UK ISPs may be handed cock-blocking powers Internet providers in the UK could be given powers to block user access at their own discretion in an amendment to the controversial Digital Economy Bill. The Bill, currently being scrutinised by the House of Lords*, will introduce age verification checks for online porn. Under the proposed legislation, pornographic websites …
I really hate this kind of prudishness and puritanical nonsense.
There are far, far, far worse things out there than sexual images of adult humans doing adult human things to other adult humans.
Extreme violence, beheadings, radicalisation, abuse of all sorts of vulnerable people, vicious bullying etc etc but nope, it's all about cock blocking!
This post has been deleted by its author
"You forgot trump"
Oh gods above, how I wish that were true, but I can't forget, not for a second. He's everywhere I turn. His face. His little pudgy hands. His sneer. His deep, deep stupidity. Please, if you HAVE forgotten Trump, tell us the secret? How do we erase him from our waking nightmares?
Help me. Please.
"I've had it. I don't want to live on this planet anymore -->"
With my timer reaching its final grains I despair about the way the way UK policies on sex and nudity have regressed in many ways since 2000. Even a recent reasonable proposal on sex education was effectively filibustered by conservative MPs.
Censorship isn't the answer to people seeking facts - they need education to help them make sense of all the alternative views.
$deity$ help the younger generation when they have to try to unwind all this.
Are these people really THIS close minded...
Yes. And immensely hypocritical as well - just look at one of the sources of this hate nonsense, the Daily Mail, and compare it to the celebrity drivel they contimually push about what swimwear some talentless nobody is wearing, or often even their children. In the next article they then instruct their "readers" on how the sexualisaton of society is the fault of <delete-as-applicable> (current bogeyman).
The Mail is at its most magnificently hypocritical when raging at a 'racy' or 'disgusting' scene in a post-watershed BBC programme, an article liberally illustrated by screen grabs of all the naughtiness - and which is available to anyone under the age of 16 if they open a copy of the Mail.
Has the Mail stopped the 'all grown up' swimsuit features of various pubescent children yet? Or do their editorial staff still enjoy photos of teenage girls in bathing suits?
So for now it's just porn.
Then another amendment and it's P2P traffic.
Then another stating anything as instructed by whitehall.
Then another and it's basically anything any ISP fancies blocking.
It's laughable that the UK criticizes other countries for internet censorship whilst heading down this path., inevitable? No but let's face it with the current government it's highly likely.
"Then another and it's basically anything any ISP fancies blocking."
Umm....
But an amendment by the House of Lords published this week [PDF] appears to permit an ISP to engage in content filtering, provided that it is consistent with its terms of service.
It's on page 15 of the PDF:
A provider of an internet access service to an end-user may prevent or restrict access on the service to information, content, applications or services, for child protection or other purposes, if the action is in accordance with the terms on which the end-user uses the service.
I wonder if anyone has drawn any of these idiots a picture of how a home network connects to the Internet via a single IP address and NAT (possibly with CG NAT) and then extended that to dynamic IP addresses on mobile and fixed networks.
So, what will they proposed to block on ?
Perhaps they are suggesting logins to the sites, no risk here as nobody ever shares a password with something more important.
Obviously handing any personal information to the people that run these sort of sites couldn't possibly lead to problems with identity theft, car fraud or other such little issues.
What a bunch of muppets. Why can't the just let us get on and live our lives.
Why don't they focus on the important stuff such as dealing with the issues of Trump, Europe China and Russia
They will do it the way they do now.
The IWF "block list" is loaded at the ISP level and looks for IP &/or URL - try to access one of those and "nope". Similar tech is used for the court order sites (torrent etc).
The ISP level filters (currently opt in/out) are looking at URLs mostly - but once they start doing traffic identification and content inspection, it's a whole new ball game.
HTTPS (assuming no MITM certificates) will prevent a lot of HTTP content inspection, however then domain/subnet level blocking can be enacted.
VPN usage will go up, until that's blocked - "Sorry, we can't decrypt your traffic..."
Well China this week announced a crackdown on vpns (making them illegal) -> https://www.engadget.com/2017/01/23/china-vpn-illegal-internet-censorship-government-approval/
Only a matter of time until Theresa copies the idea.
I would say everyone should learn how to connect via Tor bridges/pluggable transports as soon as possible (so your ISP isn't aware you are using Tor and will also get around DPI)
https://www.torproject.org/docs/pluggable-transports.html.en
They will do it the way they do now.The IWF "block list" is loaded at the ISP level and looks for IP &/or URL - try to access one of those and "nope". Similar tech is used for the court order sites (torrent etc).
The ISP level filters (currently opt in/out) are looking at URLs mostly - but once they start doing traffic identification and content inspection, it's a whole new ball game.
HTTPS (assuming no MITM certificates) will prevent a lot of HTTP content inspection, however then domain/subnet level blocking can be enacted.
VPN usage will go up, until that's blocked - "Sorry, we can't decrypt your traffic..."
You missed the point. Assuming the "viewer" passes the "age verification" step. Who would go about unblocking what and where ??
URL blocking of gov. defined "bad sites" is a constant, there is no opt in for things like mega*.* or whatever its called this week..
Content inspection - good luck with that. One image where the algorithm detects some skin tone - is it just a picture of someone on their holls, some medical picture on the NHS web site, a person wearing a beard or one or more people having some fun. Now change the location, change the race of one or more people, now change the camera angle, light level etc.
What if its just a picture of a crowd of people. The tech for "block porn" doesn't seem to exist just in the same way that the definition of "porn" doesn't seem to be too easy to define either. Its no different in many ways to the definition of virus or malware - none of those technologies are 100% accurate either.
So, back to the original point, when there is opt-in, there can be multiple people behind the same home firewall or there can be the same person on different devices or someone checked into a hotel or a coffee shop. The ISP can only block on source or target address type rules. The remote site can do all sorts but I can't see every web site owner world-wide doing this given that it seems to be a UK initiative.
> You missed the point. Assuming the "viewer" passes the "age verification" step. Who would go about unblocking what and where ??
I think you've missed the point a little too.
If pornhub refuse to implement age verification on their site, they'll be blocked at the network level (so by the ISP).
However, if they agree to implement age-verification, they won't be blocked at the network level.
The actual age-verification will happen on Pornhub's servers. So if you fail to verify your age, you won't be allowed to access the juicy stuff. No network blocks involved there.
NAT and stuff isn't too hard to deal with either, they'll just make you sign into your account (which'll record whether you've verified or not).
For sites that agree to implement age verification, it's not at all complex.
For known sites that refuse to, it's still not complex.
What is complex, is having any kind of effective system that can catch "non-compliant" pages/sites by looking at the content itself.
> The remote site can do all sorts but I can't see every web site owner world-wide doing this given that it seems to be a UK initiative.
The pols seem to think that either
a) the world will kow-tow to their whims
b) It's trivially easy to detect and block content
Both of which, are clearly wrong. But things like that don't factor into politicians decisions, because it'd mean actually thinking about something.
It does at least mean I'm putting more effort into my VPN setup to make it as inconvenient/difficult to detect and block as possible. It shouldn't be needed, but if it turns into an arms race, I at least have the advantage of enjoying fucking around with stuff like this.
Why don't they focus on the important stuff such as dealing with the issues of Trump, Europe China and Russia
Because most actual conservative values are sadly ones that require work to produce results. It is so much easier and more convenient to adopt liberal thinking and go all in on emotion- and feelings- issues.
Keeps the eyes off the sorry results created by universally agreed-upon neo-liberalism too; LGBT toilets and Diversity Issues - it's like laser pointers and cats. Saves the catnip too.
GuvMint will just tell ISP's: "You can run your business any way you like, Sir, you just have to take all of your traffic feeds off this here core network that we will provide for you."
GuvMInt will certainly win that contest, because GuvMint has infinite resources (well, all of "yours") and also kinetic options, should it come to that. Only way to not lose is to change government into one which is on our side on this.
oh c'mon. As long as this proviso stands "... provided that it is consistent with its terms of service" there is no chance in hell AAISP would apply filtering. Because that would be flagrant violation of their own ToS .
As for other ISPs? I can imagine some ISP might want to put an USP "child friendly, only manually handpicked websites will be available to you". Would that sell, I do not know, but the law being considered would allow an ISP to sell such a service. Apparently it is not allowed now?
Why contact your ISP? Once these laws there will be two kinds of ISP -- those that implement it and those that will be shut down or face other legal issues.
Granted, some might go all AOL and block more but none can block less because it will be illegal thanks to Chairman May.
You know that most small ISP wont have to implement it right? just check out AAISP who wont be doing any of that and they wont be shut down or face other legal issues because the law says they dont have to enforce blocks.
http://aaisp.net/kb-broadband-realinternet.html
And many ISP will block less even if Chairman May says they have to do it. the Gov can not shut down ISP if they try there would be a huge court case and its likely there will be one over this bill so this bill may be shot down like parts of the IPbill
This whole thing is wrong way up. Its proponents are presenting it as the same sort of age verification you have in shops to buy alcohol etc. But anyone can buy alcohol and give it to their children, or let them drink bleach, or play with matches - so there are social norms that you don't let your children have these things and if you do, it is your responsibility for any harm that ensues. I can't see why the internet access isn't the same: it has to be paid for by an adult, and that is the point at which age verification should happen. If you want to keep you children out of porn sites, you should be able to choose an ISP that filters your connections for all your family's devices. If you don't, then it's your job to arange filtering, and if you don't and your children end up at the psychiatrist, then you should be up in court for neglect.
The problem here, its not about Porn at all, it's all about Public Control, showing who's boss and Theresa May is the epitome of that, she gets her kicks from having such control and getting even more control.
If this was about Porn, we send all the Daily Mail hyperbolers on the equivalent of Speed Awareness courses, i.e. Porn awareness courses, showing the clueless - how to setup an OpenDNS account, and be done with it.
The only way you stop Porn into a home, is if everyone in that home agrees to stop accessing Porn. Clueless Jackie Smyth* types take note.
*Previous Home Secretary whose Son (sorry, Husband) accessed paid Porn channels via their Redditch home cable network and she expensed them, as part of her MP's parliamentary expenses, which bought it to the public's attention. It completely possible the husband took the blame to save her the embarassment.
I think that the most important question is: What is the problem that this intended to solve and how will it solve it?
Unless there's evidence that viewing pornography leads to crime then it suggests that simply viewing pornography is regarded as the 'problem'.
One also has to wonder where this leaves any existing obscenity laws that proscribe what is legal and what is illegal, as this new legislation appears to be targeting legal pornography.
"I think that the most important question is: What is the problem that this intended to solve and how will it solve it?"
The problem is we think politicians are a bunch of useless wankers so they keep coming up with new things they think we will appreciate and consistently fail because we are right and they are a bunch of completely useless wankers.
The problem is we think politicians are a bunch of useless wankers so they keep coming up with new things they think we will appreciate and consistently fail because we are right and they are a bunch of completely useless wankers.
The ISPs should block access to all government sites, we don't need our children looking at all that wanking.
"One also has to wonder where this leaves any existing obscenity laws that proscribe what is legal and what is illegal, as this new legislation appears to be targeting legal pornography."
For a while now new laws have contained ill-drafted vagueness. The law enforcers have then pushed the boundaries with often ridiculous prosecutions. The result has been that the average person becomes confused about the demarcation line and starts to stay well clear even of that which is permitted.
As Machiavelli advised his prince - fear gives the ultimate control over a society.
The point, as I think I raised before, is to make money for Chairman May. Whether she's being paid by the people who make "IP-blocking solutions" or the UK porn industry is anybody's guess but mark my words there's money in it for her somewhere. That and, as pointed out above, she gets to exercise power -- something amoral pond-scum like her like to do to make them feel more important than others who, unlike them, are worth more than the shit one scraps of one's shoe after a walk in the country.
"So, is this another of Jimmy Saville's old colleagues who feel they need to show off how much they wouldn't have let him if they knew?"
Erm, I hope you're not suggesting that "Let's look through the Round Window" is some kind of euphemism?
Please, not Playschool as well! The last of my happy childhood memories hideously shattered forever...
Virgin Media (my ISP) have already caused me (by nagging with an injected browser tab) to visit their website and log in to tick a box to indicate that I don't want 'family protection content filtering' i.e. porn block. So why do they need to do any more?
Also, on the very few occasions when I've accidentally clicked on a link to a well known torrenting site, they block access and show me a page that says I'm trying to be naughty and the courts have told them to stop me. Let the government put court orders on them and let us see exactly what has been denied to us.
Years ago the Manic Street Preachers released Journal For Plauge Lovers. On the cover was a painting of a boy. It's a nice piece of art to be honest. Asda stocked the album but put a white cover on it, as they said it was offensive as the boy looked like he had been beaten (he hadn't). James Dean Bradfield, the singer/awesome guitarist pointed out that they covered art yet on the same shelf they can show women in bikini's and guns etc. ISP's will be blocking access to PornHub* yet won't bat an eyelid to the awful content served daily by the Daily Fail?
What is offensive to one, isn't offensive to all. What we will find later down the line that a joke site depicting Frau May as a gormless idiot who hates children riding side saddle on a Trident missle which has been sent to hit North Korea but has taken the wrong turn and will end up nuking Lichenstien as offensive. Not many people would find that offensive, but the ones with the keys would and they'll be the ones to enable it's block.
Enough with 1984, we're in to 1985 now.
*other porn sites are available, so I'm told.
And we had the IWF and their nonsense with The Scorpions Virgin Killer album a few years ago too.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_Watch_Foundation_and_Wikipedia
It'll start off with porn, then it'll be torrent sites or pirated content, then it'll be any nudity at all (Page 3 does offend some after all, so no one will get the choice) and then it'll be anything that dissents from the party line, which effectively means that El Reg will need to shut their forums (amongst others).
My current fear is that when Openreach is split from BT it's taken into public ownership, and at that point all traffic will be forced to be compliant. As things stand, the smaller ISPs aren't forced to comply with the High Court blocks etc, bot who knows for how much longer.
"[...] then it'll be any nudity at all [...]"
Except paintings and sculptures depicting the torture raptures of Christian martyrs. They are apparently regarded as necessary for the education of young children - along with their Sunday School stories from that book of violence, misogyny, and sex.
" Lolita was underage."
Only for that state in the USA at that time. It was surprising only a few years ago to see the low ages legally permitted for marriage of a girl - especially if she was pregnant.
Wikipedia:
"In 1880, the age of consent was set at 10 or 12 in most [US] states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7." This was generally raised after 1920.
Many other countries were similar up to the mid 20th century - largely reflecting the harsh realities of early deaths in those times. The Vatican and Spain have only recently increased their age of consent from 12/13.
<quote>Do you really think El Rag will shut their forums? Seems very unlikely that will happen at all? Any proof that will happen?</quote>
Of course I don't have proof, I was taking it to extremes. However, in our future notional totalitarian state free speech isn't allowed, therefore El Reg's forums would, if they were still in existence, be heavily censored
"[...] a joke site depicting Frau May as a gormless idiot who hates children riding side saddle on a Trident missle which has been sent to hit North Korea but has taken the wrong turn [...]"
Funny you should say that...
Look at the Dr Strangelove inspired Daily Cartoon for The Independent 24/1/2017
http://www.independent.co.uk/#gallery
Unfortunately they don't have a way of linking to the picture itself - you will have to scroll down the page.
The picture of May in a straight jacket, surrounded by a brick wall and barbed wire and moat to represent the North Sea/channel, seemed a good representation of what this country can look forward too. I give 3 years before everyone is micro-managed, has to show i.d. to buy food at Tesco.
Think of the children, whom judging by what my 13 year old daughter tells me happens at school, the boys are pretty much watching hardcore on their phones on a daily basis and are now pretty much numbed to it's effects.
"I'm bored with pornography.
The acting lame, the action is tame.
Explicitly dull, arousal annulled."
- Steve Wilson
When video tapes first circulated with explicit pr0n in the 1980s people soon found that it was boring after a few minutes. The classic ones that are fondly remembered are those that had a reasonable storyline.
If you have a real storyline and a plot then a dash of sex can be in context.
It is what you don't see, or the possibility that you might see, that titillates the human imagination. Hence the Dance of the Seven Veils. Nudity per se is quickly of no consequence.
Currently legitimate pr0n users (should) get no exposure to dodgy kiddie stuff.
If some potentially identity theft related verification is introduced then lot's of people will not use it due to fraud risk.
We have just seen articles on massive rise in IT related fraud (though whether that's because it's finally actually getting recorded is a separate issue)
... Currently nobody with an IQ above room temperature gives out genuine DOB, mothers maiden name etc. Only people with my genuine DOB info are places that require it for legit reasons where need to 100% prove I'm me e.g Doctor, bank & similar.
Any random website with a "mandatory" DOB to use either gets surfed away from or fake DOB entered.
So, assuming verification is fraud risk then lots of people might have to go "underground" to get their jiggly bits content, going into the murky depths where they may be unintentionally likely to find kiddie stuff, bestiality, snuff stuff - when all they want is inoffensive vanilla stuff which they can currently get from sites that verify the legal age of their performers.
Seems a bad move if its likely to increase unwanted exposure to genuine nasty stuff - no idea what the "conversion" rates are (i.e. they get to like it) if people get occasional random exposure to nasty stuff, but if "conversion rates" above 0 then gov policy is implicitly fostering an increase in uptake of nasty stuff.
In the early days of the internet you were never quite sure what you might inadvertently stumble over. You soon decided what you had an aversion to. In the same way you also learned to discriminate and appreciate "quality" - as people had done when magazines became more open in the 1970s.
I wonder if things like BBC's iPlayer might get caught by this? Imagine trying to play something from the BBC and being asked for ID. How would you even do that if launching it from a smart TV?
And if it was not possible to obtain the ID, would that mean that the BBC service would be forced to shut?
Why not use it to block IP addresses and URL's for known malware or attacks - there is enough threat intel feeds out there, if not their own, to drive this. Simply work on a 10day temporary block.
That would be the most sensible form of it's use, rather than blocking Ann B. Lance checking out a male doctors stethoscope.
IT'S NONE OF ANYONE'S FUCKING BUSINESS.
When the police have a suspicion that I am doing something illegal, they may take that suspicion to a judge along with any supporting evidence. The judge may decide that a case exists.
Then, and only then, they may concern themselves with what I may or may not choose to watch, which sites I may or may not choose to visit, what comments I may or may not choose to make.
This is nothing about pornography or sex or even prurience; it's all about making a citizenry control *itself* by making it feel more or less uncomfortable about its own activities. Today it's porn, because that's easy, and who would dare object? But tomorrow? What? You want to look at sites that support staying in the EU? Oh, no, sir - you won't even see them.
Great walls round China, North Korea, soon half the US, and now the UK...
"Its unlikely they will block pro EU sites"
Do not underestimate the potential tyranny of people who will use the levers of power to cement their own vision of the world. It is a character trait that those who are over-zealous are rarely balanced in their judgements.
Human nature often has problems holding conflicting views - and prefers to sweep the opposition case under the carpet as "Someone Else's Problem".
Its unlikely they will block pro EU sites
Why not? Many in the top levels of the current government openly backed and supported flagrant lies that were painted onto the sides of buses, only to downplay their support and the lies afterwards. Wanting to block websites is relatively trivial compared to this level of dishonesty.
This post has been deleted by its author
iframes won't help at all, because the content is still fetched by the same user agent (web browser) as would have been accessing the contained page in the first place. Access is gotten around where one website requests the content of another and embeds it within itself - very much a specialised VPN.
The Register 
Biting the hand that feeds IT
Copyright. All rights reserved © 1998–2024
