sherrif Andy and Barney Fyfe. Or maybe Barney's younger, dumber brother.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:12am

proxys and VPNs are legal in the UK so he should not of been arrested in the first place!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:13am

It's basically a social engineering attack. The CLP have no jurisdiction outside their corrupt little fiefdom, let alone any power to declare something illegal (only the courts can do that) but rely on the word "police" on their letters scaring people into compliance.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:06am
  
  Re:
  All right, so the question that begs itself is:
  
  Who polices the police?
  
  If these frauds think they are above the law, where do we report them? What can we do to stop this little gang of criminals?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:19am
    
    Re: Re:
    In theory, at least, the police who actually have jurisdiction can make life very difficult for any CLP who muscle in on their territory. And I wouldn't even be surprised to see it happen one day: no police force likes outsiders trying to do their job for them.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
beech, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:19am

How did they arrest the guy? Did he just happen to live in their one square mile of jurisdiction? Or did they leave their jurisdiction to go get him? Or lure him into their jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:43am
  
  Re:
  According to a report in The Register, they went 200 km outside their jurisdiction to do this:
  City of London cops have ventured outside the M25 to cuff a suspect in Nottingham under the suspicion that he runs a "proxy server" which allows users to access 36 verboten sites.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:51am
    
    Re: Re:
    It's a rather misleading first line because it suggests that the CLP's jurisdiction covers all of Greater London rather than just the City (the Met might have a few words to say about that...) but yes, they were a bit far from home.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 4:27pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Is that legal in the UK?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 7:42pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      IANAL, bu AIUI police jurisdiction is based on the location of the principal crime not the location of the perpetrator. Usually local police will arrest a suspect for whom a warrant or APB has been issued, and will supply the necessary wooden-tops, armed response, etc., but any constable can arrest anywhere for a crime within his jurisdiction. A constable out of his jurisdiction has no power to go looking for trouble beyond that of an ordinary citizen, apart from specially limited circumstances.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Almost Anonymous, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:19am

Have they ever heard of commerce?
Better stay out of London when you're on business. Most companies request or even require its people to use a corporate VPN to access their internal resources. And I bet a VPN connection will look very much like a proxy connection to London's best and brightest.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:24am
  
  Re: Have they ever heard of commerce?
  They're a fiscal section of the city's police force and corrupt as hell. I would be surprised if they weren't engaged in insider trading.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Baron von Robber, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:20am

City Of London Police

Small enough to act quickly, not too big to bribe.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:25am
  
  Re:
  They were taking backhanders from the Church of Scientology a few years back. Which tells you all you need to know, really.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - BernardoVerda (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 2:33pm
    
    Re: Re:
    > They were taking backhanders from the Church of Scientology a few years back. Which tells you all you need to know, really.
    
    I found that a little hard to believe, so I fired up the old search engine... Oh dear! Not Cricket!
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 4:45pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      I know what you mean. It didn't get anywhere near the attention it should have, perhaps because the CLP weren't flexing their muscles at the rest of the country back then. It deserves to be wheeled out every time they're in the news. Anyone tries to tell you that they value morality or the rule of law over money, well, there's your proof that they don't.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - BernardoVerda (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:32pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      upon reflection, my comment is open to misinterpretation. My point was that the LCP does indeed appear to have a history of accepting "benefits" and to have shown clear bias in favour of the Ch. of Scientology.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:56pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Pretty much any stance regarding that particular cult more favorable than 'Keep them as far away from me/us as humanly possible', is cause for concern I'd say, whether you're talking about a person or an organization.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:28am

What makes a complete mockery and joke of these site blocks and show just how completely stupid and useless they are by the likes of the BPI etc. in the UK is that only 6 ISP's in the UK are subject to block these sites by being subject to the court order. Wheras ALL the other ISP's in the UK are not subject to the court order blocking sites and do NOT block these sites at all.

If accessing these sites were illegal then blocking access to these sites should be implented by every ISP in the UK and not just by a few them. It cannot be illegal to access these sites if there are still ISP's in the UK that does not block access to them and so accessing these sites cannot therefor be illegal.

Only a stupid fool would block access to the front of a building in stopping people from gaining access to the building but leaves the side and back entrances of that building free to still allow people to access the building.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:31am
  
  Re:
  "Wheras ALL the other ISP's in the UK are not subject to the court order blocking sites and do NOT block these sites at all."
  
  In particular, the court orders aren't binding on anyone other than the ISPs in question. Including VPN and proxy operators and end users. You're not breaching the order by accessing a blocked site, nor is any VPN or proxy you're using to do so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Whatever (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:21am
    
    Re: Re:
    However, there is potential that aiding people who use those ISPs to get around the block may be a problem. Doing so intentionally and with knowledge of those blocks may be the issue here.
    
    What I think the bigger issue here is how the internet will be policed in the long run. The internet cannot be left as a lawless alternate universe, that would essentially destroy public order over time.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:32am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The internet cannot be left as a lawless alternate universe, that would essentially destroy public order over time."
      
      Spoken like a true authoritarian.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:41am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      " aiding people who use those ISPs to get around the block may be a problem. "
      
      Why?
      
      BT is my ISP so direct access to TPB is "blocked". However under UK law TPB is considered perfectly so no crime is being committed in me accessing it. Neither is a crime being committed by helping me to access it.
      
      So the only issue exists in why the media cartels have been allowed to get these sites "blocked" in the first place.
      
      (I keep using "" around blocked because the blocks are completely futile when used against a half competent torrent user)
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:52am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        ** perfectly legal
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:19am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        It completely bugs me as to why ONLY some ISP's here in the UK block access to these *illegal* sites when the other ISP's don't block access to the same sites.
        
        If these sites were *illegal* then access to these sites should/would have applied for all the ISP's in the UK to block access them.
        
        By blocking access to some sites by some ISP's and allowing other ISP's to continue to allow access to the same sites is nothing but censorship and discrimanation in my book and that accessing these sites is NOT illegal whilst there are ISP's that continue to allow access to these sites.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - John Fenderson (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:45am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "The internet cannot be left as a lawless alternate universe"
      
      No problem, then, because it's not a lawless alternate universe in the first place.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:01am
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        Indeed. If it was, there'd be no guarantee that (for instance) a given URL pointed to the right file on the right server. The internet regulates itself quite nicely, and the last thing we need is any kind of "regulation" dreamed up by suits who need a step-by-step guide to log into Facebook.
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
      - That One Guy (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 7:55pm
        
        Re: Re: Re: Re:
        When people make that claim about the internet, their issue isn't that the internet 'has no laws'(it does, based upon the location of the servers/service in question), it's that it doesn't follow the 'laws' that they want it to, like 'forced secondary/tertiary liability' and 'every company on the planet, except the ones who's responsibility it actually is, need to become copyright cops.'
        [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - PaulT (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 12:16am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      "However, there is potential that aiding people who use those ISPs to get around the block may be a problem.
      
      Why? Come on, stop stating your half-considered opinions as if they were facts and start explaining yourself.
      
      "What I think the bigger issue here is how the internet will be policed in the long run."
      
      OK, then who do you think should be in charge. Do you support a small police force under the direction of a group of foreign corporations doing that policing in areas outside of their jurisdiction, or do you have enough of a shred of honesty left to admit that this is a problem?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Ninja (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 5:55am
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      The tyrant inside you is very active lately eh?
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:32am

i hope the person concerned with Immunicity, fights whatever hw is going to be charged with. i read where he has handed the domain over. i dont know if that is true or not. i hope it isn't because neither FACT or the City of London Police have the right to take that domain or demand that it is handed over. as far as i am aware, having and operating proxies in the UK is NOT illegal! i am waiting to read what the charges are against this person and hope he takes the accusers to court! the problem, which is one the police and the copyright industries and their henchmen are fully aware is the lack of finance to mount any defense!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadAsASnake (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:40am
  
  Re:
  Unlikely he will be charged. What could they charge him with?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:43am
    
    Re: Re:
    no Idea
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:44am
    
    Re: Re:
    And when the charges are dropped will he get his websites and domains back. The MAFIAA will say being as he voluntarily handed them over.
    
    He should sue them back to get his property, websites and domains back.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 7:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    Operating an ISP without proper paperwork, or failing to comply with the data retention law, possibly.
    
    Failing that, there's always the usual charges under the Ways and Means Act.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:32am

he was released on bail and not charge with anything it unlikely he will be charge cause he has done noting illegal
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:04am
  
  Re:
  Admittedly I know nothing about London's legal system, but how do they charge bail without charging him for a crime? In the US, bail rates are set based on the type and severity of the alleged crime.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:15am
    
    Re: Re:
    well in the UK you can be bailed without charge if they still think there a crime if bailed you are waiting to see if you are going to be charge or alleged is drop. it in case its unlikely he will be charge because what he is doing is legal
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:01am
    
    Re: Re:
    Unless the judge deems him a danger he can be released while the Crown Prosecution Service decides to press charges. Depending on their workload, the seriousness of the alleged offence, the colour of the moonbeams today etc that may be a short time or a long time. Where short and long are about the same length as pirces of string. If they decide to charge him he will be requested to show up at a police station to be charged or he can do a runner and another warrant will be issued to bring him in. When he's charged he can appear to request bail and it may or may not be granted.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Violated (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 2:14pm
    
    Re: Re:
    As he was arrested then so was he bailed while they continue their investigation maybe leading to a [doubtful] trial.
    
    The interesting part is what he was arrested for when to be a lawful arrest they have to believe he has committed a crime. We don't know the full details of course but from what we can publicly see he did nothing unlawful.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:34am

How do they arrest anybody or seize anything outside of their 1 square mile jurisdiction?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:56am
  
  Re: outside of their 1 square mile
  They get an arrest warrant and request the police force local to the suspect(s) to enforce it.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:05am
    
    Re: Re: outside of their 1 square mile
    Indeed, that's one way that the local forces could make the CLP's lives more difficult, if they made sure any such warrants got "lost in the system". It seems in this case that they went up to Nottingham in person, though.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 1:22pm
    
    Re: Re: outside of their 1 square mile
    So criticism needs to be placed on the local police force as well for recognizing the bogus warrant's validity.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 7:56pm
      
      Re: Re: Re: outside of their 1 square mile
      There isn't a lot of choice - the Home Office can cut off their funding to the various police forces (other than the BTP, MOD Police, etc., who are funded by other departments) and sack the police commissioners, requiring the counties to fund the police entirely themselves (which they can't afford, especially since they have very limited ability to raise revenue) and find suitable commissioners which the Home Office will accept.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:38am

I recommend signage on everyone's doors NO City of London Police Allowed. by order of people smarter than you. quick question what are the laws regarding making video's of these guys in public or your home or business?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MadAsASnake (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:41am
  
  Re:
  No hawkers
  No circulars
  Ni PIPCU
  ?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - DogBreath, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:40am
    
    Re: Re:
    Don't forget to include:
    
    No Spiders or Visgoths Allowed.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Digger, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:56am

Yo - City of London Police - Wake the fuck up
You're criminals now - yes, that's right, you, the police are criminals stealing perfectly legal websites and equipment.

The copyright industry is one of the biggest bunch of U.S. Rico act violators in the world - they purposely lie to law enforcement around the globe. They publish known false data to support their lies - ie they lie to cover their lies which were lied about to cover other lies.

You yahoos are ignorant fucks that couldn't think your way out of a wet and decayed paper bag for falling for their outright lies and greed.

So - good job becoming the criminals here - hope you enjoy being Bobby's butt buddy in prison when you're all arrested and thrown in jail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:08am

Seems like police are turning into corporate attack dogs rather then public servants.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
quayph, 7 Aug 2014 @ 9:51am

Re: Re:
how do they charge bail without charging him for a crime? In the US, bail rates are set based on the type and severity of the alleged crime.

In the UK you don't pay any money to get bail, either you're considered safe and it's granted - you can leave, or you're thought to be dangerous / a flight risk - it's not granted and you stay in the cells.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Alto, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:06am

"According to Chief Inspector Andy Fyfe, the arrest is a prime example of a successful partnership between the copyright industry and local law enforcement. "

Wait! The "copyright Industry"? is that even a thing?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Tim A, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:33am

I wonder if any money is changing hands...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:35am
  
  Re:
  It's the CLP. I'd be more surprised if it wasn't.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 10:40am

All VPN sevices have to do if this becomes a problem is cancel servers in UK datacenters and no longer have servers in Britain.

It would mean no longer having access, outside Britain to things like iPlayer, or online streams of British radio stations, but it will also shield them from prosecution in Britan.

A website owner outside Britain that has no servers in Britan, and no sssetts in Britain is NOT SUBJECT to Britiah law.

There is one VPN company run by a Chinese citizen living in China. That means he would be ONLY subject to CHINESE laws and IS NOT SUBJECT to arrest or prosecution in Britain, if he were to remove all his servers from datacenters he currently has in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Whatever (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 12:23pm
  
  Re:
  A website owner outside Britain that has no servers in Britan, and no sssetts in Britain is NOT SUBJECT to Britiah law.
  
  That is not entirely true or established. If the company is actively offering service in the UK, and soliciting business in the UK, then they could very well be subject to UK law. It might be mind numbing hard to extradite someone, but moves to make the business unprofitable or unavailable in the UK could be taken.
  
  Being offshore is no clear protection if you offer services in a country.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 1:29pm
    
    Re: Re:
    In that case the UK has three choices two legal and one not.
    
    1. Request cooperation from the sovereign nation where the individual is located and hope that it is granted. (legal)
    
    2. Try to capture the individual by force violating the nations sovereignty. (illegal)
    
    3. Bitch about it. (legal)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 1:49pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Option 3, of course, just drives more people to use it. Case in point: TPB.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 4:48pm
    
    Re: Re:
    if the services are LEGAL in the country you are operating from, that is all that matters. You are ONLY subject to the laws of whatever country you are operating from.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
    - Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 8:01pm
      
      Re: Re: Re:
      Unless your country's politicians exercise their usual regard for the good of their country and ratify a hopelessly one-sided extradition treaty which doesn't require dual criminality and recognises insane claims of universal jurisdiction.
      [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:17am

city of london police eh?
maybe a name change is coming up, republic of hollywood police.
does that make them a breakaway group, and therefore terrorists then?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:30am
  
  Re:
  I semi-joked over on TF that we could prosecute them for sedition, if they're found to be putting the interests of foreign corporations ahead of the people they're (at least on paper) meant to be serving.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Jon Jones (profile), 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:29am

"the City of London Police ..... (despite only having jurisdiction for the one square mile known as the City of London)"

It doesn't work like that in the UK. All UK police officers have full jurisdiction and legal powers in the whole of the UK. UK police forces are not just responsible for a certain area. Just because a force is based in one area doesn't mean anything changes when elsewhere in the UK.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 11:43am
  
  Re:
  True, but they are at least in theory answerable to the local force when playing away from home. Local forces who aren't always especially sympathetic to folk from London coming up here and throwing their weight around.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 12:58pm

Censoring an Anti-Censorship Proxy?
So the UK finally joins the ranks of China and North Korea.

Congratulations.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 3:05pm
  
  Re: Censoring an Anti-Censorship Proxy?
  no we have not!
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2014 @ 6:42am
    
    Re: Re: Censoring an Anti-Censorship Proxy?
    You can deny it as much as you want, but it won't stop being true.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
This comment has been flagged by the community. Click here to show it

Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 2:04pm

Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is enforced
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- observer, 7 Aug 2014 @ 2:14pm
  
  Re:
  And rightly so.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2014 @ 5:39pm
  
  Re:
  This is the wrong thread; your boyfriend Whatever is several posts up.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2014 @ 12:21am
  
  Re:
  Mike Masnick just hates it when copyright law is abused.
  
  FTFY
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2014 @ 12:30am
  
  Re:
  AC just loves it when terrorists and fascists hide behind copyright.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Jon Jones (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 9:11am
  
  Re:
  Could you exactly explain how this young man has broken any copyright laws?
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Anonymous Coward, 10 Aug 2014 @ 12:10am
    
    Re: Re:
    ...sounds of crickets...
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
GEMont (profile), 8 Aug 2014 @ 12:31pm

Progress is a relative concept
Amazing how well this test project is working out for the crooks, in their relentless effort to turn the internet into their own advertising tool and stop its use as a public communications system.

So far, they've been able to do whatever they want and not one action has been challenged legally.

That's pretty damn impressive PR graft work.

Pretty soon they'll have a bag of precedent procedures they can export to the US and elsewhere, for inclusion in laws that will end forever the horror of the Free Internet.

Another success story for the forces of Fascism!

There is no escaping the Grand Aquisition!!

---
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 8 Aug 2014 @ 5:17pm
  
  Re: Progress is a relative concept
  "So far, they've been able to do whatever they want and not one action has been challenged legally"
  
  how wrong you are
  
  http://torrentfreak.com/domain-registrars-deny-police-requests-suspend-pirate-sites-140808/
  
  so no this is not working but its a good PR stunt tho
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - GEMont (profile), 9 Aug 2014 @ 12:06pm
    
    Re: Re: Progress is a relative concept
    By "challenged legally" I was referring to the government and the courts challenging the legal right of the City Of London Police to do whatever they desired, rather than their victims challenging the CoLPolice's apparently unauthorized actions.
    
    I would assume that most the victims of these quasi-legal actions by CoLPolice would disagree with the actions do whatever they could to circumvent the restrictions being applied.
    
    In the cases where victims have brought these actions by the CoLPolice to the courts' attention, have the courts generally sided with the victims or with the CoLPolice?
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
The Prox Is Right, 8 Aug 2014 @ 5:10pm

Seeking alternative proxy aggregator?
While this site is on holiday, if you are seeking a substitute free proxy aggregator, I invite you to check out https://TheProxIsRight.com for “Pain-free access to open, presently active proxies, from around the net. We aggregate and test, so you don’t have to.”
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
wallyb132 (profile), 10 Aug 2014 @ 1:46pm

City streets
Why isnt the city of london police seizing the city streets, drug dealers and other criminals are using the city streets to commit their crimes, so why arent they seizing them as well?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- GEMont (profile), 13 Aug 2014 @ 2:51pm
  
  Re: City streets
  "Why isnt the city of london police seizing the city streets..."
  
  Well, that's still illegal...
  
  Besides, Hollywood isn't paying the City of London Police to clean up the streets of London, prevent crime, or arrest criminals.
  
  Its only paying the CoL low-cost rental pigs to destroy as many of the web-sites Hollywood dislikes, as fast as possible, before legislation makes such activities illegal again.
  
  I suppose if some other organized crime... er... organization was to offer the easily-purchased LEOs of the City Of London Police Force, money under the table to arrest druggies off the streets of London, that they probably would do so... in their spare time.
  
  But it would have to be a big graft offer like the one that Hollywood is giving them currently, or better. Gotta think about retirement and all that you know.
  ---
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]