Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

UK Mobile ISP Blocks VPN, Citing Access To Porn

timothy posted about a year ago | from the it's-as-if-there's-a-slippery-slope dept.

United Kingdom 195

New submitter santosh.k83 writes with this snippet: "TorrentFreak has learned that VPN provider iPredator is already blocked under the 'adult filter' of some, if not all, mobile providers. TorrentFreak has seen communication between the mobile provider GiffGaff and iPredator which makes it clear that the VPN's website is blocked because it allows kids to bypass the age restrictions. Based on the above it is safe to say that censorship is a slippery slope, especially without any oversight. VPNs are used for numerous purposes and bypassing age restrictions is certainly not the most popular one. If this holds up then proxy services and even Google's cache may soon be banned under the same guise."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Glory to Aristozka! (5, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792941)

You report all suspicious packets, yes?

Re:Glory to Aristozka! (1)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about a year ago | (#44795279)

Of course!! Right after my breakfast bowl of borscht and mug of vodka!!

You can switch it off. (2, Informative)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#44792945)

You can switch off the blocking if you so wish on the giffgaff web site.

News at 11.

Re:You can switch it off. (5, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792983)

Even if opt-out, this is NOT acceptable, NOT negotiable.

This is parasitic madness and shall be treated as such.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Interesting)

AmiMoJo (196126) | about a year ago | (#44795117)

I have been corresponding with my MP about this and in her last letter she indicated that circumventing Cameron's porn filter would become illegal. I asked her for urgent clarification of this point as it would appear to outlaw many vital technologies, including VPNs.

I just hope it was a mistake on her part, otherwise privacy will be criminalized.

Re:You can switch it off. (2)

Nov8tr (2007392) | about a year ago | (#44795275)

I agree. I choose to not opt out of my privacy. Do the people who make these decision smoke crack or are they just that stupid?

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Insightful)

linuxci (3530) | about a year ago | (#44792987)

Yes, I'm on giffgaff and have turned off all restrictions. It's mostly to do with Camoron wanting all UK ISPs to 'think of the children' and opt out of censorship.

If our Prime Minister gets what he wants it's going to be an awkward time for people who host a lot of different types of website. Many that allow users to submit their own content such as forums may be blocked too, perhaps even slashdot.

That said, if the blocks are too tight then most people will opt out, but this censorship needs to be nipped in the bud before it gets too out of control. At the beginning it's marketed as a way of keeping children safe from porn and other possible controversial content, but when the infrastructure is in place it'll be easy to block anything the government doesn't want.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793043)

Isn't the infrastructure already in place to block anything the government doesn't want?

If you pass a law that every ISP must block a set list of sites, and every owner of any international connections must block the same, and for this list to be updated dynamically, how much manpower could that take?

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#44793061)

You could host an ISP outside the country.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793507)

I'm curious... how? You still need connectivity to the other country and if you've got no service in your country to make that connection...

Re:You can switch it off. (5, Insightful)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44793209)

It's mostly to do with Camoron wanting all UK ISPs to 'think of the children' and opt out of censorship.

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

They are invariably the lowest form of scum humanity has to offer, worse even than rapists and murderers... because at least you know where you stand with them, and you know they're evil. "For the children" people are just as evil, but they wrap themselves in robes and go about talking about how holy they are. Put them all on the island, setup cameras, and wait.

I assure you, within a few months... most of them will be dead, because they'll all be trying to one-up each other with dogmatic proclaimations... and invariably when you have a high concentration of such ideology... people start dying. A lot.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793311)

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

Yeah, let's send all the evil people to a nice island with a secret base inside a volcano. I see no way this brilliant plan could possibly backfire, no sir. Certainly they wouldn't spend their time and resources plotting and building moon lasers.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

girlintraining (1395911) | about a year ago | (#44793595)

Yeah, let's send all the evil people to a nice island with a secret base inside a volcano. I see no way this brilliant plan could possibly backfire, no sir. Certainly they wouldn't spend their time and resources plotting and building moon lasers.

These guys are politicians. They ain't ever been accused of bein' smart.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

slick7 (1703596) | about a year ago | (#44795215)

These guys are politicians. They ain't ever been accused of bein' smart.

But they're always thinking of the children, the pedophile bastards. Obviously the VPN is more secure than regular channels, soooo, it must go. If you use a VPN, expect to be labeled a terrerrist by the powers that were as they use drones to kill people in foreign lands. How ironic.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Funny)

SpaceLifeForm (228190) | about a year ago | (#44793589)

I'm trying to come up with an appropriate island.

Oh! Got it! Antartica will work wonders.

And they can debate global warming too!

Re:You can switch it off. (3, Funny)

gman003 (1693318) | about a year ago | (#44793807)

Nah, there's no reason to give them an entire continent, especially since there's a slim chance they could actually survive there. I'm thinking Ilha da Queimada Grande [wikipedia.org] , colloquially known as "Snake Island".

Why is it called Snake Island? Well, there's a lot of snakes there. Just one species - the Golden Lancehead, which is extremely venomous. But legend holds that there are so many of them, they cover the island to a density of one snake per five square meters. Oh, and they can live in the trees. The island is so dangerous the Brazilian government (not particularly famous for caring about the safety of its people) has prohibited people from even visiting.

With all those snakes, I'm sure the politicians will fit right in.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Funny)

worf_mo (193770) | about a year ago | (#44794779)

With all those snakes, I'm sure the politicians will fit right in.

Yeah, but what have the snakes done to deserve this? Think of the snakes!

Re:You can switch it off. (2)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44794681)

They'll melt it with all the hot air they generate.

Re:You can switch it off. (2)

Frosty Piss (770223) | about a year ago | (#44793751)

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

I say ship them to an island with other people's children.

Enjoy....

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794771)

i'd say, with THEIR children...
now that's gonna be quality entertainments. Pedophiles fuck other pedophiles kids.
And all of them in one voice will shout, but think of the children?

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794883)

Pervert.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794841)

... the lowest form of scum ...

A more technical explanation: They're are narcissistic autocrats. They do whatever makes them feel important and popular. Plus the power of their job proves they're right and everyone else is wrong.

Fixing the first one is easy: A public service announcement that belittles the relevant politician and promotes a relevant form of civil disobedience. Since D CaMoron is targeting businesses not voters, it is a little more difficult. Overloading government web/email servers to voice a protest is an option.

Fixing the second one is really difficult because people have to wait 3 years to make changes, if they're lucky. By the time of the next election, voters will be grateful the "chocolate ration has been raised to 20 grams a week". People adapt to life without their freedoms and worry only about the few freedoms remaining to them.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Interesting)

Ash-Fox (726320) | about a year ago | (#44795041)

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

They are invariably the lowest form of scum humanity has to offer, worse even than rapists and murderers... because at least you know where you stand with them, and you know they're evil. "For the children" people are just as evil, but they wrap themselves in robes and go about talking about how holy they are. Put them all on the island, setup cameras, and wait.

You're not far off, considering:

"The state must declare the child to be the most precious treasure of the people. As long as the government is perceived as working for the benefit of the children, the people will happily endure almost any curtailment of liberty and almost any deprivation." --Adolf Hitler, Mien Kampf

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

lxs (131946) | about a year ago | (#44795077)

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

Yeah but iPredator does sound awfully like an app for child molesters.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795157)

Anyone who uses a 'best interests of the children' argument should be immediately shipped to an island populated entirely by other people just like them.

Didn't work last time.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793259)

4 years before 'Camoron' got in I had internet access on my phone. To access forums with potential access to adult themes I had to opt out of their filtering. The network providers primarily did this off their own back for as we know the obvious would have happened if they hadn't. Opting out as an adult is absolutely no fuss and done when you sign up.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

serviscope_minor (664417) | about a year ago | (#44795073)

perhaps even slashdot.

No perhaps about it, mate.

I specifically remember when and why I got my phone connection unblocked. After finally getting round to getting data on my phone, I want to check slashdot and BAM. Blocked.

What's really curious is that it was blocked from the phone browser, but not from data connections treating the phone as a 3G modem.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Insightful)

KiloByte (825081) | about a year ago | (#44792999)

Few people know they can do so. For the vast majority, there's no option but the default.

Re:You can switch it off. (3, Interesting)

pla (258480) | about a year ago | (#44793081)

Few people know they can do so. For the vast majority, there's no option but the default.

While I agree with you in principle, and 100% oppose attempts to censor the net by anyone, for any reason... I strongly suspect that the vast majority of people who would use a VPN in the first place know all about "Hadrian's Firewall" and that they can opt out of it (for now).

That said - Seriously Cameron, WTF? Yes, the internet makes porn easier to get to than ever before; don't act all stuffy about the idea of kids seeing it, however, when we old-timers made due juuust fine with our dads' stash of Playboys, and turned out well enough.

/ Started "reading it for the articles" sometime around age 7.
// Gainfully employed, debt-free, and in a happy, stable, long-term relationship.

Re:You can switch it off. (4, Insightful)

vux984 (928602) | about a year ago | (#44794627)

however, when we old-timers made due juuust fine with our dads' stash of Playboys, and turned out well enough.

For what its worth, that stash of playboy's is not the same as the porn online.

Going online is like finding your dad's stash of hardcore gangbang masochistic anal humiliation fetish porn. Except my dad didn't have a stash of that. So although I was exposed to porn as a kid, it wasn't anything like that. And frankly, I'm not sure kids starting to look at porn should be dropped headfirst into the deep-end of the porn-pool.

It would be nice if one could somehow start with "playboy",and then move up from there in the modern world. The main pages of modern internet porn hubs are crammed full of stuff that doesn't look like fun, doesn't look pleasurable, and that most people don't find the least bit erotic or sexy. A lot of it is pretty grotesque.

Its like learning about food and the pleasures of eating by watching eating contests, food related clips from fear factor and jackass, followed by someone getting their stomach pumped, then someone popping mentos and rootbeer, then 2 girls 1 cup.

I don't object to the stuff that's online existing, or that its legal, or that some people choose to produce and consume it, or that some people get off on it.

But when an 8 or 12 or however old kid starts to be curious about sex and porn... I'd prefer they not have to be subjected straight to that on the first day out.

Re:You can switch it off. (5, Insightful)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44794707)

If only there were some way of monitoring or teaching a child as they grow up. I know, we could appoint one or two adults who would be responsible for looking after the child, teaching them right from wrong, preventing them from doing some things, encouraging them to do other things.

And I suggest this be named "parenting".

I'm pretty sure this would work out much better for everyone instead of having a secret list of web sites you can't access without gov't permission.

I wonder what the percentage of blocked sites is that don't actually have most people would consider "porn" on them is up to on this secret list? 10%? 20%?

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794869)

... encouraging them to do other things ...

Did your parents encourage you to fondle a girl's breasts or encourage your sister to carry a condom? Unfortunately, children learn by example and teen-agers learn the hypocrisy between the rules and what adults really do. This leaves a gaping hole in life-skills like stranger-danger, drugs and sex.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

davester666 (731373) | about a year ago | (#44795005)

Ah yes, the false dichotomy of "the gov't must prevent my child from doing the wrong thing" and "my child will do the wrong thing".

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795145)

The first time I had a girl sleep over (the girl and I were 16 at the time), my mom got me condoms. I didn't even think of that beforehand.

Re:You can switch it off. (2)

SimonTheSoundMan (1012395) | about a year ago | (#44793085)

But if you go to so much effort and have the knowledge to set up a VPN on your mobile device, surely you'd know to go to the giffgaff site and switch this blocking off anyway.

Re:You can switch it off. (5, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793661)

I am using giffgaff right now. You need to give your passport number to giffgaff in order to lift the ban.

Bloody goodthink.

The entire point of this is to prevent anonymous internet use. It has nothing to do with pornography.

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

advocate_one (662832) | about a year ago | (#44794877)

You need to give your passport number to giffgaff in order to lift the ban.

And what if you don't have a passport? The last I heard possessing them isn't mandatory if you never wish to leave the country...

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795039)

I think you can also give driving licence number (although, amusingly, by far the easiest way to get a drivers licence is to provide your passport as proof of ID. Getting one without is a faff involving long-form birth certificates, I think).

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795079)

Not that I am commending giffgaff on this requirement, but in Europe practically everybody has a passport. They are frequently used for proof of identity and other such things here. In America, fewer people have obtained their passport, so they are used less frequently for this purpose.

The guy who says a passport number is required is correct, and basically it is about proof of identity rather than proof of age requirement. If it was just proof of age, they'd be able to take that from the credit card or debit card most people will be using to pay for the service.

They would have a problem banning anonymity outright, so the UK intelligence community is trying to make it difficult to achieve by encouraging the mobile telephony companies to jump through hoops disguised as humdrum paperwork.

Re: You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795175)

This is the UK - almost as insular as the US. The majority do not have passports.

Also a passport cost £81 and takes between 6 and 8 weeks to process. And to get one requires a birth certificate... many have lost theirs, so add a couple of weeks and more hassle.

All to opt out of censorship by a poxy mobile provider. Forget that - I'll just take my money elsewhere.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795259)

Then, like I you cannot access 18+ sites or VPN access.
Australians, your papers are no good here.

@mavzor

Overestimating capabilities of users (2)

dutchwhizzman (817898) | about a year ago | (#44795139)

I'm sorry, but there are lots of mobile business users that don't know dick about this. These people will call their companies help desk to get the problem sorted.

I wouldn't let anyone in to my office network without a VPN. No that VPN got blocked. Any provider that generates extra work for me or my department, will be on the list of "too bloody expensive" and will lose my business. My current employer happens to have a few hundred people in such a contract and often customers have similar or higher numbers. This will cost the providers that have such silly blocks to lose business customers of all sorts and sizes.

Re:You can switch it off. (2)

RussR42 (779993) | about a year ago | (#44793611)

Can you still switch it off if your a traveler on a hotel NAT that needs to VPN to the office? What if you're trying to do some business from a coffee shop or other public wi-fi location? I hope they all remember to opt out for you.

Re:You can switch it off. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793647)

Yes, by giving them your fucking passport identity. Idiot.

Re:You can switch it off. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44795127)

Modded down for the telling the truth! :O

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

jimshatt (1002452) | about a year ago | (#44795231)

No, for being rude. Idiot.

Film at 11 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794483)

You can switch off the blocking if you so wish on the giffgaff web site.

News at 11.

So that wasn't the news?

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

mwvdlee (775178) | about a year ago | (#44794743)

2: fine-grained opt-out.
3: automatic opt-in for upon re-categorization of websites.
3: hourly re-categorization and fine-grained opt-out at the URL level.
Overreaction? False slippery slope?

Re:You can switch it off. (1)

N1AK (864906) | about a year ago | (#44795165)

The summary is also pretty biased, intentionally or not. Using VPNs to dodge filters probably isn't the most common use however it may well be the most common use by people who aren't the contract owner and thus aren't able to turn the filter off.

I'm not in favour of auto-on filters, nor do I think they will be effective enough; that doesn't mean that blocking VPNs doesn't make a lot of sense if you are trying to limit someone's ability to get around a filter.

There won't be enough bullets (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792951)

for those heads

Politicians are retarded (4, Insightful)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44792955)

When are they going to figure out that they're not qualified to make public policy on technology matters? Censorship sucks (and doesn't work), filtering doesn't work. Here's a suggestion for you instead: How about you get parents to actually pay attention to what their kids are doing instead of making the internet tougher and more annoying to use for everyone?

Re:Politicians are retarded (5, Insightful)

10101001 10101001 (732688) | about a year ago | (#44793073)

When are they going to figure out that they're not qualified to make public policy on technology matters?

Depends on what you mean by "not qualified". You're also presuming a lot on the politicians (and their supports) stating their true intentions.

Censorship sucks (and doesn't work), filtering doesn't work.

For people who want censorship, censorship is great. To the extent that the filter hassles anyone, the filter is working. You have to understand, the purpose isn't to really block porn. It's to stigmatize it and those who would commit actions that seem designed to be able to view it.

Here's a suggestion for you instead: How about you get parents to actually pay attention to what their kids are doing instead of making the internet tougher and more annoying to use for everyone?

Except that's the whole point. It's to (a) allow irresponsible parents to have the ISPs (through UK government mandate) be a babysitter. More importantly, it's to (b) allow busybodies to force their viewpoint on group (a) because group (b) believes they *are* responsible parents and it's everyone else's kids who are doing all sorts of evil things, spurred on by lustful things like pornography. The more annoyed they may people of group (a) and the more vocally against the censorship group (a) is, the more group (b) can counter with vocal chastising of "irresponsible parents". Because if those in the media chose to voluntarily not make moral judgments in their news reporting, that's oppression of (b) and their God. But, if group (b) actively uses the government to suppress access to pornography against the wishes of more liberal-minded, responsible-acting parents, well, that's just fine--because you can always get your name added to the, possibly made pubic in the future, opt-out list.

Re:Politicians are retarded (2)

Velex (120469) | about a year ago | (#44793361)

Funny how kids of holier-than-thous usually tend to end up being lonely alcoholics. If only the holier-than-thous would actually do what's best for the children, like, oh I don't know, I can't have children myself because of what my ex-parents did to me, but maybe we could start from the premise that in 18 short years, your innocent child is going to be all growed up no matter whether you shelter him or not. And if you had a female child, god help you, because sheltering her about sex is going to get her pregnant at 17. But maybe that's what holier-than-thous want. A future generation of middle age alcoholics and pregnant teenagers. Won't somebody think of our children's children's children?

Re:Politicians are retarded (3, Interesting)

PRMan (959735) | about a year ago | (#44793405)

Funny how in the UK, TV is full of near porn but the internet is blocked. In the US, the internet is full of porn but the TV is nearly blocked (unless you buy special channels).

Re:Politicians are retarded (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44794845)

>Implying that anything you're talking about is good or right, or what the majority wants

Re:Politicians are retarded (2)

Dunbal (464142) | about a year ago | (#44793199)

They're not qualified to make public policy - period.

Re:Politicians are retarded (1)

Prof.Phreak (584152) | about a year ago | (#44794355)

Anyone who can gets themselves elected [to public office] should not be allowed to do the job! ---paraphrasing HHGG.

Voters are retarded (1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793265)

You guys voted for those idiots. They're not even idiots and no politicians would want to censor child porn themselves - the only reason they go that far is because of the idiocy of people in general.

Stop blaming the government for everything. Look at people around you. Listen to what most parents' opinions on various issues and you'll realize it.

Morons, most of them.

Re:Voters are retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793335)

You should blame both the people who voted for these imbeciles and the imbeciles themselves.

Re:Politicians are retarded (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793277)

You are not living in the proper state of fear and paranoia that the world controllers would like you to live in. You need to be reeducated. See parents can not be trusted with such monumental affairs as raising children. Some parents are pedophiles. Some parents are through no fault of their own poor, and therefore unable to provide the beneifts that richer parents are able to provide their offspring. The only solution is for society to come together as a village and raise our young. This ensures that everyone has access to basic rights and health care. In the USA, we have implemented the great and noble program of 'no child left behind.' Whereas before some parents were neglectfull and did not give their kids the proper attention in a period of critical early childhood development ; now the kids are sent away at an ever younger age so that they can be given the proper care by officially certified governmental experts. It is much better than leaving children in the care of haphazard parents, who have no certification or governmental authority what so ever.

You say that we should just leave kids in the hands of 'parents' and let them teach kids what is right and wrong, and how to judge the internet? I say ha. Some of these parents are white supremacists. Do you want white supremacist raising kids. Internet filters are just part of the program that society uses to keep kids safe. As part of the global village, we need these filters and controll mechanisms to ensure kids are being looked after. Think of it as a village. Before when you had a kid that did something crazy or tried to run off the tracks, the other villagers would look after that kid and gently turn him around. If a villager saw a kid running out in front of an ox cart, they would invariable stop them and keep them safe.. In the same way now we have a global village. The internet and drones watch you and ensure that your kids aren't doing anything crazy. It is all for the best. Internet censorship is just a tool that our masters can use to ensure the best good for society.

Wake up and embrace the new global order.

Re:Politicians are retarded (1)

kheldan (1460303) | about a year ago | (#44794833)

New World Order

FUCK the 'new world order, and FUCK the people who want it, preferably sideways with a rusty chainsaw.

Re:Politicians are retarded (1)

trawg (308495) | about a year ago | (#44794769)

When are they going to figure out that they're not qualified to make public policy on technology matters?

When we stop voting the same people in, I guess

F the UK (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792957)

Here we go again. F the UK and their shitty censorship practices. The UK is nothing more or less than the Soviet Republic of England these days...

Re:F the UK (1)

Skapare (16644) | about a year ago | (#44793693)

It's more of a match to Nazi practices than to Soviet/Communist practices.

Spooks (4, Insightful)

EEPROMS (889169) | about a year ago | (#44792959)

Or the spooks have been putting a bit of pressure on the CEO's. You would be surprised what you can do with a bit of information regarding the lifestyle of board members of an ISP.

Slippery Slope??? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792965)

Its only a slippery slope if it had anything to with porn in the first place.

I thought the "point" of the filter... (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44792967)

I thought the "point" of the filter was to make access to pornographic content opt-in? Wouldn't using a VPN like that just imply you're opting in?

Re:I thought the "point" of the filter... (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44793513)

The filter would be sold to the public for 'evil' content been opt-in.
Long term expect web 2.0 posts that disagree, US web based private sector news sites, political blogs to just stop working.
Local UK issues are going international and been debated at a national level in the UK.
A good UK web filter might slow this interactive web 2.0 problem just enough for gov spin to work again.
VPN was good, easy, fast, cheap, a set and forget method that would have kept UK news flowing.

Re:I thought the "point" of the filter... (1)

rsmith-mac (639075) | about a year ago | (#44793909)

The argument is that it lets minors subvert their parents' wishes. If the parents wanted their kids being able to access porn, they would have turned the filter off in the first place.

Re:I thought the "point" of the filter... (4, Insightful)

gagol (583737) | about a year ago | (#44794299)

Naked people loving each other = bad, extreme violence on tv = okay, snafu.

Do it! (2)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#44793011)

Ban every possible means of bypassing an age filter.
VPN's
Google
Email
Facebook

See how popular it becomes.

Re:Do it! (1)

BSAtHome (455370) | about a year ago | (#44793069)

The *internet* is objectionable. There is no content that is inane. Every letter can be abused for multiple purposes. The whole internet should be an opt-in.

But the internet IS opt-in! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793097)

I can't imagine that anyone in the UK forces you to own a computer with an internet connection.

Re:Do it! (5, Funny)

iamhigh (1252742) | about a year ago | (#44793197)

The whole internet should be an opt-in.

Good idea. It would be awesome if we implemented a system where you had to actually call up specified companies and request that they hook your house up to the internet. Maybe we could even set it up to have a monthly charge!

Re:Do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793227)

ascii-art too?

Re:Do it! (1)

viperidaenz (2515578) | about a year ago | (#44793273)

ascii-art first.

(.)(.)

Re:Do it! (4, Funny)

Macgrrl (762836) | about a year ago | (#44793573)

( . Y . )

At least aspire to something with a decent cup size.

Re:Do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794001)

(\ | /) side boob

How many of these can we come up with? Post 'em if you got 'em!

Re:Do it! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794063)

Look at it through 3-D glasses....big difference

Re:Do it! (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44793537)

No more cool running, cheap, low power chip projects as the digital 'branding' of the UK to the world?
Welcome to a sealed digital Berlin (Hadrian's) wall? To be seen to put that up is very telling about the political mindset.

Cameron deserves (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793013)

Cameron deserves to be raped, whipped and crucified on national television while making sure every single child in the country has to watch and remember it as the outcome of being an enemy to its own people.

This is not about porn, this is about servitude and money. You could call that: intellectual terrorism.
This inbred piece of shit has to be made an example.

Norsefire party on the rise! (2)

guruevi (827432) | about a year ago | (#44793077)

Just give it time... remember, remember the 5th of November

porn today (2)

FudRucker (866063) | about a year ago | (#44793179)

free speech tomorrow, its only a matter of time before the internet is dead (worldwide)

maybe pirate radio will become more popular again, and the free speech will flow over the airwaves, the pirate radio i hear lately is crappy music over static on shortwave, yeah, thats what i want to hear low fidelity music on shortwave when i have a nice stereo sitting right here in the room with me, pirate radio has gone to hell nowadays, what i want to hear on pirate radio is something i dont hear anywhere else, like news that is suppressed on mainstream, criticizing of the government that needs to be said but the mainstream is afraid to touch it

Re:porn today (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794301)

Its been dead world wide. Try googling valuable knowledge. You are 10 pages below filtered porn ads, then commercial sites trying to block the free sites from ranking in the search engine to sell you a false answer, which leads you to 10 other products you don't need.

Compound this with stupid schools and stupid people not learning on their own. And universities owned and run by the corporations. Both sides electing your government officials.

And you get this wonderful new dark age. Where your lucky if you can get a job on the front lines of some private war so you can further your career in a mercenary company like "Academi".

Otherwise prepare to work at McDonalds as an ex-convict. And not before then.

Shits fucked.

The more you tighten your grip (1)

Gothmolly (148874) | about a year ago | (#44793187)

The more people will find $2/month VPS machines running OpenVPN.

UK (1)

fnj (64210) | about a year ago | (#44793315)

UK the censors. We who are about to censor salute you. /s

Don't Be Fooled (1)

bratwiz (635601) | about a year ago | (#44793325)

Don't be fooled. This is a blatant power-grab. A black-hat operation wrapped in a white cloak.

Re:Don't Be Fooled (1)

AHuxley (892839) | about a year ago | (#44793391)

Yes the legal step of you been your 'ip' is getting more political and legal traction.
No more finding your VPN provider, getting the legal paperwork and tracking you back to your ISP for long term logging.
The vision seems to be of local gov workers/contractors well below any court, police or security services getting direct details from any UK ip.
An automated realtime or historic lookup would give your details and the option to "request" net use logging.
Wonderful if your staff have gone to the press about expenses and you need to track them down.

methods to bypass this? (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793329)

Living in South Korea (not North Korea, but the actual democractic South), and they're censoring stuff like crazy, and not just porn. Websites like Fark.com can't be accessed at the PC rooms, and I assume that's only going to get worse. If they follow suit with the UK and eliminate access to VPN (the current way to deal with the censoring), what are the ways to deal with this?

(PS: I'm not technologically literate -- it was a real coup just to get VPN working in the first place.)

I survived the porn without these 'protections' (5, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793563)

Growing up in the 1990s I hit puberty right around the time the Internet exploded. I'm first hand evidence that *heavy use of pornography* is not indicative of anything harmful. I started masturbating to really creepy stuff at about 11 too. Creepy has good side effects for some people and there is nothing wrong with that. If anything it probably kept me sane in a world that shuns any sexual deviations.

On the outside I probably didn't seem that different. I had numerous short 'sexual' relationships. However without pornography I would have had a very depressing 'childhood'. I knew from a very early age (after puberty) that there was a near zero percent change I'd ever find a compatible mate and for 17 years I was alone. I gave up dating before a I even really started despite a dozen or so relationships over the years. Statistically there was a near zero chance of finding someone with sufficiently similar tastes (this is after you take into account the Internet and knowledge of how to use a search engine).

One day though I came across someone in the most unlikely of places whom I found interesting. Both sexually attractive (rarity for me) AND with near-identical interests. At first I didn't do anything as it was statistically unlikely they would be in the same boat as me. After 4 days or so I decided to contact them anyway. I took chances occasionally over the years-always being turned down. Turns out he was interested in me as well and he too had an uncommon sexual orientation. We did some fast dating over less than a week (real world) and after a month and 300 miles later he turned his whole life upside down for me. We're now inseparable.

And guess what else- I'm a very important and respectable figure. I'm the CEO of a startup and growing corporation. The only thing that has ever been a real problem for me is other peoples perception of my sexual orientation. Something I've had no choice but to keep quiet about. Everybody has a screwed up view of the world. The media and others have scapegoated people like myself and put forth a negative undeserved stereotype that gives the perception of danger. In reality you can make any group out to be a threat given you pick out crazies from within that group and then use the right communication, of biased words, repeatedly, in a continuous stream of negative shocking propaganda over decades of time.

Re:I survived the porn without these 'protections' (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794607)

Dude, because of your post they can get your IP address! TechCrunch and CNN will be hiring hackers to find out who you are and expose you! Kiss your startup aspirations goodbye.

Great news! (5, Insightful)

LihTox (754597) | about a year ago | (#44793599)

The tighter the filter, the more people will be annoyed by it and turn it off. And if it really were strictly a porn filter, people might be too embarrassed to opt-out. Now everyone has plausible deniability: "I need to run a VPN for work" or whatever.

iPredator specifically (3, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793825)

This has nothing to do with VPNs in general. It has everything to do with the fact that iPredator was co-founded by Peter Sunde, former spokesman for The Pirate Bay and long term, all-around pain in the ass for the intellectual property complex.

This is not the filter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44793895)

It's hard to see how a UK Internet Filter that doesn't yet exist can be blamed for a block of a type that existed before Cameron's announcement.

Given that mobile service providers have a direct financial incentive to be able to identify VOIP or tethering traffic is it a surprise that they'd block VPNs? While there are legitimate concerns about ISP level filtering in the UK, this is not it.

Re:This is not the filter. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794621)

They are not blocking VPNs, they are blocking access to sites that sell them - not blocking VPN traffic. Read the fucking article.

First amendment solution (1)

PopeRatzo (965947) | about a year ago | (#44793969)

Time to dust off the guillotines.

In the beginning (5, Insightful)

lapm (750202) | about a year ago | (#44794407)

In the beginning it was "Think of children". In my country they drived throw illegal censorship (Our constitution denies censorship). They claimed it would be overseen, etc... It wold only effect servers not in our country.. Today its used for much more then just what it was originally intended. It censors sites critical to to this censorship system, it censors pirate sites (not even claimed to distribute child related material), etc... Censorship is such a dangerous road. Once you take the first step, its so easy to take another and then another and then another.... Until you are light year away from what was originally intended. Theres no oversight of system. List is classified, Who manages that list is classified, and theres no court oversight of it. So if you are wrongly places on censor list, theres no way to get out. It volantery system for ISP to be part of, except if you dont implement it volantery theres law we can make it... Personally i believe its problem of democracy. Too many old folks on power that dont understand modern world. They think sweeping problem under the rug is doing something, because that seemed to work in past. Child related issues will not go away if you put them under the rug, you need to take action... Unfortunately censorship is the wrong choice of action. Smoke and mirror trick that leaves problem un-handled..

It's not blocking use of VPNS! (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794599)

It's blocking site that sell VPN access. While it's annoying you can still use a VPN on your internet connection, for work or personal use.

Not sure what logic led to this decision... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about a year ago | (#44794661)

If you're mature enough to pay for a vpn, your access to porn should be trivial. And if you made it that far and your goal was to access porn I'm sure you're smart enough to choose another vpn.

Strange UK and Australia are censoring. (1)

Znarl (23283) | about a year ago | (#44795227)

Could it be possible the NSA is pushing the UK and Australia governments into forced censorship in order to reduce the amount of traffic the NSA decrypts and tracks? Opt out of being censored, added to a highly monitored list.

I can see the benefit of banning VPN access to most subscribes for the NSA when they are looking for bad guys. Just seems suspect that two countries with very open pornography laws are forcing default censorship on their ISPs. Two countries who co-operate greatly with the NSA on spying. There are far more countries with less open pornography laws that are not censoring the internet at all.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?