Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter | Hacker News Reader

Go away Cameron – Bypass UK's porn filter

goawaycameron.co.uk

156 pointsasmosoinio157 comments

Open articleView on HN

As much as this is a brilliant idea (opting out could possibly be recorded)

I think the general consensus of the government right now needs to change, I seem to recall a hacker game from years ago (maybe 'Hacker Evolution') which described in it's prologue: "The world has been divided; governments censor and restrict access to the internet that was, hackers and technologists moved away from traditional means of communication and established the undernet..."

This kind of dystopian path is what we're on. We should not hide, we should not have to. if we do, then law enforcement will go unchecked and start penalizing us for simply hiding our tracks.

I can easily imagine a world in which using Tor becomes illegal, accessing the internet with a non-licensed browser, or having a method of tracing back to the point of origin (behind NAT) for ISP's.

ultimate accountability, ultimate censorship- possibly even having to get some form of license to even get access to the internet.

British people often forget the monopoly BT/Openreach have, it ties in closely to government (probably since they were state owned) it would be very easy for them to enforce these kinds of legislations, and of course, when they do, they'll be doing it under the banner of 'whats best for the public'

They've taken filesharing. They've taken sexual material. -and forced you to identify yourself- They will take more.

there are inherent problems with even identifying yourself like this; what if another extremist party got into power. "those people, those are the perverts, we'll incarcerate them", or, assuming a 21 year old guy grows up and becomes a candidate for prime minister, the current administration could accidentally leak that he bypassed porn filters.

no, hiding should not be the default, patching should not be the solution.

I will fight, I will not stop. and should I lose, I will simply leave this country and it's countrymen. the EU convention lists internet access as a human right.

I find it ironic that we have more censorship now than some known human rights violators.

> the EU convention lists internet access as a human right.

They're not stopping you from accessing the internet, they're essentially just giving people access to filtering software.

I think the dystopian worry isn't that they're giving individuals access to filtering software. That would be a worthy goal.

The real worry is that this system is Government controlled and built into everyone's internet connection.

Personally, I'm expecting it to soon have three settings, not two:

a) Family friendly browsing (opt-in)

b) Access to more adult sites (opt-out)

c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice).

... and my guess is that they'll then make it illegal to bypass the filter or do anything other than use the official choice buttons.

This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."

There are different filters. Some of them already have granularity.

> c) Blocking of whatever the government deems objectionable (no choice).

This already exists. The IWF provide sites that must be blocked and ISPs block those sites. It also happens when a company uses a court order to force and ISP to block a site.

The difference being that this is centrally controlled. Because of this, it's speed of censorship will be much quicker.

Places I expect this to block in future:

1. Discussions of how to bypass the filter (eg Tor)

2. News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)

3. Information during times of disorder (eg the tweeting by people involved in the Arab Spring).

4. Whatever the government of the day deems extreme porn/extremist/dissident. The future internet won't come with optional DA notices. Any new discussion like Snowden simply won't appear.

Essentially, it's a selective kill-switch for the internet, and I think Edward Snowden said it best. This is about power, not safety. This is a mechanism for the establishment to protect itself.

This is not centrally controlled. The ISPs that have been pushed into this run their own filters, the government don't run the filters, don't have access to the filtering software and don't recommend a particular filtering product.

For how long? In United States every radiostation output it plugged to Government blackbox before its aired. Supposedly ut was for safety and emergency transmissions but of course they can cut you off transmitting at any point.

I think it's still fair to say it's centrally controlled because the government introduced it as part of policy and sets the rules on what needs to be blocked. The fact ISPs find their own ways of complying doesn't change the fact this is government-driven.

If this was ISP-led, you might find the market reflecting a plurality of option, with consumers having a choice. Instead, this is Government-led, with ISPs expected to fall into line:

https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachm...

> Across the internet value chain, we expect industry – from retailers to device manufacturers – to ensure that all internet-enabled devices, whether a TV, games console or smart phone, are supplied with the tools to keep children safe as a standard feature

> We expect the smaller ISPs to follow the lead being set by the larger providers.

> And while Government looks to the industry to deliver, through the self-regulatory mechanisms already established under UKCCIS, we are clear that if momentum is not maintained, we will consider whether alternative regulatory powers can deliver a culture of universally-available, family-friendly internet access that is easy to use.

> The difference being that this is centrally controlled

No it isn't.

It's pointless having these discussions with people who are thoroughly ignorant of what's actually happening while they're spinning off into wing-nut territory.

What is really happening is already really fucking bad. You don't need to invent fanciful nonsense ("News articles the Government doesn't like (eg discussions barred by injunction such as Ryan Giggs)") because reality is bad enough.

I'm happy to be corrected. But my understanding is that this is a government programme introduced in their manifesto and applied by "voluntary" means by the big 4 ISPs, with a strong government understanding that the others will soon fall into line. That's what I mean by "central".

As for the "control" part, maybe I have misunderstood. Do you mean to say the ISPs have not included things like the IWF into their censorship mechanisms? Because that looks to me like a list of things to compulsorily ban.

Now, I may be putting two and two together, but to me this looks like:

a) The government at a minimum "influencing" ISPs to introduce variable-level filtering.

b) Mandatory filter lists.

c) An onward programme of debate about what should be in or out of the block.

As for the Ryan Giggs thing, that was simply my speculation. However, I'm currently finding a lot about the way that politicians see control measures goes beyond my wildest fancies - eg RIPA used for school catchment areas.

Or alternatively that it'll be used in court cases or job interviews. What happens when schools start demanding that all their teachers "opt-in"? At a recent obscenity trial in UK, a prosecutor claimed that people who attend sexual health clinics engage in more risky behaviour. What happens if you're asking in court if you've "opted in" to porn?

>>...we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."<<

Good quote, thanks. We need simple phrases like that to get past the Daily Fail/Porno Perverts consensus in the UK.

Hear hear, it was very eloquent, and I'll be using it in a letter to my MP.

Seriously people, pester your MPs about this. They listen if people pester in volume because it literally takes up their (or their aides') time to go through your letters.

Use a service like https://www.writetothem.com/ and pester the heck out of your MPs until they start taking some sort of action.

You forgot setting

d) blacking out communication during civil unrest

e) political blackmail of opposition

> The real worry is that this system is Government controlled

No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either.

> and built into everyone's internet connection.

Not everyones.

> This is why a lot of people don't like it: because we're building the machinery of censorship "for the sake of the children."

I'm fully aware of that, I'm just tired of hearing the same incorrect arguments. It only hurts a side if they lie or don't know what they are talking about.

> No it isn't. It's done, individually, by the ISPs. They're not all using the same software either.

I take your point, but I don't think it invalidates the phrase "government controlled."

I agree they aren't all using the same software, and much is "voluntary." However, the UK web filter is:

a) In the 2010 Conservative Manifesto:

> establish a new online system that gives parents greater powers to take action against irresponsible commercial activities targeted at children;

http://media.conservatives.s3.amazonaws.com/manifesto/cpmani...

b) Announced by the government:

> all internet users will be contacted by their service providers and given an "unavoidable choice" on whether to use filters.

http://www.theguardian.com/technology/2013/jul/22/david-came...

c) Implemented voluntarily by the main four ISPs (three down, one to go), but with the expectation all will obey it because it's policy:

> "Preselected" parental filters are now official policy, and should extend to small ISPs, according the the Department of Culture, Media and Sport's (DCMS) new strategy paper.

https://www.openrightsgroup.org/blog/2013/government-wants-d...

... So, yes, it's not on every connection at the moment. But this is a government programme instituted by direction from the Government. When you combine it with the IWF and mobile filtering, it's not a misrepresentation to say that the Government is drawing up censorship lists and is approximately half-way through the job of making them unavoidable.

They didn't have hosts files in the UK before?

I don't understand your point. Do you think I was claiming this was the first time people have had access to filtering software?

How do we incentivize people to fight back against every single law that could potentially harm privacy or force censorship? The people making these laws have every bit of incentive to do so, while the regular people have limited willpower, limited resources and limited time.

Sure we can pull off another SOPA blackout, but I don't think we can do it consistently. They'll keep proposing harmful laws and we can't stop them all.

The solution is to make those that support these bill pay the price (as high as possible - in votes, revenue, public image,...) for it. One by one...

...Until we get tired or apathetic. Then we lose.

There are asymmetric levels of incentive here. Organizing large-scale political action against everyone in the first world who infringes on people's internet privacy rights is simply unsustainable.

You can't fight a problem that's essentially systemic by finding and painstakingly stamping out every instance of it happening. A systemic problem needs a systemic solution.

The problem with this thinking is that it's impractical to vote on the basis of single issues when we elect representatives at a local level.

When choosing from the ten or so candidates available we have to consider a broad spectrum of issues; who will manage the health service the best, who will be best for the economy etc. Whilst internet censorship is an important element, it's by no means the primary consideration even for us that work in the industry, let alone the wider electorate.

You can't. There was some guy on here yesterday arguing "your right to privacy is less important than protecting my children". Hello, parental responsibility? But something funny happens in the minds of (some, but not all) new parents and they want to see the world remade into a giant daycare centre. It doesn't occur to them that their kids will grow up and they'll find themselves in a world they don't want to live in.

I had a similar conversation with a friend recently. Turns out everyone with such opinions, most with good intentions I assume, seem to evaluate the merit of any such legislation based on its best case scenario of utilization; that is where no law makers or enforcer is corrupt and everyone is very responsible. But, no one seems to ever think about how the same legislation can be misused and abused. If you allow someone to setup infrastructure to censor, perhaps with good intentions now, but perhaps a successor might misuse it.

On somewhat related note, a probable idea of how such infrastructure could be misused is [1], I couldn't believe it when I saw that history was changed quite simply.

[1] http://www.theguardian.com/world/2013/dec/16/north-korea-era...

That's crazy. I have two young children, and a mother who often borders, in my opinion, on overprotective. I grew up just fine with privacy and freedom and I would like my children to experience the same.

> these laws

What laws? Most people seem to be so horrendously misinformed it's a wonder they have the audacity to make such wide reaching claims.

What is the incentive for lawmakers to block pornography?

1. Once you have the infrastructure to block some websites set up, you can (ab)use it to block any arbitrary site that you want, including political dissent.

2. The "friends" of the legislators who will actually implement these on government contract stand to gain massively.

Censorship is an excellent demonstration of why network level blocking is a complete lost cause. You hardly need Tor, VPN, or a special browser when SSL is impossible to block in a non-destructive way. You can never effectively control what people do on their computer without controlling the computer itself.

It would be much more effective to make blocking the responsibility of web browsers. This would allow settings at the user level, and circumvention prevented by normal OS security. Parents could enable or disable as they please.

Blocking via web browsers is definitely not going to work. It would require that every browser on each PC, phone, TV and other internet enabled device all activate the filters, all of them have a facility to activate/deactivate the filters, all of them don't allow other web browsers to be installed and don't allow booting from alternative sources. Most parents don't know how to do this. They do know how to tick a box when they are signing up for a broadband service. There are millions of devices already out there.

SSL-enabled sites can already be "blocked" in the UK, they block the entire domain and the IP.

So you believe that the best way to help parents is to have network level blocks? People should use poorly designed technology because they are stupid?

But to prevent kids getting around network level filtering you still need to have all the anti-circumvention measures baked into the OS/browser/anti-virus. The UK government have created a network level filter that still needs client level changes to actually work. I understand that most parents would have a hard time doing this, but a government backed effort could have made a difference. I see this as similar to installing antivirus (which a lots of parents seem perfectly capable of).

I understand that it is possible to block SSL by IP address. However, it is also possible to send anything down the same tunnel; but you can't inspect the actual packets to see if they are clean. Some filters perform a MITM, but I think we can agree that is a terrible idea. Browser based filtering lets you filter any site based on its contents and also maintain the security of the data. It also avoids domain level blocks that block other sites by accident.

I think that network level filtering will make access to porn more difficult than browser level filtering at less effort to the public, which is the governments objective. I'm not saying it's a good thing.

This is pretty much what Peter Sunde was getting at with this talk I think [0].

I agree though, I ended up having an argument with my parents on this subject. My old man's been working with software for goodness knows how long and he still doesn't really see it, so I think maybe it's more that some people implicitly trust and support the status quo.

> and should I lose, I will simply leave this country and it's countrymen. the EU convention lists internet access as a human right.

This. I really believe that together we're stronger. For all its (many many) failings, the EU is just a political confluence in the same way as the internet at its best is a social confluence, and if the country of my birth lets me down then I'll move to the continent and leave the Little Englanders behind.

[0] http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-h...

For what it's worth, we bought the lease for our office from a firm who's business it was to provide filtering solutions to schools.

Upon moving in, we decided to take a look at what was on the stacks of hardware that had just been left in piles here.

To our complete lack of surprise, they were full of the personal details of children, their browsing histories, and even poorly configured squid caches full of things like views of hotmail accounts.

Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken metal. Were we bad actors, we could have run a magnificent identity theft and child-stalking ring.

Censorship in and of itself is a problem.

Censorship by incompetent buffoons is an even greater problem.

> Needless to say, disks were removed and turned into appropriate bits of broken metal. Were we bad actors,

You were bad actors. A serious criminal offence had been committed and you not only didn't report it, but you destroyed the evidence.

And whom exactly would have been pursued? The directors of the defunct company who had variously jumped the country or disappeared? Or us, for being in possession of such data?

Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

> Answer: Us. Because Kafka runs the criminal justice system. Bringing crimes to the attention of the police is just not worth the risk.

Kafka does not run the criminal justice system. Your actions are disgraceful.

His spirit quite certainly does. I would assume that you've never attempted to report a crime in the UK. It's a fruitless endeavour that typically results in the police threatening the reporter, or simply declaring it a civil matter in which they have no interest.

Your experience is not universal. Out of myself and many young friends, there are few bad dealings with Police and mostly positive. Including people convicted and sentenced.

Fair enough. My experiences have left me very cop-shy.

In 2007 I had removers sho, rather than taking my belongings from A to B, took them from A to an auction house. The police started with a stance of "it's a civil matter" and ended with a stance of "we will prosecute you for wasting police time".

In 2002 my girlfriend at the time was receiving unsettling, perverse text messages from an unknown number. When I responded in an equally threatening tone, I had a call the next morning from East Kolbride police for sending a threatening communication to a police officer.

In 1996, I was arrested for being outside in the snow, aged 13. I was kept in a holding cell and denied food, water, or the means to contact my parents.

I have a very, very low opinion of the efficacy of the current application of the rule of law.

> that typically results in the police threatening the reporter,

Typically? Really?

Hah, this is weird. I created GAC, and submitted this a few hours ago, but got not much love. And now you have some :) Anyways, the server is having a serious hug of love. Things are slowed down now.

Anyways, AMA!

so does this depend on your server? i've read your site - but i'm not clear if this routes traffic through your server or not

Indeed it does, it uses proxies. Private proxies to be exact.

- What proxies are you using?

- If you set up your own proxies: How do you handle the costs?

- If you use someone elses proxy: How do you make sure they always work for your users?

- Does you extension only proxy blocked traffic? How do you know what is blocked? Is there an official list?

I'm using Squid to serve proxies, albeit a modified Squid.

On your 3rd point, it has a list, as well a manual activation button. It proxies only blocked traffic.

- So traffic must be really cheap, where you host your proxies? How much is it?

- Can you tell us how much traffic you had already?

the cost and the possibility of prosecution for supplying illegal material are two obvious downsides to this - keep in mind that uk law makes bestiality porn highly illegal for instance, whereas it's legal or easily available in other parts of the world - and also something that people are sometimes curious about

This UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. Its an requirement put on ISP by the government, and covers porn, music videos, magazines and newspapers. For now, the focus seems to be on the first item, but the Bailey Review want much much more.

Illegal material has been blocked since 2004 and onward by most UK ISP's, mostly under the umbrella argument of stopping child pornography. The Wikipedia page https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Internet_censorship_in_the_Uni... can provide much more details, like the desire to block content ranging from Fashion sites to those describing Alcohol.

the problem i'm describing is that some sites are legal overseas but not here - if this proxy also bypasses cleanfeed there could be problems - well i imagine what would happen is that it'd get added to the list of banned urls

>This UK filter is explicitly not about blocking illegal material, but to block legal website which are deemed by the government as inappropriate for watching. //

It's not about blocking legal websites it's about filtering content for general users and allowing continued unfiltered access for those who wish to have it. It's like putting plastic wrap on pornography magazines in Newsagents - it doesn't stop you getting it it just stops it being seen by those who don't want to [or can't] purchase it.

You may say that's semantics but if you can still access the material legally I don't think you can call it blocked.

There are blocked sites too but they've been legally judged to be contributing to illegal/unlawful activity in the UK - eg ThePirateBay.

How are you going to handle the eventual addition of your proxies IP addresses to the block list?

It feels like this will quickly become a game of cat and mouse with the block list managers.

i suppose looking at what people do in china is an idea - iirc the filtering equipment is going to be supplied by huawei who also make the chinese great firewall stuff

@nubela: if this service can be used to bypass BBC content restrictions, you're going to have a bad time. A lot of BBC content can only be viewed within the UK, so if you can use GAC to access this content abroad, the following will happen:

- they can contact nominet to get your personal data

- you will likely get a letter from their lawyer

- you may get your .co.uk domain taken away

- you may be asked to hand over your entire database of users

- you may be sued for damages.

IANAL, just FYI.

Have you got any precedents for this happening?

It looks like it only works for blocked sites. I assume that BBC content restrictions wouldn't look like a blocked site to this.

Why would this be any different from someone outside the US using a proxy to access BBC content say via GigaNews Vypr and their UK proxies? It's not like the underlying stream and any DRM is being tampered with, in which case the above might happen.

As an aside, if you're in the UK there are a other independent ISP's who provide unfiltered internet access [1]. I've used Andrews and Arnold since 2009 and can't fault them. Yes you pay a bit more each month, but you know that old adage about "you get what you pay for".

[1]: http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-unfiltered.html

Maybe you can help me. I actually paid for the licence this year but during the summer I moved to some other country and thus I'm unable to listen to the BBC radios. Is there a (legal) way around this?

Licenses apply to locations. You bought a license for your previous dwelling - you can get a refund for the unused part but other than that I don't know of any legal method to access BBC's domestic offerings from outside the appropriate geographic area.

Don't take this as gospel, I've read the laws that apply to TV licensing a couple of times but I'm not an authority on it.

Pffft. Let me tell you about this so-called refund. I applied for said refund of UK TV license after leaving the UK at the end of September. They told me they could only refund unused _quarters_ of the license, meaning that they would only refund me from the start of December (well in the _future_ at that point). Then they had the hide to tell me that because I was applying for a refund from a _past_ date (Sept) I had to prove that I was no longer in the UK. I sent them a lease, and a letter from my employer in my new country which they required by snail mail. They rejected it and told me they needed a final gas bill from the UK or something equivalent, which I again had to send by snail mail. I wrote them a letter about how the TV license was "a national disgrace, isn't it", and "should be abolished, shouldn't it". So glad to be out of Cameronland.

I see. Thanks!

PG, if you are reading this, I sent you an email. I first built this with getgom.com (Singapore), its moderately successful, but the market in Singapore is too small. With this, I understand that technologies of proven concept, when applied to a large market, can work effectively well.

As a programmer, this year, I launched 7 projects, this is one of them. The rest are of random successes. I would like to get in contact, cheers.

All the best for your products and projects, current and future. When I first saw this topic, I thought the name was familiar.. then I remembered having saw it first in /r/singapore, where you announced GOM and 6900000.

You're helping a ton of people out while taking quite a bit of risk. You're a good man.

The only thing I know to be unlawful about the site is that you have no contact details - your whois says it's a "non-UK corporation", is it really? It sounds like it's just you?

Anyway, commercial operations in the EU must have contact details listed to comply with the EU E-Commerce Regulations (2000), you also need to say if prices include VAT. Many, many websites fail on this but as you're sticking your neck out it seems it's something you could immediately be charged with.

It's complex though - http://www.out-law.com/page-431 gives good details.

Note the regulations are written so as to apply to commercial activities on the net, this includes personal websites, for example.

You can probably avoid that one by being wholly based outside the EEA and having no controlling staff within the EEA.

This isn't legal advice.

This thread elegantly demonstrates the problem.

Most people - even in a technical audience with a deep interest in the subject - have no fucking clue what's actually happen nor how it's happening.

This is how stupid laws get passed. People don't bother to write the correct letters to the correct people to get the stupid laws stopped.

I find it profoundly depressing to realise that so few people know what the filters are doing.

Then go ahead and break it down.

As an American, I haven't paid much attention to this until now. Can you please enlighten us?

ISPs are implementing optional filters that are no different to the standard 'Protect yer kiddies' software ones. They're doing this ostensibly to avoid regulation and government interference.

Because of this, lots of people are decrying regulation and government interference. It's quite frustrating.

There is one additional factor: the filters are opt-out and you have to request the ISP if you don't want the censored experience. I believe this changes the dynamics quite a bit.

Generally speaking there seems to be a lack of engagment by experts in a varity of subjects. This is no different.

The problem is the ease of access to pornography for anyone, mainly children. It is hard to deny this is a problem. A solution is an opt in web filter.

I don't like web filters but in this case I see little alternative. The only other option is to try to prosecute websites that do not do some form of age checking for the UK. I don't think this is viable at all.

An opt-in[1] filter isn't a solution, it's a snake oil pill that has no effects whatsoever on trivial access to pornography anyways.

It will hamper a stressed kid trying to go to the local youth NGO's site with info on condoms (a true example blocked by one of the UK filters). It won't hamper a horny teenager trying to look for porn, he'll find it rapidly anyway and tell his peers how to do it.

In short, these web filters are a worse solution than simply doing nothing. You're accepting a tradeoff of real harm for imaginary, nonexistant benefits.

[1] By the way, isn't the implementation on-by-default, making it an opt-out filter instead of opt-in?

Let me get this straight: Instead of entrusting my ISP with my preference for porn, I'm entrusting you.

I fail to see how this is any better. You're a recent compsci graduate and I'm sure you have good intentions. Can you explain how your "private proxy" servers work, so that it's infeasable for an attacker, or even yourself, to know which websites I've accessed?

ProTip: Saying "we don't store logs" doesn't really give me the proof I need.

This isn't how the internet is supposed to work.

You can't beat politics with technology http://www.wired.co.uk/news/archive/2013-11/18/peter-sunde-h...

I'm sure many would disagree.

Political change is often forshadowed by technological revolutions. The mechanisation of agriculture, for instance, had a major influence on the decline of serfdom.

Also, certain technologies have an obviously direct form of political influence, like the AK-47.

Yeah, that's not actually what he says.

The exact quote is You can't beat politics with new technology all the time.

He goes on to argue that involvement in politics is important as well as technology.

"Go away Cameron" is a strong political statement. If this thing gets lots of media attention and users (I hope it does!), then it's definitely sending a message. Actually using technology sounds like a great way to influence politics for people who otherwise can't do much besides vote and whine.

Why not just opt out of the filter? Or use one of the many smaller ISPs who don't implement the filter in the first place? You don't need plugins/extensions.

Ironically, my work filters mean I can't access the site. But if it does bypass censorship then it makes a good political point. How much has this cost? How much publicity has it got Cameron? If it can be bypassed without any trouble then it is pure theatre.

Lots and lots of really negative publicity here in the UK. It blocks rape support sites and sexual education websites better than it blocks porn:

http://www.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/abu...

The glaring public failures of this though will be either fixed or fade from the media. The system will remain imperfect but nobody will care 6 months down the line.

Opting out of a porn filter would probably see you added to some sex offender list within a few years. This is probably a better option if you're stuck on some ISP for some reason.

I doubt it. Or I'm going to have some trouble. I reckon a large proportion of people will opt out and I wouldn't be surprised if they try to remove the opt out option in the future.

> I reckon a large proportion of people will opt out

HAH! I had a friend one day in tears because her bf had some porn on his laptop. She was shocked, outraged etc.

She owned a dildo.

Some people have horrific double standards, unless people make a stand against censorship (unlikely) or their desire for porn (even less likely). This is only going to get worse.

I was both bemused and disturbed when it seems the entire female population went nuts for 50 Shades Of Grey recently. On my commute on the train on the way to work, you would see them twirling their hair, chewing their lower lips, writhing in their seats, sometimes even (subconsciously I'm sure) rubbing themselves. Can you imagine what would happen tho' if a bloke was reading a porn mag or watching a movie on his laptop? There is a huge double standard in play here.

Can you imagine what would happen tho' if a bloke was reading a porn mag

That does happen. The likes of "Nuts" or "Zoo". Most of those lads mags are as pornographic.

The double stardard is that if a straight woman has lots of sex, she's a slut who should be ashamed; yet if a straight man has lots of sex, he's a stud and should be congratulated.

I have not read either of them but I suspect we may have different definitions of pornographic. Are we talking photos of actual sexual activity here, or just girls in their underwear? Do you consider Page 3 to be porn?

Pornography is defined by intention of the producer or by the action of the viewer/consumer. Page 3 is porn because it's designed to be sexually titillating. A picture which was taken showing someone's feet, say, may have been taken without any desire to be sexual but nonetheless can be used as pornography.

Nuts and Zoo and what have you have photos which are intended to be sexually enticing, ergo they're [soft] porn.

Generally the demos can control [via the government, to an extent] the production of works intended to be pornographic but not the private use of pornography.

In what world is that a double standard??? Enjoying masturbation and sex toys while disapproving of pornography seems like a healthy and reasonable stance to take.

She probably didn't like that he was getting it on without her.

I initially assumed your comment was a joke of some kind - but I think you might actually be serious? Could you explain how it's reasonable?

Comeon, seriously? Do we need to talk about exploitation in the porn industry all over again?

Pornography is not created in a vacuum. There is a large industry surrounding it and, at least according to some, some of the practices of parts that industry is troublesome.

There are also reasons to believe that watching porn might in some scenarios affect the viewer in negative ways that abstract sexual fantasy does not.

Reasonable people can of course disagree to the scope and accuracy of the above objections, but I'd consider neither fundamentally unreasonable.

Masturbation on the other hand is almost universally considered a normal and healthy part of adult sexuality.

Basically just because someone might find porn degrading to women or morally objectionable, doesn't mean they in any way oppose sex and their own sexuality.

Dildos are not created in a vacuum and has a large industry surrounding it - and a lot of the practices involved in that are troublesome too. Sweatshops?

I'm sure there is pornography created by people who want to make it. I'm less sure there are dildos created by anyone who wants to be making dildos (the actual workers, not the boss).

I'm sure some people would find a wife using a dildo as degrading to the husband and morally objectionable. Probably most of the middle east. That certainly doesn't give me the right to call it bad, though.

You've totally gone off the rails in this comment. The point is we can draw a line between commodities whose creation involves (a) people using their bodies in ways which vary from completely fine and consensual to coercion/slavery/illegal abuse, and (b) people working in bad conditions. In category (a) we have, e.g. porn and prostitution. In category (b), we have dildos, t-shirts and cell phones. There will be important discussions to be had about categories (a) and (b), but those discussions will be different.

I wouldn't say it's healthy and reasonable, but it's certainly not hypocritical.

Maybe not the sex offenders list, but there will be a list and it will likely be leaked in all or part.

'Maybe'? The fact you don't know it's VSOR and not 'the sex offenders list' indicates you probably don't have a clue what you're talking about.

I would go with that if it were opt in. But deliberately, its not. Have to ask why, and what that implies. The whole point is to humiliate people who want access to porn. It has nothing what so ever to do with protecting children. The UK gov is enforcing a morality on the UK people which frankly its rarely applies to its self.

Also, BT are going to or are blocking proxy and proxy info sites. Why would any one want to opt in to that? Clearly this the beginnings of mass censorship, which I see no logical end to.

All this coming from the party which claims to be about personal choice and responsibility.

Exactly. In an opt-in system, enabled means "they displayed a preference against incidental access to porn" and disabled means "they've never bothered to change it". In an opt-out system enabled means "they've never bothered to change it" and disabled means "this guy irresponsibly exposes his kids to sleaze, and spends his free time downloading demeaning hardcore pornography".

We all know that, at some point, the status of some poor schmucks ISP filter is going to be used as supporting evidence of their lifestyle against him or her in court.

The slippery slopes being written out in this thread are beyond comedy into absolute absurdity.

>Why would any one want to opt in to that? //

Come on, seriously are you saying you can't imagine why?

If you don't block proxies then you may as well not block anything. Regardless of whether you think not blocking anything is the better way - surely you can see why people would want to block porn on their internet connections?

Why hassle with red tape if you can just sidestep the entire issue?

Political gesturing.

One opt out I've seen requires a credit card. One might not have one. Before you ask, me. I have an internet connection, but no credit cards.

Not all ISP cover all of the UK.

You also assume that the person wanting to bypass the ISP filter is the same person controlling the connection. So, say a 16yo wants to explore homosexuality, but is not ready to discuss this with parents who simply didn't bother opting out because they simply didn't think it was necessary.

Plenty of cases for using this extension, especially in the UK when we are routinely lied to about the scope of laws, and mission creep is universally denied, while it happens. For example, anti terror laws used by local councils to investigate fly tipping. We know that sooner or later other subject areas will be blocked by this distopian nut job government. Anything they feel is not in the public good will be considered and possibly censored. Make no mistake, this is the thin end of the wedge. We also know that it was originally dreamed up by the previous Labour government, so we wont get any changed even if we boot this lot out. Anything that bypasses these vile thought control freak nanny filters, and exposes the technical impotence of them is welcome. Remember, we dont have freedom enshrined in fundamental law. Its a granted privilege here, not a right. Oh, Human Rights act. Yup, this government wants rid of it. If Americans think their freedoms are under threat, the threat in the UK is many factors higher.

> Not all ISP cover all of the UK.

If they use BT Wholesale backhaul then their coverage is exactly the same as BT Retail.

ID Net, A&A, Zen, many others will give you as much coverage as the big boys even in Market 1 exchanges ( only BT Wholesale provision ).

If you're in a Market 2 or 3 area ( lots of competing backhaul ) then there's basically no restriction to how many ISPs from which you can choose.

You also assume that the person wanting to bypass the ISP filter is the same person controlling the connection. So, say a 16yo wants to explore homosexuality

Regardless of the child's sexuality, I'm sure 90% of parents think their teenagers are innocent pure darlings for years after their sexuality appears.

IIRC even the small providers have to implement filtering with the IWF blacklist, so there's no way to get a filter-free experience.

There's a UK ISP called Andrews and Arnold that will give you a filter free experience with the caveat that you have to filter your own network, but they are not really a home ISP as such.

Why aren't they a home ISP? They have a product called Home::1 that is only available to home users. http://aaisp.net.uk/broadband-home1.html

You have no obligation to filter your own network, but you can if you want.

(A satisfied customer)

Well it appears I was a little misguided, I have a friend who uses them as a second ISP purely for office stuff.

He should me 24 hour ping latency graphs once, the network quality looked great.

they use openreach.

it's possible that openreach will be doing the filtering eventually, A&A have no say.

No, Openreach provide a bitpipe between the customer and ISP. The Internet gateway is with A&A.

http://aa.net.uk/kb-broadband-realinternet.html

Many people think that The Rev is a first class arsehole. Potential customers are warned to carefully research their choice of ISP.

> Many people think that The Rev is a first class arsehole.

You clearly do. But you said "Many". Can you cite any others?

I could if Google Groups search worked, but it doesn't, so I can't. But there are many threads with him demonstrating his behaviour. People can decide for themselves if they think he's an arsehole or not.

He's not the Andy Mabbett level of trolling arse, and he's no MI5guy, but he does have notoriety.

Presumably they still block the sites like ThePirateBay for which court orders have been made?

I asked this last time A&A were mentioned, still haven't found an answer, just curious?

Those court orders tend only to be served against the larger consumer ISPs.

IWF membership is entirely discretionary on the part of the ISP.

Even if the ISP is a member they don't have to implement the blocklist. ID Net is an example of this, I had an interesting exchange with one of the execs when I was a customer a few years ago. They were a member in order to 'monitor' trends but didn't use the blocklist. I don't see them listed as a member any more.

https://www.iwf.org.uk/members/current-members

As a follow-up to myself, it now appears to be IWF policy that members must implement the blocklist

https://www.iwf.org.uk/members/member-policies/url-list/test...

which presumably explains why some previous 'observer' members are no longer members.

Again, though, IWF membership is not mandatory for any organisation.

This is a political move to counter-act the filter.

I'm guessing the answer primarily is "because teenagers who don't pay for their connections don't get to have them unfiltered".

I don't like the name. It's too tied to the current leader of the Conservative Party. If internet censorship is tied to David Cameron, then a party could pretend to be anti-censorship by changing leader (happens often).

Maybe "Go Away, Mary Whitehouse" might be better?

first, i'd like to say i quite enjoy the UK, both as a country and its people. however, politicians in the UK have a history of doing some very extreme and very stupid things. since i am not a citizen of the UK, i cannot vote to try to change the current censorship regime, but i can say that (1) i will not be visiting the UK unless absolutely necessary until these rules change and (2) i think this is a further reason for Scotland to secede from the UK.

this is a great plugin and i commend the author's defiance of these draconian internet filtering rules. while i agree that, fundamentally, this is a political problem and not a technological one, a technological solution is needed to prevent smart people from being drowned in an ocean of stupidity. if you're a UK citizen, don't forget that you need to mobilize politically to truly fix this. talk to your friends, develop a consensus.

cameron (and everyone who supported this censorship crap) needs to go, he is a muppet of the highest degree and a disgrace to the legacy of the UK. keep jerking off and carry on.

Don't you need a GoAwaySalmond to cover Scotland? I thought they had a separate law.

There is no law mandating this filter. It's put in place through the threat of much more extensive regulation, with no democratic oversight.

There isn't a law, it's just pressure on the ISPs to 'voluntarily' add the filter.

How can I test if my connection is being censored? I've lost track if it's particular ISPs or all ISPs that have put blacklists in place which block more sites than they should.

Should probably stop calling it "Porn Filter" it's kind of playing in to it.

Customer: "Hi, I can't access some websites"

ISP: "Oh, we see you have the PORN FITLER enabled. You mean YOU WANT TO WATCH PORN YOU PERVERT?"

Customer: "Uhm, never mind."

Let's be honest, the biggest issue with this isn't that it's harder to look at tits online, so let's not trivialise it and stigmatise it as such.

This looks to be from the same team that produced singapore's http://getgom.com/ - Go Away MDA, a response to non-optional censorship of several adult websites in Singapore. If so - well done guys! I guess increased global prevalence of censorship is creating a global market for tools which bypass it.

I'm finding this a bit strange. As far as I am aware you have to opt-in to the porn blocker on existing packages. The chances are its already going to be off for most people, especially those who know how to use a chrome extension.

I get the impression that this was created for other, more illegitimate purposes, that has nothing to do with "Cameron's porn blocker"

nope, it's opt out by default.

existing customers get a choice page, but new customers will have to phone in.

or log into their ISPs account area and do it.

Nope, it's opt-out for new subscribers and existing subscribers have to choose to opt in or out. There are many reasons why someone would want to use this extension. Sexual abuse support sites are currently being blocked by the filters, so a child being abused by a family member could use the extension to find help on the internet, despite the abuser having the porn filter on. Or a chap who has been pressured into opt in in might just want to have a wank over some internet porn - it's not illegal.

If nothing else, it shows how broken the whole mess is. Opt-out filtering is ineffectual, often targets the wrong sites, and was basically introduced as a sop to a vociferous minority who would rather go back to Victorian standards and sweep all this nastiness under the carpet, than have an actual discussion about pornography and sexuality.

Yeah, I'm aware its opt out for new customers, but its opt in for current customers. I would like to think that the reasons you gave are all mistakes with the blocker that would get ironed out over the coming weeks, especially more likely with the press attention it has got.

Ulterior motives aside, if this saves even a handful of kids from growing up with porn addiction, its probably worth it, right?

It's not opt-in for existing customers. At some point they will be presented with a screen that forces them to make a choice.

If you think that all mistakes with the blocker will be ironed out, then you don't have any idea how large the internet is. This is a problem that is so ingrained with automated filters that it has its own name - the Scunthorpe Problem - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scunthorpe_problem It is an inevitable consequence of this sort of system. Innocent sites will continue to be blocked.

As for your other point - it's pure conjecture. Furthermore, it will not stop kids accessing porn. When I was a kid we used to swap dirty magazines. Now they will be swapping memory sticks. And those are the ones who don't take 2 minutes to go to google to search for a way to get around the filter. For all the other ones it's business as usual.

The whole thing is a farce, designed to appeal to the Daily Mail / Think of the Children subset of noise-makers, while completely burying any hope of a rational debate.

Why do you need to login? Sounds suspicious to me.

>> If this extension violates any law in UK, please send me an email at hello@goawaycameron.co.uk and I will be more than willing to comply.

Is this how the law works?

Citizen: "…um…sorry officer, I didn't know that this is illegal"

Police Officer: "…well, if you didn't know…off you go then"

ignorance does not imply malice.

I don't think it'd stand up in court though.

Are those filters simple DNS filters or do they do deep packet inspection?

It will almost certainly be a combination of layer 2 (IP filtering) and HTTP header scanning via proxies or TCP reset injection

This is interesting and cool, but would be much more interesting and cool if the source code for the extension was available somewhere so it can be easily reviewed.

Is the code up on github or somewhere else?

Can't you just call your ISP and opt in for porn?

Ain't that easier?

Tor.

Tor.

except where your exit node is another machine in the UK, or you need faster than dial-up speeds.

How long until this is also illegal?

Tuesday.

You can, in theory, choose your exit node.

You can't choose but you can change your exit node until get some one you want.

Surely the only way to make Tor [or similar] illegal is to make encrypted connections illegal?

Am I the only one around here who tries to match every article with "Go" keyword with Golang?

Does anyone know if the so called Cameron filter, blocks HTTPS/SSL sites?

There's not one filter, each ISP can implement whatever they like.

You can try zenmate.io as well if you want to do this.

How long before the censorship is extended to sites which help you bypass censorship?

In general with these things there's a time lag of approximately one or two Daily Mail articles.

There's no UK wide 'censorship', so never.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com